B^әnei- Noakh

בְּנֵי נֹחַ [Updated: 2006.06.14]

(B^әn•ei′ -No′ akh), pl. conn.; masc. sing. בֶּן נֹחַ (Bën No′ akh) , fem. בַּת נֹחַ (Bat No′ akh; "sons of No′ akh" (corrupted to "Noah").

According to Talmud (Avodâh Zârâh 64b) and Ramb"m (Yâd, M^әlâkhim 8.10), " '…Every non-Jew is a ‘son of the covenant of Noakh’ (see b^ә-Reishit 9), and he who accepts its obligations is a Geir Toshâv…" ("Noachide Laws," EJ, 12:1189, emphasis added). To claim that a few who commit to keep the Shëva Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh are "the" Benei-Noakh is comparable to a few dozen Americans claiming that because they are law-abiding citizens, therefore, they are the only Americans. Since Benei-Noakh refers to all non-Jews — including Hitler — "Benei-Noakh" is clearly an improper nomenclature for geirim (or "righteous gentiles") and it nonsensical to argue that Benei-Noakh have a portion in hâ-olâm ha-bâ in defiance of the overwhelming Scriptures that describe the fate of goyim.

Benei-Noakh are defined consistently in Avodâh Zârâh 64b, Sanhedrin 56a, and Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed (III:48). Since the מבול (Mabul), all mankind traces their ancestry to Noakh. Just as some Americans do not observe American laws, yet are still Americans, not all Benei-Noakh observe all of the Noakhide laws. Still, they are Benei-Noakh. Keeping the Noakhide laws does not define the Benei-Noakh. Rather, keeping the Noakhide laws is the prerequisite for a Ben / Bat Noakh to qualify as a geir(ah). Modern usage has blurred the Benei-Noakh with geirim. Benei-Noakh, by contrast, is synonymous with goyim.

Maimonides equates the "Khâsid of the T^әphutzâh" who has a share in the hâ-olâm ha-bâ even before becoming a Jew [i.e. in training for conversion] with the non-Jew who keeps these laws. "…the term ‘sons of Noakh’ is, in rabbinic usage, a technical term including all human beings except those whom Jewish law defines as being Jews.

Nor was there a lack of technical terminology available specifically to describe the resident alien" ("Noachide Laws," EJ, 12:1189-91). Thus, Benei-Noakh is synonymous with gentiles. Those Benei-Noakh = gentiles who commit before a Beit-Din to keep the laws of the b^әrit Noakh are recognized as Geir Toshâv.

In the 1^st century C.E., the rabbis prohibited Jews from interacting with gentiles on any level ("Gentile," EJ, 7.410-412). "The first-century philosopher Euphrates is quoted by Philostratus (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 5.33) as noting that the Jews do not mingle with others in common meals, libations, prayers or sacrifices" (Louis H. Feldman, Jew & Gentile in the Ancient World; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1993, p. 128). "Jews, ironically, welcomed others into their midst as proselytes – but only on their terms" (Feldman, p. 126). These terms were a special transitional non-gentile-but-not-yet-Jew status, geir, developed in order to enable non-Jews to interact in the Jewish community in order to learn Torâh. Geirim, though not yet Jews, weren't classified as gentiles. Talmud documents that geirim are one of 10 classes included as part of Israel (Mishnâh Qidushin 69a-b, details in Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC Live-Link)).

Thus, the set of prerequisites for recognizing a gentile as a geir was pivotal. If a gentile wasn't a legitimate geir, then no Jew could associate with him (or her) and the individual from the goy•im′  was excluded even from the opportunity to learn Torâh – or about the Mâshiakh. This, de facto, excluded gentiles from kipur and, therefore, from hâ-olâm ha-bâ.

The deliberation in Ma·avâr 15, however, focused on Hellenist Jews, not geirim. Discussion of the geirim arose as a resulting implication of the discussion of Hellenist Jews.

Like Reformed Jews today, Hellenist Jews were not always circumcised (e.g. Timothy; cf. Ma·avâr 16.1 & 3) and, consequently, were not universally recognized as Jews within the Jewish community. There was even a period in the kingdom of Israel, under the influence of Queen Iy-Zëvël (Hellenized and anglicized to "Jezebel"), when circumcision was abandoned (M^әlâkhim Âlëph 19.14). "In Hellenistic times, circumcision was widely neglected, according to the Book of Jubilees (15.33-34). Many Jews who wanted to participate [in the nude wrestling of] the Greek games in the gymnasia underwent painful operations to obliterate the signs of circumcision (epispasm)" ("Circumcision," EJ, 5:568-70).

"… The word geir, which in Biblical times meant … an alien [non-citizen], became [emphasis added] synonymous with a [convert]" (ibid.). This blurring of the terms geir and convert led to disputes concerning what should be required. The same blurring, with resulting confusion and disputes, persists today.

"Religious leaders at that time differed about the necessity for circumcision for [geirim]" (ibid.). "R. Ëlieizër and R. Y^әhoshua disagreed as to whether someone who immersed himself but was not circumcised or vice versa could be considered a [geirim]. According to R. Ëlieizër, he is a [geirim], even if he performed only one of these [mitzwâh]. R. Y^әhoshua, however, maintained that immersion was indispensable" ("Proselytes," EJ, 13:1182-3).

The core of the arguments here is that Hellenist Jews should be required to be circumcised to be recognized as Jews, but circumcision cannot be an essential element of kipur and corresponding share in hâ-olâm ha-bâ . This is reinforced by the example of Timothy in the very next passage.

For one thing, under certain circumstances Jews were exempt from circumcision (cf. Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC Live-Link), Appendix III, note 15.10.2). So kipur and hâ-olâm ha-bâ could not be dependent upon circumcision. Thus, circumcision could not be required for kipur and hâ-olâm ha-bâ.

This finding widened the discussion, since conversion (implying circumcision and immersion) had been ruled out as a minimum eligibility requirement, to formulate proper minimum eligibility requirements for the uncircumcised – Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh essential to recognize a transitional status of geirim. This brought the geirim into the discussion.

No clear and specific mishpât is recorded regarding what recognition was extended to, or withheld from, Hellenist Jews per se; whether they were accepted as Jews or, possibly, even as geirim. Since the Shëva Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh were applied to them on par with the uncircumcised, it may be inferred that they were also recognized as geirim rather than Jews. This is reinforced by Paul the Apostate's action in the next passage – taking Timothy to be circumcised in order to be recognized as a Jew.

This mishpât differentiates between recognition as a Jew(ess) or geir(âh) on the one hand, and eligibility for a share in the hâ-olâm ha-bâ on the other. Recognition as a Jew, not specifically covered in this mishpât, remains in the sphere of the rabbis.

This list of four criteria in Ma·avâr comprising the prototype Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh "is the only one that bears any systematic relationship to the set of religious laws which [Torâh] makes obligatory upon resident aliens (the jeir ha-jâr) and ëzrâkh)" ("Noachide Laws," EJ, 12:1190).

This mishpât sets forth the Shëva Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh as the minimal eligibility requirements for the uncircumcised to be recognized as a no-longer-a-gentile – a geir – allowing him or her to interact with Jews and receive teachings in Torâh and, in the case of N^әtzârim, the Mâshiakh. The mishpât requires recognition as a Geir Toshâv, with its concomitant compliance with these eligibility requirements, for basic eligibility for kipur and a corresponding share in hâ-olâm ha-bâ and, in the case of the N^әtzârim, teachings of Ribi Y^әhoshua the Mâshiakh.

Concerning circumcision, this is required of a convert, who is then a Jew. Circumcision is not required of a geir, who remains a non-Jew.

As eligibility requirements, doing one's utmost to comply with the Shëva Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh is not an end in itself. The Beit-Din regarded the Shëva Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh as sufficient eligibility requirements to begin, or continue in, Judaic study because (Ma·avâr 15.21) the geir could then learn the rest of Torâh in any P^әrushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit ha-K^әnësët in the world.

Contrary to popular assumptions, being a B^әnei-Noakh, therefore, doesn't depend on, and isn't defined by, observing the Shëva Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh. Only the rainbow depends upon observance of the Shëva Mitzwot B^әnei-Noakh.

More consequential, and often a more shocking realization, the only promise associated with the b^әrit of Noakh is that there won't be another Mabul, symbolized by the sign of the rainbow. That's all one gets for being a B^әnei-Noakh. There's no promise of life in ha-olam ha-ba associated with B^әnei-Noakh.

Throughout Tana"kh, the promise of life in hâ-olâm ha-bâ is entirely and consistently reserved for Yisrâ·eil, defined as a "Realm of Kohanim" and "a goy qâdosh" of Shemot 19.5-6 – not B^әnei-Noakh.

Non-Jewish seekers, rather than insist on conversion (which Orthodox rabbis may refuse them anyway), should explore how they may relate as non-Jews (though no longer goyim or B^әnei-Noakh) in Biblically and halakhically (Talmudically) accurate terms, within P^әrushim-heritage (Orthodox) Israel; relating to what were called, in the 1^st-century, geirim or 'Y^әrei ha-Sheim' (details in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN-LL)).

It is crystal clear from the life-practice of B^әnei-Noakh that they don't reflect the standards of Har Sinai. If they did, they would become non-selectively Torâh-observant – geirim and Jews, not B^әnei-Noakh. The giving of Torâh is the central and essential point of Har Sinai! A "spiritual instruction" diametrically opposed to non-selective Torâh-observance is logically, necessarily, diametrically opposed to Har Sinai. The life-practice of B^әnei-Noakh, when they refuse to subordinate to a P^әrushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din and practice Torâh non-selectively and according to Halâkhâh, demonstrates that their experience is often the diametric opposite of Har Sinai. "By their fruits, that is their Ma·asëh, you shall know them."

Most B^әnei-Noakh probably already recognize that "Jewish-Christianity" is an oxymoron. While Jews can practice religions from Hindu to Buddhism to Christianity, often injecting Jewish symbols and terminology into their worship, that aspect doesn't make Christianity any more "Jewish" than Hinduism or Buddhism. Consequently, any claim by "Jewish Christians" that the fact that they are practicing Christianity, or incorporating Jewish symbols and terminology, makes it Jewish is rubbish. The only claim which "Jewish-Christianity" can responsibly pursue is historical. We shall now focus on that claim.

"Jewish Christianity" is invariably presented as portrayed in the NT, which even Christian historians and scholars acknowledge was extensively redacted by post-135 C.E. gentile Roman — Hellenist — antinomian Christians who were antithetical to the 1^stcentury Torâh-observant N^әtzârim Jews. These same sources document that the NT reflects exclusively post-4^th-century Christianity, which was, and is, intractably antithetical to the 1^st-century pro-Torâh original followers of historical Ribi Y^әhoshua — the N^әtzârim.

Among many other historians, the late eminent Oxford scholar on anti-Semitism, James Parkes, noted in his book The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, the glaring, diametric, differences between the pro- Torâh N^әtzârim (Jews) of the 1^st-century (typically, but anachronistically, referred to as 'Jewish-Christianity') and the anti- Torâh gentile Christianity of the 4^th-century (more accurately post-135 C.E.).

No serious scholar, recognized among leading world universities (which excludes cult leaders), disputes the findings presented in our Khavrutâ and books: Christianity is a post-135 C.E. gentile religion; a faith or belief movement diametrically and intractably contradictory to historical Ribi Y^әhoshua and his original N^әtzârim Jewish followers in Israel (inaccurately and anachronistically mislabeled as 'Jewish-Christianity').

To call the pro-Torâh N^әtzârim, l^ә-havdil, 'Jewish-Christianity,' or call Ribi Y^әhoshua — l^ә-havdil — "J*esus," as if these polar opposites were the same, is to scurrilously ascribe to Torâh-observant Jews, Christian doctrines that historians and encyclopedias indisputably document didn't exist until syncretized from paganism, by gentiles, centuries later.

All major encyclopedias corroborate, and our books document, that even the earliest Christian Church historians recorded that E*aster, Christmas, Sunday worship and the like were adopted into Christianity several centuries after the death of Ribi Y^әhoshua, only by pagan (Hellenist) Roman gentiles, and only after 135 C.E. after the pagan Roman gentiles had forcibly wrested control from the N^әtzârim and paganized Y^әrushâlayim into, l^ә-havdil, "Aelia C*apitolina" dedicated to Z*eus.

Long before Christ, E*aster was the spring festival for E*sotera / I*shtar / A*starte / A*shtoreth. E*aster didn't become part of Christianity until gentiles, centuries after the death of Ribi Y^әhoshua, syncretized the pagan festival into their own native Roman (and gentile) belief system. This occurred only after the Roman gentiles had wrested control from the original followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua (then headed by the 15^th Pâqid, Y^әhudâh, who was forcibly ousted by the first gentile Roman "bishop," Markos, in 135 C.E.) in their paganized city of Aelia C*apitolina built overtop the ruins of Y^әrushâlayim. The paganization of Y^әrushâlayim into Aelia C*apitolina, dedicated to Z*eus and sun worship, is complemented by the "coincidental" – and hypothesized – gentilization of the N^әtzârim by gentiles who commenced to syncretize pagan worship: the birth, some time after 135 C.E., of Christianity and the Church!!!

Long before Christ, Christmas was the pagan celebration of the birthday of the sun-g*od, M*ithra! It is also well demonstrated, in our books as well as others, that historical Ribi Y^әhoshua was absolutely not born in winter. The N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) demonstrates this, and further that his birth occurred in late spring. The astronomical events even allow the intercalation of the exact date.

The change from Shabat to Sun-(g*od-)day didn't occur until after 135 C.E., more than a century after the death of Ribi Y^әhoshua – after pagan Roman gentiles wrested control from the original followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua and established their paganized city of Aelia C*apitolina built overtop the ruins of Y^әrushâlayim.

All of the Judaic documentation through 135 C.E. demonstrates that historical Ribi Y^әhoshua and the N^әtzârim were P^әrushim, all of whom were defined by their keeping of Torâh according to Halâkhâh. The Dead Sea Scrolls (specifically 4Q MMT) demonstrate that all sects of legitimate 1^st-century Judaism (i.e., recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol) included the Oral Law within the definition of Torâh / Judaism.

As religious Jews functioning within the legitimate Jewish community, this included Ribi Y^әhoshua and the N^әtzârim. Our books demonstrate that Ribi Y^әhoshua received his s^әmikhâh from Raban Jamliyeil ("Gamliel II") Bën-Shimon Bën-Jamliyeil ha-Zâqein himself, the grandson (and patriarch of the House) of Hileil, and Nâsi of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol. This necessarily means that Ribi Y^әhoshua was a P^әrushi Ribi, as international scholars, and, increasingly, even mainstream Orthodox rabbis, acknowledge!

It shouldn't be surprising, then, that we find ( The N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 23:1-3) that Ribi Y^әhoshua endorsed the P^әrushim. The title Ribi was exclusive to those who received s^әmikhâh by the patriarch of one of the two primary Houses (in this case, Hileil). Subsequent to ca. 20 C.E., the patriarch of the P^әrushim also held the office of Nâsi of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol Y^әhudâh (corrupted to Judea and Jew). (Before ca. 20 C.E., the office of Nâsi was held by the patriarch of Beit-Shamai.) Ribi Y^әhoshua received s^әmikhâh directly from Nâsi of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, from the grandson-patriarch of Hileil! He clearly didn't get there by advocating the Hellenism, Displacement Theology, Christian claims of supersession, self-divinity and blatant paganism of the post-135 C.E. pagan Roman gentiles who created Christianity and the Church.

Post-135 C.E. redactions and Christian literature present a diametrically opposite image – i.e., an idol. The product of the Roman gentiles – J*esus and Christianity – is also the diametric opposite of historical Ribi Y^әhoshua and his original, authentic, N^әtzârim Jewish followers on the question of the validity of the Torâh versus its Displacement Theology, claimed supersession NT. Since they are polar opposites, historical Ribi Y^әhoshua being the Mâshiakh makes his opposite…???

Confusing these two intractably antithetical opposites is ignorance (or obsessive self-deception). Those who desire to follow the 1^st Jew are forced to abandon the antinomian and misojudaic arch-antithesis and counterfeit if they are to follow Ribi Y^әhoshua as the Mâshiakh.

Neither Ribi Y^әhoshua nor his original, authentic, N^әtzârim followers had to pretend to be in a "spiritual" Israel, to pretend to be in a "spiritual" Jewish community, or pretend to practice "Messianic" Judaism. They were – and remain – the real thing, in the P^әrushim-heritage (Orthodox) community.

Unlike Christians and Jewish Christians then, they were legitimate. Unlike Christians and Jewish Christians today, we remain legitimate.

Like the original N^әtzârim, the N^әtzârim of today are reconstructed according to the earliest extant historical documentation within the P^әrushim-heritage (Orthodox) community here in Israel — the real Jewish community in the real Israel. No pretend stuff.

Paqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" Bën-Dâvid, the brother of Ribi Y^әhoshua Bën-Dâvid, was the first Pâqid ha-N^әtzârim. The 16^th Pâqid ha-N^әtzârim is Pâqid Yirm^әyâhu, ha-Tzadiq in Ra·anana, Israel. (For the interim 14, see p^әqidim or Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., IV.v.3.).

Pâqid Yirm^әyâhu, ha-Tzadiq is fully-documented, having been recognized as an Orthodox Jew by Orthodox rabbis, by the Israeli rabbinate Chief Rabbis, and by the State of Israel. He has been a member in good standing of the Orthodox synagogue of Yemenite Jews (Beit ha-K^әnësët Morëshët Âvot – Yad Nâ·âmi) in Ra·ananâ(h), where he and his family pray regularly and participate fully in its functions and social life. N^әtzârim live and function within the P^әrushim-heritage (Orthodox) community and Israel in the real, rational – not pretend Christian "spiritual" – world.

It defies reason to follow the Roman counterfeit and deception, the "antichrist" prophesied in Danieil as the "Beast" who would change the times and seasons, which is obviously, widely and long recognized as, Rome.

While this is true for B^әnei-Noakh, it is even more true for estranged secular Jews who have the background to reject paganism and its syncretism of mingling the khol with the Qodësh.

Whether you are a Jewish Christian or B^әnei-Noakh, learn how to practice Torâh like Ribi Y^әhoshua — a legitimate part of P^әrushim-heritage (Orthodox) – real Israel and the real Jewish community in the real – not pretend "spiritual – world.