The Testimony Of Two Or Three Witnesses

Deuteronomy 17:6 specifically clarifies that no one is to be executed on the testimony of a single witness.  At a minimum, two or three witnesses are required.  Deuteronomy 19:15 demands two or three witnesses for all punishable sins, not just capital ones, and still Deuteronomy 22:25-27 says that someone who is raped in the countryside in isolation is the victim of a capital sin.  The rapist is to be killed despite the offense occurring away from additional witnesses, as the victim had no one around to call to for aid even if they were able to scream (it does not logically follow, as some insects believe, that the Bible teaches that silence as opposed to screaming is what means someone consented to sex any more than it teaches that only women can be raped, which is not at all the case).

In fact, rape can easily be far worse than mere murder because it is a more intimate cruelty and one that a surviving victim has to live with.  Logically, rape is no less severe than murder or is far worse, and the Bible acknowledges this truth.  Deuteronomy 25:26 directly says that rape itself is like murder, which itself always deserves death regardless of the gender, age, or marital status of either the victim or the perpetrator (Exodus 21:12-14).  Nevertheless, what about the requirement of two or three witnesses for legitimate prosecution and punishment if a rape victim could be abused away from everyone but the victim and abuser?

As my wife has acknowledged, the victim and the rapist himself/herself are already two witnesses, even if the latter will not be eager to testify against themself.  Someone who saw the rapist (though they might have no idea they are a rapist) leave a certain area close to the rape would also be a witness that the perpetrator was in a certain location, perhaps with visible signs of a fight on their skin or clothing.  This would be an additional eyewitness experience that would certainly be relevant in an investigation.  As such, even if there was not a second witness alongside the victim that actually saw a sin take place, there could absolutely still be two or three witnesses that could help a court of Mosaic Law, as much as can be the case with what is always still epistemological hearsay, proceed with fining (Exodus 21:18-19), flogging (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), or, in the case of countryside rape, execution.

No, no human can know that the past has existed for more than a moment--by the time they reflect on the present moment, it has already given way to a new present moment--or that their visual perceptions of the senses are accurate in any instance, so a crime can never be logically proven, just evidentially supported.  There is no such thing as me or a being like me knowing that any particular human event happened in the past, including offenses like rape.  However, because of these epistemological limitations, a mere accusation is not enough to warrant criminal punishment in the name of Yahweh.  If Christianity is true, of course, this means that it would be sinful for anyone to prosecute on such grounds because obligations would be the same for all people and not just those committed to Yahweh.  There would not be different obligations for different nationalities, races, and genders.

It would still be true that it being just to execute a rapist whose only other direct witness to their sexual assault is their victim requires the step of having more than a single witness.  Aside from the possibility of indirect witnesses whose personal experiences are still relevant to the case, there are still two witnesses to the rape: the victim and the guilty party.  Rape (and other capital sins) can deserve death, no matter how isolated from outside observers they are, and two or three witnesses can still be morally necessary in order to enact just punishment, be it execution like with rape (again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27) or some lesser penalty like financial damages for other criminal sins.  There is no logical contradiction in both concepts united.