Nicholas Wolterstorff points to a foreshadowing of the modern language of rights.
Though it’s true that it was in the 1100s that the concept was first systematically employed, I think that one can see … what do you want to call it, foreshadowings of it before – and it would be surprising if you couldn’t find them.
For example, the great preacher of Constantinople in the 300s/400s was John Chrysostomos. John has seven sermons on the New Testament parable of Lazarus and the rich man, and in the course of those sermons, he says in one place “the extra shoes of the wealthy person belong to the poor person who has no shoes”. Now he doesn’t use any language that can be translated as rights, that the poor person has a right. But listen to this language of belongs to. So John doesn’t appeal to the charity of the well-to-do person, it’s “those shoes belong to the poor person”. Now I think that’s, you might say, a recognition of right without using the language of rights.