Bathsheba's Controversy
The Convincing Case of King David, The Murderer
In all its complexities, its self-contradictions, its ambiguities, and its varied translations the Bible is one of the most difficult texts to fully understand. One prime example of the Bible’s vagueness is found in Second Samuel, chapters eleven and twelve in which the controversial “Bathsheba Incident” occurs. In this story, Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, is impregnated by King David after he is astounded by her beauty and could not resist his temptation. In fast paced string of events, Bathsheba’s pregnancy leads to David murdering Uriah in the guise of a military death. While many maintain that the impregnation of Bathsheba and the death of Uriah were entirely due to the lustful and demagogic actions of David, some argue that Bathsheba was the true mastermind of the whole situation and seduced David, had a hand in Uriah’s murder, and actively sought the benefits of being part of David’s harem. The latter …show more content…
school of thought is riddled with incohesive arguments which often overlook certain textual evidence and rely heavily on conjecture and assumption. One cannot reasonably piece together enough legitimate evidence to firmly convict Bathsheba of intentionally seducing David or assisting in the murder of Uriah. By looking at Biblical textual evidence, surveying the history of David and his temperament in the Old Testament, and using psychological analysis one can come to a strong conclusion that David is guilty of both sexually assaulting Bathsheba and murdering Uriah without the aid or consent of Bathsheba. There are several arguments which are used to suggest Bathsheba’s willful participation in her sexual affair with David, but nearly all can be debased. One argument asks why Bathsheba bathed nude in the line of sight of David. Did she place herself in that situation intentionally? Was she trying to seduce David? Kim and Nyengele explain that she, “was taking a bath after the hottest time of the day, an ideal time to bathe while avoiding sunburn and visibility” and that she, “was purifying herself according to the ritual laws” (Kim and Nyengele: 104). So, it can be rightfully assumed that Bathsheba was not strategically bathing at the time that David would be emerging from his siesta, but instead had legitimate reasons for the time of her bath. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that Bathsheba intentionally placed herself in the vision of David, so it must be assumed, as there is no contrary evidence, that David saw Bathsheba bathing purely out of coincidence.
In another line of reasoning, some scholars use the very nondescript and short phrase, “and she came to him” (2 Samuel 11:4) to suggest, “that Bathsheba is a willing, cognizant, and self-determined person in the pursuit of her own desire to seduce him, sleep with him” (Kim and Nyengele: 102). It is not only a stretch to link this short phrase to Bathsheba's intention of seduction, but this argument takes this phrase terribly out of context. The full quote reads, “So David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he lay with her” (2 Samuel 11:4). In the full context, it is evident that David is the one orchestrating this affair as he is the one who actively “sent” his men to “get” her (11:4). She did not come to him looking for sexual favor, but responded dutifully and ignorant of his intentions, as most citizens of Judea likely would when summoned by their King. Later in the text, David summons Uriah and, “Uriah came to him” (2 Samuel 11:7), but there is no supposition attached to this identical syntax. This simply depicts, just like Bathsheba’s response, an expected cooperation from a subject to a King. After Uriah is killed, David sends for Bathsheba again but this time she has to be “brought” to his house (2 Samuel 11:27). The difference in her originally willfully coming to David compared to her later being forcefully “brought” to him suggests that Bathsheba did not want further relations with David, likely due to his previous unwanted sexual advances which resulted in her pregnancy and the death of her husband.
One common argument claims that Bathsheba has a strong personal voice and “sense of agency and participation” (Kim and Nyengele: 102) which suggest that she may have seduced David and committed mariticide.
The argument follows the logic that Bathsheba is trying to gain power in the court of David through bearing the King’s child. Proponents of the idea that Bathsheba seeks personal gain through conceiving the King’s child look to the only line that Bathsheba speaks, “I am pregnant” (11:5) as evidence for their claim. However, it is more likely that Bathsheba’s message to David merely reflects her subordination to authority as she presents a simple report to the King. This very terse message may have also served to remind him of his blatant act of adultery (Kim and Nyengele: 105). If Bathsheba were really a seductress, an accomplice in Uriah’s murder, and a seeker of the spoils that come with being a King’s wife, then wouldn’t she have had a greater tone of excitement in her declaration of
impregnation? It is important when considering the Bathsheba incident to review both 2 Samuel 11 and 12 in tandem as this inner-biblical commentary will help will prove that David, unassisted by Bathsheba, was the master-mind conspirator of the murder of Uriah. When David first hears that Bathsheba is pregnant he tries to get Uriah to have sex with her in order to not make the pregnancy conspicuous and out of the ordinary. To some, David’s attempt to peacefully ameliorate the situation, although deceitfully, suggests that he has remorse for his actions. An alternate interpretation could view David’s offer for Uriah to go home to his wife as a trap. (Kim and Nyengele: 107). If Uriah did go home, it would be a war crime and he would be sentenced to death. Therefore, having Uriah go home to Bathsheba could be a cunning way to justly eliminate Uriah without David bloodying his hands. Uriah refused both offers from David for him to “wet his feet” (11:8) which left David to his last option. He sent a letter to Joab instructing him to essentially murder Uriah. The letter was blatant in its intent: “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting… so that he may be struck down and die” (11:14). If any doubt still exists after this explicit evidence, Nathan, sent by God in 2 Samuel 12, confirms David’s guilt. Nathan presents a parable to David in which a rich man (David, in this situation) steals an ewe lamb (Bathsheba) from a poor man (Uriah). David quickly responds to Nathan’s parable and exclaims that, “the [rich] man who has done this deserves to die” (12:5). David overreacts to the story and suggests a draconian punishment because he relates to the crime personally and feels guilty (Kim and Nyengele: 108). This, and Nathan’s proclamation that the rich man is indeed David (12:7), further confirm David as the responsible agent in the commitment of adultery and the murder of Uriah. Nathan also never mentions once or implies any wrongdoing by Bathsheba, so this further supports the claim that she is innocent of seducing David and killing her husband. The appearance of Nathan in 2 Samuel 12 serves to clarify any misconceptions about David’s guilt, but also helps to exonerate Bathsheba, the “little ewe lamb” (12:2), from being an accomplice in the murder of her own husband. There are still two outstanding argument which attempt to put responsibility on Bathsheba for adultery and the death of her husband. First, Some believe that the benefits that Bathsheba could accrue from being a part of David’s Harem are enough to lead her to commit mariticide. The counter to this is the textual evidence from 11:26-27 in which Bathsheba “made lamentation” for her fallen husband. Her grief and mourning are evidence of her victimization by David and potentially “psychological proof of her innocence” (Kim and Nyengele: 107). While this psychological evidence may not be strong on its own, when viewed in coordination with Nathan’s accounts and other textual evidence the case for her innocence is strong.
Second, scholars will argue that if David was sexually assaulting Bathsheba, why is there no noticeable type of resistance from her, as there has been in past biblical instances of sexual assault (Joseph and Tamar) (Kim and Nyengele: 100)? Kim and Nyengele explain this by stating that, “David’s aggressiveness and power, combined with cultural prescriptions… Silenced her and deterred her from acting in defiance of David’s moves” (Kim and Nyengele: 114). It makes sense that Bathsheba would feel pressured and psychologically overpowered by David, a strong man and her King. These scholars also point to the general social inequality that existed between men and women in which men were very superior and women were dissuaded from “taking their own needs seriously” (Miller, Key and Nyengele: 114). So, by arguing that Bathsheba showed no resistance and therefore is a seductress, or responsible for the adultery in any way, one ignores ancient cultural norms in which there was a great inequality between the genders and social classes that would stigmatize a lowly women from resisting a strong-man King.
After sifting through various pieces of evidence which seem to all implicate David as a murderer, it is still important to review David’s history and ensure this narrative isn’t a fluke but consistent with his character as displayed throughout his Biblical history. When david was running a protection racketeering scheme, he involved himself in a breed of love triangle with a wealthy man named Nabal and his wife Abigail. When Nabal refused to pay David for protection, David killed Nabal and took Abigail for his wife. This is a very similar situation to the Bathsheba incident as in both cases he killed off a husband and took his widow as his wife. This narrative, known as the Apologetic Tale, proves that David’s character has been flawed and his actions in 2 Samuel 11 were not unprecedented. A second instance which speaks to David’s questionable morals occurred when David was Saul’s successor. At one point, David left Saul and secretly enlisted in the Philistine Army. David commanded a force and, instead of fighting the Israelites, he looted and pillaged Canaanite villages in order to increase his personal wealth and prestige. One final incident, which was particularly disturbing, was when his son Amnon raped his daughter Tamar. David had no serious response to this situation besides a very lenient scolding of Amnon. These three incidents in David’s past help to show that he was very capable of the murder and deceit he committed in 2 Samuel 11, and that these sins represented no sudden shift in character. If one were to base their argument purely on textual evidence, then it would be impossible to convict Bathsheba in the murder or seduction of David and impossible not to convict David of the murder of Uriah. The several arguments that make Bathsheba complicit in the murder of Uriah, or the seduction of David, are based on conjecture and assumption and can be debased by viewing text in a broader context or using psychological analysis. While the fact that David was the mastermind of the whole operation seems apparent, it is still important to confirm this verdict by viewing the inner-biblical commentary (Kim and Nyengele: 108) provided in 2 Samuel 12 and recalling some of David’s past actions which are consistent with his ones in the Bathsheba incident. So, after looking at all of the textual evidence, any faithful and honest jury should be able to find David guilty of the sexual assault of Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah.
In all its complexities, its self-contradictions, its ambiguities, and its varied translations the Bible is one of the most difficult texts to fully understand. One prime example of the Bible’s vagueness is found in Second Samuel, chapters eleven and twelve in which the controversial “Bathsheba Incident” occurs. In this story, Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, is impregnated by King David after he is astounded by her beauty and could not resist his temptation. In fast paced string of events, Bathsheba’s pregnancy leads to David murdering Uriah in the guise of a military death. While many maintain that the impregnation of Bathsheba and the death of Uriah were entirely due to the lustful and demagogic actions of David, some argue that Bathsheba was the true mastermind of the whole situation and seduced David, had a hand in Uriah’s murder, and actively sought the benefits of being part of David’s harem. The latter …show more content…
school of thought is riddled with incohesive arguments which often overlook certain textual evidence and rely heavily on conjecture and assumption. One cannot reasonably piece together enough legitimate evidence to firmly convict Bathsheba of intentionally seducing David or assisting in the murder of Uriah. By looking at Biblical textual evidence, surveying the history of David and his temperament in the Old Testament, and using psychological analysis one can come to a strong conclusion that David is guilty of both sexually assaulting Bathsheba and murdering Uriah without the aid or consent of Bathsheba. There are several arguments which are used to suggest Bathsheba’s willful participation in her sexual affair with David, but nearly all can be debased. One argument asks why Bathsheba bathed nude in the line of sight of David. Did she place herself in that situation intentionally? Was she trying to seduce David? Kim and Nyengele explain that she, “was taking a bath after the hottest time of the day, an ideal time to bathe while avoiding sunburn and visibility” and that she, “was purifying herself according to the ritual laws” (Kim and Nyengele: 104). So, it can be rightfully assumed that Bathsheba was not strategically bathing at the time that David would be emerging from his siesta, but instead had legitimate reasons for the time of her bath. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that Bathsheba intentionally placed herself in the vision of David, so it must be assumed, as there is no contrary evidence, that David saw Bathsheba bathing purely out of coincidence.
In another line of reasoning, some scholars use the very nondescript and short phrase, “and she came to him” (2 Samuel 11:4) to suggest, “that Bathsheba is a willing, cognizant, and self-determined person in the pursuit of her own desire to seduce him, sleep with him” (Kim and Nyengele: 102). It is not only a stretch to link this short phrase to Bathsheba's intention of seduction, but this argument takes this phrase terribly out of context. The full quote reads, “So David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he lay with her” (2 Samuel 11:4). In the full context, it is evident that David is the one orchestrating this affair as he is the one who actively “sent” his men to “get” her (11:4). She did not come to him looking for sexual favor, but responded dutifully and ignorant of his intentions, as most citizens of Judea likely would when summoned by their King. Later in the text, David summons Uriah and, “Uriah came to him” (2 Samuel 11:7), but there is no supposition attached to this identical syntax. This simply depicts, just like Bathsheba’s response, an expected cooperation from a subject to a King. After Uriah is killed, David sends for Bathsheba again but this time she has to be “brought” to his house (2 Samuel 11:27). The difference in her originally willfully coming to David compared to her later being forcefully “brought” to him suggests that Bathsheba did not want further relations with David, likely due to his previous unwanted sexual advances which resulted in her pregnancy and the death of her husband.
One common argument claims that Bathsheba has a strong personal voice and “sense of agency and participation” (Kim and Nyengele: 102) which suggest that she may have seduced David and committed mariticide.
The argument follows the logic that Bathsheba is trying to gain power in the court of David through bearing the King’s child. Proponents of the idea that Bathsheba seeks personal gain through conceiving the King’s child look to the only line that Bathsheba speaks, “I am pregnant” (11:5) as evidence for their claim. However, it is more likely that Bathsheba’s message to David merely reflects her subordination to authority as she presents a simple report to the King. This very terse message may have also served to remind him of his blatant act of adultery (Kim and Nyengele: 105). If Bathsheba were really a seductress, an accomplice in Uriah’s murder, and a seeker of the spoils that come with being a King’s wife, then wouldn’t she have had a greater tone of excitement in her declaration of
impregnation? It is important when considering the Bathsheba incident to review both 2 Samuel 11 and 12 in tandem as this inner-biblical commentary will help will prove that David, unassisted by Bathsheba, was the master-mind conspirator of the murder of Uriah. When David first hears that Bathsheba is pregnant he tries to get Uriah to have sex with her in order to not make the pregnancy conspicuous and out of the ordinary. To some, David’s attempt to peacefully ameliorate the situation, although deceitfully, suggests that he has remorse for his actions. An alternate interpretation could view David’s offer for Uriah to go home to his wife as a trap. (Kim and Nyengele: 107). If Uriah did go home, it would be a war crime and he would be sentenced to death. Therefore, having Uriah go home to Bathsheba could be a cunning way to justly eliminate Uriah without David bloodying his hands. Uriah refused both offers from David for him to “wet his feet” (11:8) which left David to his last option. He sent a letter to Joab instructing him to essentially murder Uriah. The letter was blatant in its intent: “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting… so that he may be struck down and die” (11:14). If any doubt still exists after this explicit evidence, Nathan, sent by God in 2 Samuel 12, confirms David’s guilt. Nathan presents a parable to David in which a rich man (David, in this situation) steals an ewe lamb (Bathsheba) from a poor man (Uriah). David quickly responds to Nathan’s parable and exclaims that, “the [rich] man who has done this deserves to die” (12:5). David overreacts to the story and suggests a draconian punishment because he relates to the crime personally and feels guilty (Kim and Nyengele: 108). This, and Nathan’s proclamation that the rich man is indeed David (12:7), further confirm David as the responsible agent in the commitment of adultery and the murder of Uriah. Nathan also never mentions once or implies any wrongdoing by Bathsheba, so this further supports the claim that she is innocent of seducing David and killing her husband. The appearance of Nathan in 2 Samuel 12 serves to clarify any misconceptions about David’s guilt, but also helps to exonerate Bathsheba, the “little ewe lamb” (12:2), from being an accomplice in the murder of her own husband. There are still two outstanding argument which attempt to put responsibility on Bathsheba for adultery and the death of her husband. First, Some believe that the benefits that Bathsheba could accrue from being a part of David’s Harem are enough to lead her to commit mariticide. The counter to this is the textual evidence from 11:26-27 in which Bathsheba “made lamentation” for her fallen husband. Her grief and mourning are evidence of her victimization by David and potentially “psychological proof of her innocence” (Kim and Nyengele: 107). While this psychological evidence may not be strong on its own, when viewed in coordination with Nathan’s accounts and other textual evidence the case for her innocence is strong.
Second, scholars will argue that if David was sexually assaulting Bathsheba, why is there no noticeable type of resistance from her, as there has been in past biblical instances of sexual assault (Joseph and Tamar) (Kim and Nyengele: 100)? Kim and Nyengele explain this by stating that, “David’s aggressiveness and power, combined with cultural prescriptions… Silenced her and deterred her from acting in defiance of David’s moves” (Kim and Nyengele: 114). It makes sense that Bathsheba would feel pressured and psychologically overpowered by David, a strong man and her King. These scholars also point to the general social inequality that existed between men and women in which men were very superior and women were dissuaded from “taking their own needs seriously” (Miller, Key and Nyengele: 114). So, by arguing that Bathsheba showed no resistance and therefore is a seductress, or responsible for the adultery in any way, one ignores ancient cultural norms in which there was a great inequality between the genders and social classes that would stigmatize a lowly women from resisting a strong-man King.
After sifting through various pieces of evidence which seem to all implicate David as a murderer, it is still important to review David’s history and ensure this narrative isn’t a fluke but consistent with his character as displayed throughout his Biblical history. When david was running a protection racketeering scheme, he involved himself in a breed of love triangle with a wealthy man named Nabal and his wife Abigail. When Nabal refused to pay David for protection, David killed Nabal and took Abigail for his wife. This is a very similar situation to the Bathsheba incident as in both cases he killed off a husband and took his widow as his wife. This narrative, known as the Apologetic Tale, proves that David’s character has been flawed and his actions in 2 Samuel 11 were not unprecedented. A second instance which speaks to David’s questionable morals occurred when David was Saul’s successor. At one point, David left Saul and secretly enlisted in the Philistine Army. David commanded a force and, instead of fighting the Israelites, he looted and pillaged Canaanite villages in order to increase his personal wealth and prestige. One final incident, which was particularly disturbing, was when his son Amnon raped his daughter Tamar. David had no serious response to this situation besides a very lenient scolding of Amnon. These three incidents in David’s past help to show that he was very capable of the murder and deceit he committed in 2 Samuel 11, and that these sins represented no sudden shift in character. If one were to base their argument purely on textual evidence, then it would be impossible to convict Bathsheba in the murder or seduction of David and impossible not to convict David of the murder of Uriah. The several arguments that make Bathsheba complicit in the murder of Uriah, or the seduction of David, are based on conjecture and assumption and can be debased by viewing text in a broader context or using psychological analysis. While the fact that David was the mastermind of the whole operation seems apparent, it is still important to confirm this verdict by viewing the inner-biblical commentary (Kim and Nyengele: 108) provided in 2 Samuel 12 and recalling some of David’s past actions which are consistent with his ones in the Bathsheba incident. So, after looking at all of the textual evidence, any faithful and honest jury should be able to find David guilty of the sexual assault of Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah.