 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Elijah ben Abraham Benamozegh was an Italian Rabbi, theologian, philosopher, and Kabbalist. Many of his works were left in an unpublished state upon his death and later assembled and published by his students. One of his greatest gifts to mankind was his thoughtful analysis and presentation of God's universal religion. We see in his writings the relative tolerance of other religions-not, of course, in the sense that such religions were seen as equally valid alternatives to Judaism and Biblical faith, but rather that all serious creeds were felt to embody universal truths and could therefore be encountered with civility and even respect instead of the relentless hostility and fear that had characterized interreligious relations in the West since the triumph of Christianity.
His essential thesis can be stated thus: Judaism, the recipient and gardian of God's unique, eternal revelation, has been ordained to communicate to the nations of mankind the universal essence of this revelation, which is crystalized in the Seven Commandments of Noah. In order to fulfill this vocation, Judaism must at all costs preserve the purity of its own identity. It must form, as it were, a priesthood, a consecrated elect, to serve mankind's religious needs. This is the meaning of Israel's election; and this is why Israel itself has been given not seven but 613 laws, or mitzvot, many of them difficult, obscure, seemingly arbitrary, which together are intended to preserve Israel's separateness, and thus its historical identity, so that it may pursue its providential task as "the light to the nations" of this Divine Revelation. This task is, in fact, the only reason for Israel's existence and persistence. Judaism itself, therefore, cannot possibly constitute "universal religion" but it must be the source and touchstone of that which validates the religion or religions of the nations. Israel and the rest of mankind are thus two entities, but the difference is one of function, not of merit. Ideally, Israel and mankind will relate to each other in a mutually advantageous symbiosis: Israel performing the awesome task of channeling God's mitzvot to men, serving as proximatte source of authentic religion (and inversely as censor of the inauthentic religions) whereby all mankind comes to acknowledge the central "Noachide" core of God's universal Revelation or Law as the essence of God's Divine intention for man as seen in obedience to His Laws and Commandments (Elijah Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity, Paulist Press, New York, 1994, p. 6).
The Mosaic Law accepts as legitimate the presence in the land of Israel of foreigners who do not adhere to the Mosaic religion. Such a "proselyte of the gate" or resident stranger (ger-tosbav), fellow-citizen though not co-religionist, is to be distinguished from the "proselvte of the law" (ger-tsedek), who has completely converted to Judaism. Not only are proselytes of the gate exempt from the dietary prohibitions in the Law, but Israelites, who cannot eat the flesh of an animal which has not been ritually slaughtered, are urged to give it to them rather than sell it to an ordinary stranger [Dt 14:21]1 (Avodah Zarah 20a). This statute is valuable to us for two reasons:
The authenic spirit of Judaism appears unambiguously when we find it affirming that there exist just men among the Gentiles, men loved by God, whose merits are responsible for the prosperity of the nations, Job is not the only such figure whom the sages cite as a just man par excellence. The Bible provides many other examples. Here, for instance, is a remarkable passage in Isaiah about virtuous pagans:
Isa 56:3-7 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 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. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Are the "foreigners" in this passage those who have converted entirely to Judaism? No!
The name given to them here, even after their conversion-b'nei ha-nechar, literally "sons of the stranger"-strongly suggests otherwise. Moreover, the language attributed to them makes the supposition not less improbable.
Answer for yourself: Would they be likely, even after their affiliation with Judaism, to say that the Lord keeps them apart from their people?
And the final verse of the passage proves amply that it is a question of other peoples and all races without distinction. As for the reference to the Sabbath, we must recall that the Noachide has the option to observe one or more of the Mosaic mitzvot as he chooses, including the Sabbath. But we must add that rabbinic tradition prescribes a half-rest for the ordinary proselyte of the gate, the true Noachide, on the seventh day. This principle seems consistent with the text just quoted, and with two other passages in the same book.
Isa 56:2 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. (KJV)
In the second passage, the Sabbath is joined by the New Moon (first day of the month)-both of them days which close one period and open a new one-as future festivals for the entire human race:
And New Moon after New Moon, And Sabbath after Sabbath, All flesh shall come to worship Me-said the Lord. (Is 66:23)
The compatibility of Sabbath observance with the legal position of the Noachide is revealed not only by rabbinic legislation but also by history. It is truly a curious spectacle: pagans who have not become Jews nevertheless observing certain Jewish religious practices, and especiallv the Sabbath! Historical critics have pointed this out though they have not explained it.
Many of those who were attracted to Mosaism [says Renan simply] limited themselves to the observance of the Sabbath.
A similar purity of life and abhorrence of polytheism were what these small groups of pious men had in common, while shallow pagans merely said of them, "They lead the Jewish life!" (Ernest Renan, les Evangiles et la second generation chretienne, Paris 1877), p. 231.
Horace (Satires 1.9.69) speaks in one of his satires of the "thirtieth sabbath" (tricesima sabbata), which seems to suggest that it was the custom among the pagans to number their sabbaths. The observers of this custom were apparently numerous, since the poet, who mocks it, presents himself as a free-thinker, unimpeded by such scruples. Seneca, too, in his book (De Superstitione) against superstitions, jeers at the Jewish Sabbath, which had attracted not only the Judaizing Romans but even the larger mass of people. Philo, speaking of the efforts of the Jews to convert barbarians and Greeks, exclaims:
Where then is the Sabbath not observed? Where indeed is it not celebrated as religiously as the annual ritual of the great fast?
M. Ilavet, who quotes these words, adds:
The poetry of Horace, that of Ovid, and other texts as well, prove that Philo has told nothing more than the truth.
The acceptance of the Sabbath has been Judaism's chief victory, its most striking and lasting success, since the Sabbath is still observed today by many in Christianity and all Islam (Ernest Haver, Le Christianisme et ses origines, vol. 3 (Paris: Calmann Levy, 1884), p. 457.
We must note that alone of all the Jewish holy days, the Sabbath has a universal meaning and scope. It is not, indeed, a matter of commemorating the exodus from Egypt, nor the beginning of the year (like the Rosh ha-Shanah holy day of Remembrance); it is not an agricultural festival, nor a fast-day of Atonement for transgression of the Law. Instead, it is an assertion of faith in the creation of the world-or, better, in the divine origin of things. We can thus see why, in view of its universal significance, the Sabbath has been more or less rigorously prescribed for the ordinary Noachide. Because it answers a human need and speaks to man's moral nature, the weekly day of rest has quite naturally been adopted by men everywhere.
There is another reason for the popularity of the Sabbath in the Roman Empire: it was probably not without precedent in pagan antiquity itself. Though the seven-day week was originally unknown at Rome, it now seems clear that it existed among the Babylonians, which would explain the probably Chaldean origin of the word sabbath. In the poetry of Hesiod and Linus we read:
The seventh day is a holy day; in it all things were completed. The seventh day is fair, it is the origin of all things, it is the first and the last, it is perfect and fulfilled (Hesiod, Works and Days, 765-828).
To be sure, these verses are regarded as an interpolation of Hellenized Jews; but even if they are, at least they take for granted a mental climate in the pagan world which would be sympathetic to them.
Circumcision was another of the mitzvot of the Mosaic Law which was often accepted by the proselytes of the gate. Some of the sages have considered it to be obligatory for them, but this is questionable. Maimonides is very explicit on the matter. He asserts in so many words that the Noachide, or proselyte of the gate, was not required to observe circumcision, and he defines him in this way: "A Gentile who has accepted the seven precepts of Noah, but [is not obliged to undergo] circumcision or immersion."
These words, with which Maimonides summarizes the ancient Jewish Oral Tradition, are of prime importance for the history and understanding of the origins of Christianity. They show that the Jewish doctrine here surpasses in religious tolerance the Christian form of Noachism, which does require baptism.
Renan emphasizes the existence of the authentic Jewish doctrine when he writes:
The law prescribed by the early Church for new converts from paganism was nearly identical with the code of Noachic precepts . . . which were prescribed for all proselytes. A man who wrote at about the same time (under the borrowed name of the well-known Greek moralist Phocylides) a small work on Jewish natural ethics, simplified for the use of non-Jews, comes to a similar conclusion (Ernest Renan, St. Paul (Paris: Levy, 1869), p. 90.
The passage from Isaiah which we quoted above, on the Noachide Gentiles or proselytes of the gate who observe the Sabbath, is not unique in the Bible. There is a considerable number of other texts in which mention is made of "God-fearers," Gentiles whose religious position is (from the Jewish point of view) legitimate.
This name seems to refer to all those who-without either belonging to the Jewish community or practicing the Jewish religion-yet conscientiously and with sincere intent observe the Noachide Law, whether they dwell amidst the Jews in the land of Israel or among the followers of other religions in whatever land it may be. And we must note at once that this term God-fearers is used in Scripture whenever it is a question of the conversion of Gentiles.
"May God bless us, and be feared (JPS 2 "Revered") to the ends of the earth" (Ps 67:8).
"The nations will fear the name of the Lord, all the kings of the earth, Your glory" (Ps 102:16).
When Exodus wishes to indicate those Egyptians who believed in the predictions of Moses and brought their slaves and livestock in from the fields to shelter, it also calls them...
"those . . . who feared the Lord's word" (Ex 9:20).
And what proves that it is not merely a question of some fleeting attraction to the prophetic utterance of Moses but rather a kind of basic Judaism without constraint of law is the substantial multitude of Egyptians who left the country with Israel.
The expression "men who fear God" is found in the other biblical books in the same sense as in the Torah. In two passages which forcefully extol the universal religion, the Psalms reserve a special place alongside Israel and the priestly tribe of Levi for those Gentiles who, though not adhering to Judaism, are converted to the God of Israel:
Let Israel declare, "ilis steadfast love is eternal." Let the house of Aaron declare, "His steadfast love is eternal." Let those who fear the Lord declare, "His steadfast love is eternal." (Ps 118:2-4)
O house of Israel, bless the Lord; O house of Aaron, bless the Lord; O house of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord. (Ps 135:19-20)
The last reference is surely not to the "proselytes of the law," who were no longer distinguishable from other Jews, but to those, whatever their people or land, who have no connection with Judaism yet worship God. Although such persons have no obligation whatever to obey the Mosaic Law, their worship of the one authentic God gave them the right to be considered as belonging, along with Israel, to the true religion, whose rituals were celebrated by the priestly family of Aaron on behalf of all.
There is a most relevant passage in Psalm 22:
You who fear the Lord, praise Him! All you offspring of Jacob, honor Him! Be in dread of Him, all you offspring of Israel! (Ps 22:24)
Commenting on these words, Ibn Ezra says that the first sentence applies to the Noachides, or pious Gentiles. This interpretation is confirmed by the context, for in the preceding verse, Israel declares, "Then will I proclaim Your fame to my brethren," referring to other peoples.
It is known that the Rechabites led an independent existence in the midst of Israel. The Rechabites were a small religious sect of ascetic habits, first mentioned in Jer. 35:18 and later in Ta'anit 26a.
Answer for yourself: What was their religion? It is not likely to have been Mosaism, for then we should not be able to account for the famous passage of Jeremiah in which God sets forth, as an example to the Israelites, the obedience of the Rechabites to the commands of Jonadab, son of Rechab. If they had been Israelites, they would have been lauded for their fidelity to the law of Moses.
Besides the Rechabites, we find another enclave of Gentiles in the midst of Israel, the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites were a Canaanite people with whom Joshua established a friendly pact, later modified (Josh. 9:3-27). They were respected by the Jews without being in any way committed to the practice of Mosaism.
When Solomon ordered a census of the foreigners or Noachides living in the land of Israel, their numbers came to 153,600, and they were chosen to work on the construction of the Temple (2 Chr 2:16- 17). They also had a role in the music of the Temple. All this was animated by the same spirit as we find in Moses' attitude toward his proselytes, in Joshua's treatment of the Gibeonites, and in Isaiah's prophecies.
If we turn to the Greco-Roman period, it is easier still to discern the existence of Noachides. The evidence is abundant. For our purposes, a single quotation should suffice. M. Havet writes:
It is clear that Jews and Judaism exercised a considerable influence in Rome. They had long been scattered across the Greek lands of Asia and Europe. There were Jews everywhere, Jews by birth or by circumcision, and surrounding them, worshippers of God, or Judaizers, who, though not circumcised nor observant of all the Mosaic practices, read the Holy Books and sent their money and tribute to the Temple in Jerusalem (Haver, Le Chistianisme et ses origines, vol. 2, p. 150).
According to some historical critics, the proseukes were meeting-centers in places where there were no regular synagogues; but these proseukes may well have been Noachide synagogues. Perhaps indeed they were not separate buildings but only that part of each Jewish synagogue intended for the use of proselytes of the gate. It seems, in fact, rather likely that when the Israelites erected their houses of prayer, they tried more or less to imitate the layout of the Temple in Jerusalem, whose outer part was open to the Gentiles. Thus, in the Christian churches of the first centuries, a special place was reserved near the entrance for catechumens. For the Christians, however, this was an altogether temporary situation, meant for those awaiting baptism and complete initiation into the sacraments, whereas in Judaism this religious role for the Gentiles was perfectly legal and permanent.
Wherever the influence of Judaism was felt in the entire Greco-Roman world, a constantly growing number of pagans, influenced by Israelite teaching, maintained close relations with the synagogues. Noachide groups were formed and meeting-places established where Gentiles who rejected the old errors of polytheism practiced a religion different from Mosaism but corresponding exactly to what the sages describe as the only religion binding upon non-Jews: Noachism.
There is extensive evidence that the Jews did not regard their own religion as the single mode of worship suitable for the pagans.
The Jews disposed toward proselytism [writes M. Renan] have always felt that the part of their religion appropriate for mankind as a whole is its essential monotheism, and that all the rest-Mosaic institutions, messianic concepts, and the like-constitutes a second level of faith which is the special prerogative of the children of Israel, a kind of family inheritance which cannot be passed on to others (Renan, St. Paul, p. 46).
This is accurate, except with respect to messianism, which, far from being the exclusive heritage of Israel, has in fact a basically universal character, inasmuch as its most conspicuous feature is its concern for the religious development of mankind. Renan adds:
The Pharisees did not believe that the Law applied to the entire human race. What in their eyes was most important was that there should always be a holy tribe to observe it and to form a living actualization of the revealed Ideal (Ibid., p. 87).
It is worthwhile noting how diverse are the eminent thinkers who have understood both the particularist character of Mosaism and the universal religion of which Mosaism is the form appropriate to the Jews.
Spinoza tells us that the laws which God revealed to Moses are for the Jews alone and not binding upon any other people.
I have asked myself [he adds] why the Jews have been called God's chosen. Now believing as I do that this means only that God chose them to occupy a particular territory where they might live comfortably and safely, I deduced from this that the laws which God revealed to Moses are nothing more than the particular code of the Jewish people.
The philosopherµs explanation of the election of Israel seems at first sight rather curious, but essentially we find in it the biblical and rabbinical idea that the land of Israel, like Israel itself, belongs in a very special way to the God of Israel. What is most remarkable in this passage from Spinoza is that when he turns from the special religion of the Jews to the idea of Noachism, he calls the latter the true universal religion:
Then I wished to know if the universal religion-I mean the Divine Law revealed by the prophets and the apostles to the entire human race-is different from that law which the natural light of reason reveals to us (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, "Preface" (1670).
There is no doubt that Spinoza's thought here conforms to the ideas which I am attempting to put before the reader. Alongside Mosaism, the national code of the Jews, there is a universal law, a catholicism, of which the catholicism of the Christian apostles has been but an imperfeet realization.
As for Philo, we have seen that he interprets Judaism faithfully when he teaches that the light of reason alone would be enough to lead all men to monotheism, which is at the heart of authentic Judaism, and the rabbis have declared in theological terms:
"Whoever renounces idolatry is a true Jew," and "Whoever renounces polytheism thereby affirms the entire Law (Megillah 13a; Kiddushim 40a).
No one has better formulated this conception of the catholicism of Israel than Josephus, writing for the pagans.
The object of all his works is the same [says Renan]. He preaches theism to the idolator, and the precepts called Noachic, that is, a Judaism simplified for their use, reduced practically to the proportions of the natural law. It required the observance of only two or three prohibitions, which even the most liberal Jews regarded as virtually part of natural law (Renan, Les Evangiles et la second generation chretienne, p. 161).
The same author adds that this basic Judaism differed from Christianity only in the importance which the latter ascribed to the role of Jesus, and that Josephus distilled it to a kind of theism, while acknowledging that circumcision and other peculiarly Jewish practices were proper for ethnic Jews, and that every man's religion, to be authentic, must be freely adopted.
On every page, Josephus' amiable philosophy speaks forth, sympathetic to virtue wherever it may appear, regarding the ritual precepts of the law binding only for Israelites, declaring straight-forwardly that every just man has the essential capacity to become a son of Abraham (Ibid., p. 249).
But where the eminent Renan errs is in representing as a special conception of josephus this Judaism which is within the reach of all; for in fact it is nothing other than Noachism, the religion of the Gentiles, as perceived by the Pharisces and by all Jews who understood Hebraic tradition.
This conception of Judaism may be found even among the Fathers of the Christian Church. Eusebius, in his Preparation for the Gospel, characterizes the Mosaic religion very judiciously, and asserts that it has authority only over Israel. According to him, Moses changed none of the doctrines of the Patriarchs:
He [Moses] was able to lay the foundations of a system of law and a political constitution only by staying in harmony with the way of life of the men who surrounded him (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 8.8).
But Moses left unchanged not only Jewish doctrine but also Noachism, which remained for him and his successors, as for those who had gone before, the sole religious obligation of the Gentile. And we must add that the legislation which Moses gave Israel (and which was for Israel alone) addresses the particular needs of Israelµs priestly calling.
Generally speaking, Hebraism has preached and practiced civil and political equality among men, whether Israelites, proselytes, or ordinary Gentiles. It has been noted, quite accurately, that whereas the doctrine of force as its own justification prevailed everywhere in paganism, Judea was the first nation to exhibit respect for the rights of man.
In the vastness of the Roman Empire, on the one hand, we find selfishness and supreme faith in strength; on the other, in a tiny, little-known land, belief in the dignity of man, who knows no other master than God: such is the vivid contrast we find in the early years of our era (Francois Laurent in La Revue Politique et Litteraire (Paris: Editions de Cerf, 1974 et seq.).
And M. Laurent records in this connection that Christianity, unlike Judaism, preaches equality onl(( on the religious plane, but has not been concerned with introducing its principles into the civil and political order, and that therefore, on this point, Mosaism goes further than Christian doctrine.
But if we wish to gain an accurate understanding of Judaismµs conception of mankind, it is not enough to examine the Law, which is only its external aspect; we must also take account of ethics, which is an equally important expression of Jewish thought. We find that universalist tendencies are much more evident in the principles of ethical behavior developed by the sages of the Synagogue than in the Written Law. here is perhaps not the place to undertake a detailed study of this matter. It is a field where the crop is so bountiful that one has only to glean in order to gather voluminous sheaves. We shall limit ourselves to a few precepts which illuminate the Jewish attitude toward the Gentile.
We are enjoined not to seek to gain his confidence by deceptive protestations of friendship, which the Talmud calls "stealing the mind of our fellow-men" (Hullin 94a). That is not all. We must in fact behave in a kindly way toward him. The stranger must be allowed, just like Jewish widows and orphans, to gather up what falls from the reaperµs hand, and to share with them the unharvested remains and the produce of that corner of the field reserved for the poor. We are commanded in general to look after the Gentile poor, to care for their sick, and to bury their dead, just as if they were Jews, for the sake of peace and good will (Lv 19:10; Pe'ah 4.9; Gittin 61a; Shebi'it 4.3; Maimonides, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 7.7; Car, Yoreh De'ab, 335.9, 367.1).
These injunctions are not merely expressions of political or social expediency, rather than moral obligation, as might perhaps be imagined. The precepts are given without any consideration of time or place, and the examples which are cited in support of them are drawn from periods when Israel enjoyed complete national independence. It is the dead multitude of Gog who must be given honorable interment (Ez 39:11). It is David who buries his enemies and sends messages of condolence to Hanun, son of Nahash, king of Ammon, on the death of his father (2 Sm 10; 1 Chr 19:2). It is Rabbi Meir (Midrash Rut Rabbah 2.13) who behaves in the same way toward Avnimos ha-Gardi (who is probably Oenomaus of Gadara, the neopythagorean philosopher. What ultimately reveals the sagesµ true intention in offering these precepts is the very reason which they put forward, the cause of peace; for this is the motive which they often invoke when it is a question of relations among Jews themselves, and even in connection with rules governing religious ritual.27
In any case, we believe we have demonstrated, in our survey of the laws regarding proselytes as well as the precepts governing relations between Jews and Gentiles without distinction of religion, that despite the rigidly ethnic and national character of its worship, Judaism is concerned with the other peoples as well, that its doctrines embrace all of mankind-in sum, that the Revelation which it has in its keeping is truly universal.