Bojidar has replied to my reply here. After reading over his latest, I want to say just three quick things before hitting the road. For any number of reasons, I see no real future in this discussion. All I want my three points to do is show that if there were ever a future in this discussion, I would have plenty to say.
First, Bojidar misunderstood which article of his that I said I read. Here’s what happened. He had wished that I had plagiarized another article of his (that I have never read, down to the present), and I replied that having read this particular post of his (the critique of me), I thought I would take a pass on reading and/or lifting from what he has written elsewhere. This misreading of his had the force of negating a number of his bold thrusts at me, which is unfortunate, because they were pretty bold.
Second, in the rape scenario from Deuteronomy that Bojidar brought up, he did not answer the point I made at all. The case law there has a situation where the man is guilty of a capital crime under either scenario. You believe the woman in that situation because the fact of intercourse is granted by all the parties, but because there were no witnesses there is no basis for charging the woman with complicity. The man is guilty under both scenarios, and the woman is guilty only in one. Once this point is grasped, Bojidar’s whole point falls apart.
And third, the point is not whether biblical people should side with the victim. Of course we should. The issue is that the identity of the victim is often in dispute. That has to be determined, using biblical rules of evidence, which means it must be independently confirmed. Under Bojidar’s approach, if a man defends himself in a deserted place, and kills his assailant, then he must be tried and executed unless he can come up with witnesses to testify that he was in fact defending himself. His crime? Being waylaid in a deserted place.
Like I said, I don’t think the game here is worth the candle.