 |
| Jan Jansson's Duo Tituli Thalmudici Sanhedrin et Maccoth (Amsterdam, 1629) |
Introduction
This article—based extensively on the research by Yaacov Amar Rothstein—identifies two distinct layers in the development of the Seven Laws of Noah, comprising an early rabbinic conception, and a later reinterpretation. In the Talmud and classical rabbinic sources, the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach were not envisioned as a comprehensive universal religion for non‑Jews, but rather as a minimal legal framework—a baseline of obligations incumbent upon humanity with clear consequences for their violation. The difference between these two layers of perception is immense. The modern idea of a ‘Noahide religion,’ presented as the original biblical faith intended for all non‑Jews, does not originate in rabbinic tradition. Surprisingly, it first emerged within Medieval Christian polemics and Early Modern[1] European thought. It was only as recently as about one hundred and fifty years ago that this universalist reading was taken up within Jewish discourse, most notably by R. Elia Benamozegh (d.1900), and later expanded upon by contemporary figures such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe and R. Adin Steinsaltz. [See: Kotzk Blog: 523) Radical rabbinic models of universalism and Kotzk Blog: 522) Italian letters: The battle over the Zohar].
Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach (Seven
Laws of the Sons of Noah)
The seven Noachide commandments are not listed explicitly in the Torah; rather, Talmudic tradition derives them from various biblical verses. They consist of one positive commandment and six prohibitions:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ – דִּינִין, וּבִרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְגָזֵל, וְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי
“The descendants of Noah, i.e., all of humanity, were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: The mitzva of establishing courts of justice; and the prohibition against cursing the name of God; and the prohibition of idol worship; and the prohibition against forbidden sexual relations; and the prohibition of bloodshed; and the prohibition of robbery; and the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal” (b. Sanhedrin 56a–57a).
Over time, Halachic authorities expanded the Seven Laws into a framework of nearly fifty distinct obligations and prohibitions. Crucially, though, these Seven Laws were not framed by the Talmudic rabbis as a basis for a universal religion for non‑Jews. Instead, they were conceptualised as a universal ethical and moral code which was legally binding. They were understood as a baseline for universal morality and justice, but they were never framed as a religion or spiritual system with rituals, theology, or communal identity for non‑Jews. It was not—as often described—an alternative biblical religion for non-Jews. Only a thousand years after the early Talmudic period, starting with Raymond Martini in the thirteenth century, some Christians began to reframe the Seven Noachide Laws as a universal religion for non‑Jews—specifically for Christians:
1) Raymond Martini (d. c. 1285)
The Dominican friar Raymond Martini (also known as Ramon Marti) was among eight friars appointed by the Dominican Order to engage Jews and Muslims in polemical debate and missionary work, with the aim of persuading them to convert to Christianity. Martini authored two works refuting both Judaism and the Koran. He also claimed that Jesus was originally acknowledged by the rabbis of the Talmud as the Messiah.
Operating from Catalonia, Martini became the most prominent of this group, producing works such as the Pugio Fidei (Dagger of Faith), which drew extensively on rabbinic sources to argue for the truth of Christianity and laid the groundwork for later Christian use of Jewish texts in theological controversy. In 1264, he was commissioned by the Bishop of Barcelona and by order of the king to examine Jewish classical texts and expunge sections that were disapproved by the Church. This marked the beginning of the notorious Dominican censorship of the Talmud in Spain. Martini argued favourably that the Talmud should only be censored, but not burned and obliterated entirely.
Martini introduces the notion of Noacidarum, one of the earliest Latin appearances of the term Bnei Noach (Sons of Noah), in one of his many rabbinic translations, this time from Sefer haIkkarim:
“Etenim qvùm beneficio legis Noacidarum homines gradum qvendam asseqverentur futuri seculi, juxta illud Talmudicum: Pii gentiles participes sunt futuri seculi: id est, Ii, qvi servant septem præcepta Noacidarum, participes sunt futuri seculi” (Martini, Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos, 1687:89).
“Given that through the law of the sons of Noah, men attained a certain degree of the future world, according to that Talmudic teaching: ‘Pious gentiles are participants in the future world’; that is, those who observe the seven precepts of the sons of Noah are participants in the future world” (Sefer haIkkarim, Book 1, chap. 23, translation by Rothstein 2025:2).
Martini employed the term ‘Noacidarum’ to describe non‑Jews bound by the Seven Laws of Noah and argued that Judaism itself recognised a universal moral code for Gentiles. He used his concept ‘Noacidarum’ to show that Christianity was now the fulfilment of this universal law. Significantly from a historical perspective, Martini was the first to bring the rabbinic idea of Bnei Noach into Christian intellectual discourse. He detached the Seven Laws from their rabbinic context and reframed them as evidence of Christianity’s universality. He argued that Jesus had abrogated the complex web of rabbinic law, and in Martini’s polemical vision, Christianity was to be the new universal faith. The notion of reducing religion to a set of basic moral laws—echoing the rabbinic concept of the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah—would have served his purposes well. Martini’s argument was not only theological but strategic: by contrasting rabbinic complexity with Christian simplicity, he sought to present Christianity as the true religion for all nations. This set the stage for the later conceptual innovation of a ‘Noahide religion,’ which was not rabbinic but Christian, and a product of Christian and European thought. Martini’s innovation was then consolidated further in the seventeenth century by Jan Jansson:
2) Jan Jansson (1603–1669)
Jan Jansson (also known as Johannes Coccejus) was deeply engaged with translating rabbinic and Talmudic texts into Latin. His Duo Tituli Thalmudici Sanhedrin et Maccoth (Amsterdam, 1629) presented Talmudic text alongside Latin translation and commentary. He is the next in line to refer to the Seven Laws as they evolved from the original rabbinic model of a universal moral code, to becoming a formal religion for non‑Jews as perceived within the prevailing Christian learned society.
Jan Jansson translated a section from the Talmud that refers to the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah and (following Martini) also refers to them as ‘Noachidarum’:
“Decem præcepta injuncta sunt filiis Israel [Children of Israel] in Marah. Præter enim septem Noachidarum [Sons of Noah] acceperunt præceptum de judiciis, sabbato, honorandis parentibus, &t” (Jansson, Duo tituli Thalmudici Sanhedrin et Maccoth, 1629:268-9).
Jansson develops the term Noachidarum to include other similar formulations like Noachidis or Noachidæ, which is a step closer to the common usage of the word Noahide as used today. Importantly—as demonstrated so far—none of these progressions and developments of the notion on a universal Noahide religion had anything to do with Jews or Judaism.
The next stage in the process involved the work of John Selden, who first used the actual expression ‘Noahide’ and contributed to this concept receiving widespread attention among Western thinkers:
3) John Selden (1584-1654)
John Selden was an English orientalist, jurist and polymath (multi-disciplined). He was interested in the idea of natural law, international law and universal law. The English poet, John Milton, described Selten’s fascination with all things universal in his comment on Selten’s book De jure naturali et gentium juxta disciplinam Ebraeorum (On natural law and the law of nations according to the teaching of the Hebrews):
“[This] volume of naturall & national laws proves, not only by great authorities brought together, but by exquisite reasons and theorems almost mathematically demonstrative, that all opinions, yea errors, known, read, and collated, are of main service & assistance toward the speedy attainment of what is truest."
This volume develops a theory of international law and a universal moral code which is squarely based and founded on the Seven Laws of Noah. In a sense, Selden departed from the more Christo-centric views of Raymond Martini and focuses more universalism of humanity than on Christian universalism in particular. Selden’s use of the principles of Noahide laws also represented a departure from the reliance on the Ten Commandments, which until then was the primary expression of universal law within Christianity. Abraham Berkowitz notes that Selden formulated international laws concerning the high seas, based on his reading of rabbinic texts. There was a dispute between English and Dutch merchants over open-sea shipping rights. The Dutch argued for a ‘free sea,’ while the English advocated a ‘closed sea’:
“Selden attempted to isolate elements of biblical law explicated in the Talmud and expounded upon by the earliest post-Amoraic scholars, in order to apply such Rabbinic jurisprudential concepts to the emerging international law of the high seas” (Berkowitz 1994:28).
According to Fania Oz-Salzberger:
“Selden responded with Mare Clausum (‘A Closed Sea,’ 1635), in which he showed that in the Bible and the Talmud’s precise boundaries were drawn both around the land of Israel and between the segments allotted to each tribe, thus establishing the principle of boundaries as a binding legal fiction” (Oz-Salzberger 2002).
And in general, John Selden believed that:
“civilized relations among nations require adherence to the law of nations which he derives from these seven prohibitions and commandments” (Berkowitz 1994:32).
In his writings, Selden constantly refers to “Noachides, and their seven precepts as the historical and revealed basis of all natural law” (Rothstein 2025:4). By the eighteenth century, the term Noachide, and the concepts it represented, had become part of the parlance and everyday speech, and by the nineteenth century, it was well entrenched within the intellectual discourse.
Amazingly, it is likely “that John Selden never met a Jew in his lifetime” (Oz-Saltzberger 2002). Jews were expelled from England by King Edward I in 1290, and they couldn't officially return for over 360 years, with resettlement beginning under Oliver Cromwell in the 1650s.
4) Pierre Jurieu (1637-1713)
In 1704, the French Protestant leader and ordained Anglican priest, Pierre Jurieu, extensively references Noachides and “devotes several sections to the analysis of the Noahides” (Rothstein 2025:5). He even refers to the ‘religion of the Noahides’ or ‘la Religion des Noachides,’ indicating the stature commanded by the developing concept of Noachides. He preached that Noahide laws were the basis of a universal religion incumbent upon all humanity, and certainly should inform civil governance in Christian states. He even promoted a certain political theology that wanted to limit the power of the state and elevate the power of the Seven Laws.
Jurieu believed that these universal laws were given by G-d to the nations of the world—as opposed to the specific commandments given to the Jews. These Seven Laws were essential for the religious life of non-Jews.
Again, none of the protagonists, so far, who developed this idea (which is today preached by Jews as a Torah concept) were even Jewish. This all changed with R. Elia Benamozegh—as recently as the end of the nineteenth century—when the concept of Bnei Noach suddenly took on a hitherto neglected role in Jewish thought.
R. Elia Benamozegh (1823-1900)
R. Elia Benamozegh—the Italian Sephardic Orthodox Chief Rabbi of Livorno and renowned Jewish Kabbalist—brought the notion of a universal religion of Noachides into the Jewish camp for the first time. Benamozegh had read and was influenced by the writings of Pierre Jurieu, whom he quotes frequently in his writings and commentary on the Torah.
“It is in this linguistic and conceptual context that Rabbi Benamozegh wrote his work Israël et l’Humanité, published posthumously by his Noahide disciple Aimé Pallière in 1914. In this book, Rabbi Benamozegh posits that Judaism, through its mission to spread monotheism, contains the elements necessary to unify all humanity under a universal faith. In Israël et l’Humanité, this "universal religion" is called Noachism” (Rothstein 2025:6).
Once this concept had been firmly implanted within Jewish discourse by R. Benamozegh, the notion of an original universal biblical religion for non-Jews became a ‘core’ Jewish belief as if it had always existed:
“The modern connotation of the concept ‘Noahide’ is developed from Rabbi Benamozegh's orthodox approach. It can be seen that the term has a relatively recent origin compared to the ancient origin of the concept it represents. Although the Seven Noahide Laws are of great antiquity and fundamental to Jewish tradition, the word itself only became established in the West in the 17th century, thanks to its adoption in European academic literature. Since then, this term has become a recognized category to describe non-Jews who follow the universal ethical code of Judaism” (Rothstein 2025:6).
Benamozegh’s magnum opus—titled Israel and Humanity—emphasised a universalist theology rooted in Jewish mysticism, which he believed could bring all peoples together. He used the Zoharic notion of the synthesis of unity and diversity, and applied it to the different religions. He emphasised Noachide ethics (the universal Seven Laws of Noah) as a foundation for his vision of a universal form of religion. In his view, Judaism did not have to remain a closed and select theological system, but a hierarchical beacon to all nations. He showed how some aspects of Christianity could be reconciled with Zoharic mysticism. Benamozegh’s work did not go unnoticed in the non-Jewish world, and just decades after his passing in 1900, his influences were positively seen in the Second Vatican Council’s more open stance toward Judaism with its “Nostra Aetate” declaration of 1965 (Seidler 2018:242-263).
R. Adin Steinsaltz (1937-2020)
As might be expected, Benamozegh’s universalist outlook has occasionally led some to question the depth of his orthodoxy. Yet R. Adin Steinsaltz offers a firm corrective, reminding us:
“Benamozegh was after all chief rabbi of Venice and in every respect Orthodox” (Steinsaltz 2005:47).
R. Adin Steinsaltz developed an elaborate system of universalism based largely on R. Benamozegh, and even writes:
“[B]y the standards of the Noahide laws, the doctrine of the Trinity is not an idolatrous belief to which Judaism can express an objection” (Steinsaltz 2005:45).
Stainsaltz is able to develop such ideas because “the essential point of the Noahide laws is that the standards of Jewish law do not apply to non-Jews…” (Steinsaltz 2005:44).
For our purposes, it is interesting to see how even R. Steinsaltz reverts constantly to the Noahide principle as if it were an age-old default setting within Jewish theology. In this sense, he refers to the “Noahide model” and “Noahide approach” (Steinsaltz 20056:47) as if drawing on a Talmudic tradition, even though the Talmud would have understood the Seven Laws as a simple baseline of morality and law for non-Jews, not a religious path. It was primarily a legal category: defining who was liable to punishment and who could be considered morally upright. However, the ‘religious path model,’ as we have seen, was developed over centuries and completely within a non-Jewish milieu and had only been recently adopted by Judaism through R. Elia Benamozegh. Now it is promoted as a positive religious identity for Gentiles, and presented as the original God-given religion intended for the nations of the world to follow.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe (1902-1994)
The Lubavitcher Rebbe taught that Jews have a responsibility to actively encourage non-Jews to observe the Seven Noahide Laws, as part of their mission to make the world a “dwelling place for G-d.” In his 1983 birthday address, he urged Jews to spread awareness of the Noahide laws to non-Jews and even suggested that governments recognise them as ethical foundations. The U.S. Congress, in 1991, referenced the Noahide laws in a resolution honouring the Rebbe, recognising them as “the bedrock of society.” The Rebbe linked the Noahide laws to the ‘Book of the Covenant,’ showing that they predate Sinai, apply universally, and are ‘covenantal.’
Conclusion
Classical rabbinic texts treated the Noahide laws as a bare legal minimum—rules that kept non-Jews within the bounds of morality but far from the ‘covenantal’ holiness of Israel. The ancient rabbinic view was that the Seven Laws were basic legal obligations incumbent upon all peoples of the world, and infringement thereof could theoretically result in punishment. The modern rabbinic reinterpretation is that they are the basis of a universal religion for non-Jews. Today, the Noahide laws are often celebrated as a universal ethic, a way for non‑Jews to live under divine law without conversion to Judaism.
What was once a marginal Halachic category has become conceptualised, in modern thought, as a new and major form of religion for non-Jews, endorsed and promoted by many leading rabbis. The classical rabbinic texts, however, did not adopt such a broad approach. The irony is that the pioneers and developers of these concepts—even the very term ‘Noahide’—were not rabbis, but Christian theologians and European intellectuals.
The seventeenth‑century John Selden, as mentioned,
coined the term ‘Noahide,’ yet modern English translations of Maimonides’ twelfth‑century Mishneh Torah—such
as the Moznaim edition[2]—anachronistically
employ the term ‘Noachide.’ In Maimonides’ own era, however, neither he
nor his contemporaries would have recognised the word ‘Noahide,’ nor
anyone else for that matter, over the next five centuries. This illustrates how
easily we overlook the fact that terminology and ideas evolve over time, and
how smoothly later categories can be retrojected into earlier texts, as if they
were always there.
Bibliography
Berkowitz, A., 1994, ‘John Selden and the biblical
origins of the modern international political system’, Jewish Political
Studies Review, vol. 6, no. 1-2, 27-47.
Martini, R., 1687, Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et
Judaeos, Edited by J. de Voisin & J. B. Carpzov, Sumptibus haeredum
Friderici Lanckisi, typis viduae Johannis Wittegau.
Rothstein, Y.A., 2025, ‘Historical Origin and
Development of the Term “Noahide”’, Filosofía Judía, 1-8.
Seidler, M., 2018, ‘Eliah Benamozegh, Franz
Rosenzweig and Their Blueprint of a Jewish Theology of Christianity’, Harvard
Theological Review, vol. 111, issue 2, 242 – 263.
Steinsaltz, A., 2005, ‘Peace without conciliation:
The Irrelevance of “Toleration” in Judaism’, Common Knowledge, vol. 11, no., 1.
Oz-Salzberger, F., 2002, The Roots of Western Freedom’,
Azureonline, no 13, Shalem Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment