Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that yes - he did.
The article itself gives several reasons why one would wish otherwise:
1- "It is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law".
2- "It was David's desire to avoid the appearance of wrongoing that, ironically, resulted in his real trasngression".
I would add a third,
3- David has become a symbol of kingship, righteousness, and glory.
1- Behavior vs Torah Law
For the 1st point, that the story cannot be reconciled with Torah Law - this is common in the Hebrew Bible, especially in the Davidic stories. Most scholars posit that many of the laws of the Torah were enacted much, much later than the Pentateuch claims. This would explain why many of the key, important characters so frequently broke the Torah's commandments. A good example is the way in which David escapes from Saul - hidden within the houshold idols. What was good, holy David and his wife doing with idols? Probably what most people did at that time, before the Torah forbid it. Some of the Judges engaged in definately questionable behavior, according to the standards of Torah Law.
So - I wouldn't explain away David's adultery simply because it clashes with the Torah - this is a frequent occurence in the pre-Law accounts.
2- What sin was David actually punished for?
Again - this could be another instance of pre-Torah Law behavior, and it's ensuing mystery. We are curious as to why David is seemingly only punished for "hiding" his act. Apparantly, the biblical author doesn't have that much of a problem with David sleeping with another man's wife, but he DOES have a problem with David arranging for the murder of the husband. A strange mystery, which once again clashes with Torah Law.
Should this emphasis on the punishment allow us to absolve David of adultery? Well, if we take a pre-Law view - then possibly. But if we include our idea of Torah Law and use it to judge all characters in the Bible after the Law, then he committed adultry - and no wrangling should absolve him of that sin.
There are other issues that could be raised, but I'll only raise these for now. I think the article writer gives away his hand with the two quotes above. An interesting viewpoint, advanced by Gary Rendsburg (not sure if it's original to him), is the comment that David's glib words "the sword devours who it will" is why he is punished with so much strife and bloodshed for the rest of his life; another example of how words, once spoken, have power in the Hebrew Bible.
I know you probably won't agree with some of the starting point of my argument, Walter - but what do you think, nonetheless, of the situation? Was David an adulterer, as the story clearly shows - even without the biblical author's express condemnation of it? Apart from that - what do you think of all the instances of characters breaking the Torah, without any adverse punishment meted out to them?
One of the only "clean" pictures I could find of the subject - check out that leg!:
"Apparantly, the biblical author doesn't have that much of a problem with David sleeping with another man's wife, but he DOES have a problem with David arranging for the murder of the husband. A strange mystery, which once again clashes with Torah Law."
Not if we view it as a political story.
Ancient kings held themselves above the law. That a king should do so, even that a king anointed by a prophet of Hashem should violate torah law - in a way that fits the yetzer hara - is understandable and predictable. The biblical author accepts that some aveiras stem from human nature, and are not worth commenting on (well later on with another monarch a similar sin is worth commenting on, but not with a figure of the importance of David, at least). But for a monarch to take an innocent man's life (for to take a life is to destroy a world) is beyond the pale - it may be standard in other ancient kingdoms, but in this Israel is different.
lessons - a realistic attitude toward the fallibility of man and the temptations of power - and a prioritization of basic human rights, over issues of sexual morality.
It's nice to find the crime but what is the solution. Not finding the crime but what is the best way to conclude this appropiate matter.
This author does that.
Quote:
Moreover, David becomes an eternal symbol of the power of repentance. Through sincere repentance, David demonstrates for all future generations that anyone, no matter how grave his sins, can find redemption if he truly regrets his misdeeds and commits himself with all his heart and all his soul to correct them.15
This should have been in the introduction. But because people love the head and not the tail they will not get thus far.
"Apparantly, the biblical author doesn't have that much of a problem with David sleeping with another man's wife, but he DOES have a problem with David arranging for the murder of the husband. A strange mystery, which once again clashes with Torah Law."
Not if we view it as a political story.
Ancient kings held themselves above the law. That a king should do so, even that a king anointed by a prophet of Hashem should violate torah law - in a way that fits the yetzer hara - is understandable and predictable. The biblical author accepts that some aveiras stem from human nature, and are not worth commenting on (well later on with another monarch a similar sin is worth commenting on, but not with a figure of the importance of David, at least). But for a monarch to take an innocent man's life (for to take a life is to destroy a world) is beyond the pale - it may be standard in other ancient kingdoms, but in this Israel is different.
lessons - a realistic attitude toward the fallibility of man and the temptations of power - and a prioritization of basic human rights, over issues of sexual morality.
Very good post!
This is one of the "other issues" that I mentioned could be brought into the picture, and a very good issue it is!
It also highlights exactly what the prophet Samuel commented on, when the idea of kingship was raised initially:
He said, "This will be the practice of the king who will rule over you: He will take your sons and appoint them as his charioteers and horsemen, and they will serve as outrunners for his chariots. He will appoint them as his chiefs of thousands and of fifties; or they will have to plow his fields, reap his harvest, and make his weapons and the equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers. He will sezie your choice fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his courtiers. He will take a tenth part of your grain and vintage and give it to his eunuchs and courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, your choice young men, and your asses, and put them to work for him. He will take a tenth part of your flocks, and you shall become his slaves. The day will come when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen; and [YHWH] will not answer you on that day." (1st Samuel 8:11-18, NJPS)
Samuel was not pleased with what the desire of the Israelites for a king, obviously. His own sons had failed as "judges" over the land, and he felt as if he and his family were being rejected. YHWH assures him that this is not the case, though, when he tells him "For it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as king" (1st Sam. 8:7). They would later learn the truth of Samuel's words when political choices made by their rulers would have far-reaching and sometimes-disastrous results for the people. The excesses of the kings would come to a head with the death of Solomon, and his arrogant son's reply to the Northern Kingdom's request to ease their burdens that his "little pinky was bigger than their @#$%" - and the split of the United Monarchy.
The sexual excesses of rulers was well known by this time, and this can be seen especially in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh, as a ruler, is pretty obnoxious - and this isn't just a modern view; this was the view of the storytellers who weaved the ancient Epic. He ruled Uruk, but terrorized the people by exhausting their sons, and having sex with all the virgin wives - to the point that they beg the gods to help them. They do so, and Enkidu is created to be an equal to Gilgamesh and keep him occupied. And thus the story continues.
Some have suggested a sort of "Royal Right of the First Night" in which the King is permitted to have sex with a newly wedded virgin, in order to help ensure that any children be produced from what was considered the "best stock". A similar practice occurs in some animal groups today.
Did David have this right? Was Bathsheba just as guilty as David? Did she knowlingly bathe in his sight? She cetainly demonstrated her political suavy during the rest of the biblical account - managing to get her son Solomon on the throne, among other things.
I think your suggestion that the kings of Israel were expected to act differently than other rulers is an interesting one. The actions of David, and the many wives and horses of Solomon, might have been the impetus for later writers to include a law pertaining to kings in Deuteronomy. If Deuteronomy had been written at the time it claims to have been (by Moses, prior to any Kingly institution among the Israelites), it is strange that such a law is included. Many will claim that it was simply anticiptating the time in which a king would rule, but this goes against the grain of the leadership principles which the Torah provides, in addition to the account in 1st Samuel. Most scholars use this passage as a proof that parts of Deuteronomy was written much, much later:
If, after you have entered the land that [YHWH] your God has assigned to you, and taken possession of it and settled in it, you decide, "I will set a king over me, as do all the nations about me," you shall be free to set a king over yourself, one chosen by [YHWH] your God. Be sure to set as king over yourself one of your own people; you must not set a foreigner over you, one who is not your kinsman. Moreover, he shall not keep many horses or send people back to Egypt to add to his horses, since [YHWH] has warned you, "You must not go back that way again." And he shall not have many wives, lest his heart go astray; nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess.
When he is seated on his royal throne, he shall have a copy of this Teaching written for him on a scroll by the levitical priests. Let it remain with him and let him read in it all his life, so that he may learn to revere [YHWH] his God, to observe faithfully every word of this Teaching as well as these laws. Thus he will not act haughtily toward his fellows or deviate from the Instruction to the right or to the left, to the end that he and his descendants may reign long in the midst of Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:14-20, NJPS)
It appears to be a direct indictment of King Solomon, if not David. An interesting question is what "Teaching" does the passage refer to? Simply the Teaching on Royal Kingship? Or Deuteronomy in it's entirety? No matter what the answer is, it is clear that a King of Israel is expected to act differently from other nation's kings - as you pointed out in your post.
I think you're exactly right in pointing out that even a King is unable to callously take another man's life, especially for the intention of comitting sexual immorality. That sexual immorality is the important issue here, should be revealed from the many other lives that David DID take - especially in his rise to Kingship. He spilled so much blood, that God tells David that he cannot build Him a Temple because of it.
But God said to me, 'You will not build a house for My name, for you are a man of battles and have shed blood.' (1st Chronicles 28:3)
What's interesting in this verse is that it comes from Chronicles, which was very much interested in "white-washing" certain characters and biblical events - so I find it interesting that this reference to David's "bloodiness" is mentioned. Perhaps the Chronicler could not find any other reason for such a great man as David to not have built a Temple for God, instead leaving it to his son Solomon to complete. The other interesting point derives from the late authorship of this work - God will not be dwelling in the Temple, but "his name". We are reaching the point where the Name of God is becoming extremely important, and it reveals a power inherent within it. A recent article by Theodore J. Lewis discusses how a Name can be wielded as a weapon or a curse, in an Ancient Near Eastern context ('Athtartu's Incantations and the Use of Divine Names as Weapons, JNES Vol. 70, N. 2, 2011, pp. 207-228) that helps illuminate the various references to the Name of God, or the Name of YHWH, in the Bible - and it's appearance of having a separate reality apart from God.
But I'm digressing. The point was that David spilled blood - much blood. Sometimes justly, sometimes injustly. So it seems to make sense that the spilling of the blood of Uriah, coupled with the sexual immortality, is what doomed David to watch his new son die, and the rest of his rule be tainted by bloodshed.
I agree with your basic sentiment - that it is an indictment of the abuse of power. Unfortunately, because of God's promise that David would be "chastised" rather than "removed" - in the case of any problems - this has resulted in many moderns using this story as an excuse for their own sexual immorality, and then apologizing and pointing to this as their own form of redemption.
"think you're exactly right in pointing out that even a King is unable to callously take another man's life, especially for the intention of comitting sexual immorality. That sexual immorality is the important issue here, should be revealed from the many other lives that David DID take - especially in his rise to Kingship. He spilled so much blood, that God tells David that he cannot build Him a Temple because of it.
But God said to me, 'You will not build a house for My name, for you are a man of battles and have shed blood.' (1st Chronicles 28:3)"
Ah, but chronicles does not say that its a sin, just that it means david was not of the level of purity to build the beit hamikdash. I think the chronicler, who adores the house of David is desperately trying to find a way to explain the (accepted in Judean lore) fact that Shlomo built the Temple, while excluding the Bathsheba story, and the implication that it was punishment Davids sin. Rather it was not so much punishment, as simply that his historical role made him unfit to do it. I think the shedding of blood in battle, and even in political intrigue, is seen as different from the shedding of innocent blood.
As for the reference of the laws in Dvarim - of course I like to look at the text from both points of view at the same time - accepting for the purpose of midrashic discussion that it is literally m'sinai (and hence anticiopates the house of David) and the likely historical origin (that it was written under a late, reforming, member of the house of David, with ex poste knowledge of royal abuses)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Advice: Read the bottom then the top.
I read the article as well, and came to the same conclusion as you.
