Mr. Schoeman is of course speaking from a rabbinical perspective, not a sola scriptura one.
Torah requires two or three witnesses to condemn someone a capital offense (Dt 17:6), and there's no indication that the testimony of the offender (obtained under compulsion) "counts" as one of the two or three.
Then NYer Is wrong. The quote I was referencing from NYer was as follows:
Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself.
The fact is that MOSAIC LAW does not forbid any such thing! In fact MOSAIC LAW specifically states that anyone who refuses to testify after being placed under oath is deemed guilty of the crime (Leviticus 5:1).
Jesus did, in fact, answer the High Priest. He answered "Thou hast said", and in fact, by that statement he used the High Priest to act as a false witness against him!
So this whole nonsense that "Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself. It was because Jesus did not want to put the High Priest in the position of sinning against that law that He refused to answer the High Priest's questions even though beaten for it. " is just that, nonsense.
Jesus did not keep his silence. When called under oath (Matthew 26:63), he did not keep silent, but instead He named the high priest as a witness.
Additionally this nonsense about "Mosaic Law forbidding compelling a witness to testify against himself" is also nonsense. There may be some "tradition" that nobody seems to have ever heard of, but "Mosaic Law" is entirely found within the first five books of the Bible and this "Law" does not appear to be found within those books. When you reference "Mosaic Law" you are relying upon "sola scriptura". When you reference tradition, it is not Mosaic Law.
This is why SOLA SCRIPTURA is so important. If I am wrong, prove it by scripture.