Noahide standards on evidence, witnesses, and judges for non-Jews on trial falls beneath the Catholic sense of justice (Code Purple)

 See Home Page
SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

 This article is "Code Purple": Courts of Justice

"Where Israel's Torah courts must follow certain extremely stringent rules of criminal procedure,^ Noahide courts have more freedom. In contrast to the Torah courts, a Noahide court may convict a criminal defendant based solely upon circumstantial evidence, or the accused's own self-incriminating statements, or testimony from his near relatives — even though these relatives may not be the most reliable of witnesses. A Noahide court may also convict upon the testimony of only a single witness. So it's possible — indeed, probable, given time — that the court will mistakenly convict and execute an innocent person." (Dallen, 2003, pp. 199) - SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.

Catholic Perspective on the Unequal Application of Noahide Laws of Justice and the Equality of Catholic Justice

The Noahide Laws, derived from Jewish tradition and rooted in Genesis 9:1-7, provide a universal moral code for non-Jews, including a law requiring the establishment of courts of justice. However, as Michael E. Dallen notes in The Rainbow Covenant (2003), the Noahide laws of justice are applied differently to Jews and Gentiles, with less stringent procedural standards for non-Jews. This essay, from a Catholic perspective, examines the Noahide position on these disparities—specifically that Gentiles can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, with a single witness, by a single judge, and accused by relatives, while Jews require stricter standards. It then refutes the Noahide approach by demonstrating that Catholic teaching, grounded in scripture and tradition, upholds equal justice for all, applying the same standards to Jews and Gentiles without special exceptions. The argument focuses on the principle that one judge and testimony from relatives should suffice for both Jews and Gentiles, ensuring fairness and impartiality.

---

Noahide Position on Unequal Application of Justice

The Noahide law of justice, one of the Seven Laws of Noah, mandates the establishment of courts to enforce moral and legal order among non-Jews. However, as Dallen explains in The Rainbow Covenant, Noahide courts operate with looser procedural standards compared to Jewish Torah courts, leading to disparities in how justice is administered to Gentiles versus Jews. These differences are rooted in Jewish legal tradition, particularly as articulated in the Talmud and later rabbinic sources, and reflect the distinct covenantal roles of Jews and Gentiles in Jewish theology.

1. Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence
   • Noahide Position: Dallen notes, “In contrast to the Torah courts, a Noahide court may convict a criminal defendant based solely upon circumstantial evidence” (Dallen, 2003, p. 199). Jewish law (e.g., Sanhedrin 37b) requires direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, to convict a Jew in a Torah court, due to the high value placed on protecting innocent life. Gentiles, however, can be convicted on less conclusive evidence, increasing the risk of erroneous convictions.
   • Supporting Scripture: Noahides may cite Deuteronomy 17:6, which requires “two or three witnesses” for a Jew’s conviction, as specific to Israel’s covenant. For Gentiles, the lack of such explicit requirements in Genesis 9 allows for more flexible standards, as inferred from rabbinic interpretations (e.g., Sanhedrin 56b).
2. Testimony of a Single Witness
   • Noahide Position: Dallen states, “A Noahide court may also convict upon the testimony of only a single witness” (Dallen, 2003, p. 199). In contrast, Jewish law mandates at least two witnesses for a Jew’s conviction (Sanhedrin 8a), reflecting the Torah’s emphasis on corroboration to ensure justice (Deuteronomy 19:15). This disparity means Gentiles face a lower threshold for conviction, potentially compromising fairness.
   • Supporting Scripture: Noahides point to the absence of a specific witness requirement in the Noahide covenant (Genesis 9:5-6), allowing a single witness to suffice, unlike the stricter standard for Jews in Deuteronomy 19:15.
3. Trial by a Single Judge
   • Noahide Position: According to Dallen, Noahide courts can operate with “a single judge” (Dallen, 2003, p. 199), while Jewish Torah courts typically require a panel of three or more judges, depending on the case’s severity (e.g., Sanhedrin 2a). This reflects the belief that Gentile justice systems need only basic structures to fulfill the Noahide law, whereas Jewish courts adhere to rigorous procedural safeguards.
   • Supporting Scripture: The Noahide law of justice (Genesis 9:6) does not specify the number of judges, allowing flexibility, whereas Deuteronomy 16:18-20 mandates multiple judges for Israel to ensure impartiality.
4. Accusation by Relatives
   • Noahide Position: Dallen highlights that “a Noahide court may convict a criminal defendant based… on testimony from his near relatives — even though these relatives may not be the most reliable of witnesses” (Dallen, 2003, p. 199). Jewish law disqualifies close relatives as witnesses in Torah courts (Sanhedrin 27b) to prevent bias, but Noahide courts allow such testimony, increasing the risk of injustice for Gentiles.
   • Supporting Scripture: The Torah’s restriction on relatives as witnesses (implicit in Deuteronomy 19:15’s emphasis on credible testimony) applies to Jews, while the Noahide framework, lacking such specificity, permits relatives to testify against Gentiles (Sanhedrin 57b).
5. Risk of Mistaken Convictions
   • Noahide Position: Dallen acknowledges the consequence of these disparities: “It’s possible — indeed, probable, given time — that the court will mistakenly convict and execute an innocent person” (Dallen, 2003, p. 199). The looser standards for Gentiles reflect a theological distinction in Jewish tradition, where Israel’s covenant demands stricter safeguards due to its unique role, while Gentiles are subject to a more lenient system.
   • Supporting Scripture: Noahides may argue that Genesis 9:6 (“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”) prioritizes swift justice for Gentiles, allowing procedural flexibility, unlike the stringent rules for Jews in Leviticus 19:15 (“You shall do no injustice in court”).

---

Catholic Refutation and Affirmation of Equal Justice

From a Catholic perspective, the Noahide approach to justice, with its unequal standards for Jews and Gentiles, is incompatible with the universal call to justice rooted in the Gospel and natural law. Catholic teaching, grounded in scripture and tradition, upholds equal justice for all, applying the same standards to Jews and Gentiles without special exceptions. The following refutations address the Noahide disparities, arguing that one judge and testimony from relatives should suffice for both, and affirm the Catholic commitment to impartiality.

1. Equal Justice Regardless of Circumstantial Evidence
   • Noahide Claim: Gentiles can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, unlike Jews.
   • Catholic Response: Catholic teaching emphasizes justice as a universal virtue, rooted in the dignity of all persons created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). The New Testament calls for impartial judgment (James 2:1-4: “Show no partiality”), and the Church’s moral tradition, as articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1807), demands fairness in legal proceedings. Circumstantial evidence, if credible, should be evaluated consistently for all, as justice seeks truth, not favoritism. The Noahide distinction undermines this by lowering the evidential threshold for Gentiles, risking unjust convictions.
   • Catholic Principle: One judge, if competent and impartial, can evaluate circumstantial evidence for both Jews and Gentiles, ensuring fairness without special exceptions (Proverbs 24:23: “Partiality in judging is not good”).
   • Conclusion: Catholic justice applies the same evidential standards to all, countering the Noahide disparity.
2. Single Witness Testimony for All
   • Noahide Claim: A single witness can convict a Gentile, but Jews require multiple witnesses.
   • Catholic Response: The Gospel calls for truth in judgment, regardless of the number of witnesses, as seen in Jesus’ emphasis on integrity (Matthew 5:37). While Deuteronomy 19:15’s requirement of two witnesses reflects a safeguard, Catholic tradition allows flexibility in judicial processes, provided truth is served (e.g., Code of Canon Law, Canon 1573, permits a single credible witness in certain cases). The Noahide allowance of a single witness for Gentiles risks injustice by not requiring corroboration, whereas Catholic justice demands consistent standards for all, ensuring reliability without favoritism.
   • Catholic Principle: A single credible witness should suffice for both Jews and Gentiles, judged by the same standard of truth (John 8:16: “My judgment is true”).
   • Conclusion: Catholic justice rejects the Noahide double standard, promoting equal treatment.
3. One Judge for Both Jews and Gentiles
   • Noahide Claim: A single judge can try Gentiles, while Jews require multiple judges.
   • Catholic Response: Catholic teaching upholds the principle of impartial judgment, regardless of the number of judges, as long as justice is served. Leviticus 19:15 commands, “You shall do no injustice in court; you shall not be partial,” a principle echoed in the New Testament (Acts 10:34: “God shows no partiality”). The Noahide system’s allowance of a single judge for Gentiles, contrasted with multiple judges for Jews, creates an uneven standard that risks bias. Catholic tradition, while valuing communal discernment (e.g., ecclesiastical tribunals), affirms that one competent judge can deliver justice for all, as seen in historical examples like papal arbitration.
   • Catholic Principle: One impartial judge should suffice for both Jews and Gentiles, ensuring equality (CCC 1807).
   • Conclusion: The Catholic approach eliminates the Noahide disparity, applying the same judicial standard to all.
4. Relatives as Witnesses for All
   • Noahide Claim: Relatives can testify against Gentiles but not Jews.
   • Catholic Response: Catholic teaching emphasizes truth and impartiality in testimony, regardless of the witness’s relationship to the accused. While Jewish law disqualifies relatives to prevent bias (Sanhedrin 27b), Catholic moral theology prioritizes the integrity of the testimony itself (CCC 2472). If a relative’s testimony is credible and corroborated, it should be admissible for both Jews and Gentiles, as justice seeks truth, not exclusion based on status. The Noahide allowance of relatives’ testimony only for Gentiles creates an unequal standard that undermines fairness.
   • Catholic Principle: Relatives can serve as witnesses for both Jews and Gentiles, provided their testimony is truthful and unbiased (Matthew 7:12: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you”).
   • Conclusion: Catholic justice ensures equal treatment of witnesses, rejecting the Noahide distinction.
5. Preventing Mistaken Convictions Universally
   • Noahide Claim: The looser standards for Gentiles make mistaken convictions more likely.
   • Catholic Response: The Church’s commitment to justice, rooted in the Gospel, seeks to protect the innocent and ensure fairness for all (Isaiah 1:17: “Seek justice, correct oppression”). The Noahide system’s relaxed standards for Gentiles, as Dallen notes, increase the risk of error, contradicting the universal call to justice (CCC 1928). Catholic teaching, drawing on natural law and scripture, demands rigorous safeguards for all, such as due process and the presumption of innocence, as seen in the Church’s legal tradition (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1608).
   • Catholic Principle: Justice must protect the innocent equally, using consistent standards to minimize errors for both Jews and Gentiles.
   • Conclusion: The Catholic approach surpasses the Noahide system by ensuring equal protections against mistaken convictions.

---

Catholic Commitment to Equal Justice

Catholic teaching, rooted in scripture and tradition, upholds equal justice for all, reflecting the universal dignity of the human person. The New Testament emphasizes impartiality (Romans 2:11: “There is no partiality with God”), and the Church’s social teaching, as articulated in Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II, para. 29), affirms that all persons are equal in dignity, deserving the same rights and justice. Unlike the Noahide system, which applies different procedural standards based on covenantal status, Catholic justice applies the same principles to all, ensuring fairness without exceptions. The Church’s legal tradition, such as the Code of Canon Law, emphasizes truth, impartiality, and protection of the innocent, applicable to Jews and Gentiles alike. By allowing one competent judge and credible testimony from relatives for all, Catholic justice maintains consistency while upholding the highest standards of fairness.

---

Conclusion

The Noahide laws of justice, as described by Michael E. Dallen in The Rainbow Covenant, apply less stringent standards to Gentiles than to Jews, allowing convictions based on circumstantial evidence, a single witness, a single judge, and testimony from relatives. These disparities, rooted in Jewish legal tradition, reflect a theological distinction between Israel’s covenant and the Noahide framework but risk unequal treatment. From a Catholic perspective, these differences are incompatible with the universal call to justice, which demands equal standards for all, as seen in scripture (James 2:1-4) and Church teaching (CCC 1807). By ensuring that one impartial judge and credible testimony, including from relatives, suffice for both Jews and Gentiles, Catholic justice upholds fairness without special exceptions. Catholics questioning their faith’s approach to justice can find assurance in the Church’s commitment to equality, rooted in the Gospel’s universal vision, encouraging them to remain steadfast in their faith.