Jackson on Deuteronomy 22 and "two witnesses"

by Marvin Shilmer 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Maybe the "circumstantial evidence" that is left out in this text is the woman's emotional condition itself, who can say...

  The most likely scenario I can see would be the accused having evidence of or on his person of a rape. Though the rape itself went unwitnessed by anyone other than the victim and perpetrator, had the perpetrator been seen, for instance, coming home in a state of emotional or physical dishevel, with wounds, or maybe with torn or even bloody clothing, and the coincidence of this was realized once the rape allegation was leveled, the person who made the observation might well have plied the person to ultimately, though reluctantly, admit what they did (either privately or publicly). Then there would be corroboration. But, then, the text seems more concerned with the woman's status (engaged or not engaged!!!) than the violence forced upon her!
• 

  steve2

  Marvin, I would like to think your reasoning is close to how this matter was actually resolved by the ancient peoples. However, I think you unintentionally bring an enlightened, human rights perspective to a collection of laws that were often brutal and peremptory in their everyday application.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Marvin, I would like to think your reasoning is close to how this matter was actually resolved by the ancient peoples. However, I think you unintentionally bring an enlightened, human rights perspective to a collection of laws that were often brutal and peremptory in their everyday application.

  I don't disagree with that. As mentioned earlier, more than anything else punitive measure was determined by whether the woman was owned by a man (or ownership was promised, i.e., "engaged"). From a contemporary perspective the whole concept was practically barbaric! That said, what astounded me was that Mr. Guardian-Of-Doctrine Jackson didn't know this thing inside-out and realize a false dilemma was presented to him. The man has snake oil; but sharp he's not.
• 

  quincemyles

  "The text does not say a man would be put to death based on the witness of a single person (the victim)."

  It does in principle state that even when there is one witness, a man can be put to death. The basis for putting the man to death is not mentioned. This is what Mr. Angus wanted Mr. Jackson to explore as it seems to deviate from the position that an allegation can only be acted upon when there are two witnesses. In that situation, the man can confess. Then there would be the two witnesses required for executing him. Mr. Jackson would have said that to get out of the noose.
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  It does in principle state that even when there is one witness, a man can be put to death.

  The text never suggests that. Rather, your presuming that in order to force a bifurcation. This is the making of a false dilemma.

  The basis for putting the man to death is not mentioned.

  Then it is false to say "in principle even when there is one witness, a man can be put to death".

  This is what Mr. Angus wanted Mr. Jackson to explore as it seems to deviate from the position that an allegation can only be acted upon when there are two witnesses. In that situation, the man can confess. Then there would be the two witnesses required for executing him. Mr. Jackson would have said that to get out of the noose.

  I'm sure Stewart wanted Jackson to explore alternate means of achieving justice for a victim. That's fine. My point is that using the text of Deuteronomy 22 was a gamble because that text does not suggest any person would be punished based solely on an allegation made by one person. It's just not in the text. You have to read that into the text to put it there.

  A secondary point, but revealing nevertheless, is that His Highness, Mr. Guardian-of-Doctrine Jackson failed to see the blatant false dilemma when it was presented to him supposedly with scriptural merit. How can anyone be some kind of Guardian-of-Doctrine when they don't immediately see a false dilemma presented on the very turf which they are supposedly a guardian of?