—————————————————————————————————————————————

Exam Paper                                        [God-Fearers and the Seven Laws of Noah.pdf]

GOD-FEARERS AND THE SEVEN LAWS OF NOAH: A Proposal For Solving Martin Goodman´s Paradox Concerning Jewish proselytism.

The Emergence of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Religious Roots of Europe, University of Bergen: Fall 2011

– written by Ole Mads Sirks Vevle –

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

//p.2//

List of contents:

1. – Title Page

2. – List Of Contents

3. – Introduction

3. – Disposition

4. – The Paradox

5. – The Seven Noahide Laws

6. – “Any Gentile Who Spurns Idolatry Is A Jew”

8. – Different Legal Categories For Gentile Sojourners (Proselytos)

9. – Different Non-Legal Categories For Gentile Adherents Of The Noahide Laws

10. – The Jewish Mission – “A Light Unto The Nations”

12. – Summary – A Proposal For Solving Goodman´s Paradox

13. – Bibliography

14. – Footnotes

//p.3//

Introduction

Martin Goodman presents a paradox concerning Jewish proselytizing in his book “Mission and Conversion”. [1] In Chapter 7 which deals with the Talmudic period, Goodman asserts that “by the third century some Jews had begun to see proselytizing as a religious duty”. [2] Goodman continues by pointing to the fact that, despite the evidence that many Rabbis approved of proselytizing, there exists no evidence in Rabbinic text about “an explicit formulation of a theology of proselytizing mission”. [3]

Goodman is also confounded about the contrast between the existence of “the detailed discussion and elaboration of the Noachide code for unconverted gentiles” [4] and the corresponding non-existence of neither a general Rabbinic doctrine nor a detailed halakha which deals with the proselytization of the non-Jewish world. These contradictions leads Goodman to state that we are here confronted with a blatant paradox. He also states that the Rabbis demonstrate a “confused theology about gentiles”. [5]

It will be my intention in this paper to make it plausible that it is Goodman that is confused. I will attempt to make probable that there is a connection between observance of the Noahide Code and the historical movement of Gentile “God-Fearers”. My aim is to make likely that this was a formal group attached to Jewish communities in a clear and defined relationship. Goodman´s paradox will be resolved to the degree I succeed in making this connection.

Disposition

After presenting Goodman´s paradox, I will address some of the elements that creates his paradox and show that the contradictions he is pointing at have their resolutions in the Rabbinic tradition, and that these resolutions are not contradicting the literary and archeological evidence from the Talmudic period which is under our investigation, quite the contrary.

Firstly I will present the seven Noahide laws (sheva mitzvot beney Noach) to set the scene. Then I will discuss the Talmudic statement where Goodman sees his paradox most clearly expressed (see below). Using Abraham as an example of the “proto-Jew” and a

//p.4//

“proto-missionary”, I will show that Abraham is a Jew only in a midrashic (homiletic) sense, and not in a halachic (legal) sense. I will also make it likely that his missionary activities were not aimed at converting Gentiles into Judaism, but instead aimed at converting them away from idolatry into monotheistic belief and adherence of the seven Noahide laws. Then I will discuss the different legal and non-legal categories used by Rabbinic Judaism to denote different categories of proselytes. This will be the main part of the essay, since I am of the opinion that Goodman´s paradox is to a large extent based on him failing to pay sufficient attention to the significance of the consequences of these differences, and how they influence the Jewish concept of mission.

Finally, based on my investigations and argumentations I will propose a reformulation that solves Goodman´s paradox.

The paradox

Goodman presents his paradox in the following manner,

The paradox which led to this rabbinic ambivalence is too blatant to be ignored. On the one hand rabbis took for granted that conversion to Judaism is an advantage to the proselyte which it was desirable that a Jew should help him acquire. … On the other hand this view, despite its momentous potential consequence, was undercut by the rabbis´ simultaneous espousal of precise requirements for pious gentiles who remained gentiles, since Jewish acceptance that such requirements are sufficient would appear to make conversion to Judaism irrelevant and any mission to win proselytes otiose (Goodman 2001: 148).

The following main components can be isolated. 1) Conversion to Judaism is presented as an advantage. 2) Espousal of precise requirements (i.e., the Noahide Code) for pious Gentiles makes conversion to Judaism redundant. That is, it seems like the Rabbis are saying two contradictory things at the same time, they are saying that Gentiles should convert to Judaism and they are saying that it is not necessary to convert to Judaism.

Goodman sees his paradox clearest expressed in the statement of the third-century Palestinian amora Rabbi Yohanan who “reported at b. Meg. [Babylonian Talmud, Megillah] 13a, that any gentile who spurns idolatry is called a Jew.” [7]

//p.5//

The Seven Noahide Laws

According to the Rabbinic tradition the Noahide laws were first given to Adam, but after the flood, which were effectuated due to mankind´s violation of these very laws, the laws were reiterated to Noah, and are therefore known through his name. [8]

The scriptural foundation in the Torah for the universal covenant with mankind is described in Genesis 9:8-17 where God established a covenant with Noah and his offspring after him. The details of these laws, and how to identify them, are according to Rabbinic Judaism found in the Oral Torah (see below). In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a they are enlisted as dinim (to establish courts of justice), “birkat” Hashem (blasphemy), avodah zarah (idolatry), giluy arayot (illicit sexual relations), shefichat damim (murder), gezel (theft), eiver min hachai (limb from a living animal). [9]

Maimonides brings forth the Rabbinic principle that, “Anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven commandments (mitzvot) and is precise in their observance is considered one of ‘the pious (chasid) among the Gentiles’ and will merit a share in the world to come (olam ha-bah)”. [10] This principle [11] is derived from the statement in Mishnah, Sanhedrin 90a, that Bilaam will not receive a share in the world to come. Therefore it can be inferred that righteous Gentiles will be able to receive a share in the world to come.

In the Babylonian Talmud, chullin 92a [12] ennumerates 30 precepts based on the 7 general commandments. “These seven commandments have general rules and many details, and all of them are described in the Oral Torah”. [13] Aaron Lichenstein [14] argues, in accordance with Rabbinic practice, that these 7 laws are general categories which entails many details. This is comparable to Jewish law where the 10 commandments are treated as 10 categories of laws, which are subdivided into 613 precepts. These precepts contains the fundamental principles which are applied in an ever-expanding process. This implies that

//p.6//

also Noahide law, as part of the Torah, is a comprehensive system far exceeding 7 basic commandments, and that the principles and their precise requirements can be applied in ever new situations that arises as times and places changes. [15]

“Any Gentile who spurns idolatry is a Jew”

The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 61b, defines idolatry as: “Believing that something other than HASHEM´s will [16] controls one´s fate.” Halbertal and Margalit in a study based on the Jewish concept of idolatry describes it as “first and foremost as an improper conception of God in the mind of the worshiper”. [17] God being “a jealous God” implies that God wants an intimate relationship with his creations, and if man performs idolatry (i.e., putting someone/something between himself and God) this relationship is disturbed. The sin of idolatry move the idolater away from God, even though the he/she may have the best of intentions. [18] The Noahide commandment which forbids idolatry, entails a command to recognize and know God, i.e., a belief in monotheism. [19]

To renounce idolatry is thus understood as gaining a proper understanding of the monotheistic God, i.e. the idea of the One God as it is teached in Rabbinic Judaism, and in turn that would make possible a true relationship between the Creator and His creation. Anyone who has this proper understanding of God is a Jew [20] in the midrashic sense of the word. The role-model for such a midrashic understanding is the patriarch Abraham. [21] He is often referred to as the first Jew, being the progenitor of the Jewish nation, but in the Rabbinic tradition Abraham is halachically not a Jew, but a Noahide. That is, he was not

//p.7//

legally bound by the specific Jewish commandments that were later given at Sinai, but he were instead legally bound by the Noahide commandments.

Halachically, Avraham was obligated by the laws which God gave to Noach, which were binding on all mankind. Avraham´s decision to observe the mitzovs of the Torah before they were given was, technically speaking, a hiddur (an enhancement of his obligatory observance of the Noachide laws). [22]

Before Abraham there were, according to the Rabbinic tradition, righteous people that had knowledge of God (such as Shem and Ever) and the seven Noahide commandments, but they did not publicly proclaim and spread this knowledge. Abrahams great acheivement was that he made public and actively spread the knowledge of God´s Existense and His Oneness. [23]

Genesis Rabbah 39.14, [24] – which comments on Genesis 12:5 “Abram took his wife Sarai and Lot, his brother´s son, and all their wealth that they had amassed, and the souls they made in Haran” – writes that, the souls they made, refers to the Gentiles they had converted. Since they were not converting them to become halachic Jews, it can be reasonably argued that they [Abraham and Sara] converted Gentiles away from idolatry, and thus bringing them “under the wings of the Shecinah”, i.e. bringing them close to God through making them aware of their Noahide commandments.

I have thus argued that Abraham was a Jew in the midrashic sense of the word. According to Rabbinic Judaism he was the first person who made the knowledge of God public in a time when idolatry was the norm. [25] As an extension of this view, it can be argued that a Gentile observer of the Noahide Code is also a Jew in the midrashic meaning, since observance of the seven Noahide commandments implies rejection of idolatry and embracing monotheism.

Based on the above it can be argued that Rabbi Yohanan is using the term “Jew” in its midrashic meaning. Goodman is open to this possibility, [26] but rejects it. It seems that because he is intent on his apparent paradox, he fails to pay sufficiently attention to the consequences of the significant difference between being a Jew in the halachic sense and in the midrashic sense. The former meaning applies only to one who is bound legally by the Mosaic covenant, the latter meaning embraces both the halachic Jew and the Gentile follower of the Noahide Code.

//p.8//

Different legal categories for Gentile sojourners (proselytos)

The Hebrew term ger (גר) is in the Septuagint translated as proselytos (προσήλυτος). Ger, as it is used in the Tanakh, has the meaning of “sojourner”, temporary dweller, new-comer (no inherited rights). [27]

Leviticus 25:47, “If a sojourner (ger) or a resident (toshav) among you has prospered…” The oldest midrashic reference to this differentation in statuses is in Sifra which comments the following on the above verse, “Ger denotes a full proselyte (ger tzedek). Toshav denotes a ger who eats non-kosher meat (nebelot).” [28]

Thus, in the Rabbinic tradition a ger is referring to someone who is born a non-Jew and who is living under Jewish jurisdiction. A ger falls primarily into one of two categories, 1) ger tzedek, “righteous sojourner”, a gentile who has converted to Judaism, i.e., obligated himself in observance of the 613 Jewish precepts, or 2) ger toshav, “resident sojourner”, a Gentile who has accepted to live by the Noahide code, i.e., obligated himself to observe the 7 Noahide laws. [29] Both these categories are legal and political statuses, meaning that if these respective laws are transgressed the violator is liable in a human court of law. [30]

In the New Testament usage, the Greek term proselytos which is a translation of the Hebrew term ger, is primarily denoting a convert to Judaism. [31] It can be argued that based on this usage the english term “proselyte” has become to denote any convert, i.e., as anyone who converts from any belief system to another belief system.

This usage of “proselyte” is slightly misleading when applied to Judaism, since Judaism is not purely a faith, but also a legal system granting different legal statuses to residents in an independent Jewish state.  “R. Simon b. Eleazer states that the institution of the ger toshav only applies when the Jubilee applies.” [32] Thus, the status of ger toshav

 only has legal force when the whole Jewish people is in full possession of its own land. … In situations of less than full Jewish sovereignty, the ger toshav did not constitute a complete political and legal status, because Noahide laws that define such status were not fully enforceable. [33]

//p.9//

We therefore also has to take into consideration the terminology applied to Gentiles who followed the Noahide laws, but living in a time, or a place, when the title of ger toshav could not be granted them.

Different non-legal categories for Gentile adherents of the Noahide laws

The hebrew term yirei shamayim (“Fearers of Heaven”) which is used in some rabbinic texts, and the equivalent Greek term theosebeis (“God-Fearers”), [34] known from Greek inscriptions [35] was the non-legal term for Gentiles who followed the 7 Noahide laws and who lived during the Talmudic times. Several Hellenistic texts attests to the existence of rather large groups of Gentiles who were associated with the Jewish synagouges, but without themselves becoming Jewish. [36] Other equivalent Greek terms were sebemenoi (“Fearers of the Lord”), used to designate a group of non-Jews living among Hellenistic Jews outside of Palestine. This term is derived from Psalm 118, where “three groups are admonished to acknowledge the everlasting mercy of the Lord, namely, the house of Israel, the house of Aaron, and the fearers of the Lord (yirai Ha-Shem)”. [37] The Septuagint renders this latter term as phoboumenoi.

These groups disappear together with the increased persecution of Jews, first by the Romans and later by the Christians. [38]

Goodman writes about the “apparently explicit agreement of almost all Jews that gentiles could, in one way or another, win divine approval without becoming Jewish” and that this belief was “enshrined in the rabbinic concept of the Noachide laws”. [39]

This divine approval could be granted through being a chasid (“pious gentile”). This term is thus a general denomination regardless of any legal and political status. Both ger toshav and yirei shamayim/theosebeis denotes adherrents to the Noahide laws, but their difference is in their legal status. Both categories are liable to punishment and divine

//p.10//

reward, but only the former can be convicted in a human court of law, the latter is only liable in the heavenly divine court. [40]

Another differentiation is between Israelittes (benei Yisrael, i.e., “Descendants of Israel”) and Noahides (benei Noach, i.e., “Descendants of Noah”). Israelittes are bound by the Mosaic-covenant at Sinai, while Noahides are bound by the covenant made by God with Noah and his descendants. All gentiles, regardless of their knowledge of this covenant and their level of observance, or non-observance, is according to Rabbinic Judaism, a benei Noah (“a descendant of Noah”). This latter covenant which, according to Rabbinic Judaism, still applies to Gentiles was reiterated to Moses at Sinai. Both of these covenants are thus found within the Torah-system as a whole. That is, according to Rabbinic Judaism, the Torah was at Sinai given in two dimensions. One dimension pertains to the beney Yisrael in their role as “a nation of priests”, which implies being caretakers and transmitters of the Torah, and the other dimension pertains to the beney Noach, which implies being caretakers of the earth and ensuring that societies are just and moral. [41]

Thus, non-Jews who wants to adherre to the Torah as it pertains to them, must seek guidance from Rabbinic Judaism, and the Rabbinic Jews must in turn transmitt their knowledge to the non-Jews.

The Jewish Mission – “a light unto the Nations”

“Tosafot, Tractate Hagigah 13a, states that it is an obligation for the Jews to teach and inform the Gentiles of the Seven Noahide Commandments.” [42]

Viewed from the Rabbinic perspective it becomes clearer why the Talmudic rabbis were not proselytising non-Jews to become Jews, instead it can be reasonable argued that they were promoting non-Jews to observe their sheva mitzvot benei Noah (“the Seven Noahide Commandments”). Maimonides writes clearly in Hilchot Melachim 8:10, “Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah´s descendants.” [43]

//p.11//

Goodman´s paradox is further resolved when Maimonides ruling, based on his codification of the Oral Law, is seen, not only together with the statement from Hagigah 13a, but also together with the following statement made by Goodman,

The only duty to the gentile world which the rabbis blazoned forth explicitly was the need to be a light to the nations, to sanctify the name of God and proclaim his existence and glory to all men. [44]

Goodman is himself considering the connection between the “God-Fearers” and they being followers of the Noahide laws. If this connection is established then the “God-Fearers” would constitute a formal group attached to Jewish communities in a clear and defined relationship. The “God-Fearers” would in such a relationship be considered like the Gentile congregation and the rabbis would be acting like their priests and teachers.

Goodman reckons this notion possible, but unlikely. He bases his view on Rabbinic statements which are clearly hostile to non-Jews who observes the Sabbath and who studies Torah. Jewish law states that these practices are forbidden for non-Jews. This directly contradicts the practice at Aphrodisias [45] which points towards gentile “God-Fearers” being members of a Torah study group. Also the statement in the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 38a, “even a gentile who occupies himself in Torah is equal to the High Priest”, [46] sharply contradicts the rabbinic condemnation of Torah studying Gentiles.

In the Rabbinic tradition the contradiction concerning Torah study is resolved in the following manner; “A Gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die [at the Hand of Heaven]. They should be involved only in the study of their seven mitzvot”, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 10:9. [47] The premise that Maimonides ruling has its foundation in Talmudic teaching, is strengthened by the archeological evidence pointing towards Gentile “God-Fearers” being part of a Jewish Torah study group.

Gentiles are obligated to learn all the details of their seven commandments as they are found within Torah – that which God prohibits and that which He permits for them – and to be expert in all their details. But it is forbidden for them to delve into the rest of the Torah that is not about the Noahide Code. [48]

The statement from the Talmud about a Gentile studying Torah is equal to a High priest, is then arguably talking about a Gentile who is studying the part of Torah that is relevant for the observance of the Noahide Code. Goodman´s position in his view about the improbability of a connection between the “God-Fearers” being followers of the Noahide Code is therefore weakened.

//p.12//

Summary – A Proposal For Solving Goodman´s Paradox

On the one hand rabbis took for granted that conversion to Judaism is an advantage to the proselyte which it was desirable that a Jew should help him acquire. [49]

I have attempted in this paper to make it probable that the proselyte (ger), who the rabbis are referring to in Goodman´s paradox, is not a ger tzedek (full convert), but a ger toshav (a Gentile “resident”), or alternatively a yirei shamayim (“Fearer of Heaven”). The rabbis are thus not actively promoting conversion into Judaism, but are instead actively promoting Gentiles to adhere to their already binding covenant with God through Noah, i.e. adherence of the seven Noahide laws. When this adherence is taking place under Jewish jurisdiction the legal and political status of ger toshav is granted, in all other situations the non-legal title yirei shamayim, and their equivalent Greek terms, is used to denote this group.

My claim is strengthened by its compliance with, 1) Abrahams missionary activities, 2) the obligation that Jews have towards Gentiles, 3a) literary evidence pointing towards Jews not making it easy for Gentiles to become Jews, and 3b) extensive Hellenistic literary and archeological evidence testifying about Gentile groups being connected with the Synagogues while still remaining Gentiles.

On the other hand this view, despite its momentous potential consequence, was undercut by the rabbis´ simultaneous espousal of precise requirements for pious gentiles who remained gentiles. [50]

Instead of being a contradiction, Goodman´s latter statement contributes to substantiate my above claim and helps to resolve the paradox.

Based on all the above I will finally propose a reformulation that solves Goodman´s paradox:

The Rabbis took for granted that observance of the seven Noahide laws is an advantage for the Gentiles, enabling them to establish a relationship with God and thereby granting them a share in the “world to come”. The Rabbis therefore encouraged pious Gentiles to embrace the Noahide Code, teaching them all its precise requirements.

//p.13//

Bibliography

Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. (1906) The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publisher, Inc.

Clorfene, C. og Y. Rogalsky. (1987) The Path of the Righteous Gentile. An Introduction to the Seven Laws of the Children of Noah. Jerusalem: Targum Press.

Freedman, H. (transl.) (1983). Midrash Rabbah. London / New York: The Soncino Press

Goldwurm, H. (editor) (2005) Talmud Bavli, Tractate Sanhedrin, Volume 2. Brooklyn: Artscroll / Mesorah Publications, ltd.

Goodman, M. (2001) Mission and Conversion. Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gottheil, G. (1925) “Abraham”, in I. Singer. The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company.

Halbertal, M. and A. Margalit. (1992) Idolatry. London: Harvard University Press.

Hirsch, E. G. (1925) “Proselyte”, in I. Singer. The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company.

Lichenstein, A. (1995) The Seven Laws of Noah. New York: Z. Berman Books.

Maimonides (author). Touger, E. (transl.) (2001) Mishneh Torah, Sefer Shoftim, Hilchot Sanhedrin, Edut, Mamrim, Evel, Melachim. New York / Jerusalem: Moznaim Publishing Corporation.

Maimonides (author). Touger, E. (transl.) (1990) Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim V´Chukkoteihem. New York / Jerusalem: Moznaim Publishing Corporation.

Miller, C. (compiler and adapter) (2008) The Gutnick Edition. Chumash – The Book of Genesis, with commentary from Classic Rabbinic Texts and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. New York: Kol Menachem.

Novak, D. (2011) The image of the non-Jew in Judaism. Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization.

Reynolds, J. and R. Tannenbaum (1987) Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society.

Weiner, M. (2011) The Divine Code. The Guide to Observing God´s Will for Mankind, Revealed from Mount Sinai in the Torah of Moses. Volume I. Expanded Second Edition. Jerusalem: AskNoahInternational.

//p.14//

Footnotes

1. Goodman (2001) Mission and Conversion – Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire

2. ibid.: 148

3. ibid.: 148

4. ibid.: 148

5. ibid.: 151

6. Lit. “The seven laws of the sons of Noah”

7. Quoted in ibid.: 148-149

8. For the earliest Rabbinic references see Tosefta, Avodah Zarah 9.4 and Genesis Rabbah 16.6, see also the following Talmudic parts which discusses Noachide laws: Sanhedrin 56a-60b, 96b; Avodah Zarah 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b; 64b, 65a, 65b; Baba Kamma 38a; Chullin 92a; see also Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim, chapters 8-10.

9. Goldwurm 2005

10 Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 8:11 (Maimonides 2001: 582); see also the statement by Tanna D´bei Eliyahu, “I call heaven and earth to bear witness, that any individual, man or woman, Jew or Gentile, freeman or slave, can have the Holy Spirit bestowed upon him. It all depends on his deeds.” (quoted in Clorfene and Rogalsky 1987: 47); and the Tannaitic statement in Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13.2, “the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to Come” (quoted in Goodman 2001: 115)

11. footnote 67 in Maimonides 2001: 582

12. in Lichenstein 1995: 120

13. Weiner 2011:28

14. Lichenstein 1995: 17-18

15. Due to a growing interest among both Gentiles and Orthodox Jews concerning these laws, there has recently been produced and published extensive Orthodox Rabbinic Jewish litterature about the seven Noahide commandments, see especially Weiner 2011 which is the most extensive; see also Clorfene and Rogalsky 1995.

16. HASHEM (literally “the name”) is a substitute term Rabbinic Judaism uses to denote the Tetragrammaton.

17. Halbertal and Margalit 1995: 2

18. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:1 (Maimonides 1990: 14-16)

19. Weiner 2011: 134

20. In the Tanakh the term “Jew” (Yehudi) as a reference to someone belonging to the Jewish people is used in the Book of Esther (Esther 2:5-6). Technically speaking a “Jew” (Yehudi) is referring to someone belonging to the tribe of Judah. But as we see in the Book of Esther the term came to refer to anyone belonging to any of the Israelite tribes (Morderchai who was called a “Jew” (Yehudi) was from the tribe of Benjamin). This is also the usage that has become common. The meaning of the word “Judah” (Yehuda), from where we have the english term “Jew”, is someone who is “grateful” (´odeh) to HASHEM (y-h-w-h), combining the word for “grateful” and HASHEM (the Tetragrammaton). The scriptural basis is when Leah gives birth to Judah, “‘This time let me gratefully praise (´odeh) HASHEM (y-h-w-h)‘, therefore she called his name Judah (Yehudah)” (Gen. 29:35). A “Jew” in this homiletical sense is anyone who both gratefully praises and acknowledges God´s existence.

21. One rendering of the name Abraham is understood as, “father of a multitude” (source: “Abraham” in Jewish Encyclopedia).

22. Miller 2008:94

23. see f.ex. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3 (Maimonides 1990: 20-30)

24. Freedman 1983: 324

25. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3 (Maimonides 1990: 20-22)

26. Goodman 2001: 149

27. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon.

28. Quoted in Novak 2011: 21

29. Ibid.: 19-23 (Noahide Law and the Resident Alien)

30. One of the 7 Noahide commandments is dinim, a commandment to establish courts of justice to make sure that the laws are upheld and that transgressions are punished. See Chapter 11 in Clorfene and Rogalsky 1987; Mishneh Torah, halacha 9:14 (Maimonides 594, 596); Sanhedrin 56a.

31. “Proselyte” in Jewish encyclopedia (1925)

32. Baraita, Arakh. 29a (quoted in Novak 2011: 20),

33. Novak 2011: 20

34. Goodman 2001: 131

35. “Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias”, Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987

36. See Josephus, Jewish War 2.254,463 and 7.45, Jewish Antiquities 14.110 and 20.41, Against Apion 1.166,167 and 2.282; the New Testament, Acts 8:22, 10:1-2, 13:16; Juvenal, Sat. 14.96-196; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.2

37. Novak 2011: 25

38. Editors preface in Weiner 2011: 21

39. Goodman 2001:131

40. see chapter on “Liability to Divine and Earthly Punishments” in Weiner 2011:75-83.

41. ibid.: 27-35

42. quoted in ibid.: 28

43. Maimonides 2001: 580

44. Goodman 2001: 130

45. Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987

46. Quoted in Goodman 2001: 132

47. Maimonides 2001: 604

48. Weiner 2011: 84, See also Sanhedrin 59a.

49. Goodman 2001: 148

50. ibid.: 148