Add new comment

Joanne, thanks for this. I addressed these points in the two subsequent posts:

But just briefly:

  • I agree that lambs have no agency, but the point is that the lamb is a possession, not an innocent victim; the only victim in the parable is the poor man.
  • David acknowledged his guilt for having killed Uriah and taken his wife, and it would make no sense to implicate Bathsheba on this account; Nathan does not accuse him of having “violated” (see the discussion of the rape of Tamar) Bathsheba in the first place.
  • I don’t think the narrator allows us to conclude that Bathsheba was “angling for a son”; but I think he encourages his readers to see the potential in the story for Bathsheba to become the mother of David’s successor.
  • It is only Bathsheba who will benefit from bearing David’s child; David has no interest in her conceiving, which is why he tries to get Uriah to have sex with her.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.