Narrative Analogy in the David Story

Narrative analogy is deployed in the David story through various means and with several purposes. David is implicitly compared with Jacob and Joseph (and occasionally others, such as Esau) in order to highlight positive and negative aspects of his character. The parallels between the Samuel and Genesis narratives emphasize significant themes, including sin and its measure-for-measure consequences, sibling rivalry and reconciliation, and divine election.

See also Narrative Analogy in the David Story: Parallels between Genesis 25-50 and 1 Samuel 16-1 Kings 2 (Mohr Siebeck, 2024). 

By Joanna Kline
Gordon College
February 2025

Introduction

Since ancient times, commentators have recognized similarities between the narratives about David in 1 and 2 Samuel and the stories of the patriarchs in the book of Genesis. In modern biblical scholarship, most parallels have been found when comparing the so-called “Succession Narrative” (2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2) and the Pentateuchal Yahwist source (J), which were thought by some to date to the 10th century (Rad 1944; Ruppert 1965; Ellis 1968; Whybray 1968; Brueggemann 1968; Friedman 1998). Scholars focused on the final form of biblical texts have also identified parallels between the Genesis and Samuel narratives (Garsiel 1985; Fokkelman 1986; Zakovitch 1995; Alter 1999; Bazak 2006). My study draws on both synchronic and diachronic approaches to identify and analyze examples of narrative analogy in the David story. 
            Narrative analogy in the Hebrew Bible, which is related to the broader phenomena of allusion and inner-biblical interpretation, involves a series of parallels between biblical texts that function to draw comparisons between characters and events (see Alter 1975, 73; Sternberg 1985, 365; Garsiel 1985, 18–23; Berman 2004, 1–2). Examples of the intentional use of narrative analogy can be identified by a density of shared plot elements, structural similarities, and themes, as well as by shared distinctive words or phrases. Although the direction of influence between biblical texts cannot always be determined, the incongruous use of vocabulary or a motif in one context compared to its natural use in another text can be a marker of textual dependence (Edenburg 1998, 72–73), as can the combination of details from various texts in one text (Carr 2001, 123–24). 
            In what follows, I will outline the nature and purpose of narrative analogies that connect David and his family with Jacob and his family. I will focus primarily on literary features, showing how parallels in motif, plot, vocabulary, and structure serve to develop characterization and to highlight significant themes in the narratives. After discussing these examples, I will propose a diachronic reconstruction of the growth of the analogical structures, arguing that the parallels between David and Jacob, Judah, and Joseph were strengthened over the course of the development of these texts. 

David and Joseph (1 Sam 16–18 and Gen 37; 39)

Several parallels between David and Joseph are evident at the beginning of the stories about them. Both David and Joseph are the youngest or nearly youngest brother in their families and both are shepherds. They are both described as handsome (1 Sam 16:12, 18; 17:42; Gen 39:6). They both receive a somewhat ambiguous sign that they will become a ruler (David’s anointing in 1 Sam 16:13 and Joseph’s dreams in Gen 37:5–10); this sign occurs in relation to their brothers and is not fulfilled until much later in the story. Both David and Joseph find success in the service of a ruler—David in Saul’s court (initially described in 1 Sam 16:14–23) and Joseph in Potiphar’s house (Gen 39) and Pharaoh’s court (Gen 41). Both men find favor in the eyes of their masters and have success because God is with them (1 Sam 16:18, 22; 18:5, 12, 14–15, 28, 30; Gen 39:2–3, 21, 23). These parallels are not especially distinctive, however, and may be common motifs rather than deliberate uses of narrative analogy. 
            More specific connections are found when comparing David’s journey to check on his brothers in 1 Sam 17 with Joseph’s similar errand in Gen 37. David and Joseph are sent by their fathers to see to the wellbeing (shalom) of their elder brothers (1 Sam 17:18; Gen 37:14) and to bring something back from them (“their pledge” in 1 Sam 17:18 and “a word” in Gen 37:14). Both younger brothers show a presumption to greatness that irritates their brothers, and they persist in the face of their brothers’ rebuke (1 Sam 17:26–30; Gen 37:5–10). Neither David nor Joseph returns home after his journey to check on his brothers; Saul keeps David in his service (1 Sam 18:2) and Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt (Gen 37:36). After David defeats Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan strips himself (vayyitpashet) of his robe and gives it to David (1 Sam 18:4), a reversal of Joseph’s brothers’ act of stripping Joseph (vayyaphshitu) of the robe that signified his father’s favor (Gen 37:23). These parallels serve to highlight the theme of sibling rivalry, although the conflict between David and his brothers is minor compared with struggle between Joseph and his brothers. In the David story, the sibling rivalry theme sets the stage for the tribal-level conflict that ensues between Saul and David, and it foreshadows the sibling struggles among David’s children (2 Sam 13–14). It is relevant for a diachronic analysis of the allusions that most of the parallels between David and Joseph in 1 Sam 17–18 are found in material that is absent from the shorter Greek text (LXXB) and present in the Masoretic Text (1 Sam 17:12–31; 18:1–4); the longer version is probably a later version of the David story (Tov 1986, 38–39). 
            The parallels between David and Joseph at the beginnings of their stories show these men to be positive characters who face trials but succeed because of God’s presence with them. The similarities in plot and characterization thus serve to develop David as a laudatory character and to highlight the theme of divine providence. The sibling rivalry theme, central in the Joseph story but marginal at this point in the David story, points to the larger conflict between David and Saul that develops as the narrative continues. Because of Joseph’s association with the Northern Kingdom of Israel, the portrayal of David as a Joseph-like character may be a way to show that David is a legitimate ruler not only of Judah but also of all Israel.

David and Jacob (1 Sam 18–19; 24–25 and Gen 29; 31–33)

The accounts of David’s relationship with Saul as his father-in-law show many parallels with the stories of Jacob’s relationship with his father-in-law, Laban. Both David and Jacob are involved in marriage negotiations with their future fathers-in-law. In David’s case, Saul first offers his daughter Merab in exchange for valiant service in war, but he ends up giving her to someone else (1 Sam 18:17–19). Next, Saul offers his younger daughter, Michal, in exchange for one hundred Philistine foreskins (v. 25); David returns with 200 foreskins and marries her (v. 27). Like Saul, Laban is deceptive in his dealings with Jacob, who had agreed to work for seven years to earn Rachel’s hand in marriage (Gen 29:18) but has to work an additional seven years after Laban gives him Leah on the wedding night (vv. 27–28). Both David and Jacob, then, negotiate regarding an older and younger sister, are deceived by their fathers-in-law, and pay a bride price double what was originally agreed on. Both accounts use similar language about the “fulfillment” of time in relation to the marriage; Jacob asks for Rachel, “For my days are fulfilled (mal’u yamay)” (Gen 29:21), and David brings the foreskin bride price when “the days had not been fulfilled (velo’ mal’u hayyamim)” (1 Sam 18:26). The differences between the accounts show David to be more upright than Jacob (Jacob is a deceiver who has met his match in Laban, while David has done nothing wrong) and Saul to be a more wicked yet less effective adversary than Laban. As with the case of the parallels between David and Joseph in their journeys to see their brothers, many connections are evident only in the Masoretic Text when compared with the Septuagint (the account of the negotiations for Merab in 1 Sam 18:17–19 and the phrase “the days had not been fulfilled” in v. 26 are MT pluses, and the MT has David bringing 200 foreskins in v. 27 whereas LXXB has 100). 
            The conflicts between David and Jacob and their fathers-in-law eventually lead them to flee, with the help and support of their wives. Both narratives depict a woman deceiving her father in an incident involving household gods (teraphim) (1 Sam 19:11–13; Gen 31:19, 34–35). David and Jacob encounter their fathers-in-law again after their flight (1 Sam 24; Gen 31:25–54), and both swear not to harm their father-in-law’s children (1 Sam 24:22–23; Gen 31:50, 53). The analogies between David and Jacob in this part of the narrative continue to show David as more righteous than Jacob, and Michal plays a more positive role in her teraphim-related deception than Rachel does with hers. Saul ends up in a more pathetic position than Laban, which is highlighted when he is deceived by his daughter and asks the same question (“Why did you deceive me?”) that Jacob had asked Laban after his wedding night (1 Sam 19:17; Gen 29:25). 
            The dynamics of the analogical relationship between David and Jacob are different in the story of Nabal and Abigail (1 Sam 25), which displays connections with the account of the reunion of Jacob and Esau (Gen 32–33). Although David is implicitly compared to Jacob at the beginning of the story, eventually the analogical structure changes so that Abigail is paralleled with Jacob and David with Esau (Biddle 2002). This connection is developed through similarities such as the appearance of 400 men (1 Sam 25:13; Gen 32:7; 33:1) and the plot detail of servants sent ahead with gifts (1 Sam 25:18–19; Gen 32:14–22) that are called “a blessing” and accepted with no bloodshed taking place (1 Sam 25:27–35; Gen 33:11). The analogical shift that brings David into alignment with Esau is surprising, but it may serve to foreshadow a darker side of David’s character that will be manifested later in the narrative (Levenson 1978). On the other hand, allusions to the scene of reconciliation between Jacob and Esau help to underscore an important dimension of the sibling rivalry theme—siblings who were rivals can be reconciled. The struggle between Saul and David has been portrayed as one of sibling rivalry on a tribal level, and although Saul and David are never reconciled, David refuses to take revenge against his rival, a point reinforced by the stories about David sparing Saul’s life that bracket 1 Sam 25. 
            Like the connection between David and Joseph, the comparisons between David and Jacob help to bolster the positive portrayal of David. In this case, however, the comparison is between a morally compromised and complicated character (Jacob) and a righteous character (David), thus highlighting David’s innocence and Saul’s unjustified murderousness. The use of narrative analogy in this part of the story reinforces the themes of the upward trajectory of David and the downward trajectory of Saul. The connection between David and Jacob, the father of all the tribes, serves to emphasize the theme of tribal unity and again depicts David as the legitimate leader of the Northern and Southern tribes. Allusions to the Jacob story naturally evoke the theme of sibling rivalry, but references to the scene of reconciliation between Jacob and Esau remind that conflict need not lead to violence. 

Tamar and Dinah (2 Sam 13 and Gen 34)

Analogical comparisons between David and his ancestors take a darker turn when the narratives of 2 Samuel are considered, and this is especially true for the story of Tamar in 2 Sam 13. David’s daughter Tamar and Jacob’s daughter Dinah share the terrible experience of rape, an act that in both cases is avenged by their brothers and met with passive silence by their fathers. Tamar is raped by her brother Amnon, who “loved” her (2 Sam 13:1), then “violated her and lay with her” (v. 14). Dinah is raped by Shechem the son of Hamor, who “lay with her and violated her” (Gen 34:2) and then “loved” her (v. 3). In both cases, the abuse is called a “disgraceful thing” (nevalah) that “is not done in Israel” (2 Sam 13:12; Gen 34:7). David hears about what happened to his daughter and is angry but does nothing (2 Sam 13:21); in Dinah’s case, Jacob is silent (Gen 34:5) and only her brothers are angry (v. 7). Eventually, the full brother or brothers of the victim avenge their sister while the rapist is in a vulnerable state (2 Sam 13:28–29; Gen 34:25), an act that displeases their fathers (2 Sam 13:36–37; Gen 34:30). Both narratives implicitly convey the message that David and Jacob are receiving a measure-for-measure recompense for earlier behavior—the sexual sin and murder committed by David in 2 Sam 11 are repeated by his children Amnon and Absalom in 2 Sam 13, and Jacob’s deception of his father (Gen 27) is echoed by his deception by his sons (Gen 34:13). The violent act of vengeance in both cases leads to a forfeiture of the rights of the firstborn. Amnon, David’s firstborn, is killed, and the events of the chapter set the stage for Absalom’s revolt, which results in his death as well. Jacob’s deathbed “blessing” indicates that the rights of the firstborn have passed from Simeon and Levi because of their violent actions (Gen 49:5–7). 
            While it is difficult to determine the direction of influence between Gen 34 and 2 Sam 13, looking at the narratives together emphasizes the failure of both David and Jacob to actively respond to the rape of their daughters. The acts of vengeance that follow might have been avoided if David and Jacob had intervened. With the wider Genesis and Samuel narratives in mind, the story of Gen 34 functions as a kind of prehistory of the David story, preparing the way for the preeminence of the line of Judah and showing that the sins of the father will be repeated in the lives of his descendants (see Alter 1999, 271).

David and Joseph, David and Judah (2 Sam 11–13 and Gen 37–50)

In the story of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11), David becomes a kind of anti-Joseph, in contrast to his Joseph-like depiction in 1 Samuel. Furthermore, Tamar is depicted as a tragic version of Joseph, with the events of 2 Sam 13 unfolding in an opposite trajectory to those in the Joseph story. The narrative about Judah and Tamar, embedded within the Joseph story in Gen 38, contains a complex network of connections with the Joseph story. Overall, the parallels between the pivotal narratives of 2 Sam 11–13 and their counterparts in Genesis aid in depicting the tragedy of David’s downfall but also emphasize the theme of divine providence. 
            The story of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11–12) contains a series of reversals when compared to the encounter between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife described in Gen 39. David is a powerful king, while Joseph is a vulnerable slave in a foreign land. David commits adultery, but Joseph does not. In an ironic twist, Uriah becomes a Joseph-like figure when he repeatedly refuses to sleep with his wife (2 Sam 11:11, 13; cf. Gen 39:8–10). Joseph protests to Potiphar’s wife that God has given his master’s house into his hand and has only withheld his wife, so he will not do evil and sin against God (39:8–9); Nathan tells David that God gave him the house and the wives of his master, and he still did what was evil and took another man’s wife (2 Sam 12:7–9). The mirror images of David and Joseph depict David failing where Joseph succeeded. 
            The Joseph story is reflected again in the narrative about Amnon and Tamar (2 Sam 13). Alter (1999), Bazak (2006), and Zakovitch (1995) have noted several parallels between 2 Sam 13 and the Joseph story, including the appearance of three distinctive phrases: “Send out everyone from me!” (2 Sam 13:9; Gen 45:1), “Lie with me” (2 Sam 13:11; Gen 39:12), and “long-sleeved robe (ketonet passim)” (2 Sam 13:18; Gen 37:3, 23) (Alter 1999, 267). In both narratives, a father puts his child in a dangerous situation when he sends her or him to help a brother or brothers (2 Sam 13:7; Gen 37:14). Tamar tells Amnon that he has done “this great evil” by sending her away (2 Sam 13:16), while Joseph refuses to do “this great evil” by sleeping with Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39:9). Amnon sends Tamar outside after raping her (2 Sam 13:17), whereas Joseph runs outside to escape sexual contact with Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39:12). Both Tamar and Joseph have long-sleeved robes that are ruined as a result of encounters with their brothers (2 Sam 13:18–19; Gen 37:23, 31). In both stories, hatred among siblings leads to murder or attempted murder (2 Sam 13:28–29; Gen 37:20). The Joseph story shows a movement toward brotherly reconciliation, but the Amnon and Tamar story ends with the death of Amnon at his brother’s command. The reflections of the Joseph story in both 2 Sam 11–12 and 2 Sam 13 highlight how David’s failure to be a Joseph-like leader results in a fraternal conflict similar to the one that begins the Joseph story. 
            The story of Judah and Tamar in Gen 38 shows a complex web of connections with the David story; many of these have been explored by Rendsburg (1986), Ho (1999), Auld (2000), Noble (2002), Zakovitch (1995 and 2012), Bazak (2006), and Blenkinsopp (1966). Some commentators argue that the story is meant to reflect negatively on David, while others believe it promotes David and his royal line. 
            Genesis 38 ends with the birth of Perez, whose line leads to David, creating an obvious genealogical connection between this narrative and the David story. Identical and similar personal names occur in both narratives (Tamar, Bath-shua/Bathsheba, Onan/Amnon, Hirah/Hiram) and the plot shows connections with both 2 Sam 11–12 and 2 Sam 13. When the David and Bathsheba story is compared with the narrative of Gen 38, parallels include the “seeing” and “taking” of Bath-shua/Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2, 4; Gen 38:2), conception of a son or sons (2 Sam 11:5, 27; Gen 38:3–5), the phrase “evil in the eyes of Yhwh” (2 Sam 11:27; Gen 38:7, 10), David/Judah declaring judgment on someone else when he is to blame (2 Sam 12:5–6; Gen 38:24), a woman’s statement that she is pregnant (2 Sam 11:5; Gen 38:26), David/Judah admitting his guilt (2 Sam 12:13; Gen 38:26), and the birth of a prominent heir (2 Sam 12:24; Gen 38:29). These parallels highlight similarities between Judah and David, although David comes off looking worse, as he knowingly commits a sexual transgression and murders to cover it up. Judah learns from his experience and becomes a reconciling force in his family as the narrative continues, while David’s sins are repeated by his sons. When the stories of the two Tamars are compared, David’s daughter Tamar looks like a tragic version of Tamar in Genesis. The former begins in a position of privilege as the king’s daughter, has an unwanted sexual encounter, and ends up living in her brother’s house with no prospect of marrying. By contrast, Tamar in Gen 38 is in a vulnerable position at the beginning of the story, living in her father’s house with little possibility of marriage. She orchestrates a sexual encounter with Judah, bears two sons, and is thus responsible for continuing Judah’s family line. 
            The combination of names, motifs, and plot similarities from the David story in Gen 38 indicate that the latter functions as a kind of prequel to the former. The story of Judah and Tamar shows that the sins of Judah will be manifested in the lives of his descendants, but with graver consequences. At the same time, reading the narratives together shows the continuity of divine providence in the line of Judah, demonstrated by the birth of an important heir (Solomon, Perez). The narratives highlight both negative and positive characteristics of David and Judah and the complexity of the parallels speaks against a simplistic reading of Gen 38 as either pro- or anti-David. 

Conclusion

Narrative analogy is deployed in the David story through various means and with several purposes. David is implicitly compared with Jacob and Joseph (and occasionally others, such as Esau) in order to highlight positive and negative aspects of his character. At the beginning of David’s story, he is presented as a Joseph-like figure who has success because God is with him. His relationship with Saul shows similarities to Jacob’s relationship with Laban, although David is depicted as more innocent than Jacob and Saul as more wicked than Laban. As the story continues, David proves to be similar to Jacob in his favoritism toward certain sons and his inability to prevent or resolve conflict among his children. Unlike Joseph, he fails to exercise restraint in the face of sexual temptation. Connections between the stories of Jacob’s and David’s families show not only the sins of the father being repeated in the lives of their children but also the mysterious continuity of divine providence at work in Jacob’s family line. The parallels between the Samuel and Genesis narratives emphasize significant themes, including sin and its measure-for-measure consequences, sibling rivalry and reconciliation, and divine election. 
            The mechanics of narrative analogy vary from text to text. At times a density of plot parallels is the main conveyer of analogical connections; in other examples, distinctive verbal connections can be found. Analogically compared characters do not always retain stable relationships, and in some cases a change in the expected analogical relationship is used as method of character development. 
            A diachronic reconstruction of the relationship between the narratives of Genesis and Samuel must be done somewhat tentatively due to the lack of consensus among scholars about the development and dating of both books. However, it is relatively certain that the analogical connections between the Jacob and David texts were strengthened over time. The first parallels between the David and Jacob traditions probably arose when an early version of the Samuel narrative was influenced by a Northern Jacob (or Jacob-Joseph) story, which may have come into Judah from the Northern Kingdom after 722 BCE (see Kratz 2005, 265–66, 272–73; Carr 2011, 473–76). If the Joseph story is postexilic, as many argue (see Römer, Schmid, and Bühler 2021, 4), the direction of dependence may run from Samuel to Genesis in this case. It is possible, though, that the MT pluses of 1 Sam 17–18, where many of the analogical parallels between the Joseph and David stories are found, were influenced by a postexilic Joseph story. In the case of Gen 38, the combination of language, motifs, and details from many places in the David story speaks to the likelihood that this narrative was influenced by the David story and written, in part, as an anticipation of the David story. The direction of dependence between Gen 34 and the David story is difficult to determine, but it is possible that this narrative was shaped and added around the same time as Gen 38, as part of a redaction of Genesis that emphasized the ascension of Judah (Carr 1996, 249–53). 
            A likely period for the development of many of the analogical connections between the Jacob and David stories is the time between the fall of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (722–586 BCE), when the relationship among the tribes and the desire to establish the Davidic line as an authority over all the people would have been significant issues. The development of the parallels between Samuel and Genesis likely continued in exilic and postexilic times. In this period, texts were brought together into larger literary works (Kratz 2005, 316–21), and the use of narrative analogy was one way in which originally independent traditions were brought into closer relationship with each other. The postexilic period was also a time when the themes emphasized by the Jacob-David connection—reconciliation and unity, sin and recompense, and divine providence—would have had particular relevance.

Bibliography 

Alter, Robert. 1999. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: Norton. 

———. 1975. “A Literary Approach to the Bible.” Commentary 60.6: 70–77. 

Auld, Graeme A. 2000. “Tamar between David, Judah and Joseph.” SEÅ 65:93–106. 

Bazak, Amnon. 2006. מקבילות נפגשות׃ מקבילות ספרותיות בספר שמואל. Alon Shvut: Hatsa’at Tevunot, 2006. 

Berman, Joshua A. 2004. Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible: Battle Stories and Their Equivalent Non-Battle Narratives. VTSup 102. Leiden: Brill. 

Biddle, Mark E. 2002. “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization.” JBL 121.4: 617–38. 

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1966. “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam. XI 2ff) and the Yahwist Corpus.” Pages 44–57 in Volume du Congrès: Genève 1965. VTSup 15. Leiden: Brill. 

Brueggemann, Walter. 1968. “David and His Theologian.” CBQ 30: 156–81. 

Carr, David. 2001. “Method in Determination of Direction of Influence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and Its Parallels.” Pages 107–40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32-34 und Dtr 9-10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. Gütersloher Verlag. 

———. 2011. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Edenburg, Cynthia. 1998. “How (Not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1 Sam 24; 26.” SJOT 12.1: 64–85. 

Ellis, Peter. 1968. The Yahwist: The Bible’s First Theologian. Notre Dame, IN: Fides. 

Fokkelman, J. P. 1986. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13–31 & II Sam. 1). Vol. 2 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. Assen: Van Gorcum. 

Friedman, Richard Elliott. 1998. The Hidden Book in the Bible. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. 

Garsiel, Moshe. 1985. The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures. Ramat Gan: Revivim. 

Ho, Craig Y. S. 1999. “The Stories of the Family Troubles of Judah and David: A Study of Their Literary Links.” VT 49.4: 514–31. 

Kratz, Reinhard. 2005. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. Translated by John Bowden. London: T&T Clark. 

Levenson, Jon D. 1978. “1 Samuel as Literature and History.” CBQ 40:11–28. 

Noble, Paul. 2002. “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions.” VT 52.2: 219–52. 

Rad, Gerhard von. 1944. “Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 32:1–42. 

Rendsburg, Gary. 1986. “David and His Circle in Genesis XXXVIII.” VT 36.4:438–46. 

Römer, Thomas, Konrad Schmid, and Axek Bühler, eds. 2021. The Joseph Story between Egypt and Israel. Archeology and the Bible 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 

Ruppert, Lothar. 1965. Die Josephserzählung der Genesis: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Pentateuchquellen. München: Kösel-Verlag. 

Sternberg, Meir. 1985. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 

Tov, Emanuel. 1986. “The Nature of the Differences between MT and the LXX.” Pages 19–46 in The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Edited by D. Barthélemy et al. OBO. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 

Whybray, R. N. 1968. The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9–20; I Kings 1 and 2. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 9. Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson, 1968. 

Zakovitch, Yair. 1995. מקראות בארץ המראות. Tel Aviv: ha-Kibuts ha-me’uhad. 

———. 2012. Jacob: Unexpected Patriarch. Translated by Valerie Zakovitch. New Haven: Yale University Press.