“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.