The interpretation of 2 Samuel 11 has been built around three points: 1. The primacy of the relationship between David and Bathsheba;
2. Uriah dies in a cover-up; 3. The narrative is full of ambiguity. This paper explores the narrative from the perspective of the ambiguities employed, showing that the third point undermines the first two. This is achieved by drawing on Genette’s theory of anachrony which emerges as an important historiographical feature
in Samuel. The text is meant to be read and then re-read as each anachrony is encountered, thus coming to a clearer understanding of what is meant by the narrator’s closing comment.