Christian Law

Both Judaism and Islam have put a lot of thought in determining the sort of religiuos norms that should rule all aspects of believers´ life, from the food they are allowed to eat to what marriages are valid, from the taxes the political authorities are allowed to charge to how to peacefully resolve civil disputes. In both religions (specialy in Islam), there are different (religious) legal schools, and the search of the rightfull laws have been an important part of the work of theologues.

In Christianity, that didn't happened. The reason might be that Christianity developped mostly in the Roman world, who already had a rich legal tradition. So, instead of trying to enforce Mosaic laws in their lives, they tended to use the Roman ones, more fit to the complex society where they lived. They just made the neccesary modifications required to make this legal system compatible with Christianiy, a process that started in the IV century. These changes included, for example, making divorce harder or making it illegal for Pagans to own Christian slaves.

When the "Barbarians" invaded Western Europe, Roman law prevailed in Southern Europe, and Germanic law was applied in Northern France, "Germany" and elsewhere. But a purely "Christian" school of law wasn't developped. Yes, there was Cannonical law (based mostly on Roman law), but Cannonical law refered almost entirely to the interely to the internal regulation of the Church as an institution. It wasn't aimed to regulate how society should work and how individuals should behave.

I think there was one Eastern Roman emperor who tried to establish a purely Christian legal system, based on the Bible (mainly the old testament), but he wasn't succesful in the long term.

So, what if things were different, and a purely Christian Law had been developped, which had the same importance as Jewish Law has for Judaism or Sharia has for Muslims?
 
Whoah... it would probably be the harshest of the three, if it was based upon Old Testament law. Yes, Judaism is also influenced by that, but their Rabbi's moderated their interpretation heavily, primarily due to minority status.

A Christian leagal system, OTOH, would have no reason to moderate. Can anyone imagine hoow dystopian a literalist interpretation of OT rules would be?

It might also have the interesting affect of making it easier for Jews to assimilate, or at least eliminating the impetus for their Rabbi's to moderate their interpretation of the Torah.
 
And it would be near impossible for it to extend everywhere unless it was concieved very early on- for example, Ethipiopia, Armenia and India would likely be beyond the reach of the system.
 
I'm not so sure there would be a major change. The Church and State worked in tandem for most of Europe's history.
 
I think the only way to achieve a Christian legal system is to have Paul lose the argument at the Council of Jerusalem (reported in Acts 15). After that it was always the position that Christianity is a religion of grace rather than law. In Christian thinking, the purpose of law is simply to make us aware of sin and thus of our need for salvation through grace. So there is no need for a Christian legal system and that's why one never developed.
 
Whoah... it would probably be the harshest of the three, if it was based upon Old Testament law. Yes, Judaism is also influenced by that, but their Rabbi's moderated their interpretation heavily, primarily due to minority status.

A Christian leagal system, OTOH, would have no reason to moderate. Can anyone imagine hoow dystopian a literalist interpretation of OT rules would be?

Probably not incorrect, though distinctly curious since the very point of Jesus' coming to Earth was to end the Old Covenant and remove the Law of Moses, and to replace them with the New Covenant and New Law.
 
Probably not incorrect, though distinctly curious since the very point of Jesus' coming to Earth was to end the Old Covenant and remove the Law of Moses, and to replace them with the New Covenant and New Law.

That's OTL theology. And the degree to which this applies is certainly controversial (you may want to discuss that with a Marcionite if you can still find any). A different theology might well result in a different attitude towards the law. The problem is that a strictly Mosaic Christianity is unlikely to become a major power in Roman society. There were strictly observant Jewish groups and while they prospered inside Israel to some extent (I'm still suspicious of source bias - the Hellenisers *must* have been more influential than the surviving texts allowe), they had lmost no traction outside. A more promising approach, I think, would be in the post-conversion imperial church. At that point, the church was attuned enough to the practices and beliefs of its adherents to preoduce a law code that would not be impossible or absurd to them (Rabbinic law works pretty well for the needs of a preindustrial society in the Middle East, too). Of course this law would not be Mosaic, it would be the eclectic mixture of Roman, Greek, Jewish and out-of-this-world we know from patristic sources.

An attempt to create something like a Christian order of life was made in western Europe, btw. Its origins lie with the institution of penance as interpreted in Ireland, probably in connection with the usages of Brehon law (legal experts post-conversion were often clerics, but functioned like they had before). After the efforts to purify and reformthe church led to an increasing rediscovery of and return to early patristic texts and their concern with personal morality, the later 10th, 11th and 12th century saw the rise of an intellectual fashion to createv andsystematise moral precepts, tuirn them into legal rules and try to get the authorities to enfporce them. That was where the 'intriusive church' of inquisition fame has its beginnings, and in terms of e.g. clerical celibacy, marriage law, Lenten observance and religious segregation, it was successful. HOwever, the aim was a far more sweeping one: the creation and enforcement of a Christian code of morality pervading all aspects of society. German scholars called it 'Vermönchung der Laien' - monasticisation of the laity. And yes, that kinda failed.
 
I think the only way to achieve a Christian legal system is to have Paul lose the argument at the Council of Jerusalem (reported in Acts 15). After that it was always the position that Christianity is a religion of grace rather than law. In Christian thinking, the purpose of law is simply to make us aware of sin and thus of our need for salvation through grace. So there is no need for a Christian legal system and that's why one never developed.

I have to agree with this one. I think it's rather difficult to use the OT laws for Christianity-based law considering that even Jesus himself rejected some of that very laws (turn the other cheek anyone?) while Paul in the New Testament rejected the notion that Christians have to obey the OT laws. I also remember one instance in Acts where Peter dreamed about the "unclean animals" and was rebuked by God for refusing to eat it based on the OT laws. In short, OT laws does not equal Christianity laws.
 
Probably not incorrect, though distinctly curious since the very point of Jesus' coming to Earth was to end the Old Covenant and remove the Law of Moses, and to replace them with the New Covenant and New Law.
I was responding to the idea of the Eastern Roman Emperor's idea suceeding:)

That's OTL theology. And the degree to which this applies is certainly controversial (you may want to discuss that with a Marcionite if you can still find any). A different theology might well result in a different attitude towards the law. The problem is that a strictly Mosaic Christianity is unlikely to become a major power in Roman society. There were strictly observant Jewish groups and while they prospered inside Israel to some extent (I'm still suspicious of source bias - the Hellenisers *must* have been more influential than the surviving texts allowe), they had lmost no traction outside. A more promising approach, I think, would be in the post-conversion imperial church. At that point, the church was attuned enough to the practices and beliefs of its adherents to preoduce a law code that would not be impossible or absurd to them (Rabbinic law works pretty well for the needs of a preindustrial society in the Middle East, too). Of course this law would not be Mosaic, it would be the eclectic mixture of Roman, Greek, Jewish and out-of-this-world we know from patristic sources.

An attempt to create something like a Christian order of life was made in western Europe, btw. Its origins lie with the institution of penance as interpreted in Ireland, probably in connection with the usages of Brehon law (legal experts post-conversion were often clerics, but functioned like they had before). After the efforts to purify and reformthe church led to an increasing rediscovery of and return to early patristic texts and their concern with personal morality, the later 10th, 11th and 12th century saw the rise of an intellectual fashion to createv andsystematise moral precepts, tuirn them into legal rules and try to get the authorities to enfporce them. That was where the 'intriusive church' of inquisition fame has its beginnings, and in terms of e.g. clerical celibacy, marriage law, Lenten observance and religious segregation, it was successful. HOwever, the aim was a far more sweeping one: the creation and enforcement of a Christian code of morality pervading all aspects of society. German scholars called it 'Vermönchung der Laien' - monasticisation of the laity. And yes, that kinda failed.
Does that mean it would be impossible for such a thing to succeed though?

What about the Pilgrim colonies? They liked to envision them as neo-Israeli's so as to justify the opression of American Indians, so maybe a rigid OT system could be established there.
 
Top