Provoking Someone to Obtain Evidence in Conflict Resolution
In conflict resolution, the concept of "provoking" someone to obtain evidence can be understood in various ways, ranging from legitimate legal processes to ethically questionable tactics. The biblical text of Isaiah 43:26 presents a divine invitation to "argue our case together; State your cause, that you may be proved right," suggesting a framework where evidence and reasoning are brought forth for judgment [1]. This implies a process of challenging or prompting another party to present their side.
Jewish legal tradition, as seen in the Mishnah, allows for the introduction of additional proof to overturn a verdict. A litigant can request a period, such as thirty days, for the other party to bring forth all their proofs. If new evidence is found within this period, the verdict can be overturned. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel even argued that evidence found after thirty days could still overturn a verdict, emphasizing the pursuit of truth over strict deadlines [7]. This demonstrates a legal mechanism for encouraging or even demanding the production of evidence. Josephus also describes a system where difficult cases are escalated to higher authorities, ultimately to Moses, to ensure justice is done, implying a structured process for seeking resolution and evidence [4].
However, the idea of "provoking" can also carry negative connotations. Sirach warns against "hasty contention" and "hasty quarrel," which can lead to severe consequences, including bloodshed [3]. Another passage in Sirach speaks of raising "indignation" and pouring out "wrath," which could be interpreted as a form of negative provocation [2]. John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, discusses the appropriate conduct in legal disputes, emphasizing that a pursuer should state their complaint and demand what is just without bitterness, hatred, or a desire for vengeance [8]. He also notes that even when there is "some mixture of good zeal," a "fervid, and therefore vicious longing for vengeance" can be problematic [9].
Catholic scholastic thought, particularly from Aquinas, addresses the role of witnesses and evidence in legal proceedings. Aquinas states that in lawsuits, "truth must be unveiled by witnesses" [5]. He also discusses the obligation to give evidence when it is necessary and required by justice [6]. This suggests that while evidence is crucial, its procurement should adhere to established legal and ethical norms. The concept of "provoking" in this context would likely align with legitimate legal demands for testimony rather than manipulative tactics. Peter's interaction with Simon, as recorded in the ANF Vol 8, illustrates a situation where one party (Simon) attempts to avoid a contest by accusing the other (Peter) of anger, to which Peter responds by highlighting Simon's desire to escape being convicted [10]. This exchange underscores the tension between seeking truth and avoiding confrontation in disputes.
Sources
- Isaiah “Isaiah 43:26 (NASB) — "Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together; State your cause, that you may be proved right.”
- Sirach “Sirach 36:8 (DRC) — Raise up indignation, and pour out wrath.”
- Sirach “Sirach 28:13 (DRC) — A hasty contention kindleth a fire and a hasty quarrel sheddeth blood and a tongue that beareth witness bringeth death.”
- Project Gutenberg “Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, CHAPTER 4, section 2: But if any great cause arise, let them bring the cognizance of it before the rulers of a higher dignity; but if any great difficulty arise that is too hard for even their determination, let them send it to thee. By these means two advantages will be gained; the Hebrews will have justice done them, and thou wilt be able to attend constantly on God, and procure him to be more favorable to the people." 2. This was the admonition of Raguel; and Moses received his advice very kindly, and acted according to his suggestion. Nor did he c”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement (Supplementum), Of the Impediment of Affinity, Art. 11: Article: Whether in a suit of this kind one should proceed by hearing witnesses in the same way as in other suits? I answer that, In this kind of lawsuit as in others, truth must be unveiled by witnesses: yet, as the lawyers say, there are many things peculiar to this suit; namely that "the same person can be accuser and witness; that evidence is not taken 'on oath of calumny,' since it is a quasi-spiritual lawsuit; that relatives are allowed as witnesses; that the juridical order is not perfectly obs”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundae), Of Injustice with Regard to the Person of the Witness, Art. 1: Article: Whether a man is bound to give evidence? I answer that, We must make a distinction in the matter of giving evidence: because sometimes a certain man's evidence is necessary, and sometimes not. If the necessary evidence is that of a man subject to a superior whom, in matters pertaining to justice, he is bound to obey, without doubt he is bound to give evidence on those points which are required of him in accordance with the order of justice, for i”
- Mishnah (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishnah, Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:8: Any time one of the litigants brings additional proof, he can overturn the verdict that was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant said to the other: Bring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty days from now, if he found additional proof within thirty days, he can overturn the verdict. If he found it after thirty days, he cannot overturn the verdict anymore. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: He can still overturn the verdict, as what should this litigant, who sought and did not find additional proof within thirty days but found it after”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 102: use of them; and the right use, both for the pursuer and for the defender, is for the latter to sist himself on the day appointed, and, without bitterness, urge what he can in his defence, but only with the desire of justly maintaining his right; and for the pursuer, when undeservedly attacked in his life or fortunes, to throw himself upon the protection of the magistrate, state his complaint, and demand what is just and good; while, far from any wish to hurt or take vengeance—far from bitterness or hatred —far from the ardour of ”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 75: ( Judges 9:20 ); and hence God, by complying with the execration, seems to approve of passionate impulses. Similar fervor also seized Samson, when he prayed, “Strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes,” ( Judges 16:28 ). For although there was some mixture of good zeal, yet his ruling feeling was a fervid, and therefore vicious longing for vengeance. God assents, and hence apparently it might be inferred that prayers are effectual, though not framed in confor”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 8: Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts, Epistles, Apocrypha, Decretals — CHAP. XV.--SIMON'S ARROGANCE.: Then said Simon: "You seem to me to be angry; but if it be so, it is not necessary to enter into the conflict." Then Peter: "I see that you perceive that you are to be convicted, and you wish politely to escape from the contest; for what have you seen to have made me angry against you, a man desiring to deceive so great a multitude, and when you have nothing to say, pretending moderation, who also command, forsooth, by your authority that the controversy shall be conducted as you please, and”