by jimwalton » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:23 am
No, I don't think your reasoning makes sense, and I'll explain. You are treating the Bible as if it's supposed to be a law record, explaining all the ins and outs, details and reasons. But it's not, so you're approaching it with the wrong glasses on. It's case law (an illustration of maybe what could happen), outlining possibilities and expressing intent (do whatever is necessary to establish guilt or innocence and act accordingly). In its casuistry, it gives principles and generic illustrations, expecting that mature judges will understand the intent and create laws accordingly, ruling over the community in fairness. You're upset because it doesn't explain enough; it doesn't try to. It gives the principles, and expects mature thought and process to fill in all the details.
If we return to Deut. 22.21-22, no specifications are given as to how to establish guilt. It asks for evidence proving guilt or innocence, that's all. And if she's guilty, she should be punished, and if innocent, acquitted. This is not a problem. It was up to the judges, accusers, defenders, and the community to establish reasonable ways to ascertain "virginity". "Fair process" is both implied and understood. God didn't provide the information. Instead the people are charged with figuring it out and doing it fairly.
> The punishments are unequal, unfair, and nonsensical.
The fine for the man was a fine for dishonesty and falsely impugning the character of the woman (slander). As to the punishment by death for adultery, as I mentioned, they lived in a different culture and by a different value system than we do. Our culture barely recognizes anything that should be called "sin", blows off all offenses to God, and mostly laughs at standards of sexual morality. So you are judging the text by a modern mindset.
As I mentioned, adultery was a capital crime in all the law codes of the ancient Near East. We're not told why, but a reasonable educated guess was that their society worked on the basis of inheritance, and it was necessary for social stability to be able to insure that one's children and heirs were actually one's own. Their financial system and land ownership was founded in paternity. Adultery was an attack on a man's household, stealing his rights to procreate, and endangering the orderly transmission of his estate to his heirs. Their culture was totally oriented to community values, and not to individual ones. The integrity of the woman's household was based on her ability to demonstrate proof of her virginity. The bloody sheets from the broken hymen were used as evidence that she was virginal. How else was one to tell in a culture where tampons had yet to be invented? As I said, though, even if a woman didn't bleed all over the wedding sheets, this is casuistic law, not hard-core guides. You're right that "A person can obviously be a virgin without an intact hymen, can have sex without rupturing the hymen, or can rupture their hymen without any blood getting on any particular sheet." They dealt with it. The woman could still plead her case with her evidences. Communities were often small, and the truth could be determined. You misunderstand what the text is for and what it's trying to tell us.
> God is for some reason setting up a ridiculous kangaroo court relying on unreasonable evidence that could result in a person being stoned to death
No it's not. These people weren't as stupid as you assume, or God's law as ridiculous as you accuse. The principles are solid: innocent until proved guilty, use of evidence and personal testimony, reasonable doubt, and varying punishments depending on the crime.
No, I don't think your reasoning makes sense, and I'll explain. You are treating the Bible as if it's supposed to be a law record, explaining all the ins and outs, details and reasons. But it's not, so you're approaching it with the wrong glasses on. It's case law (an illustration of maybe what could happen), outlining possibilities and expressing intent (do whatever is necessary to establish guilt or innocence and act accordingly). In its casuistry, it gives principles and generic illustrations, expecting that mature judges will understand the intent and create laws accordingly, ruling over the community in fairness. You're upset because it doesn't explain enough; it doesn't try to. It gives the principles, and expects mature thought and process to fill in all the details.
If we return to Deut. 22.21-22, no specifications are given as to how to establish guilt. It asks for evidence proving guilt or innocence, that's all. And if she's guilty, she should be punished, and if innocent, acquitted. This is not a problem. It was up to the judges, accusers, defenders, and the community to establish reasonable ways to ascertain "virginity". "Fair process" is both implied and understood. God didn't provide the information. Instead the people are charged with figuring it out and doing it fairly.
> The punishments are unequal, unfair, and nonsensical.
The fine for the man was a fine for dishonesty and falsely impugning the character of the woman (slander). As to the punishment by death for adultery, as I mentioned, they lived in a different culture and by a different value system than we do. Our culture barely recognizes anything that should be called "sin", blows off all offenses to God, and mostly laughs at standards of sexual morality. So you are judging the text by a modern mindset.
As I mentioned, adultery was a capital crime in all the law codes of the ancient Near East. We're not told why, but a reasonable educated guess was that their society worked on the basis of inheritance, and it was necessary for social stability to be able to insure that one's children and heirs were actually one's own. Their financial system and land ownership was founded in paternity. Adultery was an attack on a man's household, stealing his rights to procreate, and endangering the orderly transmission of his estate to his heirs. Their culture was totally oriented to community values, and not to individual ones. The integrity of the woman's household was based on her ability to demonstrate proof of her virginity. The bloody sheets from the broken hymen were used as evidence that she was virginal. How else was one to tell in a culture where tampons had yet to be invented? As I said, though, even if a woman didn't bleed all over the wedding sheets, this is casuistic law, not hard-core guides. You're right that "A person can obviously be a virgin without an intact hymen, can have sex without rupturing the hymen, or can rupture their hymen without any blood getting on any particular sheet." They dealt with it. The woman could still plead her case with her evidences. Communities were often small, and the truth could be determined. You misunderstand what the text is for and what it's trying to tell us.
> God is for some reason setting up a ridiculous kangaroo court relying on unreasonable evidence that could result in a person being stoned to death
No it's not. These people weren't as stupid as you assume, or God's law as ridiculous as you accuse. The principles are solid: innocent until proved guilty, use of evidence and personal testimony, reasonable doubt, and varying punishments depending on the crime.