another interpretation i've read is that she knew the palace had view of her roof so she deliberately bathed in plain sight of the king in order to get into the palace. the fact that she pressured david into making solomon king demonstrated she was interested in power all along.
Bathsheba didn’t have much choice about where she would bathe. David was the one who had choices. We also need to take the admonitions of Nathan the prophet seriously. Does Nathan blame Bathsheba at all? Or does David bear 100% of the blame?
@@crewsforchrist762 David found out because she sent a message to him. While the interpretation that she tempted him exists, it's still true that Nathan only blames David.
Mary says in Luke 1, “I am the servant of the Lord. Let this happen to me as you say!" We at least see a consenting position from the text for Mary's account after the angel's revelation. Bathsheba isn't afforded this in 2 Samuel from the author's perspective.
Meh. This isn't a very interesting interpretation. 1) It projects modern ideas onto an ancient text (the exact thing this group claims to be against) as well as 2) it ignorantly ignores key contextual realities. "Do you think she had a choice?" is a dumb question. Easily can go against and ask "Do you think she didn't want to be the mother of the next king?" What evidence is there to "Rape?" Gosh. I really cannot stand post-modern, 21st century interpretations of scripture. They aren't nuanced. I knew what she was going to say from the get-go. It's uninteresting and misses the whole point of the story to place blame or to name someone an oppressor or an oppressed person. That's ignorant and idiotic. What if Bathsheba wanted David? We get no indication that she didn't. So, to make claims like this is misleading and dumb.
something's not dumb because it disagrees with your pet theory. both interpretations of the incident are possible. one's personality, culture and experience will influence which makes more sense.
@@MusicalRaichu A bit ironic that you call orthodox positions "Pet theories" especially in this instance. Her whole argument is built on something that is not anywhere close to what the text is trying to say.
@@esava44 TBH i'm relying from memory, it's a while since i heard her talk, so maybe she said something that's not right. but the story is open to interpretation - bathsheba could be a temptress with political ambition, or an innocent victim of a lustful king. neither view violates any historical creed, so you can't say it's not orthodox.
@@MusicalRaichu The biggest problem with the rape argument is that rape as we know it today was not even in the forefront of the minds of those who lived in 1000BC. Which is what makes scripture so interesting from a morality standpoint. That the morality evolves as the pages pass. Would David had done what he had done had it been a definitive immoral act in his day? Probably not. It wasn't a definitive cultural taboo. Which is why God was displeased. But to say he intentionally did something blatantly immoral like our modern understanding of gender tension and sexual perversion, is misleading and nothing more than reading "progressive" ideation into an ancient text.
@@esava44 it was still immoral because he was infringing someone else's property, but that aside, what you say may be right. doesn't mean we don't examine the past and re-evaluate it using updated information. we now have enough testimony from those who were not asked for consent to be confident that lack of mutual consent is hurtful and damaging. we can and should revisit past interpretations of stories such as about Lot's daughters, hagar, bathsheba etc and see that they were based incomplete information and invalid assumptions. so we need both. understand incidents in terms of their own culture, but also review them from the perspective of updated knowledge. so (let's assume she was single) david as a man of his time might have treated her as fair game, but now we know realize it was an act of greed and domination. both are valid aspects of the incident.
