ellauri152.html on line 464: David ja Bathsheba juutalaisesta näkövinkkelistä
ellauri152.html on line 488: "Tiedän kyllä mitä siinä sanotaan. Mutta entäs Bathsheba?" Koska Batseba oli äitini nimi, minä luulin aina sen kuullessani että jotenkin viitattiin äitiin. Äiti karahti punaisexi.
ellauri153.html on line 817: David had four wives whose names we know—Ahinoam, Abigail (2 Samuel 2:2), Eglah (2 Samuel 3:5), and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:27)—and possibly others such as Absalom’s mother Maakah. This doesn’t count the concubines he had (2 Samuel 5:13). The natural question is, with plenty of female intimates to keep David warm, why did his attendants seek out a beautiful virgin stranger for the job? The following are several issues regarding Abishag’s “job description”:
ellauri156.html on line 32: Bathsheba pesulla
Sananlaskuja
ellauri156.html on line 34: Jean-Leon Geromen 1889 näkemys suht isopyllyisestä Bathshebasta alapesulla. David stalkkaa palkonkilla takuulla kulli ulkona.
ellauri156.html on line 59: 9. David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:1-4)
ellauri156.html on line 70: This sequence of events and its accompanying tragedies is the subject of chapters 11 and 12 of 2 Samuel. I have chosen to expound these chapters in three lessons. This first lesson will deal with “David and Bathsheba,” as described in 11:1-4. In the following lesson, we will address the subject of “David and Uriah,” as told by our author in 11:5-27. The third lesson will focus on “David and Nathan,” as this confrontation is put forth in chapter 12. Our text has much to say about the sins of adultery and murder, but rest assured that it addresses much more sins than this. It is a text we all need to hear and to heed, for if a “man after God's own heart” can fall so quickly and so far, surely we are capable of similar or even bigger failures. May the Spirit of God take this portion of the Word of God and illuminate it to each of us in full color, as we come to this study.
ellauri156.html on line 72: The best part in my opinion is the bit in Talmud where David looks Bathsheba in the eyes and sees his own horny face reflected there and is sick of the whole thing. From then on he will not touch Bathseba anymore down there ever again and leaves her to languish in his harem bored as hell. Maybe David barfed because Bathsheba was already corked. He was used to virgins.
ellauri156.html on line 74: Before we begin to look carefully at verses 1-4 of chapter 11, allow me to make a couple of comments about this event as portrayed in these two chapters of 2 Samuel. First, I want you to notice the “law of proportion” in this text. Only three verses describe David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba. Second, the author pulls no punches in describing the wickedness of this sin. History is not written in a way that makes David look good. Third, the sin of David and Bathsheba is dealt with historically, but not in a Hollywood fashion. Hollywood filmmakers would perform a remake of this account to dwell on the sensual elements. Nothing in this text is intended to inspire unclean thoughts or actions. Indeed, this story is written in a way that causes us to shudder at the thought of such things. I know it is something of a letdown, but at least myself, I was totally capable of imagining the rest. (I got 5 streetwalking girls and a wife, for God's sake.) If you need help with unclean thoughts here, please consult Gonorrhé Ballsack's Comtes Droolatiques.
ellauri156.html on line 106: But why the fuck was it a sin in the first place? Censuses are taxation events. David was after money, not blood, since when is that a sin in Jehovah's book? Or maybe he did not want to draw the sword, but rather sheathe it with Bathsheba? Now that is a sin, if the vagina is not one of yours. Hey, read on, Bob explains it all:
ellauri156.html on line 211: A third reason -- and I am hesitant to suggest it -- is that David may be getting soft. Let's face it, David had some very difficult days when he was fleeing from Saul. I am sure there were hot days and cold nights. There were certainly days when his food was either limited or lousy, or both. Army food has never been known as a work of culinary artistry. Now, David has moved up in the world, from barren wilderness, which Saul and his army would avoid if possible, to the hills of Jerusalem. His accommodations are better, too. He no longer lives in a tent (if he was fortunate enough to have one in those days); he lives in a palace. Why would David want to stay in a tent in the open field, outside of Rabbah, if he can stay in his own bed (or Bathsheba's), in his own palace, inside Jerusalem?37
ellauri156.html on line 273: 3b And one said, “From your minutious description, is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” (2 Samuel 11:3b)
ellauri156.html on line 287: The report David is given concerning Bathsheba gives him all the information he needs, and more, if he is intent upon doing what is right. He knows Bathsheba is married and thus out of the question. He also knows Bathsheba is married to Uriah the Hittite. This is no nameless husband, someone David has never heard of before. David has to know Uriah, even if he does not know his wife. In 2 Samuel 23:39, “Uriah the Hittite” is named as one of David's mighty men, known for his bravery and courage as a soldier. If he does not know it, surely someone there among his servants would inform him.
ellauri156.html on line 297: And so David sends messengers to her, who take her and bring her to him. When she arrives, David sleeps with her, and when she is purified from her uncleanness,38 she returns to her house. That is that. (Mikä uncleanliness? Meneekö Bathsheba Joen Bideniin ja pesee Taavin runkut pois?) If she had not become pregnant, I have little doubt she would never have darkened the door of David's house again. David does not seek a wife in Bathsheba. He does not even seek an affair. He wants one night of sex with this woman, and then he will let Uriah have her. (Häh? Oliko Bathsheba niin huono hoito vai? Eikös sitä olis voinut toistamiseenkin rotkauttaa? Bathshebalta ei nähtävästi mitään kysytty missään vaiheessa. Eikun x-asentoon Taavin sängylle ja melaa mekkoon.)
ellauri156.html on line 299: The sequence of events, so far as David is concerned, can be enumerated in this way: (1) David stays in Jerusalem; (2) David stays in bed; (3) David sees Bathsheba bathing herself as he walks on his roof; (4) David sends and inquires about this woman; (5) David learns her identity and that she is married to a military hero; (6) David sends messengers to take her and bring her to him; (7) David lays with her; (8) Bathsheba goes back to her home after she purifies herself. This same sequence can be seen in a number of other texts, none of which is commendable. Shechem “saw, took, and lay with” Dinah, the daughter of Jacob in Genesis 34:2. Judah “saw, took, and went in to” the Canaanite woman he made his wife in Genesis 38:2-3. Achan “saw, coveted, and took” the forbidden spoils of war in Joshua 7:21. Samson did virtually the same in Judges 14. Let us not forget that a similar sequence occurred at the first sin when Eve “saw, desired, and took” the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3. (Thanx a lot Bob for this compendium. This will certainly come handy later on, when looking for something fun to read.)
ellauri156.html on line 301: It is clear from the words of our text that David sinned. It is clear from the actions of David which follow that he sinned. It is clear from the words of God through Nathan that David sinned in a grievous manner. The problem is that many wish to view the text in a way that forces Bathsheba to share David's guilt by assuming that she somehow seduced him. I would like to pursue this matter, because I believe there is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion. (Wow! That's a refreshing point of view! Like Ballsack's novel Comment la belle Fille de Portillon quinaulda son iuge.)
ellauri156.html on line 303: The inference is often drawn that Bathsheba should not have been exposing herself as she did, and that it was her indiscretion which started this whole sequence of events. Some think her actions may have been deliberate (She knew David was there and could see. . . .), while others would be more gracious and assume it was simply poor judgment. Let me point out several things from the text. First and foremost, when Nathan pronounces divine judgment upon David for his sin, Bathsheba and Uriah are depicted as the victims, not the villains. When Adam and Eve sinned, God specifically indicted Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and each received their just curse. This is simply not the case with Bathsheba. Nowhere in the Bible is she indicted for this sin. It may be that the author did not choose to focus upon Bathsheba, but even in this case, the Law would clearly require us to consider her innocent until proven guilty. (Which law? Not biblical law for sure, take for instance Susan's case, where Daniel had to called upon to prove her innocence.)
ellauri156.html on line 305: It is very clear in Samuel that the tragedies which take place in David's household are the consequence of his sin, just as Nathan indicates (12:10-12). Thus, when Amnon rapes Tamar, the sister of Absalom, it is a case of the “chickens coming home to roost.” Or is it a case of "Rooster coming into the chicks?" Note that it is at David's command or summons that Tamar is called to the palace, and then to Amnon's bedside. There is not so much as a hint that when Tamar is raped, it is all of Amnon's doing. Should this not strongly indicate that the same is true in Bathsheba's case, of which this second incident is a kind of mirror image? (Fucking crooky noses, raping and ravaging their kinky haired ladies right and left.)
ellauri156.html on line 309: To approach this same issue from the opposite perspective, think with me about the Book of Esther. When the king summoned his wife, Queen Vashti, to appear (perhaps in a way that would inappropriately display her goodies to the king's guests), she refused. She was removed (see Esther 1:1-22). She did not lose her life, but she was at least replaced by Esther, who had no such compunctions. Then, we read later in this same book that no one could approach the king unless he summoned them. If any approached the king and he did not raise his "scepter", they were put to death (Esther 4:10-11). Does this not portray the way of eastern kings? Does this not explain why Bathsheba went to the king's palace when summoned? Does this help to explain why she seems to have given in to the king's lustful acts? (We do not know what protests -- like Tamar's in chapter 13 -- she may have uttered, but we do have some sense of the powerlessness of a woman in those days, especially when given orders by the king. (Later on it became the requirement that a raped lady should kill herself to save her husband the disgrace of having horns.)
ellauri156.html on line 311: Now, having looked at the big picture, let's concentrate on the juicy details. The text informs us that David sees this woman bathing and notes that she is very beautiful. It is sometimes thought that David saw Bathsheba unclothed as she bathed herself publicly, and that the sight of her (unclothed/partially) body prompted David to act as he did. Virtually the identical words employed in our text (“very beautiful in appearance”) are found in Genesis 24:16 of Rebekah, as she came to the well with a water jug on her shoulder. She was neither naked nor partially clothed. Similar (though not identical) descriptions are found, where no exposure of the woman is indicated at all (see Genesis 12:11; 26:7; 29:17; Esther 1:1). I believe one of the reasons David summons Bathsheba to his palace is that he has not seen all that he wishes. (Haahaa! Bob, you are a little too bashful here. Most likely he wants to try on what he saw, like St. Thomas who wanted to put his finger in the wound. Seeing is not believing.)
ellauri156.html on line 313: Let's pursue this matter a little more. (Oh lord, I feel the spirit stirring below my belt.) Bathsheba is bathing herself. (This is about the 4. time Bob invites us to picture this tender moment. There are not too many of them in the Bible, so let us savor it.) We tend to assume that this means she is disrobed, at least partially. I believe Bathsheba is bathing herself in some place normally used for such purposes. Only David, with his penthouse vantage, would be able to see her, and a whole lot of other folks if he chose. The poor do not have the same privacy privileges as the rich. I have seen any number of people bathing themselves on the sidewalks of India, because this is their home. The word for bathing employed here is often used to describe the washing of a guest's hands or feet and for the ceremonial washings of the priests. Abigail used this term when she spoke of washing the feet of David's servants (1 Samuel 25:41). Such washings could be done, with decency, without total privacy. We assume far too much if we assume Abigail is walking about unclothed, in full sight of onlookers.
ellauri156.html on line 315: Incidentally, Bathsheba is washing herself in Jerusalem, from which all the men of fighting age have gone to war. Remember the words of verse 1:
ellauri156.html on line 319: It is not as if Bathsheba is acting in an unbecoming manner, knowing that men are around. She has every right to assume they are not. David is around, but he should not be. On top of this, she is not bathing herself at high noon; she is bathing herself in the evening. This is when the law prescribed (for ceremonial cleansing), and it is when the sun is setting. In other words, it is nearly dark when Bathsheba sets out to wash herself. David has to crane his neck and use his binoculars to see what he does. I believe Bathsheba makes every effort to assure her modesty, but the king's vantage point is too high, and he is looking with too much zeal. I am suggesting that David is much more of a peeping Tom than Bathsheba is an exhibitionist. I believe the text bears me out on this.
ellauri156.html on line 321: If I am right in what I have been saying, David's sin becomes that much more wicked. In some instances (if not most), a woman may purposely or unwittingly encourage the one who assaults her. In this case, there is not so much as a hint that this takes place. In fact, if I am reading the story accurately, David's “sighting” of Bathsheba is the result of her keeping the law, while David is failing his responsibilities as king. But not his duties as the king of the apes.
ellauri156.html on line 327: Second, the nature of David's sin is the abuse of power. Power corrupts, we are told, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. David has come to power. In the previous chapters, David employed his God-given power to defeat the enemies of God and of Israel. He used his power as Israel's king to fill his pockets and void his cullions, and takes advantage of Dog's promise to Saul by restoring to Mephibosheth his family property and by making him a son at his table. Now, David, drunk with his power, uses it to indulge himself at the expense of others. I want you to notice the repetition of the word “send” or “sent” in this chapter. It is a king like David who can send all the men to war but stay home himself (verse 1). It is a king like David who can send people to inquire about Bathsheba, and then to send messengers to “take” her and bring her to his palace (verses 3-4). It is a king like David who can “send” for Uriah and “send” orders to Joab to have him killed. It is a king who "sends" his shlong into Bathsheba's holiest of the holy. David has the power, and he certainly knows how to use it, only now he is using that power for his own benefit, at the expense of others. This is not servant leadership.
ellauri156.html on line 347: Sins of commission are often the result of sins of omission. David committed sin by his adultery with Bathsheba and later by the murder of her husband, but these sins were borne out of David's omissions which came to pass when he stayed home, rather than go to war. These sins of omission are often difficult to recognize in ourselves or others, but they are there. And after a while, they incline us to more open sins, as we see in David.
ellauri156.html on line 349: Within those of you who are reading this message, I know there are some who have already fallen in the same hole as David. You have already committed adultery. To you, I would say: “Stop now!” How much better it would have been if David had confessed to his sin with Bathsheba before he went on to murder Uriah. Sin is like a cancer: the sooner it is cut out, the better; the longer it is left, the more it grows. If you have fallen as David did (or in some other way), forsake your sin, confess it, find God's forgiveness, and move on to the next.
ellauri156.html on line 365: This reference to Bathsheba’s “purification” is interesting and perplexing. The King James Version reads, “and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house” at verse 4. The New King James Version is slightly different: “and he lay with her, for she was cleansed from her impurity; and she returned to her house” (note the change from a semi-colon to a comma, and from a colon to a semi-colon). The NIV reads, “and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.)” The NRSV reads, “and he lay with her. (Now she was purifying herself after her period. Or was it colon? Only David knows, and Dog of course, but they don't tell.).”
ellauri156.html on line 367: There are two fascinating questions, which the text does not clearly seem to answer: (1) From what was Bathsheba purifying herself -- from her menstrual uncleanness, or from her uncleanness due to sexual intercourse? Both are dealt with in Leviticus 15.
ellauri156.html on line 374: Aika hemmetisti kyyhkypaisteja papille, kun jokainen menstruoiva nainen tuo niitä sille 2kpl/kk. Pappi pysyy hyvin selvillä seurakuntalaisten varmoista päivistä. Hmm. Jos Bathsheban kuukkixet oli ohize jo vähintään viikko sitten, kohtahan sillä oli ovulaatio, eikäpä ihme että Taavi-enon mälli teki heti tehtävänsä. Vaikka mä en kyllä usko eze jäi siihen yhteen kertaan. (2) When did this cleansing occur, and when was it completed? Was Bathsheba’s bathing which David witnessed part of her ceremonial cleansing? If so, there may have had to be a delay before the Law permitted intercourse. Otherwise, David would have caused her to violate the Law pertaining to cleansing, since it may not have been complete. The translations which make her cleansing a past, (continued) completed event seem to be suggesting that she was now legally able to engage in intercourse, though certainly not with David. If she was still in the process of her cleansing, David’s sin of adultery is compounded because it was committed at the wrong time, while cleansing was still in process. It is also possible to read the text (as does the NASB) to say that Bathsheba waited at David’s house until she was ceremonially clean from her evening with David. It is interesting that nothing is said of David waiting until he was cleansed. The inference I take from this “cleansing” reference is that Bathsheba was still concerned about keeping the Law of Moses, even if David was not. Big fat hairy diff.
ellauri156.html on line 384: Our lesson from 2 Samuel 11 is one of the great cover-up attempts of all time, and like so many, it too fails miserably. Our previous lesson attempted to explain David's sin with Bathsheba in a way that placed the guilt squarely upon David, and not upon Bathsheba. This was all of David's doing, not due to temptation or seduction on Bathsheba's part, but because of arrogance, lust, and greed on David's part.
ellauri156.html on line 386: David had no desire for Bathsheba to become his wife, or even to carry on an adulterous affair with her (a mitigating circumstance). He sought one night's pleasure, and she went home. That was that, or so it seemed. But then David received word from Bathsheba that this one night resulted in Bathsheba's pregnancy. Our text takes up here with the account of David's desperate attempt to cover up his sin with Bathsheba. As we all know, it did not work, and it only made matters worse.
ellauri156.html on line 390: At this point in time, David's life is very similar. He begins to stack one sin upon another, certain that each one will somehow wipe out visibility of the previous sin. Instead, his sins only multiply. More and more people become aware of his sin, and a cover up becomes impossible. Many lessons can be learned from this tragic episode of David's life, which if heeded, will help us duplicate them in our lives. May the Spirit of God open our ears and our hearts to listen and learn from David's attempt to cover up his sin with Bathsheba, so that you can avoid some of his mistakes and do a better job.
ellauri156.html on line 392: In our first lesson, we devoted our attention to the first four verses of chapter 11, which depict David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba. Pretty unbelievable that I got a whole four pages out of it. The trick is was to keep repeating the juicy bit about Bathsheba washing herself before (or after) David's load. I sought to demonstrate that this sin was all of David's doing. The author points his accusing finger at David, not Bathsheba. It was not Bathsheba's indiscretion in bathing herself (as I understand this story), for she was simply obeying the ritual of purification outlined in the law. It was David who, by means of his lofty elevation and view, looked inappropriately at Bathsheba, washing herself,violating her privacy. I endeavored to demonstrate that David's sin with Bathsheba was the result of a sequence of wrong decisions and attitudes on David's part. In one sense, being on the path he was, his destination (of adultery, or something like it) was to be expected. His sins of omission finally blossomed and came into full bloom.
ellauri156.html on line 394: One of the tragic aspects of our story is that the sequence of sin in David's life does not end with his adulterous union with Bathsheba. It leads to a deceptive plot to make her husband Uriah appear to be the father of David's child with Bathsheba and culminates in David's murder of Uriah and his marriage to Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. As we take up where we left off in our last lesson, a few more bits of background information are vital to our understanding of this text.
ellauri156.html on line 398: (2) It seems unlikely that Uriah is ignorant of what David has done and of what he is trying to accomplish by calling him home to Jerusalem. Rumors must have been circulating around Jerusalem about David and Bathsheba, and could easily have reached the Israelite army which had besieged Rabbah. Uriah not only refuses to go to his house and sleep with his wife, he sleeps at the doorway of the king's house, in the midst of his servants. He has many witnesses to testify that any child borne by his wife during this time is not his child. It is clear that Uriah understands exactly what David wants him to do (to have sex with his wife), and that he refuses, even when the king virtually orders him to do so. One finds this difficult to explain if Uriah is ignorant of what happened between David and Bathsheba. At least Uriah knows what David is trying to get him to do on this stay in Jerusalem. The implications of all this we will explore later.
ellauri156.html on line 400: (3) Bathsheba is not said to have any part in David's scheme to deceive Uriah or to bring about his death, much less any knowledge of what David is doing. When she informs David that she is pregnant, David takes decisive action, but nowhere are we told that Bathsheba has a part in his schemes. Verse 26 makes it sound as though she learns of Uriah's death after the fact, through normal channels. After all, would David really want his new wife to know he murdered her husband? David acts without Bathsheba's help.
ellauri156.html on line 402: It looks as though Bathsheba never enters David's mind after their encounter described in verses 1-4. It certainly does not seem that David wants to continue the relationship, to carry on an affair, or to marry her. David simply puts this sinful event out of his mind, until a messenger is sent by Bathsheba informing the king that his night of passion has produced a child. Bathsheba informs David that she is pregnant, not that she is afraid she might be. This means that she has missed at least one period and probably another. All in all, several weeks or more have passed. It will not be long before her pregnancy will become obvious to anyone who looks at her. This is David's sin and his responsibility, and so she informs him.
ellauri156.html on line 408: David's plan A is simple and, at least in his mind, foolproof. In short, David will entice Uriah to think and to act as he himself has done. David does not wish to endure the adversities of the war with Rabbah, and so he goes to Jerusalem, to his home, and to his bed. He does not wish to deny himself, so he takes the wife of another man and sleeps with her. David will give Uriah the same opportunity, except that it will be his own wife he will sleep with. Not as fun, one must admit. After Uriah has sexual relations with Bathsheba, all will conclude that he is the father of the child which has been conceived by David's sinful act. Only one thing is wrong with David's plan: he assumes Uriah is as spiritually apathetic as he, and that he will act to indulge himself, rather than act like a soldier at war and keep his sword in the sheath.
ellauri156.html on line 412: I should also add that Joab is already being drawn into the conspiracy. Joab obeys David's command to send Uriah, and my guess is that Joab knows something is up. He may even have heard about David's liaison with Bathsheba. When he sends Uriah to Jerusalem, he has to give him some mission, some task to perform. Joab and Uriah may have sensed that this was no “mission impossible” (as you would give a mighty warrior), but that is a “mission incredible.” In any case, the web of deceit and deception is already being woven, and more people are being drawn into the conspiracy. Wow, this is prime material for a soap opera. Maybe there already is one, must check. OF COURSE there is:
ellauri156.html on line 415: David and Bathsheba is a 1951 historical Technicolor epic film about King David made by 20th Century Fox. It was directed by King Saul, produced by Dog, a.k.a. Zanuck, from a screenplay by Philip Dunno. The cinematography was by Leon Shameonyou. Gregory Peck stars as King David and the film follows King David's life as he adjusts to ruling as a King, and about his relationship with Uriah's wife Bathsheba, played by Susan Wayward. Goliath of Gath was portrayed by 203 cm-tall (6'8") Lithuanian wrestler Walter Talun. These days Walter would no longer get a bench seat in a high-school basketball team.
ellauri156.html on line 419: As a consequence, David becomes attracted to Bathsheba who is the wife of Uriah, one of David's soldiers. The attraction is mutual although both know an affair would break the law of Moses. When Bathsheba discovers she is pregnant by David, the King sends for Uriah hoping he will spend time with his wife to cover her pregnancy. David's wife Michal who is aware of the affair, tells David that Uriah did not go home but slept at the castle as a sign of loyalty to his King. LOL, a sign of "fuck you" pointed at Dave with Uriah's middle finger without a nail.
ellauri156.html on line 421: Frustrated, David orders Uriah to be placed on the battle's front and for the troops to withdraw leaving him to die. Uriah is reported dead and David sends a dispatch to tell Bathsheba so they can plan their marriage. Nathan Zuckermann the prophet advises David the people are dissatisfied with his leadership and desire his sons to rule. Nathan tells David he has forgotten that he is a servant of the Lord. David tries in vain to cheer up the old retard. David marries Bathsheba.
ellauri156.html on line 423: As a result, a drought hits Israel. David's and Bathsheba's baby dies. Nathan returns to tell David that God is displeased with his sin. Dog wants to see better ones, with more pizzazz. Or else he will not die as the law demands, but he will be punished through misfortune in his family. David takes responsibility but insists Bathsheba is blameless. But the people want Bathsheba killed. The crowd shouts: No, we want Barabbas! David makes plans to save Bathsheba, but she tells David she is not blameless. She has continued seeing Uriah on the side. (The reports of his demise were premature.) They are both at fault. David is reminded of the Lord and quotes Psalm 23 as he plays his harp. (A nice musical interlude in an otherwise numbing show whose spoiler is long since spoiled.)
ellauri156.html on line 425: David promises Bathsheba she will not die and is willing to accept God's justice for himself, knowing that he as the hero of the book is safe. Repentant, David, seeking relief from the drought and forgiveness reaches out to touch the Ark presuming that he will die of heat stroke (or was it a short?) like the soldier. A clap of thunder is heard and there are flashbacks to David's youth depicting his anointing by Samuel and his battle with Goliath. King David removes his hands from the Ark as rain falls on the dry land. Screenwriter Dunno said he "left it to the audience to decide if the blessed rain came as the result of divine intervention or simply of a low-pressure system moving in from the Mediterranean." Well it could be both, couldn't it?
ellauri156.html on line 427: While Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. owned the rights to the 1057 BC book written by Dog with a little help from Egad and Nathan, the film is not based on that book. Dog also owned the rights to a 1947 Broadway play called "Bathsheba".
ellauri156.html on line 442: Dunno says his original conception was for a film that would encompass David's life and go into three main chapters: David as a boy fighting Goliath; a more mature David and his friendship with Jonathan, ending with the affair with Bathsheba; and an older David and his relationship with his son Absalom. Dunno wrote a treatment which he estimated would make a four hour movie. Zanuck was not enthusiastic so Dunno then pitched the idea of doing a film just on David and Bathsheba, which Zanuck loved.
ellauri156.html on line 449: David and Bathsheba was 20th Century Fox's most successful release of 1951 and the third-highest-grossing film of that year, earning $4.72 million in rentals.
ellauri156.html on line 451: A. H. Weiler of The New York Times described the film as "a reverential and sometimes majestic treatment of chronicles that have lived three millennia." He praised Dunno's screenplay and Peck's "authoritative performance" but found that Wayward "seems closer to Hollywood than to the arid Jerusalem of his Bible." Variety wrote, "This is a big picture in every respect. It has scope, pageantry, sex (for all its Biblical background), cast names, color—everything. It's a surefire boxoffice entry, one of the really 'big' pictures of the new selling season." Philip K. Scheuer of the Los Angeles Times wrote that the film "leaves little to be desired" from the standpoint of production values with Peck "ingratiating" as David and Wayward "a seductress with flaming tresses, in or out of the bath, and only her final contrition is a little difficult to believe." Richard L. Coe of The Washington Post wrote, "On the whole, the picture suggests a Reader's Digest story expanded into a master's thesis for the Ecole Copacabana."] Harrison's Reports wrote, "The outstanding thing about the production is the magnificent performance of Gregory Peck as David; he makes the characterization real and human, endowing it with all the shortcomings of a man who lusts for another's wife, but who is seriously penitent and prepared to shoulder his guilt. Susan Wayward, as Bathsheba, is beautiful and sexy, but her performance is of no dramatic consequence." The Monty Python Bulletin commented that the film had been made "with restraint and relative simplicity" compared to other historical epics, "and the playing of Gregory Peck in particular is competent. The whole film, however, is emotionally and stylistically quite unworthy of its subject." Philip Hamburger of The New Yorker wrote that "the accessories notwithstanding, something is ponderously wrong with 'David and Bathsheba.' The fault lies, I suppose, in the attempt to make excessive enlargements of an essentially-simple story." Zanuck the Hot Dog agreed.
ellauri156.html on line 461: King David and Diana Garland argue that, "Taking remarkable license with the story, the screenwriters changed Bathsheba from the one who is ogled by David into David's stalker." They go on to suggest that "the movie David and Bathsheba, written, directed and produced by males, makes the cinematic Bathsheba conform to male fantasies about women."
ellauri156.html on line 463: However, in giving Bathsheba a more active role, Adele Reinhartz found that "it reflects tensions and questions about gender identity in America in the aftermath of World War II, when women had entered the work force in large numbers and experienced a greater degree of independence and economic self-sufficiency. ...[Bathsheba] is not satisfied in the role of neglected wife and decides for herself what to do about it." Susan Wayward was later quoted as having asked why the film was not called Bathsheba and David. I guess it has something to do with the fact that Dog is called Dog in the bible instead of Bitch.
ellauri156.html on line 465: When Uriah arrives in Jerusalem, he reports to David, who acts out the charade he has planned. He asks Uriah about the “welfare of Joab and the people,” and the “state of the war.” It troubles me that David needs such a report at all. If he were with his men in the field, this would not be necessary. But even worse, David does not really care about Joab, the people, or the war. David's one preoccupation is to cover up his sin, to get Uriah home and to bed with his wife, and thus to get David off the hook. How sad to read of David's hypocrisy. The king who had compassion on the crippled son of Jonathan now lacks compassion for the whole army, and specifically for Bathsheba and her husband Uriah.
ellauri156.html on line 475: On to plan B. David has his spies watching Uriah as though he is the enemy. (Well, he is a rival all right.) They know what David wants; he wants Uriah to go home and sleep with his wife. If they do not know all of the details of what David has done with Bathsheba (which is hard to believe) and what he intends to accomplish by Uriah's visit, they certainly know something out of the ordinary is taking place. One way or the other, David is making these servant-spies co-conspirators with him.
ellauri156.html on line 507: David has set out on a course of action that backfires. He intends to put Uriah in a position that will make it appear that he is the father of Bathsheba's child. But Uriah's conduct has publicly exhibited his loyalty to his duties as a soldier, making it more than evident that he cannot possibly be the father of this child. It is worse for David now than it had been when he summoned Uriah to Jerusalem. David concludes -- wrongly -- that his only course of action now is to have Uriah killed in action. I don't know that David actually thinks he can deceive the people of Jerusalem as to whose child Bathsheba's baby is. How can he when everyone knows Uriah has never been with his wife to get her pregnant? It seems now as though David is simply trying to legitimize his sin. By making Uriah a casualty of war, he makes Bathsheba a widow. He can now marry this woman and raise the child as his own, which of course it is. Finally, a plan that makes sense.
ellauri156.html on line 552: These eight verses, devoted to the way in which Uriah's death is reported, are double the length of the account of David's sin with Bathsheba. They virtually equal the length of the account of David's dealings with Uriah. These verses begin with Joab's careful instructions to the messenger, who is to bring the news of Uriah's death to David. They conclude with the messenger's actual report and David's response to it. Why does the author devote so much time and space to the way in which Uriah's death is reported to David? Let us see if we can find the answer to this question as we look more closely at these verses.
ellauri156.html on line 562: Now why does this messenger not wait for David to respond in anger, as Joab instructed? Why does he inform David that Uriah has been killed, before he even utters a word of criticism or protest? I believe the messenger gives the report in this way because he understands what is really going on here. I think he may know about David and Bathsheba, and perhaps even of her pregnancy. He certainly knows that Uriah was summoned to Jerusalem. I think he also figures out that David wants to get rid of Uriah, and that Joab has accomplished this by this miserable excuse for an offensive against the enemy. I think the messenger figures out that if David knows Uriah has been killed, he will not raise any objections to this needless slaughter. And so, rather than wait for David to hypocritically rant and rave about the stupidity of such a move, he just goes on and tells him first, so that he will not receive any reaction from David.
ellauri156.html on line 584: How much better it would have been for David simply to have confessed his sin with Bathsheba and found forgiveness then? Not a whit, it would only made matters worse. Who was Bathsheba anyway to show forgiveness to the king? Just another skirt.
ellauri156.html on line 637: It all seems to be over. David is not looking for another wife; he is not even looking for an affair. He is looking for a conquest. That should have happened on the battlefield, not in the bedroom! Things take a very different turn when Bathsheba sends word to David that she is pregnant. David first seeks to cover up his sin by ordering Joab to send Uriah home on furlough, ostensibly to give David a report on the war. David's efforts to get Uriah into bed with Bathsheba begin as subtle hints, then change to veiled orders, and then turn crass as David seeks to get Uriah to do drunk what he will not do sober. When these efforts fail (due to Uriah's noble character), David sends Uriah back to Joab, with written orders to Joab to put him to death in a way that makes it seem like a casualty of war. Joab does as he is told and sends word to David: “Mission accomplished.” It is here that our apparently never-ending story resumes.
ellauri156.html on line 641: Bathsheba's response to the death of her husband is as we would expect, as we would also hope. From what the text tells us, she has absolutely no part in David's plot to deceive her husband, let alone to put him to death. Undoubtedly, she learns of Uriah's death in much the same way every war widow does, then or now. When she is officially informed of Uriah's death in battle, she mourns for her husband. We cannot be certain just how long this period of mourning is. We know, for example, that if a virgin of some distant (i.e., not Canaanite) nation was captured by an Israelite during a raid on her town, the Israelite could take her for a wife after she had mourned for her parents (who would have been killed in the raid) for a full month (Deuteronomy 21:10-13). As I will seek to show in a moment, I believe Bathsheba's mourning is genuine, and not hypocritical. I believe she mourns her husband's death because she loves him.
ellauri156.html on line 645: When Bathsheba's mourning is complete, David sends for her and brings her to himself as his wife. Wait, was little David born as yet, or did he start fucking her with her belly full? I do not see him bending down on his knees, proposing. I do not see him courting her, sending her roses. I see him “taking” her once again. And again. In fact, this is my favourite part. The question in my mind is, “Why?” Why does David take Bathsheba into his house as one of his wives? I do not think he is any longer trying to “cover up” his sin; it is far too late for that. She must be “showing” her pregnancy by now, and it is hard to imagine how all Israel cannot know what has been going on. It appears that at this point, David is not trying to conceal his sin, but to legitimize it. Whatever David's reasons may be, they are hardly spiritual, and they are most certainly self-serving.
ellauri156.html on line 660: In these verses, David makes it clear that God is at work even when it does not appear to be so. During the time David tries to cover up his sin, God is at work exposing it in his heart. These are not times of pleasure and joy, as Satan would like us to conclude; they are days of misery. David is plagued with guilt. He cannot sleep, and it seems he cannot eat. Worst of all, he cannot fuck. He is not sleeping nights, and he is losing weight. Whether or not David recognizes it as God who is at work in him, he does know he is miserable. It is this misery which tenderizes David, preparing him for the rebuke Nathan Zuckermann is to bring, preparing him for repentance. David's repentance is not the result of David's assessment of his situation; it is the result of divine intervention. Hey wait? If that is the case, where is the much-advertised free will? He has gone so far in sin that he cannot think straight. God is at work in David's life to break him, so that he will once again cast himself upon God for grace. He has good experience in casting himself upon folk, from Saul thru Jonathan to Bathsheba.
ellauri156.html on line 675: There are several important things to note about this meeting between Nathan and King David. First, note that Nathan is sent to David. Nathan is, of course, a prophet. However it comes about, he knows what David has done. If you will pardon the pun, David cannot pull the wool over his eyes. His words are, in the final analysis, the very word of God (see 12:11). If Nathan is a prophet, he is also a man who seems to be a friend to David. One of David's sons is named Nathan (2 Samuel 5:14). David informs Nathan of his desire to build a temple (chapter 7). Nathan will later christen (sorry, name) Bathsheba's and David's second son (12:25). He will remain loyal to the king and to Solomon when Adonijah seeks to usurp the throne (1 Kings 2). Nathan does not come to David only as God's spokesman, he comes to David as his friend.
ellauri156.html on line 685: Fifth, the story Nathan tells David does not “walk on all fours” -- that is, there is no “one to one correspondence” with the story of David's sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. The sheep (which we would liken to Bathsheba) is put to death, not the owner (whom we would liken to Uriah). I think it is important to take note of this fact, lest we press the story beyond its intent.
ellauri156.html on line 687: Why a story? Why not just let David have it head-on, with both barrels, like David did with Bathsheba? Many will point out that this is a skillfully employed tactic, which gets David to pronounce judgment on the crime before he realizes that he is the criminal. I think this is true. David is angry at this “rich man's” lack of compassion. If he could, he would have this fellow put to death (!). But as it is, justice requires a four-fold restitution. But having already committed himself in principle, Nathan can now apply the principle to David, in particular.
ellauri156.html on line 709: I hope I am not guilty of attempting to make this story “walk on all fours” when I stress the same thing the story does -- that there is a very warm and loving relationship between the rich man and the poor man's “pet lamb.” It really tasted great! Considered along with everything else we read about Uriah and Bathsheba and David, I must conclude that the author is making it very clear that Uriah and Bathsheba dearly loved each other. Anyway, who cares this way or that, it was his lamb. When David “took” this woman to his bedroom that fateful night, and then as his wife after the murder of Uriah, he took her from the man she loved. Bathsheba and Uriah were devoted to each other, which adds further weight to the arguments for her not being a willing participant in David's sins. It also emphasizes the character of Uriah, who is so near to his wife, who is being urged by the king to go to her, and yet who refuses to do so out of principle.
ellauri156.html on line 722: Second, David recognizes what he views as the greater sin, and that is the rich man's total lack of compassion. David is furious because a rich man stole and slaughtered a poor man's pet. He does not yet see the connection to his lack of compassion for stealing a poor man's beloved companion, Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. The slaughtering of Uriah is most certainly an act which lacks compassion. The crowning touch in David's display of righteous indignation is the religious flavoring he gives it by the words, “as the Lord lives” (verse 5).
ellauri156.html on line 738: I fear some of us tend to miss the point here. We read Nathan's story and we hear Nathan's rebuke as though David's sin is all about sex. David does commit a sexual sin when he takes Bathsheba and sleeps with her, knowing she is a married woman. But this sexual sin is symptomatic, according to Nathan, and thus according to God. God is not just saying, “Shame on you, David. Look at all the wives and concubines you had to sleep with. And if none of these women pleased you, I could have given you another woman, just one that was not already married.” Wow, this is the same 'gotcha' as with Adam earlier: I give you about anything as long as you keep your fingers off my property.
ellauri156.html on line 768: The consequences are not only appropriate, but intensified. David took one man's wife; another will take several (I bet four) of his wives. This happens when Absalom rebels against his father's rule and temporarily takes over the throne. Following the advice of Ahithophel, Absolom pitches a tent on the roof of David's palace (the place from which David first looked upon Bathsheba) and there, in the sight of all Israel, sleeps with David's concubines as a declaration that he has taken over his father's throne and all that goes with it (2 Samuel 16:20-22). While David seeks to commit his sins in private, God sees to it that the consequences are very public. Aijaa. Kai tää Absalom-tarinakin täytyy vielä lehteillä.
ellauri156.html on line 798: Because David did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite, and, well, in a minor way, stalking Bathsheba while she was washing herself and then fucking her without leave (1 Kings 15:5, emphasis mine).nn
ellauri163.html on line 282: David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife the callipygous Bathsheba,
ellauri164.html on line 933: Did Moses realize immediately what he had done? At some point after this event, “the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.’” Their conduct had publicly displayed a lack faith, reverence and respect. God determined that this needed an equally public punishment. The punishment for this sin was grievous. God gave to them a punishment so similar to the one given to all Israel at Kadesh that it was a heart-breaking moment for Moses. Both he and Aaron would die in the wilderness and not be allowed to enter the promised land. What a bitter pill for Moses to swallow. Like David with Bathsheba, God forgave the sin, but did not remove the consequences. The consequences for Moses’ momentary lapse in reverence and respect under the terrible emotion of anger was to be barred from entrance into the promised land.
ellauri171.html on line 200: Bathsheba" />
ellauri171.html on line 203: :max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/<span style=)
Bathsheba640x400-56a146e45f9b58b7d0bdbd02.jpg" />
ellauri171.html on line 204: Bathsheba was quite a dish. Uriel released her to Public Domain.
ellauri171.html on line 1145: Other wives of David and their children would be sympathetic, but would quickly look to see what they could gain from Amnon’s crime – which way the wind blew, and what chance might there be to seize some political advantage for themselves. Among them would be Bathsheba, a commoner newly introduced into the harem.
ellauri184.html on line 149: Ei kyllä normaalisti kukaan elä 40 päivää pelkällä vedellä. Sirkkoja ja hunajaa pitää saada syödä vähintään. Tähän tulee ne Jesajan ruovonpäristäjät, tarhapöllöt ja liekkiöt albumista 160. Jeshuaa pelottaa. J-la sanoo: sä paastoat, tai sä itket ja paastoat. No mikäs siinä auttoi, Jeshua paastosi. Ei edes pahanmakuista juurta tai pientä sirkkaa ollut saatavilla. Jeshua ei muka muista että Daavid oli pannut Bathshebaa. Schlomo oivaltaa pyytää viisautta ja saa oikeasta vastauxesta 10p ja papukaijamerkin. Tuttuja kuluneita meemejä.
ellauri185.html on line 135: David commits adultery with Bathsheba, who becomes pregnant. When her husband Uriah the Hittite returns from battle, David encourages him to go home and see his wife (to cover his own tracks) but Uriah declines in case David might need him. David then deliberately sends Uriah on a suicide mission, and for this, Yahweh sends disasters against David's house. Nathan tells David that the sword shall never depart from his house.
ellauri185.html on line 137: For the remainder of David's reign, problems occur. Amnon (one of David's sons) rapes his half-sister Tamar (one of David's daughters). Absalom (another son of David) kills Amnon and rebels against his father, whereupon David flees from Jerusalem. Absalom is killed following the Battle of the Wood of Ephraim, and David is restored as king and returns to his palace. Finally, only two contenders for the succession remain: Adonijah, son of David and Haggith, and Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba.
ellauri185.html on line 147: The chronological narrative of succession resumes in the first Book of Kings, which relates how, as David lies dying, Bathsheba and Nathan ensure Solomon's elevation to the throne.
ellauri257.html on line 492: Singerin isä oli hasidirabbiini, ja hänen äitinsä Bathsheba oli myös rabbiinin tytär. Singer otti myöhemmin käyttöön äitinsä nimen kirjailijanimessään ”Bashevis” (Bathsheban poika). Hänen veljensä Israel Joshua Singer saavutti kuuluisuutta suosittuna jiddišinkielisenä kirjailijana. Niinpä veli Israel Joshua Singer oli nuoremman veljensä ensimmäinen ja tärkein kirjallinen esikuva.
ellauri257.html on line 552: Kreitman oli Pinkjas Mendl Menachem Zyngerin (laulaja) ja hänen vaimonsa Basheven (Bathsheba), syntyperäisen Zylbermanin tytär. Hänen isänsä oli rabbi ja innokas hasidi, jolla oli intohimo mystiikkaan. Myös Kreitmanin äiti tuli rabbiinisesta, vaikkakaan ei-hasidilaisperheestä. Biłgorajin rabbin tytär, joka oli aikanaan tunnettu älyllisestä ja henkisestä luonteestaan, hän oli hyötynyt veljiensä koulutuksesta.
xxx/ellauri157.html on line 117: Kuningas Daavid ja Bathsheba
xxx/ellauri166.html on line 327: Mitä onko juutalaisillakin joku pyhä henki? Nähtävästi näin. Se esiintyy 3x Tanakhissa. Bylsittyään Bathshebaa Dave sävelsi Psalmin 51 jossa on tämmöiset verses 11 and 12:
xxx/ellauri292.html on line 312: Abigail on myös listattu yhdeksi seitsemästä juutalaisesta naisprofeettasta, muut kuusi ovat Mirjam, Debora, Hanna, Saara, Hulda ja Esther. Moraalisen luonteensa vuoxi Abraham Kuyper väittää, että Abigailin käytös osoittaa "mielenkiintoisimman luonteen ja horjumattoman uskon", mutta moraalittomammpi Alice Bach pitää häntä kumouksellisena. Adele Berlin puolestaan asettaa vastakkain Abigailin (a) tarinan Bathsheba">Batseban (b) tarinan kanssa. Yhdessä (a) vaimo estää Davidia murhaamasta typerää ja ahnetta miestään. Toisessa (b) Daavid määrää hyvän miehen kuolemaan, koska hän haluaa hänen vaimoaan. "Abigail-tarinassa (a) Daavidin, potentiaalisen kuninkaan, pili nähdään yhä vahvempana ja hyveellisempänä, kun taas Batseban tarinassa (b} hallitseva munarakki näyttää römpsänpuutteensa yhä avoimemmin ja alkaa menettää sukunuijansa hallinnan." (Detaljit kz. albumia 156.)
84