Why 2 OR THREE Witnesses?

[Neighbor]

16 hours ago, lftc said:

In fact, most western societies claim that their Laws are derived from the principles of the Law of Moses.

Hi, "In fact"?  Might you cite your resource for reaching that conclusion? 

 

As to why three, I think it is because three does not allow for a tie.  At court witnesses presentations or testimony will vary and even oppose, when it does it is helpful to see which way the preponderance  of evidence points. But as to going personally to an adversary to clarify and resolve an issue it is best to bring three as mediators that will witness the arbitration not just two. Two would be a minimum, and if they end up reaching divergent opinions then a third is needed in order two reach a majority opinion.

[lftc]

51 minutes ago, Neighbor said:

17 hours ago, lftc said:

In fact, most western societies claim that their Laws are derived from the principles of the Law of Moses.

Hi, "In fact"?  Might you cite your resource for reaching that conclusion?

Good question.  A quick review of online sources revealed that the modern approach to the epistomology of law has been sanitized (as have many other things such as BC and AD morhping into BCE and CE).  Which means the references are now using other language, such as Canon Law.  If you are truly interested, I suggest an in depth review of such topics. It has been many years and I no longer have my original books, but in my secondary and post secondary education, the basis for the thought processes around which modern western jurisprudence derived was cited as being Roman Law, the Hammurabi Code and the Law of Moses.

The above paragraph discusses the topic from the view of how modern jurisprudence regards its own claims to authority.  That sentence is a generalisation, and, as such, implies a monolithic body of thought which does not exist.  But how modern systems explain their right to govern and how a biblical theist understands the granting of such rights are surely two separate approaches.   That sentence may be unclear.  Restated with less accuracy: How a secular person decides what is proper law is surely different than how a Bible believer decides what is proper law.

Do you agree with that?

[lftc]

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

As to why three, I think it is because three does not allow for a tie.  At court witnesses presentations or testimony will vary and even oppose, when it does it is helpful to see which way the preponderance  of evidence points. But as to going personally to an adversary to clarify and resolve an issue it is best to bring three as mediators that will witness the arbitration not just two. Two would be a minimum, and if they end up reaching divergent opinions then a third is needed in order two reach a majority opinion.

I feel that the question of basis must be answered to set context for the above paragraph.

[lftc]

2 hours ago, appy said:

The answer to your question is in Deuteronomy 19:15

One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

This same law is applied in courts today, just as it did in Old Testament times. A single witness has the potential (not that it is permissible) to give uncorroborated testimony in order to establish a false testimony against another person who is accused. Judgment based on false testimony could destroy the life or property of innocent persons and discredit the distort the court's system of justice. A single witness isn't able to give false testimony about another so easily if there are at least 2 or 3 other witnesses present.

Thanks for the reply appy.  Nice horse in your picture.

I did quote that verse.  The question was in regards to the THREE witnesses instead of just 2. 

When you cite law (the U.S.A. law I assume), if I provide examples where U.S.A. Law does not require such witnesses, would you agree that the U.S.A. law is not in alignment with the Law of Moses?   Such a discovery is helpful in forming accurate concepts, but that is not the primary direction of my question about THREE witnesses.

[lftc]

17 hours ago, TraceMalin said:

In the ancient world, they didn't have today's technology. DNA evidence, fingerprints, forensics, video surveillance, wire tapping, and a host of scientific advances such as handwriting analysis, etc., are employed as witnesses for or against someone. The more evidence, the better. When it comes to he said/she said crimes, a lawyer almost doesn't have a case without some form of eyewitness testimony or other evidence to back something up. In our modern world, we can see how the Law of Moses has inspired due process. With eyewitness testimony being the least reliable, "or three" witnesses are wise. Lawyers feel the same way today in most western courts. Scientists testify on behalf of the evidence. The evidence can be witness to a crime. 

Hello Trace!

you said: "When it comes to he said/she said crimes, a lawyer almost doesn't have a case without some form of eyewitness testimony or other evidence to back something up." 

In one of your other recent posts you stated your concern with the state of GA not having a statute of limitations on sex crimes and the possibility of your life being destroyed by unsubstantiated accusations.

You perceptively stated : "In our modern world, we can see how the Law of Moses has inspired due process.".  As I mentioned in the OP and in a reply to Neighbor,  I agree that the Law of Moses helped in forming the principles from which western jurisprudence evolved.  I think it is clear that at no point did western jurisprudence mirror the Mosaic Law.  Which begs the question of which was/is correct.  While that is a tremendously important topic, affecting the lives of billions of people, I was trying to keep this topic focused on understanding why God said the things he said in the Deut 19 passage quoted in the OP.  Things like "2 OR THREE witnesses" , false witnesses must be punished with the punishment that would have been inflicted on the defendent to rid evil from the land.

Does the Law of Moses speak to us today?  If so, what does this passage mean in understanding your GA jeopardy?  What does it mean for others?

[lftc]

18 hours ago, ReneeIW said:

I read the last paragraph of your OP. I was just looking for clarification of your questions so that I could adequately answer them. 

For example, you asked why would there be a requirement of three witnesses if the goal is to convict. I don’t know if that question is in reference to modern times. In modern times you have crimes where initially,  there is only one witness- the victim. But then an investigation is done and a police officer or forensic scientist become additional witnesses.

 The goal is to convict, but the bigger goal in biblical times as well as now, is to make sure no innocent person is ever convicted. Slander was/is a big deal. “A false witness will not go unpunished.” 

You seem to believe that by “witnesses,” there needs to be three people on the scene serving as eye witnesses to the crime. No rapist would ever be convicted if that were the case. Or no thief breaking into a store at night. Or all the white collar crimes that go on. And the list goes on.

 

Hello ReneeIW,

I realize that you are deep into a painful experience that has lasted for many years.  I understand that this topic is significant to you.  I hesitate to discuss it with you as I do not wish to add to your burdens or appear to be working against the foundation from which you hope achieve peace in your life.

I can't even help a man on the street, how can I presume to do anything to help you?  I can just be concerned for you, ineffective, but all I have to offer.

This is the difficulty with posting, somebody is going to be hurt.  It is really the difficulty with life and with this topic.  Who gets hurt with a miscarriage of justice.

I have thoughts about the good points you raised, but I don't wish to offend you by appearing to oppose you.

[Neighbor]

4 hours ago, lftc said:

How a secular person decides what is proper law is surely different than how a Bible believer decides what is proper law.

Do you agree with that?

Not really. I think natural law is present in all. Christians are not the moral people, the only ones capable of seeking a code of conduct, while others are not. Christians simply have Jesus as Lord God and savior, as such Christians may have a higher responsibility ( To God),  that responsibility includes obeying laws of governments.

[joebloggs]

2 hours ago, Sonshine said:

Greetings, lftc…

Would the accused be considered as one of the witnesses?

Jesus counted himself as one of the witnesses when he was accused of blasphemy so maybe. 

[lftc]

18 hours ago, Sonshine said:

Greetings, lftc…

Would the accused be considered as one of the witnesses?

Answering that question, of course, would be very important.  As are all these questions since the administration of Law is the administration of judgement and condemnation of the accused, at times necessary to protect society from people devoted to evil, at times as a system of retribution.

Working from the Torah itself, the question appears to be left in the decision of the levite judge deciding the case.  To try to eliminate difficult decisions, the Jews immdeiately began adding teachings to the Torah (the Takkanot) to addresses issues like this.  I personally do not know how the additional teachings address this, I am not overtly concerned with those teachings for reasons that have to do with the recognition of canon etc.  

For the purpose of this post, based on the Law of Moses as recorded in the Torah, suffice it to say that the accuser could be chosen by the judge to qualify as a witness.  The judge is required by the Deut 19 passage to thoughly investigate the witnesses and punish any found to be falsifying information with the same punishment as was to be given the defendent.  Ouch.

If the judge were to choose the accuser as a witness (one can certainly imagine situations where this would make sense) then the judge COULD use the 3 witnesses as rule to apply to require a third witness.

But the judge could also use the 3 witnesses rule because he/she (remember Deborah was a judge), could be taking seriously the part of the Deut 19 passage about purging evil from the land.

What do you think about it?

 

ADDED:

On reviewing, I realized you said the accuseD.  Not the accuseR.  My mistake.

I assume that it could be the case if the accused confesses and the accuser agree, making 2 witnesses.  Could the judge require a 3rd?  Based on a plain reading it would appear to be within the judge's rights.  Again, I would think it would depend on the understanding of the overriding principle being presented.  For example, if someone confesses because they are suicidal and want to commit suicide by stoning, the judge could require other witnesses.

Edited October 24, 2019 by lftc

[lftc]

17 hours ago, Neighbor said:

Not really. I think natural law is present in all. Christians are not the moral people, the only ones capable of seeking a code of conduct, while others are not. Christians simply have Jesus as Lord God and savior, as such Christians may have a higher responsibility ( To God),  that responsibility includes obeying laws of governments.

I see your point, and I respect your ability to reason, as you have demonstrated in many posts.  Certainly, the Apostle Paul refers to other systems of law outside the Law of Moses in Romans.

When you think of the evolution of U.S.A. law (since you are a patriot of that country), what is natural law?  Is the 197? change in U.S.A. law allowing abortion a natural law?  As you review the Law systems from various governments, there is a tremendous variation on most issues.  I submit that the case for natural law is present but not forceful.

What is your understanding of the evolution of law and the variation of law by jurisdiction (regional areas of authority)?

Thank you.