Did King David rape Bath-sheba?

[Tonus]

I don't see how you get a strong case from the fact that we're not told how she responded.

Not just from that. The story doesn't indicate that she had the opportunity to confess or lie to her husband, which might have helped determine how complicit she was. Neither she nor David is accused of adultery, and she is not punished for being an adulteress.

The story tells us that she observed the mourning period for her husband, but that is neither here nor there (she could have done so to keep up appearances). It could be pointed out that David is not accused of rape, but the writers of the old testament don't seem to consider rape to be a crime. David sinned by killing a man and taking his wife, and it seems that this is what finally triggers god's wrath and causes him to send Nathan to condemn David.

[GrandizerII]

While I agree that rape is trivialized in the Bible, and women were treated as property, you don't really have a strong case here with regards to the Bathsheba story. You may as well argue that every sexual affair that occurred in the OT was rape.

The Old Testament is known for its utter lack of clarity on so many details that need clarification that sometimes there just isn't an interpretation that's both satisfying and in accordance with what the passage says.

Maybe David and Bathsheba got punished for adultery, and God performed the punishment by killing their child.

[John V]

I don't see how you get a strong case from the fact that we're not told how she responded.

Not just from that. The story doesn't indicate that she had the opportunity to confess or lie to her husband, which might have helped determine how complicit she was. Neither she nor David is accused of adultery, and she is not punished for being an adulteress.

Three more things that we're NOT told. Sorry, but it's underwhelming.

The story tells us that she observed the mourning period for her husband, but that is neither here nor there (she could have done so to keep up appearances). It could be pointed out that David is not accused of rape, but the writers of the old testament don't seem to consider rape to be a crime.

Er, rape is punishable by death under the law.

[Chad32]

Only if you don't have 50 silver handy.

[John V]

Only if you don't have 50 silver handy.

You only think that if you haven't read the preceding verses.

Deut 22:25 25 But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

[Chad32]

The bible seems conflicted on whether to punish someone or not. Having to marry the woman he raped without being able to divorce her is somehow considered a punishment.

The best explanation being that different writers felt differently about rape, and what should be done when it happens.

[John V]

The bible seems conflicted on whether to punish someone or not. Having to marry the woman he raped without being able to divorce her is somehow considered a punishment.

It's a protection for the woman. The law allowed men to divorce their wives fairly easily. It wouldn't be right for a man to seduce a woman only to dump her shortly thereafter, especially in a society that placed value on virginity in a wife.

Another point is that atheists frequently charge that the law required the woman to marry the man. This is incorrect. It was up to the father, who presumably had his daughter's best interests in mind. If it was a case of young love and the man seemed like he would be a good husband, fine. If not, the father did not have to give up the daughter, but the man still had to pay the bride price. Deut 22:28-29 is frequently cited by atheists, but most seem unaware of the parallel passage in Exodus.

Ex 22
16 If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.

[Chad32]

No. Protection for the woman would be to change society so women aren't values solely by their virginity, and to keep rape victims as far away from their rapists as possible. That way she's treated as a person, instead of damaged goods.

[John V]

No. Protection for the woman would be to change society so women aren't values solely by their virginity, and to keep rape victims as far away from their rapists as possible. That way she's treated as a person, instead of damaged goods.

You haven't demonstrated that Deut 22:28-29 indicates rape. Atheists like to use the paraphrased NIV which says rape, but that is not the usual translation. Here is Young's Literal:

28`When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,
29 then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.

Here's the NKJV"
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

"Caught/seize" could indicate violence but do not necessarily indicate violence. So, which is it? Looking at the rest, we see that "they" are found out, which implies the woman was complicit in the act. Further, it says that the man has "humbled" her. The same word is used in v24, which refers to consensual sex. The word is not used in v25-27, which refers to rape.

[Tonus]

Three more things that we're NOT told. Sorry, but it's underwhelming.

That's a fair point. I think it's significant that those details are left out, but that doesn't make it a strong case, by itself.

Er, rape is punishable by death under the law.

Hmmm, that has me thinking... Deut 22:25 specifically refers to a woman who is engaged to another man. It makes sense that it would also apply to a married woman (which for the writers of the time may have been the same thing). In that case, it was covered under the accusation of taking Uriah's wife. Since David repented of his crimes, then the decision to spare his life would cover the rape accusation.

That explanation seems to fit the narrative better than the "not enough information" angle. David rapes Uriah's wife, then arranges for his murder and takes her as his own wife. Why doesn't Nathan accuse David and Bath-sheba of adultery? Because that isn't what happened. Why doesn't Nathan accuse David of rape? He does, when he describes how David "has taken [Uriah's] wife to be [his] own wife."