The Uniqueness and Model of the Mosaic Legislation and Political Laws
Compared to other humanist writers, Junius was less interested in the proof from antiquity for the laws and writings of Moses. Nevertheless, he was eager to demonstrate their uniqueness and role model for subsequent laws until the present.
The way, in which Junius comments on the ancient wisdom of the Egyptians (prlsca sapientia), can serve as an illustration. In the preface of De politiae Mosls observatione Junius writes:Many histories once confessed that the Egyptians possessed great wisÂdom (among whom Moses was instructed). And of those Greek philosÂophers who were of the highest repute, nearly all of them are still celÂebrated for their reputation among the profane authors because they had personally imbibed of the teachings of the Egyptians. Many of the Egyptians' excellent principles are found in Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and others, and Plutarch mentions that memorable saying that the kings of the Egyptians, according to the law, used to make the judges swear that even if the king should command them to declare something unjustly in judgment, they would not do it.[285]
The passage cited above not only refers to the ancient wisdom of the Egyptians, celebrated by ancient Greek philosophers and pagan thinkers; it also stresses the legislation of the Egyptians in a very positive way. How does this correÂspond with Junius's remark that Moses was instructed in the wisdom of the Egyptians? If Junius had turned to the bible in this case, he would only have been able to cite one passage in the Book of Acts (Acts 7:22). But instead of bibÂlical references Junius cites extra-biblical sources, namely Plutarch, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, who all had their own perspectives on Moses. Plutarch, for instance, portrayed Moses as an Egyptian, and devaluated the â€?Hebrews' and the Jewish people?[286] To over-emphasise the Egyptian heritage of Moses and the age and role model of the ancient Egyptian legislation would not have been in the interest of Junius, however.
Rather, it was his plan to stress the uniqueÂness and model of the Mosaic legislation as part of the ancient Jewish and biblical tradition. One therefore has to read very closely to see that only few sentences later, Junius qualifies his positive references about the legislation of the Egyptians by stating that, â€?however superior those laws of the Egyptians are in comparison with others, nevertheless there was an imperfection in the corpus of them, which would be the easiest thing to evince and demonstrate.' For Junius, they cannot have â€?the first place in the political rank'.[287] This also applies to the ancient corpus of Roman laws, even though Junius does not withhold the value of the Roman civil law code as a collection of human laws (leges humanae). In Junius's opinion, â€?if there are any human laws whose corÂpus would have any value, it must rightfully be that code that was compiled by its author, Emperor Justinian, 1060 years ago from the wisest and most prudent men’.[288] [289] [290] [291] [292] But even this civil law code (the Corpus Iuris Civilis) stood clearly for imperfection. As a proof, Junius refers to the method of jurists to compare the old law (ius vetus) prior to Emperor Justinian with the Corpus Iuris Civilis and to detect the subsequent developments in the history of Roman law.32Junius concludes that the imperfection of ancient Egyptian and Roman law codes is due to the imperfection of their authors. Therefore, vice versa, the purity or pure mode of laws (modus puritatis) that Junius speaks of, can only be reached if the legislator remains free from any fault; this, however, would never be possible for humans by any standards.33 There is always a degree of imperfection inherent in any human laws in Junius’s eyes. And seen from this perspective, the uniqueness of the Mosaic laws really stands out, because it is God who is the author of these laws.
By their divine perfection the Mosaic laws surpass all Egyptian and Roman laws without exception; and for the following argumentation it is significant for Junius to already conÂclude the same for the political laws of Moses: Relying on a biblical image, Junius calls God on one hand an author and judge who â€?produces these laws for “his house”, that is, the church, which in all circumstances obtains from God its perfection of beauty over all created things (perfectio pulcritudinis a Deo supra res creatas omneis)’, and Moses, on the other hand, â€?a faithful servant in the whole house of God'.34 Whenever the laws of Moses touch on political and legal matters, and may be compared to human laws, the laws of Moses still â€?rank far higher than all the rest’ and â€?lack all imperfection’: Here, Junius does not use a direct proof from antiquity as other humanists did, but he speaks of â€?a long interval’ (longum intervallum), in which the authority, ordinance and application of the Mosaic political laws has excelled: â€?In matÂters of sculpture, the canon of Polyclitus (κανων πολυκλει'τειος) is superior; in political matters, the canon of Moses’.3s When Junius mentions â€?several outstanding jurists' who had proven this by comparison with the Roman civil law (Corpus Iuris Civilis),[293] he is probably referring to those humanist jurists who became the decisive forerunners and first authors of the politia-judaica literature.Other than some of these humanist jurists, Junius declines a debate on the oldest legislators and laws of ancient times within a few sentences. He does not go into detail about the wisdom of the Egyptians or other ancient people (prisca sapientia), even though he was well aware of ancient extra- biblical Mosaic traditions, as seen in his citations of Plutarch, Herodotus, and Diodorus Siculus. Junius quietly integrated these ancient sources in order to demonstrate the uniqueness and role model of the Mosaic polity, although they could also have led him astray in his argumentation when taken literally.
In the end, Junius has to choose a two-sided line of argument. He stresses â€?both kinds of authority', not only the highest authority of God as legislator, but also of Moses as legislator of the Israelites (Legislator Israelitarum). The legislation of Moses over the Israelites was instituted by God, confirmed by the greatest signs, approved by the Jewish people who transferred authority to Moses (Ex. 20[π8-19]; Ex. 24[3-8]) and consented to his leadership in reliÂgious matters.[294] Thus, Moses as legislator of the Israelites, can also be named a â€?man of God' (vir Dei, cf. Deut. 33:1). But Moses remains always subordinated to God as the true and proclaimed author (auctor) and sanctioner (sancitor) of the laws. That is why Junius also calls Moses an instrument (instrumenÂtum) and servant (administer) of God. Identical formulations can be found in the works of John Calvin, who inspired Junius along with other Reformed theologians.
3