Did David rape Bathsheba?

[Difflugia]

David did not "rape" Bathsheba, but he was guilty of adultery and having her husband murdered.

2 Samuel 11:2-4:

It was evening and David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the palace. He saw a woman bathing from the roof and the woman was a very pleasant sight. David sent and asked about the woman and someone said, "Isn't that Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the woman of Uriah the Hittite?" David sent messengers, he took her, she came to him, and he lay with her. She had been sanctified from her impurity and she returned to her house.

Note that the word translated as "he took her" means to take something into one's possession, including things like spoils of war and slaves.

Question for debate: Did David rape Bathsheba? Is coercion implied in the above narrative? Is the answer different by ancient lights when compared to modern?

[SiNcE_1985]

That's not an accurate analogy to David and Bathsheba. David didn't "approach" Bathsheba, he sent multiple employees to acquire her. You've made your analogy far less sinister than the one in the Bible.

Ok, so lets change the analogy...

So, the guy in the analogy sent his homeboys to see to acquire the woman in the grocery store. They brought the woman to the guy. They spoke, and went to a hotel room and had sex.

Still, if the guy told benchwarmer the story..would the question or consideration of consent come in to play?

The answer is still no.

Next..

If I was told a modern version of 2 Samuel 11:4, that's the first thing I'd ask.

Yeah, ok.

Then why did you feel it necessary to change the game?

We are playing the same game.

Since the argument was about a power imbalance itself, the glaring fallacy is your straw man.

There is no known correlation between power imbalance, and rape....so this isn't even an actual argument.

It is more like a "create something out of nothing" kind of thing.

You're changing the story. Which verse makes you think that Pharaoh didn't have sex with Sarai? Instead, Pharaoh says that he "took her to be his woman" (12:18) and this seems the likely reason that Pharaoh favored Abram, gave him livestock, and was afflicted by a plague from Yahweh.

Note that the verb for "take" when Pharaoh made Sarai his woman is the same one that is used of David taking Bathsheba.

What about "took"? What about that verb? Same situation in Genesis 20, Abimelek was going to lay with Sarah, but God intervened (Gen 20:1-8)...I actually got the two accounts mixed up, because it is basically the same thing happening.

[SiNcE_1985]

Of course not. My hypothetical relation in the above is not the KING of a kingdom. Holy missing the context.

There is no obvious power dynamic between one of my male acquaintances and a woman in the grocery store. Thus the woman would not feel compelled to assent to the male's request.

So analogy fail.

So basically, the only way kings got their women, were through rape?

I'm sorry, did you start this debate thread? Let me check..... no. The only person I would accept correction from here is the OP which you are not.

Cool beans.

Do you not understand probability? Did I say 100% she was raped? I'll wait for you to point out where I did that.

The high probability you gave based on very inclusive (understatement) contextual evidence was bad enough.

I'm simply giving my opinion and explaining why. You don't agree. That's fine. You even attempt to say that if a rape happens, it's always spelled out. Well, good luck convincing readers with that logic, but if you are happy to hang your hat on that, I say go for it.

The Bible is known for "spelling out" rapes...and it didn't here. That should tell you something.

And? Did David do it? No. So what's the point of this information? Is this your evidence that all rapes are spelled out?

Yeah, pretty much.

You guys are scouring the Bible and trying to find every bit of piece of it to critique, and it just simply went to far here.

[benchwarmer]

Of course not. My hypothetical relation in the above is not the KING of a kingdom. Holy missing the context.

There is no obvious power dynamic between one of my male acquaintances and a woman in the grocery store. Thus the woman would not feel compelled to assent to the male's request.

So analogy fail.

So basically, the only way kings got their women, were through rape?

Your logical leaps are quite the sight to behold.

Of course not. A king could walk up to people and chat with them and meet them like 'normal' people. If an interest were sparked with a woman they could have a courtship (date them). i.e. don't ask your men to grab her and then have sex with her the same day.

Do you not understand probability? Did I say 100% she was raped? I'll wait for you to point out where I did that.

The high probability you gave based on very inclusive (understatement) contextual evidence was bad enough.

So you didn't like the implication and felt the need to make it look like I was 100% sure? Got it. Perhaps you don't like where the evidence leads and want people to stop looking at it? You shouldn't be caring what my opinion is. You should be trying to convince readers of your position.

I'm simply giving my opinion and explaining why. You don't agree. That's fine. You even attempt to say that if a rape happens, it's always spelled out. Well, good luck convincing readers with that logic, but if you are happy to hang your hat on that, I say go for it.

The Bible is known for "spelling out" rapes...and it didn't here. That should tell you something.

It tells me it didn't spell it out here, not that a rape didn't actually happen. I assume readers following along can read the passage (and perhaps dig deeper into original language if so interested) and find out what the OP is talking about.

I find it highly ironic that some will cry "It doesn't explicitly say that!" in one apologetic for a Biblical passage, yet quite happily insert all kinds of unwritten context into other passages when convenient for their beliefs. I'm just here to point this very obvious pattern out to readers who may be on the fence about what to think about all this. In other words, read the stories yourself and make your own conclusions.

And? Did David do it? No. So what's the point of this information? Is this your evidence that all rapes are spelled out?

Yeah, pretty much.

Great! I was hoping that was your argument.

You guys are scouring the Bible and trying to find every bit of piece of it to critique, and it just simply went to far here.

No need to 'scour' it. It's littered with issues. Start on the first chapter of the first book and one runs into problems almost immediately. In fact I highly recommend all readers actually read the Bible from cover to cover. Don't start with 'Bible studies', apologetics, sermons, etc. Read it yourself!

[Difflugia]

Ok, so lets change the analogy...

So, the guy in the analogy sent his homeboys to see to acquire the woman in the grocery store. They brought the woman to the guy. They spoke, and went to a hotel room and had sex.

Better, but there's still no indication in the original story that they "spoke" and they definitely didn't go anywhere else together. They took her on David's behalf to David's home, where David had sex with her. You've added details that in themselves can imply some level of consent, but they're not in the original.

Still, if the guy told benchwarmer the story..would the question or consideration of consent come in to play?

If the story was as shady on the details as yours? I know I would.

The answer is still no.

Your projection notwithstanding.

Next..

Do you know what "hubris" is?

There is no known correlation between power imbalance, and rape....so this isn't even an actual argument.

Why would you say something like this? That's so bafflingly false that I can't imagine how you could believe it even without checking. Differences in various social and economic power levels are so strongly correlated with various forms of intimate partner violence that the discussions are no longer about whether they're factors, but in finding social strategies to mitigate them. It's so well documented that researchers don't even bother footnoting the fact:

Overall, many of the correlates and predictors of DV perpetration are similar among young men and women (e.g., witnessing interparental violence, experiencing child abuse, alcohol abuse, traditional gender roles, relationship power dynamics) (Source)

Were you just hoping it's not true? Did you just think I couldn't look it up?

It is more like a "create something out of nothing" kind of thing.

Even a cursory Google search would have told you otherwise. Were you hoping none of the rest of us have internet access? I mean, seriously, what's the end game to saying something that wrong?

You're changing the story. Which verse makes you think that Pharaoh didn't have sex with Sarai? Instead, Pharaoh says that he "took her to be his woman" (12:18) and this seems the likely reason that Pharaoh favored Abram, gave him livestock, and was afflicted by a plague from Yahweh.

Note that the verb for "take" when Pharaoh made Sarai his woman is the same one that is used of David taking Bathsheba.

What about "took"? What about that verb?

You mean the past tense of "take?" That's the verb I was talking about.

Same situation in Genesis 20, Abimelek was going to lay with Sarah, but God intervened (Gen 20:1-8)...I actually got the two accounts mixed up, because it is basically the same thing happening.

Yeah, because it's slightly different traditions of the same story. Abimelech took Sarai sexually in the first story, but he didn't in the second. The third is ambiguous ("he had been there a long time" is doing a lot of heavy lifting), but the protagonists were changed to Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 26). If we're going to harmonize these in the same way we do the New Testament stories (sermons both on the mount and plain, cleansing the temple at both the beginning and end of Jesus' ministry, Peter denying Jesus seven or eight times instead of three), then I guess we can say that Abimelech is sometimes a rapist, but not always.

[Difflugia]

So basically, the only way kings got their women, were through rape?

There's such a disconnect between ancient standards of conduct and modern ideas about sexual agency vs. rape for men in general, let alone kings, that there's a pretty good chance that the legitimate answer to your rhetorical question is "yes."

[SiNcE_1985]

So basically, the only way kings got their women, were through rape?

There's such a disconnect between ancient standards of conduct and modern ideas about sexual agency vs. rape for men in general, let alone kings, that there's a pretty good chance that the legitimate answer to your rhetorical question is "yes."

Are you welcomed to your opinion..the legitimate answer is "yes".

[SiNcE_1985]

Your logical leaps are quite the sight to behold.

Of course not. A king could walk up to people and chat with them and meet them like 'normal' people. If an interest were sparked with a woman they could have a courtship (date them). i.e. don't ask your men to grab her and then have sex with her the same day.

Of course, you had use the word "grab" here to booster your argument by making it seem like David sent a group of armed men to Bathsheba and they forcefully apprehended her from her residence as she was kicking and screaming for them not to.

That's not what the text says.

The text says "took".

If I say "Mannn, after the club last night, I took 3 women back to the hotel with me".

No one in their right mind would think I used force, nor would you think this of a close compadre of yours who told you the same thing.

So please, stop it.

So you didn't like the implication and felt the need to make it look like I was 100% sure? Got it. Perhaps you don't like where the evidence leads and want people to stop looking at it? You shouldn't be caring what my opinion is. You should be trying to convince readers of your position.

Even 5% sure is too much.

It is now my civic duty to point out how wrong you are.

Lord forbid for you to overhear a guy saying he took a woman home, and you call the police talking about "Could you send unit to my location, a rape is suspected. I overheard a man saying he took women home".

Please.

It tells me it didn't spell it out here, not that a rape didn't actually happen.

But it doesn't tell you that it did happen, either.

You've taken one word and ran wild with it.

Plain and simple.

I assume readers following along can read the passage (and perhaps dig deeper into original language if so interested) and find out what the OP is talking about.

I find it highly ironic that some will cry "It doesn't explicitly say that!" in one apologetic for a Biblical passage, yet quite happily insert all kinds of unwritten context into other passages when convenient for their beliefs.

If something isn't said explicitly and we believe it (or don't believe it) it is usually based on an arching principal being inferred elsewhere.

I'm just here to point this very obvious pattern out to readers who may be on the fence about what to think about all this. In other words, read the stories yourself and make your own conclusions.

If you read and scour the Bible long enough and your heart/mind aren't in the right place, threads like this is the result.

Why would an unbeliever even be thinking about David & Bathsheba, anyway?

Why? Why?

Just looking for a reason to be skeptical, aren't we?

No need to 'scour' it. It's littered with issues.

Skeptics/Unbeliever: It has issues.

Believers: No issues.

In other words; opinions may very.

Start on the first chapter of the first book and one runs into problems almost immediately. In fact I highly recommend all readers actually read the Bible from cover to cover. Don't start with 'Bible studies', apologetics, sermons, etc. Read it yourself!

Reading is fundamental.

[Difflugia]

Of course, you had use the word "grab" here to booster your argument by making it seem like David sent a group of armed men to Bathsheba

So far, that's what the text says.

and they forcefully apprehended her from her residence as she was kicking and screaming for them not to.

Or silently weeping, perhaps. Or stoically resigned to her fate.

That's not what the text says.

The text says "took".

Yep. It says a group of David's men "took" her.

If I say "Mannn, after the club last night, I took 3 women back to the hotel with me".

No one in their right mind would think I used force, nor would you think this of a close compadre of yours who told you the same thing.

It's telling that every time you allegorize this story, you leave off the group of David's men that did the taking. "I had some friends take her to the hotel for me."

So please, stop it.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to mischaracterize what the text says.

Lord forbid for you to overhear a guy saying he took a woman home, and you call the police talking about "Could you send unit to my location, a rape is suspected. I overheard a man saying he took women home".

Or that a group of men took a woman to the home of someone that saw her earlier and thought she was pretty. And apparently the LORD did forbid, as Nathan told him later. According to the LORD, you shouldn't take the property of another man, especially if he thinks of her as more than property, like a beloved pet.

You've taken one word and ran wild with it.

And you've taken no words and run wild with them.

[SiNcE_1985]

Of course, you had use the word "grab" here to booster your argument by making it seem like David sent a group of armed men to Bathsheba

So far, that's what the text says.

Now, now, now, Diff...lets not get disingenuous just because you're losing the argument.

You say above the text says he grabbed her (which it doesn't).

But then you say below..

Yep. It says a group of David's men "took" her.

Sure, to grab, is to take...but to take, is not necessarily to grab.

Basic reading comprehension here.

Or silently weeping, perhaps. Or stoically resigned to her fate.

Or, she went willingly because she wanted a piece of the King.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to mischaracterize what the text says.

That ship has sailed from the moment you decided to create the thread.

Or that a group of men took a woman to the home of someone that saw her earlier and thought she was pretty. And apparently the LORD did forbid, as Nathan told him later. According to the LORD, you shouldn't take the property of another man, especially if he thinks of her as more than property, like a beloved pet.

Um, adultery was forbidden by God long before David was conceived.

You shouldn't sleep with another man's wife, and that applies to the highest of the kings to the lowliest of peasants.

And you've taken no words and run wild with them.

Please.

Actually, truth be told...December 31, 2009..I went to the club, and met a lovely lady.

That same night, I "took" her to the Motel 6.

And she has now been my wife of 14 years.

I'm gonna ask her to recall how we meet and what transpired that night, and ask her did she feel as if I had she had given me consent.

I'll ask her did she feel forced...violated...based on the fact that I "took" her to the hotel.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #29]

Or silently weeping, perhaps. Or stoically resigned to her fate.

Or, she went willingly because she wanted a piece of the King.

Witnesses, please. Remember----two or three are required for guilt to be established.