Really appreciate these insights. An added layer of complication is the trauma response / survival mechanism of “fawn.” Both in the original interactions themselves and in interpreting how ancient authors and societies viewed consent or complicity.
The term “fawn response” can pathologise victims. I don’t sense you were using it that way 💛, but some people do.
Whenever there is interpersonal violence and abuse, victims resist the abuse. They can resist in myriads of ways. They resist to try to preserve and maintain their safety and dignity, and the safety and dignity of those they love and care for.
It's very interesting, but I think assuming the David/Bathsheba affair was rape is taking things too far. I cannot find any evidence it was rape. It might have been, but looking at the text, it seems her husband loved David more than he loved her. Trying to temp the king who stole her husband's love doesn't seem out of the realm of possibilities to me. (This might also explain why the punishment was the loss of their first child.) Her actions, such as telling David immediately when she realized she was pregnant, don't sound like the actions of a victim. (Also, David feared her husband finding out, and seemed to have complete faith that she wouldn't tell her husband. This also means that she probably could have stopped David by telling him, "I'll tell my husband if you do this.")
And perhaps Josephus follows similar logic in rendering Bathsheba guilty.
I don’t think the fact that she immediately told David is at all damning; in the ancient world, we can assume that were she to be found pregnant while her husband was away, she would bear the shame for the rest of her life even if she claimed violent rape. It would be life-ruining for her—likely divorce and social ruination at minimum, even if she weren’t legally classified as an adulteress.
A few thoughts on why I think we’re on fairly safe textual ground rendering this as coercive:
-The text specifies that Bathsheba was ritually purifying herself. She is seen while obeying the Law. (Also, I think modern readers get tripped up on the idea that she was bathing outside, but that was normal in the ancient world.)
-The prophet Nathan uses a metaphor that puts Bathsheba in the role of a helpless lamb.
-The fallout of this incident triggers a slew of sexual violence (the rape of Tamar + the violation of David’s concubines).
-Absalom seizes and publicly sleeps with David’s concubines at the suggestion of Bathsheba’s grandfather (I don’t think we’re meant to view the concubines as complicit in this scene even though it’s not violent rape—they are powerless pawns of powerful men). This particular form of revenge makes much less sense if David was seduced by Bathsheba rather than Bathsheba seized by David.
The text is ambiguous enough that we can’t claim this with 100% confidence, but I think I’m at 85+% confidence on it.
I live in an area where, while working cattle, women often have to relieve themselves outside but a woman who did so without first finding a private place would be seen as in the wrong. She shouldn’t have bathed in sight of David. (I am assuming bathing was supposed to be a private thing even if it was outside.)
As for the lamb, people forget that David was a shepherd. As a boy he likely had ewe lambs he was attached to, (a ewe lamb is a better pet than a ram)so using that allegory was the best way to get him enraged. It might not have been symbolic of her innocence but simply the best way to get David’s attention.
The ancients had a somewhat different relationship with privacy than we do, because privacy was much harder to come by in ancient cities.
It's probable that respectable women, especially women of relative means like Bathsheba, tried to remain unseen by those outside the household when they were in a state of undress. But it's unlikely that Bathsheba had an indoor bathtub. In this scene, she was likely bathing within her own inner courtyard (so, David was on his roof, looking down), which was considered private space.
Perhaps she should have lived further from the palace? But that choice would have been Uriah's, not hers.
I would assume that some well placed cloths would have hidden her?
I know Biblically women were supposed to cry out if they were going to be raped. I assume that since David was intent on keeping it secret, she could have done so. (Which might not make it consensual but would put a little fault on her.)
The punishment of losing the baby also fits better with a consensual act. So while I think rape is possible I lean towards both parties being guilty.
I think you're importing modern notions of privacy onto the ancient world.
There's more I could say about the portion of the Law that mentions crying out. But I'll keep the scope to Bathsheba here: We have no idea how she responded; we are given no information about how the encounter went. And what would crying out have even done? The nearby slaves and soldiers knew what it meant for a woman to be taken to the king's bedchamber.
Further, when she was summoned to the palace, we've no idea if she knew why she'd been called until the moment she was ushered into the bedchamber. Her family was close to David; both her father and grandfather were among his mighty men, and her grandfather was the king's close advisor. It is perfectly plausible that she thought she was being summoned for David or her grandfather to tell her that her husband had fallen in battle.
Really appreciate these insights. An added layer of complication is the trauma response / survival mechanism of “fawn.” Both in the original interactions themselves and in interpreting how ancient authors and societies viewed consent or complicity.
Absolutely. And that certainly adds a layer of complication to modern application.
But that’s part of why I find the Essenes’ presumption of coercion so interesting.
The term “fawn response” can pathologise victims. I don’t sense you were using it that way 💛, but some people do.
Whenever there is interpersonal violence and abuse, victims resist the abuse. They can resist in myriads of ways. They resist to try to preserve and maintain their safety and dignity, and the safety and dignity of those they love and care for.
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2012/08/12/honouring-resistance-a-wonderful-resource-for-understanding-abuse/
https://fearisnotlove.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/cwesResistancebookletfinal.pdf
Noted, and yes. Thank you for the clarification!
loving this series.
Me too!
Awww, thank you!
On the edge of my seat for the next post. Great work!
Thank you!!
It's very interesting, but I think assuming the David/Bathsheba affair was rape is taking things too far. I cannot find any evidence it was rape. It might have been, but looking at the text, it seems her husband loved David more than he loved her. Trying to temp the king who stole her husband's love doesn't seem out of the realm of possibilities to me. (This might also explain why the punishment was the loss of their first child.) Her actions, such as telling David immediately when she realized she was pregnant, don't sound like the actions of a victim. (Also, David feared her husband finding out, and seemed to have complete faith that she wouldn't tell her husband. This also means that she probably could have stopped David by telling him, "I'll tell my husband if you do this.")
And perhaps Josephus follows similar logic in rendering Bathsheba guilty.
I don’t think the fact that she immediately told David is at all damning; in the ancient world, we can assume that were she to be found pregnant while her husband was away, she would bear the shame for the rest of her life even if she claimed violent rape. It would be life-ruining for her—likely divorce and social ruination at minimum, even if she weren’t legally classified as an adulteress.
A few thoughts on why I think we’re on fairly safe textual ground rendering this as coercive:
-The text specifies that Bathsheba was ritually purifying herself. She is seen while obeying the Law. (Also, I think modern readers get tripped up on the idea that she was bathing outside, but that was normal in the ancient world.)
-The prophet Nathan uses a metaphor that puts Bathsheba in the role of a helpless lamb.
-The fallout of this incident triggers a slew of sexual violence (the rape of Tamar + the violation of David’s concubines).
-Absalom seizes and publicly sleeps with David’s concubines at the suggestion of Bathsheba’s grandfather (I don’t think we’re meant to view the concubines as complicit in this scene even though it’s not violent rape—they are powerless pawns of powerful men). This particular form of revenge makes much less sense if David was seduced by Bathsheba rather than Bathsheba seized by David.
The text is ambiguous enough that we can’t claim this with 100% confidence, but I think I’m at 85+% confidence on it.
I live in an area where, while working cattle, women often have to relieve themselves outside but a woman who did so without first finding a private place would be seen as in the wrong. She shouldn’t have bathed in sight of David. (I am assuming bathing was supposed to be a private thing even if it was outside.)
As for the lamb, people forget that David was a shepherd. As a boy he likely had ewe lambs he was attached to, (a ewe lamb is a better pet than a ram)so using that allegory was the best way to get him enraged. It might not have been symbolic of her innocence but simply the best way to get David’s attention.
The ancients had a somewhat different relationship with privacy than we do, because privacy was much harder to come by in ancient cities.
It's probable that respectable women, especially women of relative means like Bathsheba, tried to remain unseen by those outside the household when they were in a state of undress. But it's unlikely that Bathsheba had an indoor bathtub. In this scene, she was likely bathing within her own inner courtyard (so, David was on his roof, looking down), which was considered private space.
Perhaps she should have lived further from the palace? But that choice would have been Uriah's, not hers.
I would assume that some well placed cloths would have hidden her?
I know Biblically women were supposed to cry out if they were going to be raped. I assume that since David was intent on keeping it secret, she could have done so. (Which might not make it consensual but would put a little fault on her.)
The punishment of losing the baby also fits better with a consensual act. So while I think rape is possible I lean towards both parties being guilty.
I think you're importing modern notions of privacy onto the ancient world.
There's more I could say about the portion of the Law that mentions crying out. But I'll keep the scope to Bathsheba here: We have no idea how she responded; we are given no information about how the encounter went. And what would crying out have even done? The nearby slaves and soldiers knew what it meant for a woman to be taken to the king's bedchamber.
Further, when she was summoned to the palace, we've no idea if she knew why she'd been called until the moment she was ushered into the bedchamber. Her family was close to David; both her father and grandfather were among his mighty men, and her grandfather was the king's close advisor. It is perfectly plausible that she thought she was being summoned for David or her grandfather to tell her that her husband had fallen in battle.