Jeong Dae Jun 201811 PHD Thesis Chronicles 2018

Thematic Dynamics of Characters’ Outward Appearance
in the David Narrative
by
Dae Jun Jeong
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Wycliffe College

and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College
© Copyright by Dae Jun Jeong 2018

Thematic Dynamics of Characters’ Outward Appearance
in the David Narrative
Dae Jun Jeong
Doctor of Philosophy in Theology
University of St. Michael’s College
2018
Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the function of characters’ outward appearance in
the David narrative (1 Sam 16 to 1 Kgs 2; henceforth “DN”). This study suggests that the
narrator portrays characters’ “looks” deliberately and draws strong connections among them in
the DN to convey his intention to the reader. Using a narrative critical approach to the DN, this
dissertation investigates how the narrator characterizes select characters effectively, efficiently,
and consistently, and clarifies his theological concepts concerning them. Chapter 1 reviews
modern scholarship on the characters and the methods of characterization. In addition, this
chapter explores the function of repetition as a literary device. Chapter 2 examines the role of
beauty in character descriptions in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible, also discussing
the narrator’s and Deuteronomist’s views on the ugly and the beautiful. Chapters 3 and 4 analyze
the DN’s descriptions of beauty within the family of king David for what they imply about the
narrator’s intention. This dissertation concludes that most characterizations of outward
appearance in the DN add coherence to the narrative and subtly disclose the narrator’s implied
meaning.
ii
Acknowledgements
I especially would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Glen Taylor, my supervisor, who from
the outset, has encouraged me in my study, has discussed with elaborate fullness of detail, has
suggested many ideas, has gave a lot of valuable comments, and has taken the time to patiently
read and edit this dissertation. I am most grateful to Prof. Marion Taylor, Prof. John McLaughlin,
Prof. Sarianna Metso, and Prof. Keith Bodner, who carefully read the dissertation. I am also
indebted to Prof. Glen Taylor, Prof. Marion Taylor, Prof. Christopher Seitz, and Prof. Michael
Kolarcik, who taught me during my course works. My best thanks are also due to Dr. Rachel
Lott for her assistance in editing my thesis.
In addition, I hope to thank members of North York Korean United Church in Toronto,
Canada, who gave constant love and encouragement for me. Especially, I also want to thank my
parents, Hyeong-do Jeong and Sun-ae Lee, my parents-in-law, Bok-guy Kang and Yeon-ja
Seong, and my brothers-in-law, Hyeon-seok Kang, Hyeon-jung Kang, and their family members.
As always, they have been there, providing both materially and spiritually for me. And most of
all, my gratitude goes to my three lovely children, Sion, Haon, and Pyoungon, who remained
encouraging with their love for me. Finally, my most sincere thanks to my wife, Hyeon Jeong
Kang, who has assisted me in innumerable ways with her everlasting love.
iii
Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... iii
Contents ........................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xvi
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1. The Attitude toward Beauty in the Hebrew Bible ............................................................... 1
2. Beautiful Characters in the Hebrew Bible ........................................................................... 2
3. Structure of the DH .............................................................................................................. 5
4. Inequity in the Description of Characters in the DN ........................................................... 6
5. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 7
6. Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 8
Chapter One:
Characters in Biblical Narratives and Characterization Using Repetition ................................... 11
1. What is Narrative Criticism? .............................................................................................. 11
1.1. A Starting Point and Development ............................................................................ 12
1.2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism .................................................................... 14
1.2.1. Narrative Text .................................................................................................. 14
1.2.2. The Real Author and the Real Reader ............................................................. 15
1.2.3. The Narrator .................................................................................................... 16
1.2.4. The Narratee .................................................................................................... 16
1.2.5. The Implied Author ......................................................................................... 17
1.2.6. The Implied Reader ......................................................................................... 18
iv
2. Characters in the Narrative ................................................................................................ 19
2.1. Who Are Characters in the Narrative? ..................................................................... 20
2.1.1. Classification of Characters ............................................................................. 21
2.1.1.1. Joseph Ewen: No Category ...................................................................... 21
2.1.1.2. E. M. Forster: Two Categories ................................................................ 22
2.1.1.3. Adele Berlin and Yairah Amit: Three Categories ................................... 23
2.1.1.4. W. J. Harvey: Four Categories ............................................................... 24
2.1.1.5. A. J. Greimas: Six Categories ................................................................ 24
2.2. The Process of Characterization ............................................................................... 26
2.2.1. Direct Characterization .................................................................................... 26
2.2.2. Indirect Characterization ................................................................................. 27
3. Beautiful Characters in the DN .......................................................................................... 27
3.1. The Functions of Beautiful Characters in the DN .................................................... 28
3.2. Characterization Using Repetition ........................................................................... 30
3.2.1. Repetition as Allusion .................................................................................... 31
3.2.2. Repetition of ‫ ָיפֶה‬and ‫ טֹוב‬............................................................................. 31
3.2.2.1. The Meaning of the Words .................................................................... 32
3.2.2.2. Other Hebrew Words ............................................................................... 33
3.2.3. Characterization by Repetition ......................................................................... 35
3.2.4. Repetition of Significant Events in the Narrative ............................................. 36
3.2.5. Repetition of Character Description in the Narrative ....................................... 39
4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter Two:
The Role of Outward Appearance
in the Ancient Near East and Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible ..................................................... 45
1. The Role of Outward Appearance in the Ancient Near East ............................................. 45
1.1. Akkadian Myths and Letters .................................................................................... 46
1.2. Egyptian Hymns ...................................................................................................... 48
v
1.3. Sumerian Hymns ..................................................................................................... 50
1.4. The Hebrew Bible ................................................................................................... 50
1.5. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament ..................................................................... 53
1.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 55
2. The Narrator’s Evaluation of the Beautiful and the Ugly in the DH .................................. 56
2.1. Ehud and Eglon in Judg 3:12-30 ............................................................................. 57
2.2. Samson in Judg 13-16 .............................................................................................. 60
2.3. Eli in 1 Sam 1-4 ...................................................................................................... 65
2.4. Samuel ..................................................................................................................... 69
2.5. Saul, the First King of Israel .................................................................................... 72
2.6. Eliab in 1 Sam 16:6-7 .............................................................................................. 74
2.7. Goliath in 1 Sam 17 ................................................................................................. 76
2.8. Mephibosheth the Lame ........................................................................................... 80
2.9. Ahijah and the Dead Boy in 1 Kgs 14:1-20 ............................................................. 84
2.10. Elisha the Bald in 2 Kgs 2:23-24 ............................................................................ 86
2.11. Naaman the Leper .................................................................................................. 90
2.12. Zedekiah(-Jehoiachin), the Last King of Judah ..................................................... 92
3. The Deuteronomists’ Attitude towards the Beautiful and the Ugly .................................. 95
Chapter Three:
The Beautiful Women in the DN .................................................................................................. 97
1. David’s Beautiful Wives .................................................................................................... 98
1.1. Abigail, the Wise and Beautiful Woman ................................................................... 99
1.1.1. Nabal, Abigail’s Original Husband ................................................................ 101
1.1.2. David, Abigail’s New Husband ..................................................................... 106
1.1.3. Beautiful Abigail ........................................................................................... 108
1.2. Bathsheba, the Very Beautiful Woman .................................................................. 112
1.2.1. Uriah, Bathsheba’s Original Husband ........................................................... 114
vi
1.2.2. David, Bathsheba’s New Husband ................................................................ 119
1.2.3. Very Beautiful Bathsheba ............................................................................. 123
1.2.4. The Parable in 2 Sam 12:1-4 ......................................................................... 129
1.3. Abishag, the Extremely Beautiful Woman .............................................................. 135
1.3.1. Extremely Beautiful Abishag ......................................................................... 136
1.3.2. Adonijah, a Candidate for Abishag’s New Husband ..................................... 140
1.3.3. The Reunion of the Characters in 2 Sam 11-12 ............................................. 145
1.4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 148
2. David’s Beautiful Direct Female Descendants ................................................................. 149
2.1. Tamar the Daughter ............................................................................................... 150
2.1.1. Jonadab, the Very Wise Man ......................................................................... 152
2.1.2. Amnon the Nabal and Tamar the Beautiful ................................................... 156
2.2. Tamar the Granddaughter ...................................................................................... 162
2.2.1. The Third Tamar ............................................................................................ 163
2.2.2. The Missing Tamar ........................................................................................ 165
2.3. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 169
Chapter Four:
The Handsome Men in the DN ................................................................................................... 171
1. Handsome but Small David .............................................................................................. 171
2. Absalom, the Unblemished ............................................................................................... 175
2.1. Another David or Another King .............................................................................. 176
2.2. The Imperfect Thief ................................................................................................. 180
3. Adonijah, a Self-Styled King ............................................................................................ 182
3.1. Very Handsome Adonijah ....................................................................................... 183
3.2. Solomon, the New King ........................................................................................... 186
4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 190
vii
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 192
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 195
viii
List of Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
ABR Australian Biblical Review
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
AIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature
AJET Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology
AnBib Analecta Biblica
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B.
Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries
ApOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
AYB Anchor Yale Bible
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
Bib Biblica
BibInt Biblical Interpretation
BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BN Biblische Notizen
BO Berit Olam
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
BT The Bible Translator
BuR Bucknell Review
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
ix
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CC Continental Commentaries
DH Deuteronomistic History
DN David Narrative
DSS Dead Sea Scrolls
EA Ex Auditu
ESV English Standard Version
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FCB Feminist Companion to the Bible
FCBS Feminist Companion to the Bible: Second Series
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
GKC Genesius’ Hebrew Grammer. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Translated by Arther E.
Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910
GPP Gorgias Precis Portfolios
HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler,
Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and Edited under the
Supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994-1999
HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs
HR History of Religions
HS Hebrew Studies
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
IBHS An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael
O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990
ICC International Critical Commentary
Int Interpretation
ISBL Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature
x
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JAH Journal of Ancient History
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JATS Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JHebS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JPJ Journal of Progressive Judaism
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
KJV King James Version
LCBI Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation
LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies
LTC A Literary and Theological Commentary
LXX Septuagint
NASB New American Standard Bible
NIBCOT New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIV New International Version
NIVAC The NIV Application Commentary
NLT New Living Translation
NovT Novum Testamentum
OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
OTE Old Testament Essays
OTL Old Testament Library
xi
OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën
PFES Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society
PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies
PTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series
Q Qumran
RevExp Review and Expositor
RNBC Readings: A New Biblical Commentary
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SCJ Stone-Campbell Journal
SemeiaSt Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies
SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica
StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
SubBi Subsidia Biblica
TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative
TBS Tools for Biblical Study
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes
Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 15 vols.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-2006
TSR Trinity Seminary Review
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review
UT Ugaritic Textbook. Cyrus H. Gordon. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1965
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
xii
WHS Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. Ronald J. Williams. Revised and Expanded by John
C. Beckman. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible ..................................................... 4

Table 2. The Words That Mean “Beauty” in the Hebrew Bible .................................................. 33
Table 3. Characters Whose Outward Appearance Is Described
as Beautiful/Handsome in the DN .................................................................................. 34
Table 4. A Consideration of Stories Related to the Beautiful Characters in the DH .................... 40
Table 5. Delilah’s Asking and Samson’s Response in Judg 16 ................................................... 63
Table 6. Eli’s Outward Appearance ............................................................................................. 69
Table 7. The Comparison among the Candidates of Israel’s King ............................................... 74
Table 8. Various Characters in 1 Sam 17 .................................................................................... 77
Table 9. Attributes of Two Representative Soldiers in 1 Sam 17 ................................................ 78
Table 10. The Similarities between Mephibosheth and David .................................................... 81
Table 11. The Similarities between Two Judgments ................................................................... 83
Table 12. The Similarities among the Three Blind Characters .................................................... 85
Table 13. The Similarities between Two Incidents in 2 Kgs 2:19-24 ......................................... 88
Table 14. The Similarities between Elijah’s and Elisha’s Incidents ............................................ 89
Table 15. Child Characters’ Role in the DH ................................................................................. 91
Table 16. The Similarities between Zedekiah-Jehoiachin and Mephibosheth ............................ 94
Table 17. The Beautiful and the Ugly Characters in the DH, excluding the DN ......................... 95
Table 18. The Similarities between Two Kinds of Relationships ............................................. 102
Table 19. Nabal’s Wordplay about David’s Ancestors ............................................................. 104
Table 20. David’s Place in 1 Sam 24-26 .................................................................................... 107
Table 21. The Contrast between Nabal’s and Abigail’s Character ............................................ 109
Table 22. The Comparison between Abimelech’s and Uriah’s Death ....................................... 122
Table 23. The Depiction of David’s Beautiful Wives ............................................................... 139
Table 24. The Comparison between 1 Kgs 1:4 and 1:6 ............................................................. 141
Table 25. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible ............................................... 142
xiv
Table 26. The Dissimilarities between 2 Sam 11-12 and 1 Kgs 1-2 .......................................... 145
Table 27. The Comparison between 2 Sam 11 and 1 Kgs 1-2 .................................................... 146
Table 28. Names, Descriptions and Fates of David’s Beautiful Wives ..................................... 149
Table 29. David’s Women and Friends in the Fulfillment of Nathan’s Prophecy .................... 154
Table 30. The Similarities between Two Stories
Concerning Beautiful and Wise Characters ................................................................ 155
Table 31. The Literary Structure Composed of Characters’ Commands in 2 Sam 13 .............. 162
Table 32. The Similarities between the First Two Tamars ........................................................ 163
Table 33. The Similarities between Two Tamars ...................................................................... 170
Table 34. The Kings’ ‫קָ טֹ ן‬/‫… קָ טָ ן‬................................................................................................. 174
Table 35. The Similarities between David’s and Absalom’s Daughters ................................... 176
Table 36. The Similarities between David and Absalom .......................................................... 180
Table 37. The Relationship between Absalom and the Wise Characters .................................. 181
Table 38. The Similarities between Adonijah and Absalom ..................................................... 184
Table 39. The Birth Order of Jesse’s and David’s Sons ............................................................ 188
Table 40. Fathers’ and Yahweh’s Concern for the Kings and the Candidates in the DN ......... 190
xv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Structure of the DH ......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism Suggested by Seymour Chatman ................... 14
Figure 3. The Narrative Structure of Incidents Involving Beautiful Characters
Related to David’s Kingship in the DN ....................................................................... 43
Figure 4. The Literary Structure of 1 Sam 24-26 ....................................................................... 103
Figure 5. The Changes of the Relationships among the Characters in 1 Sam 25 ...................... 112
Figure 6. The Similarities between the Entry of David and Bathsheba
into the King’s Orbit .................................................................................................. 129
Figure 7. David’s Change of Attitude through the Lens of the Parable .................................... 134
Figure 8. Interlocking Device in 1 Kgs 1:2-4a .......................................................................... 136
Figure 9. The Similarities between the Two Stories ................................................................. 148
Figure 10. Maacah’s Family Tree .............................................................................................. 168
Figure 11. Two Beautiful Groups in the DN ............................................................................. 185
Figure 12. The Changes of David’s Political Power
with the Beautiful Characters in the DN ................................................................. 193
xvi
Introduction
There is an interesting Latin proverb about beauty which says “a comely face is a silent
recommendation.”1 This old saying means that most people are attracted to beauty. In general,
beauty is an object of envy. Even though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, most people pursue
it in some way. No one wants to be ugly. However, beauty can be a cause for alarm, because it
has the power to blind people to what is really important. Thus, there are many proverbs
revealing beauty’s negative aspects such as “the most beautiful fig may contain a worm.”2
1. The Attitude toward Beauty in the Hebrew Bible
What is the attitude toward beauty in the Hebrew Bible? Generally, the Hebrew Bible considers
beauty to be a good thing as, it shares “in the ordered meaning of God’s creation.”3 According to
the books of Genesis and Ecclesiastes, when God created the heavens and the earth, He made
everything beautiful or handsome (‫ טֹוב‬in Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; ‫ ָיפֶה‬in Eccl 3:114). In
light of the positive reference to creation in Genesis and Ecclesiastes, H. Ringgeren insists that
1
Harold V. Cordry, The Multicultural Dictionary of Proverbs: Over 20,000 Adages from More Than 120
Languages, Nationalities and Ethnic Groups (Jefferson: McFarland, 2005), 22.
2
Cordry, The Multicultural Dictionary of Proverbs, 23.
3
William A. Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context,” JETS 28 (1985): 422.
4
On the relationship between ‫ טֹוב‬in Gen 1 and ‫ ָיפֶה‬in Eccl 3:11, Tremper Longman elucidates that “in Genesis 1
God pronounces each step of his creation ‘good’ (ṭôb). Qohelet’s word ‘beautiful’ (yāpeh) may … be a reflex of this
divine pronouncement” as the verb ‫( בָ ָרא‬Gen 1:1, 27) is replaced by ‫( עָשָ ה‬Eccl 3:11). Tremper Longman III, The
Book of Ecclesiastes, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 119.
1
2
beauty has a positive meaning in the Hebrew Bible.5 Moreover, Simon J. DeVries argues that
“the Israelites praised physical beauty . . . as a token of Yahweh’s spirit.”6 At the same time,
however, the Hebrew Bible has a guarded attitude toward beauty. Adam and Eve picked the fruit
of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and of Evil because of its beauty (Gen 3:6; ‫ָה־הּוא‬
֣ ‫ִ֧כי ַֽת ֲאו‬
‫)לָעֵ ַ֗ינים‬. Furthermore, Yahweh proclaimed that people only see outward appearance, unlike Him
(1 Sam 16:7:‫)כי ָ ַֽהאָ דָ ם֙ י ְר ֶ ֣אה ל ֵע ַ֔ינים‬.

ִּ֤ When it comes to the concept of beauty, the Hebrew Bible, on
balance, keeps a neutral stance; beauty itself does not provide a trustworthy clue to what is good
and bad or right and wrong.
2. Beautiful Characters in the Hebrew Bible
Many characters appear in the Hebrew Bible, but only a few are described with reference to their
physical features. The narrators describe physical features such as beauty, disability, illness, and
fatness when they need those distinct outward appearances.7 In some cases, the narrators depict
not only the outward appearance of a human being, but also that of an animal, plant, and
inorganic substance,8 presumably for some purpose relating to the intention of the narrator.
In the case of beauty, most beautiful characters appear in the narrative section9 of the
5
H. Ringgren, “yāpâ,” TDOT 6: 219.
6
Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, 2nd ed. WBC 12 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 13.
7
See the cases of Ehud (Judg 3:16; disability), Eglon (Judg 3:17; fatness [traditionally understood]), Mephibosheth
(2 Sam 9:3, 13; disability), Elisha (2 Kings 2:23; baldness), Naaman (2 Kings 5:1; illness), Gehazi (2 King 5:27;
illness), and so on.
8
See the cases of the cows and ears of grain (Gen 41:2-7), and bones (Ezek 37:1-10).
9
On the definition of the narrative section in the Hebrew Bible, see David M. Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell,
Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 3-5.
3
Hebrew Bible. The reason why a very small number of beautiful characters appear in other
sections is that the characters’ beauty is not visible to the reader, but notional. For example, the
beloved in the Song of Songs is an imaginary lover as far as the reader is concerned, because the
reader cannot find the traces of her life in history and does not know who she is. Additionally,
these characters do not have personal names.
Robert Rezetko maintains that “eight women (and Job’s daughters) and eleven men are
described as ‘beautiful/handsome’”10 in the Hebrew Bible. However, Rezetko omits Bathsheba
and other beautiful women and (for no apparent reason) adds the Egyptian in 2 Sam 23:21.11 It
seems his intention is to balance the numbers of handsome men and beautiful women in the
Hebrew Bible in that each group is composed of eleven people.
According to my analysis,12 roughly one-third of the beautiful characters of the Hebrew
Bible occur in the David narrative [hereafter: DN].13 This is a disproportionately high number
10
Robert Rezetko, Source and Revision in the Narratives of David’s Transfer of the Ark: Text, Language, and Story
in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15-16, JSOTSup 470 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 46. See especially note 16
and 17 on page 46. He argues that the eleven beautiful women are “Sarai (Gen 12:11, 14), Rachel (Gen 29:17),
Abigail (1 Sam 25:3), Tamar (2 Sam 13:1), Tamar (2 Sam 14:27), Abishag (1 Kgs 1:3, 4), Esther (Esth 2:2, 3, 7),
Job’s daughters (Job 42:15), the Shulammite (Cant 1:5, 15, 16; 4:1, 7; 6:4).” Also, he asserts that the eleven
handsome men are Saul (1 Sam 9:20), Absalom (2 Sam 14:25), “Joseph (Gen 39:6), Moses (Exod 2:2), David (1
Sam 16:12; 17:42; cf. 16:6-7), the Egyptian (2 Sam 23:21), Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6), and Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael,
and Azariah (Dan 1:4).”
11
Rezetko seems to follow the KJV’s translation, “an Egyptian, a goodly man” in 2 Sam. 23:21. However, the
Hebrew word ‫ מ ְראֶ ה‬does not mean beauty alone. Moreover, the parallel account in 1 Chron 11:23 uses the word
“stature” rather than “appearance.”
12
See Table 1.
13
According to Gary Stansell, the David Narrative lasts from 1 Sam 16 (his first appearance) to 1 Kgs 2 (his death).
I will follow his definition of the DN. Gary Stansell, “Honor and Shame in the David Narratives,” Semeia 68 (1994):
56. See also Raymond-Jean Frontain, “The Trickster Tricked: Strategies of Deception and Survival in the David
Narrative,” in Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text, eds. Vincent L. Tollers and John Maier, BuR 33.2
(Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1990), 170-92; Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Cracks in the Foundation: Ominous
Signs in the David Narrative,” BSac 172 (2015): 154-76; Peter D. Miscall, The Workings of Old Testament Narrative
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 48.
4
compared with other sections of the Hebrew Bible. What is the narrator’s purpose in supplying
this characterization? How can the reader understand and interpret the plethora of descriptions
about outward appearances in the DN? This dissertation starts with such questions and concludes
that descriptions of their beauty seems to be consonant with an upheaval in their social and
political position, something not seen in beautiful characters and events outside the DN.
Table 1. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible
Text Women Men Total

Pentateuch Sarai (Gen 12:11, 14) Joseph (Gen 39:6) 5
Rebekah (Gen 24:16; 26:7) Moses (Exod 2:2)
Rachel (Gen 29:17)
The DH Samuel (1 Sam 2:26)14 10
Saul (1 Sam 9:2)
The DN Abigail (1 Sam 25:3) David (1 Sam 16:12; 17:42) (8)
Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2) Absalom (2 Sam 14:25)
Tamar 1 (2 Sam 13:1) Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6)
Tamar 2 (2 Sam 14:27)
Abishag (1 Kgs 1:4)
Others Narratives Vashti (Esth 1:11) Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael 10
Esther (Esth 2:7) and Azariah (Dan 1:4, 15)
Job’s daughters, Jemimah,
Keziah and Keren-Happuch
(Job 42:15)
Poetry You, the beloved (Song 1:8,
15, 16; 4:1, 7; 5:9; 6:1, 4)
Total 14 11 25
14
John Trotti suggests that “we might translate this [‫‘ ]הֹ לֵ ְֵ֥ך וְ ג ֵ ֵָ֖דל ו ָ֑טֹוב‬he grew greater and better looking.’” John Boone
Trotti, “Beauty in the Old Testament” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1964), 21.
5
3. Structure of the DH
John Harvey insists that the Deuteronomistic History [hereafter: DH] has a special structure, as
in the figure below. He seems to think that the DH acts as one book with “apposition” and a
“chiastic structure.”15 As David Jobling points out, the DH also was “compiled for primarily
theological reasons”16 by the author(s) and editor(s) of other narrative portions in the Hebrew
Bible. Therefore, we know that the DH has a unique and well-organized literary structure for
delivering theological messages. Parallel panels serve as an inclusio17 for a kind of chiasm and
serve to emphasize the internal content. Also, this structure shows that the DH has an
interlocking device18 to emphasize internal portions (from Judges to 1 Kings 1-11). From this
suggestion, we can assume that the books in the DH have a strong relationship with one another.
In addition, these books use various literary devices such as apposition, repetition,19 chiasm, and
so on. We can infer that not only the DH, but also the DN in the DH have a well-constructed
literary structure.
15
John Harvey, “The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” SJOT 20 (2006): 237. About the DH as one work,
Martin Noth observes that “it is more important to notice aspects of the arrangement of the books Joshua – Kings
which can be traced back to the work of Dtr.” Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1981), 5.
16
David Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible I, 2nd ed. JSOTSup 7
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 12.
17
H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure,” Bib 62 (1981): 158, 160, 168.
Parunak says that an inclusio has three parts. Both “outer” parts have the same structure or content, and the inner
part is longer than the outer. In addition, “the inclusio consists of the repetition, and the chiasm (as the inclusio) can
be used to divide, unify, and emphasize biblical texts.”
18
Jerome F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, JSOTSup 217 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 87, 98.
19
Brian Peckham elaborates that a prominent literary characteristic of the DH is repetition. The editors use this
literary technique for giving “the history coherence despite the diverse materials and incongruous viewpoints.” Brian
Peckham, The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History, HSM 35 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 49.
6
Figure 1. Structure of the DH20
4. Inequity in the Description of Characters in the DN
In the DN, as in other Hebrew Bible narratives, many different characters emerge on the
narrative stage. The narrator, however, does not describe all the characters equally. When certain
characters enter the narrative stage in the DN, the narrator introduces only their attractive
outward appearance with the Hebrew words, ‫ ָיפֶה‬or ‫טֹוב‬. As mentioned earlier, few characters
are depicted as beautiful in the Hebrew Bible, compared to roughly one-third in the DN. Given
the brevity with which characters are typically described, might there be some significance to the
narrator’s choice to add such a descriptor? When one analyzes stories in the DN that mention the
20
Harvey, “The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” 237. About this structure, he asserts that “Joshua-Judges
and 1-2 Kings bracket the books of Samuel as parallel panels: just as the Deuteronomistic promise of land is realized
in Joshua only to be compromised in Judges, so the Deuteronomistic promise of centralized worship is realized in 1
Kings 1-11 only to be compromised in 1 Kings 12- 2 Kings 25.”
7
characters’ attractive outward appearance, the narrator seems to be using these physical
descriptions as a literary device to string together the various stories related to those characters in
the DN. An oversupply of beautiful characters in the DN is not the narrator’s mistake, but
reflects skill at showing his intention to the reader.
5. Methodology
In the biblical narrative, the narrator does not generally describe characters’ outward appearances
in detail, but briefly.21 Such brief descriptions can reveal much. In the case of Bathsheba, the
narrator merely indicates that she was beautiful; and as Adele Berlin comments, “it is not for
nothing that we are told that Bathsheba was beautiful.”22 However, such brief character
descriptions do not always reveal the narrator’s intentions easily.
In order to reveal the narrator’s intention behind the brief descriptions at the beginning
stage of each narrative unit, I will analyze the setting of each narrative unit in terms of place,
time, other characters, and background. I will also investigate the interpersonal relationships
between the good-looking characters and other characters in each narrative unit. In addition, I
will examine closely the stylistic features of the narrative by means of its lexical coherence,
including verbal or non-verbal repetition in each narrative unit and the whole DN, using the tools
of narrative and rhetorical criticism. Through these processes, I will argue that descriptions about
21
Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 48; Adele Berlin,
Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983), 34.
22
Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 34.
8
characters’ outward appearance using the words ‫ ָיפֶה‬and ‫ טֹוב‬have a narrative function. More
particularly, I will argue that these words not only represent characters’ traits effectively, but also
allow the reader to perceive the correlations in the stories of beautiful characters in the DN. In
addition, because the analytical tools of the present thesis are primarily narrative and rhetorical
criticism, I am choosing to ignore here historical or social-scientific criticism, as beneficial as
these might be.
6. Procedure
In chapter 1, I will review the scholarship on these characters and the methods for
characterization in the biblical narrative. I will focus especially on the importance of depicting a
character’s outward appearance as one method of characterization. Some scholars have
overlooked the symbolic or metaphoric function of outward appearance, especially in the DN. In
the case of the DN, the narrator uses character descriptions effectively to show his negative view
of beauty. The prevalence of beautiful characters and the distinctive view of beauty are a unique
feature of the DN in comparison with other biblical narratives. The narrator makes these
beautiful characters in the DN an important literary feature. Secondly, I will focus on the
function of repetition, especially verbal repetition in the narrative. I will suggest that the repeated
words act as powerful literary devices to communicate the meaning of the whole DN.
In chapter 2, I will explore the role of outward appearance in the Ancient Near Eastern
culture and the Hebrew Bible. I will also draw a comparison between the fate of the beautiful and
the ugly in the DH. The results support the claim that beauty is a physical requirement for
9
becoming the king of Israel and show the attitude of the ancient people to beauty. In addition, I
will examine the Deuteronomists’ attitude towards the beautiful and the ugly. Perhaps
understanding the Deuteronomists’ attitude here might shed light on the longstanding question
concerning with whom the Deuteronomists were associated.
In chapter 3, I will analyze the stories of the five women who are related to David and
who are described as “beautiful” by the narrator. I will distinguish two groups of women. The
first consists of Abigail, Bathsheba, and Abishag, David’s wives and steward respectively. In the
study of this first group, I will focus on the women’s actions and speech to reveal why the
narrator mentions their outward appearance at the very beginning of each individual event. I will
also search for correlations among the events they experienced. Even though these women are
involved in different incidents in each narrative event, they encounter sudden changes in their
positions, changes which in each case anticipate a change in David’s political power. In addition,
I will analyze the literary structure of each narrative event, because the structure will make
apparent the narrator’s intention in the narrative. My analysis will point to the importance of the
repeated words, as a means of helping the reader to read each story coherently.
Characters in the second group are the direct female descendants of David. Two Tamars,
David’s daughter and granddaughter, are part of this group. Interestingly, in the case of David’s
granddaughter, her name and her outward appearance are only briefly mentioned (2 Sam 14:27).
To determine why the narrator only describes her physical appearance, I will compare the
narrator’s description of this Tamar to the other Tamar’s description in 2 Sam 13. This
comparison will suggest the repeated words’ function in each narrative event.
10
In chapter 4, I will discuss the handsome men in the DN including David. As it happens,
they are David’s sons, Absalom and Adonijah. They appear with beautiful women in each
narrative event, and this provides a clue for interpreting their stories in the DN. Although their
fate is quite different from that of the beautiful women in the DN, these handsome men share the
same fate in their own stories. To detect the function of the repeated words in their stories, I will
examine the men’s speech and actions in each narrative event and look for similarities and
relationships between their stories. In addition, I will try to determine why their fate is different
from David’s and how their fate is related to David’s political power.
Chapter One
Characters in Biblical Narratives
and Characterization Using Repetition
To study characters in biblical narratives, we need to know about narrative criticism. In narrative
criticism, characters always have a strong relationship with other narratological aspects such as
events, time, plot, and point of view in the narrative. Therefore, I will briefly explain narrative
criticism.
1. What Is Narrative Criticism?
The term, “narrative criticism” was coined by David Rhoads in his article “Narrative Criticism
and the Gospel of Mark,”1 and was more applied in New Testament studies than in Hebrew
Bible studies. In the case of New Testament studies, this kind of new approach began to appear
in the 1970s. This approach developed mostly within the confines of the Society of Biblical
Literature’s Markan Seminar between 1971 and 1980.2 This new approach became narrative
criticism.
In general, narrative criticism concentrates on “how biblical literature works as
literature.”3 According to Tolmie, two premises distinguish this approach from the historical-
critical approach. Scholars studied the Gospel of Mark as whole rather than as fragmented.
1
David Rhoads, “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark,” JAAR 50 (1982): 411-34.
2
Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 110; Francois Tolmie, Narratology
and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide (San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1999), 4.
3
James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2005), 18. Italics in the original.
11
12
Another is that scholars emphasized elements of the narrative in the Gospel of Mark. Thus, they
focused on characters, events, and places in the narrative, unlike the historical-critical approach.
Then this method was applied to other Gospels.4 In his book Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel,
Alan Culpepper emphasizes that we must study the narrator, point of view, narrative time, plot,
characters, and the implied reader for interpreting the Gospels.5
1.1. A Starting Point and Development
In the case of the Hebrew Bible, as a starting point of narrative criticism, Daniel Marguerat and
Yvan Bourquin suggest Robert Alter’s book, The Art of Biblical Narrative.6 According to them,
“Alter was not the first scholar to ask how the Bible tells stories: but for the first time a study
systematically reviewed the characteristics of biblical narration.”7
On the other hand, David Gunn asserts that Edwin Good’s study was the starting point of
narrative criticism.8 Good’s book Irony in the Old Testament introduces the claim that irony in
4
Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 4. In addition, Powell (What Is Narrative Criticism, 7-8) suggests
four premises about differences between those approaches:
1. Literary criticism focuses on the finished form of the text.

2. Literary criticism emphasizes the unity of the text as a whole.
3. Literary criticism views the text as an end in itself.
4. Literary criticism is based on communication models of speech-act theory.
5
R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
6
Daniel Marguerat and Yvan Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative Criticism, Trans.
John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1999), 7. See also Stephen D. Moore, “Biblical Narrative Analysis from the
New Criticism to the New Narratology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 28; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, rev. ed. (New York:
Basic Books, 2011).
7
Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 7.
8
David M. Gunn, “Narrative Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and
13
the OT is important for understanding the meaning of the texts.9 However, Tolmie insists that
Herman Gunkel’s work laid the groundwork for narrative criticism, because Gunkel in his
commentary on the book of Genesis published in 1901 explains “all aspects which are usually
considered in a narratological analysis”10 such as scenes, characters, dialogue, and events.
In the 20th century, there were various methodological frameworks for studying the
biblical text, such as form criticism, source criticism, and redaction criticism. In addition, the
scholars who used these criticisms found they bore much fruit. Although they did not pay
attention to texts as narrative wholes, some scholars did approach an interest in the narrative
powers of the biblical text.11 Such forays toward interest in the narrative helped pave the way for
narrative criticism.
Since the 1980s, many scholars have contributed to the development and establishment
of this discipline. Stephen D. Moore briefly summarizes works of scholars important for
narrative criticism as follows:
Alter’s book had been preceded by the Hebrew version (1979) of Shimon Bar-
Efrat’s Narrative Art in the Bible, which would not appear in English for
another decade (Bar-Efrat 1989). The main English-language precursor to
Alter’s book was Narrative Art in Genesis (1975) by the Dutch narrative critic
J. P. Fokkelman. The first volume of Fokkelman’s Narrative Art and Poetry in
Their Application, eds. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999),
203.
9
Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965). See especially pages 35-37
for the incident of David and Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11.
10
Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 2. This is Tolmie’s estimation of Gunkel’s commentary.
11
See J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, trans. Ineke Smit, TBS 1 (Leiden: Deo
Publishing, 1999), 9; Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: A Harvest Book, 1983),
xi-xii; Gunn, “Narrative Criticism,” 224-6; Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the
Deuteronomic History: Part One. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, ISBL 848 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1993), 16-8; Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism, 6-10; Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 1-5.
14
the Books of Samuel appeared in 1981 (see also Fokkelman 1986, 1992, 1993),
and was succeeded by Adele Berlin’s Poetics and the Interpretation of Biblical
Narrative (1983), Peter Miscall’s The Workings of Old Testament Narrative
(1983), and Meir Sternberg’s The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (1985).12
1.2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism
Although many scholars developed narrative criticism, focussing especially on the Old
Testament, Seymour Chatman’s contribution deserves mention for its critical framework.
Narrative criticism requires a model that reckons with narrative as a certain communication
process from the author to the reader. Scholars who analyze biblical narratives typically borrow
Seymour Chatman’s model as indicated below.13
Narrative text
Real Real
Implied → (Narrator)→ (Narratee) → Implied
author reader
author reader
Figure 2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism Suggested by Seymour Chatman
1.2.1. Narrative Text
Chatman gives a detailed account of a narrative text as follows:
Each narrative has two parts: a story (histoire), the content or chain of events
(actions, happenings), plus what may be called the existents (characters,
items of setting); and a discourse (discours), that is, the expression, the means
12
Moore, “Biblical Narrative Analysis,” 28.
13
Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1978), 151. Powell asserts that implied author and implied reader are basic principle of narrative criticism.
Mark Allan Powell, “Narrative Criticism,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, 2nd ed., ed.
Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 241-43.
15
by which the content is communicated. In simple terms, the story is the what
in a narrative that is depicted, discourse the how. The following diagram
suggests itself:14
Actions
Events
Story Happenings
Characters
Narrative Text Existents
Setting
Discourse
In addition, Mieke Bal defines “a narrative text” as “a text in which an agent or subject
conveys to an addressee (‘tells’ the reader) a story in a particular medium, such as language,
imagery, sound, buildings, or a combination thereof.”15 As James Phelan further clarifies, with
narrative16 the text has a certain purpose relative to the reader and the purpose is revealed in the
text.
1.2.2. The Real Author and the Real Reader
About this model, Chatman explains that “only the implied author and implied reader are
immanent to a narrative, the narrator and narratee are optional (parentheses). The real author and
real reader are outside the narrative transaction.”17 In this model, “the real author is the
14
Chatman, Story and Discourse, 19.
15
Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2009), 5.
16
Phelan asserts that narrative is “the telling of a story by someone to someone on some occasion for some
purpose.” James Phelan, Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology (Columbus: Ohio State
University Press, 1996), 8.
17
16
personality (or the group) which produces the text. The real reader is the individual or the group
for whom the text was originally intended.”18
1.2.3. The Narrator
When we read the text, we listen to someone’s voice. We call the voice in the text the narrator.
The narrator’s presence can be inferred from the fact that someone is telling the story in the text.
In addition, if there is a first-person pronoun in the text and the pronoun does not indicate
characters, the pronoun means the narrator.19 As in most cases of biblical narration, if we cannot
find the narrator in the text, the narrator may remain present in the background of the text.20 To
better understand who the narrator is, David Gunn and Danna Fewell suggest that “the narrator is
a character who tells the story while other characters enact it.”21 The narrator has power to
“manipulate the reader’s reaction also by giving him greater or less knowledge or foreknowledge
of the events.”22
1.2.4. The Narratee
As a counterpart of the narrator, there is a narratee in the text. The narratee listens to the
narrator’s narration in the text. Tolmie explains that “a second-person pronoun that does not refer
18
19
Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 13. See also Bal, Narratology, 20-31.
20
21
David M. Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press,
1993), 53.
22
Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20, AnBib 81 (Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1978), 24.
17
to a character(s) within the narrated world, usually refers to the narratee. Sometimes a first-
person plural may be used to indicate both the narrator and the narratee.”23 In addition, if the
text conveys some information to someone, this someone would be the narratee. For example, in
the book of Deuteronomy, “Moses (narrator within the narrative) frequently addresses his
audience directly in the second person singular or plural. When he tells the story of Exodus,
often he tells it as a story experienced by his audience (‘You . . .’),”24 because the narratee (the
audience) in the text needs the information the narrator conveys.
1.2.5. The Implied Author
It is difficult to define the terms, “implied author” and “implied reader.” According to Tolmie,
scholars divide the concept of the implied author into two kinds.25 The first is “the image of the
author” formed by the narrative.26 Wayne Booth, who first suggested this term, argues that “we
infer him (the implied author) as an ideal, literary, created version of the real man (author).”27
The second kind of implied author emphasizes the relationship between the implied author and
the text, because “unlike the narrator, the implied author can tell us nothing. He or better, it has
no voice, no direct means of communicating.”28 Even though the implied author does not have
any direct means of communication as in the case of the narrator, this author gives the reader
23
Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 14.
24
Jean Louis Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, SubBi 13
(Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico,1990), 42.
25
26
Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 13, 15.
27
Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983), 74-5.
28
Chatman, Story and Discourse, 148. Italics in the original
18
information through “the design of the whole, with all the voices, by all the means it has chosen
to let us learn.”29 The best way to find out the overall strategy of the implied author is to analyze
narratological aspects and factors such as plot, characters, events, time, setting, point of view,
and so on. Through these factors we may discover that the implied author has a specific
ideological (or theological) intention in relation to the implied reader.
1.2.6. The Implied Reader
If so, who is the implied reader? The implied reader is “the counterpart of the implied author.”30
About the necessity of the implied reader in the narrative, William Kurz insists that the real
author “must imagine readers’ concerns and how they could react to what is being written unlike
oral storytellers, who can adjust to listeners’ actual reactions,”31 because the real author writes
stories without readers. Thus, the implied reader is not only the intended reader that the real
author had in mind when the text was written, but also the depersonalized one used as a kind of
literary device for emphasizing the reader’s relationship to the text.32 About the difference
between the implied author and the implied reader, Jeffrey Staley asserts that the implied author
knows all the details of the text, but the implied reader does not know the text beyond the point
to which he/she has read.33 The difference between them lies in “the linearity (implied author)
29
30
31
William S. Kurz, “Narrative Models for Imitation in Luke-Acts,” in Greek, Romans, and Christians: Essays in
Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, eds. David L. Balch, et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 173.
32
33
Jeffrey Lloyd Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth
Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 34.
19
and the temporality (implied reader) of the text.”34
In general, the purpose of biblical narrative is not to deliver information or to show off
narratological skills, but to convey a theological message to the reader. Biblical scholars’ study
of narrative criticism reveals these processes by which the implied author endeavors to deliver a
certain theological perspective to the implied reader. Thus, Powell calls the implied reader the
ideal reader in that “the goal of narrative criticism is to interpret every text the way that its ideal
reader would interpret it.”35 Therefore, a firm understanding of the individual elements
(characters, events, time, plot and so on) and their relationships to others in the basic framework
is most important to us.
2. Characters in the Narrative
While there are many important factors to consider when studying biblical narratives, characters
may be the most important element for interpretation, because the characters are the dramatis
personae in biblical narratives. Characters act out various scenes in the narrative world much as
real people do, and their speech, actions and everything that they represent are important for plot
development.36 By paying attention to the characters that inhabit the world of the text, readers
can better understand and follow the narrator’s intention.
Characters in the narrative are the actors, and they perform the various activities that
34
35
Mark Allan Powell, “Types of Readers and Their Relevance for Biblical Hermeneutics,” TSR 12 (1990): 72.
36
Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 121.
20
comprise the plot. According to Marguerat and Bourquin, characters are linked inextricably with
the plot. The plot performs a function like “the frame of an umbrella,” whereas characters
function like the fabric that makes the umbrella distinctive and appealing. While the plot is
hidden in the narrative framework, the characters are manifest as the clear image of the plot in
the narrative.37
2.1. Who Are Characters in the Narrative?
Tolmie says that characters are “the spice of narrative,”38 because we cannot imagine stories
without characters. If such a story were possible, it would be a very matter-of-fact story and be
shunned by the reader. Characters in stories are used to convey the narrator’s particular
viewpoint in a number of different ways.39 To study characters in biblical narratives, Tolmie
suggests that there are two important factors in the narrative: “classification of characters” and
“the process of characterization.” Each is considered below.
37
38
39
Cornelis Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 1.
Resseguie (Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 121-22) explains various ways of showing characters and
their messages to the reader in narratives.
Characters reveal themselves in their speech (what they say and how they say it), in their
actions (what they do), by their clothing (what they wear), in their gestures and posture (how
they present themselves). Characters are known by what others say about them. . . .
Characters are also known by the environment or setting in which they work and play. . . .
Characters are also known by their position within society.
21
2.1.1. Classification of Characters
Scholars suggest several different systems for classifying characters.40 The scholars categorize
characters according to their traits and roles in the narrative. The systems are no category, two,
three, four, and six categories.
2.1.1.1. Joseph Ewen: No Category
J. Ewen suggests an alternative to categorizing characters in the narrative. It is not a
classification of characters, but an analysis of each character in the narrative, to be precise. To
him, the most important element for classifying the kinds of characters is a “continuum” in the
narrative. There are three axes: “complexity, development, [and] penetration into the ‘inner
life.’”41 Complexity concerns whether characters have a single trait or multiple traits.
Development concerns whether characters are changing or unchanging in the narrative.
Penetration into inner life concerns whether the narrator shows the characters’ minds or not. If
the narrator does not show the characters’ inner life, the reader must imagine or analyze their
minds depending on previous stories related to them.42 If we fellow Ewen’s theory about the
classification of characters, Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11 and Abishag in 1 Kings 1 should be classified
as follows: 1. Complexity: single trait, 2. Development: none, 3. Penetration into inner life:
40
For various opinions about the classification of characters, see Steven A. Hunt et al., “An Introduction to
Character and Characterization in John and Related New Testament Literature” in Character Studies in the Fourth
Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, eds. Steven A. Hunt, et al., WUNT 314 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2013), 1-8.
41
Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London: Routledge, 1989), 41.
42
Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 41-42. My italics.
22
uncertain because the narrator just says that they were very beautiful and became David’s wife or
steward.
2.1.1.2. E. M. Forster: Two Categories
When classifying characters E. M. Forster distinguishes between “flat” and “round” characters.43
He describes “flat” characters as having only a single trait. According to him, there are two
reasons that flat characters are needed in the narrative. “They are easily recognized whenever
they come in”44 and are “remembered by the reader afterward,”45 because their traits are not
changed in the narrative. So they do not show any development in the narrative. We can find
many examples of flat characters in biblical narratives, as described in the following list:
The righteous Noah, the impulsive Esau, the stubborn and headstrong
Pharaoh (Exod 5-14), the rebellious Israel in the desert, the brutal,
unscrupulous Abimelek (Judg 9), Samson, strong, and quick-tempered in
love and war, the clever Abigail, the lustful Amnon (2 Sam 13), the violent
and ambitious Absalom, the conceited Haman . . .46
By contrast “round” characters have more than one trait and show development in the narrative.
Forster suggests an easy way to distinguish between a flat and a round character in the narrative.
If the character can surprise the reader, this character must be categorized as a round character. If
not, the character must be classified as a flat character.47 Robert Scholes and Robert Kellogg
43
E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1927), 93-106.
44
Forster, Aspects of the Novel, 94.
45
46
Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 84.
47
23
follow Forster’s classification, because they assert that “characters in primitive stories (like the
Hebrew Bible) are invariably ‘flat,’ ‘static,’ and quite ‘opaque.’”48 However, this classification
does not mean that a round character is superior to a flat character, because, as in the real world,
the narrative world needs flat characters as well as round characters to comprise and develop
stories.49
2.1.1.3. Adele Berlin and Yairah Amit: Three Categories
Sometimes it can be difficult to categorize characters based on Forster’s classification, especially
in biblical narrative. For analyzing biblical characters, Adele Berlin and Yairah Amit expand
Forster’s classification into three categories: “The agents, who are subordinate to the plot [these
characters are not characterized at all, like in the case of Abishag in 1 Kings 1]; the types, who
have a limited and stereotyped range of traits [these are Forster’s flat characters]; and the
characters, who have a broader range of traits and whose development we can observe [these are
Forster’s round characters and what Berlin calls full-fledged characters].”50
48
Robert Scholes and Robert Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 164.
49
50
Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2001), 72. See also Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press,
1983), 23-30.
24
2.1.1.4. W. J. Harvey: Four Categories
W. Harvey’s categorization is similar to Berlin’s. Harvey divides characters into four
categories.51 Firstly, he calls the important characters in the narrative the “protagonists” (akin to
Berlin’s full-fledged characters) which are the most important characters in the narrative, in that
they are “those characters whose motivation and history are most fully established, who conflict
and change as the story progresses, who engage our responses more fully and steadily, in a way
more complex.”52 Secondly, characters like Berlin’s agents are called the “background
characters.” Interestingly, he divides the intermediary characters into two kinds (the Card and the
ficelles) located between the protagonists and the background characters. Although the Card
character is not one of the protagonists in the narrative, it carries weight in the narrative like the
protagonists.53 The ficelles receive more attention from the reader than the background
characters, because they are “delineated and individualized more than any background
character.”54 Among biblical scholars, J. Ska proposes a theory similar to that of Harvey. If we
follow Harvey’s classification, Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11 and Abishag in 1 Kings 1 are categorized
as ficelles, because they “can be important to the plot, but they have very little ‘presence.’”55
2.1.1.5. A. J. Greimas: Six Categories
A. J. Greimas is a well-known scholar in structural analysis who also contributed to the
51
W. J. Harvey, Character and the Novel (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965), 56.
52
Harvey, Character and the Novel, 56.
53
On the Card’s distinctness from other characters, see Harvey, Character and the Novel, 60-62.
54
Harvey, Character and the Novel, 58.
55
Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 87.
25
development of narrative analysis. He proposes six actors called actants for the classification of
characters in a narrative. He argues that the relationship among these actants “is entirely centered
on the object of desire aimed at by the subject and situated, as object of communication, between
the sender and the receiver–the desire of the subject being, in its part, modulated in projections
from the helper and opponent.”56 The following figure illustrates his view on the relationship
between actants:
sender → object → receiver

↑
helper → subject ← opponent57
Steven Cohan and Linda M. Shires explain the functions of the six actants:
The subject and object of an event designate two classes of actors in that they
name the positions actual characters occupy with respect to the story. The
subject of a story is the performative agency of action, and the object is the
goal or destination of that action. Both subject and object function in a direct
relation to the events of a story. In addition, four other possible classes of
actors function in an indirect relation to events: the sender (initiating or
enabling the event), the receiver (benefiting from or registering effects of the
event), the opponent (retarding or impeding the event by opposing the subject
or competing with the subject for the object), and the helper (advancing or
furthering the event by supporting or assisting the subject).58
If we follow Greimas’s classification of characters, we can categorize all the characters
in 1 Kings 1-2 as follows:
56
A. J. Greimas, Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method, trans. Daniele McDowell, et al. (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1983), 207.
57
Greimas, Structural Semantics, 207.
58
Steven Cohan and Linda M. Shires, Telling Stories: A Theoretical Analysis of Narrative Fiction (London:
Routledge, 1988), 69.
26
David’s servants and Abishag → Solomon → David’s kingdom

↑
Bathsheba and Nathan → David ← Adonijah and his party
Greimas’s system has merit in that it does not exclude the role of any character (whether
“important” or not) in the narrative stage from developing and furthering the plot of the story.
However, there is not a perfect way to classify characters in narratives. Therefore, to categorize
our characters, we must choose the most suitable classification theory for each story.
2.2. The Process of Characterization
As we know, there are two kinds of processes of characterization: direct and indirect. To
understand the process of characterization, we need to follow Seymour Chatman’s description
about characters. He describes characters as having “a paradigm of traits” where traits are
features that make one character distinguishable from another. There are two processes by which
traits are exposed to the implied reader: direct and indirect characterization.
2.2.1. Direct Characterization
In the case of direct characterization, the traits of characters are mentioned directly with an
adjective, an abstract noun, or a common noun. If the narrator evaluates characters directly, the
implied reader can usually regard this as truthful. The implied author makes direct
characterization using the narrator’s voice, and the implied reader accepts it as correct
information about the character in the narrative. However, if other characters in the narrative
27
make direct characterization, it is difficult to see this process as supplying trustworthy
information. The characters’ statements must be evaluated by the implied reader and then
accepted or denied.59
2.2.2. Indirect Characterization
In the case of indirect characterization, the traits are not mentioned, but portrayed. Thus, the
implied reader must consider given information in the text regarding character traits. Examples
of indirect characterization are a character’s actions, speech, external appearance (for example,
beauty–important for the present thesis), and physical environment.60 Simon Bar-Efrat adds the
role of minor characters in indirect characterization, because “the minor characters serve as a
background against which the personalities of the main ones stand out.”61 Although descriptions
of characters using indirect methods may seem unimportant as indicators of traits, they play an
important role in the plot.
3. Beautiful Characters in the DN
Interestingly, some characters in the DN are characterized not by their actions and speech, but by
their physical appearance. The characters so described are closely related to David, his direct
descendants and wives. Portraying a character’s external appearance is one of the means of
59
Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 42-43.
60
Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 44-53; Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 48-53, 64-92.
61
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 86.
28
indirect characterization.62 A character’s external appearance offers the implied readers of the
DN a chance to explore the internal traits of these characters. Tolmie insists that the external
appearance of a character does not play an important role in the Hebrew Bible,63 whereas
Sternberg argues that a character’s external appearance in the books of Samuel gives some
insight into the traits of those characters.64 According to him, handsome men such as Saul,
David, and Absalom may be defined “as good and successful or bad and doomed.”65 Also, Eric
Seibert asserts that the description of the attractive appearance of these men in the DH signifies
their royalty or their potential to become royal figures.66 While these two scholars’ observations
on the outward appearance of the characters in biblical narrative form an important starting point
for understanding characterization using outward appearance, their studies are not complete; they
do not fully investigate why the narrator used this technique for characterization in the DN in
particular.
3.1. The Functions of Beautiful Characters in the DN
Michael Avioz takes a profound interest in the physical beauty of characters in the books of
Samuel and Kings. He asserts that the functions of beautiful characters in the narrative are
threefold: to “look to the future,” to provide “a (seemingly) positive description of the
62
Interestingly, Bar-Efrat categorizes outward appearance as “the direct shaping of the characters.” Bar-Efrat,
Narrative Art in the Bible, 48-53.
63
64
Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, ISBL 453
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 354-64.
65
Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 362.
66
Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11, LHBOTS 436
(New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 116.
29
characters,” and to help “characterize David’s character.”67 In the first instance, Avioz argues
that the beauty of several characters, namely Bathsheba, Tamar (David’s daughter), and Abishag,
foreshadows trouble. However, in general, when a new character first appears on the narrative
stage, whether or not the new character is beautiful, the reader anticipates that an event related to
this character will occur in the near future. Also, as I have argued already, the narrator’s attitude
to the beautiful characters in the DN is more complex or nuanced than usually thought; the
attitude appears to be more ambiguous than uniformly positive. In addition, minor beautiful
characters in the DN help to characterize not only their own characters but David’s68 and even
that of others in the narrative.69
Furthermore, although Avioz explains that “beauty that does not play a role in the plot
will not be referred to by the narrator,”70 he does not explain why the narrator mentions the
beauty of Tamar (Absalom’s daughter) in the narrative. Even though Avioz’s study on beautiful
characters in the books of Samuel and Kings provides an important step toward illustrating the
narrator’s intention for beautiful characters in biblical narrative, there are still aspects to explore,
including why there is a plethora of outward descriptions in the DN.
67
Michael Avioz, “The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings,” VT 59 (2009): 358.
68
Saxegaard insists that “for the development of the plot, and most of all, for the understanding of the main
characters, they [the minor characters] are significant.” Kristin Moen Saxegaard, Character Complexity in the Book
of Ruth, FAT 2/47 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 74.
69
Janice Capel Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again, JSNTSup 91 (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1994), 217.
70
Avioz, “The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings,” 354.
30
3.2. Characterization Using Repetition
The narrator repeatedly highlights selected characters as attractive in the DN. When we interpret
narratives, recurring factors, such as themes and motifs, function as a key for construing them,71
because “repetition directs our attention.”72 In addition, the narrator repeatedly uses certain
words or phrases to show his intention to the reader.73 According to Bar-Efrat, “repetitions of
course always provide emphasis, but they also fulfill other functions, particularly as regards
characterization.”74 Mieke Bal explains that repetition75 is an important technique of
characterization, in that “when a character appears for the first time, we do not yet know very
much about it . . . In the course of the narrative the relevant characteristics are repeated so
often . . . that they emerge more and more clearly.”76 As such, Bal explains that repetition is a
crucial means for characterizing a single character.
71
Abbott explains that “identifying themes and motifs cannot in itself produce an interpretation, since the same
themes and motifs can lend themselves to any number of different interpretations. But identifying themes and motifs
can help enormously in establishing what a work is about and where its focus lies, and that in turn can be used to
eliminate some interpretations and to lend support to others.” H. Porter Abbott, The Cambridge Introduction to
Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 88; In addition, Gunn and Fewell emphasize that “the
verbatim repetition of a word, phrase, sentence, or set of sentences, or even the recurrence of words falling into the
same semantic range can function to structure the story, to create atmosphere, to construct a theme or a character, to
emphasize, a certain point to the reader, or to build suspense.” Gunn and Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible,
148.
72
Marilyn Merritt, “Repetition in Situated Discourse: Exploring Its Forms and Functions,” in Repetition in
Discourse Interdisciplinary Perspectives: Volume One, ed. Barbara Johnstone (Norwood: Ablex Publishing
Corporation, 1994), 34.
73
Robert Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three 2
Samuel, ISBL 850 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 111.
74
75
On this type of repetition, see Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 120-21; and on the functions of repetition, see
Richard G. Bowman, “Narrative Criticism: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence,” in Judges &
Methods: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, 2nd ed., ed. Gale A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 29.
76
Bal, Narratology, 126.
31
3.2.1. Repetition as Allusion
Upon closer examination, however, repeated descriptions of select characters’ external
appearance in the DN can serve an additional purpose to the one argued for by Bal. What matters
is not only the repeated characterization of a single character, but also the same characterization
of multiple characters using the same or similar words. This is relevant to the present thesis in
relation to my understanding of the repeated (and inordinately high) use of ‫ ָיפֶה‬or ‫ טֹוב‬in the
DN. In other words, if the same wording is applied to several different characters in an initial
way, the descriptive wording itself has an important effect as a signal of character. Jerome T.
Walsh names this kind of repetition “allusion,” because it gives the reader a clue for interpreting
a new story.77
3.2.2. Repetition of ‫ ָיפֶה‬and ‫טֹוב‬
The Hebrew adjectives ‫ ָיפֶה‬or ‫ טֹוב‬function in the DN as modifiers applied to the names of
certain individuals, and in so doing they signal these so-named persons as belonging to a group, a
group among whom one might logically expect relationships to exist that contribute to the
overall plot of the DN. In other words, the narrator has an express purpose for repeating these
words in the DN. In still other words, the cluster of characters described as beautiful is a good
example in the DN of what Robert Alter calls “an elaborately integrated system of repetition . . .
77
Jerome T. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2009), 91-92.
32
to produce a concerted whole.”78
3.2.2.1. The Meaning of the Words
According to William Dyrness, ‫ ָיפֶה‬is “ordinarily associated with the outward beauty of a person
and less often, of an object,”79 and such is also the case in the DN. James Williams asserts that
‫ יָפֶה‬and the words derived from it “are never used to describe someone who is not favored by the
God of Israel, no matter how desirable he or she may seem to be otherwise (e.g., Delilah,
Jezebel, Saul).”80 Even so, he cannot not explain the case of Vashti (‫ ;יָפְ ַָ֔יּה‬Esth 1:11). In addition,
even though he insists that Rebekah and Bathsheba are under “providential guidance,”81 the
narrators do not use the word ‫ ָיפֶה‬but ‫ טֹוב‬to describe their beauty in Gen 26:7 and 2 Sam 11:2.
The adjective ‫ טֹוב‬generally means “good,” but sometimes it “refers to attractive
appearance when appearing with ‫מ ְראֶ ה‬, or ‫תֹֹּ֫ אר‬,”82 as in 2 Sam 11:2 and 1 Kgs 1:6. When the
narrator depicts characters’ outward appearance as attractive, he uses the Hebrew words ‫ ָיפֶה‬or
‫טֹוב‬. As Yael Avrahami has put it, there is a “paradigmatic parallel between good (‫ )טֹוב‬and
beautiful (‫ ”)יָפֶה‬in the Hebrew Bible. It means that “these two adjectives are interchanged.”83
78
Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 119.
79
William A. Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context,” JETS 28 (1985): 424. Mark W.
Hamilton explains that “typically ‫ ָיפֶה‬applies to women, but it describes David here [1 Sam 16:12], Absalom in 2
Sam. 14:25, Joseph in Gen. 39:6, and an anonymous male in Song 1:16.” Mark W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The
Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel, BibInt 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 128.
80
James G. Williams, “The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical Type-Scenes,” JSOT 17 (1980): 116.
81
Williams, “The Beautiful and the Barren,” 115-16. My italics.
82
Carol M. Kaminski, Was Noah Good?: Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative, LHBOTS 563 (London:
Bloomsbury, 2014), 46.
83
Yael Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 545 (New York: T&T
Clark, 2012), 169.
33
3.2.2.2. Other Hebrew Words
At this point it might well be asked: Why does the narrator of the DN not use other Hebrew
words that mean beauty? After all, as Dyrness notes, there are several words meaning beauty in
the Hebrew Bible, as the table below demonstrates.84
Table 2. The Words That Mean “Beauty” in the Hebrew Bible
Word Meaning In the DH Meaning in the text

‫צְ בי‬ glory, 2 Sam 1:19 “The beauty, O Israel.” ‫הצְ בי֙ י ְש ָר ַ֔ ֵאל‬
beauty85
‫ּפאר‬ to beautify86 Judg 7:2 “Lest Israel glorify themselves.” ‫ּפֶן־י ְתּפ ֵָ֙אר‬
‫חָ מד‬ to desire87 Deut 5:21 “and you shall not covet.” ‫וְ ֵ֥ל ֹא תחְ מֵֹ֖ ד‬
Josh 7:21 “and I coveted them.” ‫ָוַֽאֶ חְ ְמ ֵ ֵ֖דם‬
‫נ ְֶחמָ ד‬ desirable No Gen 2:9, 3:6; Prov 21:20
‫נָאוֶה‬ beautiful No cf. Song 1:5; 2:14; 4:3; 6:4; Ps 147:1
‫נעם‬ to be pleasant 2 Sam 1:26 “Jonathan was beautiful to me.” ‫יְ ֣הֹונ ַ֔ ָָתן נָע ְֵ֥מת ֵ֖לי‬
‫נָעים‬ beautiful88 2 Sam 1:23 “and they (Saul and Jonathan) were beautiful.” ֙‫וְ הנְ עימם‬
2 Sam 23:1 “and beautiful songs of Israel (David)” ‫ּונְ ֵ֖עים זְמ ֵ֥רֹות י ְש ָר ֵ ַֽאל‬
‫הָ דָ ר‬ glory89 Deut 33:17 “beauty of tribe of Joseph” ‫הָ ָ ֣דר ַ֗לֹו‬
84
Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament,” 421-32.
85
Graz Madl explains that “2 S. 1:19 calls a specific group of persons (Saul and Jonathan) haṣṣeḇî, ‘ornament,’ a
meaning confirmed by the synonym gibbôrîm (hero).” Graz H. Madl, “ṣeḇî,” TDOT 12: 236.
86
Neuendettelslau Hausmann argues that “Jgs. 7:2 criticizes and checks Israel’s self-glorification.” Neuendettelslau
J. Hausmann, “p’r,” TDOT 11: 465.
87
Hale Wallis asserts that “the general usage of ḥmd can have a negative component.” Sometimes it has a positive
meaning, but it is not very common. Hale G. Wallis, “chāmadh,” TDOT 4: 455-56.
88
This word means “intimate friendship.” In addition, “metaphorically, nāʽîm can stand for the beauty or
attractiveness of the land of Israel. For example, the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49) says of Issachar: “And he saw that
a resting place was good (ṭôḇ), and that the land was pleasant (nʽm)” (v. 15).” Madla T. Kronholm, “nāʽam,” TDOT
9: 470.
89
This word means the glory of God, an earthly king, or a human being. On human glory, Kiel Warmuth explains
that “hadhar is the glory, the beauty, the special quality of a man. The ‘beauty’ of old men is their gray hair (Prov.
20:29). The Servant of God lacks all ‘comeliness’ (Isa. 53:2) (cf. the parallel expressions: he also has no toʾar,
‘[beautiful] form,’ or marʾeh, ‘pleasant appearance’ [RSV ‘beauty’]). A man’s hadhar is a reason for looking at him
(v. 2).” Kiel G. Warmuth, “hādhār,” TDOT 3: 337-39; see especially page 339.
34
However, only these two words, ‫ ָיפֶה‬and ‫טֹוב‬, are used in the DN for describing characters’
outward appearance as attractive. The obvious question is this: What is the significance of the
narrator’s choice of these two words as designations of appearance in the DN? It is the purpose
of this thesis to argue that the choice of these two words is significant. Additionally, as the
footnotes to these possible alternative words indicate, the other Hebrew words do not seem
appropriate for depicting a human being’s physical appearance and for conveying the narrator’s
intention in the narrative. Other Hebrew words that mean beauty in the DN remind the reader of
the glory of a community or pleasantness to somebody. Also, the word, ‫נָאוֶה‬, which is only used
outside the DN, interchangeably expresses the beauty of a human being on the one hand and the
wonderfulness of what God’s people do (Ps 147:1) on the other hand.
In order to further substantiate my case, in the next chapters I will fully analyze the
characters whose outward appearance is portrayed with these Hebrew words in the DN. The
characters to be studied will be as follows:
Table 3. Characters Whose Outward Appearance Is Described

as Beautiful/Handsome in the DN
Name Text ‫ ָיפֶה‬/‫טֹוב‬ Translation

David 1 Sam 16:12 ‫ינַ֖ים וְ ֣טֹוב ֑רֹ אי‬
ֵ֖ ‫עם־יְ פֵ ֵ֥ה ֵע‬ “with beautiful eyes and beautiful
appearance”
1 Sam 17:42 ‫עם־יְ ֵפֵ֥ה מ ְר ֶ ַֽאה‬ “with beautiful appearance
Abigail 1 Sam 25:3 ‫֣ויפת תַֹ֔ אר‬ and beautiful shape”
Bathsheba 2 Sam 11:2 ‫טֹובֵ֥ת מ ְר ֶ ֵ֖אה ְמאַֹֽ ד‬ “very beautiful appearance”
Tamar 1 2 Sam 13:1 ‫י ָָפֵ֖ה‬ “beautiful”
Absalom 2 Sam 14:25 ‫איׁש־יָפֶ ֶ֛ה בְ כָל־י ְש ָר ֵ ֵ֖אל לְ ה ֵל֣ל ְמאֹ֑ ד‬ “handsomest man in all of Israel
who should be praised highly”
Tamar 2 2 Sam 14:27 ‫יְ פֵ֥ת מ ְר ֶ ַֽאה‬ “beautiful appearance”
Abishag 1 Kgs 1:4 ‫ד־מאֹ֑ ד‬ְ ‫יָפָ ֣ה ע‬ “exceedingly beautiful”
35
Adonijah 1 Kgs 1:6 ‫ַֽטֹוב־תֹֹּ֙ אר֙ ְמ ַ֔ ֹאד‬ “very handsome shape”
If one follows Bal’s argument concerning repetition, the reader may not understand a
character’s traits and function through a single appearance on the narrative stage, as in the case
of Tamar, David’s granddaughter (2 Sam 14:27), because we encounter her only one time in the
narrative. There are many flat characters in the biblical narratives who appear like bit-part actors
in a play or a movie. Limited information about these characters can confuse the reader because
it is difficult to understand the narrator’s intention for introducing them. Sometimes, as in the
case of characters in the DN, the reader is provided with only a brief description of the
characters’ outward appearance.
Nevertheless, as Bar-Efrat asserts, all biblical characters have their own function in the
narrative.90 There are no exceptions in either major or minor characters. Even though some
characters do not play a leading role in the narrative, the narrator’s purpose is to deliver a
message to the reader through them. Also, they serve to explain the main characters further.91
Thus, repetition of characters’ outward appearance is one tool to reveal the narrator’s intention.
3.2.3. Characterization by Repetition
Janice Anderson agrees with the argument that repetition has the ability “to emphasize, order and
unify” the narrative. Furthermore, repetition has an effect on “the reader’s memory, especially
90
91
Saxegaard, Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth, 74.
36
involving anticipation and retrospection” in the whole narrative.92 Sudden changes in the status
of a previously mentioned beautiful character could lead the reader to anticipate a disruption in a
later mentioned beautiful character by means of the repetition of a descriptor of beauty. The
repetition of adjectives that describe characters’ outward appearance can become a signal that
implies an outcome in the narrative that follows. If, for some reason, the reader does not
recognize why the narrator repeats certain words in a specific event, it is possible to notice it
during subsequent events that involve other good-looking characters. These later descriptions
provide a clue to previous events connected with other good-looking characters. Thus, repetition
functions to group these characters with similar traits together within the narrative unit.93
3.2.4. Repetition of Significant Events in the Narrative
Astrid Erll explains the difference between general events and significant events in all general
narratives. Moreover, Erll similarly identifies two different sorts of repetition that occur in
general narratives, one called “iterative” for general events and another called “repetitive” for
significant events. “Iterative” repetition denotes a general and unimportant event through a one-
time summative description of recurrence, whereas “repetitive”94 or distributive repetition
92
Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web, 216.
93
As a good example of this repetition, Anderson suggests that Matt 7:16-20 (a mention of good fruits) “echoes 3.8,
10 and anticipates 12:33; 21.41b, 43.” Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web, 217.
94
Astrid Erll, “Narratology and Cultural Memory Studies,” in Narratology in the Age of Cross-Disciplinary
Narrative Research, eds. Sandra Heinen and Roy Sommer, Narratologia 20 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 214.
According to Grenville J. R. Kent, “1 Samuel 1 provides a strong example of this (the iterative way): the family goes
up year after year to sacrifice, and each time the wives are in conflict (1:1-6), but only one such episode is fully
realized.” Grenville J. R. Kent, Saying It Again Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1
Samuel 28 (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 64. One good example of the “repeating way” is “the triple-
37
signals importance through the actual repetition of the recurrent event or trait, such as the
repetitive appearance of the barren wives in the biblical narratives.95 Through verbal repetition
in the DN, for instance, the narrator effectively conveys his intention to the reader that what
happens to one person (i.e., whether barren or beautiful) may happen to other persons repeatedly.
We can find another good example of this kind of verbal repetition in 1 Sam 18:7, 21:12,
and 29:5. The ditty (“Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands”; ‫הכָ ִּ֤ה ׁשָ אּו ֙ל בְ ֲא ָלפָו‬
‫ )וְ דָ ֵ֖וד ְבר ְבבֹ ָ ַֽתיו‬is cited three times in these verses, thus indicating the narrator’s intent that the
reader take note. Kent suggests that we interpret the last instance of the ditty using the first two
instances.
An example . . . is the twice-repeated ditty about Saul and David slaying

Philistines. Hearing Israelite women singing this triggers Saul’s suspicion of
David (1 Sam 18:7-8). Latter the ditty raises dangerous suspicion of David in
another king, the Philistine Achish (21:11-12) . . . A third time the full text, form,
and context are quoted by certain Philistine warlords who object to David’s
presence in their pre-battle parade (29:5). In the first two occurrences, the song
brings danger for David, and so in the third occurrence the reader expects danger
again, but the twist is that David is sent home from battle against Israel, and saved
from the bind he has got into by defecting to Achish. Without the warlord’s
objection, David would have had three options: one, to fight for Achish against
Israel, which would have ended his chances of kingship; two, to withdraw from
the battle, which would likely have had him killed by the Philistines; or three, to
repeat of the plot of David being tempted to kill an enemy (in 1 Sam 24, Saul; 25, Nabal; 26, Saul).” Kent, Saying It
Again Sam, 53. In addition, in 1 Sam 24-26 the word ‫ מ ְדבָ ר‬is repeated 8 times, and the narrator says effectively to
the reader “something is going to happen when David is in the ‫מ ְדבָ ר‬.” My italics.
95
According to Williams (“The Beautiful and the Barren,” 109), the barren wives repeatedly appear in “Gen 16:1-6
(and 21:1-7), 29:31-30:24, and I Sam 1.” Also, the stories of the barren wives in the biblical narratives have similar
contents, as follows:
1. The favored wife is barren.

2. There is a rival woman.
3. The rival woman is fertile, bears a son for the barren woman’s husband.
4. The rival woman belittles the barren wife, brings about the agon (conflict, contest).
5. The barren wife is eventually heard by God, has a son.
38
change sides during the battle, a possibility feared by the Philistines (29:4) but in
reality extremely risky. So the third use of the dangerous ditty surprisingly sends
David to safety.96
However, despite Kent’s opinion that the first two songs function as a contributing factor for
putting David in danger, it is possible to see all three ditties as warnings of the danger in each
narrative event. So, when the reader meets this ditty in the narrative, he or she can anticipate that
David will be delivered from danger. When Saul heard the first ditty sung by Israelite women (1
Sam 18:8), he was very angry, because he thought that the song meant David would be the king
of Israel. However, even though David was in danger because of the ditty, it revealed Saul’s
inner heart before Saul attempted to kill him. The reader could not presuppose David’s safety in
this kind of situation, but he or she could recognize that David would not be in danger after
reading the second repeated ditty.
When David heard the ditty repeated by the servants of Achish, king of Gath, he recalled
Saul’s attempt against his life. So he feared Achish and feigned madness in order to escape from
danger. In this case, the ditty’s function clearly comes to the front of the narrative stage, because
David acted like a madman after hearing the song, and Achish did not pay attention to David.
Because of these first two repeated songs, David (and also the reader) knows manifestly that
when the song is sung by the Philistine commanders (1 Sam 29:5), he will be delivered from the
danger against Israel. Therefore, the repeated ditties show the narrator’s intention that David will
recognize danger and will be rescued from Saul, Achish, and the Philistine commanders.
96
Kent, Saying It Again Sam, 52-53.
39
3.2.5. Repetition of Character Description in the Narrative
In the same way as above, when the reader notices the narrator’s technique of repeatedly
introducing physical beauty, he or she realizes the association between beauty and a certain
outcome desired by the narrator. It would not be an overstatement to say that repetition is “one of
most extensive devices in the Bible, taking many different forms.”97 About this kind of
repetition, Isaac Kalimi explains that “reiteration of language can also be an editorial technique
that is employed in order to impose an impression of unity upon a disparate whole.”98 In
addition, he insists that the repeated word has “a twofold purpose: to emphasize and to link.”99
Each time the reader meets a beautiful character within the stories of the DN, it is possible for
the reader to realize how deeply David’s political power is involved with each story. The
narrator’s descriptions of a character’s outward appearance and David’s political power are
intricately woven together in the case of the DN. Thus, we may assume that the beautiful
characters in the DN appear on the narrative stage in order to show changes in David’s political
power to the reader.100
If we analyze the beautiful characters in the DN, we uncover the narrator’s intention.
The reader is given only limited information about these characters, such as their attractive
appearance and name, at the beginning of each narrative event. The similarity of depictions
97
98
Isaac Kalimi, “Reexamining 2 Samuel 10-12: Reduction History versus Compositional Unity,” CBQ 78 (2016):
41.
99
Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 360.
Italics in the original.
100
See Table 4.
40
forms a bond with the central figure king David, surrounded as he is by these beautiful
characters. This repetition suggests a relationship between David and the beautiful characters,
and also among the beautiful characters themselves in the DN. This grouping by way of
characterization establishes a subset within which coherency can be seen across these stories.
The following table presents briefly how the narrator portrays beauty in the DN, including the
description of king Saul’s outward appearance. In the case of Saul, his physical beauty and
attractiveness are an important factor in gaining political power and public support. However, the
narrator’s view of beauty changes in the DN. The narrator treats beauty like an unimportant or an
unessential factor as each story develops. As proof, in the cases of king Solomon and all the
kings who follow, the narrator does not refer to their outward appearance.
Table 4. A Consideration of Stories Related to the Beautiful Characters in the DH
Text Beautiful Characterization A weighty consideration The narrator’s

character by whom view of beauty
1 Sam 9 Saul the narrator Beauty was an important positive
factor to be king.
1 Sam 16 David the narrator Beauty misled Samuel, but slightly negative
beauty was also an important
factor to be king.
1 Sam 17 David Goliath Beauty was ridiculed. negative
1 Sam 25 Abigail the narrator Beauty was ignored in her ignored
evaluation, but wisdom was intentionally
emphasized.
2 Sam 11 Bathsheba David Beauty made problems. negative
2 Sam 13- Tamar, the narrator Beauty made problems. negative
19 Absalom
1 Kgs 1-2 Abishag, the narrator Beauty made problems. insignificant/
Adonijah ambiguous
Early on in the DN, especially in Abigail’s case in 1 Sam 25, it is difficult to decide
41
whether the narrator has a positive or a negative attitude towards the beautiful characters. What
is clear is that the narrator is aware of the notion that beauty was typically regarded as a valuable
asset for a king. That the narrator later fails to mention Abigail’s beauty alongside her wisdom
implies that her wisdom is the solution of the problem in this story.101 As the stories in the DN
unfold, however, we observe how each of the good-looking characters is involved in incidents
that shed light on the narrator’s view of beauty.
In my opinion, the narrator wants to convey through the Hebrew words for beauty that,
unlike characters in the narrative and even the reader, Yahweh initially does not share the
culture’s prioritization of physical appearance as a criterion for kingship (including queenship).
He stresses more importantly such things as being chosen by God, obedient, wise, godly, etc. As
Robert Hubbard explains, “more important, within the larger story of David, Yahweh sounds a
crucial warning that human physical appearance can mislead even someone as astute as wise
Samuel,”102 just as God warned Samuel. First Samuel 16:7 says that “man looks at the outward
appearance, but Yahweh looks at the heart.” This does not mean that the narrator has a negative
view of physical beauty itself. Rather, this implies that the narrator of the DN seems to be
interested only in illustrating or describing the lack of importance of outward beauty as it relates
most especially to kingship.
When the narrator portrays David’s physical appearance as beautiful in 1 Sam 16, it acts
as a signal that he has the potential to be king of Israel, because beautiful characters have
101
Her insight (‫ )שֶ כֶל‬is related to David’s success (‫ )שָ כל‬in 1 Sam 18:5, 14, 15, 30.
102
Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., “The Eyes Have It: Theological Reflections on Human Beauty,” EA 13 (1997): 67.
42
power.103 In the Ancient Near East, physical beauty was an important endowment of a king.
Kings in the Ancient Near East were often described as being more handsome and larger than
their people.104 Interestingly, a hint that David will become the ruler of Israel may be signaled in
the story of beautiful (and insightful) Abigail in 1 Sam 25:30, even before Nathan proclaims it (2
Sam 7:8).105 However, the close sequence of narratives related to the beautiful characters plays
an important role in reducing king David’s throne gradually and destabilizing his kingship.
Moreover, beauty can destroy characters who have it, along with their followers.106 In the DH,
the narrator warns about the dangers of pursuing beauty, as can be seen for example in the Achan
incident (Jos 7:21 with ‫ ;חָ מד‬cf. Deut 5:21), in Gideon’s attack on Midian (Judg 7:2 with ‫)ּפאר‬,
and in the case of Saul’s attractiveness to the Israelites (1 Sam 9:2 with ‫)טֹוב‬. To show the power
of beauty, the DN narrator includes more incidents concerning beautiful characters than the
previous incidents in the DH. In addition, each story involving beautiful characters in the DN
makes a well-knit narrative structure to illustrate how David gains political power and loses it
(Figure 3).
103
David Penchansky, “Beauty, Power, and Attraction: Aesthetics and the Hebrew Bible,” in Beauty and the Bible:
Toward a Hermeneutics of Biblical Aesthetics, eds. Richard J. Bautch and Jean-François Racine, SemeiaSt 73
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 47.
104
Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1 – 59, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 454; Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies
and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, LHBOTS 441 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 74-
77; Hamilton, The Body Royal, 34, 129.
105
Mary Shields, “A Feast Fit for a King: Food and Drink in the Abigail Story,” in The Fate of King David: The
Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, eds. Tod Linafelt, et al., LHBOTS 500 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 48.
106
Penchansky, “Beauty, Power, and Attraction,” 64.
43
Figure 3. The Narrative Structure of Incidents Involving Beautiful Characters

Related to David’s Kingship in the DN107
4. Conclusion
Characterization through repeated descriptions of outward appearances in the DN is a good tool
for effectively and economically conveying the intention of the narrator to the reader. As a
certain word that occurs frequently in each story has a special function to lead the readers in a
new direction,108 a disproportionately frequent occurrence of certain words in the large narrative
(especially depicting outward appearances) also reveals what the narrator wants to show.109 In
addition, characterization through repeated references to outward appearances renders
107
The narrative structure of beautiful characters’ stories in the DN is similar to the structure that Polzin suggests in
her book. The figure is adapted from Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 47.
108
Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 109-14.
109
Kalimi, “Reexamining 2 Samuel 10-12,” 41.
44
meaningless the distinction between main and minor characters, or round and flat characters; but
it conveys the intention of the narrator to the reader effectively.

Chapter Two
The Role of Outward Appearance
in the Ancient Near East and Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible
Adele Berlin insists that “the purpose of character description in the Bible is . . . to situate the
character in terms of his place in society, his own particular situation, and his outstanding traits–
in other words, to tell what kind of a person he is.”1 How do readers infer characters’ social
status by their outward appearance? It is natural enough that physical beauty was an important
factor to be king or to hold a high office in the Ancient Near East. Chaim Reines agrees that
“beauty played an important role in the social life of the times, since it enhanced the prestige of
the individual and was, therefore, considered an asset for high holders.”2 Othmar Keel
supplements the notion of beauty in the Ancient Near East when he states that it “consists not
only in purity of form, but also in richness of color, light, and odor, and in display of wealth and
power.”3
1. The Role of Outward Appearance in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible
In the Ancient Near East, physical beauty was important to the higher echelons of society. In the
case of ancient Egypt, “beauty was . . . reserved for the elite, which was thus set gloriously apart
1
Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983), 36.
2
Chaim W. Reines, “Beauty in the Bible and the Talmud,” Judaism 24 (1975): 107.
3
Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 280.
45
46
from the plain, unremarkable appearance of the working masses.”4 We can find many
expressions in praise of, and longing for, physical beauty in Ancient Near Eastern texts. It is
highly probable that beauty involved political power and that the power-hungry elite strove to get
it.
1.1. Akkadian Myths and Letters
In the epic of Gilgamesh, the narrator depicts Gilgamesh as a beautiful being. The hero of this epic
had extraordinary power as well as beauty.5 Sometimes, his beauty was obscured by other things,
but ultimately it was visible despite all obscuring factors.
He6 washed his grimy hair, polished his weapons,

The braid of his hair he shook out against his back.
He cast off his soiled (things), put on his clean ones,
Wrapped a fringed cloak about and fastened a sash.
When Gilgamesh had put on his tiara,
Glorious Ishtar raised an eye at the beauty of Gilgamesh:
“Come, Gilgamesh, be thou (my) lover!
Do but grant me of thy fruit.
Thou shalt be my husband and I will be thy wife.7
No sooner was Gilgamesh’s beauty revealed than the goddess Ishtar wanted to take Gilgamesh as
her husband.
Utnapishtim [says to him], to Urshanabi, the boatman:

...
Let him cast off his skins, let the sea carry (them) away,
4
Jan Assmann, The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs, trans. Andrew Jenkins
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 277.
5
Karen Nemet-Nejat, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” in Women in the Ancient Near East: A Sourcebook, ed. Mark W.
Chavalas (London: Routledge, 2014), 177.
6
Gilgamesh.
7
ANET, 83.
47
That the fairness of his body may be seen.

Let him renew the band round his head,
Let him put on a cloak to clothe his nakedness,
...
Let not (his) cloak have a moldy cast,
Let it be wholly new.”
Urshanabi took him and brought him to the washing-place.
He washed off his grime in water clean as snow.
He cast off his skins, the sea carried (them) away,
That the fairness of his body might be seen.8
Even though Gilgamesh’s physical beauty was covered with grime, Utnapishtim already knew
about his beauty. It comes as no surprise that most of the characters in this epic knew the hero
Gilgamesh’s physical beauty. However, the harlot Shamhat had to inform Enkidu about his
appearance:
O Enkidu! You who [know nothing (?)] of life!

Let me show you Gilgamesh, a man of joy and woe!
Look at him, observe his face,
He is beautiful in manhood, dignified,
His whole body is charged with seductive charm.
He is more powerful in strength of arms than you!
He does not sleep by day or night.
O Enkidu, change your plan for punishing him!
Shamash loves Gilgamesh,
And Anu, Ellil, and Ea made him wise!9
According to Shamhat, many gods paid a lot of attention to Gilgamesh, as the goddess Ishtar had
done. The goddess Ishtar’s beauty is described in the hymn to Ishtar.
She is clothed with pleasure and love.

She is laden with vitality, charm, and voluptuousness.
Ishtar is clothed with pleasure and love.
She is laden with vitality, charm and voluptuousness.
8
ANET, 96.
9
Stephanie Dalley, ed. and trans., Myth from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 57.
48
In lips she is sweet; life is in her mouth.

At her appearance rejoicing becomes full.
She is glorious; veils are thrown over her head.
Her figure is beautiful; her eyes are brilliant.10
The epic of Gilgamesh and the hymn to Ishtar imply that an attractive appearance was a
prerequisite for the upper class, or that it was a thing that people in those days wished to have.
1.2. Egyptian Hymns
According to Paul Frandsen, “the notion of divine kingship has always been closely associated
with ancient Egypt.”11 In Egypt it is typical for the Pharaoh, the king, to be described as “the
visible incarnation of the god.”12 Moreover, the Pharaoh was conscious that his subjects viewed
him as a living god and everlasting king.13 Therefore, it is no wonder that the gods of Egypt
considered Pharaohs their sons, extolled them to the skies, and often mentioned their outward
appearance.
One example of an Egyptian god’s beauty is in a hymn to Amon-Re.
In whose beauty the gods rejoice,

...
The Beautiful of Face who comes (from) God’s Land.
...
Firm of horns, beautiful of face,
10
ANET, 383.
11
Paul John Frandsen, “Aspect of Kingship in Ancient Egypt,” in Religion and Power Divine Kingship in the
Ancient World and Beyond, ed. Nicole Brisch (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008), 47.
12
Manfred Lurker, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary, trans. Barbara Cummings
(New York: Thames and Hudson, 1980), 10.
13
Frandsen, “Aspect of Kingship in Ancient Egypt,” 47. Rudolf Anthes, “Egyptian Theology in the Third
Millennium B.C.,” JNES 18 (1959): 170. This tendency was found in classical Greek thought. According to Kenneth
Dutton, “physical beauty was a common bond between gods and men, its depiction could be either an offering
pleasing to the divine or else a representation of the divine itself.” Kenneth R. Dutton, The Perfectible Body: The
Western Ideal of Physical Development (London: Cassell, 1995), 24.
49
...
Beautiful of diadem, and lofty of White Crown.
...
Beautiful of face, when he receives the atef-crown,
...
The beauty of thee carries away hearts;
...
Thy beautiful form relaxes the hands;14
Another Pharaoh, Amen-hotep IV (also known as Akh-en-Aton), praised Aton as almighty as
well as beautiful.
Thou appearest beautifully on the horizon of heaven,

Thou living Aton, the beginning of life!
When thou art risen on the eastern horizon,
Thou hast filled every land with thy beauty.
Thou art gracious, great, glistening, and high over every land;15
The inscription below depicts Pharaoh having an attractive outward appearance, much as Amon-
Re had a beautiful face in the first hymn. In Amen-hotep III’s building inscription, the Egyptian
god Amon-Re compares the pharaoh to himself:
My son, of my body, my beloved, Neb-maat-Re,

My living image, whom my body created,
...
My heart is very joyful when I see thy beauty;
I work a wonder for thy majesty.16
The ancient Egyptians seemed to think (or so the kings wanted them to believe) that their kings–
the kings’ images, physical beauty and other things–were similar to their god. For example, the
Egyptian kings’ body sizes were depicted as equal to their gods’ and bigger than normal
14
ANET, 365-66.
15
ANET, 370.
16
ANET, 376.
50
people’s.17
1.3. Sumerian Hymns
This hymn is for Inanna “by Enheduanna, the daughter of Sargon the Great, founder of the
Dynasty of Akkad, who appointed her as en, or high-priestess of Nanna (also known as Sin) the
tutelary deity of Ur.”18
The heart of Inanna was restored,

The day was favorable for her, she was clothed with beauty,
was filled with joyous allure,
How she carried (her) beauty - like the rising moon-light!
The high-priestess Enheduanna praised Inanna’s power and her beauty.
1.4. The Hebrew Bible
In this section, I would like to give examples showing the role of outward appearance outside the
DN. In the Hebrew Bible, most characters seem to have a positive attitude to physical beauty.
This attitude may reflect ancient Israelite attitudes towards physical attractiveness. Reines
properly summarizes the Israelites’ thought about attractive appearances.
In antiquity, . . . good looks were considered an asset for men in public life.
This was especially true of the king, since a comely appearance would enhance
his prestige among the people. Thus, it is said in a hymn in praise of a king,
“Thou art the most beautiful of men.” It is said of David that he had beautiful
eyes and a fair complexion, a fact that apparently attributed to his popularity.
It is also stated of Absalom, who rebelled against David and aspired to become
the king of Israel, that he was a man of great beauty. The halakhah states that
17
Gay Robins, The Art of Ancient Egypt (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 21.
18
ANET, 579.
51
the high priest should be a man of comely appearance for his beauty would
enhance the splendor of the worship in which he officiates. The rabbis also
held that the members of the Sanhedrin (the high court) should, preferably, be
tall and of a comely appearance, in order that the people should have the proper
respect for them.19
It is easy to find evidence in the Hebrew Bible that the ancient Israelites preferred physical
beauty. Even in 1 Sam 16:7 when Yahweh said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance and his
height,” the text implies that physical attractiveness was a criterion of king selection. This
resonates well with the view of Trotti that “a man’s qualifications for leadership on the human
level were largely physical.”20 In the book of Psalms, the king is depicted as the most beautiful
of all, because God has blessed him forever (Ps 45:2).21 Intrinsic to this concept is that the king
or men who try to become the king must be beautiful. Another example is in 2 Kgs 10:3, where
Ahab’s officials must select their next king as a “good and right” candidate among Ahab’s sons
against Jehu (‫)ה ִּ֤טֹוב וְ היָׁשָ ר֙ מ ְבנֵ ֣י אֲדֹ נֵי ֶַ֔כם‬. According to Trotti, this description applies not to the king’s
moral standard, but “a special emphasis upon physical prowess in the light of the battle certain to
ensue if such a son were crowned.”22
As men’s physical appearance was an important factor for gaining political power from
the public, so women’s beauty was an important element for obtaining and maintaining a high
position. In the case of Jezebel, her make-up can be interpreted in two ways: “either Jezebel is
interested in seducing Jehu, or perhaps she is at pains to appear presentable, as behooves a
19
Reines, “Beauty in the Bible and the Talmud,” 106.
20
John Boone Trotti, “Beauty in the Old Testament” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1964), 18.
21
Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 280.
22
Trotti, “Beauty in the Old Testament,” 20.
52
woman about to inherit the throne.”23 Either way, queen Jezebel’s beauty is considered
particularly important to save her life or keep her honour as the queen of the country. Another
example of physical attractiveness saving the life of a woman, even if an enemy, is found in Deut
21:11; as now, so then: men have a favourable impression of beautiful women.
The beauty of a wife or daughter makes a husband or a father proud, as is suggested in
the case of queen Vashti (Esth 1:11) and queen Esther (Esth 2:7, 17-8). In Judg 15:2, the father-
in-law of Samson offers him his bride’s younger sister on the grounds that she is more beautiful
than his bride, whom the father-in-law had given to another. However, this suggestion fanned
Samson’s anger. The narrator does not explain why Samson did not take her as his wife. She
probably was not as beautiful as the father-in-law said; as well, Samson had his own standards of
beauty (Judg 14:3, 7).24 In Job 42:14-5, Job had a great interest in his three daughters. He gave
the daughters personal names and property. The daughters’ names, Jemimah, Keziah and Keren-
happuch mean “dove,” “cinnamon,” and “eye-shadow case”25 respectively; the third name
implies that the first two similarly stress physical beauty.26 Thus, Christl Maier and Silvia
Schroer write: “the daughters’ names are drawn from the domain of aesthetics and cosmetics . . .
23
Yossi Leshem, “‘She Painted Her Eyes with Kohl and Dressed Her Hair’: 2 Kings 9:30,” HUCA 76 (2005): ‫א‬.
24
Trotti (“Beauty in the Old Testament,” 82-3) argues that “there are two texts in which the idiom “pleasing in the
eyes of . . .” (‫ )יׁשר בעיני‬seems to refer to beauty. In Ju[dg] 14:3 and 7 we see that Samson found a woman of the
Philistines who was “pleasing in his eyes” (‫ )יׁשרה בעיני‬and he desired her for a wife. The context leads us to assume
that we have to do with beauty here.”
25
Michael David Coogan, “Job’s Children,” in Lingering over Words, eds. Tzvi Abusch, et al., HSS 37 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1990), 147. See also John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988),
543.
26
Ilana Pardes, “Jemimah,” in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew
Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, eds. Carol Meyers, et al. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000), 100.
53
The daughters’ beauty is emphasized and brings glory to Job everywhere in the land.”27 Their
beauty was his pride and it was reflected in their names.
1.5. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament
We can find other beautiful characters in the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. One
is Judith, the main character in the book of Judith. The narrator depicts her beauty as follows:
“She was good in sight and exceedingly beautiful in appearance” (Jdt. 8:7). Even though she had
various characteristics such as piety, bravery, wisdom, wealth, and so on, her beauty made
possible her duty to kill the enemy and played an important role in delivering God’s people.28
In the Wisdom of Solomon, as in the book of Judith, the narrator emphasizes that
“wisdom is the most precious of all the goods a king can possess, more precious than precious
stones, than silver and gold, than health and beauty.”29 In addition, wisdom is “even elevated to
the position of God’s beloved spouse,”30 because it is a reflection of God’s beauty. It seems then
that there is a tendency to link beauty with wisdom in the apocryphal books of the Old
Testament.
Another is Susanna in the Old Testament apocryphal additions to the book of Daniel, in
27
Christl Maier and Silvia Schroer, “Job: Questioning the Book of the Righteous Sufferer,” in Feminist Biblical
Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature, eds. Luise
Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 234.
28
Risimati Hobyane, “Body and Space in Judith: A Greimassian Perspective,” BN 168 (2016): 5-6.
29
Peter Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2002), 33-34. See Wis 7:8-10.
30
Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, 38.
54
chapter 13. In verses 1 and 31, the narrator portrays her as very beautiful. In brief, her story is as
follows:
Susanna is depicted as a woman who is faced with the threat of rape by two
elders or religious leaders, but rather than submit to illicit penetration, she
clamours for help and is falsely accused of adultery and subsequently sentenced
to death. But before the seemingly inevitable execution takes place, Susanna
prays to God, and a youth called Daniel comes to her rescue.31
Interestingly, Susanna’s physical attractiveness does not rescue anyone, including herself, but
brings great danger to her and her family, especially her husband’s honour.32 Her bathing scene
in the garden (vv. 15-18) reminds us of the scene of Bathsheba’s bath in 2 Sam 11:2.33 The
characteristic differences between Susanna and two elders have been thrown into sharp relief by
the narrator’s description of each elder as “religious and an older man, with considerable
juridical and social power. . . . [However, she has] chastity, youth, beauty, innocence and, most
importantly, lack of social and juridical power.”34 This story ends just as we expect. God heard
her prayer, and sent young Daniel35 to deliver her from death (vv. 44-64). In this story,
Susanna’s beauty poses a serious risk to herself and the characters around her, but Daniel, whom
God sent, proves her innocence. Two beautiful characters in the deuterocanonical books of the
Old Testament show the Israelites’ attitude to beauty at that time. One saves God’s people from
the enemy using her beauty, and the other is delivered from a death to which her outward
appearance contributed. Based on these examples, physical beauty appears to have a power that
31
Chris L. de Wet, “Susanna’s Body,” BN 168 (2016): 132.
32
S. Philip Nolte, “A Politics of the Female Body: Reading Susanna (LXX Additions to Daniel) in a Brutalized
South African Society,” BN 168 (2016): 154.
33
De Wet, “Susanna’s Body,” 133.
34
De Wet, “Susanna’s Body,” 133.
35
As we all know, Daniel is handsome (Dan 1:4).
55
can lead to either a positive or a negative outcome.
1.6. Conclusion
The evidence adduced above suggests that physically attractive appearance had political power
in Ancient Near Eastern society. Political leaders (such as kings, queens, high officers, and so on)
stood to gain public support from their physical beauty. Also, attractive outward appearance was
a sine qua non of being king. The kings’ beauty reflected that of their gods, objects of their
reverence.36 In cultures that equated god and king, the appearance of the one reflected the
appearance of the other. This naturally contributed to an emphasis on the king’s physical beauty,
for an unattractive king reflected negatively upon the deity.
In addition, whereas at times beauty caused serious problems, at other times it delivered
from crises not only the beautiful themselves, but also the general public. In view of this, as well
as the inherently natural appeal that physical beauty has, it would not be unreasonable to say that
peoples living in the Ancient Near East, including the Israelites, placed a high value on beauty. It
also stands to reason that rulers would desire physical beauty for the popularity it would help
them gain from the general population.37
36
Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, LHBOTS
441 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 75.
37
For the positive view of physical beauty in the DSS, see Mladen Popović, Reading the Human Body:
Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism, STDJ 67
(Leiden: Brill, 2007), 103-7, 277-90.
56
2. The Narrator’s Evaluation of the Beautiful and the Ugly in the DH
As a general rule, the narrators of the Hebrew Bible do not mention characters’ outward
appearance as ugly. In fact, “the idea of ugliness is virtually absent from the OT,”38 except when
describing animals.39 The reason why the Hebrew Bible is void of this description is likely that
all of God’s creatures are good (‫ ;טֹוב‬beautiful/handsome) to Him. As the saying goes, “even
hedgehogs love their children.” Similarly, God sees His creatures in this manner, whether they
are good or ugly. In general, the word “ugly” is the last word a person would use to describe
another. Nevertheless, I would like to use this word in a functional rather than a derogatory
sense. The biblical narrators depict beautiful characters in the narrative as ones without blemish
(Dan 1:4; 2 Sam 14:25), as much taller than others (1 Sam 9:2) or as having a well-nourished or
healthy appearance (Dan 1:15). By categorizing these characters as beautiful, we can establish a
control group against which, for the sake of convenience, we can make judgments about
ugliness.40
As we mentioned earlier in this dissertation, characters live in the narrative world. If the
narrator mentions a trait such as beauty, fatness, or lameness, the narrator means to convey
something to the reader. If the description served no purpose, the narrator would omit it. Implied
in this statement are two notions: first, as Lissa Wray Beal explains, various sources in the
38
William A. Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context,” JETS 28 (1985): 430.
39
Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., “The Eyes Have It: Theological Reflections on Human Beauty,” EA 13 (1997): 62.
40
Saul Olyan defines the relation of the word ugly to defect as follows: “‘defects’ are constructed as ugly, although
not all who are ugly possess ‘defects.’ The overlap between beauty and perfection, ugliness and ‘defect,’ is therefore
only partial, with perfection and ugliness as the larger fields.” Saul M. Olyan, Disability in the Hebrew Bible:
Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 22.
57
narrative “are blended intentionally to serve specific theological goals,”41 and second, as
Cynthia Edenburg argues, “repeated use of . . . expressions [for example, describing outward
appearance] . . . impart to the text a semblance of unity.”42
In this section, I will examine the fate of the so-called beautiful and ugly characters in
the DH, excepting the characters who are depicted directly as beautiful by the narrator in the
DN.43 The result will help us understand that these expressions serve a special theological
purpose of the narrator and are another way of exposing the coherence of the DH.
2.1. Ehud and Eglon in Judg 3:12-30
Most scholars agree that the narrator characterizes Ehud the Israelite deliverer as a left-handed
warrior44 with a positive sense, but Eglon the Moabite king as very overweight with a negative
sense.45 Reflecting this tendency, most English versions translate that Ehud was a left-handed
man or even an ambidexterity,46 and Eglon was very fat.47 Thus, the reader would remember
41
Lissa May Wray Beal, The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story
of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10), LHBOTS 478 (New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 11.
42
Cynthia Edenburg, Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19-21, AIL 24 (Atlanta: SBL
Press, 2016), 74.
43
These beautiful characters in the DN will be discussed in chapter 3.
44
Yairah Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12-30): The Form and the Message,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical
Texts in Literary Focus, ed. J. Cheryl Exum (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 106; J. Clinton McCann, Judges, IBC
(Louisville: John Knox, 2002), 43; Susan Niditch, Judges, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 57;
Roger Ryan, Judges, RNBC (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007), 20; K. Lawson Younger Jr., Judges and
Ruth, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 117.
45
Amit, “The Story of Ehud,” 109; Serge Frolov, Judges, FOTL 6B (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 112;
McCann, Judges, 44; Niditch, Judges, 58; Ryan, Judges, 22-23; Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 172; Younger, Judges and Ruth, 117;
46
LXX translates it as ἄνδρα ἀμφοτεροδέξιον (an ambidextrous man). Was he dextrosinistral?
47
See ESV, NLT, NIV, NASB and KJV in Judg 3:15 and 17.
58
easily that Ehud was a brave left-handed warrior, and Eglon was an extremely fat, roly-poly,
ridiculous and credulous king. However, the narrator does not depict their outward appearance as
such. Firstly, the narrator mentions Ehud’s appearance as ‫( ֵ֥איׁש א ֵ ֵ֖טר יד־ ְימינ֑ ֹו‬Judg 3:15), not
literally “a left-handed man,” but “a man hindered his right hand.” There is a word “left” in the
Hebrew Bible, but it is not used here. In addition, the narrator mentions ambidextrous warriors as
֙‫ מיְ מינִּ֤ים ּומ ְשמאלים‬in 1 Chron 12:2.48 Even though the narrator says that there were seven
hundred men disabled in their right hand (Judg 20:16), “the ratio seems plausible: Just three of
each one hundred men could fight without favoring their right arm.”49 Therefore, the narrator
provides the reader with information about Ehud’s handicap.50
About the concept of right and left sides in the Ancient Near East, including those found
in the Hebrew Bible, Robin Baker explains that the right hand is customarily associated with
“above,” “in” and “life,” but the left hand is related to “below,” “out” and ‘death.”51 It means
that “right-handedness carries a positive connotation and left-handedness a negative one.”52 In
this respect, the narrator depicts Ehud negatively in this story. Even though he was the son of the
right hand (the Benjaminite), he could not use his right hand, unlike other normal Benjaminites.
As Robert Polzin mentions, “Ehud is not portrayed as a particularly likeable judge.”53 Therefore,
48
Jack M. Sasson, Judges 1-12, AYB 6D (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 227.
49
Sasson, Judges 1-12, 227. See also Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 66.
50
Philippe Guillaume, Waiting for Josiah: The Judges, JSOTSup 385 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 27;
Lillian R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, JSOTSup 68 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988), 37.
51
Robin Baker, Hallow Men, Strange Women: Riddles, Codes and Otherness in the Book of Judges, BibInt 143
(Leiden: Brill, 2016), 70.
52
Lynell Zogbo, “How Could Something So Right Be So Wrong?: OT References to the Left and Right Hand:
Implications for Translation in Africa,” BT 64 (2013): 37. See also Niditch, Judges, 57.
53
Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part One.
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, ISBL 848 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 160.
59
he was the runt of the litter among the Benjaminites and did not have a marshal’s baton in his
knapsack.
Meanwhile, the narrator portrays Eglon in a different way. The narrator says that
Yahweh made him strong because of Israel (Judg 3:12); in addition, he was a very healthy man
(Judg 3:17). Eglon looks like a real judge or deliverer with these descriptions. The Hebrew word
‫ בָ ריא‬is problematic to translate. According to HALOT, this adjective has two meanings:
“healthy” and “fat.”54 However, this word basically means “healthy.” Even if it means “fat” in
the Hebrew Bible, the word has a positive meaning without exception.55 Therefore, these two
characters in Judg 3:12-30 are described in an unexpected manner. The saviour Yahweh sent was
disabled and weak, but the enemy of Israel was strong and healthy.
Unlike these descriptions of two main characters in this story, the literary structure leads
the reader to an unexpected result. According to Amit, this story has a concentric structure
emphasizing the middle portion of this story, the murder scene. This means that the most
important duty of Ehud as the deliverer of Israel is to kill Eglon king of Moab.
The exposition–the oppression–a continuing situation

The tricky dagger
The tricky tribute offering
The murder
The trick of fooling the servants
The war trick
End–eighty peaceful years–a continuing situation56
54
HALOT, 156.
55
Trent Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009), 70.
56
Amit, “The Story of Ehud,” 103.
60
The literary structure of this story shows that the weak overwhelms the strong. It is “a favorite
biblical theme especially important in Judges.”57 Ehud was expected to do the impossible, but
his disability and weakness turned an impossibility into a possibility. Alberto Soggin explains
this situation as follows:
Everything is in favour of a real physical defect, of a kind that would seriously

diminish the capability of a fighting man and make him seem to be harmless. In
fact this is the only way in which we can explain how he could ever have been
admitted into the presence of the king without any search or any precautionary
measures.58
Even though Eglon had the real beauty that most people think of and want in this story, he
represents oppressive power to the Israelites. Also, Ehud did not have physical attractiveness, yet
his vulnerable trait was a starting point to save the Israelites from “unjust or oppressive
authority.”59 Yahweh did not send the likes of Eglon (the beautiful60), but the likes of Ehud (the
ugly and “trickster”61) to deliver the Israelites from suffering. In fact, Ehud’s ugliness saved the
Israelites against Eglon’s and his army’s beauty (Judg 3:29).62
2.2. Samson in Judg 13-16
Samson’s striking characteristics are his physical strength with long hair. As Ehud deceived to
kill Eglon king of Moab, Samson is also depicted as a trickster in Judg 13-16. Interestingly, the
57
Niditch, Judges, 58.
58
Alberto Soggin, Judges, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 50.
59
Mark E. Biddle, Reading Judges. LTC (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2012), 50.
60
Lawson G. Stone, “Eglon’s Belly and Ehud’s Blade: A Reconsideration,” JBL 128 (2009): 651.
61
McCann, Judges, 46; Soggin, Judges, 57.
62
According to Butler, ‫ ׁשָ מֵ ן‬means “a positive attribute, not a negative one as seen by the parallel ‘fit for battle’
(‫)איׁש ָח֑יל‬.”
֣ Butler, Judges, 73.
61
narrator does not portray Eglon, the enemy of Israel, as the trickster in the story of Ehud. In the
story of Samson, however, Israelites’ enemies are depicted as active tricksters like him. Susan
Niditch briefly highlights repetitive patterns of trickery in the story of Samson. In this literary
structure, there are clear struggles between two groups.
Exogamous overtures (Timnite)

Superhuman feat (killing lion with bare hands)
Fertility (honey)
Trickery (riddle)
Counter- trickery (threaten wife)
Superhuman feat (Ashkelonites)
Withdrawal (return to parents)
Exogamous overturns (same wife)

Trickery (she has been given away to the best man)
Counter- trickery (torching)
Vengeance/ violence (Philistines destroy Timnite and father)
Counter- vengeance (Samson slaughters them)
Withdrawal (cave)
Trickery (attempt to subdue hero)

Superhuman feat as counter-trickery (jawbone)
Fertility (water)
Exogamous overtures (harlot)

Trickery (attempt to capture)
Superhuman feat as counter-trickery (lifts city gates to escape)
Exogamous overtures (Delilah)

Trickery (bribing Delilah in attempt to capture)
Counter- trickeries (three deceptions)
Successful Trickery (hair cut)
Final vengeance (hair grown back and destruction)63
Through the fourth trickery of Delilah, Samson’s hair was cut. He went against one of the
63
Susan Niditch, “Samson as Culture Hero, Trickster, and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak,” CBQ 52
(1990): 618-19. See also McCann, Judges, 108.
62
regulations as a Nazirite,64 so his extraordinary power disappeared from him and he became an
ordinary person. On the narrative stage, he did not seem too enthusiastic about keeping the secret
of his hair. However, it is important that Samson tried to keep the secret three times. It would not
be an overstatement to say that “despite the fact that he was asleep when she wove his hair, since
he was awake the two times that she bound him, we can assume that he submitted to her actions
voluntarily”65 the fourth time (Judg 16:17). In addition, Samson used third-person plural verbs
(“if they bound me”; Judg 16: 7, 11) in his speech to Delilah. It is precisely because Samson
already knew the intent behind Delilah’s questions that these third-person plural verbs mean the
Philistines.66 Even though Jeremy Schipper insists that the reason why Samson revealed his
secret of his own accord is that he “has trouble sleeping as a by-product of his extraordinary
strength,”67 Samson was sleeping peacefully in her third attempt (Judg 16:14). Unlike
Schipper’s opinion, the literary structure shows that he showed her his secret intentionally.68 The
conjugations of the verbs in Samson’s answers intimate that he is caught in his own trap. Except
for the last answer, he uses second- or third-person pronouns. This means that Delilah’s request
is the matter in which Samson and other people are involved. In the last response, using a first-
person pronoun, he replaces the matter with his own problem to solve.
64
According to Num 6, the Nazirite should abstain from wine and strong drink (vs. 3), and no razor should pass
over his head (vs. 5). In addition, he should not go near a dead person (vs. 6). However, the angel of Yahweh said
only that no razor should come upon Somson’s head (Judg 13:5).
65
Jeremy Schipper, “What Was Samson Thinking in Judges 16,17 and 16,20?” Bib 92 (2011): 61.
66
Mieke Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, ISBL 434 (Bloomington: Indiana
67
Schipper, “What Was Samson Thinking in Judges,” 62.
68
In Judg 16:18, the narrator mentions that “Delilah saw that he told her all his heart.”
63
Table 5. Delilah’s Asking and Samson’s Response in Judg 16
Verse Delilah’s asking Samson’s response Person the expected

result (‫)ח ָלה‬
ָ
vs. 7 Tell me where the secret of ‫אם־יא ְס ַ֗רני‬ Third to be weak
your great strength is and how If they bind me
you may be bound (vs.6).
vs. 11 Tell me how you may be ֙‫אם־אָ ִּ֤סֹור יא ְסר֙ ּוני‬ Third to be weak
bound (vs.10). If they bind me tightly
vs. 13 Tell me how you may be ‫אם־תא ְר ַ֗גי‬ Second nothing
bound (vs. 13). If you weave
vs. 17 You have not told me where ֙‫אם־ג ֹּ֙לחְ תי‬ First to be weak
your great strength is (vs.15). If I am shaved
While this is happening, where is Yahweh? Cheryl Exum explains the role of Yahweh in
the narrative as follows:
Basically, every narrative has three points of view: those of the narrator, the
characters, and the audience. At numerous places in Judg. xiii-xvi, the narrator
reveals to the audience information of which the characters are not aware. In
particular, narrator and listener share the insight that Yhwh is working behind
the scenes to achieve a purpose. It is first and foremost the notices about Yhwh’s
role in the events which permit the listeners to participate in this secret.69
At this moment, Samson becomes a perfect trickster to the enemies. Although it may seem
negatively that “Yahweh had departed from Samson (Judg 16:20),” it is another way to fulfill
Yahweh’s will in this story. Victor Matthews argues that “this is a reversal of the theme found in
13:25, 14:6, and 15:4 where Yahweh’s spirit entered Samson and aided him to perform
extraordinary feats.”70 In this moment, however, Yahweh still helped Samson through his
absence. It goes without saying that “YHWH deceives the Philistines into thinking that Samson’s
69
J. Cheryl Exum, “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga,” VT 33 (1983): 37.
70
Victor H. Matthews, “Freedom and Entrapment in the Samson Narrative: A Literary Analysis,” PRSt 16 (1989):
256.
64
strength is merely a magical-mechanical thing, open to human manipulation.”71 The staircase
parallel structure shows how Yahweh works for his people with his servant Samson effectively.
Story: Timnah Men of Judah Delilah

Secret: Riddle Strength Nazirite oath
Pressure: Threat Threat to Judah Bride
Tactic: Nagging Pleading Nagging
Result: 32 dead 1000 dead Thousands dead72
Contrary to this fact, Samson’s outward appearance changed from beautiful to ugly, and from
strong to weak. His long hair was cut, and the Philistines gouged out his eyes. As Bruce
Herzberg asserts, “God has manipulated Samson to achieve certain ends, so the nagging,
however unlikely it is to be effective in itself, does the trick.”73 About regrowing his hair (Judg
16:22), Christophe Lemardelé maintains that “the fact that Samson, in his story, grows out his
hair refers neither to a vow nor to a consecration to the deity, but is only a sign of the hero’s
power.”74 However, there is no hint in the text that his strength returns when his hair grows back
again. If his extraordinary power is regained, it is given by Yahweh.
The very last deception of Samson between the pillars of the temple of Dagon indicates
that Yahweh delivers his people from the enemy and fulfills his will. Robert Chisholm explains
that “God accomplished His purpose (the beginning of Israel’s deliverance from the Philistines),
despite Samson’s shortcomings and Israel’s apathy.”75 Samson cannot see and do anything
71
David M. Gunn, “Samson of Sorrows: An Isaianic Gloss on Judges 13-16,” in Reading between Texts:
Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 247.
72
Bruce Herzberg, “Samson’s Moment of Truth,” BibInt 18 (2010): 235.
73
Herzberg, “Samson’s Moment of Truth,” 248.
74
Christophe Lemardelé, “Note Concerning the Problem of Samson the Nazirite in the Biblical Studies,” SJOT 30
(2016): 66.
75
Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Identity Crisis: Assessing Samson’s Birth and Career,” BS 166 (2009): 162.
65
without help at this time.76 However, this problem is solved by the boy who held his hand and
by Yahweh who gives him great strength again.77 The weak, vulnerable, ugly and blind
Samson78 defeated most effectually the powerful Philistines at this time. At the last moment of
his life, Samson surely knew that the source of his strength was not his uncut hair, but Yahweh.
2.3. Eli in 1 Sam 1-4
The narrator depicts Eli’s outward appearance as very old (1 Sam 2:22; 4:18), blind (1 Sam 3:2;
4:15), and heavy (1 Sam 4:18). In this story, the narrator directly describes Eli’s two sons,
Hophni and Phinehas, as wicked (‫)בליָ ֑על‬

ְ in 1 Sam 2:12. The fact that one knows Yahweh is not a
clear standard for distinguishing those who are good and bad in this story. Three men under Eli’s
order (his direct descendants, Hophni and Phinehas, 2:12; and his disciple, Samuel, 3:7) do not
know Yahweh. So Eli must teach them who Yahweh is.79 Samuel follows Eli’s teaching and
then knows Yahweh for who He is. However, his two sons do not listen to their father’s
instructions, which accounts for the difference between the two and Samuel. As the following
literary structure shows, the instructor becomes the disciple, and the disciple becomes the
instructor to reveal Yahweh’s will in 1 Sam 3:4-18.
76
Actually, he could not do anything without Yahweh’s help, from the beginning to the end.
77
Exum, “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga,” 42.
78
Elie Assis maintains that Samson is “an extraordinary weak and foolish man” at that time. Elie Assis, “The
Structure and Meaning of the Samson Narratives: Jud. 13-16,” in Samson: Hero or Fool?: The Many Faces of
Samson, eds. Erik Eynikel and Tobias Nicklas, TBN 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 11.
79
Eli’s role seemed to be akin to that of an older man in my own culture (for example, to guide younger people onto
the right path).
66
vv.4-8 vv.4-8
Samuel a) called Eli a) not called
b) no insight b) insight, v.8f
c) result: misunderstanding c) removes misunderstanding,
Eli Samuel
vv. 11-14 vv.16-18

Samuel a) called Eli a) calling
b) instructed b) no information
c) receives revelation, c) is informed,
God Samuel Samuel Eli80
In this literary structure, Eli plays a significant role to guide Samuel in the right direction. Even
though he is not able to see (1 Sam 3:2), it does not matter for teaching Samuel who Yahweh is.
In contrast to this, Eli’s old age (1 Sam 2:22) brings about regrettable results. His sons
do not hear their father’s voice and commit sins against Yahweh, because of his decrepitude. In
the Hebrew Bible, “many passages . . . characterize old age directly or indirectly as a time of
weakness and decline, both physical and psychological. . . . But this finitude also gives rise to the
obligation to honor those who are old (Lev 19:32), i.e., maintain their rights and authority.”81 Eli
overcomes his visual impairment to teach Samuel but does not deal successfully with his
advanced age when instructing his sons. Thus, Yahweh is told that no man in his house will live
to old age ever again (1 Sam 2:31-2). In addition, although Eli is blind, he tries to surmount his
physical obstacle in 1 Sam 4:13. He sits by the road watching closely (‫)צפה‬, because he wants to
know the outcome of the war before anyone else.82 Therefore, his visual disturbance is just
80
J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and
Structural Analysis: Volume IV. Vow and Desire (I Sam. 1-12), SSN 31 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 183.
81
J. Conrad, “zāqēn,” TDOT 2: 125.
82
Pnina Galpaz-Feller, “David and the Messenger: Different Ends, Similar Means in 2 Samuel 1,” VT 59 (2009):
201.
67
something to overcome, and it nudges young Samuel in the right direction to hear Yahweh’s
word.
Among the words which describe Eli’s outward appearance, the most probmematic is
‫ כָבֵ ד‬in 1 Sam 4:18. According to C. Dohmen, “the root kbd . . . is found in all the Semitic
languages with the meaning ‘be heavy,’ figuratively ‘be important.’”83 Interestingly, the narrator
portrays Eli sitting on the throne (‫ )כסֵ א‬by the doorpost of the temple/palace (‫ )הֵ יכָל‬of Yahweh (1
Sam 1:9). Robert Polzin insists that these two words allude to Eli’s royal status.84 Furthermore,
Frank Spina argues that “this characterization of Eli functions as a metaphor for Israel’s
kingship, an institution which from the Deuteronomist’s viewpoint was doomed to fall from the
outset.”85 In all cases, Eli is staying in the same place, his seat (1 Sam 1:9; 4:13, 18; also, 3:2).
Therefore, his throne symbolizes his royal standing. M. Weinfeld suggests a connection between
‫ כָבֵ ד‬and ‫כָבֹוד‬, such that “the noun kābôd derives from kbd, which denotes ‘heaviness’ in the
physical sense as well as ‘gravity’ and ‘importance’ in the spiritual sense–i.e., ‘honor’ and
‘respect.’”86 In addition, ‫ כָבֹוד‬is an appropriate word for “God, the king, and persons of high
status and authority.”87 We can find this connection between ‫ כָבֵ ד‬and ‫ כָבֹוד‬in this story. Brett
Smith asserts that “the word for ‘honor’ in 2:29 (‫ )ו ְתכ ֵבִּ֤ד‬forms a wordplay with the word for
‘heavy’ (‫)כָבֵ ד‬, suggesting conceptual ties to several other verses in the nearby context (2:30;
83
C. Dohmen, “kābēd,” TDOT 7: 13.
84
Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Two. 1
85
Frank Anthony Spina, “Eli’s Seat: The Transition from Priest to Prophet in 1 Samuel 1-4,” JSOT 62 (1994): 67.
86
M. Weinfeld, “kābôd,” TDOT 7: 23.
87
Weinfeld, “kābôd,” 26.
68
3:13; 4:18; 4:21-22; 6:5).”88 Also, Peter Miscall observes that “‘heavy’ (kabed) would then be a
play upon his ‘honouring’ (kibbed) his sons above the Lord (1 Sam 2:29).89 Eli and his sons
make themselves fat with all the best offerings of Yahweh’s people. Therefore, Eli’s heaviness
means both his honour as the judge of Israel and dishonour as the disobeyer of Yahweh’s word.
His daughter-in-law names her newborn baby Ichabod (‫ )אי־כָבֹוד‬which means “where is glory,”90
or “no honour,”91 because her father-in-law (‫ )כָבֵ ד‬and her husband (‫ )ו ְתכ ֵבִּ֤ד‬are dead. As Eli’s
heaviness disappears from Israel, Israel’s honour departs from Israel (1 Sam 4:21).
In this story, the narrator variously shows Eli’s outward appearance to the reader. His
honourable elements (his old age and heaviness) are depicted negatively, but his disability
(blindness) is portrayed somewhat positively as with previous characters in the book of Judges.
In addition, the narrator, using Eli’s physical appearance extols Samuel and humiliates Eli’s
sons.92 Eli seems to expect a military victory against the Philistines, because Yahweh will do
what is good in his eyes.93 Thus, Eli seems to sit “watching and listening for the ululations that
would accompany the return of a triumphant army.”94 However, the Israelites, including his
sons, are defeated and slaughtered by the enemy. Nevertheless, Eli wants not to see Israel’s
88
Brett W. Smith, “The Sin of Eli and Its Consequences,” BSac 170 (2013): 20; See also Moshe Garsiel, The First
Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat Gan: Revivim
Publishing House, 1985), 61.
89
Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, ISBL 365 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 29.
90
David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 201.
91
Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel, 61.
92
John T. Willis, “An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary,” JBL 90
(1971): 290.
93
This is reflected in Eli’s response to Samuel’s revelation in 1 Sam 3:18.
94
Jack M. Sasson, “The Eyes of Eli: An Essay in Motif Accretion.” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient
Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon, eds. John Kalther and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 378 (London: T
& T Clark, 2004), 186.
69
defeat and his sons’ death, but to watch God’s fulfillment closely. Even though Eli cannot see
anything physically, he can see “the seed of a new beginning, at least for Israel.”95 The narration
that he died when the messenger mentioned not his sons’ death but the ark of God demonstrates
this. To him, his sons’ death is the fulfillment of Yahweh’s judgment in a somewhat positive
way, but the exile of the ark of God is an unpleasant surprise leading to death. As John
Goldingay insists, “it is too late for father-in-law and daughter-in-law, but they form part of a
bigger story for which it is not too late.”96
Table 6. Eli’s Outward Appearance
Eli’s outward appearance Related to In general In this story Texts (1 Sam)

Old (‫)זָקֵ ן‬ two sons positive negative 2:22, 31, 32; 4:18
Blind (‫)ל ֹא יּוכֵ֖ל ל ְר ַֽאֹות‬
ֵ֥ Samuel negative positive 3:2; 4:15
Heavy (‫)כָבֵ ד‬ Eli and two sons positive negative 4:18
2.4. Samuel
In 1 Sam 2:26, the narrator portrays the child Samuel as handsome (‫)טֹוב‬97 with the word ‫נער‬.
Richard Nelson insists that the phrase ‫( הנער ְׁשמּואֵ ל‬the child Samuel) makes “a double inclusio”
in 1 Sam 2:21-3:19. This literary structure differentiates clearly between Samuel and Eli’s two
sons, in that “while Eli’s sons do not ‘listen’ (2:25b), on the third try Samuel does ‘listen’
(3:10).”98 It means that Samuel depends on God’s word with his childishness, but Eli’s two sons
95
J. Gerald Janzen, “Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh: 1 Samuel 3.15,” JSOT 26 (1983): 94.
96
John Goldingay, “Eli: The Man for Whom It Was Too Late,” Anvil 16 (1999): 172.
97
‫ הֹ לֵ ְֵ֥ך וְ ג ֵ ֵָ֖דל ו ָ֑טֹוב‬can be translated as “he grew greater and better looking.” Trotti, “Beauty in the Old Testament,” 21.
98
Richard D. Nelson, “The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel: ‘The Man behind the Green Curtain,’” in Is
Samuel among the Deuteronomist?: Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History,” eds.
70
do not with their adultness. This handsome Samuel, moreover, is with Yahweh (‫)עם־יְ ה ַ֔ ָוה‬.
Therefore, young Samuel’s handsomeness occasions no problem at that time.
2:21b ‫הוַֽה‬ָ ְ‫מּואל עם־י‬ ֵ֖ ֵ ‫ויגְ ֶ֛דל הנֵ֥ער ְׁש‬

2:22-25 the episodes of Eli warning his sons
2:26 ‫מּואל הֹ לֵ ְֵ֥ך וְ ג ֵ ֵָ֖דל‬ ֵ ַ֔ ‫וְ הנ֣ער ְׁש‬
2:27-36 the oracle of the man of God
3:1 ‫מּואל ְמׁשָ ֵ ֵ֥רת‬ ֶ֛ ֵ ‫וְ הנִ֧ער ְׁש‬
3:2-18 Samuel’s prophetic call along with Eli’s response to it
3:19 ‫מּואל וַֽיהוָה֙ הָ יָ ֣ה ע ַ֔מֹו‬ ֑ ֵ ‫ ויגְ ֵ֖דל ]הנער[ ְׁש‬99
Even though Samuel became skillful in his prophetic duties with age, he kept making
mistakes. The first book of Samuel definitely shows that “God chooses candidates for kingship
through the agency of the prophet.”100 Polzin’s explanation of Samuel’s actions helps us
understand how the narrator evaluates his prophetic career.
The sight/insight metaphors in chapter 3 introduced us to a budding prophet

whose repeated failure to recognize the LORD’s word was an apt beginning to
Samuel’s career as the narrator would describe it. The LORD has to point out
to Samuel in a step-by-step fashion who his designate is (9:16-17), and even so
late as the events of chapter 16 God will have to chide Samuel for (still) looking
upon “outward appearance” (16:7) in his search for Saul’s successor. Coupled
with the prophetic blindness with which the narrator hampers Samuel is the
prophet’s continual obduracy in carrying out the LORD’s will.101
The problem starts with his old age and his sons. All the elders of Israel request a king because
Samuel is old and his sons do not walk in his ways. The literary structure in 1 Sam 8:1-5 shows
definitely what the problem is. Also, he closely resembles Eli in that Samul is old like Eli, and
Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala, AIL 16 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 25.
99
Nelson, “The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel,” 24-25.
100
Joshua A. Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (New York: Oxford
101
Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 130.
71
his two sons act like Eli’s two sons.
EXPOSITION BEGINNING OF EVENT

8:1 When Samuel became old . . . 8:5a “Behold you are old
8:3 Yet his sons did not walk 8:5b and your sons do not walk
in his ways. in your ways.”102
The competent and old prophet was late for the appointment with Saul (1 Sam 13:8), had
grieved for Saul’s rejection by Yahweh (1 Sam 16:1), and selected Eliab for the successor of
Saul (1 Sam 16:6). Even though Samuel asked Saul to wait until he came, Saul seemed to
understand that he needed to wait for only seven days, as Samuel said.103 As Polzin insists, this
incident demonstrates “Samuel’s present failure as prophet as well as Saul’s future failures as
king.”104 Also, his mourning for Saul’s rejection means the refusal of Yahweh’s plan in his own
words (1 Sam 15:23, 26, 28).105 In addition, his choice of the next king of Israel depicts him as a
blunderer and shows his belief that “God likes to replace tall kings with tall successors.”106 The
Israelites call him the seer (‫)הָ רֹ אֶ ה‬,107 but he does not see who the next king of Israel will be. He
did not see Eliab in the way he should have after hearing Yahweh’s detailed directions as the
case of Saul (1 Sam 9:15-17). Ironically, he did not hear Yahweh’s word, but saw Eliab as the
seer. This differs from the case of the blind Eli, as observed above. Therefore, the description of
his beauty in his childhood is true in a positive sense, because he is with Yahweh. The factor that
102
103
Rabbi Howard Cooper, “‘Too Tall by Half’: King Saul and Tragedy in the Hebrew Bible,” JPJ 9 (1997): 13.
104
105
Polzin draws a parallel between Yahweh’s question in 1 Sam 16:1 and Elkanah’s question in 1 Sam 1:8. He
asserts that the sentence, “Am I not worth more to you than ten Sauls?” is omitted in Yahweh’s question to Samuel.
It means that Samuel seemed to consider Saul as more important than Yahweh. See Polzin, Samuel and the
Deuteronomist, 154.
106
107
1 Sam 9:9, 11, 18, 19.
72
“Yahweh is with him” or “he is with Yahweh” distinguishes one character’s fate from that of
another.108 However, Samuel’s old age is cast in the same negative light as Eli’s.
2.5. Saul, the First King of Israel
By the looks of Saul in 1 Sam 9:2, he seems fit to be the first king of Israel. 1 Sam 9:2 narrates
that “he was handsome and there was not a more handsome man than he among the sons of
Israel.” The narrator directly depicts his outward appearance (‫ ;)טֹוב‬this handsomeness is
mentioned twice, as will be the case with David (cf. 16:12). Even though Miscall asserts that
“Saul’s introduction is too good and does not fit the OT pattern for deliverance or heroes, which
usually presents the leader as somehow unfit for leadership or at least as an unpromising
candidate,”109 the emphasis on Saul’s physical attractiveness seems to show that he is suitable to
be king. Among all the characters described as beautiful by the narrator in the Hebrew Bible,
only Saul and David are hailed as kings of Israel in association with two mentions of physical
beauty unlike other beautiful characters.
In addition, Saul’s extraordinary height is narrated immediately after the depiction of his
beauty. For the first two candidates, Saul and Eliab, great height seems an important criterion for
a king. As David Tsumura insists, his height (mentioned in 1 Sam 9:2 and 10:23) “helped Saul
108
Lee Humphreys explains that “attention is called to the striking physical appearance of Saul and Absalom, but,
unlike the notes on David and Joseph, their other abilities are not detailed, and of neither Saul nor Absalom is it said
that ‘Yahweh was with him’ (cf. 1 Sam 16:18; Gen 39:2, 3, etc.).” See W. Lee Humphreys, “The Tragedy of King
Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31,” JSOT 6 (1978): 20.
109
Miscall, 1 Samuel, 52.
73
make a good impression on people.”110 Even though Saul was handsome, gigantic and the son of
an influential man (1 Sam 9:1), he said: “Am I not from the smallest of the tribes of Israel and
my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam 9:21)?”111 His humility
seems to be related to his outward appearance in a positive sense.112 Rabbi Howard Cooper
disagrees with this opinion in that it is “anxiety, or fear, born of his own sense of inadequacy.”113
However, the senses that Cooper lists are strongly connected to modesty and weakness. His
physical strength as the tallest among the Israelites is changed to his greatest weakness, when he
thinks that he is big (not small, ‫ )קָ טֹ ן‬in his own eyes as the king of Israel (1 Sam 15:17).
This pattern is found in his tribe’s name, Benjamin. His tribe was the smallest tribe of
Israel (1 Sam 9:21). This fact affects the strength of his bid to be king of Israel114 in the
beginning of his period. Suzie Park asserts that “it is because of the Benjaminite catastrophe at
the end of Judges. . . . Indeed, if one follows the chronology of the text, Saul’s mother must have
either been from Jabesh-Gilead or been a participant in the Shiloh festival (Judg 21).”115
However, Saul’s Benjaminite heritage was also transformed to a symbol of his misfortune when
he considered himself a great man, because the tribe’s name reminds the reader of the incident of
110
Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 264. His height was also “the important quality of his potential leadership.”
See Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 298.
111
Lyle Eslinger demonstrates that “God does not find Saul’s ‘heart,’ however submissive, totally acceptable.” So,
his modesty is certainly one of the most important factors for being king of Israel–like David’s heart. See Lyle
Eslinger, “‘A Change of Heart’: 1 Samuel 16,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & Other Studies in Memory of Peter
C. Craigie, eds. Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor, JSOTSup 67 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 345.
112
Shaul Bar, God’s First King: The Story of Saul (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2013), 17.
113
Cooper, “Too Tall by Half,” 10.
114
Hamilton asserts that “despite his warriorly skill (hence the magnificence of his body), his election to monarchy
does not depend on his own doing, but his smallness (in regard to clan size and thus power base).” Hamilton, The
Body Royal, 121.
115
Suzie Park, “Left-Handed Benjaminites and the Shadow of Saul,” JBL 134 (2015): 718.
74
the Benjaminites in Judg 19-21.116 When Saul lost his humility, his strength was changed to his
weakness. So, the reader expects another small and weak character in the narrative flow.117
Table 7. The Comparison among the Candidates of Israel’s King118
Saul Eliab David
Outward beautiful, tall (1 Sam 9:2; beautiful, tall (1 Sam beautiful, no

appearance 10:23) 16:7) description for his
height (1 Sam 16:12)
Leverage ‫( ג ֵ֖בֹור ָ ַֽחיל‬the son of a ‫( הבְ כַ֗ ֹור‬the first-born; ‫( הקָ ַ֔ ָטן‬the small; 1 Sam
strong power; 1 Sam 1 Sam 17:13) 16:11)
9:1)119
Status ‫( בָ ֣חּור‬a young man; 1 Sam ‫( נער‬a child; 1 Sam ‫( נער‬a child; 1 Sam
9:2) 16:11) 16:11, 17:42)
About inner ‫ֱֹלהים ֵל֣ב א ֵח֑ר‬ֵ֖ ‫( וי ֲהפְָך־לֵ֥ ֹו א‬God ‫ְמא ְס ֑תיהּו‬ ‫֣איׁש כלְ בָ ַ֗בו‬
heart gave to him another heart; (I rejected him; 1 Sam (a man like his heart; 1
1 Sam 10:9) 16:7) Sam 13:14)
2.6. Eliab in 1 Sam 16:6-7
Eliab, Jesse’s eldest son, is depicted indirectly as attractive by Samuel and Yahweh. So the
reader has no choice but to rely on these characters’ speech about Eliab’s outward appearance.
116
Miscall (1 Samuel, 52) explains a connection between the two stories that “as a Benjaminite, is Saul to be a man
of misfortune, a man of vigor, or perhaps both? The allusion to Judges 19-21 insets Gibeah, Jabesh-gilead, and
Shiloh into the text.” About other relationships between Saul and the book of Judges, see Sam Dragga, “In the
Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul,” JSOT 38 (1987): 39-44.
117
Sabine van den Eynde argues that “Esther is implicitly portrayed as a new David. She is a better queen than
Vashti, as David is the better king than Saul,” because of similarities among these four beautiful characters in 1 Sam
and Esth. Sabine van den Eynde, “The Replacement of a Queen: Vashti and Saul Compared,” BN 118 (2003): 61.
118
I modified Ralph Hawkins’s table 1. See Ralph K. Hawkins, “The First Glimpse of Saul and His Subsequent
Transformation,” BBR 22 (2012): 361.
119
Bill Arnold asserts that “his father’s lengthy genealogy implies the family has great wealth.” Bill T. Arnold, 1 &
2 Samuel, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 162. Additionally, Kyle McCarter argues that ‫ָ ַֽחיל ג ֵ֖בֹור‬
“describes social standing and implies economic power.” P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, AB 8 (New York:
Doubleday, 1980), 173.
75
When Samuel saw Eliab, the prophet thought that he was the strongest candidate for Israel’s next
king. Samuel admires Eliab for his outward appearance, in that he is handsome and tall.
However, Yahweh tells Samuel to “not look at his appearance or at his height” (1 Sam 16:7)
because Yahweh sees his (and others’) inner heart(s). Keith Bodner insists that “the inevitable
comparisons between Eliab and Saul (height, good looks and divine rejection) make it tempting
for exegetes to understand Eliab as a second Saul.”120 The parallel structure between two verses
(1 Sam 16:1 and 7) clearly shows that Bodner’s opinion is accurate.
Content 1st order core speech
Samuel rebuked for 1b 7b

his loyalty to: Saul Eliab
“I have rejected him” = 1c 7c
election by God 1f 7f
rāʾītī mlk yirʾē llbb
(individual) (general)121
In addition, Samuel’s similar praise for their outward appearance is a surprise. When
Samuel sees Eliab, he seems to think of Saul. As Polzin explains, “the Deuteronomist now
portrays Samuel as a mistaken prophet who somehow believes that God likes to replace tall [and
handsome] kings with tall [and handsome] successors.”122
120
Keith Bodner, “Eliab and the Deuteronomist,” JSOT 28 (2003): 60.
121
Structural Analysis: Volume II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-21 & II Sam.1), SSN 23 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986),
123; Moreover, Bodner asserts that “the comparison with Saul is heightened through the verb ‘reject,’ as the same
verb that begins the chapter (God has ‘rejected’ Saul) is now used for Jesse’s firstborn.” Keith Bodner, 1 Samuel: A
Narrative Commentary, HBM 19 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 169-70.
122
Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 155. In addition, Barbara Green argues that “in the chronotope (linked
time/space) of the Deuteronomistic History the tall are prone to topple.” Barbara Green, King Saul’s Asking,
Interfaces (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003), 40.
76
‫יחֹו‬
ַֽ ‫ֶ֛אְך נֶ ֵַ֥֖גֶד יְ הוָ ֵ֖ה ְמׁש‬ Surely his anointed one is before Yahweh (1 Sam 16:6).
‫ֶ֛כי ֵ ֵ֥אין כָמֵֹ֖ הּו ְבכָל־הָ ָע֑ם‬ Truly there is no one like him among all the people (1 Sam
10:24).
Even though David was the youngest, and probably the shortest son123 in Jesse’s house,
Yahweh chose him as the next king of Israel. As the handsome and tall Saul was rejected, so also
is this other Saul, Eliab, rejected by Yahweh. Therefore, the narrator evaluates Eliab’s physical
attractiveness negatively, as he did in the case of king Saul, and reveals in this way that the most
important thing is not what catches people’s attention, but what engages Yahweh’s affection.
2.7. Goliath in 1 Sam 17
In 1 Sam 17, the story of David and Goliath, many characters appear in the narrative stage as
shown in table 8. Each country has its heroes, but their outward appearance in the case of Israel
and Philistia are as different as light is from darkness. The narrator portrays Goliath as a warrior
of greater build and height. His outward appearance with his battle dress and weapons is
important in the narrative flow (1 Sam 17:4-7), because this story is “particularly concerned with
constructing bodies in the text,”124 moreso than the battle.
123
Carole R. Fontaine, “The Sharper Harper (1 Samuel 16:14-23): Iconographic Reflections on David’s Rise to
Power,” in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, eds. Tod Linafelt, et al., LHBOTS 500
(New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 135.
124
Mark K. George, “Constructing Identity in 1 Samuel 17,” BibInt 7 (1999): 394.
77
Table 8. Various Characters in 1 Sam 17125
“Our” camp Enemy camp

hero hero’s retinue hero hero’s retinue
(David) David’s family king (Saul) the (Goliath) (Philistines)
father brother king king’s retinue people
(Abner)
(daughter)
About Goliath’s height, Daniel Hays argues that he was four cubits and a span (6 feet 9 inches)
according to the major LXX and 4QSama manuscripts.126 However, Clyde Billington disagrees
with Hays’s assertion in that “the 6 cubits and a span [9 feet 9 inches] given for the height of
Goliath in the Hebrew MT is the original reading; it is not a textual error. The 4 cubits and a span
[6 feet 9 inches] reading found in the LXX is almost certainly a translation of the MT’s common
cubits into royal Egyptian cubits.”127 If we synthesize the scholars’ opinions, Goliath’s height
was similar to, or higher than, king Saul’s height. A great height, as discussed above, was an
important criterion for a king in the Ancient Near East, including Israel. So, the reader expects
that two tall warriors (Saul or Eliab for the Israelites and Goliath for the Philistines) will fight in
the battle between these two countries. However, the representative player of the Israelites is
neither Saul nor Eliab, but the small, young, and inexperienced soldier David. Saul and other
Israelites trembled with fear even before anything happened because of Goliath’s presence (1
Sam 17:11).
125
Heda Jason, “The Story of David and Goliath: A Folk Epic?” Bib 60 (1979): 52.
126
J. Daniel Hays, “Reconsidering the Height of Goliath,” JETS 48 (2005): 701-714, especially 701-2. In addition,
Hays insists that “what frightens Saul is the superior training of Goliath, not his height.” J. Daniel Hays, “The
Height of Goliath: A Response to Clyde Billington,” JETS 50 (2007): 514.
127
Clyde E. Billington, “Goliath and the Exodus Giant: How Tall Were They?” JETS 50 (2007): 507.
78
Table 9. Attributes of Two Representative Soldiers in 1 Sam 17128
Attribute David Goliath

Age a youth a grownup
Appearance short giant
Relationship to not knowledgeable in warfare (a a professional warrior
warfare shepherd)
Use of means use of natural, nonconventional use of cultural products,
means (pebbles from a brook) conventional means (man-made
arms)
With these two quite different characters, the narrator depicts the two countries’
situations in this story. The Philistia was strong like Goliath’s physical appearance,129 but Israel
was weak like David’s outward appearance. Even though David was small, weak, and untrained,
Yahweh made him a victor in this battle, because he was “the embodiment of Israel, who fights
both for the nation and for YHWH.”130 In this story, David’s victory throws a sidelight on this
question: “Who is the real leader of Israel, the sitting king or the anointed king?”131 Also, it
reveals again Yahweh’s trait that “he makes poor and rich; he brings low, and he also exalts” (1
Sam 2:7).132 Like this, he transforms the strong into the weak and the beautiful into the ugly or
vice versa. Another thing to note is that Goliath also judges David by his outward appearance,
just as Eli and Samuel did. As the seasoned priest Eli and the experienced prophet Samuel
misjudge pious Hannah and tall Eliab respectively, the experienced warrior Goliath mistakes
small David for a weak person. Frontain describes these three characters with one thing in
128
Jason, “The Story of David and Goliath,” 52.
129
George, “Constructing Identity,” 395.
130
George, “Constructing Identity,” 405.
131
John A. Beck, “David and Goliath, A Story of Place: The Narrative-Geographical Shaping of 1 Samuel 17,” WTJ
68 (2006): 323.
132
Thomas Preston maintains that “this pattern can be called the ‘rise of the lowly, fall of the mighty.’” See Thomas
R. Preston, “The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship,” JSOT 24 (1982): 28.
79
common as follows:
If Eli misjudges Hannah, and Samuel mistakes Eliab–and they are men of the
Lord–then how much more difficult is it for others to assess the complete
situation! Advancing to meet the Israelite champion on the battlefield, for
example, Goliath is enraged by the slight he thinks is being paid him: “and he
looked David up and down and had nothing but contempt for this handsome
lad with his ruddy cheek and bright eye” (1 Sam. 17:41). Appearances are not
only deceiving, but as the outcome of Goliath’s duel with David shows,
mistaking them can even be fatal.133
Interestingly, when Goliath sees David on the battlefield, this highly trained soldier
judges him by his outward appearance. According to Goliath, David is young man, reddish, and
handsome (1 Sam 17:42). Goliath follows Samuel’s way, as he did in 1 Sam 16:6-7.134
However, David does not do as Goliath and Samuel did. The giant’s outward appearance is never
an issue with David, because he obeys Yahweh’s direction. It is not hard to guess that Goliath is
only interested in outward appearances, like Samuel and the Israelites,135 and his “perception of
David misses his central strength, his inward beauty and strength of judgment that mirrors
Yahweh’s criteria.”136
1 Sam 16:7 ‫אל־ת ֵ ִ֧בט אֶ ל־מ ְר ֵ ֶ֛אהּו וְ אֶ ל־גְ בֵֹ֥ ּה קֹומָ ֵ֖תֹו‬
1 Sam 17:42 ‫וי ֵ ִ֧בט הּפְ ל ְׁש ֶ֛תי וי ְר ֶ ֵ֥אה אֶ ת־דָ וֵ֖ד ויבְ זֵ ֑הּו ַֽכי־הָ יָ ֣ה ַ֔נער וְ א ְדמֹ נֵ֖י עם־יְ ֵפֵ֥ה מ ְר ֶ ַֽאה‬ 137
133
Raymond-Jean Frontain, “The Trickster Tricked: Strategies of Deception and Survival in the David Narrative,”
in Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text, eds. Vincent L. Tollers and John Maier, BuR 33.2
(Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1990), 173.
134
A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 211; Bodner, 1 Samuel, 186.
135
Diana Vikander Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, JSOTSup 121 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1991), 131.
136
Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, 132.
137
Fokkelman suggests the relationship between these two verses because of the repeated verb ‫נבט‬. Fokkelman,
Volume II. The Crossing Fates, 179.
80
2.8. Mephibosheth the Lame
Mephibosheth is an ill-fated royal family member. If his father, Jonathan, had become the next
king after Saul, he would have been Israel’s king after his father. Sadly, however, that did not
happen. Instead, he became lame by accident. His disability was due to an accident that occurred
when the report of Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel (2 Sam 4:4). So the reader remembers
him as lame.
The first appearance of Mephibosheth on the narrative stage (2 Sam 9) is similar to
David’s in 1 Sam 16. Jeremy Schipper asserts that this similarity between them is “just one of
several points in which Mephibosheth’s relationship to David mirrors David’s relationship to
Saul.”138 Both questioners ask whether someone remains in Saul and Jesse’s house or not,
respectively. And then both answerers give a reply that someone still remains in the house, but
they do not make mention of these remnants’ names. The answerers emphasize the remnants’
outward appearance. In fact, the remnants’ physical traits show their social status as the weak or
the marginal. As Yahweh chooses small David, king David helps Mephibosheth out of a difficult
situation, especially financial hardship. David says to Mephibosheth, “do not fear (‫( ”)אל־ת ָירא‬2
Sam 9:7). Schipper insists that “usually, the Hebrew Bible reserves this ‘oracle of salvation’
formula for one in a position of great authority, often God or one of the heavenly hosts.”139
138
Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 109.
139
Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 111.
81
Table 10. The Similarities between Mephibosheth and David140
Mephibosheth David
Question ‫נֹותר לְ ֵ ֣בית ׁשָ ֑אּול‬ֵ֖ ‫ֲׁשר‬

ֵ֥ ֶ ‫ֶׁש־עֹוד א‬
ַ֔ ‫ה ֲ֣כי י‬ ‫ה ֲ֣תמּו הנְ עָרים‬
Is there anyone still remaining in the Are these all the children? (NASB)141
house of Saul? (Samuel’s question; 1 Sam 16:11)
(David’s question; 2 Sam 9:1)
Answer ‫ֶ֛עֹוד ֵבֵ֥ן ליהֹונ ָ ֵָ֖תן‬ ‫֚עֹוד ׁשָ ֣אר‬
There is still a son of Jonathan There still remain
(Ziba’s answer; 2 Sam 9:3) (Jesse’s answer; 1 Sam 16:11)
Feature ‫נְ כֵ ֵ֥ה רגְ ָ ַֽלים‬ ‫הקָ ַ֔ ָטן‬
lame small
Supporter 1 He is in the house of Machir the son When David stayed outside
of Ammiel in Lo-debar, outside Jerusalem, Machir the son of Ammiel
Jerusalem (2 Sam 9:4). from Lo-debar brought food and other
things (2 Sam 16:27-29).
Supporter 2 David ordered Ziba to take care of When David stated to flee, Ziba
Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:9-10). brought food (2 Sam 16:1).
However, because David hated “the blind142 and the lame (2 Sam 5:8),” R. Carlson
associates the lame with Mephibosheth.143 This seems to mean that David considered
Mephibosheth as his rival and also hated him. While it may be somewhat true in that David
accepted Ziba’s slander144 of Mephibosheth in 2 Sam 16:3, it is not ultimately true, because he
reversed his decision about Ziba when he saw Mephibosheth’s shabby appearance in 2 Sam
140
The table is adapted and modified from Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 109-10; Jeremy
Schipper, “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b,” CBQ 67 (2005): 431.
141
Schipper renders this sentence as “if anyone remains in the house of Jesse.” Schipper, Disability Studies and the
Hebrew Bible, 109.
142
This issue (about the blind) will be discussed later in this chapter.
143
R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel
(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964), 57.
144
Shmuel Vargon explains reasonably that “Ziba, who was in charge of Saul’s many possessions, was
apprehensive of losing his position; he tried to cast aspersions on Mephibosheth by replying to David that Jonathan
still had one son left–who was, however, unworthy of the king’s house, being lame.” Shmuel Vargon, “The Blind
and the Lame,” VT 46 (1996): 505.
82
19:24.145 In addition, there is no evidence that the “lame” in 2 Sam 5:6-10 are connected to
Mephibosheth.146 Even if David had hated all the lame, Mephibosheth seems to be an exception,
because of Jonathan.147 Therefore, Mephibosheth’s lameness shows that “he could not be even
considered as a fit successor to Saul or to Ishbosheth if the latter was regarded as a legitimate
king by David and his supporters.”148 He needed to receive special treatment from others,
including David.149
About his loyalty to David, Cephas Tushima asserts that the chiastic structure shows his
“doubtful loyalty” to the king.
A David and his loyalists–Ittai, the priests, Hushai (2 Sam 15:17-36)

B David and a man of doubtful loyalty–Ziba (2 Sam 16:1-4)
C David and an adversary–Shimei (2 Sam 16:6-12)
C′ David and the repentant adversary–Shimei (2 Sam 19:18-19a)
B′ David and a man of doubtful loyalty– Mephibosheth (2 Sam 19:25-31)
A′ David and a loyalist–Barzillai (2 Sam 19:32-40)150
145
As McCarter argues, “it is difficult . . . to decide whether Ziba was lying in 16:1-14 or Meribbaal
[Mephibosheth] is lying” in 2 Sam 19:25-31. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984),
422.
146
Anthony R. Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (ʽiwwēr ȗpissēaḥ) in 2 Samuel 5:8b,” CBQ 63
(2001): 26.
147
Michael Fiorello demonstrates that “the parenthetical statement of Jonathan’s son [in 2 Sam 4:4] as a cripple and
the cause of his disability brings forward an emphasis on kindness connected to 1 Sam 20:14-15 and the oath David
makes to Jonathan.” Michael D. Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled in Ancient Israel according to the Old Testament
and Ancient Near Eastern Sources” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008), 166.
148
A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Waco, TX: Word Books,1989), 67.
149
The literary structure in 2 Sam 9:1-13 clearly illustrates this point.
A. David seeks to be kind to a descendant of Saul (9:1)

B. David speaks to Ziba, Saul’s servant (9:2-5)
C. David shows kindness to Meribbaal (9:6-8)
B′. David speaks to Ziba, Saul’s servant (9:9-11a)
A′. David set in motion kindness to a descendant of Saul (9:11b-13)
See Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled,” 169.

150
Cephas T. A. Tushima, The Fate of Saul’s Progeny in the Reign of David (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011),
228.
83
However, David’s judgment in B′ (2 Sam 19:25-31) seems not to reveal Mephibosheth’s
disloyalty to the king, but to show “his failure as a just king.”151 From Mephibosheth’s response
to David, the reader perceives “how Mephibosheth grieved over David’s flight from what he did,
or rather did not do, concerning his external appearance.”152 David’s decision comes from his
political ability without kindness to Mephibosheth based on the oath between Jonathan and
himself. Fokkelman insists that “David feels a dual loyalty, towards Ziba and towards
Mephibosheth,”153 because he does “not wish to cause too much harm to Ziba, who had helped
him at the start of his flight,”154 and he must consider the promise to Jonathan. So, this is not a
Solomonic judgment.155
Table 11. The Similarities between Two Judgments
Decision Response
David’s You and Ziba will divide the land Mephibosheth: Let him take all (2 Sam
(2 Sam 19:29). 19:30). [Do not divide it!]
Solomon’s Divide the living child in two (1 The real mother of the living child: Give
Kgs 3:25). her the living child (1 Kgs 3:26). [Do not
divide him.]
In fact, we can discover similarities between these two judgments. Tushima maintains
that “the similarity between Mephibosheth’s concluding remarks and that of the true mother of
151
Stuart Lasine, “Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: The Reader as Judge of the Dispute between
Mephibosheth and Ziba,” HS 30 (1989): 50. My italics.
152
Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 50. Italics in the
original.
153
Structural Analyses: Volume I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2), SSN 20 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 38.
154
Vargon, “The Blind and the Lame,” 509.
155
Lasine, “Judicial Narratives,” 50.
84
the living son in 1 Kgs 3 sets in bold relief the difference in the judgments of the two kings.”156
As the slanderer is the woman who wants to divide the living child in Solomon’s judgment, there
is a strong presumption that the calumniator is Ziba in David’s decision. Even though
Mephibosheth’s physical appearance “is intended to demonstrate that the rule of the Saulide
dynasty has ended,”157 the narrator definitely indicates that “the one who is physically lame is
morally and psychologically the only one who emerges from these entanglements [namely,
David-Ziba-Mephibosheth’s triangle] inviolate.”158 It is certain that his physical disability is not
depicted negatively but positively. Although he is the suitable successor of the Saulide
dynasty,159 he shows steadfast loyalty to king David instead of being eager for a regime change
in Israel again. Therefore, his loyalty to the king anointed by Yahweh functions to cover his
physical weakness and leads the reader to see him positively.
2.9. Ahijah and the Dead Boy in 1 Kgs 14:1-20
In this story, the narrator portrays the prophet Ahijah as an old and blind man. Even though
Jeroboam’s wife masquerades herself as a different woman to hear her son’s fate, Ahijah knows
who she is (1 Kgs 14:6). It is manifest that “the disguise of Jeroboam’s wife . . . and the
prophet’s blindness heighten the drama of the story and emphasize that Yahweh’s word is not
156
Tushima, The Fate of Saul’s Progeny, 269.
157
Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled,” 179.
158
Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 39.
159
Fiorello (“The Physically Disabled,” 176) observes that “it appears from the evidence that many kings did not fit
an ideal concept of a king, and a handicapped ruler was not a social pariah as royal theology proponents would have
us believe.”
85
subject to human manipulation or weakness.”160 He and other previous blind people in the DH
have some important similarities, suggesting that his blindness is not “considered a sign of divine
requital due to sin.”161
Table 12. The Similarities among the Three Blind Characters
Dwelling place Outward appearance What can they see in this

situation?
Samson Gaza (Judg 16:21) blind (Judg 16:21) He can see that Yahweh is the
source of his strength (Judg
16:28-30).
Eli Shiloh (1 Sam 1:3) blind (1 Sam 3:2; 4:15), He can see “the seed of a new
old, heavy (1 Sam 4:18) beginning, at least for Israel.”162
Ahijah Shiloh (1 Kgs 14:4) blind, old (1 Kgs 14:4) He sees Jeroboam’s wife despite
of her disguise and her son’s fate
(1 Kgs 14:6, 12-13).
Even though they were all blind, they had performed Yahweh’s work without help or with a bit
of assistance from Yahweh or other people. In addition, Wallace insists that “in many ways
Ahijah is regarded as, and acts like, a seer and parallels the image of Samuel given by Saul and
his servant in 1 Sam 9,5-10.”163 For instance, in both stories people bring presents to Samuel and
Ahijah in order to ascertain certain information. Therefore, Ahijah’s disability does not
symbolize his inactivity or vulnerability, but his activity and invulnerability, because Yahweh
guides him and divulges His will to him (1 Kgs 14:5).
In this story, there is another ugly character. He even dies tragically young to fulfill a
160
H. N. Wallace, “The Oracles against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings,” Bib 67 (1986): 22.
161
Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled,” 181.
162
Janzen, “Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh,” 94.
163
Wallace, “The Oracles against the Israelite Dynasties,” 23.
86
prophecy. He is Jeroboam’s son, Abijah. The son’s name “means ‘My father is ‘YHWH,’
perhaps reflecting Jeroboam’s early (and brief) submission to YHWH, or it is an arrogant
allusion to Jeroboam’s own sense of greatness.”164 It is certain that his death “is associated with
the demise of the dynasty.”165 Ironically, the cause of his death is a good thing in Yahweh’s eyes
(1 Kgs 14:13).166 How can his death be a blessing?167 The reason for that is that all Israel buried
him and mourned for him, unlike Jeroboam’s other family members (1 Kgs 14:11, 13, 18).168
Implicit in his death is Yahweh’s love for this boy, because Yahweh isolated him quickly from
two kinds of serious distress at once, namely his illness and the fall of his family. The boy’s
death proves that Yahweh is the name of one who can transform a curse to a blessing.
2.10. Elisha the Bald in 2 Kgs 2:23-24
As Paul Kissling asserts, the incident in which forty-two young men were mauled by two bears is
“a very difficult text for modern readers who attempt to align themselves with a hypothetical
ancient Hebrew reader.”169 So, we must consider the relationship between this incident and the
previous incident in 2 Kgs 2:19-22. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor explain the
164
Lissa M. Wray Beal, 1&2 Kings, ApOTC 9 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 201.
165
Wallace, “The Oracles against the Israelite Dynasties,” 23-24. See also Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled,” 181.
166
His name seems to allude to his having some “good thing” in regard to Yahweh (‫)אֶ ל־יְ הוָ ֶ֛ה ַ֗טֹוב דָ ָב֣ר‬. Mordechai
Cogan explains that “Rabbinic exegesis took this to be the sense of ‘good’ here: against his father’s order, Abijah
made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem.” Mordechai Cogan, I Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001),
380.
167
Mark Mercer insists that “a strong curse is sometimes thought to be the cause of death.” Mark Mercer, “Elisha’s
Unbearable Curse: A Study of 2 Kings 2:23-25,” AJET 21 (2002): 166.
168
Gina Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 143.
169
Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha,
JSOTSup 224 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 165.
87
relationship between these two incidents, in that “just as the prophetic word heals and gives
life . . . , so, too, it [the incident in 2 Kgs 2:23-24] brings death.”170 Furthermore, Lissa Wray
Beal insists that “the narrative shaping marks the import of the prophetic succession”171 in 2 Kgs
2. In addition, Brian Irwin demonstrates that 2 Kgs 2 is the basis upon which to interpret other
incidents relating to Elisha in the next several chapters of 2 Kgs.
2 Kings 2 may be understood to accomplish three things: (1) it establishes

Elisha as Elijah’s true heir; (2) it demonstrates that obedience to the prophetic
word will bring covenant blessing; and (3) it shows that disregarding the
prophet will lead to covenant curse. These principles are then further
illustrated in the Elisha stories that make up chapters 3 to 8.172
Therefore, we cannot consider this brief written incident apart from other incidents in the book of
2 Kings.
Even though the two incidents in 2 Kgs 2:19-24 yield opposite results, the incidents have
170
Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 39.
171
Wray Beal, 1&2 Kings, 302. In the same page, she suggests the following literary structure in 2 Kgs 2.
Introduction (1a)
A The journey begins at Gilgal (v. 1b)
B Journey to Bethel; first challenge (vv. 2-3)
C Journey to Jericho; second challenge (vv. 4-5)
D Journey to Jordan; boundary marker (vv. 6-7)
E Crossing of Jordan (took cloak, struck, divided to one side and the other) (v. 8)
F Ascension; double portion given and received (vv. 9-13)
E′ Crossing of Jordan (took cloak, struck, divided to one side and the other) (v. 14)
D′ Boundary marker; confirmation at the Jordan of succession (v. 15)
[Missing third challenge and counter-challenge (vv. 16-18)]
C′ Proofs at Jericho (vv. 19-22)
B′ Proofs at Bethel (vv. 23-24)
A′ Journey ends at Mount Carmel and Samaria (v. 25)
Also, Burke Long and Robert Cohn introduce a similar literary structure. See Burke O. Long, 2 Kings, FOTL 10
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 20; Robert L. Cohn, 2 Kings, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 11.
172
Brian P. Irwin, “The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2 Kings 2 and the Prophetic Authority of
Elisha,” TynBul 67 (2016): 33.
88
a strong relationship, as Cogan and Tadmor suggest.173 Keith Bodner proposes that “these two
episodes together with the assumption that there is an essential literary coherence might reveal an
intentionality in the structural design of the narrative.”174 Both of them present people’s
complaints and then Elisha takes appropriate measures in each case, because Elisha shows
effectively the power of Yahweh to the citizens of Jericho and Bethel.
Table 13. The Similarities between Two Incidents in 2 Kgs 2:19-24
Complaint Result
2 Kgs 2:19-22 The water is bad, so the Elisha heals (‫;רפָא‬ ָ piel) the water by the word
women of the land are of Yahweh.
miscarrying.175 ➔ There is hope for the future, because they
will have children.
2 Kgs 2:23-24 The prophet is bald, so Elisha curses (‫ ;קלל‬piel)176 the boys by the
many boys mock Elisha. name of Yahweh, and then two bears tear up
(‫ ;בָ קע‬piel) forty-two boys among them.
➔ There is no hope for the future, because
many children die.
Although Kissling argues that Elisha “makes use of his miraculous power for a morally
questionable purpose”177 in this incident, the similarities between the two incidents suggest that
Elisha has well performed his prophetic duties.
Regarding Elisha’s baldness, we do not know whether it originated from heredity, was a
173
Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 39.
174
Keith Bodner, Elisha's Profile in the Book of Kings: The Double Agent (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013),
4.
175
The word, ‫ ׁשכל‬in 2 Kgs 2:19 means basically “to cause an abortion.” HALOT, 1492. Irwin insists that “given
that the term ‫‘( הָ אָ ֶרץ‬the land’) can sometimes indicate ‘nation’ or people’, the view that sees this verse as referring
to problems with childbirth is to be preferred.” Irwin, “The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears,” 31.
176
The words to “heal” and “curse” form a direct contrast. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC 13 (Waco: Word Books,
1985), 24.
177
Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History, 195.
89
symptom of a certain disease, was a tonsure expressing sorrow for the dead,178 or “signif[ied] his
prophetic vocation.”179 However, it is certain that the boys made fun of his outward appearance.
Elisha might construe their jeering about his loss of hair as the refusal of his prophetic
authority,180 because Elijah, his master was a hairy man (2 Kgs 1:8), contrastively.181
Paradoxically, the incidents demonstrate their prophetic power from Yahweh as follows:
Table 14. The Similarities between Elijah’s and Elisha’s Incidents
Elijah Elisha
1:2 ?
Ahaziah asked Baal-zebub. Omitted
1:9, 11 2:23
The king’s order to Elijah The boys’ exhortation to Elisha
‫ ֵ ַֽרדָ ה‬Go down! ‫ עֲלֵ ֵ֥ה‬Go up!
1:10, [12] 2:24
‫“ ו ֵ ִּ֤ת ֶרד‬and came down ‫“ ותֵ ֙ ֶצאנָה‬and came out
֙‫ אֵ ׁש‬Fire ֙‫ ְׁש ִּ֤תים דבים‬two she-bears
‫ מן־השָ ַ֔מים‬from the skies ‫ מן־ה ַ֔יער‬from the forest
‫ ו ֵ֥ת ֹאכל‬and consumed” ‫ ו ְתב ֣קעְ נָה‬and devoured”182
As shown in the table above, Elisha’s curse on the boys seems to be related to the Israelites’ idol
worship, because king Ahaziah died while worshipping Baal-zebub. Thus, the boys’ exhortation
can be understood as a challenge to Elisha to enter Bethel and worship at the cult site established
by Jeroboam.”183 Philip Satterthwaite argues that this curse is “cutting off the future hope of a
178
Mercer, “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse,” 176-77; Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings, OTL (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2007), 275.
179
Eric J. Ziolkowski, “The Bad Boys of Bethel: Origin and Development of a Sacrilegious Type,” HR 30 (1991):
334. Sweeney argues that “baldness may be the mark of a holy man, who perhaps is associated with the
Transjordanian region.” Sweeney, I & II Kings, 275.
180
August H. Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 382.
181
Hobbs, 2 Kings, 18.
182
The third row is from Hobbs, 2 Kings, 18. The first two rows are my own.
183
Mercer, “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse,” 175. See also Wray Beal, 1&2 Kings, 306.
90
people,”184 because many little boys were killed.
If so, who do the boys stand for? In my opinion, the boys symbolize the sinful Israelites
in that they do not obey the word of Yahweh but follow false gods as other nations did. The
Israelites do not perceive themselves as small, as in the case of king Saul (1 Sam 15:17). In
addition, the bears do not kill all of them, but only forty-two at that time.185 This means that
Yahweh retains future hope for the Israelites. Additionally, the baldness suggests that outward
appearance is an unimportant factor in doing prophetic works; Yahweh entrusts him with full
powers.
2.11. Naaman the Leper
The story of Elisha healing Naaman of his disease in 2 Kgs 5 “is a remarkable story of the
conversion to Yahwism of a mighty, Aramean warrior.”186 In this story, the narrator uses the
contrast between small and great, powerless and powerful, with irony. Firstly, though the kings
of Aram and Israel have strong political power, they “play minor roles on a tableau where
politics recedes to the background”187 and are powerless characters for healing Naaman, the
main problem in this story. Secondly, the healing is not initiated by strong men (such as Naaman
184
Philip E. Satterthwaite, “The Elisha Narratives and the Coherence of 2 Kings 2-8,” TynBul 49 (1998): 9.
185
It is interesting that the narrator does not use the verbs ‫( מות‬to die), ‫( ׁשָ חט‬to slaughter) or ‫( הָ רג‬to kill), but the
verb ‫( בָ קע‬to split), when he describes this incident. Irwin (“The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears,” 24)
suggest that this verb “indicates that the boys [only forty-two boys among them] were severely injured if not killed.”
186
D. P. O’Brien, “‘Is This the Time to accept …?’ (2 Kings V 26b): Simply Moralizing (LXX) or an Ominous
Foreboding of Yahweh’s Rejection of Israel (MT)?” VT 46 (1996): 448.
187
Robert L. Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” VT 33 (1983): 171.
91
himself and the kings), but a small girl (‫ )נע ֲָרה קְ ט ָנה‬as a “functional character.”188 Thirdly, the
insider (Gehazi) becomes the outsider, and the outsider (Naaman) transforms into the insider.189
Esther Menn points out that child characters in the Bible are “rarely the focus of biblical
interpretation.”190 This story also has a tendency to ignore the little servant girl in that “so small
is her role in the story that she is given no name, and she never reappears as an adult later in the
narrative of Israel’s history.”191 Although she disappears from the narrative stage after telling
Naaman’s wife her wish, it is the starting point in Naaman’s healing. Other child characters play
a similar role in the DH, as the following table shows.
Table 15. Child Characters’ Role in the DH
The ugly Child Result

Samson the boy; ‫( הנער‬Judg 16:26) He helps Samson to complete his duty.
Eli the boy Samuel; ‫( הנער‬1 Sam 3:1) He leads Eli to the word of Yahweh.
Elisha little boys; ֙‫( נְ ע ִָּ֤רים קְ טנים‬2 Kgs 2:23) They prod Elisha into action.
Naaman a little girl; ‫( נע ָ ֲ֣רה קְ טנָ ֑ה‬2 Kgs 5:2) She leads Naaman to the prophet.
Naaman the flesh of a little boy; ‫בְ ֶ֛שר נֵ֥ער קָ טֵֹ֖ ן‬ The flesh of a little boy leads Naaman
(2 Kgs 5:14) to worship Yahweh.
Elisha The boy of Elisha; ‫יׁשע‬ ֣ ָ ‫נער אֱ ל‬ He (Gehazi) leads Elisha into action.
(2 Kgs 5:20)
Other notable characters in this story are Naaman’s servants (2 Kgs 5:13). They lead
Naaman to perform Elisha’s order. As “the servants’ request reveals Naaman’s obsession with
188
Jean Kyoung Kim, “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story (2 Kings 5),” JSOT 30 (2005): 53.
189
Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” 183.
190
Esther M. Menn, “Child Characters in Biblical Narratives: The Young David (1 Samuel 16-17) and the Little
Israelite Servant Girl (2 Kings 5:1-19),” in The Child in the Bible, eds. Marcia J. Bunge, et al. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 324.
191
Menn, “Child Characters in Biblical Narratives,” 325.
92
greatness,”192 the narrator discloses that Naaman ( ֙‫ׁש גָד֙ ֹול לפְ נֵ ִּ֤י אֲדֹ נָיו‬
ׁ֩ ‫“ ;אי‬a great man before his
lord” [2 Kgs 5:1]) is ready for being a humble man before Yahweh, the Lord through listening to
others especially a social or a political underclass. When he is obedient to the prophet of Israel,
the flesh of the great man becomes like the flesh of “a small boy” (‫)נער קָ טֹ ן‬. In addition, the
narrator portrays not only restoration from the disease, but also his confession to Yahweh.193
Regardless of Naaman’s physical appearance and political power, the most important factor in
his recovery is whether he follows the prophet’s word or not.
There is one other small character in this story. He is Gehazi, the servant of Elisha. The
narrator describes him as small (2 Kgs 5:20). Even though Gehazi is apparently small and just
Elisha’s subordinate,194 he forgets it and acts like Elisha. In addition, he seems to judge that it is
the prophet’s mistake not to receive the present from Naaman. It is hard to exaggerate how much
“Gehazi’s misunderstanding of his servanthood contrasts dramatically with the little girl’s
conviction that the prophet of Israel can heal Naaman’s leprosy.”195
2.12. Zedekiah(-Jehoiachin), the Last King of Judah
In the last scene of the narrative stage on which he appears, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah,
meets a terrible fate (2 Kgs 25:7). His sons are killed by Babylonian soldiers who then gouge out
his eyes. The last scene he sees will leave an indelible and permanent scar on him. The narrator
192
Kim, “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story,” 55.
193
Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” 172.
194
In the case of Gehazi, ‫ נער‬means his low position as the servant of Elisha.
195
Kim, “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story,” 57.
93
depicts his fate in a negative way, in that there is no hope of restoring his sight and descendants.
Does this incident symbolize a similarly hopeless situation for Judah?
Some scholars suggest that a small seed of hope remains in the incident and begins to
grow,196 because the blind Zedekiah is related to the lame Mephibosheth in the DH context.
Schipper find links between Zedekiah and Mephibosheth as follows.197
Aside from their use in the description of Mephibosheth and Zedekiah, the two
words “lame” and “blind” appear as a pair in the D[tr]H three other times (Deut
15:21; 2 Sam 5:6, 8; cf. Exod 4:11; Lev 21:18). This repeated use of the words
as a pair suggests some resonance between the fates of the “lame”
Mephibosheth and the “blind” Zedekiah. Yet one also sees a resonance between
Mephibosheth and the other surviving Davidic king, Jehoiachin.198
As Mephibosheth becomes lame by an unfortunate accident, Zedekiah loses his sight by force at
the hands of the soldiers of Babylon. In addition, as king David allows Mephibosheth to eat at
the king’s table, king of Babylon Evil-merodach authorizes Johoiachin, Zedekiah’s nephew, to
dine in the king’s presence (2 Kgs 25:29).199
In 2 Kgs 25:4, the narrator shows that “Zedekiah was a coward who only wanted to save
his own neck and left the people to suffer the consequences of his unwise politics.”200 His flight
reveals not only his unsuitableness for the throne,201 but also his weakness. Furthermore, he is
196
Jon D. Levenson, “The Last Four Verses in Kings,” JBL 103 (1984): 353-61; Juha Pakkala, “Zedekiah’s Fate and
the Dynastic Succession,” JBL 125 (2006): 443-52; Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 116-22.
197
Cheryl Exum also agrees that there is a connection between Mephibosheth and Zedekiah. However, she
evaluates their fate negatively. J. Cheryl Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 149.
198
Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 118-19.
199
Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame,’” 29.
200
Pakkala, “Zedekiah’s Fate,” 451.
201
Pakkala (“Zedekiah’s Fate,” 451) insists that the narrator depicts Zedekiah as a failed ruler.
94
caught trying to flee Jerusalem by the powerful Babylonian army (2 Kgs 25:5). His weakness
causes his disability. As with the case of Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s captivity (2 Kgs 24:15) exposes
his weakness. The narrator considers them as one.202 As Schipper notes, the phrase “the blind
and the lame” in 2 Sam 5:8 expresses disability and weakness in both houses of David and Saul
metaphorically.203 Despite their disability, the representatives of each house propose hope for
the future. Their personal stories are thoroughly miserable; yet the narrator imbues their stories
with special significance.
Table 16. The Similarities between Zedekiah-Jehoiachin and Mephibosheth204
Zedekiah-Jehoiachin Mephibosheth
To become by force; not congenital by accident; not congenital
disable (Zedekiah)
A place for in the king’s presence the king’s table (2 Sam 9:7)
dining (Jehoiachin)
To be disclosed hope for the future of Israel hope for the future of Saulide206
(Zedekiah-Jehoiachin)205
As the other blind people in the DH act as if they see hope for the future,207 the narrator
mentions hope for the future of Israel in 2 Kgs 25:27-30,208 as in the case of Mephibosheth.
202
Even though Zedekiah’s father was Josiah, the narrator mentions that Jehoiachin and Zedekiah did evil as
Jehoiakim had done. (2 Kgs 24:9, 19). Erich Zenger, “Die Deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung
Jojachins,” BZ 12 (1968): 29.
203
Schipper, “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability,” 433.
204
For further details see David Janzen, The Violent Gift: Trauma’s Subversion of the Deuteronomistic History’s
Narrative, LHBOTS 561 (New York: T & T Clark, 2012), 202.
205
Levenson (“The Last Four Verses,” 358) insists that “Jehoiachin’s exaltation awakened hopes of restoration
among his people, both in exile and in Judah.”
206
About Mephibosheth’s descendants, see 1 Chron 9:40-44. He had many direct descendants.
207
See Table 12.
208
Samantha Joo argues that “this promising ending [2 Kgs 25:27-30], reflecting the human need for hope, becomes
an encouraging message for the exilic community.” Samantha Joo, “A Fine Balance between Hope and Despair: The
95
3. The Deuteronomists’ Attitude towards the Beautiful and the Ugly
In his search for the meaning of beauty Keel concludes that it is related to “blessing.” He insists
that “beauty presupposes blessing, and vice versa.”209 However, in the DH, beauty is not an
important factor to the people of Yahweh. Although the narrator depicts several characters as
beautiful, their beauty is a prerequisite for obtaining the office.210 In addition, their beauty is
meaningless without Yahweh.
To sum up, the DH construes beautiful appearance as somewhat negative, whereas it
renders appearances akin to the ugly as somewhat positive, as the following table illustrates:
Table 17. The Beautiful and the Ugly Characters in the DH, excluding the DN
That the Deuteronomistic narrator has this view of the outward appearances appears to be
because he wants to emphasize God’s way of looking at people. This is made most explicit in 1
Sam 16:7, which states that “man looks at the outward appearance, but Yahweh looks at the
heart.” Reines’s opinion illustrates well this intention of the narrator.
Epilogue to 2 Kings (25:27-30),” BibInt 20 (2012): 226.

209
Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 280.
210
Keel (The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 280) asserts that a certain king “is invariably portrayed as such” for
this reason.
96
Biblical and rabbinic literature also recognized the conflict between the natural
propensity of man and the demands of ethics, since people are too greatly
impressed by external appearances and are, therefore, inclined to underestimate
or even to insult an ugly individual. It was stressed, therefore, that a person
should be judged, not according to his outward appearance, but by his moral
and intellectual qualities; and that human dignity should also be respected, even
in an ugly individual.211
In addition, the view of the Deuteronomistic narrator is related to this proclamation that
“charm is deceitful and beauty is vain (‫) ֶה֣בֶ ל ה ֹ֑יפי‬, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be
praised (Prov 31:30).” The most important factor for the people of Yahweh is not their outward
appearance, but their heart for Him.212
211
Reines, “Beauty in the Bible and the Talmud,” 107.
212
It seems to be good supporting evidence that the Deuteronomists are associated with a wisdom school.
Chapter Three
The Beautiful Women in the DN
My primary concern in this dissertation is to reveal why the narrator mentions select characters’
appearances, but not every character’s.1 As we saw in Chapter 2, the Deuteronomistic narrator
has a certain outlook on outward appearance: it is that Yahweh looks at people in a different way
than human beings do.
To support my argument, I examined characters who are depicted as either
beautiful/handsome or ugly (i.e., in some way “defective”) among the people in the DH, and I
analyzed these characters against their speech, actions, relationships with other characters, and so
on. This analysis revealed that the narrator’s portrayal led the reader to expect a certain result for
the beautiful/handsome or the ugly in the DH. Then I examined these characters’ fates in the
narrative in order to prove that their appearances are related to their fates, because the narrator
depicts the characters’ appearances to foreshadow the end of each narrative event. My analysis
reveals the Deuteronomistic concept of “outward appearance” with a theological emphasis. With
the repeated narration, the narrative’s outline gradually becomes clear.
This study will illustrate the Deuteronomist’s theological reflection on outward
1
Blenkinsopp argues that “the writer [the narrator] did not need to dwell on or in fact even mention the beauty of
the king and his progeny; that he did so, and in a way which is thematic throughout the narrative, must therefore be
stylistically significant.” J. Blenkinsopp, “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam XI 2ff) and the
Yahwist Corpus,” in Volume du Congrès: Genève: 1965, eds. G. W. Anderson, et al., VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill,
1966), 50.
97
98
appearances. Even though beauty and political power were closely related in ancient Israel, 2 the
Deuteronomists have a somewhat negative view of beauty. Furthermore, they wanted to show the
reader that God works not only through such handsome men or beautiful women, but also
through normal people like us, especially the ugly and the disabled,3 because all God’s creatures
are good (‫ ;טֹוב‬beautiful/ handsome). This fact means that the most important thing is whether
God is with someone.
Interestingly, in the case of the DN we shall see that the narrator does not mention
obviously whether or not God is with most of the beautiful characters in the DN. What is clear is
that these beautiful characters in the DN are strongly related to David, who is also beautiful, and
that the narrator demonstrates that God is with him (1 Sam 16:18; 18:12, 14: 2 Sam 5:10).
Therefore, the relationship between king David and other beautiful characters in each story
reveals not only the narrator’s view of those beautiful characters, but also the changes of David’s
heart to God and his political power.
1. David’s Beautiful Wives
Among David’s wives, the narrator describes Abigail, Bathsheba, and Abishag (his steward) as
beautiful. Adele Berlin explains that the narrator mentions characters’ outward appearance to
2
David Penchansky, “Beauty, Power, and Attraction: Aesthetics and the Hebrew Bible,” in Beauty and the Bible:
Toward a Hermeneutics of Biblical Aesthetics, eds. Richard J. Bautch and Jean-François Racine, SemeiaSt 73
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 47.
3
God’s concern is always focused on the most vulnerable (Deut 10:18), and “he brings some [the beautiful] down
and lifts others [the ugly] up (1 Sam 2:7; NLT).”
99
show whether the character is the right person for the position.4 For example, even though
David’s first wife Michal is important, the narrator shows that she is not suitable as king David’s
wife. Strangely enough, the narrator is reticent to mention her outward appearance. Berlin argues
that David uses Michal to gain political advantage.5 However, if we extrapolate from Berlin’s
opinion about the function of characters’ appearances in the narrative, the fact that there is no
description of her outward appearance foreshadows the fact that David’s political power will not
be changed by Michal. Therefore, it is natural to extend this explanation to the role of David’s
beautiful wives in each story of the DN.
1.1. Abigail, the Wise and Beautiful Woman
The narrator introduces Abigail as having good insight and beauty, but her husband as severe and
doing evil (1 Sam 25:3). The literary structure emphasizes their antithetical traits6 as follows:
‫וְ ֵ ִּׁ֤שם הָ איׁש֙ נ ַ֔ ָָבל‬ Nabal

‫וְ ֵ ֵׁ֥שם א ְׁש ֵ֖תֹו ֲאבגָ ֑ ַ֖יל‬ Abigail
‫וְ הָ א ָ ִּ֤שה ַֽטֹובת־שֶֹּ֙ ֶכ ֙ל ֣ויפת תַֹ֔ אר‬ Abigail: wise and beautiful
‫וְ הָ ֵ֥איׁש קָ ֶ ֶׁ֛שה וְ ֵ֥רע מ ֲעל ֵָ֖לים‬ Nabal: severe and evil
4
Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983), 36. She
asserts that “to describe someone as tall or handsome is really no different from calling him wise or wealthy, good or
evil.”
5
6
Ken Mulzac, “The Role of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25,” AUSS 41 (2003): 46. He argues that “the chiastic structure of
the text emphasizes the contrast of their characters.”
Nabal good understanding and beautiful
Abigail vulgar and evil in dealings

100
Such an emphasis on her inner and outer traits reflects that Abigail is “ready to protect her
husband though he does not deserve it.”7 The literary structure of this story clearly illustrates
this point, in that Abigail prevents David from killing Nabal.
Exposition
a) introduction: details (wealth, marriage, qualities) v. 1d-3e
b) David’s request via servants 4-9
c) refusal by Nabal 10-12
d) the bomb bursts: they all gird on their swords 13
Development and conclusion of the plot

I CRISIS
e) servant informs Abigail (warning speech, typifies 14-17
David’s band and Nabal)
f) Abigail gets together a food column, leaves, 18-19
but does not inform her husband
II CONFRONTATION
g) Abigail and David moving towards one another,
flashback: David’s oath of vengeance [thesis] 20-23
x) Abigail’s long speech: she takes the blame,
runs down Nabal, refers to David’s destiny, oath
against taking the law into one’s own hands [antithesis] 24-31
g′) David’s answer: blessing/thanks plus oath [synthesis]
of revenge and intervention 32-35
III SOLUTION
f′) Abigail returns, does not inform her husband 36
e′) she informs Nabal, he has a stroke, later dies 37-38
Consequence
d′) David reacts to the news: blessing/thanks 39a-d
b′) David’s proposal 39e-40
via servants
c′) Abigail’s acceptance 41-42
a′) details of David’s 3 marriages 43-448
7
8
Structural Analysis: Volume II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-21 & II Sam.1), SSN 23 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986),
478.
101
Interestingly, even though her outward appearance is introduced by the narrator as a trait that is
as important as her wisdom, it contributes little to nothing to the development of this story. Mark
Biddle pinpoints that David’s first concern is not Abigail’s beauty, but Nabal’s richness.9 In
addition, Nabal’s severity redounds to his wife’s wisdom. As Esther Fuchs observes, “Abigail’s
positive characterization emphasizes Nabal’s villainy and presents her as a desirable and prized
object.”10
1.1.1. Nabal, Abigail’s Original Husband
Many scholars suggest that Nabal is another Saul because of their similar traits.11 Robert Gordon
argues that “Nabal reads like a diminutive Saul . . . In his eyes David is just a fugitive slave.”12
As David Bosworth observes, we can find similarities between two kinds of relationships (Table
18), as if Saul is replaced by Nabal in 1 Sam 25.
9
Mark E. Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization,” JBL 121 (2002): 629.
10
Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman, JSOTSup 310
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 144.
11
Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 626; David A. Bosworth, The Story within a Story in Biblical Hebrew
Narrative, CBQMS 45 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008), 82-117; Robert P.
Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24-26,” TynBul 31 (1980): 53-54.
12
Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” 45.
102
Table 18. The Similarities between Two Kinds of Relationships13
David and Nabal David and Saul

David does good. David protects Nabal’s David slays Goliath, defeats the
property and treats his Philistine armies, and soothes
servants well. Saul’s madness with music. David
mourns the deaths of Saul, Abner,
and Ishbaal and avenges the
deaths of Saul and his son.
David receives Nabal refuses reciprocal Saul seeks to kill David at court,
evil. hospitality to David and and even his apparent kindness
insults his messengers. (offering Michal as David’s wife)
is a trap. When David flees, Saul
pursues him and David suffers
exile and persecution.
David declines Abigail restrains David David refrains from taking
vengeance. from avenging himself on vengeance against Saul. He does
Nabal. not make war against Saul and
twice spares his life. He executes
those who claim to have killed
Saul or his heirs.
Yhwh vindicates Yhwh kills Nabal, and Saul dies in battle, and David
David. David marries Nabal’s wife. becomes king of Judah and then
of all Israel.
In addition, the literary structure of 1 Sam 24-26 throws into sharp relief the strong literary
connection between Nabal and Saul in that “David’s sparing of Nabal comments on David’s
sparing of Saul recorded in the framing doublet.”14
13
Bosworth, The Story within a Story, 86.
14
Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 626. See also Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail
(1 Samuel 25): A Literary Study of Wordplay on Names, Analogies and Socially Structured Opposites,” in Abigail,
Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women, ed. Daniel Bodi, HBM 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press,
2013), 66-67; Barbara Green, “Enacting Imaginatively the Unthinkable: 1 Samuel 25 and the Story of Saul,” BibInt
11 (2003): 1; Jon D. Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” CBQ 40 (1978): 23; David Toshio
Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 575. Gordon names 1 Samuel 24-26
the “wilderness cycle.” See Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” 40. See also Green, “Enacting
Imaginatively the Unthinkable,” 10; David Jobling, 1 Samuel, BO (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 92-93;
Grenville J. R. Kent, Saying It Again Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1 Samuel 28
103
Figure 4. The Literary Structure of 1 Sam 24-26
His name, “Nabal,” basically means “fool” in Hebrew.15 Levenson defines ‫ נָבָ ל‬as “not a
harmless simpleton, but rather a vicious, materialistic, egocentric misfit, . . . an embarrassment to
his father (Prov 17:21), a glutton (Prov 30:22), a hoarder (Jer 17:11), and even an atheist (Ps 14:1
= 53:1).”16 Moreover, the definition for ‫ נָבָ ל‬in Isa 32:6 is strongly related to Nabal’s refusal of
David’s request.17 However, the narrator does not say Nabal was foolish directly. The narrator
characterizes him as an obstinate person. Only his name alludes to his foolishness and creates
bias on the part of the reader.
Interestingly, Moshe Garsiel notes that “Nabal’s response contains a subtle offense
against David’s clan and tribal genealogy.”18 The following table illustrates this.
(Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 118; Peter J. Leithart, “Nabal and His Wine,” JBL 120 (2001): 526-27;
Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Two. 1 Samuel,
ISBL 849 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 205-15; Ellen van Wolde, “A Leader Led by a Lady:
David and Abigail in I Samuel 25,” ZAW 114 (2002): 366.
15
HALOT, 663.
16
Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” 13.
17
Levenson explains that “the refusal to feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty, precisely the sin of Nabal in 1
Samuel 25, is listed among the characteristics of a nābāl” in Isa 32:5-6. Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as
History,” 13.
18
Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail,” 72.
104
Table 19. Nabal’s Wordplay about David’s Ancestors19
David’s Genealogy Nabal to David’s young men

Perez (‫)ּפ ֶֶרץ‬ ‫( המ ְתּפָ ֣ ְר ַ֔צים‬who break away; vs. 10)
Ram (‫)רם‬ ָ ‫( היֹום֙ ר ֣בּו‬today they have multiplied; vs. 10)
Obed (‫)עֹ בֵ ד‬ ‫( עֲבָ ַ֔דים‬slaves; vs. 10)
Jesse (‫)יׁשי‬ ‫( ֣מי בֶ ן־י ָ ׁ֑שי‬who is the son of Jesse?; vs. 10)
David (‫)דָ וד‬ ‫( ֵ֥מי דָ ֵ֖וד‬who is David? vs. 10)
Bethlehem (‫ ;בֵ ית לֶחֶ ם‬hometown) ‫( לחְ מי‬my bread; vs. 11)
Nabal’s forefather Nabal to David’s young men
Jephunneh (‫)יְ פנֶה‬ ‫( מּפְ נֵ ֵ֥י אֲדֹ ָנַֽיו‬from his masters; vs. 10)
According to Garsiel, Nabal lashes out at David and his ancestors, and puts himself in a higher
position than David by making a pun.
While David’s family and men are seen as a gang of slaves who broke away
from their master, Nabal places his clan at the other side of the equation–on the
side of the masters. The words “from his masters” (mippenê ʾadōnāyw) includes
a wordplay on the forefather’s name of Caleb, who was son of Jephunneh (ypnh,
root pnh; the pun on the words pānîm–mippnê). In an offensive way, Nabal
defines the stark contrast, the unbridgeable gap, between the two clans. Being a
Calebite, a descendant of Caleb son of Jephunneh, he belongs to the dominant
and superior clan of the masters, while David and his men are in the category
of slaves who broke away from their masters.20
If Nabal’s response is a kind of wordplay to deprecate David, he is not a fool at all,21 but a
genius at Hebrew. Nabal already knew who David was and even knew his forefathers.22
However, this brilliant answer to David’s request reveals Nabal’s foolishness ironically.
Although Nabal knew David’s background and remembered his genealogy, he did not detect that
David would be the king of Israel. Furthermore, Nabal was successful in the protection of his
19
This table is modified from Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail,” 73.
20
Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail,” 73-74. Italics in the original.
21
Jobling (1 Samuel, 92) insists that “it is an unlikely name for a parent to give to a real child.”
22
Van Wolde, “A Leader Led by a Lady,” 359.
105
property, except his own life. He revealed his true colours by his answer. He did not want to
share his fortune with the hungry and the thirsty (1 Sam 25:11) and evaluated David as an
unimportant figure in Israel politically. John Dekker seems right in his contention that “although
on some level he knows who David is, he is ignorant of his true identity.”23
The narrator introduces Nabal as a very great man (1 Sam 25:2) and a Calebite (1 Sam
25:3). According to Robert Alter, “the Calebites were non-Israelites who in effect joined the tribe
of Judah.”24 Ralph Klein explains that this clan originated from Caleb, who “was faithful in the
spy incident.”25 In addition, Rachel Adelman asserts that Nabal “is linked to Judah directly, as a
descendant of Caleb, and therefore constitutes a potential rival to the throne.”26 Nabal was from
a time-honoured and prestigious clan.27 Thus, it is highly probable that Nabal understood
himself as one of the most influential figures in local politics, and could ward off any
competition. This may be all the more likely because he threw a banquet like a king (1 Sam
25:36).28
23
John Dekker, “Characterization in the Hebrew Bible: Nabal as a Test Case,” BBR 26 (2016): 321.
24
Robert Alter, Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings: A Translation with
Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013), 386. See also Philip F. Esler, Sex, Wives, and Warriors:
Reading Biblical Narrative with Its Ancient Audience (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011), 239.
25
Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 248.
26
Rachel E. Adelman, The Female Ruse: Women’s Deception and Divine Sanction in the Hebrew Bible, HBM 74
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 153.
27
Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 577.
28
André Lemaire insists that Nabal “was obviously an important local official, probably the most important in the
region of Maʽon and Carmel, south-southeast of Hebron . . . he has a status similar to that of a king, as indicated by
the phrase describing the feast he offered to his shearers, ‘like a banquet of a king,’ in 1 Sam. 25.36.” André
Lemaire, “The Residency of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 and the Connection between David and Abraham,” in Abigail,
Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women, ed. Daniel Bodi, HBM 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press,
2013), 8.
106
1.1.2. David, Abigail’s New Husband
Needless to say, David seemed to want a good relationship with Nabal29 and to need his political
and material support. Unfortunately, not only he did not receive Nabal’s support, but he was
insulted by Nabal. If David killed Nabal and his whole family without hesitation, David would
not receive support from the tribe of Judah because of Nabal’s high social standing. In addition,
as Steven McKenzie observes, “even if Nabal deserves a violent death, the others in his
household are not to blame for his acts.”30
For these reasons, Abigail’s preventative action provides David with a solid foundation
for receiving political and financial support from the Calebites. As Jon Levenson and Baruch
Halpern have aptly observed, “David’s possession of Abigail somehow entitled him to leadership
in [the] Caleb[ites].”31 Furthermore, Bosworth insists that “David’s marriage to Abigail may
explain the origin of his kingship in Hebron, since she is the widow of a wealthy Calebite.”32
As Tod Linafelt pointedly states, “throughout the larger narrative of the books of
Samuel, David is presented as a man who ‘takes’ in order to establish his power. Often it is
women, presented as the possessions of other men, who are taken in this rise to power.”33 Even
though David did not plan to take Abigail as his wife, this action is already intimated in this story
29
Mark W. Hamilton, “At Whose Table?: Stories of Elites and Social Climbers in 1-2 Samuel,” VT 59 (2009): 524.
30
Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 98.
31
Jon D. Levenson and Baruch Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” JBL 99 (1980): 508.
32
Bosworth, The Story within a Story,” 70.
33
Tod Linafelt, “Taking Women in Samuel: Readers/Responses/Responsibility,” in Reading Between Texts:
Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell, LCBI (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992),
100.
107
to show a dramatic shift in David’s political power.
There are also some hints at the possibility of a smooth transfer of political power to
David from others and his safety. In 1 Sam 24-26, David is located in the wilderness. The
wilderness is not a strange place to him. It has a symbolic meaning as a safe and friendly place,
because it was his main center of activity in his youth as a shepherd (1 Sam 16:11; 17:28); and
“at this stage, David prefers the desert as his hiding place.”34 When she heard the news of the
attack, Abigail prevented David and his men from entering Maon, Nabal’s dwelling, by reacting
quickly (1 Sam 25:20). Her arbitration enables David and Nabal to remain in their safe places
respectively. Accordingly, the repeated narrations about David’s location function as
foreshadowing his safety in 1 Sam 24-26.35
Table 20. David’s Place in 1 Sam 24-26
Text The MT Translation

1 Sam 24:2 ‫הנֵ ֣ה דָ ַ֔וד ְבמ ְדבֵ֖ר ֵעֵ֥ין ֶגַַֽ֖די‬ Behold, David is in the wilderness of
Engedi.
1 Sam 25:1 ‫ָארן‬
ַֽ ָ ‫ויֵ ֵ֖ ֶַ֖רד אֶ ל־מ ְדבֵ֥ר ּפ‬ And he went down to the wilderness of
Paran.
1 Sam 25:4 ‫וי ְׁש ֵ֥מע דָ ֵ֖וד במ ְד ָב֑ר‬ And David heard in the wilderness.
1 Sam 25:14 ‫ׁשָ ל ׁ֩ח דָ ֙וד מלְ אָ ִ֧כים׀ ֵ ַֽמהמ ְד ָבֶ֛ר‬ David sent messengers from the
wilderness.
1 Sam 25:21 ‫ֲׁשר ָלזֶה֙ במ ְד ַ֔ ָבר‬
ִּ֤ ֶ ‫ׁשָ ַ֜מ ְרתי ֶ ַֽאת־כָל־א‬ I have kept all that belongs to this man in
the wilderness.
1 Sam 26:2 ‫ר־זיף‬
ַ֔ ‫ו ֵ֙י ֶרד֙ אֶ ל־מ ְדב‬ And he went down to the wilderness of
Ziph.
1 Sam 26:2 ‫ר־זיף‬ ַֽ ‫לְ ב ֵ ֵ֥קׁש אֶ ת־דָ וֵ֖ד ְבמ ְדב‬ To seek David in the wilderness of Ziph.
1 Sam 26:3 ‫וְ דָ וד֙ יֹ ֵ ׁ֣שב במ ְד ַ֔ ָבר‬ And David was dwelling in the
wilderness.
34
Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail,” 69.
35
In addition, when the servant talked to Abigail, he protested that “‫( מד ֵבֵ֖ר אֵ ָ ַֽליו‬no one can speak to him/Nabal; 2
Sam 25:17; NASB).” Interestingly, the consonants of these two words (‫ מ ְדבָ ר‬and ‫ )מדבֵ ר‬are same.
108
1 Sam 26:3 ‫ָבֵ֥א ׁשָ ֶ֛אּול אח ָ ֲֵ֖ריו המ ְד ָ ַֽב ָרה‬ Saul came after him into the wilderness.
1.1.3. Beautiful Abigail
Levenson argues that this story reveals David’s negative character firstly, in that he intends to
kill innocent people.36 However, wise Abigail prevents the bloodbath. Traditionally, as was
suggested above, “she is described as intelligent and beautiful, and portrayed as sensitive,
assertive, and ready to protect her husband . . . In short, she is a model wife and modest
woman.”37 However, to borrow Adelman’s words, “the perfect wife of whom? David or
Nabal?”38 It is no less dubious that “Abigail remains faithful to her husband, and acts decisively
to prevent David killing him.”39 Her wise and calm behaviour saves her old and new husband at
the same time.
A distinguishing feature in this story is that Abigail’s beauty is ignored. As Biddle aptly
observes, “unlike the others said to be beautiful, Abigail’s beauty does not precipitate the events
that unfold in her story.”40 To be exact, her beauty does not play an important role in this story.41
36
37
Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 31. See also Adele Berlin, “Characterization in Biblical
Narrative: David’s Wives,” JSOT 23 (1982): 77.
38
Adelman, The Female Ruse, 151.
39
George G. Nicol, “David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a Triangle,” SJOT 12
(1998): 136.
40
Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 629.
41
Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 635.
109
Table 21. The Contrast between Nabal’s and Abigail’s Character42
Nabal Abigail
stays at home goes out to meet David
rude polite
refuses to show hospitality shows hospitality
does not know David’s future knows that David is Yahweh’s
anointed king43
The servant does not want to talk The servant wants to talk to her.
to him.
In contrast to her beauty, her intelligence plays a leading role in the story. Nabal and Abigail
have entirely different character traits giving prominence to a mismatch between them.44 Put
otherwise, “Abigail is as well matched with David as she is mismatched with Nabal.”45
Edward Bridge insists that Abigail is depicted like a queen, in that she mounts a donkey
and has five female servants (1 Sam 25:42).46 Garsiel argues that her external appearance shows
that she does not want to lose her high position.47 As Alice Bach points out, she is not called a
widow by the narrator after Nabal’s death, “probably because she is already considered David’s
wife.”48 At all events, the fact does not change that she tried to save Nabal’s house from David
42
I have modified Dekker’s comparison and have added their two more contrasting characters. See Dekker,
“Characterization in the Hebrew Bible,” 321.
43
Miscall explains that “Abigail’s argument is based on the larger picture of David’s future.” Peter D. Miscall, 1
Samuel: A Literary Reading, ISBL 365 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 151. In addition, Susan
Pigott asserts that “she functions as a prophetic mediator who not only prevents David from incurring blood
guiltiness but who speaks a word legitimizing his kingship.” Susan M. Pigott, “Wives, Witches and Wise Women:
Prophetic Heralds of Kingship in 1 and 2 Samuel,” RevExp 99 (2002): 153.
44
Mulzac, “The Role of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25,” 51.
45
46
Edward J. Bridge, “Desperation to a Desperado: Abigail’s Request to David in 1 Samuel 25,” ABR 63 (2015): 25.
47
Moshe Garsiel, “Wit, Words, and a Woman: 1 Samuel 25,” in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible,
eds. Yehuda T. Radday and Athalya Brenner, JSOTSup 92 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), 168.
48
Alice Bach, “The Pleasure of Her Text,” USQR 43 (1989): 58.
110
without delay and it was successful. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to postulate that this story
“is placed between 1 Sam 24 and 26 to emphasize that wisdom is more powerful than greatness
[Saul] and riches [Nabal], and is more to be desired.”49 Additionally, the narrator also
underscores the power of wisdom by depicting her like a prophetess.50 Levenson points out that
“Abigail’s qualities, intelligence and beauty, are precisely those of the man who the audience
may thus already suspect will become her new husband.”51 However, when the narrator
describes David’s outward appearance in 1 Sam 16:12, he does not mention his intelligence. This
fact means that her wisdom has a role in making up for what David lacks. Consequently, her
wisdom seems to be related to problem-solving skills. As John Noble maintains, “Abigail
understands what Nabal did not: she is somehow aware that David is to become ruler over
Israel.”52
If this is so, what is the role of her beauty? It does not seem too rash to suggest that her
outward appearance arrests David’s eyes, as in the case of Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2). As Paul
Borgman observes, there is no such thing as “Abigail’s ‘seducing’ David and David’s
absconding with her”53 because of her physical beauty. Therefore, it must be admitted that her
49
Mulzac, “The Role of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25,” 52.
50
Amy Carman asserts that this story “functions as an opportunity for a wise woman to deliver a prophetic message
for Yahweh.” Amy Smith Carman, “Abigail: The Wise Woman of Carmel,” SCJ 18 (2015): 60. See also Nicol,
“David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah,” 133.
51
52
John T. Noble, “Another Demand for a King: Women in the Narrative of David’s Rise,” in In the Wake of Tikva
Frymer-Kensky, eds. Steven Holloway, JoAnn Scurlock, and Richard Beal, GPP 4 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press,
2009), 191.
53
Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (New York: Oxford University Press,
2008), 85.
111
beauty is connected to her future social standing related to the future king David in the story.54
By contrast, the narrator does not mention Michal’s outward appearance, despite her
social position as David’s first wife and king Saul’s daughter. She even saved David from death
at the hand of her father (1 Sam 19:11-7).55 If she inherited the genes of her father, handsome
Saul, she probably was beautiful. By not mentioning her outward appearance the narrator seems
to imply that Michal, unlike Abigail, is not fit for the future king David. In all probability, David
tried to gain political power through the marriage with Michal. Instead, David’s life was
threatened by her father. On the surface, the marriage with Abigail demonstrates David’s
considerable political savviness in gaining the power of “a high-ranking member of the clan that
controlled Hebron.”56 Truly fit to be David’s wife, Abigail displaces Michal in the story.
Subsequently, the incidents in Abigail’s story and her playing the role of a reliable
supporter of David illustrate effectively the change in David’s political power.57 Even though
her beauty is ignored in relation to her wisdom, the fact that it is mentioned highlights her
suitability as a royal wife. Figure 5 shows how the relationship among characters in 1 Sam 25 is
changed. As the figure makes clear, David’s political power is concentrated and enhanced by
54
55
Fuchs (Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, 140) evaluates this action as “her most important role in the
biblical narrative.”
56
P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 402. See also David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel,
ApOTC 8 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 272.
57
Mary Shields argues that “Abigail’s actions enable him to move to higher ground– to become a king instead of
merely a protector. Mary Shields, “A Feast Fit for a King: Food and Drink in the Abigail Story,” in The Fate of King
David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, eds. Tod Linafelt, et al., LHBOTS 500 (New York: T&T Clark,
2010), 54.
112
new and broken relationships among the characters.
Figure 5. The Changes of the Relationships among the Characters in 1 Sam 2558
1.2. Bathsheba, the Very Beautiful Woman
We encounter another beautiful woman in 2 Sam 11:2. The narrator introduces this woman as
very beautiful without giving her name; thus, we have information about her outward appearance
before we even know her name. As Exum observes, “the narrator controls our gaze; we cannot
look away from the bathing woman but must consider her appearance: ‘very beautiful.’”59 Sara
Koenig asserts that “most often, these descriptors [about characters’ outward appearance]
connect with what will happen in the story.”60 This means that her beauty is more important than
58
I follow Levenson’s opinion that Ahinoam was Saul’s wife (1 Sam 14:50). See Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as
Literature and as History,” 27; Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 516. See also
Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” 44. If she was not Saul’s wife, she seems to have been an important
person in the area. See Firth, 1&2 Samuel, 272. Even though Klein disagrees with Levenson’s argument, he
acknowledges that “David’s two marriages to Judahite women help explain the strategy by which he became king in
Hebron.” Klein, 1 Samuel, 252. The broken relationship between David and Michal seems to foreshow how David
will escape life-threatening situations caused by Saul.
59
J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge: Trinity Press
International, 1993), 174.
60
Sara M. Koenig, Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, PTMS 177 (Eugene: Pickwick Publications,
113
her name in the narrative stage.
The literary structure of this story (2 Sam 11-12) underscores the wrongdoing of king
David who commits a sexual violence to Uriah’s wife.
A. David sends Joab and the army to attack Rabbah (11:1)

B. David sleeps with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (11:2-5)
C. David and Uriah: David arranges Uriah’s death (11:6-13)
D. David to Joab: Uriah must die (11:14-17)
E. Joab to David: Joab’s news comes to David (11:18-25)
F. David ushers the wife of Uriah into his house. The Lord is displeased
(11:26-27)
E′. Nathan to David: God’s news comes to David (12:1-7a)
D′. Nathan to David: the child will die (12:7b-15a)
C′. David and the child: God ensures the child’s death (12:15b-23)
B′. David sleeps with Bathsheba, his wife (12:24-25)
A′. Joab and David conquer Rabbah (12:26-31)61
This direction is already intimated in the first two verses (2 Sam 11:1-2) by an appositional
parallelism.62
2011), 40. See also Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 49.
61
Craig E. Morrison, 2 Samuel, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013), 135-36. See also George P. Ridout,
“Prose Compositional Techniques in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9-20; 1 Kings 1-2)” (PhD diss., The
Graduate Theological Union, 1971), 63-64.
62
Fischer pays attention to the verb ‫ ויְ הי‬suggesting the following chiastic structure in 2 Sam 11:
‫ויְ הי‬ V. 1 Prolog mit Zeit- und Ortsangaben

‫ויְ הי‬ V. 2-5 Davids Ehebruch (David, Batseba) A
V. 6-10a.13 Davids List (David, Urija) B
‫ויְ הי‬ V. 14-15 Davids Brief (David) C
‫ויְ הי‬ V. 16-21 Joabs Ausführung (Joab, Urija) B′
V. 22-25 Joabs Bote bei David (David, Bote) A′
V. 26-27 Epilog
Von Alexander Fischer, “David und Batseba: Ein Literarkritischer und Motivgeschichtlicher Beitrag zu II Sam 11,”
ZAW 101 (1989): 51
114
a. ‫אכים‬ַ֗ ְ‫ׁשּובת השָ ַָ֜נה לְ ֵע֣ת׀ ֵצ֣את המל‬ ֙ ‫ויְ ה ׁ֩י ל ְת‬
b. ‫וי ְׁשל֣ח דָ ִ֡וד אֶ ת־יֹואָ ׁ֩ב וְ אֶ ת־עֲבָ ָ֙דיו ע ַ֜מֹו וְ אֶ ת־כָל־י ְש ָר ַ֗ ֵאל‬
c. ‫ת־בנֵ ֣י ע ַ֔מֹון‬ְ ֶ‫וי ְׁש ֙חתּו֙ א‬
d. ‫ויָצֵ֖רּו על־ר ָב֑ה‬
e. ‫יֹוׁשב בירּוׁשָ ָ ַֽלם׃‬ֵ֥ ֵ ‫וְ דָ וֵ֖ד‬
a′. ‫ויְ ֣הי׀ לְ ֵע֣ת הָ ֶַ֗ע ֶרב‬
b′. ֙‫ו ָ֙יקָ ם דָ ַ֜וד מֵ עִּ֤ל מ ְׁשכָבֹו‬
c′. ‫וי ְתהלְֵך֙ על־ג֣ג בֵ ית־ה ַ֔ ֶמלְֶך‬
d′. ‫ויֵ֥ ְַ֖רא א ָ ֶ֛שה רֹ ֶחֵ֖צֶ ת מֵ ע֣ל הגָ ֑ג‬
e′. ‫וְ ָה֣אשַָ֔ ה טֹובֵ֥ת מ ְר ֶ ֵ֖אה ְמאַֹֽ ד׃‬
In the first verse, the narrator describes David as the person who sent all Israel to the field of
battle (b) except him. All Israel destroyed (c) and besieged (d) their enemies, but David was just
sitting in a safe place (e). By contrast, David was very active in the second verse. He stood (b’),
walked (c’) and saw somebody (d’). The literary connection between e and e’ hints that David
will create a problem with the beautiful woman in the safe place, the empty Jerusalem.
1.2.1. Uriah, Bathsheba’s Original Husband
Even though Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, is an important character in this story in that he “is
essential for the plot, but he also functions as a foil to David, a contrast to the monarch’s
personality,”63 he can easily be forgotten.64 His entrance on the narrative stage, like that of
Bathsheba, is somewhat different than that of other characters in this story.65 In general, when a
63
Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques,” 71.
64
Uriah Kim explains that “if we mention ‘David and Bathsheba,’ ‘David’s Adultery with Bathsheba,’ ‘the
Bathsheba’s Affair,’ or simply ‘David’s Sin,’ many people will not hesitate to identify such titles with this story.”
Uriah Kim, “Uriah the Hittite: A (Con)Text of Struggle for Identity,” Semeia 90-91 (2002): 69.
65
The narrator introduces Bathsheba as a very beautiful woman, without using her name (2 Sam 11:2).
115
new story begins and characters emerge onto the narrative stage, the narrator introduces them
with their names. However, in the case of Uriah the narrator introduces his name before his
entrance on the narrative stage by putting it in David’s messenger’s mouth (2 Sam 11:3).66 This
means that his name plays a vital role in this story. Baruch Hochman elucidates the importance
of given names as follows:
Given names, in life, are no less significant . . . One’s name indicates a whole
variety of things, from origins and ends, as conceived by the culture into
which one is born, to place in class structure and ritual order. Even personal
(as opposed to clan or family) names are saturated with meaning . . . Clearly,
in life, name givers symbolize wishes and facts in the names they choose.67
His name, Uriah, means “light of Yahweh.”68 Even though he was a foreigner, a non-Israelite, it
is quite clear that his name “has a good theophoric Yahwistic element.”69 We do not know how
he was given this name. There are two possibilities: (1) he changed his original name with some
purpose, or (2) his parents gave this name, because he was born in Israel.70 In any case, he
wanted to be seen as a true Israelite. In any case, Uriah lives up to the meaning of his name in
this story. Regina Schwartz explains Uriah’s fidelity as follows:
Under the injunctions of holy war, to sleep with his own wife would be to be
faithless to God; it is that fidelity that Uriah maintains despite his abstinence
at war, despite the obvious attractiveness of his wife, despite his drunkenness,
66
Interestingly, Randall Bailey asserts that “the structure of 2 Sam 11.3 . . . demonstrates that there is no other
subject introduced in the verse. Similarly, there is no use of l to indicate David has become the indirect object of the
verb. Thus, syntactically it appears that all three verbs have David as the subject.” Randall C. Bailey, David in Love
and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12, JSOTSup 75 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 85.
67
Baruch Hochman, Character in Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 37.
68
Regina M. Schwartz, “Adultery in the House of David: The Metanarrative of Biblical Scholarship and the
Narratives of the Bible,” in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader, ed. Alice Bach (New York: Routledge,1999),
344. Kim argues that “Uriah means ‘Yahweh is my light/fire.’” Kim, “Uriah the Hittite,” 73.
69
Koenig, Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 45-46.
70
Kim, “Uriah the Hittite,” 73-74.
116
and it is that fidelity to God that he finally dies for.71
In addition, the narrative shows that “his actions will stand in stark contrast with David: David
the Israelite is the one who breaks the laws, while Uriah the Hittite is the one who follows
them.”72 Symbolically speaking, David puts out Yahweh’s light by killing Uriah.
The narrator does not seem to use Uriah’s Hittite nationality negatively in this story
unlike other DH texts. However, the characters in this story (especially David) seem to accept
that “the Hittite” has negative connotations. In fact, the Hittites were one of seven nations that
lived in the Promised Land, Canaan. The Israelites were to have destroyed them at God’s
command (Deut 7:1-2; 20:17). The Deuteronomistic narrator negatively portrays marriages
between the Israelites and the Gentiles, including the Hittites (Judg 3:5-6).73 Furthermore, the
narrator explains how king Solomon dealt with the Gentiles in 1 Kgs 9:20-21. They were forced
to work for Israel like slaves.
“The Hittite” in this story unquestionably stands for non-Israelites.74 Even though
Uriah’s nationality is not necessary for the narrative flow of the story, it appears 7 times.75 In 2
Sam 11:3, the messenger kindly explains Uriah’s nationality as “Hittite” to David, the first
71
Regina M. Schwartz, “The Histories of David: Biblical Scholarship and Biblical Stories,” in “Not in Heaven”:
Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative, eds. Jason P. Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitterson, Jr., ISBL 678
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 205. See also Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah,
Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 36.
72
Koenig, Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 46.
73
Uriah Kim asserts that “the negative attitude toward union with foreigners was clearly expressed in the law
forbidding mixed seed and throughout the DH.” Uriah Y. Kim, Identity and Loyalty in the David Story: A
Postcolonial Reading, HBM 22 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 209.
74
Kim, “Uriah the Hittite,” 75.
75
2 Sam 11:3, 6, 17, 21, 24; 12: 9, 10.
117
appearance of the word ‫ החתי‬in the DN. It is not easy to decide whether the messenger’s
introduction of Uriah as a Hittite is positive or negative. However, David’s reference to Uriah’s
nationality in his words to Joab (‫ת־אּוריָ ֵ֖ה הח ֑תי‬

ַֽ ֶ‫;ׁשל֣ח אֵ ַ֔לי א‬
ְ 2 Sam 11:6) is somewhat negative. David
does not hesitate to take the wife of Uriah the Hittite after identifying her (2 Sam 11:3-4).
Likewise, after hearing of Bathsheba’s pregnancy, David does not hesitate to withdraw Uriah the
Hittite from the battlefield (2 Sam 11:6) and even to kill him (2 Sam 11:17). If we compare this
story with the incident of Naboth’s vineyard, David’s sin is clear. Even Ahab, the most typical
“bad king,” was hesitant to take Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21:4),76 but David has no
compunction in taking the Hittite’s wife and killing him by his political power.77
Therefore, Uriah’s nationality intimates how David will handle Uriah and his wife in the
story. If we recall the Israelites’ negative thoughts about foreigners, Uriah’s nationality seems to
justify David’s indulgence. Also, when David decides to kill Uriah, he seems to consider himself
as the salvager of a bad marriage between Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba the Israelite.78 As
Kim observes, “when Uriah was ‘wanted,’ the Israelites claimed him as their own by placing him
in their army . . . But when Uriah was ‘unwanted,’ they abandoned him with other non-Israelites
and branded him as ‘the Hittite.’”79 So Uriah’s nationality functions to emphasize David’s sin
and “the fact that Uriah is presented as a non-Israelite who speaks with authority about the will
76
77
On comparing King David with King Ahab, see Jacob Chinitz, “Two Sinners,” JBQ 25 (1997): 108-13; and
Herbert Rand, “David and Ahab: A Study of Crime and Punishment,” JBQ 24 (1996): 90-97.
78
Koenig (Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 45) asserts that “the text does not identify Bathsheba
as a foreigner, nor does it refer to her father Eliam or her grandfather Ahithophel as Hittites.”
79
118
of Yahweh on Deuteronomic law and custom and who appears to be more pious and God-fearing
than David.”80
As the narrator unfolds the story, Uriah’s loyalty exposes David’s sin. Gillian Keys
explicates Uriah’s loyalty as follows:
Even when intoxicated he cannot be swayed from loyalty to his comrades-at-

arms and adherence to military/religious etiquette. He asks: “The ark and Israel
and Judah dwell in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are
camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and
to lie with my wife?” (11.11).
This contrasts sharply with the king, of whom we are told, “In the spring
of the year, the time when kings go forth to battle, David sent Joab, and his
servants with him, and all Israel . . .” (11.1). Uriah is used as a foil for David.
The high principles of the foreigner are used to highlight the immorality of
Yahweh’s anointed and to emphasize the seriousness of his crimes.81
Uriah’s loyalty is directed to Yahweh and all Israel, except David. Uriah regards his lord as
Joab,82 not David. He does not call David king but “you” (2 Sam 11:11; ‫“[ ח ֶ֙יך֙ וְ ֵ ֣חי נפְ ׁשֶַ֔ ך‬your life
and the life of your soul”]). However, Joab’s loyalty is directed to David. Joab acts in obedience
to David’s command to kill Uriah (2 Sam 11:15-7). Tikva Frymer-Kensky insists that “in order to
make sure that Uriah dies, Joab has to conduct the battle stupidly.”83 Joab regards Uriah as
disposable, because he is a Hittite (2 Sam 11:21). Ironically, Uriah’s loyalty drives him to death,
but his death reveals that “Uriah was a loyal soldier who served in Israel’s army in the name of
80
Bailey, David in Love and War, 98.
81
Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the ‘Succession Narrative,’ JSOTSup 221 (Sheffield: Sheffield
82
Richard G. Smith, The Fate of Justice and Righteousness during David’s Reign: Narrative Ethics and Rereading
the Court History according to 2 Samuel 8:15-20:26, LHBOTS 508 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 125.
83
Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York:
Schocken Books, 2002), 153.
119
God and king.”84 Even though David thought that Uriah had no redeemer, Yahweh performs
directly “as the gō’ēl for Uriah”85 (2 Sam 11:27-12:1) as when He killed Nabal in propria
persona in 1 Sam 25.
As David Firth observes, Uriah is a round character. His character reveals human kings’
limitations, in that “Uriah is the mirror through which we come to see the grasping David who
takes and destroys because he can, and so becomes the king of whom Samuel had warned (1 Sam
8:10-18).”86
1.2.2. David, Bathsheba’s New Husband
Before the incident happened, there was a good relationship between David and Uriah, in that
Uriah was one of David’s thirty-seven mighty men (2 Sam 23:39). However, David decided to
kill Uriah without ‫חֶ סֶ ד‬, unlike the case of Hanun the king of Ammonites (2 Sam 10:2). About the
literary unit of 2 Sam 10-12, Fokkelman suggests that “an unbiased reading soon reveals that the
theatre of war serves as the background for 11:2-12:25.”87 According to him, there are two
84
Kim, Identity and Loyalty in the David Story, 215.
85
86
David G. Firth, “David and Uriah (with an Occasional Appearance by Uriah’s Wife): Reading and Re-Reading 2
Samuel 11,” OTE 20 (2008): 313.
87
Structural Analyses: Volume I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2), SSN 20 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 41.
See also Keys (The Wages of Sin, 131), who illustrates the literary structure of 2 Sam 10-12 as follows:
10 Ammonite War: framework

11 Adultery and Murder: main section
12:1-14 Condemnation
12:15-23 Death of the Child
12:24-25 Birth of Solomon
12:26-31 Ammonite War: framework
120
violations in 2 Sam 10-11: One is an insult to David’s delegation by Hanun and the other is
David’s affair with Bathsheba.88 The following literary structure of 2 Sam 10-11 shows that the
two violations are tightly linked with David’s ‫חֶ סֶ ד‬.
‫ חֶ סֶ ד‬to Hanun
First violation: the insult to the delegation
Second violation: Bathsheba affair
No ‫ חֶ סֶ ד‬to Uriah (in contrast, Uriah’s ‫ חֶ סֶ ד‬to the Israelites and God)89
David’s ‫ חֶ סֶ ד‬to Hanun was wasted. This experience removed ‫ חֶ סֶ ד‬from his heart and made him
a cold-hearted murderer in 2 Sam 11. Moreover, the incident involving beautiful Bathsheba was
a turning point in his political power that would gradually lead to descent from the highest peak
to the lowest depth.
The roof where he was in 2 Sam 11:2 “carries the connotation of his being in the
position of a despot who is able to survey and choose as he pleases.”90 He was at the meridian of
his political power.91 He did not need to go to war, because Joab, his servants, and the Israelite
army did quite well and sent the news of victory without him. Also, no one could blame him for
his sin.92 It was a misfortune to him that he saw a beautiful woman at that time.93 His
88
89
About Uriah’s ‫חֶ סֶ ד‬, see Philip F. Esler, “2 Samuel–David and the Ammonite War: A Narrative and Social-
Scientific Interpretation of 2 Samuel 10-12,” in Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context, ed. Philip F.
Esler (London: SCM Press, 2005), 202.
90
91
Schwartz, “Adultery in the House of David,” 344.
92
Even though Yahweh and Nathan could blame David for his sin, most people could not do because of his political
power at that time.
93
Robert Polzin insists that “had he been where the military action was, David would never have seen Bathsheba
when he did, and the history of the house of David might have been different.” Robert Polzin, David and the
Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three 2 Samuel, ISBL 850 (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1993), 109.
121
misfortune prepared the way for his destruction and he turned Bathsheba into one of the biggest
victims in the story. To take her for his own was the most important issue to him. It did not
matter whose daughter she was or whether she was another man’s wife or not.94 Even though
adultery was a mortal sin in the society of Israel, his lust was extreme.95 Sexual intercourse with
Bathsheba was everything to David at that time, but “the sexual element is only one part of a
larger concern for solidarity with his counterparts at the front.”96 After sleeping with Uriah’s
wife, he tried to cover his sin. In the end, he decided to kill Uriah. No one seemed to know what
really happened to Uriah, just that he was a war casualty or the victim of a clever swindling
game. David seemed to plan a perfect strategy, but it would most likely not go as planned.
The following literary structure clearly illustrates what happened to Uriah and what
David did in the war. In this concentric structure, X (19b-21e) is the center, namely the report of
Uriah’s death, and x (21a) is the pivot of the whole structure.97 The pivot emphasizes that a
woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech and then he died. Abimelech’s death is a stupid
thing to Joab, because “in order to make sure that Uriah dies, Joab has to conduct the battle
stupidly.”98 Likewise, the literary structure “contains the hint that Uriah’s death signifies as
much shame and folly as that of Abimelech.”99 Furthermore, it becomes clear why Uriah had to
94
Adelman (The Female Ruse, 168) asserts that “the stage directions might read: ‘the messenger raises his
eyebrows.’ Both these names, Eliam and Uriah, are presumably recognizable to the king as two of his closest
henchmen.”
95
Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible, 145.
96
Ken Stone, Sex, Honor and Power in the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 234 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1996), 100. Italics in the original.
97
Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 60-61, 65.
98
99
122
die on the battle field. As Fokkelman explains, “the concentric structure of the scene discloses
the true nature of Uriah’s demise: he had to die for his wife, and the murderer is a fool who is
burdened with shame.”100
A David sends Joab his assignment, v. 14sq.

B Battle, casualties, Uriah dies, v. 16sq.
C Joab dispatches an envoy to David, v. 18-19a.
a When you’ve completed your whole report to the king, [19b]
b if it happens that he gets angry and says: [20a]
c “Why did you come so near to the city during the battle? [20b]
d You must know that they shoot from the wall! [20c]
X x Who struck Abimelech son of Jerubbaal? [21a]
d’ Wasn’t it a woman who threw a millstone down on
him from the wall so that he died in Thebez? [21b]
c’ Why did you come so near to the wall?” [21c]
b’ You must then say: [21d]
a’ “Your servant, Uriah the Hittite, is also dead.” [21e]
C’ Joab’s envoy comes to David, v. 22.
B’ Battle, casualties, Uriah dies (report), v. 23 sq.
A’ David sends his reaction to Joab, v. 25.101
Table 22. The Comparison between Abimelech’s and Uriah’s Death
The victim A woman, who played an important role The place where the
in each story victim died
Abimelech A certain woman threw an upper millstone the entrance of the tower
on Abimelech's head. (Judg 9:52)
Uriah Bathsheba: her beauty resulted in an act of the entrance of the gate
violence by David (2 Sam 11:23)
Uriah gave his life for his country at war, out of his loyalty, a virtue; but David took Uriah’s life
for Bathsheba.102 This provides an answer to Solvang’s question, “How is it that her beauty
100
101
102
Mieke Bal insists that “Uriah metaphorically equals Abimelech: he too falls– literally, by the hand of a person on
the wall, though male, and figuratively, through the ‘doings’ of his wife.” Italics in the original. Mieke Bal, Lethal
123
leads David to commit adultery but does not draw her own husband home?”103
As Frymer-Kensky maintains, “David has been in the habit of ‘gathering’ or ‘harvesting’
the wives of other men.”104 Even though David acted “like a nabal (a fool or a foreigner)”105 to
enjoy life by “gathering” Uriah’s wife in the heat of war, Yahweh did not kill him; instead He
allowed Uriah’s death on the battle field. The marriage between Uriah and Bathsheba was broken
off by Uriah’s death. Then David and Bathsheba became the new married couple (2 Sam 11:27).
This parallel contains a hint that loyal Uriah and beautiful Bathsheba are an ill-matched couple,
like the couple in 1 Sam 25: fool Nabal and intelligent Abigail. In the circumstances of 2 Sam 11,
the marriage between handsome David and beautiful Bathsheba looks highly appropriate. In
addition, the narrator seems to show that Uriah is too good a husband for Bathsheba106 and too
loyal a retainer for David in the story.
1.2.3. Very Beautiful Bathsheba
The messenger introduces Bathsheba as the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah (2 Sam 11:3).
According to Bailey, Eliam’s family had political power in that Eliam was one of David’s mighty
men (2 Sam 23:34), and Ahithophel the father of Eliam “is noted as one of David’s key advisors,
Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, ISBL 434 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1987), 26-27.
103
Elna K. Solvang, A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and Their Involvement in the House
of David, JSOTSup 349 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 133.
104
105
106
Fokkelman (Volume I. King David, 69) argues that Uriah chose his death for his wife.
124
who during the Absalom revolt shifted his allegiance to the latter (2 Sam 16.23).”107 Therefore,
when David hears who she is, he “is more concerned about the woman’s political connections
than her marital status.”108 It is highly probable that Bathsheba was an important woman who
was connected to political power. Smith elucidates as follows why Bathsheba could be married
to David and not lose her political power until later in his life:
If this was a marriage based merely on physical lust, there is no reason why
Bathsheba should not simply have become one more nameless (or almost
nameless) member of the harem. In fact, if this were a union based on transient
lust, one might have expected that as she aged, Bathsheba would have lost her
power over David.109
Even though her family’s power was not her own power, it is clear that “Bathsheba . . . is not an
unknown, unimportant woman, but belongs to a powerful family.”110 However, unlike Abigail,
David does not need to take Uriah’s wife to gain more political power,111 because his power has
reached a pinnacle.112 So the most important factor in this story is not her social status, but
David’s sexual desire. Even though David realizes that she is from a prominent family, this does
107
108
109
Carol Smith, “‘Queenship’ in Israel?: The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah,” in King and Messiah in
Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 270
110
111
Schwartz, “Adultery in the House of David,” 344.
112
Solvang (A Woman’s Place Is in the House, 125) explains David’s political situation in 2 Sam 11-12 as follows:
By 2 Sam. 11 David has established his capital in Jerusalem (5.6-10), taken more concubines
and wives (5.13), located the ark in Jerusalem (6.17), broken connections to the Saulide House
(6.21-23), received the divine promise of an eternal dynasty (7.16), vanquished nearly all his
enemies (8.-14; 10.1-19), set a watch over Saul’s heir (9.1-13), and appointed his own officials
to military, political and religious posts (8.15-18). Fresh from victory over the Aramean
coalition (19.17-19) David is at the height of royal power and honor.
125
not prevent him from committing sin.113
Is the affair the crime of David alone? Several scholars try to establish Bathsheba as the
innocent victim of a frame-up. Moshe Garsiel wants “to see Bathsheba as a tragic figure,
involved without deliberate will in adultery and murder, and forced to marry in haste to escape
the consequences,”114 and Alexander Abasili insists that “without doubt, Bathsheba was a victim
of David’s sexual lust.”115 Richard Davidson also believes Bathsheba is the innocent victim of
David’s adultery, in that she does not want to stay with David, but returns to her house.116
However, J. Cheryl Exum suggests that Bathsheba is a criminal figure in the story, in that “she
allows herself to be seen . . . David may be a voyeur, but Bathsheba is an exhibitionist.”117
Bailey portrays Bathsheba as an accomplice in the adultery in that “her actions are not described
with hiph‘il verb forms . . . Rather they are in the qal, she comes and returns”118 in 2 Sam 11:4.
Nonetheless, we cannot easily evaluate whether the narrator depicts Bathsheba as the victim or
the conspirator in the affair. Her beauty does not mean that “she is seductive; even though it
influences David’s subsequent decisions, it is stated as a fact about her.”119
113
Richard Davidson asserts that Bathsheba’s identity “should have pricked David’s conscience and retrained his
lust.” Richard M. Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?: A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” JATS 17
(2006): 86. In addition, Firth (1 & 2 Samuel, 417) insists that “David does not send for a woman because he sees her
beauty. He sends for her because he knows who she is.”
114
Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach,” CBQ 55 (1993): 254.
115
Alexander Izuchukwu Abasili, “Was It Rape?: The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-examined,” VT 61 (2011):
15.
116
Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?” 89; Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 256.
117
J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representation of Biblical Women, JSOTSup 215
118
Bailey, David in Love and War, 87. Koenig (Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 48) asserts that
“even though it may be debated how much choice Bathsheba had to refuse, especially when she was ‘taken,’ she still
has some volition.”
119
126
Her actions do not simply signify whether or not she is a victim in the affair. It is
possible that she was not naked during her bath (2 Sam 11:2) and avoided showing her body.120
According to most commentators the obvious problem with her bath is that Bathsheba’s
purification in 2 Sam 11:4 is a ritual after her menstruation. So they maintain that it functions as
a kind of a paternity test for the new born baby after the affair.121 If it is related to her menses, it
means that “intercourse has taken place at a time when she was fertile.”122 However, Graeme
Auld disagrees with what they assert in that “qdš is never used in connection with
menstruation.”123 Additionaly, D’ror Chankin-Gould et al. observe that “the state [purifying
herself] occurs directly following David’s sexual activity with her.”124 This means that her
action was not related to her menstruation, but to the affair. Therefore, ‫וי ְׁשכ֣ב ע ַ֔ ָמּה וְ ֵ֥היא מ ְתק ֶ ֵ֖דׁשֶ ת‬
‫( מט ְמאָ ָ ֑תּה‬2 Sam 11:4de) can be translated as “David lay with her, but she was purifying herself
from her uncleanness.”125 In circumstances beyond her control, she resisted actively against
David’s action, even though she is clearly passive in the story. She seemed to want to declare to
everyone that “it was not my fault.” As Auld points out, “there is not one to whom Bathsheba
can appeal beyond the king, when David himself is making advances on her–no one except God
120
Firth (1 & 2 Samuel, 417) maintains that she did not seem to be naked because of “the heat of late spring.”
121
A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Waco, TX: Word Books,1989), 153; P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9
(New York: Doubleday, 1984), 286; Bill T. Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 528;
Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 418; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 140-1; Antony F. Campbell, 2 Samuel, FOTL 8 (Eerdmans: Grand
Rapids, 2005), 115.
122
George G. Nicol, “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative,”
JSOT 73 (1997): 49.
123
A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 456.
124
J. D’ror Chankin-Gould, et al., “The Sanctified ‘Adulteress’ and Her Circumstantial Clause: Bathsheba’s Bath
and Self-Consecration in 2 Samuel 11,” JSOT 32 (2008): 347.
125
Cf. Chankin-Gould et al., “The Sanctified ‘Adulteress’ and Her Circumstantial Clause,” 350.
127
and her own conscience: ‘while she was declaring herself holy.’”126 David’s sexual attack on
Bathsheba is highlighted in her self-consecration.127
Whether intended or not, she was pregnant. As Klein indicates, unlike David’s indirect
speech to others, her “two words [‫ ;הָ ָ ֵ֥רה אָ ַֽ ֹנכי‬2 Sam 11:5] constitute the first direct speech in the
narrative, and her words are directed to the king.”128 There is no suggestion about Bathsheba’s
children in the narrative. We also do not know “how long Bathsheba has been a married woman,
without conception.”129 If Uriah was infertile, without knowing the reason, she was trying to
have a child in many ways.130 Although she would not want to commit adultery with David as
pointed out above, Bathsheba comforts herself by thinking, “at least I will be a mother” or “the
only thing I want is to be a mother.” So she may have accepted David’s order of her own free
will ( ֙‫ ;ותָ ִּ֤בֹוא אֵ לָיו‬she came to him; 2 Sam 11:4) and returned to her house. When she discovered
that she was pregnant, the plan was slightly altered. For the baby’s future, the father must be not
Uriah the Hittite, but king David. If she had wanted to conceal the fact, she would not have said
to David, “I am pregnant.” From then on, she was not the wife of Uriah, but the mother of the
child. We do not know whether she foresaw Uriah’s death in the process of solving the affair.
126
Auld, I & II Samuel, 456.
127
Lillian R. Klein, “Bathsheba Revealed,” in Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCBS 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield
128
Klein, “Bathsheba Revealed,” 50.
129
130
To the biblical women, barrenness was a serious problem that must be overcome. See Hennie J. Marsman,
Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East, OtSt 49
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 222-23. In addition, Klein (“Bathsheba Revealed,” 52) argues that “if she has been married to
an infertile man, warrior though he is, she may find it necessary to mate with another male to fulfill her biological
and social function as a woman–to become a mother.”
128
Even though her first child died, Yahweh granted her another child131 who then became the next
king over Israel.132 So her plan had not come to naught. Viewed in this light, she was both
victim and opportunist in the story.133
Although she is a flat character,134 her beauty makes her very important in the story. It is
her physical beauty that develops the story. As “David’s success brings him into Saul’s court and
family ([1 Sam] 18:2, 20, 22-5a, 26-7), only to spark the disintegration of Saul’s kingship and
sanity ([1 Sam] 18:6-9a; 19:1-7, 11-17; 26:1-8, 10-14, 17-22, 25b),”135 David’s lust brings him
into Bathsheba’s orbit, only to spark the ruin of his political power and kingship (Figure 6).
Whereas Abigail’s beauty is ignored intentionally, this is not to portray her negatively but rather
to signal (through David’s consequent succumbing to adultery and murder) the beginning of
David’s incremental downfall as king.
131
Bathsheba had four sons (Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon; 1 Chron 3:5; cf. 2 Sam 5:14).
132
Solvang, A Woman’s Place Is in the House, 132.
133
Alice Bellis asserts that “Bathsheba is seen as the victimizer, even though in reality she is the victim.” Alice
Ogden Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2007), 132.
134
Firth, “David and Uriah,” 313; Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes, 131.
135
W. Lee Humphreys, “From Tragic Hero to Villain: A Study of the Figure of Saul and the Development of 1
Samuel,” JSOT 22 (1982): 98.
129
Figure 6. The Similarity between the Entry of David and Bathsheba into the King’s Orbit
1.2.4. The Parable in 2 Sam 12:1-4
After David commits adultery and murder in 2 Sam 11, Nathan goes to David with a parable (2
Sam 12:1-4). The narrator says that Yahweh sent Nathan to David. So, the reader can expect that
Nathan’s parable is a tool for delivering Yahweh’s words to David as a kind of reproach and
punishment, because “the thing that David did was evil in the eyes of Yahweh” (1 Sam 11:27).136
The parable is designed to upbraid David for his adultery and murder “without catching the
connection.”137
There are several differences between the parable and the affair in 2 Sam 11. Firstly,
Bathsheba was not like a daughter to Uriah. She was his wife. Secondly, there was no traveler in
136
Jonathan A. Kruschwitz, “2 Samuel 12:1-15: How (Not) to Read a Parable,” RevExp 109 (2012): 255.
137
George W. Coats, “II Samuel 12:1-7a,” Int 40 (1986): 170.
130
2 Sam 11.138 Thirdly, the rich man took the poor man’s ewe lamb to save his possession, but
David took Bathsheba to satisfy his desire.139 Fourthly, there is no adultery and murder in the
parable.140 Fifthly, if the poor man and the ewe lamb in the parable represent Uriah and
Bathsheba in the affair of 2 Sam 11 respectively, there are serious differences between them. In
the parable there was the death of the ewe lamb (Bathsheba), because the rich man (David) took
the lamb for the traveler. There is no physical injury to the poor man (Uriah). In 2 Sam 11,
however, there was the death of Uriah, because David allowed it.
Therefore, there are several options as to who the characters in the parable represent in 2
Sam 11. Interestingly, Larry Lyke suggests that David can identify with three characters in the
parable.
On first reading, one naturally presumes that the “man” with whom David is
associated is the rich one that stole the ewe-lamb from the poor man. On closer
consideration, however, David can be associated with each of the three men
of the mashal . . . when Yhwh mentions the taking of Saul’s wives for David
in vv. 7-8, David is the equivalent of the traveler for whom the lamb is taken.
In vv. 9-10 David’s killing of Uriah and the taking of Bathsheba clearly link
him with the rich man. At the end of the mashal, in vv. 11-12, where David is
told that his wives will be taken from him, we see the equation of David with
the poor man.141
It is manifest that the rich man in the parable stands for David (2 Sam 12:7; Nathan says to
David “You are the man”). If the reader knows who the rich man is, however, a difficulty
138
Uriel Simon, “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb,” Bib 48 (1967): 226.
139
140
David Janzen, “The Condemnation of David’s ‘Taking’ in 2 Samuel 12:1-14,” JBL 131 (2012): 210; David
Daube, “Nathan’s Parable,” NovT 24 (1982): 276-77.
141
Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative,
JSOTSup 255 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 155-56. See also Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist,
126.
131
remains in understanding the parable. When David hears the parable, does he easily recognize
the rich man as himself? Joel Rosenberg presents “a clear model of the typical form of parabolic
discourse” as follows:
(1) presentation of a story or announcement to the king;

(2) the king’s emotional reaction to the story while he yet believes it to have
happened to some other people;
(3) application of the story to the king himself.142
If David had caught on that the rich man in the parable was he, he would not likely have become
angry nor said that the rich man is a “son of death” (‫ן־מוֶת‬
ָ ַ֔ ֶ‫ ;ב‬2 Sam 12:5). So when he heard the
parable, his understanding of the parable stayed at stage 2 of Rosenberg’s model. If he realized
the hidden implications of the parable as his own story in 2 Sam 11, there is the possibility that
David considered himself as the traveler. If so, who is the rich man in his thinking? In the
parable, the rich man took the ewe lamb in order to entertain the traveler (David). In the same
way, the general Joab took Uriah (the ewe lamb) from Bathsheba (the poor man) in order to
gratify the carnal appetite of David (the traveler).143 If David thought Joab was the rich man in
the parable, he would perhaps have assumed that Nathan would take legal action (and hold him
morally responsible) for Uriah’s murder, because of his direct relation to the crime.144 So he was
extraordinarily angry at the rich man.145 His anger seems to say to Nathan: “Even though I took
and married Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, I have no connection whatsoever with Uriah’s murder. It is
142
Joel Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible, ISBL 396 (Bloomington: Indiana
143
Jeremy Schipper, “Did David Overinterpret Nathan’s Parable in 2 Samuel 12:1-6?” JBL 126 (2007): 388.
144
There is a manifest point of connection between Uriah’s death and David’s response to the parable. In these two
cases, David used same word, the thing (‫ ;הדָ בָ ר הזֶה‬2 Sam 11:25; 12:6). See Schipper, “Did David Overinterpret
Nathan’s Parable,” 391.
145
Schipper, “Did David Overinterpret Nathan’s Parable,” 389.
132
definitely Joab’s illegal action.” In doing so, David shifted all the responsibility of the murder
onto Joab.146 However, Nathan said to David: “You are the [rich] man.” In his response (2 Sam
12:7-12) to David’s reaction (2 Sam 12:5-6), there being no equivalent to the traveler, Nathan
confirmed that the events of 2 Sam 11 were David’s crime.
There is another problem to interpret this parable. If David did not map this parable onto
the affair and the murder in 2 Sam 11, how did he understand the parable? There is a gap
between David’s affair with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11) and Nathan’s appearance (2 Sam 12:1). The
gap in time may be about ten months, because Bathsheba bore David a son (2 Sam 11:27) before
the prophet’s visit. So it is possible that David resumed his daily life as the king and forgot the
affair. In addition, David reproached the rich man quickly, because of the difference between the
rich man’s theft and David’s murder and adultery.147 Therefore, Nathan’s parable may have
sounded to David like a thing that actually happened in Israel.148 He seemed to think himself a
judge capable of solving the poor man’s difficulty and rectifying the injustice.149 However,
Nathan proclaimed “You (David) are the rich man.” So his position changed from the judge to
the one who should be punished.150 This change must have been a shock to David, and it may
seem obvious that the shock led to David’s confession of his crime against Yahweh (2 Sam
12:13). In Nathan’s speech (2 Sam 12:7-12) also, the prophet declared that David’s position
146
Schipper (“Did David Overinterpret Nathan’s Parable,” 389) insists that “David falls back on a proven technique
which worked well for him in the previous cases of Saul’s death (1:14-26), Abner’s death (3:28-35), and
Ishbosheth’s death (4:9-11).”
147
Janzen, “The Condemnation of David’s ‘Taking’ in 2 Samuel 12:1-14,” 211.
148
149
Hugh S. Pyper, David as Reader: 2 Samuel 12:1-15 and the Poetics of Fatherhood, BibInt 23 (Leiden: Brill,
1996), 91.
150
133
would be changed from one who takes someone else’s wife to one whose wives are taken and
given to others. There is also a possibility that Nathan embellished the parable with invented
characters (such as the rich man, the poor man, the traveler, and the ewe lamb) and extra details
(for example, the poor man’s feeling for the ewe lamb), to prevent David from denying the
crime. Therefore, the reader does not need to identify the characters in the parable with the real
characters in the narrative.151
The narrator shows that David’s attitude to the rich man in the parable is in stark contrast
to Yahweh’s judgment on David (2 Sam 12:13; you shall not die). It reveals that David has no
pity on the rich man, but Yahweh has pity on His beloved people. Interestingly, Bathsheba is still
identified as Uriah’s wife in 2 Sam 12:15, thus drawing the reader’s mind back to the incident in
2 Sam 11. Despite David’s efforts on behalf of the newborn baby (2 Sam 12:16-17), the baby
died on his seventh day. Kruschwitz insists that “David’s utterance [a son of death]
unintentionally draws a connection between son and death that he is helpless to revoke.”152
In 2 Sam 12:24, the narrator calls Bathsheba David’s wife. Additionally, David comforts
her. She still has no voice. She conceives and bears a son again. In addition, Yahweh loves the
son, and He sends Nathan again to David’s house with the son’s name, Jedidiah (beloved of
Yahweh). Even though the narrator mentions David’s change of mind (Figure 7) and a happy
ending (2 Sam 12:24-25), the reader may anticipate punishment for him in the near future,
151
For further details about the characters in the parable, see Pyper, David as Reader, 84-104; Joshua Berman,
“Double Meaning in the Parable of the Poor Man’s Ewe (2 Sam 12:1-4),” JHebS 13.14 (2013): 1-17.
152
Kruschwitz, “2 Samuel 12:1-15,” 256.
134
because David had said that the rich man should pay fourfold for the ewe lamb (2 Sam 12:6).153
Nathan’s judgment in 2 Sam 12:10-12 also has yet to be realized. Although his ruin is not
complete yet in 2 Sam 12, the story reveals its starting point. His lust for the beautiful gradually
leads to his downfall.154 In my opinion, therefore, the traveler in the parable is David’s lust, in
that the rich man takes the poor man’s ewe for the traveler’s gratification.
Figure 7. David’s Change of Attitude through the Lens of the Parable155
153
David’s judgement is related to his four sons’ deaths (namely, the baby, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah). See
Keith Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom (London: Routledge, 2014), 31. In addition, the deaths were caused by the
beautiful.
154
Linafelt (“Taking Women in Samuel,” 104) insists that “David’s power is never as sure as it once was. It signals
the beginning of serious trouble for the house of David, trouble that is not averted as easily as Nathan’s declaration
of forgiveness in verse 13 would have David believe.”
155
I have modified Fokkelman’s frame work (Volume I. King David, 93).
135
1.3. Abishag, the Extremely Beautiful Woman
Gwilym Jones maintains that “the circumstances surrounding the succession issue as described in
1 Kings 1.1-4 are that David was senile and impotent.”156 This assertion is reasonable, for the
reader can expect the accession of a new king as a result of the old king’s illness or decrepitude.
However, this decrepitude is not enough to explain the story, because the narrator wants to focus
on yet another character. This character is not a candidate for the new king of Israel, such as
Adonijah and Solomon the princes, but curiously enough the woman Abishag. Moreover, the
narrator portrays her as extremely beautiful. We again meet another beautiful woman, this time
related to king David in the last hours of his life. The literary structure of 1 Kgs 1:1-4 shows how
the narrator brings her onto the narrative stage. The first four verses of the book of 1 Kings make
an inclusio as follows:
A. David’s feeble condition (1:1)

B. Plan: find a virgin to care for David (1:2a)
C. Her specific duties (1:2b)
B′. Abishag is found (1:3)
C′. She carries out her duties (1:4a)
A′. David is still impotent (1:4b)157
156
Gwilym H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives, JSOTSup 80 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 46. Richard
Hess notes that “this theme appears in the story of Abishag. However, is this the major concern of the 1 Kgs 1:1-4?”
He answers that the major concern is “the threat to the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem.” Richard S. Hess, “David and
Abishag: The Purpose of 1 Kings 1:1-4,” in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in
Honour of Bustenay Oded, eds. Gershon Galil, et al., VTSup 130 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 427.
157
Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 5. Fokkelman (Volume I. King David, 346)
suggests a similar literary structure as follows:
a) v. 1 lack (David is old)

b) v. 2 conversation of the servants: plan
b′) v. 3 the servants execute their plan
a′) v. 4 the lack is removed: Abishag provides warmth
136
In addition, these verses have an interlocking device158 as follows:
Figure 8. Interlocking Device in 1 Kgs 1:2-4a
We now know through the above figure that her duties and special appearance are emphasized.
The narrator seems to use the literary devices of inclusio and the interlocking device to introduce
the extremely beautiful Abishag as an important character in the story.
1.3.1. Extremely Beautiful Abishag
Abishag’s duty is introduced by the servants’ voices before she appears on the narrative stage. In
2 Kgs 1:2 the servants tell David about their plan.
a . . . young girl [naʽrā betulā] ladōnī hammȩlȩk

b weʽāmedā lifnē hammȩlȩk
x utehī lō sōkȩnȩt
b′ wešākebā beḥēqȩkā
a′ weḥam ladōnī hammȩlȩk159
Fokkelman explains the literary structure of 1 Kings 1:2, such that “the middle sentence is the
axis upon which the plan rotates and it concentrates Abishag’s task.”160 She became ‫ סֹ ֶכנֶת‬for
158
Concerning the interlocking device, see Jerome F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew
Psalter, JSOTSup 217 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 87.
159
Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 347. [ ] is added.
160
137
David. The word ‫ סֹ ֶכנֶת‬appears only here in the Hebrew Bible.161 So it is difficult to grasp the
precise meaning of the word. As Lesleigh Stahlberg explains, she had a status as ambiguous as
the word’s unclear meaning.
In the case of Abishag, precisely who that figure once was is difficult to
discern. A very beautiful young woman, a virgin, a Shunammite.
Paradoxically, a symbol of age, impotence, decay, loss, and death. Object,
possibly subject. An electric blanket, but possibly a nurse or even a treasurer
to the king. David’s last wife or a cast-away after the death of Adonijah. A
symbol of the throne, of succession and sedition. The locus of male fantasy
and fears, of female anxiety and also female power. If we can say one thing
with certainty, it is that Abishag the Shunammite is a blank slate.162
According to HALOT, ‫ סֹ ֶכנֶת‬means basically “administrator” or “nurse.”163 An Ugaritic cognate
skn means “a high official.”164 Even though Cogan argues that “her duties were confined to
nursing the failing king,” the word’s various meanings lead us to think carefully about who she
was and what her duty was to the king. David’s servants do not assign her the title concubine
(‫ ;ּפי ֶלגֶׁש‬cf. Gen 22:24; Judg 19:1), nor is she one of the royal harem, but a ‫סֹ ֶכנֶת‬. Additionally, the
description of her as a ‫ סֹ ֶכנֶת‬coincides with the descriptor “young virgin”165 as well as “beautiful
woman” (1 Kgs 1:3). Presumably these criteria are important; for what purpose might this be,
other than for showing David’s undiminished physical and political power? The old king and his
supporters seem to need a fake-ideal queen in order to maintain his political power throughout
161
Mordechai Cogan, I Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 156.
162
Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg, “From Biblical Blanket to Post-Biblical Blank Slate: The Lives and Times of
Abishag the Shunammite,” in From the Margins 1: Women of the Hebrew Bible and Their Afterlives, eds. Peter S.
Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 140.
163
HALOT, 755.
164
UT, 450.
165
The Hebrew word ‫ נע ֲָרה בְ תּולָה‬signifies her fate, as in the case of the four hundred young virgins of Jabesh-gilead
(Judg 21:12). See Cynthia Edenburg, Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19-21, AIL 24
(Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 75.
138
the kingdom. As Martin Mulder insists, to qualify as the representative of David’s wives, the
woman must be young and beautiful. Even though Abishag was not a queen, she shared the room
and bed with the king like a real queen. It seems that, at least in this respect, Abishag’s role as
the ‫ סֹ ֶכנֶת‬replaced Bathsheba’s at this time.166
In addition, Solvang insists that “the repeated references to her beauty, her virginity and
her role to lie in the bosom of the king are taunting reminders of how David used to be.”167 By
contrast with him, Abishag was young and beautiful, but he could not take her like before. Thus,
the servants seemed to sub for the work that David had enjoyed. Abishag would be not only for
David himself, but also for the servants themselves who made this plan, in order that she “could
be a contender in the politics of the royal household. . . . she could grow close to David’s heart
and perhaps bear an heir to the throne.”168 If this happened, the servants would be a new strong
political party in the period of the next king. Therefore, her position as the ‫ סֹ ֶכנֶת‬in the court was
not simply as a concubine or nurse, but the steward of the country like a queen.169
It is odd that the narrator gives more details about Abishag in 1 Kgs 1:4 than king David.
Brian Peckham explains that “a consecutive clause is narrative–sweet Abishag’s story is that she
kept the king warm and took care of him–and a disjunctive clause is explanatory–even though
she shared his bed he did not take advantage of her.”170
166
Martin Jan Mulder, “Versuch zur Deutung von Sokènèt in 1. Kön. I 2, 4,” VT 22 (1972): 53.
167
168
169
Mulder, “Versuch zur Deutung von Sokènèt,” 53.
170
Brian Peckham, “Punctuation Is the Point,” in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis, eds. Mark A.
O’Brien and Howard N. Wallace, JSOTSup 415 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 10.
139
‫ד־מאֹ֑ ד‬ְ ‫וְ ַֽהנע ָ ֲֵ֖רה י ָָפ֣ה ע‬ A. And the girl was extremely beautiful
֙‫ו ְת ֙הי ל ֶ ִּ֤מלְֶך סֹ ֙ ֶכנֶת‬ B. and she became a steward for the king
‫ו ְת ָ ׁ֣ש ְר ַ֔ ֵתהּו‬ B′. and she served him
‫וְ ה ֶ ֵ֖מלְֶך ֵ֥ל ֹא יְ דָ ָ ַֽעּה׃‬ A′. but the king did not know her
We can infer Abishag’s actions in relation to David in the middle of the verse. She becomes the
king’s steward as the servants had planned, and serves him. However, in the last clause of the
verse, the king’s action is very simple. Given the brevity with which David is described and the
structure of the verse, it is clearly Abishag who serves the narrator’s purpose. She is a key for
opening the meaning of the story, a hint that the servants’ plan will end in failure. The narrator
demonstrates that despite Abishag’s beauty, David had no interest in her (1 Kgs 1:4). This is in
sharp contrast to the king’s previous beauties: Abigail171 and Bathsheba. As Solvang observes,
“perhaps this is a statement about his diminished sexual capacity, or could it be David’s attempt
to subvert . . . the servants’ plan?”172
Table 23. The Depiction of David’s Beautiful Wives
Name Text
Abigail ‫( ֣ויפת תַֹ֔ אר‬1 Sam 25:3; [The woman was] beautiful in appearance.)
Bathsheba ‫( וְ ָה֣אשַָ֔ ה טֹובֵ֥ת מ ְר ֶ ֵ֖אה ְמאַֹֽ ד‬2 Sam 11:2; The woman was very beautiful in appearance.)
Abishag ‫ד־מאֹ֑ ד‬ְ ‫( וְ ַֽהנע ָ ֲֵ֖רה י ָָפ֣ה ע‬1 Kgs 1:4; The girl was extremely beautiful.)
Moreover, the narrator’s depiction of the beauty of David’s wives is amplified. In the
case of Abigail, the narrator portrays her outward appearance as beautiful. Bathsheba’s physical
ְ Dean McBride explains that “usually me’ōd connotes

attractiveness is described with ‫מאֹ ד‬.
171
Abigail bore David’s child Kileab (2 Sam 3:3).
172
140
‘excess, muchness.’”173 About Abishag’s appearance, the narrator adds ‫ עד‬to ‫מאֹ ד‬.
ְ Waltke and
O’Connor elucidate that ‫ד־מאֹ ד‬

ְ ‫ ע‬means “a great deal.”174 Although by the reckoning of the
narrator David had won a more beautiful woman (Abishag) than any one before, he had come
close to losing political power by that time. It is not important whether he wanted Abishag the
extremely beautiful woman or not. More important is her position as a pseudo-queen alongside
David. The more beautiful the women he had gathered within the literary structure of the DN, the
more political power he had lost. As Mulder points out, Abishag’s position (‫ )סֹ ֶכנֶת‬was unique in
the Hebrew Bible.175 Even though the servants who gave this special position to Abishag
intended her to bolster David’s power as a king, this beautiful young woman’s entrance on the
narrative stage seems to signal the end of David’s reign. Who will be with her or desire her next
time? The answer to that question is reflective of what would happen in the court of David.
1.3.2. Adonijah, a Candidate for Abishag’s New Husband
Given that Abishag is a minor character in the broader story, why does the narrator highlight her
in the introduction to 1 Kings? We can find the answer in 1 Kgs 1:6. The narrator explains the
facts about Adonijah, David’s son, using a structure similar to the one found in 1 Kgs 1:4. In
these two verses, there are two characters who have very good looks. In comparison with 1 Kgs
1:4, we can see that the narrator matches similar content in 1 Kgs 1:6, as the following table
demonstrates.
173
S. Dean McBride, Jr., “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4-5,” Int 27 (1973): 304.
174
IBHS, 215.
175
Mulder, “Versuch zur Deutung von Sokènèt,” 54.
141
Table 24. The Comparison between 1 Kgs 1:4 and 1:6
1 Kgs 1:4 1 Kgs 1:6

Character Abishag Adonijah
Action to become a nurse, to serve to do
Special feature very beautiful also very handsome,
[born after Absalom]
David’s response not to cohabit with her not to hurt him
In these two verses, there are two characters who are very (‫)מאֹ ד‬
ְ beautiful/handsome. In the
Hebrew Bible, as has been mentioned in the previous chapter, few characters are described as
beautiful.176 Moreover, very few characters are portrayed as extremely beautiful, such as Sarai
(Gen 12:14), Bathsheba, Absalom, Abishag, and Adonijah. And notably, two of these rare
references appear in 1 Kgs 1-2.177
In addition, the narrator seems to want to connect those two characters using the adverb
‫מאֹ ד‬.
ְ The reader can infer that something will happen because of their appearance. The reader can
easily imagine unconditional love between these young people. In 1 Kgs 1:1-10, the narrator is
overly concerned with their good looks. We should not overlook Adonijah as one of David’s
successors, because Adonijah was the elder brother of Solomon. As Eric Seibert explains:
The order, according to 2 Sam 3:2-5 (Hebron) and 5:14-16 (Jerusalem) is as

follows: (1) Amnon, (2) Chileab, (3) Absalom, (4) Adonijah, (5) Shephatiah,
(6) Ithream, (7) Shammua, (8) Shobab, (9) Nathan, (10) Solomon, (11) Ibhar,
(12) Elishua, (13) Nepheg, (14) Japhia, (15) Elishama, (16) Eliada, and (17)
Eliphelet. The Chronicler (1 Chr 3:1-9) preserves a slightly different list, with
two duplicate names (Elishama and Eliphelet) and two different names (Daniel
in place of Chileab and Nogah in place of Elishua) resulting in a total of
176
See Table 25.
177
I want to exclude Bathsheba from the very beautiful characters in this case, because she was old at that time, like
King David.
142
nineteen rather than seventeen.178
Table 25. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible
Text Women Men Total

Pentateuch Sarai (Gen 12:11) Joseph (Gen 39:6) 5
Rebekah (Gen 26:7) Moses (Exod 2:2)
Rachel (Gen 29:17)
very Sarai (Gen 12:14) [2]
beautiful Rebekah (Gen 24:16)
the the character Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2) Absalom (2 Sam 14:25) [4]
DH DN Abishag (1 Kgs 1:4) Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6)
Abigail (1 Sam 25:3) David (1 Sam 16:12; (8)
Tamar 1 (2 Sam 13:1) 17:42)
Tamar 2 (2 Sam 14:27)
Samuel (1 Sam 2:26) 10

Saul (1 Sam 9:2)
Others Narratives Vashti (Esth 1:11) Daniel, Hananiah, 10
Esther (Esth 2:7) Mishael and Azariah (Dan
Job’s daughters, 1:4)
Jemimah, Keziah and
Keren-Happuch (Job
42:15)
Poetry You, the beloved (Song
1:8, 15, 16; 4:1, 7; 5:9;
6:1, 4)
Subtotal: very beautiful 4 2 6
Total 14 11 25
We must consider the position of Adonijah as a successor to David, in that there would be no
problem if he ascended the throne after the king died. Regarding the position of Adonijah,
Tomoo Ishida’s explanation is very reasonable:
Evidently, the readers are expected to know about Adonijah, originally the
178
Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11, LHBOTS 436
(New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 115.
143
fourth son, but now the eldest surviving son of David. According to the
narrative, Adonijah was recognized by the general public as the first candidate
for succeeding David, probably based on the priority of the eldest living son
(2:15, 22). The principle of primogeniture had been accepted in the royal
succession since the inception of the Hebrew monarchy. While Saul expected
that Jonathan’s kingdom would be established (1 Sam 20:31), David “loved
Amnon because he was his firstborn” (2 Sam 13:21b LXX, 4Q Sama).179
The narrator, using the word ‫ גם‬in verse 6, makes readers feel as if they can imagine the
previous kings, Saul and David. In addition, Ishida asserts that “Adonijah is being compared
with Absalom (2 Sam 14:25), for this comment is made here not as a compliment, but as a reason
as to why David had spoiled Adonijah.”180 It is obvious that the narrator intends the reader to
think of Adonijah as one of the successors of king David.
Adonijah’s vigorous activity with his followers (1 Kgs 1:7, 9) contrasts sharply with
David’s old age and with his servants (1 Kgs 1:2).181 The contrast between them enables the
reader to expect a new king. However, the fact that there were objectors to Adonijah and some
uninvited guests to the party signals to the reader that the new king has yet to be decided on. In
addition, something will happen between the two sons, Adonijah and Solomon, but it is not yet
known how (i.e., whether positively or negatively) this will affect the outcome of the next step
for the dynasty.
The fact that David did not sleep with Abishag seems to be an open secret to all the
179
Tomoo Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith and His Supporters: An Inquiry into Problems about History and
Historiography,” in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures, eds. Richard Elliott Friedman and H.G.
M. Williamson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 171.
180
Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith,” 173.
181
Burke O. Long, “A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah,” JSOT 19 (1981): 87.
144
people in the court. She was still a virgin.182 This likely served to imply that David was too old
to serve as king and that the kingdom needed a brand-new vigorous king. In addition, it meant
that Abishag needed a new partner, not as a fake wife, but as a real one. Even though David had
closed his eyes to Abishag, others in the court seemed to be interested in her. Adonijah was one
of them. Even though he did not succeed to the throne, he seemed to try to win her love. He was
a simple-minded person and made a last-ditch attempt to win her. As David Gunn assumes, what
Adonijah’s demand for her conveys is his “inability to suppress his desire (so impolitic) for this
woman.”183 Adonijah seemed to know that he might be killed due to the demand, because
Solomon was already conscious of Absalom’s actions toward David’s concubines (2 Sam
16:22).184
Another possibility is that Solomon was in love with Abishag.185 If they were rivals
trying to win the same beautiful woman, Adonijah’s request would be a good excuse to remove
the rivalry. Although the saying goes, “none but the brave deserve the beautiful woman,” his
braveness to request her could lead him to his death. The narrator skillfully depicts the end of
David’s reign and the sad love story using the very beautiful woman and the very handsome
man.
182
183
David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978),
91. Gunn’s comment was originally a question.
184
Gunn, The Story of King David, 91.
185
Hugo Gressmann insists that Abishag was “glorified as the beloved of Solomon in the Song of Songs under the
better-known name ‘the Shulamite’ (=Shunamite), and . . . achieved immortal fame on account of her beauty.” Hugo
Gressmann, “The Oldest History Writing in Israel,” in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studied by Hugo
Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906-1923, trans. David E. Orton, ed. David M. Gunn, JSOTSup 116 (Sheffield:
Almond Press, 1991), 53.
145
1.3.3. The Reunion of the Characters in 2 Sam 11-12
We can find a similar story to 1 Kgs 1-2 in 2 Sam 11-12. There are two special persons, a very
beautiful woman by the name of Bathsheba, and an extremely devoted man by the name of Uriah
in 2 Sam 11-12. The characters (David, Bathsheba, Solomon, Nathan and Joab) in 2 Sam 11-12
are reunited here, except for Uriah.186 Randall Bailey suggests a different role for Bathsheba in
the two stories; he points out “the passive role of Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11-12, as opposed to her
active involvement in the succession drama in 1 Kings 1-2.”187 He also notes dissimilarities
between them, as shown in the table below.
Table 26. The Dissimilarities between 2 Sam 11-12 and 1 Kgs 1-2188
Character 2 Sam 11-12 1 Kgs 1-2

David manipulative manipulated
Nathan adversarial advisory
Bathsheba passive active involvement
However, dissimilarities between the stories show the development of the narrative flow in the
DN.189 The main character in these stories is David. Furthermore, there are very beautiful
women, Bathsheba and Abishag, in the center of the incidents. In the stories, these two beautiful
women are not active, but rather passive characters. Although there are two men (Uriah and
Adonijah) who receive little attention from the reader, they play an important role in the stories.
They had to be killed because of the beautiful women. As the following table shows, the two
186
James W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document?: A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2,” JBL
91 (1972): 175.
187
188
189
Flanagan’s explanation of similarities between the stories is not enough to reveal the relationship of the stories.
146
stories are very similar.
Table 27. The Comparison between 2 Sam 11 and 1 Kgs 1-2
2 Sam 11 Contents 1 Kgs 1-2
11:1 David remained in Jerusalem. David was old and well 1:1
He did not go off to war. advanced in years.
11:2-3 David saw the very beautiful David’s servants sought a 1:2
woman. young virgin for David.
11:4 David sent messengers to David’s servants brought the 1:3-4

Bathsheba, and then he slept beautiful Abishag to David, but
with her. David did not sleep with her.
11:5 Bathsheba became pregnant Adonijah wanted to become a 1:5-10

because of David. At that time, king. At that time, Abishag was
she was the wife of Uriah. the steward of David.
[And then he wanted to be a
husband of Abishag.]190
11:6-13 David summoned Uriah to David proclaimed that Solomon 1:11-31

solve his problem. He ordered should be king after him,
Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba because of two persons’
two times. entreaty.191
11:14-25 Uriah died in battle, because Adonijah was killed by 2:13-25

David wanted to be a husband Solomon, because he wanted to
of Bathsheba. be a husband of Abishag.
What is the narrator’s intention behind such similarities in 2 Sam 11? At first glance, we might
think that only the incident described in 2 Sam 11 illustrates David’s sin, but we tend not to
consider the story in 1 Kgs 1 as David’s sin. We are accustomed to think of this portion simply as
190
See 1 Kgs 2:17.
191
Nathan’s and Bathsheba’s.
147
the succession narrative. To be on the right track, however, we must explore what the narrator
reveals here about the relationship between Adonijah and Abishag. As in the following figure,
David was at the center of the problems. We can also infer from the similarities noted above that
David’s sin in 2 Sam 11 was that he slept with Bathsheba.
Ironically, in 1 Kgs 1, David’s sin was that he did not sleep with Abishag. David could
have had intercourse with Abishag if he wanted to, but did not. We do not know the reason,
whether it was his decrepitude or political reasons. If he did not need such a person, he should
have disregarded the servants’ demand. Moreover, David and Abishag were a mismatch as in the
case of Nabal and Abigail. Figure 9 shows the relationship between the two stories. If David had
refused his servants’ request to seek a young virgin, he would have prevented Adonijah’s death.
If David had slept with Abishag, Adonijah would not have considered her as his wife. David’s
poor decision not only drove Adonijah to death, but also foreshadowed Solomon’s grim future.192
192
In expectation of Solomon’s end, J. Daniel Hays explains that “indeed, Yahweh’s voice in this part of the story
emerges only as David charges Solomon with keeping the decrees, commands, laws and requirements of Yahweh. At
this point David quotes Yahweh, ‘If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me
with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’ The only speech by Yahweh in
the Succession Narrative is that of an ominous warning about being unfaithful to Yahweh, a condition that the new
king Solomon will ultimately fail to keep.” J. Daniel Hays, “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury
Him?: Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT 28 (2003): 159.
148
Figure 9. The Similarities between the Two Stories
1.4. Conclusion
Among the women in the group, one person’s fate is positive–namely Abigail, who was freed of
the fool193 and who married the king over whom she had prophesied. The others (Bathsheba and
Abishag) are either ambiguous or negative. However, there is a similar literary structure where
their fates are concerned, as shown in the below table. Their first husbands (or lords) died,
resulting in a change in their situation in the story. The table, in addition to showing the
narrator’s attitude towards physical beauty, also shows that David’s political power changed in
conjunction with his encounter with these beautiful characters.
193
The fool was a political fool, because Nabal did not watch the development of the political situation relating to
David. He seemed to have an inflexible political posture.
149
Table 28. Names, Descriptions and Fates of David’s Beautiful Wives
Name of Closest Revealed Second Revealed Fate of the beautiful

the character character trait/ closest character trait/ women
beautiful to the his fate character to managing
women women the women desire to rule
Abigail Nabal Nabal’s David David’s desire 1. the death of her first
(1 Sam 25) foolishness/ to rule Israel husband (sudden death)
‫יָפֶה‬ death through 2. became David’s wife
Abigail’s
mouth
Bathsheba Uriah Uriah’s David David’s desire 1. the death of her first
(2 Sam 11) loyalty to to rule husband
‫טֹוב‬ Joab/ Bathsheba (he was killed in battle)
death 2. became David’s wife
Abishag David David’s Adonijah Adonijah’s 1. the death of her first
(1 Kgs 1) incompetence/ (or desire to rule lord
‫יָפֶה‬ death Solomon?) Israel and (natural death)
Abishag 2. did not become
Adonijah’s wife194
2. David’s Beautiful Direct Female Descendants
The narrator does not provide the names of David’s daughters except Tamar, but we do know
that he had many daughters (2 Sam 5:13; cf. 1 Chron 14:3). Strangely, Tamar, the only daughter
whose name is introduced by the narrator is also the name of the one granddaughter who appears
in the DN. In addition, the narrator depicts both of them as beautiful. As we have seen, the
entrance of new beautiful characters onto the narrative stage subtly signals that an incident
related to that physical beauty lies ahead. Moreover, these incidents involving David’s beautiful
194
In my opinion, the opposite pattern (that Abishag did not become Adonijah’s wife) is enough unlike previous
cases to indicate that the DN ends here.
150
direct female descents are closely linked to changes in David’s political power as recorded in the
DN.
2.1. Tamar the Daughter
In 2 Sam 13:1-2, the narrator gives the reader information that a new story is beginning,195 and
introduces characters and their relationship with each other as members of a family.196 The
narrator mentions two male characters as David’s sons in 2 Sam 13:1. The reference to David’s
sons implies that incidents in the story are “rooted in David’s sin.”197 Interestingly, the narrator
first says who Absalom is, leading the reader to infer that he will be the most important character
in the story. However, the story is rather about Tamar and Amnon. Absalom appears at the end of
the story on the narrative stage (2 Sam 13:20). As Arnold elucidates, the narrator skillfully
unfolds the story to the reader, in that “the narrator lifts Absalom into the foreground and makes
us aware that this is not simply a story about Amnon and Tamar, for it participates in the larger
narrative of Absalom.”198 Yairah Amit also insists that the literary structure, namely the 3+1
scene structure, shows “the importance he [the narrator] attached to the fourth scene–the
encounter between Tamar and Absalom after the rape.”199
195
Charles Conroy explains that ‫( ויְ ֣הי ַֽאח ֲֵרי־ ֵַ֗כן‬2 Sam 13:1) is “the transitional formula.” Charles Conroy, Absalom
Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20, AnBib 81 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 41.
196
197
Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel, 560.
198
Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel, 560.
199
Yairah Amit suggests the 3+1 scene structure as follows:
151
Tamar seems to be treated as an object by the two brothers. For Absalom she was a
sister, and for Amnon she, though his half-sister, was the object of his lust. The narrator does not
say that she was David’s daughter.200 Probably he wants to emphasize that the incident is a
dispute among the siblings. In addition, the narrator mentions that “Absalom had a beautiful
sister and her name was Tamar (2 Sam 13:1).” The readers recognize her beauty before they ever
know her name. This seems to mean that her beauty plays a more important role in the story than
her name. It is obvious that her beauty both causes Amnon’s sickness and triggers the serious
incidents that follow in the story. Although we do not know exactly what the narrator wants the
reader to infer from the fact that she is a virgin, it is an important issue to the reader. It seems to
be related to Amnon’s intention towards her, because he discards her soon after raping her.201
Therefore, even though the word ‫ אָ הב‬has a positive meaning in the Hebrew Bible,202 the story’s
‫ אָ הב‬in 2 Sam 13:1, 4, 15 “is not about true love but of love that seeks to benefit.”203 Ridout
suggests the following literary structure for the story:
Exposition: vv. 1-2

Scene 1: Amnon and Jonadab vv. 3-5
Scene 2: Amnon and David encounter and its outcome vv. 6-7
Scene 3: Amnon and Tamar, in three stages vv. 8-18
Preparing (setting) the trap vv. 8-9
The rape vv. 10-14
The expulsion vv. 15-18
Scene 4: Absalom and Tamar vv. 19-20
Conclusion: vv. 21-22
Yairah Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect, trans. Betty Sigler Rozen,
HBM 39 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), 209.
200
McCarter, II Samuel, 320.
201
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 244. Auld (I & II Samuel, 477) suggests that Amnon seemed to have
“fantasies about deflowering virgins.”
202
203
Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 211.
152
A. Amnon is in love with Tamar his sister (verses 1-2).

B. Jonadab intervenes (verses 3-5).
C. Tamar comes to Amnon and bakes bread for him (verses 6-9a).
D. Amnon commands his servants to leave him alone with Tamar (verse 9b)
E. Amnon commands Tamar to come lie with him; she refuses and pleads with
him but to no avail (verses 14b-15a).
F. Amnon rapes Tamar, and his love for her turns to hate (verses 14b-15a).
E′. Amnon commands Tamar to get out; she pleads with him but to no avail
(verses 15b-16).
D′. Amnon calls his servant back and orders him to lock Tamar out (verses 17).
C′. Tamar leaves with gestures of mourning (verses 18-19).
B′. Absalom intervenes (verse 20).
A′. Absalom hates Amnon for having raped Tamar (verses 21-22).204
The literary structure gives greater prominence to the contrast between love and hate in A, A′ and
F.205 Fokkelman modifies Bar-Efrat’s literary structure to facilitate a better understanding of the
theme between love and hate in the story, as follows.206
love/hate
Tamar + Amnon
David + Tamar Amnon + servant
Amnon + David servant + Tamar
Jonadab + Amnon Tamar + Absalom
love hate
2.1.1. Jonadab, the Very Wise Man
The actual plot starts in 2 Sam 13:3-5.207 The narrator introduces two characters, Amnon and
Jonadab, his friend. The reader already knows about Amnon, but does not know about Jonadab.
204
Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques,” 50-51 (my italics). Morrison and Fokkelman also suggest a similar
literary structure for the story. See Morrison, 2 Samuel, 167; Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 100.
205
Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques,” 55. On the love-hate structure in the story, see Bar-Efrat, Narrative
Art in the Bible, 278.
206
207
153
The narrator gives a piece of information: Jonadab is a very wise man. This might lead the reader
to expect a happy ending to this story. Indeed, Jonadab’s advice to Amnon is very successful in
the sense that it makes David an active partner in the plan (2 Sam 15:7).208 However, the
narrator does not explain what his wisdom is beneficial for, and does not depict his wisdom as
negative.209 So the reader must discern what Jonadab’s “wise” advice is about. Furthermore,
there is no reason to judge his wisdom negatively. It is manifest that the incident in 2 Sam 13 is
one of the prophetic fulfillments of David’s sin.210 So, wise Jonadab is obviously Yahweh’s tool
to realize Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Sam 12:11, as the case of Ahithophel.211 Nathan proclaimed
that Yahweh would take “your women” ( ֙‫ ;נ ֶָׁ֙שיך‬plural) and give them to your friends (‫;לְ ֵרעֶ ֑יך‬
plural).212 As Bodner observes, “for David, more than one woman will be defiled, and more than
one friend involved: there is an even higher degree of intimacy, since his own sons and
colleagues will be the perpetrators.”213 As the stories unfold, the reader begins to see who
David’s women and friends are.
208
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 247. According to Auld (I & II Samuel, 478), “the words ‘wise’ and
‘wisdom’ are extraordinary rare throughout the books of Samuel – in fact only 2 Sam 13:3; 14:2, 20; 20:16, 22.”
Anderson (2 Samuel, 174) asserts that Jonadab was a tricky character because of his immoral advice for Amnon.
209
I will soon offer a reason as to why the advice was prudent on pages 154-56 below.
210
James Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1
Kings 1-2,” JBL 109 (1990): 49; Barbara Green, David’s Capacity for Compassion: A Literary-Hermeneutical Study
of 1-2 Samuel, LHBOTS 641 (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), 205; Frank Yamada, Configurations of Rape in the
Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives, StBibLit 109 (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 101.
211
Halpern (David’s Secret Demons, 358) points out that “David believed, rightly, that Amnon’s rape of Tamar was
inspired by Yahweh. He was therefore unable to punish Amnon for the deed. Amnon was acting as Yahweh’s agent.”
212
See 2 Sam 16:23. The narrator appraises Ahithophel’s advice (including the rape of the concubines) as equal to
the word of Yahweh.
213
Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 32.
154
Table 29. David’s Women and Friends in the Fulfillment of Nathan’s Prophecy
David’s sons as friends David’s women Text

to fulfill the prophecy
Amnon214 Tamar as his daughter 2 Sam 13:14
Absalom Concubines 2 Sam 16:22
On the surface, Jonadab’s wise plan is doomed to fail, because Absalom killed Amnon in
revenge for the rape of his sister. Jonadab valued Amnon as a dejected being (‫ ;דל‬2 Sam 13:4).
This implies to the reader that Amnon was not the right person for the throne in his eyes. If his
wisdom was not beneficial for his friend215 Amnon, but for the kingdom of Israel, the strong
candidate for the next king of Israel must be forcibly removed. Shimon Bakon elucidates
Jonadab’ importance in the story as follows:
We know from II Samuel 13:32 that Jonadab knew of Absalom’s plot and did not
inform Amnon of it. Perhaps Jonadab sensed that Amnon was a pathetically weak
figure, lovesick for his “sister” yet unable to do anything about it (II Sam. 13:2).
Jonadab realized that Amnon, though David’s eldest son, was completely unfit to
rule and therefore set in motion a plot to eliminate him from the royal family. He
is the one who orchestrates Amnon’s fall and triumphantly informs King David
that Amnon has been assassinated. His scheme fulfilled, Jonadab walks off the
biblical stage.216
Similarities between the two stories in 1 Sam 25 and 2 Sam 13 show that the narrator does not
evaluate Jonadab’s wisdom negatively. Firth recites similarities between Nabal and Amnon
(another “Nabal”).217 Yet he does not indicate similar roles for Abigail and Jonadab/Tamar in
214
Bodner (The Rebellion of Absalom, 35) insists that “David’s friend (his own son Amnon) in turn defiles David’s
daughter.
215
Halpern (David’s Secret Demons, 357) asserts that the word ‫ ֵרע‬means “counselor, adviser, or intimate” in this
context.
216
Shimon Bakon, “Jonadab, ‘Friend’ of Amnon,” JBQ 43 (2015): 105. See also Andrew E. Hill, “A Jonadab
Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” JETS 30 (1987): 387-90.
217
Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 435.
155
each story. That Tamar was the rape victim is an undeniable fact. Sadly, Jonadab (the very wise
man) seemed to lead Amnon (the unsuitable candidate for the next king) to a sexual assault, for
the benefit of the kingdom of Israel. Following his plan, Jonadab did not tell Amnon about all the
follow-up incidents, such as the rape and the death. Even though Firth argues that Jonadab did
not know how the plan would end,218 the text apparently indicates that Jonadab already knew the
end of the story.
Table 30. The Similarities between Two Stories Concerning Beautiful and Wise Characters
1 Sam 25 2 Sam 13
Character Abigail Jonadab/Tamar219
Trait good insight and beautiful Jonadab: very wise; ‫( חָ כָ ֵ֖ם ְמאַֹֽ ד‬vs.3)
appearance; ‫ַֽטֹובת־שֶֹּ֙ ֶכ ֙ל ֣ויפת תַֹ֔ אר‬ Tamar220: beautiful; ‫( יָפָ ֵ֖ה‬vs. 1)
(vs. 3)
Plan She prepares food for David and Tamar prepares food for Amnon (vs.
his company (vs. 18). 5).
No advice She does not tell Nabal about her Jonadab does not tell Amnon about
plan (vs. 19). the disastrous consequence of the
rape.
Prediction David will be the ruler over Israel, Only Amnon is killed by Absalom
so he must not kill anybody (vv. according to his plan (vv. 32-33).221
30-31).
Fulfillment David becomes the king of Israel David’s sons come (vs. 35).
(2 Sam 5:3).
218
Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 437; see also Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques,” 129.
219
Jonadab (the wise) and Tamar (the beautiful) seemed to share Abigail’s role in the story.
220
Amit (In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 213) insists that Tamar “makes logical attempts to dissuade him
[Amnon], showing that she too is clever.” See also Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of
Biblical Narratives, OBT 13 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 56.
221
Firth (1 & 2 Samuel, 439-40) explains that “Jonadab is reintroduced and again shows his ‘wisdom’ by arguing
that David must not imagine all his sons have died.”
156
Ultimately, Absalom avenged his sister by killing only Amnon, not all David’s sons, as Jonadab
expected. So the strongest candidate for the next heir to the throne was removed. In turn, other
princes were allowed to have an eye on the throne. David’s political power was obviously
weakened as well. Therefore, Jonadab’s wisdom offers an opportunity for David and the officials
of his court to choose better candidates for the next king.
2.1.2. Amnon the Nabal and Tamar the Beautiful
Three references in the words of Jonadab, Amnon, and David emphasize that Tamar must go to
Amnon’s house to nurse him.222 Words such as “my sister”223 and “your brother” in these
repetitions suggest that proper decorum must exist between Amnon and Tamar when she visits
his house.224 Interestingly, while Jonadab and David mention food for sickness (‫)ב ְריָה‬, Amnon
changes the word “food” to “cakes” (‫)לְ בבֹות‬. The reader does not know why Amnon selects the
word “cakes,” but the word hints that he has another plan for Tamar. The word ‫ לְ בבֹות‬has double
meanings: 1) lexically, it means a “heart-shaped pastry,”225 2) phonically, it is similar to “hearts”
(plural form of heart ‫)לֵבָ ב‬.226 Conroy argues that “the heart-shaped cakes . . . are well fitted
symbolically for the situation.”227 Even though the narrator does not clarify whether David
222
223
However, James Crenshaw argues that the term “my sister” is “the normal expression for a lover in ancient
Egypt. The author of Song of Songs uses this language of brother/sister to designate lovers.” James L. Crenshaw,
Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 202.
224
225
HALOT, 516.
226
Cf. ‫( לְ בָ בֹות‬1 Chron 28:9).
227
Conroy, Absalom, 29, n. 43. McCarter (II Samuel, 322) suggests the relationship between the word and ‫לבבְ ֵ֖תני‬
(“you have bewitched me”) in Song 4:9.
157
noticed Absalom’s plan concerning Tamar or not, the reader should not overlook that “David
avoids Amnon’s reference to a couple of lebibōth, and uses the word originally used by
Jonadab.”228
‫( הב ְריָה‬2 Sam 13:5) Jonadab’s advice

‫( לְ בבֹות‬2 Sam 13:6) Amnon’s request to David
‫( הב ְריָה‬2 Sam 13:7) David’s command to Tamar
‫( לְ בבֹות‬2 Sam 13:8) Tamar made them for Amnon
‫( הב ְריָה‬2 Sam 13:10) Amnon’s request to Tamar
‫( לְ בבֹות‬2 Sam 13:10) Tamar brought them to Amnon
As the saying goes, “coming events cast their shadows before it.” Changing words about the
food implies that David had a glimmer of what Amnon was hiding in his mind. As Amit
observes, “Amnon in the midst of his plotting tries to sound more guileless than the words the
narrator gives to Jonadab.”229 Even though David seems to support Jonadab’s more innocent
understanding by reverting to his words,230 his command to make ‫ ב ְריָה‬is changed to ‫ לְ בבֹות‬in
the story. We are not sure how much David may or may not have known about Amnon’s plan,
but the narrator implies that David was not free from suspicion about this incident, given the
word-switching. Without knowing anything, Tamar made and brought ‫ לְ בבֹות‬for Amnon, not
‫ב ְריָה‬. In addition, Amnon imitated Jonadab’s and David’s word choice (‫ )ב ְריָה‬to hide his plan for
Tamar (2 Sam 13:10). This means that David had the chance to stop the rape and the subsequent
incident, Absalom’s revolt.
228
Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1989), 251.
229
230
Did David already know Jonadab’s advice to Amnon?
158
As planned, Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon and made cakes for him,
without any conversation recorded between them (2 Sam 13:8-9). The narrative shows that
Tamar’s first concern was making food for the sick man.231 In Amnon’s house, the narrator
characterizes Tamar as active but depicts Amnon as passive. Amnon was just watching Tamar’s
actions in his bed (‫“ ;וְ ֣הּוא ׁשֹ כֵ ֑ב‬he was lying down” [2 Sam 13:8]). Although her efforts for Amnon
would go down the drain, the narrator portrays her actions in more detail than he needs. This
allows us to see what Amnon sees, namely his half-sister moving about while baking, motions
which would likely serve to feed Amnon’s lust. It reveals that only Amnon was guilty232 in the
coming incident, because of his lust. Tamar made the food (cakes) for Amnon, because she
thought that Amnon would recover from his illness, if she gave the food to him directly, as
Jonadab advised. However, the reader’s hope is completely shattered. Amnon springs to action in
2 Sam 13:9. Surpassing Jonadab’s advice, Amnon decides to rape her instead of eating the food
from her hand. The reader does not have any information about Amnon’s refusal to eat the food
(and Jonadab’s advice contains no allusion to this).233 So the reader could understand the
incident as Amnon’s crime according to his own plan, even though Jonadab was already
expecting Amnon’s sexual assault.
Amnon called Tamar “my sister” in 2 Sam 13:11, and Tamar called Amnon “my brother”
in 2 Sam 13:12. The appellations for each other emphasize their family relationship, and
underscore that Amnon’s advances on Tamar should not have happened in this relationship.
231
232
233
159
About the reasons why Tamar did not flee when Amnon ordered all men to leave him, Amit
suggests three possibilities: “her conduct can be explained as stupidity or as joy at being alone
with him, or as a sister’s complete trust in her brother.”234 Whatever the reason may be, the
narrator seems to maintain that Tamar was innocent and that she haplessly fell into the clutches
of the luster (‫ ;ו ַֽי ֲחזֶק־בָ ּה‬2 Sam 13:11).
About Amnon’s oppressive command in 2 Sam 13:11 (“Come, lie with me, my sister!”),
Tamar replied with composure to delay or thwart his horrible intention.235 She had followed
David and Amnon’s words without saying anything in the past, but this time she responded
differently.236 She said the word “do not (‫)אל‬,” three times to Amnon in 2 Sam 13:12. The reader
can further imagine her negative mindset through the additional negative ‫ל ֹא‬, mentioned twice.
֙‫אל־אָ חי‬ Do not,237 my brother (vs. 12a)!

‫ל־תע ֵַ֔נני‬ ְ ‫א‬ Do not force me (vs. 12b),
‫ָשה כֵ ֵ֖ן ְבי ְש ָר ֵ ֑אל‬ ֵ֥ ֶ ‫ֹא־יע‬
ַֽ ֵ ‫ֶ֛כי ל‬ for such a thing is not done in Israel (vs. 12c).
‫ַֽאל־תע ֵ ֲֵ֖שה אֶ ת־הנְ בָ ָלֵ֥ה ה ַֽז ֹאת׃‬ Do not do this stupidity (vs. 12d)!
... ...
‫ֶ֛כי ֵ֥ל ֹא י ְמנ ֵָעֵ֖ני מ ֶ ַֽמךָ׃‬ for he will not withhold me from you (vs. 13d).
Through the personal relation between her and Amnon, she hoped that such a thing would not
happen, because it would have fatal consequences for both of them. So she suggested a new
positive proposal238 for him, with the negative particle to emphasize her opinion about the
234
235
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 260-61.
236
Yamada, Configurations of Rape, 115.
237
Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art in the Bible, 261) insists that “the first phrase . . . displays Tamar’s emotional confusion
and deep anxiety,” because there is no verb. Probably she could not say any word in this situation.
238
160
aggression. If David, their father, gave Amnon his permission to marry his daughter, she would
not be ashamed and he would not become one of the fools. However, Amnon rejected his sister’s
wise suggestion, because he was not interested in marrying her,239 but in a physical relationship.
His words after raping her (‫;קּומי ֵ ַֽלכי‬

ֵ֥ “Arise, go away!”; 2 Sam 13:15) prove this.240
After this terrible incident, David and Absalom took no immediate action to resolve this
serious issue, even though they had a kinship duty against Amnon–marriage, killing, or fine.241
David was angry (2 Sam 13:21)242 without any action,243 and Absalom quarantined her from
daily life (2 Sam 13:20). Even though Amnon did not accept Tamar’s advice, Tamar could
express her insistence to him. However, she could not speak her heart to her full brother
Absalom, because he ordered her to be silent. Furthermore, he tried to control her mind on
account of his secret retaliative plan (“Do not take this problem to your heart!”; 2 Sam 13:20).244
Apparently, Absalom treated Tamar like an object in much the same way as did Amnon. So the
reader forms the hasty conclusion that Tamar was the victim of both brothers (by Amnon’s rape
and Absalom’s inaction). However, the reason why the narrator introduces Absalom in the
beginning of the story becomes quite clear. Through the narration about Absalom’s state of mind
239
240
Compare this to Amnon’s first command in 2 Sam 13:11 (‫;בֹואי ׁשכְ ֵ֥בי‬
ֶ֛ “Come, lie!”). In addition, Amnon does not
call Tamar “my sister” in 2 Sam 13:15. See also Table 31.
241
See William Propp, “Kinship in 2 Samuel 13,” CBQ 55 (1993): 41-42.
242
The LXX in 2 Sam 13:21 adds why David was just very angry about Amnon’s crime. The reasons are that David
loved Amnon, and he was his first-born (ὅτι ἠγάπα αὐτόν ὅτι πρωτότοκος αὐτοῦ ἦν). We can find a similar
expression in David’s love for Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6). Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 273; Amit, In Praise of
Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 214.
243
David seems to recall the death of Uriah. Rosenberg, King and Kin, 147.
244
Beek argues that “Absalom had cunningly prepared the fatal attack.” M. A. Beek, “David and Absalom: A
Hebrew Tragedy in Prose?” in Voice from Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative, trans. and
ed. Martin Kessler, SemeiaSt 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 158.
161
in 2 Sam 13:22, the reader anticipates that a more terrible incident will happen in the near future,
and also that Absalom will stand in the center of this future incident.
The revenge for the rape happened two years later. As Yamada insists, “Absalom’s plan
of revenge, whatever the motivation, is in direct contrast with the inaction of David.”245 Even
though his motive for revenge was intense hatred of Amnon because of his crime against
Tamar,246 the result of the revenge immediately established him as a major candidate for the next
king of Israel. Therefore, it is natural to presume that “the narrator, through the story of Amnon’s
rape of Tamar, has set the reader up for an inevitable power struggle between Absalom and
David.”247 Furthermore, the narrator discloses that David’s political power will be changed
through the story related to beautiful Tamar. David’s silence about his lovely son/friend’s crime
calls in another lovely son/friend in the narrative stage as a main character to fulfill Nathan’s
oracle.
It is manifest that Tamar’s physical attractiveness began the story because it was the
cause of Amnon’s lovesickness. The physical beauty made strong Amnon weaker and led him to
his death in the end. Amnon coveted and took her physical beauty, but did not accept (‫ ; ֵ֥ל ֹא אָ ָבֵ֖ה‬2
Sam 13:14, 16) her wise advice, unlike David in Abigail’s case. Tamar’s wise advice stands in
the middle of others’ foolish orders as imperative forms. This proves that the narrator reproaches
not only Amnon for his crime, but also others for their support. In addition, the literary structure
245
Yamada, Configurations of Rape, 129.
246
247
Yamada, Configurations of Rape, 129. See also Athalya Brenner, The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering
Desire and ‘Sexuality’ in the Hebrew Bible, BibInt 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 138-39.
162
shows that outward appearance is not enough itself without wisdom, whether to those who
already have it or to those who desire it.248
Table 31. The Literary Structure Composed of Characters’ Commands in 2 Sam 13
2.2. Tamar the Granddaughter
Iain Provan and others remark concerning biblical stories that “readers will need to attend closely
to the story as it unfolds, even (perhaps especially) to those details that might seem insignificant,
if they are to grasp the story’s full meaning.”249 The case of David’s granddaughter in 2 Sam
14:27 is exactly such a case. In this verse the narrator informs the reader that “three sons and one
daughter were born to Absalom, and her name was Tamar and she was a woman of beautiful
appearance.” While Absalom’s three sons are unnamed in the story,250 his daughter (like Job’s
three beautiful daughters in Job 42:13-15) is named.251 Being named makes it reasonable to
248
Pamela Reis, “Cupidity and Stupidity: Woman’s Agency and the ‘Rape’ of Tamar,” JANES 25 (1997): 52.
249
Iain Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 236. My italics.
250
Bodner (The Rebellion of Absalom, 52) suggests that the lack of mention regarding the sons’ names alludes to his
failure.
251
It is interesting that “the narrator takes care to name Job’s daughters but not the sons.” Samuel Balentine, Job,
SHBC (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2006), 717.
163
expect that she will play a role in the story. Contrary to our expectations, however, she does not
appear again on the narrative stage. It is hard to understand why the narrator provides Absalom’s
daughter with a name, along with a descriptor of her beauty, unless this information is, as I have
sought to argue throughout, a kind of aid for comprehending Absalom’s full story.
2.2.1. The Third Tamar
We know nothing about Absalom’s daughter except for her name and outward appearance. Her
family relations can be inferred from the fact that she was Absalom’s daughter. Interestingly, we
meet two other Tamars in the Hebrew Bible. One is Judah’s daughter-in-law (Gen 38), and
another is David’s daughter (2 Sam 13).
Table 32. The Similarities between the First Two Tamars
The first Tamar The second Tamar

The beginning of Judah took her for his son (Gen Amnon loved her for his lust (2 Sam
the problem 38:6). 13:1).
Her sufferings Yahweh killed her husband (Gen Insidiously, the plan was in motion
38:7). (2 Sam 13:5-7).252
Yahweh killed her brother-in-law Amnon decided to rape her (2 Sam
(Gen 38:10). 13:14).
Isolation Judah decided to isolate (‫ )יָׁשב‬her Absalom decided to isolate (‫ )יָׁשב‬her
in her father’s house to protect his in his house (2 Sam 13:20).
living son (Gen 38:11).
Problem-solving She devised her own plan for her Absalom revenged his sister’s rape
late husband (Gen 38:14-30). on Amnon (2 Sam 13:28-29).
Outward no reference beautiful appearance
appearance
252
Jonadab framed the plan for the purpose of gratifying Amnon’s love/lust. Amnon acted almost like an actor that
surpassed Jonadab’s expectation. David was an active collaborator in the plan, and Tamar was eliminated from the
plan.
164
William Rosenblum suggests that “the last Tamar, through her name, serves as a reminder of the
two faces of women, represented in the Tanakh by her two predecessors; woman as heroine and
woman as victim.”253 It does not seem too rash to suggest that the first two Tamars were
innocent victims in each story, in that they did not decide anything–with one single exception
being that the first Tamar had her own plan to solve the problem. They suffered great pain and
were isolated completely from society.
Even though they have something in common, their traits are completely different. The
fact that the first Tamar was eager to escape from isolation makes her different from the second
Tamar as Rosenblum observes.254 The first two Tamars were the third’s greater namesake as the
main character in each story. Although the third Tamar appears on the narrative stage as a minor
character, the narrator grants a special role to her. Moreover, her outward appearance is beautiful,
as in the case of the second Tamar, her aunt. So the second and the third Tamars seem to have a
close relationship.
Jack Sasson identifies a reason why the narrator suddenly introduces Absalom’s
daughter. He insists that Amnon raped Absalom’s daughter Tamar, because the rape victim was
desolate in Absalom’s house (2 Sam 13:20).255 But I disagree with his assertion, because the
narrator proves her identity as Absalom’s sister in the beginning of the story. Rosenblum
253
William Rosenblum, “Tamar Times Three,” JBQ 30 (2002): 130.
254
Rosenblum evaluates her as a “heroine” saving Judah’s family line. See Rosenblum, “Tamar Times Three,” 129.
255
Jack M. Sasson, “Absalom’s Daughter: An Essay in Vestige Historiography,” in The Land That I Will Show You:
Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, eds. J. Andrew
Dearman and M. Patrick Graham, JSOTSup 343 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 190.
165
demonstrates instead that “her name represents the attempt of Absalom to preserve the memory
of his ruined sister and to remember her as a pure child.”256 In addition, Bodner insists that “the
name of Tamar increases the focus of Amnon’s abuse and justifies Absalom’s revenge.”257 At
the same time, the name that is given to Absalom’s daughter with her outward appearance
alludes vaguely to her fate, as in the case of her beautiful aunt.
2.2.2. The Missing Tamar
It is difficult to study Tamar, David’s granddaughter, because we encounter her only one time in
2 Sam 14:27. Interestingly, the LXX delivers more information about her. According to the LXX,
“she becomes the wife of Roboam [Rehoboam; the MT] son of Solomon, and she bears to him
Abia [Abijam (1 Kgs) or Abijah (2 Chron); the MT] (γίνεται γυνὴ τῷ Ροβοαμ υἱῷ Σαλωμων καὶ
τίκτει αὐτῷ τὸν Αβια).” But unlike the LXX, the narrator in Kgs 15:2 mentions that Abijam’s
mother was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom (Absalom). Besides, 2 Chron 11:20-22 provides
more information about Absalom’s daughter (called Maacah)258 who married Rehoboam. King
Rehoboam made a plan to set her first son Abijah on the throne, because he loved the daughter of
Absalom more than all his other women.259 Does this mean that Absalom’s two daughters
married Rehoboam, and each daughter bore a son called Abijam/Abijah? However, the narrator
informs the reader that Absalom had only one daughter, along with three sons. A persuasive
256
Rosenblum, “Tamar Times Three,” 130.
257
258
Interestingly, Maacah was Absalom’s mother’s name (2 Sam 3:3).
259
Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines at that time (2 Chron 11:21).
166
alternative is that Tamar and Maacah were one and the same person. Rabbi David Kimḥi
explains the possibility of one person having two different names–for example,
“Micaiah/Maacah,” and “Absalom/Abishalom.”260 While the aforementioned case seems to
reflect phonic variations on the same name, Tamar and Maacah are totally different. If Tamar
and Maacah were the same person, Tamar may have been Maacah’s nickname to emphasize her
fate, as in the case of her aunt Tamar. Her nickname was probably given to her after Amnon’s
affair.261
Notwithstanding, there are genealogical problems with Tamar/Maacah’s place in the
family tree: 1) Abijah and his son Asa both had mothers, named Maacah, and 2) the narrator
demonstrates that Maacah was Uriel’s daughter in 2 Chron 13:2.262 To solve these problems,
Ralph W. Klein illustrates a couple of possibilities as follows:
I. Abijah’s mother was Micaiah the daughter of Uriel (2 Chr 13:2), and Asa’s
mother was Micaiah the daughter of Abishalom (1 Kgs 15:10 and 1 Kgs 15:13//
2 Chr 15:16). The text of 1 Kgs 15:2 (Maacah is the mother of Abijah) had been
corrupted by attraction to 1 Kgs 15:10 and 1 Kgs 15:13//2 Chr 15:16, which are
dealing with the mother of Asa. Then 2 Chr 11:20-22 is built on this secondary
reading. Hence 1 Kgs 15:2 and 2 Chr 11:20-22 are incorrect, and 2 Chr 13:2, 1
Kgs 15:10, and 1 Kgs 15:13//2 Chr 15:16 are correct.
II. Maacah/Micaiah is the daughter of Uriel and Tamar and therefore the
granddaughter of Absalom. If this opinion is chosen there are three options: (a)
Abijah and Asa are brothers despite the contradiction with 1 Kgs 15:8//2 Chr
13:23, which identifies them as father and son; (b) Maacah/ Micaiah is Abijah’s
mother and Asa’s grandmother despite the assertion in 1 Kgs 15:10 and 1 Kgs
15:13//2 Chr 15:16 that she is Asa’s mother; or, more remotely, (c) Abijah
married his mother Maacah/Micaiah and sired Asa by her.263
260
See Yitzhak Berger, The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimḥi to Chronicles: A Translation with Introduction and
Supercommentary, BJS 345 (Providence: Brown University Press, 2007), 226.
261
262
Maacah was Absalom’s daughter. See 1 Kgs 15:2, 10; 2 Chron 11:20-21.
263
Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress; 2012), 198.
167
Even though Klein tries to harmonize the texts which tell of Maacah, he only adds to the
confusion. Firstly, how can Maacah be both Ahijah’s mother and Asa’s mother? Walsh asserts
that Abijam’s mother Maacah seems to be called Asa’s mother during the reign of king Asa,
because Abijam had reigned for only a short time (three years; 1 Kgs 15:2).264 On the contrary,
Iain W. Provan gives prominence to Abijam’s sin, in that “Asa was the product of an incestuous
relationship between Abijam and Maacah (cf. 15:2). It would be only one evil among the many
that Abijam perpetrated, and certainly not beyond imagining (cf. Lev. 18:6ff).”265 As Provan
asserts, the narrator connects Abijam’s crime to David’s sin (the fact that David killed Uriah) in
1 Kgs 15:5. So the narration would remind the reader about not only Bathsheba’s affair but also
its related incidents, such as Amnon’s rape and Absalom’s rebellion. In contrast, Asa had
endeavored to remove sins from Judah. He even removed his (grand)mother from the position of
queen mother. Therefore, the fact that Asa’s mother was called Maacah emphasizes her final fate
under Asa’s reign. Even though Maacah was beautiful and became the highest woman in
political power during the reign of three kings,266 the narrator seems to proclaim that beauty is
vain without love of God (cf. Prov. 31:30).
Secondly, who was Maacah, the daughter of Absalom or Uriel? To solve this problem,
Sara Japhet elucidates that “we would claim that Maacah was not actually Absalom’s daughter
264
Walsh, 1 Kings, 211.
265
Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, NIBCOT (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 126. See also Klein, 2 Chronicles, 198
n. 26.
266
Ktziah Spanier maintains that “an examination of the biblical records indicates that the queen mother was the
most important female in the Judaean royal court.” Ktziah Spanier, “The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court:
Maacah–Case Study,” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB 5 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 186.
168
but his granddaughter, through Tamar and her husband ‘Uriel of Gibeah’–Maacah’s father.”267
If this is right, the LXX incorrectly reports that Tamar married Roboam in 2 Sam 14:27. There is
a possibility that Uriel was another name for Absalom when he had fled from his father.
Morrison presumes that Absalom’s sons “died or were killed in the rebellion.”268 His
assumption is a plausible explanation of why his sons had no name. Absalom seems to have used
an assumed name to avoid being traced and to save his life as a fugitive. Therefore, Absalom and
Uriel were two names for the same person. The name Uriel (‫ )אּוריאֵ ל‬also recalls Bathsheba’s
original husband Uriah (‫ )אּוריָה‬to the reader.269
Figure 10. Maacah’s Family Tree270
According to the biblical narratives, Absalom’s daughter had two different names, Tamar
267
Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 671.
268
Morrison, 2 Samuel, 193.
269
Spanier (“The Queen Mother,” 193) asserts that Maacah “is associated with Bathsheba’s first husband, and . . .
her place of birth connects her to the Saulide capital at Gibeah.”
270
Yellow signifies the kings of all Israel or Judah.
169
(in the DN) and Maacah (outside the DN). Though we do not know her real name,271 we can
assume that her father Absalom named her after close relatives, such as her grandmother272 and
her aunt. Those names’ function seems to be that of reminiscences about good or bad. Every time
Absalom called his daughter by name, he would have recalled his mother and sister.273 Tamar’s
physical attractiveness seems to make her a politically prominent figure in Judah, but her beauty
is nothing without God.
2.3. Conclusion
In the DN, two Tamars have something in common: they both were beautiful. The daughter’s
beauty led to the serious problems of Amnon’s death and of Absalom turning into a murderer.
The granddaughter’s beauty functions together with Absalom’s beauty as an indicator of
Absalom’s rebellion. The narrator seems to deliver the message to the reader that David, who
was unresponsive to the incidents (the rape and the murder) related to the beautiful characters
(the daughter Tamar and Absalom), did not fulfill his duty as the king of Israel. In addition, the
narrator’s description of the granddaughter’s beauty and his son’s attractiveness seems to
foreshadow that David’s political power will be weakened rapidly by Absalom’s further action.
271
Maacah was probably her legal name.
272
It seems that Maacah, Absalom’s mother, may have been beautiful because Absalom was very handsome. In
general, children resemble their parents’ outward appearance genetically. However, the narrator does not mention
Maacah’s outward appearance, because it is not needed in the narrative flow.
273
Denise Ackermann asks a question about Absalom’s daughter: “Can there be an element of restitution here [2
Sam 14:27] for Tamar in the next generation of women in the house of David?” Denise M. Ackermann, “Tamar’s
Cry: Rereading an Ancient Text in the Midst of an HIV/AIDS Pandemic,” in Character Ethics and the Old
Testament, eds. M. Daniel Carroll R. and Jacqueline E. Lapsley (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 196.
170
Table 33. The Similarities between Two Tamars
Lineal Closest Revealed Her fate

descendants of character to character
David her trait/
his fate
Tamar Daughter Amnon: Amnon’s She was desolate in Absalom’s
(2 Sam he loved sexual lust house (2 Sam 13:20).
13:1) her. for Tamar/
death
Tamar Granddaughter Absalom: Absalom’s She was desolate in Absalom’s
(2 Sam her father lust for the house without siblings (2 Sam
14:27) crown/ 18:18; cf. 2 Sam 14:27).274
death She also was removed from the
position of queen mother by Asa
(1 Kgs 15:13; cf. 2 Chron 15:16).
274
There is no more information about Tamar, Absalom’s daughter, in 2 Sam 18:18. However, her three brothers (2
Sam 14:27) seem to have died when they were very young, because they have no name and Absalom says that “I
have no son” in 2 Sam 18:18. See Conroy, Absalom, 65. If he had refused to have a new son, possibly it was from
fear of losing a new son as before. Compare to the case of Judah in Gen 38:11.
Chapter Four
The Handsome Men in the DN
In general, all male descents in David’s family line seem to be good-looking. David was
handsome, and his wives were probably also beautiful.1 However, the narrator does not depict
all of David’s male descents as handsome, but explicitly describes only two sons (Absalom and
Adonijah) as handsome like their father. This means that the narrator decides that only three male
characters merit mention for being handsome for the thematic development of the narrative. In
the case of the DN, these handsome male characters grasped after power. Even though the two
sons resembled David physically and were able to gain political power easily, they did not
succeed to the throne. Surely the narrator’s strategy in describing their outward appearance
reveals that there are more important requirements than physical appearance for being the ruler
of Israel.
1. Handsome but Small David
As noted earlier, many male characters are described positively for their appearance (i.e., for
height) at the beginning of the DN (1 Sam 16).2 Examples are Eliab (1 Sam 16:6-7), Goliath (1
1
The narrator mentions only Abigail and Bathsheba as beautiful among David’s wives in the narrative. Based on
her father’s handsomeness, Michal was probably attractive, though this is not mentioned. We may similarly infer
that Maacah (Absalom’s mother) and Haggith (Adonijah’s mother) were beautiful in light of their sons’
handsomeness but again no mention is made of this.
2
I have followed Frank Polak’s opinion that the beginning of the DN “comprises three unites: 1 Sam 16:1-13–the
tale of David’s anointing, the prelude to the David Cycle as a whole; 16:14-23–the story of his introduction to Saul’s
court in order to play the harp before the king; 17:1-18–the Goliath narrative, which magnifies David as Israel’s
savior in the battle.” See Frank Polak, “Literary Study and ‘Higher Criticism’ According to the Tale of David’s
Beginning,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A: The Period of The Bible
171
172
Sam 17:4), and David (1 Sam 16:12). The entrances of many physically attractive characters
onto the narrative stage are a hint to the reader that these groups are more likely to earn political
or religious power in the period of monarchy.
In the first verse of the DN, 1 Sam 16:1, the prophet Samuel grieves for Saul, the good-
looking and tall king. While Samuel misses Saul, Yahweh commands him to choose another man
as a new king. It is hard to exaggerate how much Samuel seems to expect Yahweh to choose a
physically attractive man. Thus, when Samuel sees Eliab for the first time, his appearance and
height lead him to believe he will be chosen as king. However, Yahweh warns Samuel, “Do not
look at his appearance and his height (1 Sam 16:7).” At first Samuel regards Eliab’s attractive
appearance as relevant, as do others at that time. It is not unreasonable to postulate that at least
some of Jesse’s seven other sons have physical beauty, but Samuel rejects them. Finally, Samuel
chooses David in keeping with Yahweh’s directive. Confusingly, Yahweh seems to have a double
standard; Samuel is not to choose on the basis of appearance, yet David is handsome (1 Sam
16:12).
About this discrepancy, Mark George insists that “physical attributes are deemed
unimportant or irrelevant by no less an authority than Yhwh himself . . . David does not have the
same physical attributes as Saul (David is not “head and shoulders” taller than others).”3 It
would be a mistake to argue that the similarity between Saul and David distinguishes them as
(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 29.

3
Mark K. George, “Yhwh’s Own Heart,” CBQ 64 (2002): 448.
173
special, relative to other characters in the narrative.4 Despite their similarly favorable
appearance, the narrator clearly wants to show that David is no Saul, who had disobeyed
Yahweh’s commands.
Does the description of David’s outward appearance mean that the narrator shares in the
tendency to see others not as Yahweh does, but as other human beings do? In 1 Sam 16:12, the
narrator acts as Samuel did when he saw Eliab.5 Thus, the reader is led to feel nervous about
David being physically attractive, because Saul was similarly attractive but did not succeed as
king. Noting the problem, Gunn remarks that “the outward appearance is fortuitous (or perhaps a
concession to man’s weakness!).”6 Even though the narrator portrays David as “ruddy with
beautiful eyes and handsome appearance,” Saul and others do not pay attention to his beauty in
the court and the battlefield. Presumably, his outward appearance seems unattractive to the
people, but attractive to the narrator and Yahweh.7
Though they are positive, David’s physical traits are not the same as Saul’s. As
McKenzie notes: “David was short. Saul stood ‘head and shoulders’ above everyone in Israel. . . .
David was the youngest or ‘smallest’ (the same word in Hebrew can have both meanings) of the
brothers.”8 On the one hand, if David thought himself the smallest (‫ ;הקָ ַ֔ ָטן‬1 Sam 16:11), unlike
4
George, “Yhwh’s Own Heart,” 447.
5
About this very moment Walter Brueggemann says: “Samuel and the narrator are dazzled.” See Walter
Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, IBC (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 123.
6
David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story, JSOTSup 14 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1980), 78.
7
The LXX addes ‘κυρίῳ (to the Lord)’ in 1 Sam 16:12.
8
Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 64. Fokkelman also
argues that “the actual opposition in this story is that of large v. small as a characteristic of David v. Eliab/Saul.” J. P.
Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural
174
other characters such as Saul, Eliab, and Goliath, there would be good reason for Yahweh’s being
with him (1 Sam 16:18). On the other hand, as Avinoam Sharon observes, “the scene actually
tells us nothing about David’s size. Instead, it delivers the theological message that God sees
differently than humans. We see superficially, whereas God sees our true nature.”9 His beauty
seems not to have made him the envy of others; what seems worthy of mention is rather his
smallness (1 Sam 15:17; 16:11; 17:14; cf. 1 Kgs 3:7). Thus, it would seem that, according to
Yahweh, the most important qualification for being Israel’s ruler is smallness rather than physical
beauty.
Table 34. The Kings’ ‫קָ טֹ ן‬/‫קָ טָ ן‬
Text Speaker → listener ‫קָ טֹ ן‬/‫קָ טָ ן‬ Who’s ‫קָ טֹ ן‬/‫קָ טָ ן‬

1 Sam 15:17 Samuel → Saul ‫ה ֲַ֗לֹוא אם־קָ טִֹּ֤ ן אתָ ה֙ בְ ֵעי ֶַ֔ניך‬ Saul
1 Sam 16:11 Jesse → Samuel ‫֚עֹוד ׁשָ ֣אר הקָ ַ֔ ָטן‬ David
1 Sam 17:14 the narrator → the narratee ‫וְ דָ וֵ֖ד ֣הּוא הקָ ָט֑ן‬ David
1 Kgs 3:7 Solomon → Yahweh ‫וְ ָ ַֽאנֹ כי֙ נ֣ער קָ טַֹ֔ ן‬ Solomon
Yahweh seems to focus on David’s being “small,” not his beauty, as a criterion for kingship. The
narrator informs us of David’s physical beauty, but Yahweh has no interest in this. Yahweh, “who
of course does not see as a mortal sees, seizes the moment,”10 and just declares without
hesitation that “this is he (‫ ;זֶ ֵ֥ה ַֽהּוא‬1 Sam 16:12).” Strikingly, Goliath mentions David’s being
Analysis: Volume II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-21 & II Sam.1), SSN 23 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), 131.
About Saul’s tallness, Rabbi Howard Cooper insists that “his fate is bound up with his height.” Rabbi Howard
Cooper, “‘Too Tall by Half’: King Saul and Tragedy in the Hebrew Bible,” JPJ 9 (1997): 6.
9
Avinoam Sharon, “Height Theology: The Theological Use of Lexical Ambiguity in the David and Goliath Story,”
JBQ 45 (2017): 249.
10
David J. A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 205
175
ruddy and handsome as grounds for his disdain for him as a warrior (1 Sam 17:42).11 This
disdain opens new prospects in the DN’s use of outward appearance. Although David’s physical
(and maybe inner) beauty is ignored and despised by others, Yahweh sees his beauty in a
different way. David’s beauty will establish a new standard for the Israelites and also the reader.
Regrettably, the Israelites (including Samuel) are not prepared to allow a normal-looking or even
an ugly leader for the Israelites from the starting point of the DN.12
2. Absalom, the Unblemished
It is tempting to speculate about the fact that the narrator does not describe Absalom’s outward
appearance in his first entrance (Sam 13:1). It goes without saying that he was handsome, in light
of the great beauty in David’s family members, but the reader realizes for the first time that
Absalom was handsome without blemish in 2 Sam 14:25-26. Stuart Macwilliam demonstrates
that “David’s beauty is something of a family trademark, and it is noticeable that Absalom is
surrounded by beauty–not only his father, but also his sister, his daughter as well as he
himself.”13 As on previous occasions in the DN, the new beautiful character named Absalom14
with another beautiful character Tamar (2 Sam 14:27) signals a more severe incident that will
11
We can consider two other tall characters, Saul and Eliab. Sharon (“Height Theology,” 249) insists that “when
God refers to Eliab’s height, the comparison is not to David, but to Saul. Like Saul, Eliab is tall, and so Samuel is
drawn to him as a natural leader.”
12
About the ugly, Clines (Interested Parties, 222) elucidates that “ordinarily one would expect a high-ranking
‘servant of Yahweh’ to be beautiful in form and face” in relation to Isa 53:2.
13
Stuart Macwilliam, “Ideologies of Male Beauty and the Hebrew Bible,” BibInt 17 (2009): 283.
14
Macwilliam (“Ideologies of Male Beauty,” 279) insists that Absalom’s beauty “is described in details without
parallel in the Hebrew Bible.”
176
happen in this story.
2.1. Another David or Another King
As Morrison notes, the narrator tends to portray the outward appearance of major characters in
more detail than other characters.15 Furthermore, Absalom’s physical attractiveness is better than
Saul’s and David’s. If the reader only considers the detailed description of his physical beauty,
he looks like a strong candidate for his father’s throne. It is needless to say that “Absalom’s
beautiful appearance, luxuriant hair, and ability to father children (especially sons) indicate his
eligibility for kingship.”16 As David was handsome, Absalom is attractive without blemish. In
addition, his daughter Tamar puts him on par with his own father, whose daughter was her
namesake.
Table 35. The Similarities between David’s and Absalom’s Daughters
Tamar 1 in 2 Sam 13:1 Tamar 2 in 2 Sam 14:27

Whose daughter David Absalom
Outward appearance beautiful beautiful
Status She was only mentioned She was the only
among David’s other daughter of Absalom.
daughters.
Moreover, he had wise helpers to solve his problems, whether he intended it or not. Wise
Jonadab made him as the leading candidate for the next king by removing Amnon. The wise
15
Craig Morrison asserts that “it seems the narrator wants us to entertain the possibility of Absalom’s succession to
David’s throne.” Craig E. Morrison, 2 Samuel, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013), 192.
16
Randy L. McCracken, “How Many Sons Did Absalom Have?: Intentional Ambiguity as Literary Art,” BSac 172
(2015): 294.
177
woman of Tekoa made him return to Jerusalem. As David was with wise Abigail, Absalom was
surrounded by the wise counsellors. As David gained political power through wise Abigail
without shedding blood, the wise people with Absalom legitimized killing Amnon and returning
to Jerusalem from a long period of hiding in another country.17
Of special interest is the fact that the narrator first depicts Absalom as another David,
and as the most suitable candidate for the throne, and then suddenly portrays him as another
illegal king who should not exist. He started acting like the king after meeting his father in the
court. Samuel warned of the dark side of the monarchy (1 Sam 8:11), and Absalom showed his
restored political power in this way (Absalom prepared a chariot, horses, and fifty men to run
before him; 2 Sam 15:1). Additionally, he imitated the king’s actions according to what he saw in
the court, as follows:18
2 Sam 15:2-5 2 Sam 14:33

֙‫( ויקְ ָ ֙רא א ְבׁשָ לִּ֤ ֹום אֵ לָיו‬vs. 2) ֙‫ויקְ ָ ִּ֤רא אֶ ל־אבְ ׁשָ לֹום‬
‫( וְ ע ַָ֗לי י ֵָ֥בֹוא‬vs. 4) ‫ו ָי ֣ב ֹא אֶ ל־ה ַ֔ ֶמלְֶך‬
‫( לְ ה ְׁשתחֲֹוֵ֖ ת ל֑ ֹו‬vs. 5) ‫וי ְׁש ֙תחּו לִ֧ ֹו‬
‫( וְ נָ ֵׁ֥שק לַֽ ֹו׃‬vs. 5) ‫וי ֵ֥שק ה ֶ ֵ֖מלְֶך לְ א ְבׁשָ לַֽ ֹום׃‬
Although he revenged Tamar’s rape by killing Amnon because of David’s irresponsibility as her
17
Carole Fontaine insists that “clear wisdom motifs are noticeable, such as the importance of counsel (2 Sam. 13;
15; 16-17; 1 Kgs 1.12), the high estimation of the societal roles of wise men and women (2 Sam. 14; 15; 20; 16.23),
and the occasionally ambiguous nature, from an ‘ethical’ point of view, of the designation of a person as a possessor
of wisdom (2 Sam 13; 15.32-37; 1 Kgs 1.12; 2.6).” Carole R. Fontaine, “The Bearing of Wisdom on the Shape of 2
Samuel 11-12 and 1 Kings 3,” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB 5
18
Meir Malul, “Absalom’s Chariot and Fifty Runners (II Sam 15,1) and Hittite Laws § 198: Legal Proceedings in
the Ancient Near East,” ZAW 122 (2010): 49.
178
father,19 this resulted in “his usurpation of his father’s role.”20 Nevertheless, he seemed to
acknowledge his father’s authority, in that he fled to another country (2 Sam 13:34, 37). Besides,
he went in to David’s ten concubines when ascending his father’s throne.21 As David walked on
a roof of the king’s house (‫ ;וי ְתהלְֵך֙ על־ג֣ג בֵ ית־ה ַ֔ ֶמלְֶך‬2 Sam 11:2), his servants pitched the tent on the
roof for Absalom (‫ ;לְ א ְבׁשָ לֶ֛ ֹום הָ אֵֹ֖ הֶ ל על־הגָ ֑ג וי ִ֧טּו‬2 Sam 16:22). According to Danna Nolan Fewell,
“the definite article in the Hebrew text indicates premeditation.”22 Therefore, the definite article
in this case evokes the roof that previously David walked on. At the same time, it means that
with his followers’ assistance, Absalom was thoroughly prepared to have sexual intercourse with
the concubines.23
Absalom was too much like David. He outdid his father in using cunning to take
political power. After meeting with David in the court (2 Sam 14:33), he decided to become the
king of Israel instead of his father, who was weak and undecided about the problem. Absalom
was escorted by guards, like a strong king (2 Sam 15:1).24 He also acted as a judge25 with a
19
David Daube, “Absalom and the Ideal King,” VT 48 (1998): 319.
20
David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978),
90.
21
Gunn (The Story of King David, 90) insists that Absalom usurped his father’s sexual role in this case.
22
Danna Nolan Fewell, “Judges,” in Women’s Bible Commentary: Expended Edition with Apocrypha, eds. Carol A.
Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 81.
23
J. Cheryl Exum also elucidates that the roof in 2 Sam 16:22 functions “as a reminder that this is where David’s
crime began.” J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge:
Trinity Press International, 1993), 176.
24
David (even Saul) had never appeared to the public like this figure.
25
Fokkelman insists that “David was an ideal judge . . . and his judgement delivered to the widow also went in
favour of none other than Absalom himself.” J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A
Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses: Volume I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2),
SSN 20 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 168. In addition, Absalom’s word ‫ מי־יְ ש ֵ ֵ֥מני‬in 2 Sam 15:4 (mî with imperfect)
literally means an “unfulfilled” wish. See GKC, §151.a.1; WHS, 122.
179
tender and chivalrous heart for the Israelites, to steal their hearts and to take his father’s political
power (2 Sam 15:2-6),26 because king David was not doing enough to perform his duty as a
judge in his thinking.27 In spite of that, the very last words of Absalom ‫“( וְ הצְ דקְ ַֽתיו‬I would bring
him [everyone] justice”) in 2 Sam 15:4 reveal that justice (‫ )צֶ דֶ ק‬is on David’s side, as Zadok
(‫ )צָ דֹוק‬is always with David28 and portrays him negatively.29 As Conroy observes, “Absalom
wanted to be set up as špṭ bʼrṣ (15,4) instead of David, but it is the Lord who has the last word
and acts as špṭ in favour of David.”30
David’s counselor Ahithophel also made him superior to David. Absalom’s father
secretly committed adultery with another man’s wife, but taking Ahithophel’s first advice,
Absalom openly raped his father’s concubines (2 Sam 16:22). It is not difficult to conceive of
Absalom’s intercourse with his father’s concubines as the fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy in 2
Sam 12:11 (‫)וְ ׁשָ כב֙ עם־נָׁשֶַ֔ יך לְ ֵעינֵ ֵ֖י ה ֶ ֵ֥שמֶ ׁש ה ַֽז ֹאת‬, but we can assume that there were plenty of other fish
in the narrative sea to fulfill Nathan’s prophecy. If Absalom had not done so against his father,
Yahweh would have fulfilled His plan in a different way. Unfortunately, Absalom decided to
26
Stephen Russell asserts that “the narrative understands this Israelite collective as being composed of its tribes and
its towns, and acknowledges the tension between the distributed power of Israel’s tribes and towns and the
centralized power wielded by the reigning king.” Stephen C. Russell, “Gate and Town in 2 Sam 15:1: Collective
Politics and Absalom’s Strategy,” JAH 3 (2015): 15.
27
P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 356. In the parable of Nathan and the
petition of the wise woman of Tekoa, David looked like the just judge. However, his judgements (1. He shall repay
the lamb fourfold [2 Sam 12:6]; 2. Bring back the boy Absalom! [2 Sam 14:21]) lead to his four sons’ deaths and
Absalom’s rebellion. So Absalom seemed to want to be a fair judge, unlike his father. About the relationship
between fourfold reimbursement and the four sons’ deaths (the dead child in 2 Sam 12:18, Amnon, Absalom, and
Adonijah), see Keith Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom (London: Routledge, 2014), 31.
28
Francis Landy, “David and Ittai,” in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, eds. Tod
Linafelt, et al., ex (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 35.
29
Robert Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three 2
30
Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20, AnBib 81 (Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1978), 68.
180
wade in deeper to become the active achiever of the prophecy intentionally.
Table 36. The Similarities between David and Absalom
David Absalom
Outward He was ruddy with beautiful He was very beautiful and
appearance eyes and a beautiful unblemished (2 Sam 14:25).
appearance, but small (1 Sam
16:11-12).
Escape from the hand of king Saul from the hand of king David
Rape another man’s wife his father’s concubines
Popularity The women of all the cities of He stole the hearts of the
Israel sang for him (1 Sam men of Israel (2 Sam 15:6,
18:6-7). 12-13).
Yahweh Yahweh was with him (1 Sam Yahweh wanted to bring evil
16:18; 17:37;18:12, 14, 28; 2 to him (2 Sam 17:14).31
Sam 5:10; 7:3, 9; 14:17; 1
Kgs 3:6).
2.2. The Imperfect Thief
Although Absalom acted as a good facilitator of Nathan’s oracle, Yahweh decided to frustrate the
beautiful (‫טֹובה‬
ָ ַ֔ ‫ )ה‬advice of Ahithophel in order that He might bring evil on Absalom (2 Sam
17:14). Absalom perfectly stole the hearts of the men of Israel (2 Sam 15:6, 12-13), but he could
not purloin Yahweh’s mind. It would be fair to say that Yahweh did not stand on his side because
“he is motivated to act erroneously by his own bad nature–his ambitiousness, his narcissism, and
similar traits–when he rebels against his father.”32 Several wise people were related to
31
David prayed to Yahweh, “make foolish the advice of Ahithophel (2 Sam 15:31).” But Yahweh answered his
prayer in a different way. His prayer reveals that he still believed in Yahweh in this terrible situation. See Michael A.
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?: A Literary Study of the Importance of Joab’s Character in Relation to David,
StBibLit 76 (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 48.
32
Michael Avioz, “Divine Intervention and Human Error in the Absalom Narrative,” JSOT 37 (2013): 347.
181
vicissitudes in the life of Absalom. However, his unblemished appearance and Yahweh’s plan
made him follow not the beautiful counsel of Ahithophel, but the wrong advice of Hushai.
Table 37. The Relationship between Absalom and the Wise Characters
Wise character Advice Result

Jonadab Jonadab gave advice to Amnon He made Absalom a strong
to cure his lovesickness (2 Sam candidate for the next king.
13:5).
The wise woman of The woman hoped David would David allowed Absalom to
Tekoa help her in her trouble (2 Sam return to Jerusalem.
14:4-17).
The description of Absalom’s and his daughter Tamar’s outward appearance
(2 Sam 14:25-27)
Ahithophel He advised Absalom to rape the Absalom’s political power
father’s concubines (2 Sam increased, but Yahweh hated him
16:21). because of his own
wrongdoings.33
He advised a surprise attack to Absalom and his followers did
kill king David (2 Sam 17:1-2). not follow Ahithophel’s counsel.
This led to the death of Absalom
and Ahithophel.
The wise woman of The woman did not want to She saved the city (the mother in
Abel Beth-maacah34 destroy a city and a mother in Israel) from the hand of Joab.
Israel (2 Sam 20:16-19).
33
Avioz (“Divine Intervention,” 347) elucidates that “Nathan’s oracle will be fulfilled according to the divine plan,
but this does not contradict divine retribution punishing Absalom as responsible for his own errors.” Richard Smith
also argues that Absalom was “portrayed as taking full responsibility for his action.” Richard G. Smith, The Fate of
Justice and Righteousness during David’s Reign: Narrative Ethics and Rereading the Court History according to 2
Samuel 8:15-20:26, LHBOTS 508 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 156.
34
The city’s name is associated with Absalom’s mother Maacah (2 Sam 3:3) or his daughter Maacah/Tamar (1 Kgs
15:10). It literally means “the mourning of the house of Maacah.” See Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise
Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative, JSOTSup 255 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997), 190. Therefore, the city’s name reminds the reader of Absalom’s death. In addition, the wise woman of
Abel Beth-maacah saved Absalom’s family symbolically. Even though Joab killed Absalom without hesitation, the
wise woman prevented him from demolishing the city with her wisdom. Eschelbach (Has Joab Foiled David, 61)
urges that “Joab . . . shows wisdom in his strategy in war and in his willingness to accept . . . the wise woman of
Beth Maacah.” See also Matthew Schwartz and Kalman Kaplan, The Fruit of Her Hands: A Psychology of Biblical
Woman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 60.
182
The narrator seems to emphasize that Absalom stood at the center of the political stage,
surrounded by the wise, without the aid of his attractive physical appearance in the first part of
the story. In the next step, the reader realizes that Absalom was so beautiful that there was no
blemish in his whole body. It is not hard to guess that his outward appearance exerted a favorable
influence upon the Israelites to gain political power, but his physical attractiveness signals that
his path to becoming the king of Israel will not be easy. Although he had extraordinary
handsomeness and tremendous popularity with the public, these things could not make him the
king of Israel spontaneously. Without wisdom and the right choice (Ahithophel or Hushai;
Yahweh or the people), his physical beauty led him and his followers to destruction.
Furthermore, the story effectively shows that the rebellion decreased David’s political power and
splintered his family.
3. Adonijah, a Self-Styled King
Adonijah is the last beautiful character in the DN. As we have discussed in the preceding chapter,
Adonijah was a strong candidate for the throne after Absalom died. If he had become the next
king of Israel, we would not be surprised. However, this handsome son did not become the king,
but was killed by another candidate for the throne. Not surprisingly, it is to be expected that he
would experience a fate similar to another handsome character in the DN, because he looks like
another Absalom in the story.35
35
For their similarities, see Table 38.
183
As Tomoo Ishida argues, “Judging from the political situation at that time, he had no
reason to be in a hurry to seize the throne by force. He was expected by the people to succeed
David, and David’s remaining days were numbered.”36 He had the full qualifications of outward
appearance and personal precedence for succession to the throne. Consumed with ambition for
the kingship, however, he seems to throw himself into hasty actions37 with abandon and without
a careful analysis of the situation at that time. Ironically, the suitability of his outward
appearance for the throne reveals that he himself was not suitable for the capacity.
3.1. Very Handsome Adonijah
The path of Absalom’s life closely parallels Adonijah’s. The flow of each story is very similar, as
seen in the table below. I assert that the Hebrew word ‫ גם‬in 1 Kgs 1:6 functions as an important
link between these two stories about two handsome characters, because their beauty makes them
36
Tomoo Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith and His Supporters: An Inquiry into Problems about History and
Historiography,” in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures, eds. Richard Elliott Friedman and H.G.
M. Williamson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 172.
37
On Adonijah’s imprudentness, see Erin E. Fleming’s explanation, as follows:
Adonijah is presented as not overly calculating in his politics and is no match for the shrewd
Solomon. In 1 Kings 1 he fails to secure David’s public support for his succession or to deal with
the Solomonic faction in time. His followers flee as soon as David announces that Solomon will
be king after him, and Adonijah begs for mercy rather than fleeing and attempting to regroup.
Likewise, in 1 Kings 2:13-25, he most likely does not attribute any ulterior motives to Solomon.
Possibly Adonijah assumes that he has made a fair request since he has made peace with his
brother the king. Since David did not have intercourse with Abishag (1 Kgs 1:4), Adonijah must
think it is within his rights and not inappropriate to ask for her in marriage, but he pays the price
for his misjudgment.
Erin E. Fleming, “The Politics of Sexuality in the Story of King David” (PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University,
2013), 211-12.
184
leading candidates for the throne and indicates their fate in each story. The narrator makes the
readers feel as if they can imagine the previous kings (Saul and David) and also Adonijah’s older
brother Absalom.38 We know that the previous kings and Absalom were handsome. So it is
obvious that the narrator intends the reader to think of Adonijah as one of the suitable successors
to the throne. At the same time, the narrator prefigures that he will go the way of Absalom.
Table 38. The Similarities between Adonijah and Absalom
Common factor Absalom Adonijah

The eldest after Amnon’s death after Absalom’s death (1 Kgs 1:6)
surviving son of ‫וְ אֹ ֵ֥תֹו יָלְ ָ ֵ֖דה אח ֵ ֲֵ֥רי א ְבׁשָ לַֽ ֹום׃‬
David
Somebody had 2 Sam 14:25 1 Kgs 1:6
spoiled them ‫ל ֹא־הָ יָ ִ֧ה איׁש־יָפֶ ֶ֛ה בְ כָל־י ְש ָר ֵ ֵ֖אל לְ ה ֵל֣ל ְמאֹ֑ ד‬ ָ‫וְ ַֽל ֹא־עֲצָ ב֙ ֹו אָ ִּ֤ביו מיָמָ יו֙ לֵאמַֹ֔ ר מ ֵ֖דּוע כָ ֣ כָה ע ָ֑שית‬
Outward 2 Sam 14:25 1 Kgs 1:6
appearance ‫איׁש־יָפֶ ֶ֛ה ְבכָל־י ְש ָר ֵ ֵ֖אל לְ ה ֵל֣ל ְמאֹ֑ ד‬ ‫ם־הּוא ַֽטֹוב־תֹֹּ֙ אר֙ ְמ ַ֔ ֹאד‬
ִּ֤ ‫וְ ג‬
Rebellion
Preparation 2 Sam 15:1 1 Kgs 1:5
‫ויִּ֤עש לֹו֙ אבְ ׁשָ ַ֔לֹום מֶ ְרכ ָָבֵ֖ה וְ ס ֑סים וחֲמ ֵ֥שים‬ ‫וי֣עש ַ֗לֹו ֶ֚רכֶב ּופָ ָ֣ר ַׁ֔שים וחֲמ ֵ֥שים ֵ֖איׁש ָר ֵ֥צים לְ פ ָָנַֽיו׃‬
‫ֵ֖איׁש ָר ֵ֥צים לְ פ ָָנַֽיו׃‬
Counselor 2 Sam 15:31 1 Kgs 1:739
‫אֲ חיתֵֹ֥ פֶל בקֹ ְׁש ֵ֖רים עם־א ְבׁשָ ל֑ ֹום‬ ‫יֹואב בֶ ן־צְ רּו ַָ֔יה וְ ֵ֖עם אֶ בְ י ָ ָ֣תר הכֹ ֵה֑ן‬
֣ ָ ‫ויהְ י֣ ּו ְדבָ ָ ַ֔ריו ֚עם‬
Strategy for 2 Sam 16:22 1 Kgs 2:17
usurping the ‫ל־ּפלגְ ֵ ׁ֣שי אָ ַ֔ביו לְ ֵעינֵ ֵ֖י כָל־‬
ַֽ ֶ‫ו ָי ִּ֤ב ֹא אבְ ׁשָ לֹום֙ א‬ ‫יׁשג השּונ ֵ֖מית לְ א ָ ַֽשה׃‬ ֵ֥ ‫ן־לי אֶ ת־אֲב‬ ֶ֛ ֶ‫וְ ית‬
throne ‫י ְש ָר ֵ ַֽאל׃‬
Fate of their 2 Sam 17:23 1 Kgs 2:34
counselor ‫ויֵחָ נ֑ק ו ָָּ֕ימָ ת‬ ‫ע־בֹו ויְ מ ֵ ֑תהּו‬
ֵ֖ ‫ויפְ ג‬
Their own fate 2 Sam 18:15 1 Kgs 2:25
‫יתהּו׃‬ ַֽ ‫וי ֵ֥כּו אֶ ת־א ְבׁשָ לֵ֖ ֹום ויְ מ‬ ‫ע־בֹו ויָמַֹֽ ת‬
ֵ֖ ‫ויפְ ג‬
Other things
Fleeing from 2 Sam 13:37 1 Kgs 1:50
the king ‫וְ אבְ ׁשָ ל֣ ֹום בָ ַ֔רח ויֵ ֶ֛לְֶך אֶ ל־תלְ ֵ֥מי‬ ‫ויָ ַ֣֖קָ ם ו ֵַ֔ילְֶך וַַֽ֖יחֲזֵ ֵ֖ק בְ ק ְרנֵ֥ ֹות המז ֵ ְַֽבח׃‬
38
Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith,” 173.
39
Ahithophel was with Absalom, but Adonijah’s words were with Joab and Abiathar. It seems to show that
Adonijah had always had his own ideas about things. Although wisdom is found in people who take advice,
Adonijah was not that kind of person.
185
The king’s 2 Sam 14:24 1 Kgs 1:53

order ‫ו ִּ֤י ֹאמֶ ר ה ֶ֙מלְֶך֙ יסֹ֣ ב אֶ ל־בֵ ַ֔יתֹו‬ ‫יתך׃‬
ַֽ ֶ ֵ‫ו ַֽי ֹאמֶ ר־לֵ֥ ֹו ְׁשֹלמֵֹ֖ ה לֵ ְֵ֥ך לְ ב‬
In addition, the DN’s descriptive pattern for beautiful people heightens the tension in the
story. Even though the Hebrew words ‫ ָיפֶה‬and ‫ טֹוב‬can be used interchangeably to describe
characters’ appearances in the narrative,40 we do not know why the narrator chooses which word
to portray each beautiful character. Interestingly, the narrator picks both words up to describe
David’s physical attractiveness. Furthermore, only three characters (David, Bathsheba and
Adonijah) are portrayed with ‫טֹוב‬, as in the case of king Saul outside the DN. When the reader
meets another beautiful character at the end of the DN, he or she easily foresees that the beautiful
character will fall into a terrible situation because of the previous stories about beauty in the DN.
Figure 11. Two Beautiful Groups in the DN
40
Yael Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 545 (New York: T&T
Clark, 2012), 169.
186
The reader feels tension when hearing that Adonijah is ‫טֹוב‬: He could be king because of the
word ‫ טֹוב‬in the previous cases of two kings, or not as in the case of Absalom. The narrator adds
that Adonijah looks like the son of David and Bathsheba, because of the word ‫טֹוב‬. Literally, he
is ‫( גם‬also) ‫טֹוב‬, as David and Bathsheba (and Saul) were ‫טֹוב‬. So the word ‫ גם‬points to a
relationship among these characters in the DN. Furthermore, Solomon must be handsome (‫)טֹוב‬
genetically, but the narrator does not mention his outward appearance, instead emphasizing his
wisdom.41 This seems to mean that Adonijah is fit to be the king of Israel, in that people can
only see others’ outward appearance, but physical beauty is not enough to be the king of Israel.
As we experienced in the case of David in 1 Sam 16, Yahweh sees the candidates’ minds.
Adonijah is conceited (1 Kgs 1:5), but Solomon hides his candle under a bushel (1 Kgs 3:7).
Absalom is ‫ טֹוב‬like king David and king Saul, but the king hands his kingship over physically
to un-‫ טֹוב‬Solomon.
3.2. Solomon, the New King
Solomon certainly was not Bathsheba’s second-born son,42 because 1 Chron 3:5 mentions that
“these were the children born to him there (Jerusalem): Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon.
These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel.”43 Nevertheless, Solomon became the next
41
J. Blenkinsopp asserts that “one motif which is found . . . in the David narratives . . . is the beauty and divine
wisdom of the king.” J. Blenkinsopp, “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam XI 2ff) and the Yahwist
Corpus,” in Volume du Congrès: Genève: 1965, eds. G. W. Anderson, et al., VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 50.
42
The first-born was the dead baby without a name (2 Sam 12:28).
43
Solomon was “Bathsheba’s fourth and David’s tenth (!) son.” Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the
Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11, LHBOTS 436 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 114-15. See also 2
Sam 5:14.
187
king of Israel. Intentionally or not, there are two supporters for Bathsheba and baby Solomon in
2 Sam 11-12. One is Joab, who helped David to kill Uriah her husband in the battle field. David
married Bathsheba as a result, and she bore Solomon, the next king. If it had not been for Joab,
“she would not have married David but would have been executed for adultery. By killing Uriah,
Joab saves her and David and makes their marriage possible.”44 However, Joab supports
Adonijah in 1 Kgs 1-2 (especially in 1 Kgs 1:7), and ends up dead as the result. Why did he
change his mind from Solomon (or Bathsheba) to Adonijah? Garsiel’s explanation that “Joab
contrived Uriah's murder out of enmity towards Bathsheba and knows that neither she nor
Solomon will forgive him”45 sounds fairly plausible.
Another explanation is that Nathan “took the initiative by reporting to Bathsheba that
Adonijah had seized the kingship and then proceed[ed] to give her ‘counsel.’”46 Even though he
reprimanded David for his adultery, he did not reproach Bathsheba. Nathan seemed to be
confident that she was a victim in the adultery.47 So Nathan became Solomon’s advocate from
birth onward, in that he named Solomon Jedidiah (2 Sam 12:25). As Isaac Kalimi insists, the fact
that the baby Solomon had two names–one from his parents and one from Nathan–indicates “the
legal and divinely authorized status of the ‘future king’ who will succeed David rather than his
elder half-brother, Adonijah.”48
44
Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach,” CBQ 55 (1993): 254.
45
Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 254.
46
Gwilym H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives, JSOTSup 80 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 49.
47
Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 255.
48
Isaac Kalimi, “Reexamining 2 Samuel 10-12: Reduction History versus Compositional Unity,” CBQ 78 (2016):
46.
188
As previously mentioned, Solomon was Bathsheba’s fifth son. However, the narrator
portrays him as being born after the dead child in 2 Sam 12:24. Bathsheba’s three sons between
the dead son and Solomon disappear in this verse. The narrator seems to use a literary technique
to show that Solomon will be the king of Israel. The narrator makes baby Solomon David’s
eighth son in 2 Sam 12:24, as king David was Jesse’s eighth son (1 Sam 16:10-12).
Table 39. The Birth Order of Jesse’s and David’s Sons
Jesse’s sons Order David’s son In 2 Sam 12 Sons’

mother
Eliab (1 Sam 16:6) First Amnon (2 Sam 3:2; 1 Ahinoam
Chron 3:1)
Abinadab (1 Sam Second Chileab/ Daniel (2 Abigail:
16:8) Sam 3:3; 1 Chron 3:1) beautiful
Shammah (1 Sam Third Absalom (2 Sam 3:3; Maacah
16:9) 1 Chron 3:2)
no name (1 Sam Fourth Adonijah (2 Sam 3:4; Haggith
16:10) 1 Chron 3:2)
Fifth Shephatiah (2 Sam Abital
3:4; 1 Chron 3:3)
Sixth Ithream (2 Sam 3:5; 1 Eglah
Chron 3:3)
Seventh Shammua/ Shimea (2 The dead-
Sam 5:14; 1 Chron son (2 Sam
3:5) 12:15) Bathsheba:
David Eighth Shobab (2 Sam 5:14; deleted Solomon beautiful
1 Chron 3:5) (2 Sam
12:24)
Ninth Nathan (2 Sam 5:14; 1
Chron 3:5)
Tenth Solomon (2 Sam
5:14; 1 Chron 3:5)
If so, where is the son of the beautiful and wise Abigail, Chileab? He should be a strong
candidate for the next king, in that he is David’s second son and his mother was even beautiful.
189
Although Anderson maintains that “Chileab . . . may have died earlier,”49 there is no information
about his death in the narrative. Perhaps his mother’s wisdom saved her son from the power
struggle among the siblings.
Unlike active Adonijah, Solomon was “the passive recipient of monarchical favor
(‘made king,’ v 43b; ‘made to ride’ David’s own mount, v 44b; anointed and acclaimed by
others; enthroned by God’s action, not by his own, v 48).”50 However, he loved Yahweh actively
and walked in the statutes of his father David (1 Kgs 3:3).51 Surely Yahweh saw not his physical
appearance but his mind at that time. This is what made him the new king. Furthermore, even
though the narrator introduces king David as the standard–“God’s man”–and introduces king
Solomon as the follower of his father,52 they also both followed human ways.53 So the story
unveils a tension between Yahweh’s grace and human failure,54 Yahweh’s wisdom and people’s
foolishness.55
49
A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Waco, TX: Word Books,1989), 172.
50
Burke O. Long, “A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah,” JSOT 19 (1981): 86.
51
About Solomon’s wisdom, Fontaine (“The Bearing of Wisdom,” 153) argues that “the foolish father who walked
about on the palace roof is evoked in the introduction of his son in v. 3, ‘Solomon loved the Lord, walking (lāleket)
in the statutes of David his father’ (cf. v. 6).”
52
According to Deut 17:14-20, “(1) the king would be one chosen by Yahweh from among the Israelites; there
could be no foreign kings; (2) he should not multiply horses, wives, or silver and gold for himself; (3) he should not
return the people to Egypt; and (4) he must make a copy of the law for himself and must live by it.” E. Theodore
Mullen, Jr., Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries, SemeiaSt 24 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 202.
53
Eschelbach (Has Joab Foiled David, 9) argues that “David is a well-known biblical character, yet his character is
elusive.”
54
Noll argues that “David is fully human in his anguished cry for his son, Absalom, fully monster in his written
order of execution sent by the hand of Uriah.” K. L. Noll, The Faces of David, JSOTSup 242 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997), 63. Edwin Good insists that “with Uriah, he had done all he could, short of using his own
weapon, to take his life. With injustice, then David succeeded. With mercy, he failed.” Edwin M. Good, Irony in the
Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 37. Therefore, Yahweh’s acknowledgment of David as His
man is the result of His grace.
55
Many scholars insist that the narrator portrays Solomon negatively because of his bad doings against Yahweh. On
the scholarly arguments, see Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment, JSOTSup 297 (Sheffield:
190
4. Conclusion
These two handsome sons posed a serious threat to David’s kingship. Absalom weakened his
father’s political power and Adonijah terminated his father’s reign. Even though they had
satisfied all the external requisites to be king, Solomon became the king of Israel at the
conclusion of the DN. As David’s weakmindedness promoted Absalom’s rebellion, “David’s
infirmity sparks Adonijah, and helps Nathan and Bathsheba succeed.”56 Absalom’s declaration
(“Absalom is king”; 2 Sam 15:10) as well as Adonijah’s (“I will be king”; 1 Kgs 1:5) disclose
David’s powerlessness and weakness politically and physically, but without hesitation Yahweh
makes not someone beautiful and strong but someone small and weak the next king of Israel.57
Table 40. Fathers’ and Yahweh’s Concern for the Kings and the Candidates in the DN
His father Yahweh Result

David indifference (1 Sam with him Chosen
16:11)
Absalom His father longed to no mention Removed
go out to him despite
his murder (2 Sam
13:39).
Adonijah His father had not no mention Removed
displeased him (1 Kgs
1:6).
Solomon no mention He loved Yahweh (1 Chosen
Kgs 3:3). Yahweh
also favoured his
request (1 Kgs 3:10).
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 111-12, n. 21-22.

56
Long, “A Darkness Between Brothers,” 86.
57
Thomas Preston elucidates that “this pattern can be called the ‘rise of the lowly, fall of the mighty.’” Thomas R.
Preston, “The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship,” JSOT 24 (1982): 28.
191
The facts in the table emphasize that the most important element for being king of Israel was not
parental love or people’s praise, but grace in the sight of Yahweh. Nonetheless, there is mounting
tension with king Solomon because of his “sinful origin ([2 Sam] chapters 11-12) and . . . his
godless rise to power by means of intrigue and political murders (1 Kgs 1-2).”58
58
Petri Kasari, Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel 7 and Related Texts, PFES 97 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society,
2009), 96.
Conclusion
In the DN, as in other Hebrew Bible narratives, many different characters emerge on the
narrative stage. The narrator, however, does not describe all the characters equally. Michal Beth
Dinkler argues that “biblical writers strategically include only the most necessary information,
and leave certain details ambiguous in order to reflect the paradoxical nature of the human
person.”1 When select characters enter a scene in the DN, the narrator introduces their attractive
outward appearance with the Hebrew words ‫ ָיפֶה‬or ‫טֹוב‬. Given the brevity with which characters
are typically described, might there be some significance to the narrator’s choice to add such a
descriptor?
When one analyzes stories in the DN that mention the characters’ attractive outward
appearance, one finds that the narrator seems to be using these physical descriptions as a literary
device to string together the various stories related to those characters in the DN.
We come to realize that David’s political power changes every time the beautiful
characters appear on the narrative stage. A close relationship between David and the beautiful
characters plays an important role in his political power, for example in gaining the kingship of
Israel, gradually reducing his political power, and destabilizing his kingship.
The narrator chooses these words ‫ ָיפֶה‬or ‫ טֹוב‬in order to intensify the coherent
dynamics of each story related to the beautiful characters in the DN. These words not only
1
Michal Beth Dinkler, Silent Statements: Narrative Representations of Speech and Silence in the Gospel of Luke
(BZNW 191; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 38.
192
193
function to draw the reader into the narrator’s thematic orbit,2 as they concern beauty, but also to
allow the reader to anticipate the narrative flow, which involves the rise and fall of the Davidic
kingship and warns of the power of beauty.
Figure 12. The Changes of David’s Political Power

with the Beautiful Characters in the DN3
2
In the case of the DN, the stories of the beautiful characters are placed on the thematic orbit. Each story helps to
reveal the narrator’s thinking about the beauty. The technical terms lead the reader to enter into the thematic orbit
and consider what the narrator means when a character is described as beautiful. So, if the reader is within the
thematic orbit, the reader can easily grasp the narrator’s concept about beauty and anticipate how each story and the
whole narrative will end in the case of the DN.
The narrator mentions several stories for revealing his thinking about beauty in the DN. It is that man
looks at the outward appearance, but Yahweh looks at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). In the case of the DN, the thematic
center is the narrator’s thinking about beauty. So if, the thematic center is the sun, the thematic orbit is the way the
earth revolves around the sun. If the reader enters into the narrator’s thematic orbit, he or she can easily catch the
narrator’s intention of the narrative, because each story in the DN is located on the thematic orbit.
3
The figure is modified from Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 47.
194
In addition, each story involving beautiful characters in the DN is well constructed to show how
David gains, maintains, and loses political power in Israel. This study focuses on one particular
example of how a narrative technique, namely the use of characters’ outward appearance, reveals
the narrator’s fuller intentions to the reader. This study shows that the repetitions in the narrative
play an important role in delivering the narrator’s message, as they are one of the crucial keys to
interpreting the whole narrative. Additionally, this study has shown how these characters,
described in a particular way, affect the whole narrative flow. A single prominent word related to
a character trait can perform a significant function in the narrative.
Through this study, I have uncovered the narrator’s intention using easily overlooked
factors in the narrative. I have shown how the narrator conveys his message to the reader
effectively, efficiently and consistently by using certain words in combination with his
theological concept of beauty, as found in 1 Sam 16:7. This study suggests that other repeated
descriptions used in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible also merit re-examination.
195
Bibliography
Abasili, Alexander Izuchukwu. “Was It Rape?: The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re
-examined.” VT 61 (2011): 1-15.
Abbott, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2002.
Ackerman, James S. “Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2
Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2.” JBL 109 (1990): 41-64.
Ackermann, Denise M. “Tamar’s Cry: Rereading an Ancient Text in the Midst of an HIV/AIDS
Pandemic.” Pages 191-219 in Character Ethics and the Old Testament. Edited by M.
Daniel Carroll R. and Jacqueline E. Lapsley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Adelman, Rachel E. The Female Ruse: Women’s Deception and Divine Sanction in the Hebrew
Bible. HBM 74. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015.
Alter, Robert. Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings: A
Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013.
________. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Rev. New York: Basic Books, 2011.
Amit, Yairah. In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect.
Translated by Betty Sigler Rozen. HBM 39. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012.
________. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2001.
________. “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12-30): The Form and the Message.” Pages 97-123 in
Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1989.
Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel. WBC 11. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.
Anderson, Janice Capel. Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again. JSNTSup
91. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.
Anthes, Rudolf. “Egyptian Theology in the Third Millennium B.C..” JNES 18 (1959): 169-212.
Arnold, Bill T. 1 & 2 Samuel. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

196
Ash, Paul S. David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment. JSOTSup 297. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999.
Assis, Elie “The Structure and Meaning of the Samson Narratives: Jud. 13-16.” Pages 1-12 in
Samson: Hero or Fool?: The Many Faces of Samson. Edited by Erik Eynikel and Tobias
Nicklas. TBN 17. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Assmann, Jan. The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Translated
by Andrew Jenkins. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Samuel. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011.
Avioz, Michael. “Divine Intervention and Human Error in the Absalom Narrative.” JSOT 37
(2013): 339-47.
________. “The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings.” VT 59 (2009): 341-59.
Avrahami, Yael. The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible. LHBOTS
545. New York: T&T Clark, 2012.
Bach, Alice. “The Pleasure of Her Text.” USQR 43 (1989): 41-58.
Bailey, Randall C. David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12. JSOTSup
75. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Baker, Robin. Hallow Men, Strange Women: Riddles, Codes and Otherness in the Book of
Judges. BibInt 143. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Bakon, Shimon. “Jonadab, “Friend” of Amnon.” JBQ 43 (2015): 101-5.
Bal, Mieke. Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. ISBL 434.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.
________. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2009.
Balentine, Samuel. Job. SHBC. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2006.
Bar, Shaul. God’s First King: The Story of Saul. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2013.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.
197
Beck, John A. “David and Goliath, A Story of Place: The Narrative-Geographical Shaping of 1
Samuel 17.” WTJ 68 (2006): 321-30.
Beek, M. A. “David and Absalom: A Hebrew Tragedy in Prose?” Pages 155-68 in Voice from
Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative. Translated and
Edited by Martin Kessler. SemeiaSt 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.
Bellis, Alice Ogden. Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible. 2nd
ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Bennema, Cornelis. A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress,

2014.
Berger, Yitzhak. The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimḥi to Chronicles: A Translation with
Introduction and Supercommentary. BJS 345. Providence: Brown University Press,
2007.
Berlin, Adele. “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives.” JSOT 23 (1982): 69-85.
________. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983.
Berman, Joshua A. Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
________. “Double Meaning in the Parable of the Poor Man’s Ewe (2 Sam 12:1-4).” JHebS
13.14 (2013): 1-17.
Biddle, Mark E. “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization.” JBL
121 (2002): 617-38.
________. Reading Judges. LTC. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2012.
Billington, Clyde E. “Goliath and the Exodus Giant: How Tall Were They?” JETS 50 (2007):
489-508.
Blenkinsopp, J. “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam XI 2ff) and the Yahwist
Corpus.” Pages 44-57 in Volume du Congrès: Genève: 1965. Edited by G. W. Anderson,
P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino, Henry Cazelles, E. Hammershaimb, H. G. May, and
W. ZImmerli. VTSup 15. Leiden: Brill, 1966.
Bodner, Keith. 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary. HBM 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press, 2008.
198
________. “Eliab and the Deuteronomist.” JSOT 28 (2003): 55-71.
________. Elisha’s Profile in the Book of Kings: The Double Agent. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2013.
________. The Rebellion of Absalom. London: Routledge, 2014.
Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1983.
Borgman, Paul. David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2008.
Bosworth, David A. The Story within a Story in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. CBQMS 45.
Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008.
Bowman, Richard G. “Narrative Criticism: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence.”
Pages 19-45 in Judges & Methods: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. 2nd ed. Edited
by Gale A. Yee. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
Brenner, Athalya. The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and ‘Sexuality’ in the
Hebrew Bible. BibInt 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Bridge, Edward J. “Desperation to a Desperado: Abigail’s Request to David in 1 Samuel 25.”

ABR 63 (2015): 14-28.
Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel. IBC. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.
Butler, Trent. Judges. WBC 8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009.
Campbell, Antony F. 2 Samuel, FOTL 8. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2005.
Carlson, R. A. David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of
Samuel. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964.
Carman, Amy Smith. “Abigail: The Wise Woman of Carmel.” SCJ 18 (2015): 47-60.
Ceresko, Anthony R. “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (ʽiwwēr ȗpissēaḥ) in 2 Samuel
5:8b.” CBQ 63 (2001): 23-30.
Chankin-Gould, J. D’ror, Derek Huntchinson, David Hilton Jackson, Tyler D. Mayfield, Leah
Rediger Schulte, Tammi J. Schneider, and E. Winkelman. “The Sanctified ‘Adulteress’
199
and Her Circumstantial Clause: Bathsheba’s Bath and Self-Consecration in 2 Samuel

11.” JSOT 32 (2008): 339-52.
Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1978.
Chinitz, Jacob. “Two Sinners.” JBQ 25 (1997): 108-13.
Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. “Cracks in the Foundation: Ominous Signs in the David Narrative.”
BSac 172 (2015): 154-76.
________. “Identity Crisis: Assessing Samson’s Birth and Career.” BS 166 (2009): 147-62.
Clines, David J. A. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible.
JSOTSup 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Coats, George W. “II Samuel 12:1-7a.” Int 40 (1986): 170-5.
Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings. AB 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB 11. New York: Doubleday, 1988.
Cohan, Steven, and Linda M. Shires. Telling Stories: A Theoretical Analysis of Narrative Fiction.
London: Routledge, 1988.
Cohn, Robert L. 2 Kings. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000.
________. “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V.” VT 33 (1983): 171-84.
Conrad, J. “zāqēn.” TDOT 2: 124-31.
Conroy, Charles. Absalom Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20. AnBib 81. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
Coogan, Michael David. “Job’s Children.” Pages 135-47 in Lingering over Words. Edited by
Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller. HSS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1990.
Cooper, Rabbi Howard. “‘Too Tall by Half’: King Saul and Tragedy in the Hebrew Bible,” JPJ 9
(1997): 5-22.
Cordry, Harold V. The Multicultural Dictionary of Proverbs: Over 20,000 Adages from More
200
Than 120 Languages, Nationalities and Ethnic Groups. Jefferson: McFarland, 2005.
Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1989.
Creach, Jerome F. D. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOTSup 217.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. ABRL. New
York: Doubleday, 1998.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983.
Dalley, Stephanie, ed. and trans. Myth from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and
Others. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Daube, David. “Absalom and the Ideal King.” VT 48 (1998): 315-25.
________. “Nathan’s Parable.” NovT 24 (1982): 275-88.
Davidson, Richard M. “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?: A Case Study in Narrative Theology.”
JATS 17 (2006): 81-95.
Dekker, John. “Characterization in the Hebrew Bible: Nabal as a Test Case.” BBR 26 (2016):
311-24.
DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. 2nd ed. WBC 12. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003.
De Wet, Chris L. “Susanna’s Body.” BN 168 (2016): 129-45.
Dinkler, Michal Beth. Silent Statements: Narrative Representations of Speech and Silence in the
Gospel of Luke. BZNW 91. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.
Dohmen, C. “kābēd.” TDOT 7: 13-7.
Dragga, Sam “In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul.” JSOT 38 (1987): 39-46.
Dutton, Kenneth R. The Perfectible Body: The Western Ideal of Physical Development. London:
Cassell, 1995.
Dyrness, William A. “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context.” JETS 28 (1985): 421
201
-32.
Edelman, Diana Vikander. King Saul in the Historiography of Judah. JSOTSup 121. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
Edenburg, Cynthia. Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19-21. AIL
24. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.
Erll, Astrid. “Narratology and Cultural Memory Studies.” Pages 212-27 in Narratology in the
Age of Cross-Disciplinary Narrative Research. Edited by Sandra Heinen and Roy
Sommer. Narratologia 20. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.
Eschelbach, Michael A. Has Joab Foiled David?: A Literary Study of the Importance of Joab’s
Character in Relation to David. StBibLit 76. New York: Peter Lang, 2005.
Esler, Philip F. “2 Samuel–David and the Ammonite War: A Narrative and Social-Scientific
Interpretation of 2 Samuel 10-12.” Pages 191-207 in Ancient Israel: The Old Testament
in Its Social Context. Edited by Philip F. Esler. London: SCM Press, 2005.
________. Sex, Wives, and Warriors: Reading Biblical Narrative with Its Ancient Audience.
Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011.
Eslinger, Lyle. “‘A Change of Heart’: 1 Samuel 16.” Pages 341-61 in Ascribe to the Lord:
Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie. Edited by Lyle Eslinger and
Glen Taylor. JSOTSup 67. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.
Exum, J. Chery. Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)Versions of Biblical Narratives. Valley

Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993.
________. Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representation of Biblical Women. JSOTSup 215.
________. “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga.” VT 33 (1983): 30-45.
________. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge: Cambridge
Fewell, Danna Nolan. “Judges.” Pages 73-83 in Women’s Bible Commentary: Expended Edition
with Apocrypha. Edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1998.
Fiorello, Michael D. “The Physically Disabled in Ancient Israel according to the Old Testament
202
and Ancient Near Eastern Sources.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School,
2008.
Firth, David G. 1&2 Samuel. ApOTC 8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
________. “David and Uriah (with an Occasional Appearance by Uriah’s Wife): Reading and
Re-Reading 2 Samuel 11.” OTE 20 (2008): 310-28.
Fischer, Von Alexander. “David und Batseba: Ein Literarkritischer und Motivgeschichtlicher
Beitrag zu II Sam 11.” ZAW 101 (1989): 50-59.
Flanagan, James W. “Court History or Succession Document?: A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1
Kings 1-2.” JBL 91 (1972): 172-81.
Fleming, Erin E. “The Politics of Sexuality in the Story of King David.” PhD diss., Johns
Hopkins University, 2013.
Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based
on Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2).
SSN 20. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990.
________. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on
Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-21 & II Sam.
1). SSN 23. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986.
________. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on
Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume IV. Vow and Desire (I Sam. 1-12). SSN 31.
Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993.
________. Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide. Translated by Ineke Smit. TBS 1.
Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999.
Fontaine, Carole R. “The Bearing of Wisdom on the Shape of 2 Samuel 11-12 and 1 Kings 3.”
Pages 143-60 in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya
Brenner. FCB 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
________. “The Sharper Harper (1 Samuel 16:14-23): Iconographic Reflections on David’s

Rise to Power.” Pages 135-52 in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a
Biblical Icon. Edited by Tod Linafelt, Claudia V. Camp, and Timothy Beal. LHBOTS
500. New York: T & T Clark, 2010.
Forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel. London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1927.
203
Frandsen, Paul John. “Aspect of Kingship in Ancient Egypt.” Pages 47-73 in Religion and Power
Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Edited by Nicole Brisch. Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008.
Frolov, Serge. Judges. FOTL 6B. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Frontain, Raymond-Jean. “The Trickster Tricked: Strategies of Deception and Survival in the
David Narrative.” Pages 170-92 in Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text.
Edited by Vincent L. Tollers and John Maier. BuR 33.2. Lewisburg: Bucknell University
Press, 1990.
Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. New York: A Harvest Book, 1983.
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories.
New York: Schocken Books, 2002.
Fuchs, Esther. Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman.
JSOTSup 310. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Galpaz-Feller, Pnina. “David and the Messenger-Different Ends, Similar Means in 2 Samuel 1.”
VT 59 (2009): 199-210.
Garsiel, Moshe. The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures,
Analogies and Parallels. Ramat Gan: Revivim Publishing House, 1985.
________. “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach.” CBQ (1993): 244-62.
________. “The Story of David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Samuel 25): A Literary Study of
Wordplay on Names, Analogies, and Socially Structured Opposites.” Pages 66-78 in
Abigail, Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women. Edited by Daniel Bodi.
HBM 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013.
________. “Wit, Words, and a Woman: 1 Samuel 25.” Pages 161-68 in On Humour and the
Comic in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Yehuda T. Radday and Athalya Brenner.
JSOTSup 92. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990.
George, Mark K. “Constructing Identity in 1 Samuel 17.” BibInt 7 (1999): 389-412.
________. “Yhwh’s Own Heart.” CBQ 64 (2002): 442-59.
Goldingay, John. “Eli: The Man for Whom It Was Too Late.” Anvil 16 (1999): 165-72.
204
Good, Edwin M. Irony in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.
Gordon, Robert P. “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24-26.”
TynBul 31 (1980): 37-64.
Green, Barbara. David’s Capacity for Compassion: A Literary-Hermeneutical Study of 1-2

Samuel. LHBOTS 641. London: Bloomsbury, 2017.
________. “Enacting Imaginatively the Unthinkable: 1 Samuel 25 and the Story of Saul.”
BibInt 11 (2003): 1-23.
________. King Saul’s Asking. Interfaces. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003.
Greimas, A. J. Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method. Translated by Daniele McDowell,

Ronald Schleifer, and Alan Velie. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.
Gressmann, Hugo. “The Oldest History Writing in Israel.” Pages 9-58 in Narrative and Novella
in Samuel: Studied by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906-1923. Translated by
David E. Orton. Edited by David M. Gunn. JSOTSup 116. Sheffield: Almond Press,
1991.
Guillaume, Philippe. Waiting for Josiah: The Judges. JSOTSup 385. London: T&T Clark
International, 2004.
Gunn, David M. “Narrative Criticism.” Pages 201-29 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An
Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Edited by Steven L.
McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999.
________. “Samson of Sorrows: An Isaianic Gloss on Judges 13-16.” Pages 225-53 in

Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Danna Nolan
Fewell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
________. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. JSOTSup 14. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1980.
________. The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation. JSOTSup 6. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1978.
Gunn, David M., and Danna Nolan Fewell. Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. New York: Oxford
Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids:
205
Eerdmans, 2001.
Hamilton, Mark W. “At Whose Table?: Stories of Elites and Social Climbers in 1-2 Samuel.” VT
59 (2009): 513-32.
________. The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel. BibInt 78.
Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Harvey, John E. “The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” SJOT 20 (2006): 237-58.
Harvey, W. J. Character and the Novel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965.
Hausmann, Neuendettelslau J. “p’r.” TDOT 11: 464-67.
Hawkins, Ralph K. “The First Glimpse of Saul and His Subsequent Transformation.” BBR 22
(2012): 353-62.
Hays, J. Daniel. “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him?: Narrative Subtlety
in 1 Kings 1-11.” JSOT 28 (2003): 149-74.
________. “Reconsidering the Height of Goliath.” JETS 48 (2005): 701-14.
________. “The Height of Goliath: A Response to Clyde Billington.” JETS 50 (2007): 509-16.
Hens-Piazza, Gina. 1-2 Kings. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Herzberg, Bruce. “Samson’s Moment of Truth.” BibInt 18 (2010): 226-50.
Hess, Richard S. “David and Abishag: The Purpose of 1 Kings 1:1-4.” Pages 427-38 in
Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay
Oded. Edited by Gershon Galil, Mark Geller and Alan Millard. VTSup 130. Leiden:
Brill, 2009.
Hill, Andrew E. “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” JETS 30 (1987): 387-90.
Hobbs, T. R. 2 Kings. WBC 13. Waco: Word Books, 1985.
Hobyane, Risimati. “Body and Space in Judith: A Greimassian Perspective.” BN 168 (2016): 3
-15.
206
Hochman, Baruch. Character in Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
Hubbard, Robert L. Jr. “The Eyes Have It: Theological Reflections on Human Beauty.” EA 13
(1997): 57-72.
Humphreys, W. Lee. “From Tragic Hero to Villain: A Study of the Figure of Saul and the
Development of 1 Samuel.” JSOT 22 (1982): 95-117.
________. “The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31.” JSOT 6
(1978): 18-27.
Hunt, Steven A., D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. “An Introduction to Character
and Characterization in John and Related New Testament Literature.” Pages 1-33 in
Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in
John. Edited by Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann.
WUNT 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Irwin, Brian P. “The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2 Kings 2 and the Prophetic
Authority of Elisha.” TynBul 67 (2016): 23-35.
Ishida, Tomoo. “Adonijah the Son of Haggith and His Supporters: An Inquiry into Problems
about History and Historiography.” Pages 165-87 in The Future of Biblical Studies: The
Hebrew Scriptures. Edited by Richard Elliott Friedman and H. G. M. Williamson.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Janzen, David. “The Condemnation of David’s ‘Taking’ in 2 Samuel 12:1-14.” JBL 131 (2012):
209-20.
________. The Violent Gift: Trauma’s Subversion of the Deuteronomistic History’s Narrative.
LHBOTS 561. New York: T & T Clark, 2012.
Janzen, J. Gerald. “Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh: 1 Samuel 3.15.” JSOT 26
(1983): 89-96.
Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.
Jason, Heda. “The Story of David and Goliath: A Folk Epic?” Bib 60 (1979): 36-70.
Jobling, David. 1 Samuel. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.
________. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible I. 2nd ed.
JSOTSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.
207
Jones, Gwilym H. The Nathan Narratives. JSOTSup 80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1990.
Joo, Samantha. “A Fine Balance between Hope and Despair: The Epilogue to 2 Kings (25:27
-30).” BibInt 20 (2012): 226-43.
Kalimi, Isaac. “Reexamining 2 Samuel 10-12: Reduction History versus Compositional Unity.”
CBQ 78 (2016): 24-46.
________. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2005.
Kaminski, Carol M. Was Noah Good?: Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative. LHBOTS 563.
London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Kasari, Petri. Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel 7 and Related Texts. PFES 97. Helsinki: Finnish
Exegetical Society, 2009.
Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the
Book of Psalms. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Kent, Gernville J. R. Say It Again Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1
Samuel 28. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.
Keys, Gillian. The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the ‘Succession Narrative.’ JSOTSup 221.
Kim, Jean Kyoung. “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story (2 Kings 5).” JSOT 30 (2005): 49
-61.
Kim, Y. Uriah. Identity and Loyalty in the David Story: A Postcolonial Reading. HBM 22.
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.
________. “Uriah the Hittite: A (Con)Text of Struggle for Identity.” Semeia 90-91 (2002): 69-85.
Kissling, Paul J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah
and Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Klein, Lillian R. “Bathsheba Revealed.” Pages 47-64 in Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya
Brenner. FCBS 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
________. The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges. JSOTSup 68. Sheffield: Almond Press,
208
1988.
Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC 10. Waco: Word Books, 1983.
________. 2 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.
Koenig, Sara M. Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization. PTMS 177. Eugene:
Pickwick Publications, 2011.
Konkel, August H. 1 & 2 Kings. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1 - 59. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Kronholm, Madla T. “nāʽam.” TDOT 9: 467-74.
Kruschwitz, Jonathan A. “2 Samuel 12:1-15: How (Not) to Read a Parable.” RevExp 109 (2012):
253-59.
Kurz, William S. “Narrative Models for Imitation in Luke-Acts.” Pages 171-89 in Greek,
Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David L.
Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Landy, Francis. “David and Ittai.” Pages 19-37 in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present
of a Biblical Icon. Edited by Tod Linafelt, Claudia V. Camp, and Timothy Beal.
LHBOTS 500. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.
Lasine, Stuart. “Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: The Reader as Judge of the
Dispute between Mephibosheth and Ziba.” HS 30 (1989): 49-69.
Leithart, Peter J. “Nabal and His Wine.” JBL 120 (2001): 525-27.
Lemaire, André. “The Residency of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 and the Connection between David
and Abraham.” Pages 7-11 in Abigail, Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental
Women. Edited by Daniel Bodi. HBM 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013.
Lemardelé, Christophe. “Note Concerning the Problem of Samson the Nazirite in the Biblical
Studies.” SJOT 30 (2016): 65-68.
Leshem, Yossi. “‘She Painted Her Eyes with Kohl and Dressed Her Hair’: 2 Kings 9:30.”
HUCA 76 (2005): ‫א‬-‫י‬.
Levenson, Jon D. “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History.” CBQ 40 (1978): 11-28.

209
________. “The Last Four Verses in Kings.” JBL 103 (1984): 353-61.
Levenson, Jon D., and Baruch Halpern. “The Political Import of David’s Marriages.” JBL 99
(1980): 507-18.
Linafelt, Tod. “Taking Women in Samuel: Readers/Responses/Responsibility.” Pages 99-113 in

Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Danna Nolan
Fewell. LCBI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
Long, Burke O. 2 Kings. FOTL 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
________. “A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah.” JSOT 19 (1981): 79-94.
Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Lurker, Manfred. The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary. Translated
by Barbara Cummings. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1980.
Lyke, Larry L. King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in
Parabolic Narrative. JSOTSup 255. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Macwilliam, Stuart. “Ideologies of Male Beauty and the Hebrew Bible.” BibInt 17 (2009): 265
-87.
Madl, Graz H. “ṣeḇî.” TDOT 12: 232-38.
Maier, Christl, and Silvia Schroer. “Job: Questioning the Book of the Righteous Sufferer.” Pages
221-39 in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on
the Books of the Bible and Related Literature. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie
-Theres Wacker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Malul, Meir. “Absalom’s Chariot and Fifty Runners (II Sam 15,1) and Hittite Laws § 198: Legal
Proceedings in the Ancient Near East.” ZAW 122 (2010): 44-52.
Marguerat, Daniel, and Yvan Bourquin. How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative
Criticism. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1999.
Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the
Context of the Ancient Near East. OtSt 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Matthews, Victor H. “Freedom and Entrapment in the Samson Narrative: A Literary Analysis.”
PRSt 16 (1989): 245-57.
210
McBride, S. Dean Jr. “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4-5.” Int 27
(1973): 273-306.
McCann, J. Clinton. Judges. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 2002.
McCarter, P. Kyle Jr. I Samuel, AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980.
________. II Samuel. AB 9. New York: Doubleday, 1984.
McCracken, Randy L. “How Many Sons Did Absalom Have?: Intentional Ambiguity as Literary
Art.” BSac 172 (2015): 286-98.
McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Menn, Esther M. “Child Characters in Biblical Narratives: The Young David (1 Samuel 16-17)
and the Little Israelite Servant Girl (2 Kings 5:1-19).” Pages 324-52 in The Child in the
Bible. Edited by Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Mercer, Mark. “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse: A Study of 2 Kings 2:23-25.” AJET 21 (2002): 165
-98.
Merritt, Marilyn. “Repetition in Situated Discourse: Exploring Its Forms and Functions.” Pages
23-36 in Repetition in Discourse Interdisciplinary Perspectives: Volume One. Edited by
Barbara Johnstone. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1994.
Miscall, Peter D. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. ISBL 365. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1986.
________. The Workings of Old Testament Narrative. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Moore, Stephen D. “Biblical Narrative Analysis from the New Criticism to the New
Narratology.” Pages 27-50 in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative. Edited by
Danna Nolan Fewell. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Morrison, Craig E. 2 Samuel. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013.
Mulder, Martin Jan. “Versuch zur Deutung von Sokènèt in 1. Kön. I 2, 4.” VT 22 (1972): 43-54.
Mullen, E. Theodore Jr. Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries. SemeiaSt 24. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1993.
211
Mulzac, Ken. “The Role of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25.” AUSS 40 (2003): 45-53.
Nelson, Richard D. “The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel: ‘The Man behind the Green
Curtain.’” Pages 17-37 in Is Samuel among the Deuteronomist?: Current Views on the
Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History.” Edited by Cynthia Edenburg and Juha
Pakkala. AIL 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.
Nemet-Nejat, Karen. “The Epic of Gilgamesh.” Pages 175-94 in Women in the Ancient Near
East: A Sourcebook. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. London: Routledge, 2014,
Nicol, George G. “David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a
Triangle.” SJOT 12 (1998): 130-45.
________. “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical

Narrative.” JSOT 73 (1997): 43-54.
Niditch, Susan. Judges. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.
________. “Samson as Culture Hero, Trickster, and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak.”
CBQ 52 (1990): 608-24.
Noble, John T. “Another Demand for a King: Women in the Narrative of David’s Rise.” Pages
181-98 in In the Wake of Tikva Frymer-Kensky. Edited by Steven Holloway, JoAnn
Scurlock, and Richard Beal. GPP 4. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009.
Noll, K. L. The Faces of David. JSOTSup 242. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Nolte, S. Philip. “A Politics of the Female Body: Reading Susanna (LXX Additions to Daniel) in
a Brutalized South African Society.” BN 168 (2016): 147-61.
Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.
O’Brien, D. P. “‘Is This the Time to Accept …?’ (2 Kings V 26b): Simply Moralizing (LXX) or
an Ominous Foreboding of Yahweh’s Rejection of Israel (MT)?” VT 46 (1996): 448-57.
Olyan, Saul M. Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Pakkala, Juha. “Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession.” JBL 125 (2006): 443-52.
Pardes, Ilana. “Jemimah.” Pages 99-100 in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and
Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the
212
New Testament. Edited by Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross S. Kraemer. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Park, Suzie. “Left-Handed Benjaminites and the Shadow of Saul.” JBL 134 (2015): 701-20.
Parunak, H. Van Dyke. “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure.” Bib 62 (1981): 153
-68.
Peckham, Brian. “Punctuation Is the Point.” Pages 10-29 in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The
Art of Exegesis. Edited by Mark A. O’Brien and Howard N. Wallace. JSOTSup 415.
London: T&T Clark, 2004.
________. The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1985.
Penchansky, David “Beauty, Power, and Attraction: Aesthetics and the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 47-
65 in Beauty and the Bible: Toward a Hermeneutics of Biblical Aesthetics. Edited by
Richard J. Bautch and Jean-François Racine. SemeiaSt 73. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2013.
Phelan, James. Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology. Columbus: Ohio
State University Press, 1996.
Pigott, Susan M. “Wives, Witches and Wise Women: Prophetic Heralds of Kingship in 1 and 2
Samuel.” RevExp 99 (2002): 145-73.
Polak, Frank. “Literary Study and ‘Higher Criticism’ According to the Tale of David’s
Beginning.” Pages 27-32 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies:
Division A: The Period of The Bible. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986.
Polzin, Robert. David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History:
Part Three. 2 Samuel. ISBL 850. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.
________. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part
One. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. ISBL 848. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1993.
________. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part
Two. 1 Samuel. ISBL 849. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.
Popović, Mladen. Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism. STDJ 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
213
Powell, Mark Allan. “Narrative Criticism.” Pages 240-58 in Hearing the New Testament:
Strategies for Interpretation. 2nd ed. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010.
________. “Types of Readers and Their Relevance for Biblical Hermeneutics.” TSR 12 (1990):
67-76.
________. What Is Narrative Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Preston, Thomas R. “The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early
Kingship.” JSOT 24 (1982): 27-46.
Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1969.
Propp, William H. “Kinship in 2 Samuel 13.” CBQ 55 (1993): 39-53.
Provan, Iain W. 1 and 2 Kings. NIBCOT. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.
Provan, Iain, V. Phillips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2003.
Pyper, Hugh S. David as Reader: 2 Samuel 12:1-15 and the Poetics of Fatherhood. BibInt 23.
Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Rand, Herbert. “David and Ahab: A Study of Crime and Punishment.” JBQ 24 (1996): 90-97.
Reines, Chaim W. “Beauty in the Bible and the Talmud.” Judaism 24 (1975): 100-107.
Reis, Pamela Tamarkin. “Cupidity and Stupidity: Woman’s Agency and the ‘Rape’ of Tamar.”
JANES 25 (1997): 43-60.
Resseguie, James L. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2005.
Rezetko, Robert. Source and Revision in the Narratives of David’s Transfer of the Ark: Text,
Language, and Story in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15-16. LHBOTS 470. New
York: T&T Clark, 2007.
Rhoads, David. “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark.” JAAR 50 (1982): 411-34.
Ridout, George P. “Prose Compositional Techniques in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9-20;
214
1 Kings 1-2).” PhD diss., The Graduate Theological Union, 1971.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Routledge, 1989.
Ringgren, H. “yāpâ.” TDOT 6: 218-20.
Robins, Gay. The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Rosenberg, Joel. King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible. ISBL 396. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1986.
Rosenblum, William. “Tamar Times Three.” JBQ 30 (2002): 127-30.
Russell, Stephen C. “Gate and Town in 2 Sam 15:1: Collective Politics and Absalom’s Strategy.”
JAH 3 (2015): 2-21.
Ryan, Roger. Judges. RNBC. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007.
Sasson, Jack M. “Absalom’s Daughter: An Essay in Vestige Historiography.” Pages 179-96 in

The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient
Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller. Edited by J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick
Graham. JSOTSup 343. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
________. Judges 1-12. AYB 6D. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.
________. “The Eyes of Eli: An Essay in Motif Accretion.” Pages 171-90 in Inspired Speech:
Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon. Edited by
John Kalther and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 378. London: T & T Clark, 2004.
Satterthwaite, Philip E. “The Elisha Narratives and the Coherence of 2 Kings 2-8.” TynBul 49
(1998): 1-28.
Saxegaard, Kristin Moen. Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth. FAT 2/47. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2010.
Schäfer, Peter. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early
Kabbalah. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Schipper, Jeremy. “Did David Overinterpret Nathan’s Parable in 2 Samuel 12:1-6?” JBL 126
(2007): 383-91.
________. Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story.
215
________. “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b.” CBQ 67 (2005): 422-34.
________. “What Was Samson Thinking in Judges 16,17 and 16,20?” Bib 92 (2011): 60-69.
Scholes, Robert, and Robert Kellogg. The Nature of Narrative. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1966.
Schwartz, Matthew B., and Kalman J. Kaplan. The Fruit of Her Hands: A Psychology of Biblical
Woman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Schwartz, Regina M. “Adultery in the House of David: The Metanarrative of Biblical

Scholarship and the Narrative of the Bible.” Pages 335-50 in Women in the Hebrew
Bible: A Reader. Edited by Alice Bach. New York: Routledge, 1999.
________. “The Histories of David: Biblical Scholarship and Biblical Stories.” Pages 192-210 in
“Not in Heaven”: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative. Edited by Jason P.
Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitterson, Jr. ISBL 678. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1991.
Seibert, Eric A. Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11.
Sharon, Avinoam. “Height Theology: The Theological Use of Lexical Ambiguity in the David
and Goliath Story.” JBQ 45 (2017): 243-52.
Shields, Mary. “A Feast Fit for a King: Food and Drink in the Abigail Story.” Pages 38-54 in The
Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon. Edited by Tod Linafelt,
Claudia V. Camp, and Timothy Beal. LHBOTS 500. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.
Simon, Uriel. “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb.” Bib 48 (1967): 207-42.
Ska, Jean Louis. “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew
Narratives. SubBi 13. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990.
Smith, Brett W. “The Sin of Eli and Its Consequences.” BSac 170 (2013): 17-30.
Smith, Carol. “‘Queenship’ in Israel?: The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah.” Pages
142-62 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the
Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998.
216
Smith, Richard G. The Fate of Justice and Righteousness during David’s Reign: Narrative
Ethics and Rereading the Court History according to 2 Samuel 8:15-20:26. LHBOTS
508. New York: T & T Clark, 2009.
Soggin, Alberto. Judges. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.
Solvang, Elna K. A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and Their
Involvement in the House of David. JSOTSup 349. London: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003.
Spanier, Ktziah. “The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court: Maacah - Case Study.” Pages
186-95 in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB
5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Spina, Frank Anthony. “Eli’s Seat: The Transition from Priest to Prophet in 1 Samuel 1-4.” JSOT
62 (1994): 67-75.
Stahlberg, Lesleigh Cushing. “From Biblical Blanket to Post-Biblical Blank Slate: The Lives and
Times of Abishag the Shunammite.” Pages 122-40 in From the Margins 1: Women of the
Hebrew Bible and Their Afterlives. Edited by Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing
Stahlberg. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009.
Staley, Jeffrey Lloyd. The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in
the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Stansell, Gary. “Honor and Shame in the David Narratives.” Semeia 68 (1994): 55-79.
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of
Reading. ISBL 453. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.
Stone, Ken. Sex, Honor and Power in the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 234. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Stone, Lawson G. “Eglon’s Belly and Ehud’s Blade: A Reconsideration.” JBL 128 (2009): 649
-63.
Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
Tolmie, Francois. Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide. San Francisco:
International Scholars Publications, 1999.
Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. OBT 13.
217
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Trotti, John Boone. “Beauty in the Old Testament.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1964.
Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Tushima, Cephas T. A. The Fate of Saul’s Progeny in the Reign of David. Eugene: Pickwick
Publications, 2011.
Van den Eynde, Sabine. “The Replacement of a Queen: Vashti and Saul Compared.” BN 118
(2003): 58-61.
Van Wolde, Ellen “A Leader Led by a Lady: David and Abigail in I Samuel 25.” ZAW 114
(2002): 355-75.
Vargon, Shmuel. “The Blind and the Lame.” VT 46 (1996): 498-514.
Wallace, H. N. “The Oracles against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings.” Bib 67 (1986): 21
-40.
Wallis, Hale G. “chāmadh.” TDOT 4: 452-61.
Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996.
________. Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John

Knox Press, 2009.
Warmuth, Kiel G. “hādhār.” TDOT 3: 335-41.
Webb, Barry G. The Book of Judges. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Weinfeld, M. “kābôd.” TDOT 7: 22-38.
Williams, James G. “The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical Type-Scenes.”
JSOT 17 (1980): 107-19.
Willis, John T. “An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah
Sanctuary.” JBL 90 (1971): 288-308.
Wray Beal, Lissa M. 1&2 Kings. ApOTC 9. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
________. The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the
218
Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10). LHBOTS 478. New York: T & T Clark, 2007.
Yamada, Frank M. Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three
Rape Narratives. StBiblLit 109. New York: Peter Lang, 2008.
Younger, K. Lawson Jr. Judges and Ruth. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Zenger, Erich. “Die Deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung Jojachins.” BZ 12

(1968): 16-30.
Ziolkowski, Eric J. “The Bad Boys of Bethel: Origin and Development of a Sacrilegious Type.”
HR 30 (1991): 331-58.
Zogbo, Lynell. “How Could Something So Right Be So Wrong?: OT References to the Left and
Right Hand: Implications for Translation in Africa.” BT 64 (2013): 36-53.

Jeong Dae Jun 201811 PHD Thesis Chronicles 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jeong Dae Jun 201811 PHD Thesis Chronicles 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thematic Dynamics of Characters’ Outward Appearance

in the David Narrative

Dae Jun Jeong

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Wycliffe College

© Copyright by Dae Jun Jeong 2018

narrator’s intention. This dissertation concludes that most characterizations of outward

Lott for her assistance in editing my thesis.

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 195

Table 1. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible ..................................................... 4

Figure 1. Structure of the DH ......................................................................................................... 6

1. The Attitude toward Beauty in the Hebrew Bible

(1 Sam 16:7:‫)כי ָ ַֽהאָ דָ ם֙ י ְר ֶ ֣אה ל ֵע ַ֔ינים‬.

and bad or right and wrong.

2. Beautiful Characters in the Hebrew Bible

these characters do not have personal names.

described as ‘beautiful/handsome’”10 in the Hebrew Bible. However, Rezetko omits Bathsheba

Hebrew Bible in that each group is composed of eleven people.

According to my analysis,12 roughly one-third of the beautiful characters of the Hebrew

Table 1. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible

Text Women Men Total

Figure 1. Structure of the DH20

4. Inequity in the Description of Characters in the DN

reflects skill at showing his intention to the reader.

descriptions do not always reveal the narrator’s intentions easily.

criticism, I am choosing to ignore here historical or social-scientific criticism, as beneficial as

these might be.

character’s outward appearance as one method of characterization. Some scholars have

concerning with whom the Deuteronomists were associated.

1. What Is Narrative Criticism?

In general, narrative criticism concentrates on “how biblical literature works as

characters, and the implied reader for interpreting the Gospels.5

1.1. A Starting Point and Development

systematically reviewed the characteristics of biblical narration.”7

1. Literary criticism focuses on the finished form of the text.

considered in a narratological analysis”10 such as scenes, characters, dialogue, and events.

narrative criticism as follows:

1.2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism

Seymour Chatman’s model as indicated below.13

Figure 2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism Suggested by Seymour Chatman

1.2.1. Narrative Text

Chatman gives a detailed account of a narrative text as follows:

1.2.2. The Real Author and the Real Reader

for whom the text was originally intended.”18

1.2.3. The Narrator

1.2.4. The Narratee

audience) in the text needs the information the narrator conveys.

1.2.5. The Implied Author

ideological (or theological) intention in relation to the implied reader.

1.2.6. The Implied Reader

and the temporality (implied reader) of the text.”34

is most important to us.

2. Characters in the Narrative

can better understand and follow the narrator’s intention.

2.1. Who Are Characters in the Narrative?

viewpoint in a number of different ways.39 To study characters in biblical narratives, Tolmie

“the process of characterization.” Each is considered below.

2.1.1. Classification of Characters

three, four, and six categories.

2.1.1.1. Joseph Ewen: No Category

J. Ewen suggests an alternative to categorizing characters in the narrative. It is not a

classification of characters, but an analysis of each character in the narrative, to be precise. To

Development concerns whether characters are changing or unchanging in the narrative.

classification of characters, Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11 and Abishag in 1 Kings 1 should be classified