Did King David rape Bath-sheba?

[Anomalocaris]

I can't believe in the 21st century we are still debating whether the behavior of some self important Bronze Age chieftain and grubby Bronze Age strumpet really represent examples of morality for man to follow in the space age.

Christianity - Crush the outlook of space age to suit the ego of Bronze Age chieftains.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Hallelujah, that makes it all better now! Does the bride price go up if she has good teeth or is a strong field worker?

I value virginity in my wives as well. Is there a limit to how many I can purchase? Will I get a discount if I buy them in a bundle?

[John V]

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.

I don't know if you honestly missed v. 23-24 or are intentionally skipping over it, but it's more applicable, as it refers to the same situation but in a city. In such a case, the act is presumed to be consensual (and both parties punishable by death) unless there's reasonable evidence that it was rape, such as screams from the woman. By your own method of analyzing what we're not told, well, we're not told that she screamed, so it should be viewed as consensual.

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?

More of what we're NOT told.

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."

Consider the punishment for the crime: the death of the child conceived. Death of the child was punishment to Bathsheba as well (and probably moreso than to David), and is an indicator that she was was also guilty.

[Minimalist]

the death of the child conceived.

So the only innocent party is the only one punished, huh?

Fuck you and your 'god.'

[Chad32]

the death of the child conceived.

So the only innocent party is the only one punished, huh?

Fuck you and your 'god.'

Yeah, I don't get this idea of killing people innocent of the crime that someone is being punished for.

[John V]

So the only innocent party is the only one punished, huh?

I don't see that heaven is a punishment.

[Minimalist]

How about death? Why do we call it capital punishment and not capital reward?

How deeply are you going to dig this hole for yourself?

[Chad32]

So the only innocent party is the only one punished, huh?

I don't see that heaven is a punishment.

It is if you're forced to worship the god described in the bible.

[John V]

How about death? Why do we call it capital punishment and not capital reward?

Because the term capital punishment is typically used in context of people who have committed serious crimes, and we don't think they're going to heaven. Regarding death of people we don't think are so bad, we do indeed have the term "gone to his reward."

[Tonus]

I don't know if you honestly missed v. 23-24 or are intentionally skipping over it, but it's more applicable, as it refers to the same situation but in a city. In such a case, the act is presumed to be consensual (and both parties punishable by death) unless there's reasonable evidence that it was rape, such as screams from the woman. By your own method of analyzing what we're not told, well, we're not told that she screamed, so it should be viewed as consensual.

I missed it. So it seems to have been consensual, since the story doesn't tell us what she did. I think it's safe to assume that someone would have heard. So we are left to wonder why there is no accusation of adultery.

More of what we're NOT told.

That's what makes it an interesting question. I am wondering what sort of details would be important enough to keep, and what sort would be important enough to leave out. And what that might tell us about the men who wrote the story. Bath-sheba is treated as little more than a prop throughout the tale, which makes it so we need to find more context to get a better idea of what they may have missed.

Consider the punishment for the crime: the death of the child conceived. Death of the child was punishment to Bathsheba as well (and probably moreso than to David), and is an indicator that she was was also guilty.

The child's death is described as punishment for David's sin: "because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of Jehovah to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that this is referring to Bath-sheba or any part she played, since this is the discussion Nathan is having with David about his crimes, and is part of his response after David repents for his actions.

Bath-sheba is not accused of adultery, and is not judged for anything she might be guilty of. When her newborn is stricken with illness, it is David who humbles himself in the hopes of softening god's heart and saving the child. Bath-sheba is ignored by the writer until the baby is dead and David stops mourning.