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 19th century Bible Critique philosopher. Was the first one Abraham Ibn Ezra?”
“Yes, Peter’le. He started the ball rolling. Prior to his 11th 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.
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.”
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.”