Was Bathsheba a victim or a perpetrator? Here is another inkblot test for you.
The initial details of the story are deceptively simple:
In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.
One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.”
OK, so was Bathsheba a seductress who knew what she was doing or was she victimized by a lustful Middle Eastern potentate?
Frankly, I have heard sermons that have painted her as a seductress. That is, they argue that she knew her rooftop was visible from the higher heights of the king’s palace. They further argue that, with his being home she had an idea of when he walked the roof, and planned her bath in order to get maximum effect. There are medieval and Victorian paintings which show her clearly in that position. Mind you, none of those sermons paint King David as innocent. Nevertheless, personally, I think that several of those sermons have almost had the “taint” of arguing, “What can you expect when a lusty man sees a naked woman?” That type of argument almost seems to say that human beings are incapable of self-control and self-discipline. Do we wish to say that as Christians?
At the other end are those interpreters who argue that Bathsheba was a pure victim. The argument is that Middle Eastern potentates of that time period were extremely powerful and had life/death power over their people. Frankly, if you look at some of the dealings of both King Saul and King David, there is significant proof of that. Do you really think that no one in the court knew that Bathsheba had lain with King David? And, when King David sent out his orders to kill Uriah, did you notice that they were obeyed? Certainly, the assumption at both the court and in the army was that what the King wanted was so, regardless of what Old Testament Law might be around.
In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 107 says:
Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: One should never [intentionally] bring himself to the test, since David king of Israel did so, and fell. He said unto Him, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why do we say [in prayer] “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” but not the God of David?’ He replied, ‘They were tried by me, but thou wast not.’ Then, replied he, ‘Sovereign of the Universe, examine and try me’ – as it is written, Examine me, O Lord, and try me. He answered ‘I will test thee, and yet grant thee a special privilege; for I did not inform them [of the nature of their trial beforehand], yet, I inform thee that I will try thee in a matter of adultery.’ Straightway, And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed etc. R. Johanan said: He changed his night couch to a day couch, but he forgot the halachah: there is a small organ in man which satisfies him in his hunger but makes him hunger when satisfied. And he walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. Now Bath Sheba was cleansing her hair behind a screen, when Satan came to him, appearing in the shape of a bird. He shot an arrow at him, which broke the screen, thus she stood revealed, and he saw her. Immediately, And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bath Sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her, and she came unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanliness: and she returned unto her house. Thus it is written, Thou host proved mine heart; thou hast visited me in the night; thou host tried me, and shalt find nothing; I am purposed that my mouth shall not transgress. He said thus: ‘Would that a bridle had fallen into the mouth of mine enemy [i.e., himself], that I had not spoken thus.’
So, the Talmud sees the whole episode as a test of King David that he brought upon himself by asking God to test him. But, notice that the Talmud exonerates Bathsheba! Read again what it says. It says that Bathsheba was “behind a screen.” That is, according to the Talmud, Bathsheba was not trying to seduce King David at all. Rather, given the houses in those days, she had carefully set up a privacy screen. Moreover, read on, both the Bible and the Talmud say exactly the same thing, “and David sent messengers, and took her. . . .” The Talmud portrays a story of rape. Do you really think that the people sent were just “messengers?” After all, she had just been seen naked; she had just been inquired for; then they had been sent for her.
Then King David took her. Remember, that the Talmud would have been written at a time when kings still had powers that we cannot even imagine today. And, the Talmud completely exonerates Bathsheba and sees this as a story of kingly rape. Moreover, even in 2 Samuel 11, there is an interesting final note in that chapter, after Uriah’s death. “When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son.” Not only does it, again, repeat that King David, “had her brought,” but then, it says that she bore HIM a son. This is a picture of Bathsheba, not as a willing participant but as a passive participant, whom everyone knew the king married in order to legitimize the coming child.
But, there is an additional and most interesting piece of evidence of what might have happened. That piece of evidence is the Prophet Nathan. Read 2 Samuel 12 closely. What a pointed parable tells the Prophet Nathan! An ewe lamb stolen from a poor man by a rich man, then the denouement, “you are that man!” Hmm, so, in that allegory, who is Bathsheba? Well Bathsheba is that ewe lamb. In other words, the Prophet Nathan pictures Bathsheba as INNOCENT. She is a little ewe that has been stolen and slaughtered without mercy. In fact, the Prophet Nathan says to King David, “You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.” Read it again, Bathsheba is pictured as taken, not as coming willingly.
Now, here is my question for you. If both the Scriptures and the Talmud picture Bathsheba as innocent, from where did the Middle Ages get that idea that she was a seductress and willing participant?
Most interesting analysis, father.
Typology seems to favour a more innocent David and a less innocent Bathsheba. David prefigures Christ in his kingship and his relationship with God, but also Adam in his fallibility. In that case, Bathsheba plays the role of Eve, the tempter. It also calls to mind the struggle of Christ with Satan in the wilderness, where Christ rejects the offer of Satan of the entire world, a test which David failed. Again, this casts Bathsheba as an evil influence.
But like you say, this is not in the text – the source of temptation need not be guilty of sin. For a tempter to incur sin, the temptation must be intentional, which does not seem to be the case for Bathsheba. Also, even were she guilty of leading David into sin, Bathsheba only deserves a response to her temptation in proportion to the severity of the temptation. Lustful glances would be proportionate to immodest attire – rape would not be. Likewise, anger would be proportionate response to rudeness, but murder would not be.
Nice points on temptation. And, notice that the Talmud places the source of the temptation not in Bathsheba but in Satan. This actually goes together with a pair of Scriptures, which, when put together, nicely summarize the episode.
St. Paul says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
St. James says, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”
Is not the St. James Scripture a perfect summary to the Talmudic story? One almost wonders whether St. James was thinking of King David and Bathsheba when he wrote that Scripture. But, more important, notice that it says that each one is tempted by his own evil desire. If the Talmudic story bears any relation to reality, then King David caught sight, by accident, without any interference by Bathsheba.
However, I would consider my strongest point to be the Prophet Nathan, because he functions as God’s official mouthpiece in this whole episode. And, he calls Bathsheba an ewe lamb.
But, I am so glad you brought up typology. In my just-finished series on typology, I pointed out that the Antiochian school was for a limited use of typology, as over against the Alexandrian school of theology. As an Antiochian Orthodox, I would simply tend to say that this story shows the limits of typology. You see, if we come up with a typology that contradicts the Prophet Nathan, the mouthpiece of God, then we can make typology say anything. In passing, that is one of the critiques of the old Alexandrians by the old Antiochians.
Father,
I am just purely speculating in answering your question, as I have no educational back ground in theology or the middle ages. However, my guess and my experience is that we have a tendency to interpret Scriptures from the perspective of our own time and customs rather than from the perspective of the time and customs in which they were written. I would assume that by the middle ages, a time long removed from the Biblical account and in different culture, it was much easier to blame the woman and have the view as you intimated that men can only stand so much teasing from a woman before giving in to our lust, and by then it’s not really our fault. I still see a lot of this attitude today in the area where I live.
Thank you very much for writing this, it is most enlightening and helps me to examine more deeply my own assumptions and motives. I am happy to have found your site.
Nagi, JACKPOT!!!
We, all too often, read the Scriptures without doing the research necessary to understand it. Question: Can a person find salvation by just reading the Bible? Answer: Yes, I am convinced that a person can! Question 2: And how many mistaken beliefs will that person have? Answer: Legion and some of them could be spiritually dangerous mistaken beliefs. There is a reason why St. Paul tells St. Timothy to study to show himself approved.
What a great reflection for today!
It is so hard not to read our culture into the scriptures. I am not much of a history major but find I have to be to try to understand what the Bible is really getting at.
I was tired of reading about Bathsheba the seductress and harlot so decided to do a search and see if I could come up with some other options.
Thanks.