Ahitophel

 

A H I T O P H E L

 

I. BACKGROUND

 

1. Planning the Ahithophel dialogue

Having taken my breakfast, I looked at the thick volume in front of me. The person whose character and achievements I wanted to examine is mentioned scarcely in the 24 books of the Masoretic Text. Ahithophel’s role in Absalom’s rebellion is covered in 2 Samuel  (chaps. 15-17). The chronicler mentions him only as King David’s counsellor [1 Chron. 27:33-34]. For years I kept wondering about this laconic treatment: Ahithophel is a pivotal figure. His political role in David’s Kingdom cannot be overstated. Why is he marginalised?

I reflected on the problem over a cup of coffee. As I looked up, I saw that Theophil had materialised. For just a moment he assumed the guise of Peppi, my late pal who had befriended me ever since I had stumbled into his antiques shop in London. As always, I looked at him with admiration. Humanity knew him as Satan or Asmodeus – the epitome of evil and darkness.  To me, though, he had shown only kindness. 

“What brings you here this morning, Maestro. Usually, you call on me in the late afternoon or evening?”

“True,” he replied in polished Hebrew. “But today is special. You contemplate tackling the Ahithophel issue. Before you turn to it, you have to deal with the fundamental issue concerning his standing and influence. To do so you have to examine, critically and in a detached manner, the references to him in the two available sources:  Samuel/Kings and Chronicles. You must discern or define their orientations. Only after settling these points, you can proceed to tackling him.”

“So, the method matters, Maestro. But you can guide me by revealing points not covered up to now.”

“This would involve my disclosing secret information, based on my lengthy observation of mankind’s evolution. As you know, I never do this, not even when I talk to a friend like you, Peter’le. But there is one important and fully legitimate step: I am – as aways – happy to discuss with you the available sources.”

“You have done this on previous occasions, Maestro. You helped me clear my mind and keep my arguments impersonal and detached. This was essential. Let us then proceed on this basis.”

“Splendid,” he agreed and, to my surprise, assumed an image I failed to recognise.

“You are puzzled,” he grinned. “But you ought to identify the person whom I use as guise.”

“That beard and head gear suggest an early personality,” I said after gazing at him for a few minutes. “But, no – I do not recognise this person.”

“How about this one?”

“Oh, I know him: Dr. Julius Wellhausen – the great 19^th century Bible Critique philosopher. Was the first one Abraham Ibn Ezra?”

“Yes, Peter’le. He started the ball rolling. Prior to his 11^th century philosophy, the words of the Bible – including the Old Testament  – were taken at face value. This is no longer the case today!”

“It isn’t,” I conceded. “Basically, there are three schools of thought. One is the traditional. The Bible is the word of God and hence each word is binding. Ultra-Orthodox Christianity and Judaism adhere to it. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the minimalists. In their opinion the Bible is just a collection of stories. They must be ignored, or regarded as untrustworthy, unless they are supported by the archaeologists’ spade.”

“And the third approach?”

“Bible Critique. The facts recorded in the Old Testament are to be noted. They are ‘proved’ only if supported by critique based on examining them analytically or by   archaeological evidence.”

“And which view do you accept, Peter’le?”

“I find this third approach acceptable, Maestro.”

“Very well, Peter’le. But how does this investigation or process relate to Ahithophel?”

“As already indicated by you, Maestro, we must examine the orientation of the books referring to him before we concentrate on his role. This enquiry will help us understand why Ahithophel disappears from the text. You see, we must first understand how the Old Testament itself thinks before we try to discern Ahithophel’s role.”

“Let us then turn to this, Peter’le. Systematically, this constitutes a sound approach,” he concluded and assumed, once again, his Peppi image.   

 

2. The Orientation of Samuel/Kings.

            “Let us start with Samuel/Kings,” suggested Peppi.

            “Very well,” I agreed. “The Samuel/Kings corpus adopts the Deuteronomic theology of obedience and adherence to Jehovah’s [Yahweh’s or God’s] commands. It is most clearly set out in chapter 32 of Deuteronomy – Ha’azinu: obedience yields stability in life. Deviation from the covenantal order leads to severe judgment and collapse.”

            “Why is that relevant as regards Ahithophel?”

            “Figures, or actors, are given narrative prominence not in proportion to their historical or political influence, but according to their theological significance. Kings and spiritual leaders like priests are significant in this regard. They can be readily placed within this matrix. Political strategists and elite operators tend to be narratively minimised, unless they have, in addition, a doctrinal significance.”

            “And I assume that Ahithophel falls fairly and squarely within this second group. Doesn’t he, Peter’le?”

            “He does!  I hope to show later on, that he was a master strategist and, politically, clairvoyant. But from a theological stand, his role is opaque or, bluntly, insignificant. We can say that his marginalisation is not the outcome of the narrator’s historical ignorance. Samuel/Kings is not a neutral chronicle of power, but a theological history composed to explain Judah’s collapse.”

            “What you imply is that these books consistently subordinate historical causality to doctrinal meaning and explanations. And how about Chronicles?”

            “Chronicles has a slightly different object, Maestro.”

            “Please elaborate. You see, Peter’le, Chronicles is often dismissed – even by scholars – as an attempt to replace Samuel/Kings. Do you take a similar stand?”

            “I do not! Samuel/Kings seeks to explain the cause of Judah’s fall. Even King David was flawed and his departure from righteousness, like the digressions of his successors, were instrumental in leading to the collapse. Based on this orientation, the author [‘narrator’] tells us all about David’s problems, including the ugly Uriah episode and Absalom’s rebellion.”

            “I take it that you will dwell on these two. But why are they not set out in Chronicles?”

            “Because the object of thereof is to keep Judaism intact even after it ceased to have its own sovereignty.”

            “I take your point, Peter’le. But you have to elaborate – not just state. And you must never confuse theory with proven facts. This is essential, my friend.”

            “Let me point out one basic fact. The first nine chapters of Chronicles compress the history set out in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges and Samuel 1. The narrative part commences in 1 Chronicles chapter 10. It refers to King Saul’s [Sha’ul’s] death in Gilboa. It then turns to King David’s monarchy. Isn’t that telling?”

            “But why is it, Peter’le? You must explain this point!”

“Chronicles reinterprets the past for the sake of the post-exilic community. The rich past, related in Samuel/Kings, is of relevance only in so far as it serves the continuation of Judaism.”

“Is this the object of Chronicles?” asked Peppi in a tone indicating doubts.

 “I believe it is. Chronicles emphasises the significance of Jerusalem, of its temple and of the Davidic dynasty. It echoes the sentiment of Isaiah who prophecies that ‘… there come forth a rod out of the stem of Yishai [David’s father] and a branch shall grow out of his roots: and the spirits of the Lord shall rest upon him [Isa. 11:1].’ Accordingly, David must be shown as pure and impeccable. He is becoming an icon.”

            “This explain the extreme marginalization of Ahithophel, who is irrelevant in this context,” nodded Peppi. “Does the composition date of the works confirm your thesis?”

            “It does, Maestro. The consensus is that Samuel/Kings was composed in parts during the rule of King Josiah, who reigned from circa 640 to 609 BCE, but reduced into its current form early during the Persian empire period – between 620 to 550 BCE. Chronicles was written later during the Persian period, around 400 to 300 BCE. During that later (pre-Maccabee period) – Ahithophel’s political attainments sounded even less relevant.”

            “You have argued firmly in support of your theory, Peter’le. As long as you don’t yell ‘Eureka’, you are entitled to proceed.”

            “Am relieved, Maestro. If I understand you correctly, we can turn to Ahithophel.”

 

3. Method of tackling Ahithophel’s role

            “Up to now, Peter’le, we examined the biblical books that refer to Ahithophel. But the references are scarce. Do we have any relevant archaeological findings or other sources?”

            “We do not, Maestro. Worse still: the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are – as we know – fragmentary, do not comprise any scraps referring to him. This means that the existing references in Samuel/Kings and in Chronicles have to be analysed and augmented.”

            “But how can we augment them?” asked Peppi.

            “By discerning Ahithophel’s hand in Kind David’s own trajectory.  I think this is the only appropriate investigation.”

 

II. EARLY DAYS OF DAVID’S REIGN

 

            “Well, Peter’le, why don’t you start the ball rolling?”

            “When King Saul [Sha’ul] was defeated and killed  by the Philistines in Gilboa, David was in Ziklag – a territory held by him as a vassal of King Achish of Gat. He moved to Hebron, where he was constituted King of Judah.”

            “Who gave him the reins, Peter’le?”

            “The author of Samuel/Kings [the ‘narrator’] tells us that David was told to proceed to Hebron by Jehovah [2 Sam. 2:1]. His anointment as King, though, required the consensus of the leading families of Judah. It is not suggested that he crowned himself.”

            “Is Ahithophel’s name invoked at this juncture?”

            “It is not. But I suspect that his family had a say. Ahithophel is described as ‘the Gilonite’. His town of origin – Giloh – was in the very same part of the Judean Hills as Hebron. Later, and still during his days in Hebron, Saul’s successor, Ish-Boshet, was murdered in his capital – Mahanaim which is east of the Jordan [2 Sam. 2:5-8]. Thereafter, ‘all the tribes of Yisra’el’ came to Hebron and David entered into a covenant with them, which constituted him King of  the entire land [2 Sam. 5:3]. And, Maestro, here I see Ahithophel’s hand.”

            “On what basis? The narrator suggest that this was the direct effect of the defection of Ish-Boshet’s chief of staff.”

            “But the narrator’s account does not stand the scrutiny of analysis. Is it believable that all the tribes of Israel proceeded to Hebron? Surely, the decision was taken by the elders, who sent a delegation to Hebron?”

            “I still don’t see Ahithophel’s hand,” persisted Peppi.

            “He is not mentioned. My argument is that David’s appointment as King of the entire land was the subject of negotiation between the elders of Judah and of the other tribes. And I further believe that Ahithophel was one of the spokesmen of the elders of Judah, perhaps even the moving force in these dealings. His family was both distinguished and influential.”

            “The narrator tells us that Avner defected from Ish-Boshet’s camp to David’s because Ish-Boshet insulted him. Avner is treated as the ‘King Maker’.

            “He is also treated as having put Ish-Boshet on the throne, Maestro. But then, if Ish-Boshet displeased him, why didn’t he initiate the replacement of Ish-Boshet by another descendant of Saul? Why did he switch sides?  I am inclined to doubt the narrator’s account and suspect that the switch was the subject of negotiations by the elders and that Ahithophel carried the day by convincing all that David was the appropriate leader.”

            “As a theory, Peter’le, it is arguable. An argument, though, is not proof!”

            “I know this, Maestro. Still, the narrator relates that Joab, King David’s Chief-of-Staff, assassinated Avner shortly after David’s anointment as King of the entire land. The narrator tells us that Joab’s object was to retain his own post. The beneficiary of the act, though, was King David. The main supporter of Saul’s line was sidelined. David mourned Avner but did not punish Joab. Instead, David confirmed Joab’s position. If this is not sanctimony, what is?”

            “Peter’le, Peter’le, once again you let your emotions interfere with your otherwise detached approach!”

            “Do I, Maestro?”

            “You do, indeed. The narrator presents King David as a flawed man but whenever possible gives him the benefit of the doubt. The chronicler turns this flawed man into an icon and you, due to a prejudice, turn this icon into a monster!”

            “You are right, Maestro,” I conceded. “I’ll try to avoid such outbursts as we proceed.” 

            “Very well. But please tell me, how does Ahithophel fit into this irreconcilable quagmire?”

            “I suspect that his counsel led to Avner’s death and to Joab’s exoneration. This was Ahithophel’s way if ensuring that David’s position as King of Israel would be unassailable.”

            “A ruthless strategy, Peter’le. Is it plausible?”

            “Maestro, ‘possible though perhaps not plausible’ might be the correct surmise.  The elimination of potential rivals was quite common in the politics of the Fertile Crescent. A telling example is furnished by the elimination or sidelining of rivals and potential opponents by Tiglath-Pileser III (reigned the Assyrian Empire during 745-727 BCE).”

            “As long as you do not overstate matters, you build up a possible case, Peter’le. Let us turn to the next political development.”

            “This would be the conquest of Jerusalem, which – till that time – was known as Jebus. Here the narrator provides details. David’s army penetrated the fortressed town through the water shaft [2 Sam. 5:6–8]. The attack was led by Joab [1 Chron. 11:5-7], who was reconfirmed as chief of staff.”

            “Is Ahithophel’s name mentioned in this context, Peter’le? David was a fine strategist, who did not need advice respecting his campaigns.”

            “Right you are, Maestro. But the move to Jerusalem was also a political design. In Hebron David was King of Judah. And Hebron was a suitable capital, located deep in the territory. Jerusalem is geographically close to the land of Benjamin, the very tribe of Saul. It is also close to Gibeah (‘Gibeah of Benjamin’), which was King’s Saul’s capital.  It is arguable that by moving his capital to Jerusalem, David signified that he was ruling the entire Kingdom without showing favour to his own tribe. And here I can see Ahithophel’s political planning. His having counselled the move strikes me not just as possible but as plausible or, perhaps, even as most likely. With Jerusalem secured and legitimacy established, David’s act was not merely the establishment of a new capital, but a new phase of rule.”

            “We’ll let the matter rest there, Peter’le. Let us now turn to David’s Jerusalem period – a period marred by David’s mistake of deviating from the prescribed path.”

            “Before doing so, let me emphasise that at this juncture Ahithophel’s role is acknowledged. He is described as the King’s Counsellor, which means that he is at the very heart of David’s political moves. The narrator tells us that ‘the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man would inquire of the word of God’ [2 Sam. 17:23]. And Chronicles [1 Chro. 23:34], lists him as David’s counsellor.”

            “Strong words of praise, Peter’le, aren’t they?”

            “Aren’t they ever, Maestro?! With these in mind let us to turn to the events covered by the narrator.”

             
         

III. THE URIAH AND BATHSHEBA AFFAIR

           

            “The narrator begins by telling us all about David’s successful campaigns, the moving of the ark to Jerusalem and David’s plans to build the Temple. This plan is deferred as  Jehovah felt that his House should be erected not by a Warrior King like David but during the more peaceful reign of his successor. The narrator then turns to the ugly Uriah and Bathsheba affair. David’s flawed character is recounted in detail,” I started.

            “As you already mentioned, Peter’le,  this affair is not covered in Chronicles.”

            “It isn’t. It does not fit in with the chronicler’s objective.  For our discussion, though, it is essential. Our task is not to narrate David’s transgression but an attempt to reconstruct, cautiously and inferentially, how this episode affected Ahithophel.”

            “Let us start by identifying the persons involved,” suggested Peppi.

            “King David needs no introduction, Maestro. The other persons involved were Bathsheba, her husband Uriah and, indirectly, Ahithophel.”

            “Who was Bathsheba?”

            “She was the daughter of Eliam, one of David’s mighty men [2 Sam. 23:24; 1 Chron. 3:5]. Eliam, in turn, was Ahithophel’s son [id; and see 1 Chron. 3:5].

            “Does this mean that she was Ahithophel’s granddaughter?”

            “Traditional Judaism and some scholars have reached this conclusion. I agree, although it an inference and not a stated fact. And, Maestro, for the purposes of this discussion, I proceed on its basis. Further, it is accepted that Ahithophel’s family was amongst Judah’s elite.”

            “And how about Uriah?”

            “He, too, was one of David’s mighty men. Both the narrator and the chronicler refer to him as ‘the Hittite’. It is, of course, possible that his ancestor migrated to Judah from the Land of the Hittites. But the household was well integrated in Judah and, I believe became another distinguished family.  The marriage of Uriah and Bathsheba strengthened the stature of both families and tied them. I am inclined to regard it a political union.”

            “It follows, Peter’le, that we are dealing with Judah’s elite. Well, what took place?”

            “One evening King David ‘walked upon the roof of the King’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman bathing’ [1 Sam. 11:3]. David, who found Bathsheba good looking, summoned her to his place, had intercourse with her and impregnated her.”  

            “That was adultery, wasn’t it?”

“It was, Maestro. David first attempted to cover his tracks by ordering  Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, to come to Jerusalem. Uriah – the devoted army man – obeyed but spent his time in Jerusalem with the army. When Uriah returned to take part in the siege of Rabah [the Ammonite’s capital] David arranged that he be placed in a vulnerable spot, where he was killed. David, thereupon, wed Bathsheba.”

“Were there any repercussions, Peter’le?”

“Limited. Nathan, the prophet, remonstrated with David, who expressed his remorse. The narrator tells us that, thereupon, Jehovah forgave him. Oh well! Quite appropriate?”

“Once again, Peter’le, your emotions take hold. Do you suggest God (my Friend) should be remorseless? Shouldn’t repentance trigger forgiveness?”

“But was He the one to forgive? How about Uriah’s family. Further, didn’t David injure and dishonour Bathsheba’s family?”

“Did they avenge?”

“Neither the narrator nor the chronicler mentions any steps taken by Eliam. But, I think, that Ahithophel did. It explains his stand during Absalom’s rebellion. This too will have to covered.”

“Traditional Judaism seeks to put the blame on Bathsheba. Medieval Rabbinical thinkers aver that she displayed herself and, effectively, seduced David,” pointed out Peppi.

“But is this line of argumentation supportable?”

“And why not, Peter’le?”

“To start with, should a King walk on rooftops? A voyeur or peeping tom might! But a mighty monarch?   Further, Bathsheba was taking a ritual bath, purifying herself after her monthly period [2 Sam. 11:4]. She was not displaying herself. And, of course, she had to proceed to the King’s palace when summoned. A King’s order must be obeyed by a subject.”

“Your points are arguable, Peter’le. All the same, I sense your antipathy. You dislike King David! Don’t you?”

“I do, Maestro. Early in his career, when he was at odds with King Saul, David became a vassal of Achish, the Philistine regent [Seren] of Gat. Worse still, David offered to join the ranks of the Philistines in their decisive battle against Saul – the then King of Israel. David returned to Ziklag – a territory held by his as a Philistine vassal – only because Achish’s co-regents vetoed his participation. Wasn’t David’s act treason?”

“I see your point, Peter’le. Further, I can imagine what the narrator and the chronicler would have said if Saul had acted in a comparable manner. Nevertheless, you must try to overcome this dislike – be it earned or prejudicial – in the course of our discussion.”

“I’ll endeavour to do so, Maestro,” I replied contritely.

“Very well,” Peppi concluded. “Let us then turn to the next part of David’s narrative – Absalom’s rebellion.”

“Agreed,” I confirmed, “especially because here we see once again Ahithophel’s hand.”

  

   

              

              

           

IV. ABSALOM’S REBELLION

            “You better commence by recounting the events culminating with the rebellion,” suggested Peppi.

            “King David’s first-born son, Amnon, seduced his half-sister – Tamar – and then rejected her. Her brother, Absalom, avenged her by killing Amnon. Absalom then fled to Geshur, whose King, Talmai, was Absalom’s maternal grandfather. At the instigation of Joab – David’s Chief of Staff – David allowed Absalom to return to Judah but refused to see him. To induce David to meet him – that is, to fully reconcile – Absalom asked Joab to assist. When the latter refused to do so, Absalom ordered his men to burn Joab’s harvest. After hearing Absalom’s explanation, Joab arranged the reconciliation.”

            “Did Ahithophel show his hand at this stage, Peter’le?”

            “The narrator does not suggest this.”

            “And what do you think?”

            “I do not think that Ahithophel’s had anything to do with Amnon’s assassination. But the political implications thereof must have dawned on him. Amnon was the Crown Prince, that is, the natural successor. David’s second son, Chileab (called Daniel by the chronicler) drops out of the narrative. It is possible that he had passed away or migrated. Absalom was the third and effectively became the Crown Prince. I suspect that the burning of Joab’s harvest was Ahithophel’s idea. He was keen to see a reconciliation between the monarch and his successor.”

            “Your attribution of this idea to Ahithophel – it is a hunch, isn’t it?”

            “It is; but I think I am treading on sound ground. Throughout the Levant, primogeniture [succession of the first born] was prevalent and, I think agnatic [male only]. Both Judah and later on the Northern Kingdom embraced it. On this basis, Absalom acquired great expectations after Amnon’s demise.”

            “But how about Absalom’s aptitude, Peter’le?”

“Absalom was no fool. Still, he was impetuous, temperamental and, perhaps, rather foolhardy. But, in the instant situation, the design shows careful planning; and that was Ahithophel’s forte.”

“Your point is arguable, Peter’le. But please remember: an argument should never be confused with a proven fact.”

“Right you are. Well, Absalom’s sound course was to bide his time. The narrator tells us that he didn’t. Absalom charmed people – especially visitors from the Northern Tribes’ domain. Once he acquired their support, he left Jerusalem on an excuse and initiated his rebellion. The narrator tells us that the ploy was firm. David fled from Jerusalem but his army including the mercenaries engaged by him remained loyal to him.”

“And Peter’le, am I right in thinking that here you discern the hand of Ahithophel?”

“You are, Maestro. The narrator tells us that Ahithophel switched sides only after   Absalom initiated the rebellion. In my opinion, he instigated it. Absalom secured the support of the Northern Tribes. But could he have achieved this without Ahithophel’s support and, Maestro, without his guidance? Ahithophel was highly effective in political manoeuvrings and negotiations. And, unlike Absalom, he was not a hothead. He knew how to act behind the scenes and how to bide his time.”

“Your arguments are forceful and sound. But then, why doesn’t the narrator say something to this effect? He is explicit about Ahithophel’s switch from David’s camp to Absalom’s. But he does not suggest that Ahithophel was the initiator of the revolt.”

“The narrator confines himself to dealing with David’s saga. I have already highlighted his reasons for marginalising Ahithophel’s role. And I do not contradict his narrative. My arguments deal with an aspect left out by him. Do you think my judgment is still coloured, Maestro?”

“I believe it is, but you are making an effort to differentiate arguments from facts. You do so successfully, I conclude. Please continue.”

“When David learns that Ahithophel joined the conspiracy, he asks Jehova to defeat Ahithophel’s counsel. Shortly thereafter when Ḥushai – the King’s companion – wishes to join him, David asks him to purport to join Absalom’s camp and do his best to defeat Ahithophel’s advice.

Ahithophel’s initial advice is that Absalom cohabit with the concubines left behind by David. The narrator tells us that the object of this advice is to demonstrate Absalom’s firm and final breach with David. Some scholars believe that this advice is also motivated by Ahithophel’s wish to avenge his family’s honour. The argument is that Absalom’s violation of David’s concubines is measure for measure for David’s violation of Bathsheba.  I agree but have to concede that the point is debatable.”

“So, Peter’le, you are now back to looking at the events without emotively based reactions. Well, what happened thereafter?”   

“When Absalom asked for Ahithophel’s advice as how to proceed, the latter offered to proceed without delay with a choice unit. His idea was to fall on David’s still disorientated camp, kill David and avoid a battle. In a way, he preferred to see the coup ending without a civil war.”

“Was his counsel adopted?”

“It was not. Absalom asked for Ḥushai’s advice. The latter suggested that Absalom await the arrival of all his supporters and then use the overwhelming force so gained by him to defeat David in a battle. Ḥushai’s advice was taken. In consequence, David crossed the Jordan, regrouped and – in due course – Absalom’s army was defeated and he himself was killed by Joab.”

“What happened to Ahithopherl?”

“When his advice was rejected, he left the camp,  went back to his home and hanged himself. I believe this was not chagrin. Ahithophel  realised that once David had a chance to regroup, his well-organised army and its strategic superiority would carry the day. In other words, Ahithophel knew that David was bound to defeat the mutiny. And he also knew that David would not forgive him.”

“Is there any circumstantial evidence supporting your argument to the effect that Ahithophel masterminded Absalom’s rebellion? I still think that at this point, your reasoning cannot yet bear the weight placed upon it.”

“I believe there is Maestro. The first, and perhaps the strongest, is David’s lamenting Absalom’s demise notwithstanding the latter’s transgression and rebellion. It sounds, at least to me, as if David realised from the very start that Absalom was not the soul and spirit of the rebellion. Secondly, David laments the fate of many of his opponents, such as Saul and Avner. But the narrator depicts David as having  remained silent about Ahithophel.”

“Did he express any views elsewhere, Peter’le?”

“Some scholars suggest that his bitter words of having been betrayed by some friends, in Psalm 41:9 and 55:12-14, refer to Ahithophel. The very attribution of any of the Psalms to David has been question by many scholars. We may consent that the Psalms,  as a whole, have been revised and edited during the Persian period for use in the Second Temple. But even so, it is possible that the originals were composed by David. If this is accepted,  it is arguable that his bitter words refer to his counsellor and trusted friend, Ahithophel.”

“But Peter’le, this remains a conjectural association rather than an identifiable historical reference.”

“I agree, Maestro. But I do think that it is a strong one. Further, it is possible to discern Ahithophel’s influence in the aftermath of Absalom’s rebellion.”

“Please explain,” said Peppi.

“Prior to David’s full restoration, Sheva ben Bichri of the tribe of Benjamin followed the rebellion up. His slogan was: ‘We have no part in David … every man to his tents, Oh Yisra’el’ [2 Sam. 20:1]. Joab nipped this rising in the bud. Sheva and his followers fled and tried find refuge in a town called Avel of Bet-ma’akha, in the territory of Naftali  in the North of the Kingdom. Joab laid siege to it and called it off when the inhabitants assassinated Sheva.”

“But where can we see Ahithophel’s hand?”

“As I suggested earlier, Ahithophel might have engineered David’s appointment as King by the Northern Tribes. Later, he helped, or persuaded, Absalom to gain these tribes’ support. Sheva followed the lead up. His object was to tear the Northern part of Kingdom away from David. Sheva might have found support in the anti-David rhetoric initiated by Ahithopel.”

“Once again, Peter’le, you are treading on thin ice,” remonstrated Peppi.

“I do; but as long as a supposition or hunch is not stated as a firm conclusion, it can be raised as an argument.”

“On this basis, you have every right to proceed,” agreed Pappi. “It seems to me that you can really end the discourse at this point. Or are you, by any chance, going to argue that Ahithophel’s influence survived his demise?”

“It all depends on whether he was Bathsheba’s grandfather, Maestro. And, as already indicated, this constitutes a debatable point.”

“Well,” prompted Peppi.

“Bathsheba was King Solomon’s mother. If Ahithophel was indeed her grandfather, then the entire Davidic line descending from Solomon would, on the maternal side, trace back to Ahithophel.”

“Let us accept this for the moment, Peter’le. But tell me, is this significant?”

“Bathsheba’s son by David – Solomon – was the next King. And both the narrator and the chronicler eulogise his wisdom. Isn’t it possible that we see cultural transmission through Bathsheba?”

“Quite possible, Peter’le. And do you accept that Solomon was so wise?”

“An arguable point, Maestro.  The narrator relates that, as a reward for King Hiram of Tyre’s assistance in the construction of the First Temple, Solomon gave him twenty towns in the Cabul area in Galilee [1 Kings 9:11-13].”

“You better clarify the location, Peter’le.”

“Cabul is in the northern part of Israel, in territory originally allocated the tribe of Asher. Hiram did not like these towns and, according to the chronicler, returned them and Solomon had them rebuilt [2 Chron. 8:2]. The damage though had been done.”

“What damage, Peter’le?”

“Solomon gave the impression of ruling as a King, who gave Judah a preferential treatment and was prepared to compromise the sovereignty of the Northern Tribes. In addition, he levied heavy taxes and used forced labour of all his subjects so as to aggrandise Jerusalem. A wise counsellor, like Ahithophel would have advised him to pull his punches.”

“I take your point. It is legitimate. What was the outcome?”

“After Solomon’s death, the entire North – led by Jeroboam I – defected, using the very Slogan of Sheva ben Bichri. Thereafter there were two separate Kingdom: Judah in the South and Israel [Yisra’el] in the North (usually  governed by Royal Houses of the tribe of Ephraim). Yisra’el was  finally defeated and politically destroyed in 722 BCE by the Assyrian Empire. Judah was defeated in 586 BCE.”

“What happened thereafter and how does all this relate to Ahithophel, whom we are discussing?” asked Peppi.

 “In  538 BCE Cyrus the Great sanctioned the return to Jerusalem of Judeans exiled by Babylon. As already mentioned, Samuel/Kings and Chronicles were edited and finalised during the reign of the Persian Empire. Our knowledge of Ahithophel is largely based on the narrator’s account.  The Old Testament does not tell us what happened to the population of the Northern Kingdom. Presumably, the inhabitants were assimilated by the population of the countries to which they were exiled.”

“A neat summary, Peter’le. But tell me: is Ahithophel’s heritage referred to In Israel of today?”

“Not in so many words, Maestro. However, Israeli authors use the idiom ‘Ahithophel’s advice’ [Atsat Ahithophel] to describe a perceptive and often not too scrupulous guidance given by politicians or warlords.”

 

“Well, Peter’le, our dialogue stretched over a few hours. You look tired and hungry. I’ll take my leave.”

“I did enjoy our chat! I hope you will materialise again before long.”

“Don’t hesitate to turn to me when you feel the time is rife,” said Peppi and disappeared.