Is stating that David didn't have an affair with Bathsheba but raped her ambiguous or even highly inflammatory?
I stated that it was rape on twitter a couple of days ago and got a similar response to those I have received when I've voiced this opinion in other forums. Some outrage, some inquisitiveness and a good deal of agreement.
A quick Google reveals I am far from the only person to have thought this. There is a good exploration of the passage here though I find it interesting that the author finds it necessary to explore whether Bathsheba was of 'good character', I am not sure this is a relevant question even though the courts of Britain seemingly still think so.
I was also grateful to be informed via twitter that the ancient Jewish commentators stress Bathsheba's lack of consent. Although somehow this too center's on her character which again I cannot see as relevant, nor can I see evidence that the text feels it is so.
There are 3 main arguments I have for considering this as rape:
1.) Nowhere in scripture is Bathsheba ever held responsible for what happens. (That in my view should settle it if God doesn't hold her accountable then God obviously knows she did not consent).
2.) He is a king and he summons her to the palace - are we really saying she had the freedom to say no?
3.) The prophetic challenge of Nathan again hold's David fully accountable and compares his actions to the slaughtering of a lamb.
Also interesting to note is Nathan indicates that the tragedies of Davids family are a result of his sin (2 Samuel 12: 10-12) and that when Ammon rapes Tamar it is David who summons her to the palace. Deliberate parallel maybe?
I think the burden of proof should actually be on those who want to claim this as a narrative of adultery rather than rape. Could I point out that if your bible has the word adultery in it at this point it is a chapter heading put in by the translators and not part of the original text.
I am not suggesting that the original authors would have necessarily named this crime as rape but the way they constructed the narrative was intended to make it clear that their was no consent or even opportunity for consent on Bathsheba's part, and I call that rape.
Is part of the resistance to name this as rape is that we want to divide men into the men who protect women and the monsters who devour them, whereas the lived experience of many women is that they are not separate. Home is the most dangerous place on earth for women.
I love the word of God and am desperately trying to stay evangelical but that means a radical re-read of passages like these lost under millennium of patriarchal interpretation. That Bathsheba was raped is a credible evangelical reading of the text. It is also a vitally healing reading.
#Ibelieveher
Wow, that is a really interesting point. Although there is an alternation that sees Bathsheba in having agency (deliberately choosing to bathe where she could be seen by the king).
ReplyDeleteWhilst there is the comparison to the stolen lamb I wonder how much this is due to the ancient view of women as possessions? I quite like the view of Bathsheba as a willing participant because is challenges the idea women are mere chattels to be passed between men.
The sense that she was a "good" woman so must not have consented is strong in many commentaries, i agree but in one way accepting the idea it was rape actually buys into those patriarchal ideas of the whore/virgin split.
Thanks Jemima,
ReplyDeleteGreat point's I agree that it's important to recognize women's agency and I think there are many narratives in scripture which clearly do that, in regards to their sexual choices as well as other choices.
I share your concern regarding the commentaries and would definitely never argue that it was rape because she had a good character. Equally though we mustn't feel afraid to call it rape at the risk of some responding by casting her and all women as helpless damsels in need of rescue.
Regarding where she bathed I read the text to emphasis the deliberate actions of David, she was bathing where any person would have bathed and would have had privacy save that the kings house was considerably taller than all the others and he was on the roof.
Anyway whatever the case I think we are agreed that women are people worthy of equal respect and treatment - something David deffinately misses.
So interesting. I think this is an interesting story, but I would have to say that we simply don't know enough detail to say whether it was rape or not, but it was definitely adultery, simply in that both David and Bathsheba were already married.
ReplyDeleteThe text is very simple about the act itself. David is in control of what is going on, and the action is fast. The verbs are bare: "He sent...he took...he lay..." Here, she is simply a body.
Bathsheba does not seem to have any character in this text - she is merely the object of David's lust and abusive action. We don't know whether she objected or not. Somehow, that is not what the story is about. Ultimately, it is a story about abuse of power. Throughout David does bad things from coveting another man's wife, to her possible rape, to lying about it all and eventually ordering the killing of Uriah.
The only thing that he does right is to pray, suggesting that despite all this, he hasn't completely turned his back on God.
The important thing for us is that we simply don't know whether it was rape or not, as the narrator is not giving us any detail about Bathsheba herself, or her feelings and emotions during the story.
Many thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in your comment:
'we simply don't know enough detail to say whether it was rape or not, but it was definitely adultery'
I think I would see rape and adultery as mutually exclusive words. Adultery to me implies consent which is why I would be hesitant to call it adultery if there was the possibility that it was sexually violent and as you point out it is a story of abuse of power.
By your logic, the inability to give consent, how would you then view the Divine Conception of the Virgin Mary? I am not drawing a parallel between the 2 situations, but are we to believe Mary had any 'say' in the matter?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, my reading of the story of Mary is that she was definitely asked, not told. She could well have said no.
ReplyDeleteInteresting view, I think the comparison you make should help. The Bible is very well aware of rape, not least in the case of Ammon & Tamar and the language used between the two incidents is very different.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this was to protect the great king but that seems odd given how much his weaknesses and that of his family are exposed.
The language too of how David comforts Bathsheba is also suggestive that the relationship wasn't entirely unequal or without affection - whatever the inequalities in power between the two. And that the result of what happened to her was not the same, we see in 1 Kings how Bathsheba is given as a royal wife and not just a concubine and she has influence whereas Tamar is desolate.
As for God not holding to Bathsheba to account, although she is not the main character in focus - she is certainly included in the judgement against her because it is her child too that dies.
All together I think there are enough elements that would give me pause to call it rape