King David’s Troubled Life

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

According to professor emeritus Israel Finkelstein, known as the “king”

of Israeli archaeologists, from Tel Aviv University, there is very little, to no,

real history or archaeology for kings David and Solomon.

Finkelstein is a complete biblical minimalist.

  

Part One: An Overview

 

 

King David of Israel (c. 1000 BC), son of Jesse, was a man of startling contradictions.

 

As a shepherd youth, nothing was too hard for him (cf. Sirach 48:13). And when he, an untested warrior, saw the Philistine giant Goliath mocking the armies of Israel, he viewed him like any bear, or lion, who endangered the flock. So while King Saul, towering head and shoulders above the rest of Israel, stood there trembling with his soldiers, and refusing to confront Goliath in single-hand combat, David, deadly with the sling, did not hesitate to step into the breach.

 

Yet, later in life, as a he grew rich and comfortable, David would say about his own military hard men, his nephews Joab and Abishai: ‘You are too hard for me, you sons of Zeruiah (David’s sister)’. All of a sudden, things had become too hard for David.

 

Always indulgent with his own children, and sometimes surprisingly merciful to others, David could also be shockingly brutal and merciless. One of the worst cases was with the Moabites, a people who had once sheltered David’s own parents. He had some captured Moabites spread out across the ground, and then proceeded to have every tenth one of them slain (decimation).

 

King Saul had grown envious of young David’s military reputation, because the women of Israel had started chanting:

 

‘Saul has killed his thousands;

and David, his tens of thousands’.

 

Saul, a loose cannon at the best of times, could not bear to hear of David upstaging him as a warrior, and he lost no opportunity in trying to pin David to the wall with his spear.

This forced David eventually to flee from Israel, and set up with a band of renegades, including some of Israel’s most dissolute characters, wandering in deserts and living like beasts in caves - an ancient Robin Hood.

 

Now, on one occasion, King Saul in pursuit of David happened to enter the cave in which David and his men were hiding.

 

Saul had gone in there “to cover his feet”, a euphemism for ‘going to the toilet’.

 

David was too noble ever to lay hands on the Lord’s anointed, the king, but the situation gave him the opportunity to show his loyalty to Saul. He lopped off the hem of Saul’s cloak, and showed it to him from afar after Saul had left the cave.

 

And, after Saul’s death, later, at the hands of the Philistines, David wrote a famous eulogy about Saul and his son, Jonathan: “How are the mighty fallen” on the mountains of Israel.

 

David was a poet, troubadour, master of the lyre, psalmist, and a brilliant military commander, one of those who never really lost a battle.

 

He could mourn with the best of them. No need for professional mourners when David was around. He mourned long and hard when his baby son by Bathsheba was dying. But then suddenly stopped off lamenting as soon as the baby died, much to the consternation of those around whom who were trying to mourn empathically with him.

 

And he would mourn long and hard again when his son Absalom was slain – even though Absalom’s rebellion against him had forced David out of the City of Jerusalem.

 

David could also act. Unloved and unwanted by King Saul, he fled to - of all people - the Philistines, the arch enemy.

Goliath had actually promised him rule over them if David could defeat him. For some reason, though, David felt that he had to act there like a complete idiot, so he started dribbling and scratching away at the gate panels.

 

You have to love the response from the King of Gath: ‘Haven’t I enough mad men around me that you should bring into my household this lunatic?’

 

Another noble act, which may not have been questioned by his men, was when David, tired from battle, had yearned for some of the sweet-tasting water from his home town of Bethlehem. Two of his heroes, one of them being his nephew, Abishai, ventured into enemy territory to fetch some of that water for him, at great risk to their own lives. But David poured it out as an oblation, saying that water obtained at such great cost should not be consumed by him.

 

I don’t know what Abishai thought of this act of nobility, but I have a fair idea what Aussie soldiers might have thought in a similar circumstance: ‘You ungrateful *^%$#@W’!

 

The followers of King Saul, even after the king’s death, hated the upstart David, and one of them, then Benjaminite, Shimei, came forward to abuse David ‘up hill and down dale’, throwing rocks at him and spitting at him, when David was forced out of Jerusalem by Absalom’s rebellion.

‘Get out, get out, you worthless man of bloodshed!’, screamed Shimei.

 

This was the occasion for another surprise reaction from David; for he, in response to general Abishai’s, ‘Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over now and cut off his head’, replied:

 

What have I to do with you, O sons of Zeruiah? If he curses, and if the LORD has told him, ‘Curse David,’ then who shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’ Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, ‘Behold, my son who came out from me seeks my life; how much more now this Benjaminite? Let him alone and let him curse, for the LORD has told him. Perhaps the LORD will look on my affliction and return good to me instead of his cursing this day’.

 

David and his band of ruffians, whilst roaming the countryside, had given protection to some shepherds, and, whilst the shepherds had appreciated this gesture, their master, Nabal, who was a Saul-ite (a Benjaminite), did not.

In Nabal’s sight, David was just another rebel in the kingdom, a runaway.

 

This caused David to see red - unjustifiably as it seems to me - and so he and his men strapped on their swords ready to go off and slay Nabal’s entire household.

 

Nabal’s wise wife, Abigail, hastened to intervene, so that David would not come to his kingdom with blood on his hands.

 

A bit late for that!

 

David was already known as “a man of blood”, a name that I once got called in a Hebrew class. You see, the Hebrew word for “blood” is dam (דָּם). Now, an elderly lady filling in for the regular Hebrew teacher at the University of Sydney asked us our names. When I told her mine was “Damien”, she shrieked like a harpy: “Ah! Man of blood!”

 

Anyway, Abigail, by her thoughtful intervention, got herself a king husband. For Nabal (meaning Fool) died of a heart attack when he heard that his wife had been speaking to David. And David, not one to take a backward step, took Abigail for his wife.

 

David had by now been accumulating wives, and was having sons by them. These sons, half-brothers, were to cause him no end of trouble. The oldest, Amnon, would rape his half-sister, Tamar, for which he would, in turn, be slain by her brother, Absalom.

This Absalom would later rise up in rebellion against his father, David, and drive him out of Jerusalem.

 

Behind all of this intrigue lurked the sinister figure of the shrewd counsellor, Achitophel.

 

Finally, despite Solomon being intended by David for the throne, the now eldest son, Adonijah, rose up and tried to pull off his own version of Absalom-ic rebellion.

 

 

Part Two:

Just stories, or real history?

 

Whilst much more work needs to be done, it seems obvious that Dr. Bimson’s

Late Bronze Age placement of Solomon and Hatshepsut is far more appropriate than either Middle Bronze I or Iron Age II.

 

According to professor emeritus Israel Finkelstein, known as the “king” of Israeli archaeologists, from Tel Aviv University, there is very little, to no, real history or archaeology for kings David and Solomon.

Finkelstein is a complete biblical minimalist.

 

In a now famous article for The National Geographic, “Kings of Controversy” (December 2010), its author Robert Draper asked at the beginning: “Was the kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire – or just a little cow town?”

 

Professor Finkelstein, trying to squeeze the kingdom of David and Solomon into a mis-dated Iron II Age, will end up with a very diminished David – yes, you could say the ruler of “just a little cow town”- and with Solomon himself gone altogether.

Finkelstein has famously remarked in the above article – and quite logically according to the strictures of his conventional scheme (p. 85):

 

“Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!”

 

While it is nice to read all of the epic stories about King David, I, as a historian, want to know if these are more than mere entertaining stories. If I want just literary epics I can take up Homer (The Iliad and The Odyssey), or Virgil’s Aeneid. 

 

Fortunately not all scholars are biblical minimalists like professor Finkelstein.

 

One bright light, the British historian, Dr. John Bimson, has gone to the trouble of identifying the right archaeological level for the famous empire of King Solomon (“Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?”, S.I.S Review, Vol. VIII, 1986). Whereas Finkelstein was futilely looking in the Iron II Age, Dr. Bimson realised that King Solomon must have belonged to an earlier phase, the Late Bronze Age:

 

a.         The Late Bronze Age and the Reign of Solomon

 

 …. Although an exhaustive study of the LBA [Late Bronze Age] contexts of all scarabs commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and perhaps no earlier .... Velikovsky's chronology makes Hatshepsut (with Thutmose III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III's sole reign contemporary with that of Rehoboam in Judah …. Therefore, if the revised chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon's reign saw the transition from LB I to LB II, rather than that from LB I A to LB I B.

 

Placing the beginning of LB II during the reign of Solomon produces a very good correlation between archaeological evidence and the biblical record of that period. It is with this correlation that we will begin. In taking the LB I - II transition as its starting-point, the present article not only takes up the challenge offered by Stiebing, but also continues the revision begun in my previous articles, and will bring it to a conclusion (in broad outline) with the end of the Iron Age.

 

Though KENYON has stated that the LB I - II transition saw a decline in the material culture of Palestine … ongoing excavations are now revealing a different picture. LB II A "was definitely superior to the preceding LB I", in terms of stability and material prosperity; it saw "a rising population that reoccupied long abandoned towns" …. Foreign pottery imports are a chief characteristic of the period …. According to the biblical accounts in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Solomon's reign brought a period of peace which saw an increase in foreign contacts, unprecedented prosperity, and an energetic building programme which extended throughout the kingdom ....

 

I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo … by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) ….

 

The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have "no evidence of any particular luxury" ….

 

The above-mentioned strata at Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and courtyards …. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament ….

 

Art treasures from these cities not only indicate the wealth of the period, but reflect contacts with Egypt and northern Mesopotamia .... These contacts are precisely those we would expect to find attested during Solomon's reign, the Bible records Solomon's trade with Egypt and his marriage to the Pharaoh's daughter … and says (I Kings 4:24) that his kingdom extended as far to the north-east as Tiphsah, which is probably to be identified with Thapsacus, "an important crossing in the west bank of the Middle Euphrates ... placed strategically on a great east-west trade route" ….

 

The Bible adds extra detail concerning Gezer: namely, that Solomon rebuilt it after it had been captured and burnt by the Pharaoh, who had given the site to his daughter, Solomon's wife, as a dowry (I Kings 9:16-17).

 

In Velikovsky's chronology, this pharaoh is identified as Thutmose I …. In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point during LB I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence of burning ….

 

The "latest possible date" for this destruction is said to be the reign of Thutmose III, with some archaeologists preferring an earlier date …. We may readily identify this destruction as the work of Solomon's father-in-law.

 

Mackey’s comment: But see my different view of “Gezer” in my article:

 

Solomon and Sheba, and the Gezer dowry

 

(4) Solomon and Sheba, and the Gezer dowry

 

Dr. Bimson continues:

 

From the period between this destruction and the LB II A city comes a group of several dozen burials in a cave. DEVER remarks that most of these "show signs of advanced arthritis, probably from stoop labour, which may be an indication of the hardships of life during this period" …. Yet contemporary finds, including "Egyptian glass, alabaster and ivory vessels, and a unique terra-cotta sarcophagus of Mycenaean inspiration" … indicate considerable prosperity and international trade at this time. In a revised framework, it is tempting to speculate that the burials were of people who suffered under Solomon's system of forced labour, by which Gezer was built according to I Kings 9:15. It emerges in I Kings 12 that this forced labour caused sufficient hardship to contribute to the bitterness which split the kingdom after Solomon's death.

 

We must turn briefly to Jerusalem, where Solomon's building activities were concentrated for the first twenty years of his reign, according to I Kings 9:10.

Here we find that traces of occupation datable to Solomon's time in the conventional scheme are rather poor ….

 

In the revised scheme, we may attribute to Solomon the impressive stone terrace system of LBA date excavated by Kenyon on the eastern ridge …. In fact, this is probably the "Millo" which Solomon is said to have built (I Kings 9:15, 24; II:27). Kenyon describes the nucleus of this terrace system as "a fill almost entirely of rubble, built in a series of compartments defined by facings of a single course of stones..." …. "Fill", or "filling", is the probable meaning of "Millo" [35]. Also to Solomon's time would belong at least some of the LBA tombs discovered on the western slope of the Mount of Olives; many of these contain LB I - IIA material which includes "a surprisingly large number" of imported items from Cyprus, Aegean and Egypt [36]. The number would not be surprising in the context of Solomon's reign. ….

 

Comparison of (A) LB II (Stratum Ib) temple at Hazor with (B) the basic ground plan of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, as deduced from biblical information. Both have a tripartite division on a single axis, side-rooms and a pair of free-standing pillars (though the latter are not identically situated in both cases).

 

[End of Bimson’s section]

 

Whilst much more work needs to be done, it seems obvious that Dr. Bimson’s Late Bronze Age placement of Solomon and Hatshepsut is far more appropriate than either Middle Bronze I or Iron Age II.

 

Iron Age II

 

Iron Age II, the archaeological phase favoured by archaeologists for

kings David and Solomon, turns out to be hopelessly inadequate

as a representation of that glorious period.

 

As we read above, Dr. John Bimson, contrasting his view of the Late Bronze Age for King Solomon with the conventional view of Iron Age II for the great king, wrote:

 

I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo … by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) ….

 

The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have "no evidence of any particular luxury" ….

 

[End of quote]

 

That the bankrupt conventional arrangement of chronology and attendant stratigraphy falls to pieces completely when subjected to biblical scrutiny is well apparent from the attempted merging of the Solomonic era with a mis-dated archaeological phase: Iron II.

 

David and Solomon simply disappear.

 

Let us test a specific situation. When David wanted to make friendly overtures to the king of the Ammonites, because his recently deceased father had treated David well, the new king and his men were suspicious and thought that David’s men just wanted to spy on them, so they shaved their beards down one side of their cheek and left their other cheeks (buttocks) exposed.

The men were too embarrassed to return to Jerusalem, so David bade them encamp at Jericho until they had re-grown their beards and self-respect.

 

Now Dr. John Osgood (Techlets - creation.com) has identified this very Davidic settlement at Jericho as belonging to Middle Bronze III C phase, which is far earlier than professor Israel Finkelstein’s Iron Age II for David and Solomon.

 

Historical contemporaries of David

 

Some of King David’s northern contemporaries, associated with the famous king Hammurabi of Babylon, have also been recently identified. King Hammurabi has been described as “floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea”, having first been dated to 2400 BC, then, later, to 1800 BC.

 

His real location, however, is as a contemporary of kings David and Solomon around 1000 BC.

 

David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer, son of Rekhob, has been well identified with Shamsi-Adad I, son of Urukab-kabu (in which the name Rekhob [= Rukab] can be seen).

 

David and Solomon’s great ally, Hiram, is to be found in the name, Iarim-(Lim).

 

Solomon’s foe, Rezon, son of Eliada, is the king of Mari, Zimri-lim, son of Iahdu-(Lim) (in which the name Eliada [= Iahdu] can be seen).

 

This is nothing like the so-called ‘history’ to be found in the textbooks, however.

 

What Finkelstein ought to have been “sorry” for  was not the wise King Solomon – who continues to exist as a real historical and archaeological entity, despite the confused utterances of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists – but for Finkelstein’s own folly in clinging to a hopelessly out-dated and bankrupt archaeological system that has caused him and his colleagues to point every time to the wrong stratigraphical level for Israel’s Old Testament history (e.g. Exodus/Conquest; David and Solomon).

 

Archaeologists are famous for looking in the right place at the wrong time, or vice versa.

 

Part Three:

Fallout from Bathsheba affair

 

“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”.

 

Andrew E. Hill

 

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.

 

Andrew 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”.

 

Mackey’s 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-Tyrian alliance (David to Solomon and Hiram) into Egypt.

 

The example that Andrew 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”.

 

Mackey’s 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 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.

 

Andrew 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”.

 

Mackey’s comment: Andrew 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 Andrew 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 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 (he presuming that Jonadab had died in the meantime), in the hands of Ahitophel.

 

Andrew 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”:

 

Toledôt Explains Abram's Pharaoh

 

(6) Toledôt Explains Abram's Pharaoh

 

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 highly comparable, then as to general chronology; expert counsel - though with a malicious edge; counsellor to the king and his sons; but (if Andrew 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 Andrew 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 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”.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/ben.html

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”)

http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/28_3_PDFs/IJFM_28_3-BrownGrayGray-BriefAnalysis.pdf

 

“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.”

….

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:

http://www.rvharvey.org/d-ahithophel.htm

 

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)”.

 

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.

 

fastens on his “Counsell” in the next line, but makes it “crooked” in the manner of Machiavelli and equates it with something else Machiavellian, saying that he is "For close Designs, and crooked Counsell fit”.

….

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”. ….

 

“But it is more from Machiavelli that Dryden draws, than from the Bible …”.

Or not.