by
Damien F. Mackey
It is terrible to think that David’s
double-headed crime may have had this further tragic ramification in the case
of one who may well have been, formerly, David’s close friend.
IN
AND OUT OF CORRUPTION
From Vatican Radio (2016-01-29):
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-sinners-yes-but-never-corrupt
“Pope
Francis: Sinners, yes; but never corrupt
…. Let us pray
to God that the weakness that leads us to sin will never lead to corruption.
This was the theme of Pope Francis homily at daily Mass on Friday morning, a
theme he has taken up many times. Beginning with the first reading, which tells
the story of David and Bathsheba, the Pope distinguished between regular
sinners and those who are corrupt. Unlike regular sinners, the corrupt do not
feel the need for forgiveness.
One can sin
often, and always return to God seeking forgiveness, never doubting that it
will be obtained. It is especially when one becomes corrupt – when one no
longer sees the need to be forgiven – that problems begin.
The
corrupt feel they don’t need God
This is the
attitude King David assumes when he becomes enamoured with Bathsheba, the wife
of Uriah, an army officer fighting on the frontlines. The Pope outlined the
story narrated in the Scripture. After David seduced Bathsheba, he found out
that she was pregnant, and he hatched a plot to cover-up his adultery. He
recalled Uriah from the front and encouraged him to visit his wife. Uriah,
though, did not go to his wife, but stayed with the other officers in the
king’s palace. David then tried to get him drunk, but this plan also fails.
“This puts David
in a difficult position,” the Pope said. “But he says to himself, ‘I can do
it.’ He sends a letter, as we read: ‘Place Uriah up front, where the fighting
is fierce. Then pull back and leave him to be struck down dead.’ He condemns
him to death. This man, this faithful man [Uriah] – faithful to the law,
faithful to his people, faithful to his king – carries his own death sentence.”
The
security of corruption
“David is a
saint, but also a sinner.” He falls on account of lust, the Pope said, and yet
God still loves him very much. However, the Pope notes, “the great, the noble
David” feels so secure – “because the kingdom was strong” – that after having
committed adultery he does everything in his power to arrange the death of a
loyal man, falsely passing it off as an accidental death in battle:
“This is a
moment in David’s life that makes us see a moment through which we all can pass
in our life: it is the passage from sin to corruption. This is where David
begins, taking the first step towards corruption. He has the power, he has the
strength. And for this reason, corruption is a very easy sin for all of us who
have some power, whether it be ecclesiastical, religious, economic, political…
Because the devil makes us feel certain: ‘I can do it’.”
Sinners,
yes; but not corrupt
Corruption –
from which David was saved by the grace of God – had wounded the heart of that
“courageous youth” who had faced the Philistine with a sling and five small
stones. “Today I want to emphasize only one thing,” the Pope concluded. “There
is a moment where the attitude of sin, or a moment where our situation is so
secure and we see well and we have so much power” that sin “stops” and becomes
“corruption.” And “one of the ugliest things” about corruption is that the one
who becomes corrupt thinks he has “no need for forgiveness.”
“Today, let us
offer a prayer for the Church, beginning with ourselves, for the Pope, for the
Bishops, for the priests, for consecrated men and women, for the lay faithful:
‘Lord, save us, save us from corruption. We are sinners, yes, O Lord, all of
us, but [let us] never [become] corrupt!’ Let us ask for this grace.” …”.
And, again:
Pope: “… no Saint is without sin, no sinner without a future”
…. Pope Francis
says God looks beyond appearances and into the heart. He was speaking on
Tuesday morning during Mass at Casa Santa Marta.
Drawing
inspiration from the First Reading of the day that tells of the choice of the
young David as king of Israel, the Pope pointed out that even in the lives of
the saints there are temptations and sins, as demonstrated by the life of
David.
The Lord – he
said - rejected Saul "because his heart was closed", he had not
obeyed Him, and He decided to choose another king.
The Pope pointed
out that the choice He made was far from human standards since David was the
youngest son of Jesse, he was only a boy.
But – he
continued – the Lord made it clear to the prophet Samuel that he looks beyond
appearances: “the Lord looks into the heart”:
"We are
often the slaves of appearances and allow ourselves to pursue appearances: ‘But
God knows the truth’. And that is so in this story... Jesse’s seven sons are
presented and the Lord does not choose any of them, he lets them pass by.
Samuel is in a bit of difficulty and says to Jesse: ‘The Lord has not chosen
any of them, are these all the sons you have? And Jesse replied that there was
still the youngest, who is tending the sheep’. To the eyes of man this boy did
not count”.
He did not
matter to men, but the Lord chose him and ordered Samuel to anoint him and “the
Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David” and from that day on “the whole of
David's life was the life of a man anointed by the Lord, chosen by the Lord”
the Pope said.
So – Pope
Francis asked – “Did the Lord make him a saint?” No, is the answer – he said:
“King David is saint King David, this is true, but he became a saint after
living a long life” a life during which he sinned:
"A saint
and a sinner. A man who managed to unite the Kingdom, he was able to lead the
people of Israel. But he fell into temptation ... he committed sins: he was
also a murderer. To cover up his lust, the sin of adultery… he commissioned a
murder. He did! Did saint King David commit murder? When God sent the prophet
Nathan to point this reality out to him, because he was not aware of the
barbarity he had ordered, he acknowledged his sin and asked for forgiveness.”
Thus – Pope
Francis continued – “his life went on. He suffered personally following the
betrayal of his son, but he never he never used God for his own purpose”. And he
recalled that when David was forced to flee from Jerusalem he sent back the ark
and declared that he would not use the Lord in his defense. And when he was
insulted – the Pope said – David would say to himself: “It’s what I deserve”.
And then,
Francis noted, “he was magnanimous”: he could have killed Saul “but he did not
do so.” Saint King David, a great sinner, but a repentant one. “The life of
this man moves me” – the Pope said - it makes us think of our own lives.
“We have all
been chosen by the Lord to be Baptized, to be part of His people, to be saints;
we have been consecrated by the Lord on the path towards sainthood. Reading
about this life, the life of a child – no… not a child, he was a boy – from
boyhood to old age, during which he did many good things and others that were
not so good. It makes me think that during the Christian journey, the journey
the Lord has invited us to undertake, there is no saint without a past and no
sinner without a future”.
This had been a
pitifully sad state for a man who could remember so fondly (Psalm 41:5 Douay,
Psalm 42:4):
‘These
things I remember
as I pour out my soul:
how I used to go to the House of God
under the protection of the Mighty One
with shouts of joy and praise
among the festive throng’.
as I pour out my soul:
how I used to go to the House of God
under the protection of the Mighty One
with shouts of joy and praise
among the festive throng’.
Some mistakenly
think that Solomon was born of the illicit union between King David and
Bathsheba, and they may even make an excuse for Solomon’s own permissive
behaviour later, considering that “he was a child of passion”.
But the first
son who was born to David and Bathsheba had died within seven days of his birth
(2 Samuel 12:15-18):
After Nathan had gone home,
the Lord struck the child that
Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. David pleaded with God for
the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The
elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he
refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
On the seventh day the child
died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for
they thought, ‘While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when
we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something
desperate’.
Had David failed
in his vocation as a shepherd, and then, again, as a Shepherd King, he could
easily have found employment as a professional mourner at funerals – for no-one
grieved like David (especially when a son of his had died).
But then follows
another of those idiosyncratic David moments (vv. 19-23):
David noticed that his
attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was
dead. ‘Is the child dead?’ he asked.
‘Yes’, they replied, ‘he is
dead’.
Then David got up from the
ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went
into the house of the Lord and
worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him
food, and he ate.
His attendants asked him, ‘Why
are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but
now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!’
He answered, ‘While the child
was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the
child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring
him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me’.
Solomon (var.
Jedidiah) will be the son born next (vv. 24-25): “Then David comforted his wife
Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son,
and they named him Solomon. The Lord
loved him; and because the Lord
loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah”.
Joab Against Ammonites and Aramaeans
Meanwhile, David’s valiant commander-in-chief, Joab - who
must have been one of ancient history’s truly successful generals - had been
leading the fight against the Ammonites, asking for David’s involvement once
Joab had “captured the royal citadel” of Rabbah (v. 28): ‘Otherwise I
will take the city, and it will be named after me’.
It was owing to Joab’s involvement right at the coal face
that David was able to have his commander-in-chief set up Uriah to be killed in
battle.
Who was this Uriah?
URIAH (Heb. אוּרִיָּה), the name
of four biblical figures (in one case in the variant form Uriahu). The most
important of these is Uriah the Hittite, listed as one of David's
"heroes" in II Samuel 23:39.
While Uriah was away on one
of David's campaigns (II Sam. 11), the king noticed his young wife *Bath-Sheba bathing on the roof
of her house. He had the young woman brought to him and lay with her.
When Bath-Sheba informed him
that she was pregnant, David had Uriah recalled from the front in an attempt to
cover his sin, but the attempt failed because Uriah felt bound by a vow or a
general taboo to shun conjugal relations for the duration of the war. David
then sent Uriah back to the very thick of the battle in the hope that he would
be killed, which is what occurred. David then married Bath-Sheba and incurred
the rebuke of the prophet *Nathan for his behavior.
There have been many
attempts by scholars to explain the origin and name of Uriah. H. Gunkel
dismissed the whole story as a legend having no historical basis. However, the
story may have been well based and Uriah could have been one of the original
Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem. This people, from whom David conquered the
city, were probably of Hittite origin. A. Gustavs identified the name as a
Hebrew folk etymology of the Hurrian name Ariya. The name would then mean
something like king or ruler. B. Maisler (Mazar) suggested that the name could
originally have been a compound of the Hurrian element ur plus the name
of a pagan god, which then received an Israelite form. S. Yeivin compared the
name Uriah with the other Jebusite name mentioned in the Bible, *Araunah
(perhaps from the same root), and suggests that Uriah may have been a high
official or perhaps the intended successor of that last Jebusite ruler of
Jerusalem.
The military exploits and tactics of Joab (and Abishai) are
picked up in 1 Chronicles 19.
The Ammonites, refusing to come to terms with King David,
enlist Aramaean (Syrian) help, these being “vassals of Hadadezer” whom we have
accepted as the historical Shamsi-Adad I.
Vv. 6-19:
When the Ammonites realized
that they had become obnoxious to David, Hanun and the Ammonites sent a
thousand talents of silver to hire chariots and charioteers from Aram Naharaim,
Aram Maakah and Zobah. They hired thirty-two thousand chariots and charioteers,
as well as the king of Maakah with his troops, who came and camped near Medeba,
while the Ammonites were mustered from their towns and moved out for battle.
On hearing this, David sent
Joab out with the entire army of fighting men. The Ammonites came out and drew
up in battle formation at the entrance to their city, while the kings who had
come were by themselves in the open country.
Joab saw that there were
battle lines in front of him and behind him; so he selected some of the best
troops in Israel and deployed them against the Arameans. He put the rest of the
men under the command of Abishai his brother, and they were deployed against
the Ammonites. Joab said, ‘If the Arameans are too strong for me, then you are
to rescue me; but if the Ammonites are too strong for you, then I will rescue
you. Be strong, and let us fight bravely for our people and the cities of our
God. The Lord will do what is good
in his sight’.
Then Joab and the troops with
him advanced to fight the Arameans, and they fled before him. When the
Ammonites realized that the Arameans were fleeing, they too fled before his
brother Abishai and went inside the city. So Joab went back to Jerusalem.
After the Arameans saw that
they had been routed by Israel, they sent messengers and had Arameans brought
from beyond the Euphrates River, with Shophak the commander of Hadadezer’s army
leading them.
When David was told of this,
he gathered all Israel and crossed the Jordan; he advanced against them and
formed his battle lines opposite them. David formed his lines to meet the
Arameans in battle, and they fought against him.
But they fled before Israel,
and David killed seven thousand of their charioteers and forty thousand of
their foot soldiers. He also killed Shophak the commander of their army.
When the vassals of Hadadezer
saw that they had been routed by Israel, they made peace with David and became
subject to him.
So the Arameans were not
willing to help the Ammonites anymore.
“Shophak the
commander of their army”, Hickman had identified with one of Shamsi-Adad I’s
sons, Iasmakh-Adad.
“Hickman’s first notable identification between a
Mari correspondent and a C10th character was to equate Shamsi-Adad I (c. C19th
BC) with David’s mighty adversary, Hadadezer, the Syrian …. Not only David, but
Saul also, had to contend with the aggressive kings of Zobah in Aram, or
ancient Syria (I and II Samuel). Yet, according to conventional opinion, the
kings of Zobah (pronounced Tzobah) are not supposed to have left any
inscriptions concerning their accomplishments …. In CAH, we read that
the name Zobah occurs in the Assyrian documents of the C8th and C7th’s as “Subatu,
Subutu or Subiti” …. Josephus called Zobah, “Sophene”, and its king, “Hadad” ….
Accordingly, Hickman identified Shamsi-Adad, son of Ilu-kabkabu, with biblical
Hadadezer, son of Rekhob. And he added that the ubiquitous Shamsi-Adad’s best
known city of Shubat-Enlil was to be equated with Hadadezer’s city of Zobah or
Subatu …. Hickman also provided an interesting explanation as to why he thought
that Rekhob, the name of Hadadezer’s father, bore “some resemblance to
Ilu-kabkabu”, the name of Shamsi-Adad’s father …”.
David now secured for himself a magnificent crown of gold
(I Chronicles 20:2-3):
David took the crown from the
head of [the Ammonite] king—its weight was found to be a talent of gold, and it
was set with precious stones—and it was placed on David’s head. He took a great
quantity of plunder from the city and brought out the people who were there,
consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes. David did this
to all the Ammonite towns. Then David and his entire army returned to
Jerusalem.
We think that we may know David and Joab, only to encounter
suddenly - which we certainly have done, at least, in the case of David - a
complete surprise.
This also happens in the case of the wicked King Ahab of
Israel, who usually acts true to form, he being sullen, moody and malicious -
and driven by his wife Jezebel. However, just after his pernicious
(Jezebel-inspired) murder of Naboth, to secure his vineyard, with the fiery
prophet Elijah fulminating against he and his wife (I Kings 21:23-24): “And
also concerning Jezebel the Lord
says: ‘Dogs will devour Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel’. Dogs will eat those
belonging to Ahab who die in the city, and the birds will feed on those who die
in the country”, and just after we read this (vv. 25-26): “(There was never
anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by Jezebel his wife. He
behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the Lord drove out before Israel)”, we
receive this shock (vv. 27-28):
“When Ahab heard these words,
he tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and fasted. He lay in sackcloth and went
around meekly.
Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite: ‘Have
you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled
himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his
house in the days of his son’.”
Elijah must have
been completely gob-smacked by this.
One thinks that
it had to be a con on Ahab’s part.
But God, who can
read hearts, is not conned - and He is unfailingly merciful.
So
we have found (the presumably ambitious) Joab refraining from capturing the
Ammonite capital city so David can have the glory for it. Even though Joab had
done all the hard work. And now, in the case of David’s next breaking of the
Mosaïc Law (I Chronicles 21:1-2): “Satan rose up against Israel and
incited David to take a census of Israel. So David said to Joab and the
commanders of the troops, ‘Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan.
Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are’”, Joab expresses
his revulsion at the idea. And he then holds back from fully implementing the
king’s order (vv. 3-7):
But Joab replied, ‘May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times
over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord’s subjects? Why does my lord
want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?’
The king’s word, however,
overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to
Jerusalem. Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel
there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword,
including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.
But Joab did not include Levi and
Benjamin in the numbering, because the king’s command was repulsive to him.
This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel’.
David, when threatened by an avenging angel, will reveal in
his confession to the prophet Gad, his seer, that he has come to understand
that, whilst the justice of human beings may not necessarily be tempered by
mercy, God is His mercy (v. 13): “David said to Gad, ‘I am in
deep distress. Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall
into human hands’.”
With the
pestilence-dealing angel now “standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the
Jebusite” (where the Temple would later stand), David will again reveal his
noble side by offering to stand-in (like Jesus Christ) as punishment for his
people (vv. 14-30):
So the Lord sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men of
Israel fell dead. And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel
was doing so, the Lord saw it and
relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the
people, ‘Enough! Withdraw your hand’. The angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the
Jebusite.
David looked up and saw the
angel of the Lord standing between
heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then
David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown.
David said to God, ‘Was it not
I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I, the shepherd, have sinned and
done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Lord my God, let your hand fall on me and my family, but do
not let this plague remain on your people’.
Then the angel of the Lord ordered Gad to tell David to go up
and build an altar to the Lord on
the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. So David went up in obedience to
the word that Gad had spoken in the name of the Lord.
While Araunah was threshing
wheat, he turned and saw the angel; his four sons who were with him hid
themselves. Then David approached, and when Araunah looked and saw him, he left
the threshing floor and bowed down before David with his face to the ground.
David said to him, ‘Let me have
the site of your threshing floor so I can build an altar to the Lord, that the plague on the people may
be stopped. Sell it to me at the full price’.
Araunah said to David, ‘Take
it! Let my lord the king do whatever pleases him. Look, I will give the oxen
for the burnt offerings, the threshing sledges for the wood, and the wheat for
the grain offering. I will give all this’.
But King David replied to
Araunah, ‘No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt
offering that costs me nothing’.
So David paid Araunah six
hundred shekels of gold for the site. David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt
offerings and fellowship offerings. He called on the Lord, and the Lord
answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.
Then the Lord spoke to the angel, and he put his
sword back into its sheath. At that time, when David saw that the Lord had answered him on the threshing
floor of Araunah the Jebusite, he offered sacrifices there. The tabernacle of
the Lord, which Moses had made in
the wilderness, and the altar of burnt offering were at that time on the high
place at Gibeon. But David could not go before it to inquire of God, because he
was afraid of the sword of the angel of the Lord.
This gives a new
twist to the saying about ‘David killing his tens of thousands’, because here
he was responsible, owing to his latest sin, for the death of “70,000 men of
Israel”.
DAVID
PLANS TEMPLE, CHOOSES SOLOMON
As previously
observed, much of the impetus for Solomon’s greatness was owing to his father,
King David. This is quite apparent from, for example, the following (I
Chronicles 28:1-21):
David summoned all the
officials of Israel to assemble at Jerusalem: the officers over the tribes, the
commanders of the divisions in the service of the king, the commanders of
thousands and commanders of hundreds, and the officials in charge of all the
property and livestock belonging to the king and his sons, together with the
palace officials, the warriors and all the brave fighting men.
King David rose to his feet and
said: ‘Listen to me, my fellow Israelites, my people. I had it in my heart to
build a House as a place of rest for the Ark of the covenant of the Lord, for the footstool of our God, and
I made plans to build it. But God said to me, ‘You are not to build a house for
my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood.’
Yet the Lord, the God of Israel, chose me from my whole family to be
king over Israel forever. He chose Judah as leader, and from the tribe of Judah
he chose my family, and from my father’s sons he was pleased to make me king
over all Israel. Of all my sons—and the Lord
has given me many—he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the
kingdom of the Lord over Israel.
He said to me: ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my
courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. I will
establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands
and laws, as is being done at this time’.
So now I charge you in the sight
of all Israel and of the assembly of the Lord,
and in the hearing of our God: Be careful to follow all the commands of the Lord your God, that you may possess this
good land and pass it on as an inheritance to your descendants forever.
And you, my son Solomon,
acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion
and with a willing mind, for the Lord
searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you
seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you
forever.
Consider now, for the Lord has chosen you to build a house as
the sanctuary. Be strong and do the work’.
Then David gave his son Solomon
the plans for the portico of the Temple, its buildings, its storerooms, its
upper parts, its inner rooms and the place of atonement. He gave him the plans
of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts of the Temple of the Lord and all the surrounding rooms, for
the treasuries of the temple of God and for the treasuries for the dedicated
things. He gave him instructions for the divisions of the priests and Levites,
and for all the work of serving in the temple of the Lord, as well as for all the articles to be used in its
service. He designated the weight of gold for all the gold articles to be used
in various kinds of service, and the weight of silver for all the silver
articles to be used in various kinds of service: the weight of gold for the
gold lampstands and their lamps, with the weight for each lampstand and its
lamps; and the weight of silver for each silver lampstand and its lamps,
according to the use of each lampstand; the weight of gold for each table for
consecrated bread; the weight of silver for the silver tables; the weight of
pure gold for the forks, sprinkling bowls and pitchers; the weight of gold for
each gold dish; the weight of silver for each silver dish; and the weight of
the refined gold for the altar of incense. He also gave him the plan for the
chariot, that is, the cherubim of gold that spread their wings and overshadow
the ark of the covenant of the Lord.
‘All this’, David said, ‘I have
in writing as a result of the Lord’s
hand on me, and he enabled me to understand all the details of the plan’.
David also said to Solomon his
son, ‘Be strong and courageous, and do the work. Do not be afraid or
discouraged, for the Lord God, my
God, is with you. He will not fail you or forsake you until all the work for
the service of the Temple of the Lord
is finished. The divisions of the priests and Levites are ready for all the
work on the Temple of God, and every willing person skilled in any craft will
help you in all the work. The officials and all the people will obey your every
command’.
Who is Tamar?
“Who is she that
comes forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun,
terrible as an army set in battle array?” (Song of Solomon 6:10).
The Legion of
Mary has long used this biblical verse as the Antiphon in its “Catena
Legionis” prayer, there applying it to the Virgin Mary.
On the Feast of
the Transfiguration (6th August, 2017), Pope Francis concluded his
Angelus address with this Marian reflection:
“In the Transfiguration, the Pope said, we hear
the voice of the Father saying, ‘This is My beloved Son. Listen to Him!’ Pope
Francis encouraged us to look to Mary, “the Virgin of Listening,” and
pray that she might help us “to enter into symphony with the Word of God, that
Christ might become the light and the guide of our lives”.”
My answer to the
question: “Who is Tamar?” will have deep-seated ramifications for my historical
revision from the late reign of King David until the end of the reign of King
Solomon. A period of about fifty years.
First of all,
who does the Bible say Tamar is (qua Tamar)? – because, later, I shall
be suggesting some highly significant alter
egos for her as well.
Since she is
mentioned by the name Tamar (not to be confused with the earlier Tamar of
Genesis 38) only in 2 Samuel 13, this is an easy question to answer (vv. 1-2):
“… Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom
son of David.
Amnon became so
obsessed with his sister Tamar that he made himself ill. She was a virgin, and
it seemed impossible for him to do anything to her”.
Tamar was thus a
beautiful and virginal daughter of King David and she was the sister of David’s
“third” born son, Absalom (I Chronicles 3:1-2).
Amnon, the
“firstborn”, was the son of a different mother, Ahinoam of Jezreel. He was
therefore the half-brother of Absalom and Tamar, whose mother was Maacah
(Maakah).
Now - and this,
I think, is most important - Absalom and Tamar were doubly royal, since their
mother Maacah’s father (their grandfather) was a king. He was “Talmai king of
Geshur”.
They were ‘more
royal’, it seems, than was Solomon himself.
When Absalom -
having killed his eldest brother, Amnon, who had raped Tamar - had fled from a
predictably inconsolable King David (2 Samuel 13:34), “Absalom”, as we then
read, “went to Talmai son of Ammihud, the king of Geshur. But King David
mourned many days for his son. After Absalom fled and went to Geshur, he stayed
there three years. And King David longed to go to Absalom, for he was consoled
concerning Amnon’s death” (vv. 37-39).
A key note in
the narrative concerning Tamar, after she had been raped, is, I believe, this
one (v. 20): “Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman”.
It is therefore
possible - and I think likely, from what will follow concerning Absalom’s
attitude to his distraught sister - that Tamar would have accompanied her
brother into exile to Geshur.
This whole
unsavoury episode, occurring as it did towards the latter part of King David’s
reign, would have been (according to previous calculations) when pharaoh
Amenhotep I was ruling over Egypt – and towards the latter part also of this
pharaoh’s approximately two-decade reign.
Conventional
chronologists, obsessed with their Sothic theory, have found Amenhotep I
somewhat difficult to fix chronologically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_I):
“In Amenhotep I's ninth regnal year, a heliacal rise of Sothis was observed on the ninth day of the
third month of summer.[12] Modern astronomers have calculated that,
if the observation was made from Memphis or Heliopolis, such an observation could only have been
made on that day in 1537 BC. If the observation was made in Thebes, however, it could only have taken place in 1517.[13] The latter choice is usually accepted as
correct since Thebes was the capital during the early 18th dynasty; hence,
Amenhotep I is usually given an accession date in 1526 BC,[12] although the possibility of 1546 BC is
not entirely dismissed.
Manetho's Epitome states that Amenhotep I ruled Egypt for twenty years and seven
months or twenty-one years, depending on the source.[14] While Amenhotep I's highest attested
regnal year is only his Year 10, Manetho's statement is confirmed by a passage
in the tomb autobiography of a magician named Amenemhet. This explicitly states
that he served under Amenhotep I for 21 Years.[15] Thus, in the high chronology, Amenhotep I
is given a reign from around 1546 to 1526 BC and, in the low chronology, from
around 1526 to 1506 BC or 1525 to 1504 BC,[16] though individual scholars may ascribe
dates to his reign that vary from these by a few years”.
Despite all of this archaeo-astronomical
‘precision’, they have managed to date Amenhotep I about half a millennium too
early. I discuss all of this in far more detail in my university thesis: “The
Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar”:
At this time, we
are told, Talmai son of Ammihud, was the king of Geshur.
This seemingly
obscure king will later be filled out with an impressive alter ego as
well.
Amnon, Tamar and Jonadab
Amnon’s
crafty adviser, Jonadab, whose pernicious counsel will be the cause of Amnon’s
death, and of Tamar’s rape and subsequent desolation, is very much like the
serpent that wormed its way into the idyllic Paradise and likewise counselled
towards death and desolation.
Jonadab is
described as ish hacham meod (אִישׁ חָכָם מְאֹד), “a very shrewd man”.
Perhaps
“cunning” (another meaning for hacham, along with “wise”, “skilful”)
would be more fitting in the context of the serpent in Paradise.
By far the best
commentary that I have read on the Rape of Tamar and the subtle involvement
therein of Jonadab - actually secretly working for Absalom - is the following
enlightening one, by Andrew E. Hill, “A JONADAB CONNECTION IN THE ABSALOM
CONSPIRACY?: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/30/30-4/30-4-pp387-390-JETS.pdf.
Hill, reading
between the lines, has written as follows (JETS 30/4 (December 1987) 387 -390):
“Jonadab the son
of David’s brother Shimeah (Shammah, 1 Sam 16:9; 17:13) appears in the OT
record only in chap. 13 of the Succession Narrative, that much-praised piece of
ancient Israelite historiography documenting Solomon’s installation on the
Davidic throne. His role in the Amnon-Tamar-Absalom triangle has long puzzled
Biblical commentators, and that for two reasons: (1) because of the ill-fated
advice he gave to the crown prince Anmon (2 Sam 13:3-5), and (2) on account of
his uncanny foreknowledge of the events surrounding Absalom’s vengeful murder
of Amnon (13:32-35). This note seeks to elucidate Jonadab’s role in the
narrative by affording an explanation for his advice to Amnon and subsequent
behavior in the royal court on the basis of all known pertinent data, Biblical
or otherwise.
Jonadab is an
acknowledged “friend” (réa') of Amnon (1323). While it is possible that he was
a close personal friend of Amnon since he was a cousin, it seems more likely
that the word here connotes a special office or association with the royal
family (especially in light of his role as a counselor in David’s cabinet; cf.
13:32-35). During Solomon’s reign, Zabud son of Nathan has the title of priest
and “king’s friend” (ré’eh hammelek, 1 Kgs 4:5). It may well be
that with Jonadab
(and others?) this cabinet post has its rudimentary beginnings in the Davidic
monarchy.
Even more
significant, Jonadab is called a “wise” man … 2 Sam 13:3 ….
The majority of
translators take this to mean “crafty” or “shrewd” due to the criminal nature
of his advice to Amnon.” …. H. P. Smith remarked that “Jonadab his
cousin and intimate friend was a very wise man, though in this
case his wisdom was put to base uses.”‘ Most recently K. P. McCarter interprets
Jonadab to be “very wise,” while acknowledging that our English connotation of
“wise” may be a misleading translation.
….
I posit that the
ploy suggested by Jonadab to Amnon for the seduction of Tamar was known to him
by virtue of his standing in the royal court as a sage.
According to H.
P. Miller, “after the beginning of the monarchy, it is commonly understood that
the root hkm refers above all to the academic wisdom of the court and the
ideals of the class entrusted with it." Furthermore, recent study has
shown considerable Egyptian influence on a wide range of OT literary types, most
notably Hebrew wisdom. In recognition of this fact, R. N. Whybray states that
we cannot dismiss the considered opinion of S. Morenz, who claims that the
presence at Solomon's court of bilingual officials with a competent knowledge of
Egyptian writing must be regarded, in view of what we now know of that court
and its diplomatic relations with Egypt, as absolutely beyond question; and
what is true of Solomon’s court may reasonably be supposed to be true of
David's also.
Given this
Egyptian influence in the Israelite united monarchy and the knowledge of and
access to Egyptian literature, my contention is that Jonadab was not only
skilled in the academic wisdom of the royal court but also had some familiarity
with Egyptian literature”.
My comment:
As we progress later into the life of King Solomon, and his profound
involvement with Egypt, we shall find that - whilst no doubt there was a
cultural influence of Egypt upon Israel, there was an extremely profound
influence going the other way, from the Israelite-Phoenician alliance (David to
Solomon and Hiram) into Egypt.
The example that
Hill will now give of Egyptian love poetry may well have been Solomonic (e.g.,
“Song of Solomon”) in origin. Hill continues:
“The particular
issue in question is Jonadab’s counsel to Amnon to feign illness (probably not
too difficult since he was already “haggard”) and then make an innocent request
of King David who would no doubt come and inquire about the crown prince’s
health (2 Sam l3:4-5). This same motif occurs in the Egyptian love poetry of
the New Kingdom (c. 1570-1085 B.C.) [sic].
One song is
translated as follows by W. K. Simpson:
Now
I’ll lie down inside
and
act as if I’m sick.
My
neighbors will come in to visit,
and
with them my girl.
She’ll
put the doctors out,
for
she’s the one to know my hurt.
Here the
scenario is slightly different and the cast of characters has changed.
The basic story
line remains the same, however. The man in love pretends to be stricken with a
malady. Naturally, visitors concerned about his well-being will arrive, and out
of all this the young man will eventually end up alone with his lover so that
she can attend to his “needs.” In the case of Amnon there is no reciprocation
on the part of Tamar, and he must coerce her to have sexual relations with him
(13:11-15). While Amnon achieved a degree of immediate gratification in this
release of pent-up lust for Tamar, the more long-term ramifications of the
misdeed are entirely predictable”.
My comment:
It has been suggested that Tamar
appears to exhibit some nursing and healing knowledge, prompting this likening
of her to a Mesopotamian baritu priestess: http://www.icanbreathe.com/Habbirya.html:
“The first possibility is raised by the term
biryâ. In 2 Sam 13, the root brh 8 is used to designate preparation of the food
(tabrenî) and the ceremony involved in making the food (habbiryâ) which Amnon
expects to eat (‘ebreh). Words arising from brh in the Bible have to do with
eating, but are specific for breaking a fast in a time of grieving or illness.
Forms of brh appear only in 2 Sam 3:35; 12:17; 13:5, 6, 10; and in Lam 4:10.
Another form, barût is found in Ps 69:22 as food for a mourner.9 David for
example refuses to break his fast, lehabrôt, during mourning for Abner (3:35)
and he will not eat, brh, bread during his seven day fast and prayer vigil for
the ailing infant of Bathsheba (12: 17). In Lam 4: 10, children become the food
(perhaps divination-offering), lebarôt, prepared by their desperate mothers
during the siege of Jerusalem. These uses suggest that the word chosen to
express eating in 2 Sam 13 includes a connotation beyond an ordinary meal.
The root has sacred connotations in Hebrew. Beriyt
means covenant, perhaps arising from “binding” in Assyrian barû.
In the Bible beriyt commonly refers to being bound
by the covenant with YHWH, but also by a covenant between humans (Gen 14:13; I
Sam 18:3) and with death (Isa 28: IS, 18; 57:8).11 In later Jewish parlance
there is a meal of comfort, called seûdat habra’â12 given to a mourner after
the funeral. Biryâ may be related to beriyt, covenant. Conceivably this later
custom was a restoration of some familial/tribal bond with the dead, a covenant
meal prepared ritually by a woman. ….
Though the divinatory meaning of brh is not common
in Hebrew, it is among ancient Israel’s neighbors. In Akkadian, barû priests
are diviners who inspect livers, and the related term biru, “divination,” 14 is
conducted also by women who interpret dreams. Occult inquiry was known in
Israel where reported practice is primarily about men. Priests, prophets,
seers, and kings in ancient Israel drew lots, used the ephod, interpreted
dreams and signs to divine YHWH’s will. …. However, Barak (Judg 4), King Saul
(1 Sam 28), and King Josiah (2 Kgs 22) learned the future by means of a woman.
We may not assume that other people’s customs are identical to Israel’s;
however, by exploring ancient approaches to healing we may apply to 2 Sam 13 a
range of activities reflecting a frame of reference common to peoples of the
ancient Near East. ….
In Mesopotamia, besides priestly diviners, there
are references to two types of women diviners who in particular are “approached
in cases of sickness,” … as is the case with Amnon. One passage reads, “We
shall ask here the šã’litu-priestesses, the baritu-priestesses and the spirits
of the dead …..” …. Elsewhere, the goddess of healing, Gula, sings in a hymn of
praise of herself, “Mistress of health am I, I am a physician, I am a diviner
(ha-ra-ku), I am an exorcist…..”….
Magic and medicine were one in the ancient Near
East. …”.
Dr. Ed (Ewald)
Metzler, whom we have met before, had suggested that Tamar’s response to Amnon
(2 Samuel 13:12): ‘No, my brother!’ she said to him. ‘Don’t force me! Such a
thing should not be done in Israel!’ Don’t do this wicked thing’, might
be evidence of Amnon’s supposed Egyptian-ness on his mother’s side (which I
myself no longer hold).
She herself,
though, may have had Egyptian blood on her mother’s side, for Maacah could be
an Egyptian name, Maatkare (Maa[t]ka[re]).
The girl
continues desperately, but also wisely, speaking to her half-brother Amnon (v.
13): ‘Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my
disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in
Israel’.
Then follows her
unexpected suggestion: ‘Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from
being married to you’.
But all to no
avail (vv. 14-18):
But he refused to listen to
her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.
Then Amnon hated her with
intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to
her, ‘Get up and get out!’
‘No!’ she said to him. ‘Sending
me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me’.
But he refused to listen to
her. He called his personal servant and said, ‘Get this woman out of my sight
and bolt the door after her’. So his servant put her out and bolted the door
after her.
Heirs to the
throne can apparently do whatever they like. But only to a point, for
eventually any wicked deeds they may have committed will come back to bite
them.
Hill continues:
“Unlike those
who view this counsel of Jonadab to Amnon as bad advice because it concerned
itself only with methods and failed to calculate the consequences, I am
convinced that Jonadab knew full well the ultimate outcome of his counsel. The
illness ploy, borrowed from Egyptian love poetry [sic], was maliciously
designed to exploit Amnon’s domination by sensuality (a trait he shared with
his father David). More than this, I am inclined to see Jonadab as a co-conspirator
with Absalom in the whole affair, since both men have much to gain.
Absalom’s
desires for revenge against Amnon and ultimately his designs for usurping his
father’s throne are clearly seen in the narrative (cf. 13:21-23, 32; 1521-6).
Amnon, as crown prince, stands in the way as a rival to the ambitions of
Absalom. Absalom and Jonadab collaborate to remove this obstacle to kingship by
taking advantage of a basic weakness in Amnon’s character.
The calculated
plotting of Absalom and Jonadab is evidenced by the pointed questioning of
Tamar by Absalom after her rape and his almost callous treatment of a sister
brutishly violated and now bereft of a meaningful future (almost as if he
expected it, at least according to the tone of the statements in the narrative;
cf. 13:20-22). While a most reprehensible allegation, it seems Tamar may have
been an unwitting pawn of a devious schemer, an expendable token in the power
play for the throne.
Further
testimony to the Absalom-Jonadab conspiracy is found in the timetable exposed
in the narrative. Absalom coolly bides his time for two years before ostensibly
avenging Tamar’s rape (13:23), and only after a three-year self-imposed exile
in Geshur (the homeland of his mother Maacah, 3:3) does he return to Jerusalem
to make preparations for his own kingship by undermining popular allegiance to
David (13:39; 15:1-6). Certainly this belies a carefully constructed strategy
for seizing control of the monarchy and bespeaks a man of considerable
foresight, determination and ability.
One last proof
adduced for a Jonadab connection in the Absalom conspiracy is Jonadab’s own
response to the rumor supposing the assassination of all the king’s sons
(13:30). In countering the false report Jonadab betrayed his complete knowledge
of the ambush in Baal Hazor (including the participants in the crime, since he
confirmed that “they {the servants of Absalom] killed” only Amnon; cf. 13:29,
30-32) before any official or eyewitness news reached Jerusalem. In addition he
informed the royal court that Absalom had been plotting his revenge for two
years (13:32-33). The only possible explanation for Jonadab’s detailed
foreknowledge of the bloodletting at Baal Hazor is his involvement in the
scheme from its inception”.
My comment:
Hill will, in concluding, refer to “the almost annoying paucity of material for
careful analysis” regarding Jonadab, who seems just to vanish from the scene
after this, with Achitophel taking over “the cabinet position of king’s friend
or even chief counselor to the king”. But - and this is the beauty of alter
egos (when they work) - I shall be a putting forward a case later for
Jonadab to have been this very Ahitophel, counsellor to Absalom.
Thus Hill
concludes:
“For his part,
Jonadab was no doubt wise enough to discern that Absalom was a more likely and
more capable candidate as David’s successor. By aiding Absalom in the
conspiracy to slay the crown prince, Jonadab was attempting to secure his
political future. With Absalom on the throne perhaps he anticipated appointment
to the cabinet position of king’s friend or even chief counselor to the
king--although the latter apparently was never realized, since Ahithophel moved
into that slot when Hushai fled Jerusalem with David (15:12; cf. 15:31-34).
In fact, while
the motive of advancement in political rank logically explains the behavior of
Jonadab, we can only speculate as to the particulars since he exits the
narrative after this episode, never to reappear. It is possible that Jonadab
died during Absalom’s three-year hiatus in Geshur, or upon his return he either
forgot Jonadab or he fell out of favor with the new crown prince.
Despite the
almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis, Jonadab’s character
remains an interesting study among the parade of personalities vying for power
and position in David’s court, and ultimately his role in the Succession
Narrative is best understood as that of co-conspirator in the Absalom coup.
Note that this
theme is not uncommon in the narrative, since Absalom (2 Sam 16:1-18:18), Joab
(20:4-13), Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:5-22:25) and Solomon (1:11-40) all maneuver behind
the scenes to enhance their political prospects”.
Who was Ahitophel?
As I see it, the
Jonadab who vanishes so completely (qua Jonadab) after his cunning
advice had led to the rape of Tamar and the murder of Amnon, is also the wise
counsellor, Ahitophel.
We recall that
Andrew E. Hill had, in the course of his terrific commentary, expressed a
certain frustration due to what he called “the almost annoying paucity of
material for careful analysis” regarding Jonadab. And he simply presumed that
the position at court to which Jonadab may have been aspiring, was afterwards,
during the revolt of Absalom (Hill presuming that Jonadab had died in the
meantime), in the hands of Ahitophel.
Hill had at
least suspected a vocational and character likeness between Jonadab and
Ahitophel.
Moreover, the
approximate chronological link is obvious.
My explanation
would be that, as in the case of Abram and Pharaoh, different names would be
given to a person according to different sources, or authors.
For whilst, as
we found, the toledôt of the Egyptian-ised Ishmael will refer to Abram’s
wife-taker as “Pharaoh”, the toledôt of the Palestine-located Isaac will
name him, “Abimelech”.
Similarly - and
with the Books of Samuel considered to have been written by more than one
author (https://www.enterthebible.org/oldtestament.aspx?rid=30): “Ancient tradition identifies Samuel as the
author of the first twenty-four chapters of 1 Samuel and asserts that the rest
of 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel were completed by Nathan and Gad. …”
- and with the
account of the Rape of Tamar reading perhaps like a complete piece on its own,
then it is possible that, whilst one author might have named the counsellor,
“Jonadab”, another might have called him “Ahitophel”.
Now I think
that, whilst Jonadab (יוֹנָדָב) (var. Jehonadab) appears to be clearly a Hebrew name,
Achitophel (אֲחִיתֹפֶל)
may be foreign - say, a Hebraïsed version of the Egyptian element, Hotep.
We recall that
Hill had suggested that Jonadab may have come under Egyptian “academic”
influence.
So, as in the
case of the “very wise” Jonadab, we read also of Ahitophel (2 Samuel 16:23):
“Now in those days the advice Ahithophel gave was like that of one who inquires
of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Ahithophel’s
advice”.
Jonadab and
Ahitophel are comparable, then as to general chronology; expert
counsel - though with a malicious edge; counsellor to the king
and his sons; but (if Hill is right about Jonadab) siding with Absalom
(no doubt with the intention of becoming the power behind the throne after the
passing of David); possible Egyptian influence.
Furthermore,
just as Jonadab’s counsel will involve the exercise of Amnon’s lust, so will
Ahitophel’s counsel require Absalom’s sleeping with his father’s concubines.
2 Samuel 13:3:
“Now Amnon had a friend named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother” might
appear to pose a problem for Hill’s thesis if, as in the translation here, the
Hebrew word rea (רֵעַ)
is rendered as “friend”.
For Jonadab was
no friend of Amnon’s if he were truly conspiring against him with Absalom.
But Hill had
already accounted for this:
Jonadab is an acknowledged
“friend” (réa') of Amnon …. While it is possible that he was a close personal
friend of Amnon since he was a cousin, it seems more likely that the word here
connotes a special office or association with the royal family (especially in
light of his role as a counselor in David’s cabinet; cf. 13:32-35). During
Solomon’s reign, Zabud son of Nathan has the title of priest and “king’s
friend” (ré’eh hammelek, 1 Kgs 4:5). It may well be that with Jonadab (and
others?) this cabinet post has its rudimentary beginnings in the Davidic
monarchy.
The NIV, anyway,
translates rea (perhaps more appropriately) as “adviser”, not as
“friend”: “Now Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah,
David’s brother”.
As far as my
connection goes between Jonadab and Ahitophel, this same verse may also pose
the biological problem for me that Jonadab was a “son of Shimeah, David’s
brother”, presumably making him younger than David. For Ahitophel is thought to
have been the grandfather of David’s wife, Bathsheba, by comparison of 2 Samuel
11:13: “And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, ‘Is not this
Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam …’.”, and 23:34: “…Eliam the son of Ahithophel
the Gilonite …”.
One might
generally expect a wise counsellor to be an old, grey-bearded man of experience
– though exceptional young men can be sages, Solomon, for instance.
My proposed
solution to this difficulty (and I may be wrong in even trying to link Jonadab
with Ahitophel) would appear to be, linguistically, quite an acceptable one. It
utilises the very broad range of meanings attached to the Hebrew word ben
– which may even refer to animals.
It can mean, for
instance, “a member of a guild, order, class”.
Now, Jonadab is
referred to in 2 Samuel 13:3 as ben-Shimeah (בֶּן-שִׁמְעָה), translated as
the “son of Shimeah”. I would take it that my collective Jonadab-Ahitophel was
not strictly a “son” of Shimeah’s, but, for example, an “attendant”, an
“official” of Shimeah’s.
In the
Septuagint version of this verse, ben is rendered by the Greek υἱὸς
[Σαμαα: Shimeah], which word, too, is usually translated as “son”. But it does
not need to be.
R. Brown, L.
Tray and A. Gray explain the relationship between Hebrew ben and Greek huios
(“A Brief Analysis of Filial and Paternal Terms in
the Bible”)
“The usage of huios in Judeo-Greek often followed
that in Hebrew, so we find huios where Jesus would have used the word ben,
or its Aramaic counterpart bar. Examples are when he mentioned
“attendants of the bridegroom” (Mark 2:19), “members of the Kingdom” (Matt.
8:12), “officials of the king” (Matt. 17:25), “people of this age” (Luke
20:34), “people who belong to the evil one” (Matt. 13:38; cf. 1 John 3:10), and
“disciples of a teacher” (Matt. 12:27), all of which translate Greek huios.
Adam is presented as God’s son, evidently because God created him (Luke 3:38).
In the wider Greek context, writers used huios for non-biological
relations as well. According to Irenaeus (180 AD), “when any person has been
taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs
him, and the latter [is called] his father.”1
In this vein Peter refers to Mark as his son (1 Pet.
5:13), and Paul refers to Timothy in similar terms (1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2
Tim. 1:2; cf. 1 John 2:1; ; cf. 3 John 4), using teknon”.
Ahitophel becomes
a very tragic figure, eventually, like Judas, committing suicide – a rarity in
the Bible. His treason, though, may be more understandable if he really were
the grandfather of Bathsheba, who was, in turn, revered by her husband, Uriah,
whom David had murdered.
It is terrible
to think that David’s double-headed crime may have had this further tragic
ramification in the case of one who may well have been, formerly, David’s close
friend.
Ahithophel is Part of the Conspiracy (II Samuel 15:10-12)
I Chronicles 27:33 says that Ahithophel was the king’s counselor. He must have been a very gifted and recognized personality. David and Ahithophel not only worshipped God together; they were the best of friends who shared their hearts. Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:9)
For it was not
an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that
hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from
him: But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. We
took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company.
(Psalm 55:12-14)
Ahithophel
becomes a traitor! It is apparent from the above verses that many of the people
were not aware of what Absalom intended to do, but Ahithophel seems to have
been part of the conspiracy. It is possible that Ahithophel even suggested such
an act to Absalom. Whatever the case may have been, Ahithophel, who was
offering sacrifices in Gilo, didn’t hesitate to join Absalom in his plan to
violently dethrone his father (II Samuel 15:12)”.
Pope Francis has
made some surprisingly sympathetic comments about the tragedy of Judas http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/04/11/pope_francis_warns_against_those_who_judge_with_closed_hea/1221870
“Pope Francis said: "It hurts when I read
that small passage from the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas, who has repented,
goes to the priests and says: ‘I have sinned' and wants to give ... and gives
them the coins. ‘Who cares! - they say to him: it’s none of our business!’ They
closed their hearts before this poor, repentant man, who did not know what to
do. And he went and hanged himself. And what did they do when Judas hanged
himself? They spoke amongst themselves and said: 'Is he a poor man? No! These
coins are the price of blood, they must not enter the temple... and they
referred to this rule and to that… The doctors of the letter. "
The life of a person did not matter to them, the
Pope observed, they did not care about Judas’ repentance.
The Gospel, he continued, says that Judas came
back repentant. But all that mattered to them “were the laws, so many words and
things they had built”.
This – he said - shows the hardness of their
hearts. It’s the foolishness of their hearts that could not withstand the
wisdom of Stephen’s truth so they go to look for false witnesses to judge him”.
Ahitophel and Machiavelli
W. Thomas has a
keen eye to Machiavelli as he describes Dryden’s Ahitophel, in The Crafting of Absalom and Achitophel:
Dryden’s Pen for a Party, pp. 57-58:
Certainly in
tradition ever afterwards Achitophel has been the archetype of the evil
counsellor. To this archetype Dryden
has added the figure of Machiavelli, the courtier who, for himself and for the person he advises, gives counsel
aimed, in however devious and underhanded a way, at promoting the advancement of personal political ambition.
It is this double figure that Dryden first introduces. He takes the Biblical Achitophel,
Of these the false Achitophel was
first:
A Name to all succeeding Ages
Curst.
….
But it is more from Machiavelli that Dryden draws, than from the Bible, when he
elaborates further on his Achitophel
(lines 173-174):
In Friendship False, Implacable in Hate.
Resolv’d to Ruine
or to Rule the State.
And it is to Machiavelli that he looks when he makes his Achitophel,
in a reversal of the Biblical situation, invite his Absalom to join him
in rebellion against David. Throughout, in this fictitious construct,
Dryden has added, to his Biblical and
traitorous Achitophel, the ambitious and scheming Machiavelli.
Behind both
Machiavelli and Achitophel is, of course, the earlier and larger archetype,
Satan, whose name means “the adversary”. ….
