 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Among the codes of cuneiform law which the ancient Near East has bequeathed to us, the three that have attracted the greater share of attention are:
In order to evaluate the substance of these codes, students have subjected them to comparison with Hebrew law, in a number of separate studies. The scholar's desire to compare the Mosaic Code and the codes of the ancient Near East is predicated upon similarities in style and in point of view which they possess. For the critical historian, such a comparison becomes meaningful in light of the evidence presented by the dean of American biblical archaeologists, William F. Aibright, to establish the basic antiquity of Hebrew Law. W. F. albright, in his "The Law That Bound Israel," Life, December 25, 1964, volume 57, #26, page 56, states: "The basic antiquity of these [Mosaic] laws has been proved by the discovery, since 1901, of six codes of cuneiform law, all composed during the eight centuries before Moses/ death, which occurred about the middle of the 13th Century B.C." This, Albright's most recent statement on the subject, meshes well with his statement of view of some twenty-two years earlier: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." (Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel,Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1942, page 176.)
The judgments that emerge from the various comparative studies are represented in the concluding generalization of J.M. Powis Smith's treatment, stating:
But neither Babylonian, nor Assyrian, nor Hittite laws attain an equal level with Hebrew law in the moral and spiritual sphere. In the fields of honesty, social justice, sympathy for the poor, and consideration for foreigners the Hebrew law far surpasses all previous and contemporary law (Smith, The Origin and History Of Hebrew Law, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 279.
Pertinent for our study is yet another group of laws associated with the ancient Near East: Noahide Law; or the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah, as they are called in the Midrashic and Talmudic sources. In the informatin that follows on this website the legal dicta of the Noahide system will be identified, its content will be juxtaposed to that of the system applying for Jews, and conclusions on the fundamental nature of Noahism will be drawn.
There is almost no archaeological evidence to the effect that the Seven Laws of Noah actually held sway around the time of the biblical Noah, some four thousand years ago; but the result of these laws can be seen from the historical record. One leading archaeologist, W.H. Boulton, considered significant the total absence of idols among the relics found in the earth strata belonging to the post-Deluvial era, and some scholars see in this the influence of Noahism which, in opposition to the Near Eastern religions of the time, forbids idoIatry. W. H. Boulton, in his Babylon Assyria and Israel, London: Sampson Low, Marston and Company, 1924, pages 39-41 states: "It is noticeable that in the days immediately after the flood religion consisted of pure monotheism. There are indications that such a religion existed in Babylonia, though its adherents were few and it soon died out."
What we just saw are two amazing facts:
But such reasoning is at best inconclusive, for the argument is based on the non-discovery of ancient idols. Furthermore, neither does the Talmud, the main sourcebook of Noahide law, claim a wide acceptance of Noahism in any society. On the contrary, the Talmud indicates that the Seven Laws were honored more in the breach than in the observance. However, it is not clear whether this reported disregard of the Seven Laws refers to a specifically early or late historic period, or to both.
Repeated discussion on the Laws of Noah throughout centuries of world literature leaves no doubt about the reality of Noahism as an enduring legal and moral influence. For example, the renowned seventeenth century scholar, Hugo Grotius, often cited the Laws of Noah as an early source of international law. Hugo Grotius states, in his De Jure Belli ac Pacis (in translation by F.W. Kelsey), London: Wildy and Sons, 1964: "To the human race we find that the law was thrice given by God: Immediately after the creation of man. A second time in the renewal of human kind after the Flood," page 45; "In Hebrew we find 'the pious ones of the Gentiles', as we read in the title of the Talmud. . . These, as the Jewish teachers themselves declare, were bound to observe the laws that had been given to Adam and Noah, to abstain from idols, from blood, and from other things which will be mentioned in their proper place," page 46; "In this connection belongs the tradition which is found among the Jews that several laws were given by God to the sons of Noah," page 60; "In favor of our interpretation we have the authority of Abraham who, being not ignorant of the law given to Noah, took up arms against four kings," page 59. (I. Husik, "The Law of Nature, Hugo Grotius, and the Bible," Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume II, pages 381-417.
Before all things I wish you to be fully assured that the Noachic religion that you say you heard mentioned by me for the first time (and the majority of people are in your class) is not a discovery that I personally have made, still less is it of my contriving, a sort of more or less happy polemic expedient. No, it [the Noachic religion] is an established fact discussed in every page of our Talmud, generally admitted by our wise men to be little known and much misunderstood (Aime Palliere, The Unknown Sanctuary, New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1928, p. 141).
If I understand you correctly, Noachism seems to you a far distant and superannuated thing, and you ask how, after nineteen centuries of Christianity, after all the religious progress that our Bible and your Gospel represent, I can dream of taking you back to the rudiments of the worship founded after the flood: Is this possible? Yes, and is it possible that you do not see that perpetuity, that future immutability could not exist save on condition that they also existed in the past? There is no doubt that the Bible, aside from the universalistic passion of the prophets, gives the impression that in the carrying out of the compact made with the fathers, God was chiefly concerned with the chosen people, to the exclusion of other peoples. Hence, the accusation leveled against Judaism that it could never rise in its entirety above the conception of a national God. But, can it be imagined for a single moment that after having concerned himself so much with the descendants of Noah, which means with all humanity according to Genesis, God after long centuries of waiting would give a special law to the Israelites appointed to be the priests of humanity, and would not have troubled himself in any way about the rest of the human race, rejecting it, until the appearance of Christianity, leaving it totally abandoned, without revelation and without law? And again is it reasonable to conceive that in abolishing the Noachide covenant of Genesis - and where is that abolition to be found - would God during all this long interval leave no other resource to man than the help of his poor reason? This would have been unreasonable, unjust, imprudent, unworthy even of a mortal, for it would entirely undermine faith in the necessity of Revelation.
No, no; all this is impossible, and consequently not only has the Noachide law never ceased to be in force but even Israel, with its special code, Mosaism, was created for it, to safeguard it, to teach it, to spread it. The Jews thus exercised, I repeat, the function of priests of humanity, and found themselves subject in this way to the priestly rules which concern them exclusively: the law of Moses.
But you ask me, where can one find the code of this Noachic Law, of this universal religion, which is true Universal faith? First, admit that if this code did not exist, it would be the fault of God himself not to have established it, or not to have assured its perpetuity. Nobody, indeed, will maintain that the Noachic covenant of Genesis is but an unimportant incident and not a matter of great moment. Further, do you not see that Genesis itself contains precepts given to Noah for all his descendants? This solemn covenant of God with Noah and his offspring is recalled by Isaiah 54:9; it is a covenant sanctioned by the divine promise with the rainbow as pledge of perpetuity.
Isa 54:8-10 8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. 9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. 10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee. (KJV)
Up to the last pages of the Prophets, Noah is with Daniel and Job, one of the three just men, held up as examples.
And yet all this is a small matter compared to the great things which the Talmud reveals to us. This monument of tradition occupies itself in fact with a marked predilection for every thing that concerns the Noachic religion and legislation (Aime Palliere, The Unknown Sanctuary, New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1928, p. 142-145).
Not alone does the Talmud comment upon, and develop as far as possible, the Mosaic and prophetic texts on this subject but it opens wide the sources of tradition, rich in many other ways, concerning the ideas of this universal religion. And this, mark well, at the very moment when Israel, its savant in the lead, was exposed to continual persecution and was placed under the ban of humanity. Yes, it was between two scaffolds, between two funeral pyres, that these great sages, these wonderful martyrs, discussed and codified with amazing strength of spirit and with angelic serenity, the religion of humanity, the Noachic law, as much as, and even in greater measure than the Jewish laws themselves (especially Sanhedrin 56-60).
You seem dissatisfied about the antiquity of Noachism, and you do not realize that antiquity is the most infallible sign of truth. Consequently the further back it goes the more it appeals to us. You ask for subsequent developments. Nothing hinders you from achieving them. It is indeed the spirit of the Noachic revelation, as it is of the Mosaic revelation, and that is the same Revelation, that it is changeless and progressive at the same time. You want nothing to do with simple deism and you are right a thousand times; I speak of the deism of the philosophers. As to the Noachic deism, it is the pure monotheism of Moses and of our prophets, and in dogmatic definition, there is in reality, and there should be, no distinction between Mosaism and Noachism. The only difference is of a practical nature. It consists simply in a little more freedom granted according to Noachism as to metaphysical or even theological speculations. Very far from permitting it to sink into pure rationalism, our tradition imposes upon the Noachic proselyte, called later the proselyte of the gate, one formal condition, the acceptance of this same religion, not at all as the simple fruit of human reason but as the teaching of divine Revelation. What more could you desire?
I have just spoken of the proselyte of the gate, that is to say, of the Noachide in person. It is, in truth, with the Noachide himself that the Pentateuch is concerned in specifying that this proselyte is in no way obliged to observe the Mosaic law. This is to say that the Torah obliges us to give to him the animal which is forbidden to us Jews to eat. We must give it to him instead of selling it to the stranger or Gentile or pagan, obvious proof that according to the Pentateuch this proselyte is no longer considered a stranger or pagan, neither is he assimilated to the Jew. So what does he represent, if not precisely this Noachide whose name sounds so strange to your ears?
The difficulty which you experience does not hinder the Noachide from becoming a part of the Church Universal; on the contrary, it is the Noachides themselves who make up the faithful, the people of that true catholic church of which Israel is the priest.
Israel would have no reason to exist if these people of God did not also exist. What are the priests, I ask you, without the laymen? What would I, a Jew, be if you who are not a Jew were not here as a faithful member of the great Congregation of God in whose services I find myself placed? (Aime Palliere, The Unknown Sanctuary, New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1928, p. 147-149).
I have said that you are free to become a priest - I mean a Jewish priest - or to remain a Noachide - that is to say, a layman. But know that in remaining a layman you will be free - and the Jew is not so - to take from the Jewish Law and from Mosaism all that suits your personal religious need in the way of precept, but which would not be an obligation, while the Jew has not the freedom to choose; he is subject to the entire law. (Aime Palliere, The Unknown Sanctuary, New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1928, p. 150).
Let me interject momentarily that the above precept that the non-Jew can take upon himself other mitzvoth over and above the minimum is found in the 56th chapter of Isaiah and by doing "chooses those things that please God:"
Isa 56:1-8 1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch [non-Jew] say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. (KJV)
I come to the questions you put to me on the subject of the Code of Noachism. Know that the primitive form of all revelation which continues even after the introduction of the Mosaic Law, and which still exists in our own day in the heart of the Jewish people, the form which biblical teachings have long preserved, comes of oral tradition. The same condition obtained in regard to the first Christian documents, and it is not surprising that the Noachic religion found itself in the same position and that everything connected with it was scattered through the Old Testament, and in the written documents where the ideas of tradition were successively introduced - Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, etc.
You would have experienced serious embarrassment if, at the time of the patriarchs. . . anyone had asked you where the code of religion was then. Nevertheless, this code existed, and the existence of a religious law constituting a statute to which the Gentiles were bound to conform cannot be contested.
It is thus from the deep source of Hebrew tradition, placed in these literary monuments that I have just named [Mishna, Talmud, Midrash], that one must drink without fear of ever exhausting it. This is its glory and this makes it possible to measure the extent of its mission. (Aime Palliere, The Unknown Sanctuary, New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1928, p. 157-158).
You seem to see the phantom of individualism rising up against you. Why speak you of isolation? I see all about you an infinite multitude of believers! I grant you that the outward signs may not be visible, but nonetheless you will truly be of the communion of God, the Church of Abraham, which the prophets foretold and which was, in a smaller or larger measure, established in the world by the work of Christianity and of Islam, but above all you will be in the communion of Israel, which must recognize in you the perfectly legitimate representative of Noachism, of the true believers of the future.
That we know anything at all about the Hammurabi, Hittite, or Assyrian Codes is due to the preservation of the ancient cuneiform tablets and stones upon which the statutes of these codes were engraved. However, there exists no original text of the Noahide code, and never was the existence of such a text ever reported. The earliest sources to give systematic treatment to Noahide Law are talmudic, and the earliest book of the Halakha which undertakes to deliniate the Seven Laws is the Tosefta, attributed to Hiyya bar Abba, born circa 160.
Nevertheless, a 1948 study by Philip Biberfeld tries to surmise the existence of an early Noahide legal system from due scrutiny of the extant Near East codes. (Philip Biberfeld, "The Bible and the Ancient Law Codes" (An Appendix), Universal Jewish History. New York: Spero Foundation, 1948, pages 129-156).
Biberfeld begins by posing the oft-mentioned problem concerning the seeming hodge-podge arrangement of statutes within the Hammurabi Code, the Hittite Code, and the Assyrian Code. A second problem he raises centers on the occasional point of great similarity among these three law codes, a midst some wholly dissimilar material, in these three codes. Then Biberfeld focuses attention on the Noahic laws and notes their serial arrangement in the Talmud. As enumerated in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a, the Seven Laws of Noah are:
Making use of the above categorization, Biberfeld observes that the other three codes admit of the following breakdown: For text of the three cuneiform codes translated to English, see: Smith, The Origin And History Of Hebrew Law, Chicago: Universtiy of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 181-274).
Sections:
Biberfeld draws attention to the fact that the subject heads included in the above 3 law codes can be classified within the framework of the Seven Noahide Laws. Not, of course, that each code possesses a counterpart to each of the seven Noahic areas of law, but that each code contains what it does because that is what it inherited from the Noahic tradition. In addition, Biberfeld notes a tendency for the seriatim arrangement of the subject heads in the three codes to correspond to the order assigned to the Seven Laws of Noah by the talmudic source.
Pointing further to the numerous similarities in style, order, and phrasing which the cuneiform codes have in common with the juridical sections of the Pentateuch - which in turn share with the Noahide tradition a common Divine source - Biberfeld concludes: The Hammurabi, Hittite, and Assyrian laws have ultimate roots in the earliest Near Eastern legal tradition, namely, the Seven Laws of Noah. That is, each of the cuneiform codes records a separate partial reconstruction, development, or adulteration of a then waning Noahide system.
In closing it is best to understand the seven laws as general categories; the 613are specific precepts. For example, the single Noahide law against sexual immorality prohibits adultery, sodomy, and various types of incest. Yet, each of these is enumerated separately among the 613 Commandments in Biblical Judaism. This means that the 7 Laws of Noah are in themselves categories comprising a collection of laws under each category; the total of which is 66. Added to this the concept of Isa. 56 where the non-Jew can take upon himself other Commandments and Laws that please God then one easily sees that they are not limited by the elementary precepts of the Covenant of Noah but can grow in knowledge and obedience to the Creator. Aaron Lichtenstein, The Seven Laws of Noah, The Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press, New York: 1981, pp. 3-18).