“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.”