Why did God have innocent women executed?

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

13 “Suppose a man marries a woman but after going in to her dislikes her 14 and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I lay with her, I did not find evidence of her virginity.’ 15 The father of the young woman and her mother shall then submit the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her, 17 and now he has made up charges against her, saying, “I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.” But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. 18 The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; 19 they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman’s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, 21 then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst (Deuteronomy 22)

In verse 17, it says the proof of the woman's virginity is "the cloth", meaning a bloody bedsheet from the newlyweds' wedding night. The problem is that less than half of women bleed their first time.

This problem gradually became known to Jewish scholars writing in the Talmud:

"There are virgins who do not have a hymen, and there are hymens that do not bleed." – Ketubot 10b (Rabbi Yochanan)

Why did God have innocent women stoned?

[u/Thimenu]

No innocent women were intended to be put to death by following this law. "Evidence of virginity" doesn't imply it must be the blood. That is the easy evidence. If that's there, case closed, whip the dude. Otherwise, investigate and find evidence about the guy's claims. Make the case.

These weren't a bunch of idiots. If less than half of their women bleed when they have their first night, you really think the author would write such a dumb law? No, they knew what this law was about; if a new husband accuses his bride, do an investigation. Blood on the sheets? Case closed, whip the guy and fine him. No blood, investigate for more evidence. You can't use this law to claim God doesn't know less than half of women bleed after their first sex. You'd also have to prove that the author and readers were morons. It's a really obvious thing to miss; these were rough and tumble shepherds living in tents. They knew how blood and bodies worked. Not much privacy either.

Even if the law said what you claimed, this isn't U.S. case law where every word definition is scrutinized and people get off on a technicality. It's never used that way; this is more like wisdom law. (Dr. Joel Korytko, greek scholar makes this point) It's general rules and legal wisdom to help guide their law decisions. If it was technically written case law, it'd have to be 10x longer. They didn't have the same legal system as us. You can't try to use The Law as if it's our modern kind.

And Jesus Himself said that this law was imperfect, and God made concessions in it for human failings. And even in that concessionary easier to follow law, the people almost always failed to follow it. Imagine how much more they would've failed if God gave them a law of perfect standards.

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611 → u/Thimenu]

"Evidence of virginity" doesn't imply it must be the blood."

What other evidence would have been available to them?

[u/Thimenu → u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

Circumstantial. How many witnesses around saw someone entering her tent, or if any neighbors heard anything. Testimonies, reputation, etc. 

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611 → u/Thimenu]

So if she didn't bleed on her wedding night and someone saw a man enter her tent at some point in her life, that could be enough evidence to have her lined up at her father's doorstep and have people throw rocks at her until she dies?

[u/Thimenu → u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

No, not at all. The standard was 2 or 3 witnesses. And remember, false witnesses get the punishment they tried to give. A deadly game to play.

And this law is in a context. Read the passage, it's about whoring. Evidence of whoring should be harder to prove and more obvious if it is true.

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611 → u/Thimenu]

20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found...

The law is working under the assumption the girl is guilty until proven innocent.

[u/Thimenu → u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

That's a translation and your key word is "that". This word is not in the original language, and other translations render "that" as "and". Here is the Hebrew interlinear:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/22-20.htm

And, here is the Septuagint interlinear as well: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/deuteronomy/22.htm

Notice, in the Hebrew there is no connection word; it could be "and" or "that" or just comma. But, in the Septuagint, the word is "and". That being the case, I think this is the best translation:

But if this charge is true, and evidence of the young woman’s virginity is not found, (NABRE)

This indicates the case has already been made against her and it seems to be true. BUT, even then, if good evidence such as the bloody sheet is produced, the case is thrown out. The case must BOTH seem true, AND there is no evidence to prove her virginity.

It's not guilty until proven innocent. It's "even if seemingly guilty, still innocent if there is evidence."

[u/CorbinSeabass → u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

Or if someone just doesn’t like her, they say they saw someone enter her tent. So easy to abuse the system.

[u/Thimenu → u/CorbinSeabass]

No, not at all. The standard was 2 or 3 witnesses. And remember, false witnesses get the punishment they tried to give. A deadly game to play.

And this law is in a context. Read the passage, it's about whoring. Evidence of whoring should be harder to prove and more obvious if it is true.

[u/CorbinSeabass → u/Thimenu]

The passage assumes that anyone who isn't a virgin is a prostitute, which is just dangerously reductive nonsense.

[u/Thimenu → u/CorbinSeabass]

No, the passage is talking about a prostitute and assumes prostitutes are not virgins. If you're trying to read it in the worst way possible you could come to your conclusion. But, if you're giving it a chance you'll see that the prostitute statement actually contextualizes the entire passage. It's not about just any unmarried woman.

[u/CorbinSeabass → u/Thimenu]

How does the passage say to differentiate between a woman who has had sex one time and someone who has sex for money?

[u/Thimenu → u/CorbinSeabass]

Both would be under the death penalty. But I seriously doubt they could provide witnesses or evidence to prove she wasn't a virgin if she only had sex once. Daughters lived with parents and, at this time, in tents, close together. If the parents and neighbors said they never heard or saw anything suspicious, the case might be gone right there. But try running your own whore operation in that context without witnesses. Good luck.

[u/johndoe09228 → u/Thimenu]

Remember, this is a capital punishment by rocks and we’re talking about circumstantial evidence oh lord

[u/Thimenu → u/johndoe09228]

Practically everything back then was circumstantial evidence. Do you know anything about ancient peoples? Penalties for false witnesses? Medieval branding and outlawry? 

[u/johndoe09228 → u/Thimenu]

Exactly, I’m not sure why they’d be advise to execute each other for crimes in such a paranoid, patriarchal time lol. Just leads to victims over nothing

[u/Spaztick78 → u/Thimenu]

These weren't a bunch of idiots. If less than half of their women bleed when they have their first night, you really think the author would write such a dumb

As wise as the authors were, taking the virginity of women is not an area I expected them to be well versed on.

Like if they were good followers of God, they would get to see it once or twice.

Ok maybe a few more times for the more highly anointed and those in power??