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?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #40]

It is a literary text and open to interpretation but mine is that the town would know David was not at war but at home. Bethsheba knows her husband is at war. Bethsheba knows where she lives and it's location to the king's house. But it's a very convoluted way of catching David's attention. But it's like being a girl sunbathing at a beach, you don't know who might see you but you sure hope he is rich and good looking.

Your interpretation means nothing. You weren't there, so you don't count as a witness.

[Difflugia]

Still haven't seen any witnesses against Bathsheba produced.

Again, no witness against her.

Your interpretation means nothing. You weren't there, so you don't count as a witness.

The story includes no witnesses. If that's your only criterion for what happened, I think we understand your point of view.

So we know where you're going with this, do you think there are any other details worth examining, or is that going to be it?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #42]

The story includes no witnesses. If that's your only criterion for what happened, I think we understand your point of view.

So we know where you're going with this, do you think there are any other details worth examining, or is that going to be it?

Bathsheba is, in effect, being accused of having a nefarious motive. Since:

1. Mosaic law requires at least two witnesses to establish guilt (Deuteronomy 19:15),

2. the story includes no witnesses and,

3. all we have to go on is the story,

I don't see how anything else is needed.

Still, if there are details to examine then let's examine the details.

1. Nathan symbolizes Bathsheba as a lamb, the most innocent of animals.

2. "In Talmudic tradition, Bathsheba may have been providentially destined from the time of creation to become in due course the legitimate wife of David, but this relation was prematurely precipitated by David's impetuous act of adultery with her. The influence of Satan in bringing about the sinful relation of David and Bathsheba is described as follows: Bathsheba was on the roof of her house behind a screen. Satan, disguised as a bird, flies out, and David shoots at him, striking the screen. Thus Bathsheba's naked beauty is revealed and David is unable to resist the lust that this engenders in him (Sanhedrin 107a)."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bathsheba

Any evidence against Bathsheba beyond all of this would be circumstantial at best so, as I see it, it's Case Dismissed.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #43]

The only problem here is that there are also Talmudic traditions that say David did no wrong.

It just seems sexist to not give Bethsheba a motive.

[Difflugia]

It just seems sexist to not give Bethsheba a motive.

So, victim-blaming makes the narrative less sexist?

Was she dressed provocatively?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #44]

The only problem here is that there are also Talmudic traditions that say David did no wrong.

If you want to get technical, there is biblical text saying that David did no other wrong.....

"For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite." (1 Kings 15:5)

.....making no mention of his unlawful numbering of the people in 2 Sam. 24. What does that say about the accuracy of biblical text?

[Wootah]

It just seems sexist to not give Bethsheba a motive.

So, victim-blaming makes the narrative less sexist?

Was she dressed provocatively?

Constantly calling something victim blaming may be blinding. I'm just looking at the text.

Why does the text mention this irrelevant detail for you?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #47]

I'm just looking at the text.

Why does the text mention this irrelevant detail for you?

Why doesn't the text state that Bathsheba had an improper motive?

[Difflugia]

Constantly calling something victim blaming may be blinding.

I suppose. Now's your chance to lift that blindness by explaining why you're not blaming the victim.

I'm just looking at the text.

You said yourself that you're giving Bathsheba a motive when one isn't apparent in the text.

That's literally victim-blaming.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah in post #47]

I'm just looking at the text.

Why does the text mention this irrelevant detail for you?

Why doesn't the text state that Bathsheba had an improper motive?

I just don't know if you are serious or not. Do you need a book to say clearly this is the bad guy, this is the good guy?