View source for Was God's law available prior to Sinai?

<languages />{{:Navleft|Category:Answered Questions|{{:AnsweredQuestionsname/{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}}

<div class="questionbody">
== Introduction ==
<translate>God established civil government right after the Flood, as recorded in Genesis:</translate>
{{:Scriptblock|Genesis 9:6}}

<translate>Reno comments:
{{:Quote|the verse also directs our attention to a fundamentally new aspect of human history. By causing the flood, God has taken justice into his own hands. The wickedness of humanity has been punished. Now, however, God takes the most heinous of crimes and puts justice into human hands. We are to exercise dominion over each other, punishing those who wrongfully take life.<ref>Reno, ''Genesis'', 125</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>Walton comments:
{{:Quote|Exacting punishment for murder is not reserved for deity but is placed under the purview of human judicial systems here, whether they are located in courts or in clans. This verse may well mark the beginning of judicial responsibility that is eventually evidenced in the compilations of sample verdicts (such as those found on the Hammurabi Stele) throughout the ancient Near East.<ref>Walton, ''Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Genesis''</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>Sarna comments:
{{:Quote|<b>By man</b> It is a human responsibility. The particle bet in Hebrew ''ba-'adam'' is here taken to indicate the instrument of punishment.2 Human institutions, a judiciary, must be established for the purpose. This requirement seeks to correct the condition of “lawlessness” that existed prior to the Flood (6:11). The blood feud is eliminated, and murder is no longer a private affair between the killer and the family of the victim;<ref>Sarna, ''JPS Torah Commentary on Gensis'', 62</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>After this, God revealed a detailed set of statutes (no doubt directly to Noah, the way he revealed the plans for the ark). We can infer this from five lines of evidence:</translate>

<translate>
# The logical necessity of legal procedure, evidential requirements and other detail
# Direct scriptural evidence of God's pre-Sinai legal statutes
# Indirect scriptural evidence of God's pre-Sinai legal statutes
# Sin is not reckoned where there is no law
# Parallel language in certain pre-Sinai, ancient Near East law codes.

Let's examine each of these lines of evidence.</translate>

== <translate>The logical necessity of legal procedure, evidential requirements and other detail</translate> ==
<translate>The plain "blood for blood" statement in Gen. 9:6 was not sufficient, in itself, to guide this new (at the time) type of civil retributive action which YHWH was commanding. He would have had to provide further instruction (torah) to Noah in order to create a minimum comprehensive system of civil justice. Consider the following questions which Noah might have had, after hearing this simple statement:</translate>
<translate>
# ''Any'' shedding of blood? Or is "blood" merely a metonym<ref>A metonym is a figure of speech in which something is referred to by the name of another closely-related thing.</ref> for killing?
# ''Any'' killing? Or is killing in self-defense lawful? How about killing in defense of innocent others?
# What if the "shedding of blood" is accidental (an axe head flies off: Deut. 19:5)? Is there still blood-guilt? Wouldn't God have cared about this element of justice enough to provide this necessary detail (the way he later did in the Sinai law code)?
# How many witnesses would be necessary to establish legal guilt?
# Does transcendent justice allow for a judge or victim to pardon the offender entirely, or else accept monetary ransom as a substitute for the retributive bloodshed?</translate>

<translate>I could multiply questions, but you get the point. It is a momentous decision to put transcendent justice in the hands of sinful humans. God wouldn't just give ambiguous commands to kill in response to killing. He would have supplied additional instruction (''torah'') to mankind through Noah.

This additional instruction would have covered:</translate>

<translate>
# Legal procedures
# Evidential requirements (e.g. two or more witnesses)
# Enumeration of crimes (as distinguished from sins)
# Specification of penalties (e.g. restitution for theft, death penalty for kidnapping, etc)</translate>

<translate>Should we infer that Noah himself was both righteous and intelligent enough to invent all the details of the laws which:</translate>
<translate>
* protect the innocent against injustice, 
* limit the scope and power of civil government, and 
* punish all criminal offenses with perfect justice?
</translate>
<translate>If not, it is reasonable to infer that Noah sought YHWH's guidance, just as Moses did so on multiple occasions to clarify points in the Sinai law which he had already been given.</translate>

== Direct scriptural evidence of God's pre-Sinai legal statutes ==

<translate>In the book of Genesis, God praised Abraham:</translate>
{{:Scriptblock|Genesis 26:5}} 
<translate>The terms "commandments, statutes, and laws" are used together elsewhere in Scripture (e.g. Deut. 11:1) to denote the whole of God's law. The language of this verse is so explicit that most modern commentators dismiss this phrase as an (anachronistic) addition by a later editor.<ref>"Historical explanations and theological interpretations by historical critics do not address satisfactorily this verse or the many legal referents in Genesis. Historical critics have had the effect of dismissing the interpretive questions, usually by assigning the verse to a late redactor or offering theological explanations extrinsic to the text. Other Genesis commentators simply ignore the legal referents.<sup>55</sup>" (James Bruckner, <em>Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative</em>, 32-33)</ref></translate>

<translate>This verse directly states that God's laws were given <em>prior to</em> the ones associated with the Sinai Covenant. The idiomatic phrasing implies that these laws were given in comprehensive detail. Lack of an itemized scriptural record of these laws means nothing, evidentially.</translate>

<translate>We also have direct evidence of YHWH-approved, pre-Sinai legal statutes in Exodus:</translate>
{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 16:4}}

<translate>Bruckner notes: "The Exod. 16.4 text is consistent with many implications in the Genesis narrative that the patriarchs, though they did not have the formulations of Sinai, nonetheless had some law akin to it."<ref>Bruckner, <em>Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative</em>, 32</ref></translate>

<translate>Furthermore, prior to the establishment of the Sinai Covenant and the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), Moses was <em>already</em> judging the Israelite mixed-multitude by a system of YHWH's statutes and commandments:</translate>
{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 18:15-16}}

<translate>This system of statutes and commandments must have been extensive and detailed enough to cover the legal issues and procedures of a large multitude with lots of rebellious and sinful people. Hamilton writes:</translate>
<translate>{{:Quote|In Exod. 18:16 Moses answers such requests by "mak[ing] known God's statutes and his teachings." We are not yet at Sinai, where God will reveal his "ḥ&ocirc;q" and his "t&ocirc;r&acirc;" to his people. Have there been revelations of such matters that are pre-Sinai and anticipatory of Sinai? Apparently so; see Exod. 15:25b.<ref>Hamilton, ''Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary'', 287</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>
== Indirect scriptural evidence of God's pre-Sinai legal statutes ==</translate>

<translate>The book of Genesis contains extensive references and allusions to detailed laws covering a similar scope to the ones we find in the other four books of the Pentateuch. It implies a legal framework that encompasses (at a minimum) contract law, family law (including levirate marriage), criminal law, covenants, treaties, and judicial procedure.<<ref>See, for example, James Bruckner, <em>Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative</em>, pp. 13-18</ref></translate>

<translate>Bruckner notes that the entire story of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah is framed as an example of a formal legal investigation, with YHWH as the presiding judge:</translate>

<translate>
{{:Quote|in Genesis 18-19 an indictment is issued, based on a cry to God (18.20). The process of trial is declared (18.21), the terms of the trial are negotiated (18.23-33), evidence is established by eyewitnesses (19.1-9), and verdicts and a sentence are declared and carried out (19.12-29).<ref>James Bruckner, <em>Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative</em>, 21</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>In Genesis 20, YHWH makes it clear to Abimelech that death is the just penalty for violating a marriage covenant:</translate>

{{:Scriptblockformat|{{#scripture:Genesis 20:3}} ... {{#scripture:Genesis 20:7}}|scriptref=Genesis 20:3,7}}

<translate>In the book of Genesis, there are many references to sacrifices made to YHWH. The dispute between Cain and Abel, for example was triggered by the fact that YHWH found Abel's sacrifice acceptable and Cain's unacceptable (Gen. 4:5-7). By this it is implied that YHWH gave both men instructions on how (and what) to sacrifice. This is evidence of YHWH giving laws about sacrifice to men, even though we do not have the specific text of those laws.</translate>

<translate>Noah was told to bring seven pairs of "clean" animals (Gen. 7:2). The term "clean" is legally significant and it is clear that Noah used some of these "clean" animals for his initial sacrifice after the Flood:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Genesis 8:20}}

<translate>Hamilton discusses the relationship of this sacrifice to the later Sinai sacrifices:</translate>

<translate>
{{:Quote|It is appropriate that the offerings [Noah] presents to Yahweh are holocausts or "whole burnt offerings" ('<em>ōlōṯ</em>). It is probable that this is the oldest and most frequent of all the OT sacrifices. A continual burnt offering ('<em>ōlaṯ tām&icirc;ḏ</em>) was made twice daily, morning and evening (Exod. 29:38-42). Leviticus and Numbers mandate this offering after some kind of crisis, such as after childbirth (Lev. 12:6-8), after bodily discharges (Lev. 15:14-15, 29-30), and after defilement during a Nazirite vow (Num. 6:10-11). The priestly legislation attaches an expiatory function to it (Lev. 1:4; 9:7; 14:20; cf. 1 Sam. 13:12; Job 1:5; 42:8). But whenever the whole burnt offering is presented, the motive is joyful, indicated by the fact that this holocaust is called a freewill offering (Lev. 22:17-25; Num. 15:1-11). It is anything but dour. In addition to expiation, this sacrifice serves at least two other functions. It is connected both with petition (1 Sam. 13:12) and with thanksgiving (Lev. 22:17-25; Num. 15:1-11).<ref>[citet:"hamilton1990genesis1_17":"307-308"]</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>This is evidence of YHWH giving laws about sacrifice to Noah, even though we do not have the specific text of the law. If we follow Paul's metaphor of the law as a "tutor", maybe we could consider these early versions of the sacrificial system to be a "nanny" teaching a child their alphabet. Obviously these sacrifices were treated by YHWH as "acceptable" on many occasions.</translate>

<translate>Job also lived prior to the giving of the laws at Sinai. The scripture says:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Job 1:5}}

<translate>Job was both righteous and conscientious, and must have been following statutes given by YHWH about which burnt offerings were required. Immediately after the above, YHWH refers to Job as "a blameless and an upright man," (v. 8). Although we do not now have the specific commands which describe these offerings, this scripture is indirect evidence that such laws about sacrifice were given before Sinai.</translate>

<translate>Jethro, Moses' father-in-law was labeled a "priest of Midian" (Exod. 18:1):</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 18:12}}

<translate>Here is Hamilton's comment on this verse:</translate>

<translate>
{{:Quote|Jethro seems to be the officiating priest. Moses is named twice but only as the son-in-law of Jethro. Aaron is named and is present, but he appears to do nothing priestly. It is Jethro who takes a burnt offering (ʿōl&acirc;) and sacrifices (zĕbāḥ&icirc;m) and brings them to God. The latter term is not a catchall term for a whole bunch of other sacrifices in addition to the ʿōl&acirc;. Rather, it is a reference to the zebaḥ &scaron;ĕlām&icirc;m (peace offering/fellowship offering) of Lev. 3. We know this is so because v.12 tells us the party "eat" (part of) the sacrifices, and the zebaḥ &scaron;ĕlām&icirc;m (or just &scaron;ĕlām&icirc;m) is the only offering whose meat is consumed by the worshiper/donor.<ref>Hamilton, ''Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary'', 281</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>Jethro, identified as a "priest", sacrifices a "fellowship offering" to God akin to the one prescribed later (after Sinai) in Leviticus 3. Moses and Aaron participate in this event, without questioning or labeling it as "false worship" or idolatry. This is further evidence of sacrificial laws given prior to Sinai.</translate>


<translate>
== Sin is not reckoned where there is no law ==</translate>
<translate>
The Apostle Paul states that "sin is not reckoned when there is no law," (Rom. 5:13). Yet sin was reckoned against many people groups in the pre-Sinai era, including Sodom and Gomorrah and the Amorites. For example, YHWH told Abraham about the sins which he was reckoning against the Amorites <em>four-hundred years</em> before he would judge them for their sin:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Genesis 15:16}}

<translate>In the process of giving a series of laws, including detailed laws about sexual sins (like incest, bestiality, adultery, and homosexual acts), YHWH explains why he will use the Israelites as a form of warfare judgement against the Canaanites:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Lev. 18:24-28}}

<translate>Therefore, the Amorites and all the other peoples in the land of Canaan (Deut. 18:9-14) must have been given a form of God's law (including the very specific regulations itemized in Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 18), otherwise their sin would not have been reckoned to them (a reckoning which brought near total destruction to their peoples).</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Deut. 18:9-12}}

<translate>Wherever we see God's temporal judgment at work, we can be certain that he made his law available to those people groups. Otherwise, we would have to disagree with Paul's statement in Rom. 5:13.</translate>

<translate>
== Parallel language in certain pre-Sinai, ancient Near East law codes. ==
</translate>

<translate>There was a period in Biblical scholarship, after the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi and other cuneiform law codes<ref>In fact, the label "law code" is now a point of dispute on many of these.</ref> where scholars claimed a large number of parallels between them. This phenomenon, labelled "parallelomania" by Samuel Sandmel (in a 1961 essay by that title)<ref>Sandmel: "We might for our purposes define parallelomania as that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction." [citep:"sandmel1962parallelomania":""]</ref> probably peaked in the first half of the 20th century. Many of these parallels have now fallen to counter-criticism<ref>Ouro: Many of the supposed parallels turned out not to be parallel at all. Often Israelite practices had been read into the cuneiform texts rather than legitimately being found there. What valid parallels did exist turned out to have been widely practiced, often over a long period of time, rather than limited to any particular epoch, much less the early second millennium.<sup>5</sup> [citep:"ouro2011similarities":"6"]</ref>, but there is still a residual of very similar phrasing which represents legitimate parallelism between these law systems. There are many examples, but a few representatives will be sufficient to demonstrate my point.</translate>

<translate>Consider the following three legal codes, presented in the probable chronological order in which they were written down:</translate>

<translate>'''Laws of Eshnunna, circa 1930 B.C'''<ref>Not discovered until 1945.</ref></translate>
<translate>
{{:Quote|54 If an ox is a gorer, and the ward authorities so notify its owner, but he fails to keep his ox in check, and it gores a man and thus causes his death, the owner of the ox shall weigh and deliver 40 shekels of silver. 55 If it gores a slave and thus causes his death, he shall weigh and deliver 15 shekels of silver.<ref>[citet:"roth1997lawcollectionsfrommesopotamia":"67"]</ref>}}</translate>

'''Code of Hammurabi, circa 1750 B.C'''<ref>Discovered in 1901.</ref>
<translate>
{{:Quote|(251) If a man has an ox which tosses and his council have informed him that it tosses and he has not covered its horns and has not tied the ox up and the ox tosses a man's son and causes his death, he shall pay half a shekel of silver. (252) If it was a man's slave he shall give a third of a mana of silver.<ref>[citet:"richardson2004hammurabislaws":"111,113"]</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>'''Covenant Code in Exodus, written down circa 1450 B.C'''<ref>Most Biblical scholarship assigns a much later date than this. I am taking the internal scriptural evidence at face value.</ref></translate>

{{:Scriptblockformat|{{#scripture:Exodus 21:28-30}} ... {{#scripture:Exodus 21:32}}|scriptref=Exodus 21:28-30,32}}

<translate>There is enough similarity among these three laws to imply that there is some relationship between them. Some scholars, because of the temporal priority of the Eshnunna and Hammurabi Codes, have suggested that "the author of the Covenant Code" (whoever that might have been) must have had access to a copy of one of these laws and borrowed from it, falsely attributing the law to YHWH.<ref>See [citet:"wright2009inventing":"207"]. This theory also requires dating the various sections of Biblical law (including the Covenant Code) later than 750 B.C. [citep:"wright2009inventing":"97-98"]</ref> The more likely explanation, given the balance of the evidence, is a set of common legal antecedents given by YHWH to Noah, some of which were preserved by his ancient Near East descendants (see explanation below).</translate>

'''Laws of Eshnunna, circa 1930 B.C'''
{{:Quote|56 If an ox gores another ox and thus causes its death, the two owners shall divide the value of the living ox and the carcass of the dead ox.}}

'''Covenant Code in Exodus, written down circa 1450 B.C'''

{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 21:35-36}}

<translate>This case proposes a legal solution that solves three problems:

# The differing relative value of the animals.
# The uncertainty of fault due to animal behavior.
# The changing market value for the animals.</translate>

<translate>It's possible that this clever legal solution was developed independently by a sharp Babylonian jurist. But it is more probable that there was a common legal antecedent, given through Noah.</translate>

<translate>A couple more examples:</translate>

<translate>'''Code of Hammurabi, circa 1750 B.C'''</translate>
<translate>
{{:Quote|196 If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. 197 If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken... 200 If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.}}</translate>

<translate>'''Covenant Code in Exodus, written down circa 1450 B.C'''</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 21:23-25}}

<translate>It has been common for Bible commentators to claim that the Israelite "eye for an eye" (<em>talion</em>) legal tradition originated with a prior ancient Near East culture (like the Babylonian one represented in the Code of Hammurabi). But this is just a <em>post hoc</em> fallacy. Many elements of Biblical law are diametrically opposed to certain ANE legal traditions, even in the way that <em>talion</em> is used in the respective systems.<ref>For example, the ANE allowance of ransom for murder, the ANE use of vicarious death penalties, the ANE use of fixed monetary damages.</ref> Again, antecedent legal principles, common to both systems, make more sense of the relationship, given the complete cultural/historical context and timeline.</translate>

'''Laws of Lipit-Ishtar, circa 1860 B.C.'''<ref>Discovered in 1900, but not academically published until 1947.</ref>

{{:Quote|17 If a man, without grounds, accuses another man of a matter of which he has no knowledge, and that man does not prove it, he shall bear the penalty of the matter for which he made the accusation.<ref>[citet:"roth1997lawcollectionsfrommesopotamia":"29"]</ref>}}

'''Code of Hammurabi, circa 1750 B.C'''

{{:Quote|1 If a man accuses another man, and charges him with homicide but cannot bring proof against him, his accuser shall be killed. ... 3 If a man comes forward to give false testimony in a case, but cannot bring evidence for his accusation, if that case involves a capital offense, that man shall be killed. 4 If he comes forward to give (false) testimony for (a case whose penalty is) grain or silver, he shall be assessed the penalty for that case. <ref>[citet:"roth1997lawcollectionsfrommesopotamia":"81-82"]</ref>}}

'''Deuteronomic Code, written down circa 1450 B.C'''

{{:Scriptblock|Deuteronomy 19:16-19}}

<translate>There are notable differences in these codes<ref>For example, with respect to the burden of proof, and the fact that the protection is only granted to the <em>awilu</em> class in Hammurabi.</ref>, but there is substantive correlation on the principle of <em>talion</em> justice for bearing false witness.</translate>

There are other parallels, but these are sufficient to establish the important question: what explains the relationship between them? 

The following summary describes the typical ways:

{{:Quote|[O]ne may generally distinguish four approaches to the relationship between [the Covenant Code (CC)] and [the Law of Hammurabi (LH)].<sup>6</sup> ) The first holds that, despite a number of apparent parallels, biblical law developed quite independently of other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) legal collections. A second approach favors the concept of &ldquo;diffusionism,&rdquo; on the assumption that biblical writers shared a culture of legal reasoning and practice. Parallels between LH and CC can be explained, therefore, by the conjecture that scribes in both Mesopotamia and ancient Israel/Judah underwent some kind of common intellectual formation, but without positing dependence on an identifiable legal text. A third solution opts for a model of indirect literary influence or dependency. There are several varieties of this stance, ranging from the proposal that both LH and CC shared a common source to the widely held belief that the legal patrimony of ancient Mesopotamia was mediated to early Israel through the use of Akkadian as a language of international diplomacy in Canaan during the later Bronze Age. The fourth approach proposes a direct literary dependency between CC and LH. What is of especial interest for this paper is the fact that proposals of direct literary dependency on LH have been rare in previous biblical scholarship.<ref>[citet:"morrow2013legalinteractions":"310-311"]</ref>}}

<translate>It should be clear from the above summary that the "relationship" question for many modern commentators can be complicated by their insistence upon certain modern scholarly prejudices, such as later (e.g. post-Exilic) composition, fragmentary authorship, and an unknown amount of late redaction. I do not share these complicating assumptions.</translate>

<translate>My argument is thus a variation upon the "shared common source" approach mentioned above. It is very similar to the argument about the various Flood accounts (e.g. Epic of Gilgamesh) which are recorded in other sources besides the Hebrew scriptures. If we were to assume mere chronological priority of the existing written Flood accounts as determining originality, then we would have to dismiss the Noah Flood "mytho-history" as a late, secondary development. On this view, parallel details are assumed to indicate dependency of a later account upon a former. Conservative scholars do not fall into this trap, with good reason. They rightly assume that the scriptural version is in all respects an accurate account of the event, evidencing some corrupting influence which has substantially modified other Flood stories.</translate>

<translate>In a similar way, any parallels which we find in ancient Near East law codes can best be explained by an antecedent legal system given by YHWH to a common ancestor of these people groups: namely, Noah. We do not have to believe that any particular law given to Noah would necessarily be preserved in even substantial amounts<ref>In fact, the Israelites themselves misplaced YHWH's law for some period of time: 2 Kings 22:8-13.</ref> through generations of neglect by those who did not continue to worship YHWH. But if a comprehensive set of laws (coextensive with the ones published at Sinai) were given by YHWH to Noah, then we would not be surprised to find a few artifacts of this original law showing up in other ancient Near East law codes. In fact, we could expect to see such parallels and consider them to be good evidence of that prior "Noahic" law system.</translate>

<translate>The Jewish scholar Philip Biberfeld articulated this position several decades ago:</translate>

{{:Quote|The Code of Hammurabi, the Hittite Laws, and the Biblical Laws contained in the Book of the Covenant and other parts of the Bible go back to a common source which is best preserved in the Bible where it has retained its original simplicity ... The common source that can be traced in all these codes is identical with the Noahidic Laws which, according to the tradition, were the inheritance of all mankind. In the Book of the Covenant this original divine law was promulgated again with the modifications of Biblical legislation ... All this establishes beyond any doubt the conviction that the simple and lucid formulations of the Bible were not the product of an artificial process of elimination but those of the original version in all their purity and simplicity. This conclusion has implications which extend far beyond the realm of these ancient legislations. It has a decisive bearing on all those instances where the pure and beautiful Biblical traditions are confronted by mythological parallels with all their ugly distortions.<ref>Biberfeld, <em>Universal Jewish History</em> [1948], 153-154</ref>}}

==<translate>Are these the "Noahide Laws"?</translate>==

<translate>
Notice that Rabbi Biberfeld in the quote above says "the Noahidic Laws which, according to the tradition, were the inheritance of all mankind." He is referring to a concept which is also called the "Noahide laws." As with many things which involve Jewish extrabiblical tradition, this is somewhat of a "rabbit hole". The quick answer to the question I posed in the heading is "No." I propose that a set of laws -- coextensive with the judicial laws of the Sinai covenant -- were taught to Noah, but I do not claim that we have any authoritative extrabiblical evidence of these specific laws.<ref>For example, from the Book of Jubilees or the Jewish oral tradition written in the Babylonian Talmud.</ref></translate>

<translate>
Usually, when you hear or read someone discussing the Noahide Laws, they are referring to seven discrete apodictic commands which were supposed to have been given by YHWH either to Adam or Noah. This has been part of Rabbinic teaching for a while, documented in the Babylonian Talmud as follows:</translate>

<translate>
{{:Quote|Sages taught in a <em>baraita</em>: The descendants of Noah, i.e., all of humanity, were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: The mitzva of establishing courts of judgment; and the prohibition against blessing, i.e., cursing, the name of God; and the prohibition of idol worship; and the prohibition against forbidden sexual relations; and the prohibition of bloodshed; and the prohibition of robbery; and the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. <ref><em>Sanhedrin</em> 56a</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>Of course, if you keep reading in the Talmud, you find that it isn't just seven laws. Later than Noah, more laws were added to the seven. In fact, the number might go as high as 30<ref>Talmudic sage Ulla in tractate Hullin 92a</ref>, or higher, depending upon which Rabbi's opinion you count. In the middle ages, the influential Rabbinic scholar Maimonides claimed that Gentiles who followed these laws would have a "share in the world to come":</translate>

<translate>
{{:Quote|(10) ... Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah's descendants. If one does not accept these commands, he should be executed. A person who formally accepts these commands is called a resident alien. This applies in any place. This acceptance must be made in the presence of three Torah scholars. ... (11) Anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven <em>mitzvot</em> and is precise in their observance is considered one of 'the pious among the gentiles' and will merit a share in the world to come.<ref>Maimonides, <em>Law of Kings</em>, chap. 9</ref>}}</translate>

<translate>Of course, there is no scriptural basis for the above teaching. In fact, there are multiple places in Biblical law which claim that the law applies equally to both Jews and resident Gentiles (sojourners):</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Numbers 15:14-16}}
{{:Scriptblock|Numbers 15:25-26}} 
{{:Scriptblock|Numbers 15:29-30}}

<translate>In the 20th century, two Jewish scholars -- Philip Biberfeld (quoted above) and Aaron Lichtenstein<ref><em>The Seven Laws of Noah</em> [1981]</ref> -- proposed that these Noahide Laws were not simply discrete commands, but represented seven categories of multiple laws.<ref>Lichtenstein added them up to 66 total.</ref> The bottom line is, if someone makes a claim about "Noahide Laws", make sure they define what they mean, and ask them their specific sources for these laws.</translate>

<translate>
== Conclusion ==
</translate>
<translate>Based upon the above five lines of evidence, we can infer that a set of detailed laws, judicial and evidential procedures and punishments -- revealed and approved by YHWH -- must have been available prior to Sinai. Even though we do not now have a written record of them (the way we have a written record of the post-Sinai laws), we can infer that they were substantially similar to, and coextensive with, the post-Sinai laws.</translate>

</div>

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<translate>{{PAGENAME}}</translate>}}

[[Category:Ancient Near East Legal Systems]]
[[Category:Answered Questions]]
[[Category:Genesis 15:16]]
[[Category:Genesis 26:5]]
[[Category:Genesis 9:6]]
[[Category:Leviticus 18:25]]
[[Category:Noahic Covenant]]
[[Category:Questions about the differences in law between the covenants]]
[[Category:Questions about the historical application of Biblical law]]