Vetus

Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15 brill.nl/vt

Was it Rape?
The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-examined

Alexander Izuchukwu Abasili

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Abstract
In view of the academic debate on whether David raped Bathsheba, this article takes a new
approach to 2 Sam 11-12. Using narrative analysis, it reinterprets 2 Sam 11-12 with the Hebrew
biblical definition of rape in mind. This new approach reveals that some of the opposing views
of exegetes on this pericope are caused by the imposition of today’s definition of rape upon the
narrative of 2 Sam 11-12. Our conclusion questions, on the one hand, the basis upon which
some scholars suggest that David raped Bathsheba. Are they talking about ‘biblical-rape’ or are
they using a contemporary concept of rape to judge the Hebrew bible? On the other hand, it
disagrees with those scholars who accuse Bathsheba of seducing David for whatever motive.

Keywords
Hebrew Bible concept of rape, sexual intercourse, consent

Introduction
In spite of the fact that the sexual encounter between David and Bathsheba
and its implications (2 Sam 11-12) have attracted a great deal of scholarly
attention, exegetes have often arrived at two divergent and opposing interpre-
tations of the pericope. On the one hand, scholars such as George G. Nicol,
Baily Randall, and Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg variously place the burden of
seduction on Bathsheba and argue that she was not raped by David.1 For
instance, George G. Nicol argues that Bathsheba by “bathing in such close
proximity to the royal palace was deliberately provocative”.2 In the same vein,

1)
H.W. Hertzberg, 1 & 2 Samuel (London, 1964), 310. R.C. Bailey, David in Love and War
( JSOTSup, 75; Sheffield, 1990), p. 88.
2)
G.G. Nicol, “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical
Narrative”, JSOT 73 (1997), pp. 43-53, esp. 44.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/156853311X548596
2 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15

Baily’s interpretation of 2 Sam 11-12 describes Bathsheba as a “willing and

equal partner”.3 In this connection, he argues that the strong political desire to
become the king’s wife made Bathsheba take her bath at an auspicious posi-
tion and time.4
On the opposite end of the divide, scholars such as Richard M. Davidson,
David and Diana Garland, Larry W. Spielman and J. Cheryl Exum5 argue that
Bathsheba was a victim of David’s rape and/or abuse. For instance, Richard
M. Davidson likened the intercourse between David and Bathsheba to that
between an adult and a minor whose consent is of no consequence and con-
cludes that Bathsheba was a victim of David’s ‘power rape’.6 In the same vein,
David E. Garland and Diana Garland argue that the context of the sexual
intercourse heightened Bathsheba’s anxiety and made her consent to the sexual
intercourse impossible.7 Consequently, they conclude that David raped Bath-
sheba. For Larry W. Spielman, in face of the great power gap between David
and Bathsheba, there cannot be valid mutual consent. Thus, “seduced by his
own power (not by Bathsheba), David conquers Bathsheba”.8
There can be little doubt that such studies have shed considerable light on
2 Sam 11-12 and facilitated better understanding of the pericope. Neverthe-
less, the often opposing results of the various interpretations continue to raise
questions in the mind of the reader: Why are there such opposing results?
Which of the interpretations is ‘right’? Or is the text so ambiguous that it
permits many legitimate interpretations at the same time? These questions
make a case for a re-examination of the pericope. This article, therefore, takes
a new approach to 2 Sam 11-12. In this regard, using narrative analysis, it
reinterprets 2 Sam 11-12 with the Hebrew biblical definition of rape in mind.
While our new approach does not claim to resolve all the questions related to
this pericope, it at least reveals that some of the opposing views of exegetes are

3)
Bailey, David in Love and War, p. 88.
4)
Ibid.
5)
D.E. Garland and D.R. Garland, “Bathsheba’s Story: Surviving Abuse and Loss”, in Flawed
Families of the Bible: How God Works through Imperfect Relationships (Grand Rapids 2007), p. 25.
6)
R.M. Davidson, “Did David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology”, Journal
of Adventist Theological Society 17 (2006), pp. 81-95, esp. 89. J. Cheryl Exum does use the term
‘rape’ in describing the situation of Bathsheba in this narrative. Nevertheless, rather than talk
about sexual rape, Exum accuses the narrator and some interpreters of ‘raping’ Bathsheba with
the pen. See J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Woman; Feminist (Sub) Versions of Biblical Narrative
(Sheffield, 1993), p. 173.
7)
D.E. Garland and D.R. Garland, “Bathsheba’s Story: Surviving Abuse and Loss”, p. 25.
8)
L.W. Spielman, “David’s Abuse of Power”, W&W 19 (1999), pp. 251-259, esp. 254.
 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15 3

caused by the imposition of today’s definition of rape upon the narrative of

2 Sam 11-12. In addition, a detailed examination of the sexual context
(11:4) questions the basis of some authors’ denial of (at least tacit) consent
to Bathsheba. We will approach our work in three steps: (1) the definition
of rape in the Hebrew bible; (2) the-interpretation of 2 Sam 11-12; (3) our
conclusions.

I. The Concept of Rape in The Hebrew Bible

Biblical Hebrew does not have a direct equivalent to denote the English word
‘rape’. Nevertheless, some biblical scholars have translated the pi‘el stem of the
Hebrew verb ‫ ענה‬as rape.9 Ellen Van Wolde’s recent detailed study of the verb
‫ ענה‬has argued convincingly against the translation of the verbal root in ques-
tion as ‘rape’ or ‘sexual abuse’. Such a translation, she maintains, is due to a
lack of analysis of all the biblical material and all the instances of ‫ ענה‬with a
female object in the Hebrew bible. A semantic analysis of ‫ענה‬, its lexical col-
locations and the word order in which it is found reveals that “this verb is used
as an evaluative term in a juridical context denoting a spatial movement down-
wards in a social sense”.10 Van Wolde concludes, therefore, that the pi‘el stem
of ‫ ענה‬should be translated as ‘debase’ and not ‘rape’. Her conclusion is in line
with LXX, which translates all the occurrences of ‫ ענה‬in the Hebrew bible
with ταπεινοω “to make low”, “to make humble”.11
Does the above study entirely rule-out the use of the word ‘rape’ for describ-
ing some sexual relationships in the Hebrew bible? I am inclined to answer in
the negative. The fact that there is no one-on-one Hebrew equivalent for the
English word ‘rape’ only calls for caution in the use of the word when describ-
ing some biblical sexual relationships. It underscores the cultural and contex-
tual differences between the Hebrew biblical conception of sexual-coercion
and the contemporary understanding of ‘rape’. In this regard, I wholly agree
with Sandie Gravett that each rendering of the Hebrew word or expressions
including it as ‘rape’ should “depend on a thorough analysis of the vocabulary
utilized, word order and other textual clues, as well as on a careful balancing

9)
Both NRSV and NJB translate ‫ עבה‬in 2 Sam 13:22 as ‘rape’.
10)
E. van Wolde, “Does ‘Inna’ Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word”, VT
52 (2002), pp. 528-544, esp. 543.
11)
Ibid.
4 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15

of the social and cultural world of the text with the need to communicate
content effectively in English”.12
Although an exhaustive treatment of the ‘contemporary conception of rape’
is outside the scope of the present contribution, a few clarifying remarks are in
order at this juncture, particularly to help us understand its difference from
the Hebrew biblical perception of rape. In contemporary society, there are
various definitions of rape depending on the purpose of the definition and the
perspective of the person defining it. For instance, Marie Fortune defines rape
from a legal perspective as “forced penetration by the penis or any object of the
vagina, mouth, or anus against the will of the victim”.13 This legal definition,
though quite representative of many societies’ conception of rape, varies from
nation to nation depending on their law, constitution, development and ram-
pancy of rape.14 According to Nicholas Groth, rape is psychologically a pseudo-
sexual act motivated by hatred, anger, domination rather than sexual desire
and is mostly carried out by individuals with dysfunctional personalities.15
Based on this psychopathic understanding of rapists, anybody can be a rapist
or victim of rape. As Diana Russel observes, a husband can rape his wife; a
lover can rape his/her beloved, a father can rape his daughter, a woman can
rape another woman and so on. It doesn’t matter who is the victim, the impor-
tant issue is that he/she has been forced into sexual intercourse against his/her
disposition, consent and will.16 The psychological, emotional and traumatic
implications of the aggressive nature of rape linger long as far as the victims are
concerned.17 In the words of Hilary Lipka, we can sum up the contemporary
conception of rape as “the violation of another physically, psychologically,
and/or emotionally through the commission of a non-consensual sexual act
that is imposed by the use of domination, force and/or violence”.18
In the Hebrew bible, the concept of coerced sexual relationships is not as
wide and all embracing as the contemporary conception of rape. The Hebrew
bible does not emphasize the role of psychological, emotional and political

12)
S. Gravett, “Reading ‘Rape’ in the Hebrew Bible: A Consideration of Language”, JSOT 28
(2004), pp. 279-299, esp. 280.
13)
M.M. Fortune, Sexual Violence: The Unmentionable Sin (New York, 1983), p. 7.
14)
Ibid.
15)
N. Groth and J. Birnabum, Men Who Rape (New York, 1978), p. 2.
16)
D.E.H. Russell, Dangerous Relationships: Pornography, Misogymy, and Rape (New Delhi,
1998), p. 8.
17)
W.T. Herbert, Sexual Violence and American Manhood (Cambridge, 2002), p. 34.
18)
H. Lipka, Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Bible Monographs, 7 (Sheffield,
2006), p. 21.
 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15 5

coercion in rape, instead it stresses the vital role of physical force or violence.
Again, in the Hebrew bible only a man can rape a woman and not vice versa.
The case of a woman raping a woman is not attested.
A better understanding of the Hebrew biblical conception of coerced-sexual
relationship can be gleaned from the following laws and instructions in
Deut 22:23-24:

If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man

meets her ‘in the town’ and lies with her, you shall bring both of them to the gate
of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry
for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbour’s wife. So you
shall purge the evil from your midst.

We are presented here with the case of illegal sexual intercourse between a
betrothed virgin and any man ‘in the city’. Both of them are to be condemned
to death because their crime is tantamount to adultery. The mention of city is
very significant in the judgment. It makes it clear that the sexual intercourse
occurs in a busy place where people are around and nearby. Thus, the girl can
easily cry-out for help. Therefore, the man’s successful intercourse with her
implies that “she did not cry out”. In other words, she consented to the sexual
crime.19
In Deut 22:25-27, we are presented with a similar case but in a different
context:

But if the man meets the engaged woman ‘in the open country’ and the man
seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. You shall
do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense
punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and
murders a neighbour. Since he found her in the open country, the engaged woman
may have cried for help, but there was no one to rescue her.

Here, because the sexual intercourse takes place not ‘in the city’ but ‘in the
open country’ where there are few if any passers-by, the girl is presumed and
proclaimed innocent.20 To be sure, her cry for help against the rapist will not
have been heard by anyone. Therefore, she is presumed to have been physically
coerced into the illegal sexual intercourse. The use of ‫( החזיק‬c. ‫ )בה‬makes the

19)
A.D.H. Mayes, New Century Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, 1981), p. 312.
20)
J.H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia, 1996), p. 207.
6 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15

use of physically violent force against the virgin evident. As Robin Wakely
rightly points out, whenever the hiphil of ‫ חזק‬is preceded by the preposition ‫ב‬
it always denotes ‘to seize’, ‘lay hold of ’, ‘constrain’.21 Hence, we have a clear
case of the use of physical power against the betrothed virgin.22 Here is under-
lined the vital role of physical violence in Hebrew biblical conception of
rape.
In 2 Sam 13:1-22, the same root ‫ חזק‬is used in describing one of the clear-
est examples of ‘Hebrew biblical rape’: Amnon’s rape of Tamar. What is
remarkable here is the narrator’s description of Amnon’s physical overpower-
ing of Tamar: “And being stronger than her, he seized her and lay with her”
(13:14). This description reveals both Amnon’s use of physical force in over-
powering Tamar and Tamar’s physical attempt at eluding his reprehensible
sexual advances. Amnon succeeded because he was stronger than Tamar.23 The
narrator’s elaborate descriptions of Tamar’s explicit reaction after the rape (‘and
she went away, crying aloud as she went’ [vv.14-16]) leaves the reader without
doubt that a forced sexual relationship (rape) has taken place.24
From the aforementioned laws (Deut 22:23-27) and description of rape in
2 Sam 13, we have reasons to define ‘Hebrew-biblical-rape’ as ‘the physical’
use of power by a man in overpowering a woman into non-consensual sexual
intercourse. The force in question here may or may not be psychological or
social or political or emotional, but must be physical/violent. Consequently,
the victim is expected to engage in a physical struggle with the rapist made
evident by crying-out (or at least be presumed to have cried-out for help but
not heard).25
With this Hebrew biblical definition of rape in view, we now re-examine 2
Sam 11:1-27e.

II. Re-examination of 2 Samuel 11-12

The text of 2 Sam 11 relates Israel’s war with the Ammonites waged in Rabbah
the capital of Ammon, which is interwoven with the sexual encounter between

21)
R. Wakely, “Hazaq”, in NIDOTTE (Carsile, 1996), p. 72. See also BDB, pp. 304-306.
22)
See HALOT, vol. 3, p. 1415.
23)
S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, JSOTSup (Sheffield, 1989), p. 265.
24)
M. Gray, “Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Sm 13:7-15: The
Rape of Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor”, JSOT 77 (1998), pp. 39-54, esp. 43-44.
25)
R. Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary 1 and 2 Samuel (New York, NY,
1999), p. 267.
 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15 7

David and Bathsheba and Uriah’s death. David’s first action in the narrative,
as the narrator tells us, is to send Joab, his servants, and all Israel to bring his
war against the Ammonites to a logical conclusion by overthrowing Rabbah
the capital, but “David remains in Jerusalem” (v.1c-f ). Why must King David
remain at home at this auspicious moment, when the defence of his kingdom
(and indirectly of his throne) was at stake? Indeed, endless reasons and argu-
ments can be adduced to explain David’s decision to stay at home while all
Israel fought the Ammonites, but one fact remains indisputable: the centrality
of this decision to the entire narrative. It is David’s decision to stay in Jerusa-
lem that sets the entire narrative in motion.
The narrator tells us that the king, having stayed away from the battle, is
enjoying a relaxing day including an evening nap. But that is not all. After
his evening nap the king begins strolling (‘going back and forth’) on the roof
of his palace. The narrator does not stop to tell us whether this is a routine
practice of the king, rather he hastens to focus on one of the many things the
king’s eyes chanced upon: ‘a woman bathing’. Remarkably, the narrator gives
only necessary information about her, which is vital for the continuation
of the narrative: “the woman was very beautiful [11:3]”. This is a Hebrew
biblical description reserved for people of striking appearance (see Rebekah
[Gen 24:16; 26:7], Vashti [Est 1:11], Esther [Est 2:7]).26
The description of Bathsheba’s great beauty has two implications. First, we
agree with Nicol that it immediately makes us aware of the proximity of the
woman to the palace. Thus, David not only sees a woman but recognizes her
as beautiful. In other words, she is close enough to be visible to the naked eye.27
Against Bailey and Nicol, we hasten to add that there are no indications that
the narrator in this way accuses Bathsheba of seducing the king. He instead
simply informs us how close Uriah’s house is to the palace; they are close
neighbours. Of course, Bathsheba cannot presume that the ‘good’ king David
would endanger his status by meddling with a married woman. In addition,
Bathsheba cannot deliberately will her own destruction. She knows the
disastrous implications of marital infidelity (it includes the death penalty
[Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22], trial by ordeal [Num 5:11-31], stripping of the adul-
teress naked and stoning [Hos 2:5; Ez 16:37]).

26)
F. Gaebelein and R.P. Polcyn, Deuteronomy—2 Samuel, The Expositors Bible Commentary
with the New International Version of the Holy Bible, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI, 1992), p. 929.
27)
Nicol, “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narra-
tive”, p. 254.
8 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15

Second, by mentioning Bathsheba’s beauty the narrator makes it evident

that among all the things that David sees while strolling on the palace roof
only the bathing woman caught his attention. In the words of Exum, “a
woman is touching herself and a man is watching . . .he sees her but she does
not see him”.28 How does David, through whose eyes we see the beautiful
bathing woman, react to what he sees?
There are indications that at the moment David saw Bathsheba, he became
aroused and strongly desired her sexually.29 This is suggested by the increased
pace of the narrative. Hence, David immediately asked for the woman’s iden-
tity: “And one said; is not this Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam the wife of Uriah
the Hittite? (v.3b)”.30 It is rather puzzling that David, who recognizes the
woman’s beauty, does not at the same time recognize her identity? This is
probably the narrator’s way of making two salient points. First, it reveals that
there was no prior existing relationship between David and Bathsheba. Each
person lived in his/her world. Consequently, David up to this point does not
know Bathsheba and only saw her per chance while strolling on the palace
roof. Second, it underlines the woman’s identity: daughter of Eliam the wife
of Uriah the Hittite. Without prejudice to Bathsheba’s patronymic identity, of
particular importance for our analysis is the identification of Bathsheba as the
“wife of Uriah the Hittite”; an identity that is repeated four times in the peri-
cope (see 11:3d, 26, 12:9c, 24a) and underpins the vital role played by Bath-
sheba’s marital status in the story. Accordingly, Garsiel observes that “when
David is informed that Bathsheba is married, he is faced with the severe moral
test of coveting another’s wife” (see Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18).31 In this connec-
tion, the information about Bathsheba’s marital status serves as an implicit
warning to the king regarding the identity of the beautiful woman who lives
next door to him.32
If it is a warning, did it have any effect on David? In the briefest possible
description (11:4), the narrator tells us that David finally satisfied his thirst for
Bathsheba; an action that marks a turning point in the Davidic personality

28)
J. Cheryl Exum, “Bathsheba Plotted, Shot, and Painted”, Semeia 74 (1996), pp. 47-73, esp. 53.
29)
S.L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford, 2000), p. 157.
30)
For the debate on the exact subject of the rhetorical question “Is not this Bathsheba . . .”, see
Bailey, David in Love and War, p. 87; J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of
Samuel. Vol. I (Assen, 1981), p. 52.
31)
M. Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach”, CBQ 55 (1993),
pp. 244-262, esp. 253.
32)
K. Bodner, David Observed: A King in the Eyes of His Court (Sheffield, 2005), p. 92.
 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15 9

and kingship.33 The brief and succinct nature of the description of the sexual
intercourse agrees with common biblical practice. It is normal in the Hebrew
bible that sexual intercourse proper, though sometimes with elaborate
preparations, is described in briefest statements (Gen 19:33, 35; 34:2; 38:18;
Deut 22:25). What is remarkable here is the succinct and action-packed nature
of the statement (four verbs together: ‘sent . . . took . . . came . . . lay’). There can
be little doubt that this announces the speedy pace of the action described.34
In this way, the narrator makes it obvious that David’s passion does not permit
the enticing of Bathsheba with seductive words; rather he uses his status and
authority as a king to get what he wants. David, therefore, in spite of his pres-
tige as king and in spite of Bathsheba’s marital status, goes ahead and has sex-
ual intercourse with her.
Worthy of note is the syntactical structure of the narrator’s description of
David’s intercourse with Bathsheba: (a) David sent messengers, (b) and he
‘took’ her; (c) and she ‘came to’ him (d) and he ‘lay with’ her (2 Sam 11:4).
This is a syntactical structure made up of four verbal clauses all of which
employ qal wayyiqtols to announce a series of related and speedy events. The
action described by each verbal clause is presented as the temporal and logical
consequence of the preceding action. There can be little doubt that they have
a causative relationship.
Three (clauses a,b,d) out of the four verbal-clauses have David as their sub-
ject: David is the subject of the first clause and the messengers are the object
(‘David sent messengers’). The verb ‫( שלח‬used 9 times in this pericope)35
reveals David’s command of the whole situation. In other words, the narrator
portrays David on the roof of the king’s house as the lord of all that he surveys
with the power to ‘send for’ what he sees. Thus, on seeing the bathing beauti-
ful woman, he sent messengers (the object of the clause).
In the second clause,—‘and he took her’—David once more is the subject
while Bathsheba is the object (she was taken). Although David sent messen-
gers to get Bathsheba, the Hebrew syntax makes him the subject of the verbal
clause, thus underlining his responsibility for the messengers’ action. Hence,
David sent messengers and took her (Bathsheba). Here the verb ‫ לקח‬occurs in
its qal stem. Undeniably, this verb has a rich semantic field, which includes
‘take’, bring’, ‘seize’, ‘capture’, ‘grasp’.36 In the qal, the verb in question can

33)
Ibid., p. 88.
34)
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, p. 216.
35)
See vv. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 18, 27.
36)
D.J.A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. IV (Sheffield, 1998), pp. 564-567.
10 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15

sometimes depict the power of its subject over its object (Gen 2:22—YHWH’s
taking of Adam’s rib; see also Gen 20:3; 24:7; Jer 27:20).37 In addition, the
qal stem of ‫ לקח‬can denote the use of force or physical violence on its object.
An example is the seizing of the animal for sacrifice in Gen 15:9f. (see also
Ex 4:17, 20; 17:5 Deut 1:25).38
But does the use of ‫ לקח‬in 2 Sam 11:4 imply such a use of physical force on
Bathsheba? I am inclined to answer in the negative. As our analysis shows, its
use in 2 Sam 11 underlines David’s lordship of the situation. It implies that he
sent messengers and ordered (took) Bathsheba to his palace. However, there is
no clear evidence in the narrative that the messengers literally seized and
dragged Bathsheba to the palace. Of course, nobody would expect such resis-
tance to the king’s summon from Bathsheba (or any woman for that matter).
The use of the qal stem of ‫ לקח‬in 2 Sam 11:4 parallels its use in Gen 20:2
where Abimelech the king of Gerar sent and took Sarah for wife without know-
ing that she is Abraham’s wife. Thus, just as David king of Israel ‘sent messen-
gers and took’ Bathsheba for sexual intercourse so does Abimelech ‘sent and
took’ Sarah for wife. In both instances, the lordship of the two kings is under-
lined but there is no evidence of use of physical force on the women in ques-
tion (see also 2 Sam 12:9).
Bathsheba is the subject of the third clause—‘and she came to him’.39 The
narrator’s insertion of this clause in the midst of four verbal clauses, of which

37)
Ibid.
38)
TLOT vol 2, pp. 649-665. Apart from the aforementioned, the semantic field of ‫ לקח‬in qal
stem includes to fetch (1 Kg 17:10), to lead (Gen 48:1), to carry off (Gen 14:11), to appropriate
(Deut 7:25), to procure (Ex 5:11), to select/choose (Deut 20:4), to receive (1 Sam 8:3), to invite/
summon (1 Sam 16:11). BDB, pp. 542-543. See also DCH, pp. 564-575.
39)
Instead of ‫ ותבוא אליו‬as attested in both MT and 4QSama, the LXX reads καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς
αὐτήν (codex B and codex A). The common consensus is that the LXX variant is probably the
original reading because it is attested, among others, in codex Vaticanus (see A. Fincke, The
Samuel Scroll from Qumran: 4QSam a restored and compared to the Septuagint and 4QSam c
(Leiden, 2001), p. 192). Nevertheless, A.A. Anderson argues otherwise. He bases his argument
on the perceived conformism of the LXX text to normal expectations: David who summons
Bathsheba for sexual intercourse ‘went into her’ (see A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, Word Biblical
Commentary 11 (Dallas, TX, 1989), p. 151). Without getting into protracted polemics on
which is the original reading, it suffices to say that this variant reading can have some implica-
tions for the interpretation of 2 Sam 11:4. Within the context of our interpretation, we note that
the LXX variant reading is significant as it made David the subject of the clause: ‘and he [David]
went in to her [Bathsheba]’ and not vice versa (as attested by MT). On the one hand, the LXX
rendering gives more responsibility to David in the sexual scene (2 Sam 11:4) as he becomes the
subject of all the four clauses. Hence, David not only sent messengers and took her; he also went
 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15 11

David is the subject in three instances, is noteworthy. Certainly, the presence

of ‫ ותבוא אליו‬suggests that Bathsheba is not carried by force to the king; she
willingly goes to answer the king’s call. Of course, the fact that Bathsheba is
ignorant at this point of the reason for the king’s summons makes her going
to the king after being taken to the palace normal. Who knows what the king
wants to tell her?40 Perhaps she is perplexed, is my husband dead?
In this connection, we agree on the one hand with Klein that ‫ותבוא אליו‬
“mitigates Bathsheba’s passivity”.41 Hence, it creates an opening for arguing
that David probably did not use physical force on Bathsheba prior to and dur-
ing the illegal sexual intercourse. The great power difference between David
and Bathsheba supports the interpretation that Bathsheba, rather than physi-
cally resisting the king, opted for a passive attitude. She saw herself in a situa-
tion in which her only option was to submit to the king’s sexual passion.42
Within this context, Bathsheba’s willingness is drastically reduced but not
entirely extinguished. Consequently, Bathsheba, though a victim of circum-
stances may not be declared entirely innocent; she does share minimally in the
responsibility.
On the other hand, we argue that the phrase ‘and she came to him’ cannot
bear the burden of proof of Bathsheba’s ‘equal and joyful’ participation in the
sexual intercourse. I emphasise this point because Bailey argues that the pres-
ence of this phrase makes Bathsheba “a willing and equal partner to the events
which transpire”43 including sexual intercourse.44 Thus, suggesting that the
weighty implications of the sexual encounter will be equally distributed
between David and Bathsheba. Contrary to this opinion, there are numerous
reasons to suggest that David deserves the lion’s share of the consequences of

in to her and lay with her. This LXX rendering weakens the interpretations of scholars like Bailey
whose accusation of Bathsheba is built around ‘‫( ’ותבוא אליו‬see Bailey, David in Love and War,
p. 88). It also acts as a caveat to commentators against making too much out of ‘‫’ותבוא אליו‬. On
the other hand, the LXX reading should not be taken as entirely exonerating Bathsheba from the
culpability of the sexual intercourse as it cannot bear the burden of proof that David eventually
used physical force on her during the sexual intercourse. At most, it underlines the already
acknowledged political power gap between David and Bathsheba and places the initiative for the
sexual intercourse entirely on David.
40)
Exum, “Bathsheba Plotted, Shot, and Painted”, p. 49.
41)
L.R. Klein, “Bathsheba Revealed”, in Samuel and Kings: A Feminist Companion to the Bible,
Second Series, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield, 2000), p. 49.
42)
See J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Woman; Feminist (Sub)Versions of Biblical Narrative, p. 173.
43)
Bailey, David in Love and War, p. 88.
44)
Klein, Bathsheba Revealed, p. 73.
12 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15

the sexual transgression. First, YHWH explicitly condemns David not Bath-
sheba: “But the thing which David had done was displeasing in the eyes of
YHWH” (11:27f ). Second, YHWH sent Nathan to reprimand and condemn
David not Bathsheba. Hence, Nathan’s parable is entirely addressed to David
and the punishments were also directly ‘addressed’ to him: the sword will
remain in his house forever and his wives will have sexual intercourse with his
neighbours publicly (12:1-7a). Indeed, authors like Davidson based on the
apparent one sided nature of YHWH’s condemnation have gone as far as to
exonerate Bathsheba as entirely innocent.45 Nevertheless, while it is true that
the punishment for the transgression weighs heavily on David, Bathsheba is
nonetheless also punished, at least indirectly. Certainly, YHWH’s pronounce-
ment of death sentence on the child of the sexual transgression is a punish-
ment that touches both David and Bathsheba (12:14c). Indeed, one wonders
whether the death of a new born baby does not pain the mother more. There-
fore, even though David gets a greater portion of the punishment for his dom-
inant and commanding role in the sexual transgression, Bathsheba is also
punished. Her minimal punishment perhaps suggests that she is not entirely
innocent and weakens the thesis of those who argue that she was raped (in the
Hebrew biblical sense of the term).
In the fourth clause—‘and he lay with her’—David is once more the subject
and Bathsheba the object. Similar constructions in the Hebrew bible are nor-
mally used for depicting illicit and illegal sexual intercourse and women
are often the object (see Gen 19:29; 34:2; Dtr 22:25; 27:20, 21, 22, 23;
Lev 20:11-13, 18).46 Nevertheless, the clause ‘and he lay with her’ does not
explicitly imply the use of physical force by David in subduing Bathsheba.
Surely, the language here lacks the physical overpowering attested in Amnon’s
rape of Tamer (2 Sam 13) and consequently, Bathsheba is not depicted as ‘cry-
ing out’ during or after the sexual intercourse. Even the argument that the
power gap between Bathsheba and David may supply the reason why she does
not cry out is not sufficient for reading violent subjugation into the context;
therefore, it is not a case of ‘biblical-rape’. At most, as Davidson suggests, there
may be psychological47 (even social and political) coercion which allows the
use of contemporary concept of rape for describing the event. Nevertheless,
given our understanding of the ‘Hebrew biblical’ concept of rape, it does not
qualify as ‘biblical-rape’.

45)
Davidson, “Did David Rape Bathsheba?” p. 91.
46)
Williams, NIDOTTE, p. 102.
47)
Davidson, “Did David Rape Bathsheba?” p. 89.
 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15 13

Particularly significant for our discussion is the circumstantial clause in v. 4,

describing Bathsheba’s condition during her intercourse with David: “She had
just purified herself from her uncleanness”. For what reason does the narrator
add this parenthetic note? In the Hebrew bible, according to Steve McKenzie,
menstruation usually entails cultic uncleanness. A woman is usually unclean
both during her menstrual period and seven days after (Lev 15:19-30).48 Since
the biblical concept of a day ends in the evening, a woman just concluding her
menstrual period will be expected to take her purificatory bath in the evening,
right after the sunset of the seventh day.49 Consequently, Bathsheba, presum-
ably unaware of the prying eyes of the king, is taking a purificatory bath after
sunset (in the evening) in her own home after menstruation.50 This plausible
explanation makes it clear that Bathsheba had no intention of seducing David
and exonerates her from the accusation of maliciously timing her bath at an
auspicious time to ‘provoke’ the king.51
In addition, the parenthetic note (’she had just purified herself from her
uncleanness’) announces that Bathsheba’s intercourse with David took place at
an auspicious and fertile period for conception. It also rules out the possibility
of Uriah being the father of the child.52 It is, however, unlikely as Guttman
suggests that the circumstantial note is the narrator’s way of accusing David of
transgressing against impurity laws.53 The fact that David is—potentially—
ignorant of the woman’s ritual uncleanness weakens such an interpretation.
Moreover, the narrator’s addition of the parenthetic note (’she had just puri-
fied herself from her uncleanness’) only after the sexual intercourse underlines
David’s ignorance of it before the sexual encounter.
After the sexual intercourse, we are told that “she then returned to her
house” (4e). With this statement, the narrator suggests Bathsheba’s eagerness
to return to her status as Uriah’s wife. Furthermore, it reveals David’s apparent
lack of interest in Bathsheba after the sexual intercourse. He had no original
plan of making her his wife. This interpretation is supported by David’s
attempted concealment of the sexual transgression by inviting Uriah from the
war front to go home and sleep with his wife, Bathsheba. In other words,

48)
S. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford, 2000), p. 157.
49)
Davidson, “Did David Rape Bathsheba?” p. 85.
50)
R.P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Cambridge, 1986), p. 253.
51)
Bailey, David in Love and War, p. 89.
52)
K.P. McCarter, 2 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary The
Anchor Bible, vol. 9 (Garden City, 1984), p. 286.
53)
Ibid.
14 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15

David is willing to allow Uriah and Bathsheba’s marriage to continue if only

he can exonerate himself from the sexual scandal.
The statement, “she then returned to her house” (4e) naturally brings the
sexual scene to an end. Consequently, the beginning and the end of the scene
leaves both actor/actress in their houses: David in the king’s ‘palace’ and Bath-
sheba in her ‘house’.54 The original distance and ‘strangeness’ between David
and Bathsheba before the sexual encounter once more returns. It is as if noth-
ing has happened. In this way, the sexual scene ends.

III. Conclusion
Our study reveals that there is a subtle but significant difference between the
Hebrew-biblical concept of rape and the contemporary notion thereof. Rape
in the contemporary parlance denotes, among other things, the abuse of
another through engaging in a non-consensual sexual act that is perpetrated
by the use of intimidation, domination, subjugation and/or violence. Here the
intimidation or domination need not be physical; it may be psychological,
emotional, political and so on. In addition, the victim and/or the rapist can be
male or female as the case may be. In this connection a woman can rape a
woman. In the Hebrew bible, however, the concept of rape, without excluding
psychological or social or political or emotional domination, of necessity
includes the use of physical force/violence in compelling a woman to non-
consensual sexual intercourse. Here, only a man can rape a woman and she is
expected to cry-out (or be assumed to have cried-out [Deut 22:25-27]) for
help. This distinction, as our analysis reveals, has significant implications for
the understanding of the sexual encounter between David and Bathsheba.
On whether David raped Bathsheba or not, we first note that David’s lord-
ship of the sexual encounter, which hinges on the power difference between
him and Bathsheba, creates an opening for a subtle (non-physical) use of coer-
cion by David, but to conclude that he ‘raped’ Bathsheba (in the Hebrew
biblical understanding of ‘rape’) would be to push the evidence too far and
read too much of our contemporary conception of rape into the biblical text.
Obviously, the type of physical force implied in the Hebrew biblical concept
of rape is absent in 2 Sam 11:4. Therefore, the sexual encounter between
David and Bathsheba is not a case of biblical-rape. Our conclusion has both
grammatical and contextual support from the pericope. For instance, both the

54)
Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, p. 51.
 A. I. Abasili / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1-15 15

meaning of the qal stem of the verb ‫‘ לקח‬take’ and the verbal clause ‘and he
lay with her’ does not explicitly suggest David’s use of physical domination
and force on Bathsheba before and during the sexual intercourse. Therefore,
the language of physical domination recorded in Amnon’s rape of Tamer
(2 Sam 13) is absent and disqualifies the encounter as Hebrew-biblical-rape.
In addition, the fact that Bathsheba shares in the punishment for the sexual
intercourse, at least indirectly through the death of the child, suggests her
shared responsibility in it and weakens the argument that she suffered Hebrew-
biblical-rape. Whether the broad and nuanced ‘contemporary conception of
rape’ (which does not necessarily include the use of physical force but stresses
psychological, social or political coercion) may permit the description of the
sexual encounter in the contemporary sense as David’s rape of Bathsheba or
not is an open question. Nevertheless, given our understanding of the ‘bibli-
cal’ concept of rape, it does not qualify as Hebrew-biblical-rape.
Concerning the accusation of Bathsheba’s seduction of David, our analysis
reveals that Bathsheba neither intentionally lured David into sexual inter-
course by bathing in an auspicious place nor desired the sexual relationship for
an ulterior motive. Both the grave consequences of marital sexual infidelity
(death penalty, stoning, trial by ordeal etc) and the acknowledged integrity of
David support this interpretation. Bathsheba was simply taking a purificatory
bath after her menstruation without knowing that the ‘good’ King was spying
on her. The specific mentioning of the time of the bath, (‘in the evening’)
further exonerates Bathsheba. Since her seven day ritual impurity ended at
sunset (evening) on the seventh day (Lev 15:19), then her taking of a ritual
bath at that time is not unexpected. It was David’s inability to control his
sexual passion stirred by the bathing woman’s beauty that made him send mes-
sengers to get Bathsheba. To blame Bathsheba for the sexual intercourse is
tantamount to blaming her for David’s lack of self-control. Without doubt,
Bathsheba was a victim of David’s sexual lust. We argue, consequently, against
the suggestion that Bathsheba seduced David.
Copyright of Vetus Testamentum is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.