Solomon as ruler of Hazor

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

  

 

Part One:

Jabin 3 of Hazor

  

 

 

 

If Hammurabi is to be re-dated to the era of David and Solomon, why is the city of Hazor,

at this time, in the hands of one Jabin, a long-standing name for Canaanite rulers of Hazor?

  

 

 

Whilst the conventional placement of Hammurabi of Babylon and Zimri-Lim of Mari in the early-to-mid C18th BC is to be rejected, as far as I am concerned, the relocation of these two kings to the time of Joshua (C15th BC) would seem to be, in the case of the contemporaneous Jabin of Hazor, at least, more appropriate than the era of David and Solomon (c. C10th BC) that I have adopted following Dean Hickman (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985, 13-28).

 

The reason for this is that there is evidence in the Mari tablets at this time of a Jabin of Hazor, a third king of this name, following on from the one at the time of Joshua (11:1) - let us call him Jabin (1) - and a second one at the time of Deborah and Barak (Judges 4:2) - Jabin (2).

Jabin (3) now emerges as Ibni-Addu (Akkadian) of Hazor at the time of kings Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim.

That name (Ibni-Addu) would be, in Hebrew: Yabni-el. The very name emerges some time later in the El Amarna [EA] records, variously as Yabniel and as Yapa-addu (EA #97 and #98).

 

At first glance, this situation (of a Jabin ruling over Hazor at this time) seems to be highly problematical for Dean Hickman’s thesis – which, however, I have found to have worked so well until now. See for example my article:

 

Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon

 

https://www.academia.edu/35404463/Hammurabi_and_Zimri-Lim_as_Contemporaries_of_Solomon

 

Since the ‘destruction’ of Jabin of Hazor at the time of Deborah and Barak (Judges 4:23-24), the site should have fallen under the jurisdiction of Israel. And that situation would have continued until, and including, the time of David and Solomon – which is the era I consider (following Dean Hickman) to synchronise with Hammurabi, Zimri-Lim, and the Mari archive.

 

So I must conclude that the only hope of salvaging D. Hickman’s thesis is to identify Jabin (3) of Hazor with King Solomon himself. And that would not seem to be immediately promising, considering that the two predecessors of Jabin (3) of Hazor were both hostile to Israel.

 

What would King Solomon be doing adopting a name like Jabin, or Yabni?

 

To my own surprise, there is a name amongst the seven legendary names of King Solomon:

 

https://ohr.edu/8266

“Midrashic Tradition tells us that King Solomon appears in the Bible under several different names. His parents, King David and Batsheba, named him Shlomo, while the prophet Natan named him Yedidyah (see II Sam. 12:24-25). Actually, the name Shlomo was already given to him before his birth in a prophecy to King David (see I Chron. 22:9). Two of the twenty-four books in the Bible open by explicitly ascribing their authorship to Shlomo: Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs) and Mishlei (Proverbs). A third book, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), ascribes itself to somebody named Kohelet, son of David, king of Jerusalem. According to tradition, Kohelet is another name for Solomon. So far, we have three names for King Solomon.

 

The early Amora, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi adds another four names to this list.  …” [,]

 

that can serve to bring a completely new perspective - and in favour of Dean Hickman’s thesis - to the conventional view that Mari’s Jabin of Hazor belonged to the C18th BC, and also to Dr. Courville’s view that this Jabin was the one at the time of Joshua.

 

 

Part Two:

Solomon was also named Jabin

 

Could King Solomon be the Ibni-Addu [or Jabin] king of Hazor

as referred to in the Akkadian tablet ARM VI, 236?

 

 

To suggest that would seem to be a very long stretch indeed, given that the Mari tablets are conventionally dated to c. 1800 BC, and given also that the kings Jabin of Hazor were Canaanite kings inimical to the Hebrews, whether of the Joshuan or the Judges eras.

 

What, however, makes far more plausible a connection between the Solomonic era and a king referred to in the Mari tablets is Dean Hickman’s thesis - previously considered - that the Mari archives, Zimri-Lim, and king Hammurabi of Babylon, must be re-dated to the actual time of King Solomon. 

 

What makes even more possible a connection between King Solomon and King Ibni (Yabni) of Hazor at this particular time is the fact that Solomon had built up the important city of Hazor (I Kings 9:15): “Here is the account of the forced labour King Solomon conscripted to build the Lord’s Temple … Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer”.

 

But, if Solomon were this Yabni, or Jabin, why would he not be mentioned as “of Jerusalem”?

 

Well, geographically the Mari tablets do not go further SW than Hazor, which is in fact “the only Canaanite site mentioned in the archive discovered in Mari …”:

http://www1.chapman.edu/~bidmead/G-Haz.htm

Similarly, the foremost king of the Syro-Mesopotamian region, the Amorite king, Iarim-Lim, is connected with Aleppo. He, I have argued, was David and Solomon’s loyal friend, referred to in the Bible as “Hiram king of Tyre” (e.g. I Chronicles 14:1).

It seems that kings of wide-ranging geographical rule were referred to by fellow monarchs in relation to the closest of their cities.

 

Hazor was, even as early as Joshua’s day, a city of immense importance (Joshua 11:10): “The Head of all those Kingdoms" (Joshua 11:10).

At a later time: “The Mari documents clearly demonstrate the importance, wealth and far-reaching commercial ties of Hazor”. http://www1.chapman.edu/~bidmead/G-Haz.htm

 

There is a lot to recommend the impressive Late Bronze Age Hazor as that which Solomon rebuilt: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:142088/FULLTEXT01.pdf

“Hazor’s role in an international Late Bronze Age context has long been indicated but never thoroughly investigated. This role, I believe, was more crucial than previously stressed. My assumption is based on the very large size of this flourishing city which, according to documents, possessed ancient traditions of diplomatic connections and trade with Mesopotamia in the Middle Bronze Age. Its strategic position along the most important N-S and E-W main trade routes, which connected Egypt with SyriaMesopotamia and the Mediterranean Sea with the city and beyond, promoted contacts. Hazor was a city-state in Canaan, a province under Egyptian domination [sic] and exploitation during this period, a position that also influenced the city’s international relations. Methodologically the thesis examines areas of the earlier and the renewed excavations at Hazor, with the aim of discussing the city’s interregional relations and cultural belonging based on external influences in architectural structures (mainly temples), imported pottery and artistic expressions in small finds, supported by written evidence. Cultic influences are also considered. Various origin and find contexts of the imported and culturally influenced material can be recognized, which imply three concepts in the field of interaction studies found within the framework of a modified World Systems Theory and also according to C. Renfrew’s Peer Polity Interaction model: 1) The northern influenced material at Hazor should be understood in the context of cultural identity. It continues from earlier periods and is maintained through external trade and the regional interaction between Canaanite city-states in the north, resulting in certain cultural homogeneity. 2) A centre-periphery approach is used to explain the special unequal relation between Canaan and Egypt, in which Hazor might have possessed an integrating semi-peripheral role, a kind of diplomatic position between Egypt and its northern enemies. The city’s loyalty to Egypt is hinted at in documents and in the increasing evidences of emulation in elite contexts appearing on the site. 3)

A model of ‘interregional interaction networks’ describes the organization of the trade which provided certain consumers at Hazor with the Aegean and Cypriote pottery and its desirable content.

The cargo of the Ulu Burun and Cape Gelidonya ships and documents show that luxury items were transited from afar through Canaan. Such long-distance trade / exchange require professional traders that established networks along the main trade route …”.

 

King Solomon, like Ibni-Addu (Jabin) of Hazor had great need of tin, which had become scarce in the Mediterranean at that time. Much has been written on this. For example:

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/17Archeology/InscriptionJabin.aspx#sthash.jFPTabMN.dpbs

“One Akkadian tablet (ARM VI, 236, dated to the 18th century B.C.) recorded a shipment of tin to "Ibni-Addad king of Hazor." Translated from Akkadian into its West Semitic form "Ibni-Addad" becomes "Yabni-Haddad," and "Yabni" linguistically evolves into "Yabin / Jabin" in ancient Hebrew”.

 

https://www.c4israel.org/news/did-british-israeli-tin-trade-supply-solomons-temple/

Did British-Israeli Tin Trade Supply Solomon’s Temple?

Dr James E. Patrick - 28 November 2019

Scientists recently found evidence suggesting that Solomon’s Temple may have been built with bronze made from British tin. Late Bronze Age tin ingots found in Israel have been analysed and shown to have originated in the tin mines of Cornwall and Devon.

The Bible records Solomon sending trading ships to Tarshish, returning along the African coast (1Kings 10:22). Jonah fled on such a ship away from Nineveh, confirming that Tarshish was far to the west of Israel (Jonah 1:1-3). Ezekiel 27:12 later tells us that the wealth of Tarshish was ‘silver, iron, tin and lead’. The mineral-rich kingdom of Tartessos did exist in south-west Spain, but the tin it traded was not indigenous, coming instead by sea from Cornwall. Britain had supplied tin for bronze-making to all of Europe for centuries, hence its prosperity during the Bronze Age. As such, Britain would have traded tin with Israel using ‘ships of Tarshish’.

But that biblical detective work has now been confirmed with hard evidence. In the second-millennium BC, known as the Bronze Age, the name itself illustrates how widespread and important bronze was to societies all across Europe and the Middle East. Bronze is made from copper and tin, but tin is very rare in Europe and Asia, giving it a value and strategic importance in those times similar to oil today. ….

 

Traditionally, one of King Solomon’s seven names was Bin, thought to indicate:

“Bin = "he who built the Temple".”

A thirteenth century AD scholar translated this Bin as Yabni, which is our Jabin.

Whatever reason had prompted Solomon to take (or be given) this name - and it may have been simply because this had become the traditional name for a ruler of the city of Hazor - the choice of name is a most fortuitous one, for it perfectly describes the wise and discerning Solomon:

 

The name Jabin comes from the verb בין (bin) meaning to understand or have insight:

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jabin.html#.XkncEW5uKUk

 

Jabin (Hebrew: יָבִין‎ Yāḇîn) is a Biblical name meaning 'discerner', or 'the wise'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabin

 

 

 

 

The Shunammite and Pharaoh’s Daughter

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

Given King Solomon’s special love for “Pharaoh’s daughter”, it would figure that she was the same as the beautiful “Shunammite” of the Song of Solomon (6:13).

 

Victor Sasson has come to this same conclusion, that the “Pharaoh’s daughter” was the desirable lady of the Song of Solomon (“King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs”, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 39, Fasc. 4, Oct., 1989, pp. 407-414). Sasson describes her as being “Dark”, but I have already argued that this was due to her exposure to the sun, as she herself attested (Song 1:6), and not to her ethnicity – and were Egyptian women necessarily darker than Israelite ones, anyway?

On. p. 413, though, Sasson will make the point that: “In the Song the lady’s explanation … is best interpreted … to mean that her skin complexion was not black but that it was to a great extent the result of too much exposure to the sun. ...”.

 

Sasson begins on pp. 1-2:

 

One of the mysteries in the Song of Songs that have roused my curiosity for some time is the identity - or, rather, the poetic identity - of the lady who calls herself šěḥôrâ and šěḥarḥōret in i 5-6. Increasingly, I have come to conclude that the woman in question was Pharaoh's daughter whom Solomon loved and took for a wife. Since the Song has elicited so much amount of published discussion over the ages, I was not greatly surprised when I discovered that this theory was already put forward a long time ago by Theodore of Mopsuestia (5^th century C.E.). ….

…

The Bible credits Solomon with being a great lover of women. The following verses from the books of Kings deserve to be quoted and examined. ….

 

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women: the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women. …. Solomon clung to these in love.

Revised Standard Version, 1 Kgs xi 1-2). ….Vol. 39, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1989), Vol. 39, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1989

Vol. 39, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 407-414

 

 

What is of significance here is that, while other foreign women whom Solomon loved are lumped together, Pharaoh's daughter is specially singled out.

The importance of Pharaoh's daughter in the personal history of Solomon is indicated by the fact that she is mentioned four times in 1 Kings (iii 1, vii 8, ix 24, xi 1-2).

In 1 Kgs iii 1 we are told of Solomon's marriage to her. The part of the verse that is of relevance here is: wybyʼh ʼl ‘yr dwd, “He brought her to the City of David”. (New English Bible). The significant element is, more specifically, the word wybyʼh. In the Song i 4 we read: "The King has brought me (hbyʼ ny) into his chambers”. (RSV). The occurrence of the verb hbyʼ cannot be merely coincidental. In fact, the verb is one of a number of literary links to the story of Solomon’s love for Pharaoh’s daughter (cf Song ii 4).

‘yr dwd mentioned in 1 Kings iii 1 is, of course, Jerusalem. In the Song the lady frequently addresses bnwt yrwšlm ("the daughters of Jerusalem") and they, in turn, address her or respond to her. This may be interpreted may be interpreted to mean that the woman was not a native of. Jerusalem. She appears to have been a foreigner, probably Pharaoh’s daughter whom Solomon brought to ‘yr dwd (Jerusalem). ….

 

The “Shunammite”

 

I have multi-identified her:

 

Abishag: “… a beautiful young woman … a Shunammite” (I Kings 1:3).

Tamar: “Now David’s son Absalom had a beautiful sister named Tamar” (2 Samuel 13:1).

Shunammite: “… fairest among women” (Song of Solomon 1:8).

Queen of Sheba: “King Solomon gave the queen of Sheba all she desired and asked for …” (I Kings 10:13).

Pharaoh’s Daughter: “Solomon made an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt and married his daughter” (I Kings 3:1).

Hatshepsut: Whose name means “foremost of noble women”.

 

Israel and Egypt were now united as one, with vast cultural exchanges occurring between the two.

 

Victor Sasson, whose article deserves to be read in its entirety, will make another point most relevant I think (from a geographical point of view) to my view that the Shunammite would become, for a period of time, the Queen of (Beer)sheba, of the southern kingdom of Geshur fronting on Egypt (p. 409, my emphasis):

 

In the Song iii 6 we read:

 

Who is this coming from the wilderness,

like a column of smoke,

perfumed with myrrh and frankincense,

with all the fragrant powders  of the merchant? ….

 

The word midbār in the present context appears to be the major wilderness in the southern part of Palestine adjoining Egypt. Pharaoh’s daughter [the Queen of Sheba at this stage] would then be poetically visualized as emerging from the desert … on her way to the fragrant pastures of Palestine, to meet her lover, Solomon.

Achitophel and Machiavelli

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

“…. in Melamed's most felicitous formulation, “the House of Borgia in the ancient ...

land of Israel, Ahitophel plays Machiavelli to Absalom – his Cesare Borgia”.”

 

 

 

Who was Achitophel?

 

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, Achitophel.

 

Andrew E. Hill had, in the course of his terrific commentary, “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” (JETS 30/4, December, 1987, 387-390), 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 Achitophel.

Hill had at least suspected a vocational and character likeness between Jonadab and Achitophel.

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 “Achitophel”.

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 Achitophel (2 Samuel 16:23): “Now in those days the advice Achithophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Achithophel’s advice”.   

 

Jonadab and Achitophel 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 Achitophel’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 Achitophel, 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 Achitophel 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 Achithophel 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 Achitophel) 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-Achitophel 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.”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”.  

 

Achitophel 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).

 

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”.

 

Achitophel and Machiavelli

 

W. Thomas has a keen eye to Machiavelli as he describes Dryden’s Achitophel, 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”. ….

 

In Bringing the Hidden to Light: The Process of Interpretation (edited by Kathryn F. Kravitz, Diane M. Sharon), we find the requisite (if Achitophel is Machiavelli) comparison now between Absalom and the Prince, Cesare Borgia (p. 181):

 

…. As Melamed pointed out, although Luzzatto's interpretation followed the literal the literal meaning of the text and traditional Jewish commentators such as Kimḥi and Abrabanel, nevertheless he expressed it in the sprit and vocabulary of Machiavelli and the tradition of raison d’état; in Melamed's most felicitous formulation, “the House of Borgia in the ancient ... land of Israel”, Ahitophel plays Machiavelli to Absalom – his Cesare Borgia”. …. However, it should be observed that Luzzatto was not endorsing the behaviour of Absalom but only indicating, in the context of his refutation of the allegation of Tacitus that the Jews were sexually immoral, how in the spirit of Machiavelli and raison d’état, a prince might acquire power. ….

 

“The House of Borgia in the ancient land of Israel …”. Hmmmm.

 

Moreover, I cannot help noticing the similarity between the names Achitophel and Machiavelli:

 

ACHI-t-OPHEL

 m-ACHI- AVELL

 

For more on “Abrabanel”, or Abravanel, see e.g. my article:

 

Prophet Jeremiah and " Savonarola ". Part One: And Jewish Abravanel

 

https://www.academia.edu/25440354/Prophet_Jeremiah_and_Savonarola_._Part_One_And_Jewish_Abravanel

500 Years and Counting: Why the World Is Still Terrified by Machiavelli

 

by Stewart Patrick

Key point: Machiavelli captures the imagination as the most ruthless of the original realists. His book The Prince is still sold in stores today.

Of all the writers in the “realist” canon—from Thucydides and Hobbes to Morgenthau and Mearsheimer—it is Niccolo Machiavelli who retains the greatest capacity to shock. ….

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/500-years-and-counting-why-world-still-terrified-

 

Absalom and Achitophel

by

Damien F. Mackey

Such ‘puzzled’ commentators, and indeed Hill himself - who will lament “the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis [of Jonadab]” - would greatly benefit here, I believe, from a recognition of Jonadab’s alter ego. Jonadab, it is here suggested, was none other than the legendary counsellor, “Achitophel” (Ahitophel) ….

Into the halçyon pastoral scene (Song of Solomon) of sun, vineyards, flocks, goats, shepherds, lillies, valleys and fruit trees - a veritable Garden of Eden - there will emerge a bitter and cunning “adviser”.

Like the serpent of old.

This dark character will bring down Amnon. And he will leave the Shunammite “desolate”.

He will foment Absalom’s rebellion, forcing King David to leave his city of Jerusalem in tears. And he will finally, like Judas, commit suicide. 

Here is how the terrible and long-ranging conspiracy began to unfold (2 Samuel 13:1-2):

“In the course of time, 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”.

Enter Jonadab (vv. 3-4): “Now Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother. Jonadab was a very shrewd man. He asked Amnon, ‘Why do you, the king’s son, look so haggard morning after morning? Won’t you tell me?’

Amnon said to him, ‘I’m in love with Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister’.”

There is so much to know about this Jonadab.

Some translations present him as Amnon’s “friend”, but “adviser” (as above) will turn out to be by far the more suitable rendering of the Hebrew rēa‘ (רֵעַ).

For, no “friend” of Amnon’s was Jonadab!

Commenting on this Hebrew word, Andrew E. Hill (assistant prof. of OT at Wheaton College, Illinois) writes (http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/30/30-4/30-4-pp387-390-JETS.pdf):

“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 … 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”.

Another key Hebrew word used to describe Jonadab is ḥākām (חָכָם), variously understood as meaning “wise”, or just “crafty” or “shrewd”.

Before we consider further this important word, we need to know what was the criminal advice that Jonadab had given to the king’s lovesick oldest son, Amnon. It was this (2 Samuel 13:5): “‘Go to bed and pretend to be ill’, Jonadab said. ‘When your father comes to see you, say to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and give me something to eat. Let her prepare the food in my sight so I may watch her and then eat it from her hand’.’”

Clear and unequivocal advice from a man described as ḥākām, but also coldly calculated advice with deep undertones and ramifications of which the manipulative Jonadab was fully aware.

Andrew E. Hill, again, offers this explanation of the adjective ḥākām:

“Even more significant, Jonadab is called a “wise” man (hãkãm, 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.” Yet S. R. Driver noted that “subtil” “is scarcely a fair paraphrase: the text says that Jonadab was wise.” He concludes that had the writer intended to convey a meaning of “shrewd” or “crafty” he would have used ´ãrôm or another such word (cf. Gen 3:1)”.

H. P. Smith remarked that “Jonadab [Amnon’s] cousin and intimate friend [sic] 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 concur with Driver and the others cited on the understanding of Jonadab as a very wise man. In addition, 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”.

Hill will also cite the view of H. P. Müller, that the Hebrew word may pertain to learning:

“… after the beginning of the monarchy, it is commonly understood that the root ḥkm 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”.

This “Egyptian” element needed to be included here because soon the suggestion will be made that Jonadab may have had - like Tamar - an Egyptian-name alter ego.

The Plot Thickens

Andrew E. Hill begins his discussion of adviser Jonadab, in his close association with Amnon, by referring to the puzzlement that Jonadab’s actual rôle in this has caused commentators. Hill gives these “two reasons” why he thinks that commentators may be puzzled about Jonadab:

1.      because of the ill-fated advice he gave to the crown prince Amnon (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).

Such ‘puzzled’ commentators, and indeed Hill himself - who will lament “the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis [of Jonadab]” - would greatly benefit here, I believe, from a recognition of Jonadab’s alter ego. Jonadab, it is here suggested, was none other than the legendary counsellor, “Achitophel” (Ahitophel), which may possibly be an Egyptian name: something like Rahotep, or Aahotepra, with the pagan theophoric (Ra) once again dropped. Thus, e.g., [R]ahotep (or Ahhotep) = Ahitoph- plus the Hebrew theophoric -el (“God”).

King David was no fool. He would see right through the trickery of e.g. Joab (and others), who would then be forced to concede (2 Samuel 14:20): ‘Your servant Joab did this to change the present situation. My lord has wisdom like that of an angel of God - he knows everything that happens in the land’. Yet even the ‘angelic’ David is said to have greatly valued the advice of Achitophel (16:23): “Now in those days the advice Achitophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Achitophel’s advice”.

He may even have advised the ageing King David to take into his service “a young virgin”.

Achitophel was, I propose, none other than the “wise” (ḥākām) royal counsellor, Jonadab.

Credit, then, to Andrew E. Hill for being able to get behind Jonadab’s conspiracy without his having, to assist him, this crucial Achitophel connection. I can now disclose Hill’s giveaway title, “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” (JETS 30/4, Dec., 1987, 387-390).

Hill is undoubtedly quite correct in his estimation that Jonadab fully knew what he was doing, even if he may be wrong in suggesting that the latter was using Egyptian love poetry for his precedent (more likely, we think, the Egyptians picked it up later from the Tamar incident). According to Hill:

“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)”.

What was the psychologically astute Jonadab (Achitophel) really up to? And why?

Jonadab, according to Hill, was not actually serving Amnon’s interests at all. He was cunningly providing Absalom with the opportunity to bring down his brother, Amnon, the crown prince:

“… 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; 15:21-6). 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”.

That Hill has masterfully managed to measure the manic Machiavellian manipulating by the famous pair, Absalom and Achitophel, may be borne out in the subsequent progress of events:

“Further testimony to the Absalom-Jonadab conspiracy is found in the time-table 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”.

Hill’s excellent grasp of the situation becomes even more plausible if Jonadab were Achitophel, Absalom’s adviser during the prince’s revolt against King David.

The “two years” and “three-year self-imposed exile”, then “two years” more upon Absalom’s return - during which King David refused to see him - are chronological markers indicating that Abishag (or Tamar) must have come into David’s service closer to his 60^th, than 70^th, year.

But why this bloody-minded obsession on the part of Jonadab-Achitophel?

From 2 Samuel 13:3, we might estimate that he was not so very old, “Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother”. That he was at least younger than David. Achitophel, however, would be estimated as having been old and grey - more appropriate to a wise counsellor - he apparently being the grandfather of Bathsheba (cf. 2 Samuel 11:3; 23:34). “Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother” would now, therefore, need to be re-translated as (based on the meanings of Hebrew ben as previously noted), “Jonadab official of Shimeah …”.

Might not the formerly wise counsellor of King David have become embittered over the latter’s deplorable treatment of Bathsheba and her husband, Uriah the Hittite? Adultery, then murder? King David had, at this point - as Pope Francis rightly observes - fallen into corruption. (https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2016/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20160129_from-sin-into-corruption.html):

Francis confided: “in reading this passage, I ask myself: where is David, that brave youth who confronted the Philistine with his sling and five stones and told him: ‘The Lord is my strength’?”. This, the Pope remarked, “is another David”. Indeed, “where is that David who, knowing that Saul wanted to kill him and, twice having the opportunity to kill King Saul, said: ‘No, I cannot touch the Lord’s anointed one’?”.

The reality is, Francis explained, that “this man changed, this man softened”. And, he added, “it brings to mind a passage of the prophet Ezekiel (16:15) when God speaks to his people as a groom to his bride, saying: after I gave all of this to you, you besot with your beauty, took advantage with your renown, and played the harlot. You felt secure and you forgot me’”.

This is precisely “what happened with David at that moment”, Francis said. “The great, noble David felt sure of himself, because the kingdom was strong, and thus he sinned: he sinned in lust, he committed adultery, and he also unjustly killed a noble man, in order to cover up his sin”.

“This is a moment in the life of David”, the Pontiff noted, “that we can apply to our own: it is the passing from sin into corruption”. Here “David begins, he takes the first step toward corruption: he obtains power, strength”. For this reason “corruption is an easier sin for all of us who have certain power, be it ecclesiastical, religious, economic or political power”. And, Pope Francis said, “the devil makes us feel secure: ‘I can do it’”.

But “the Lord really loved David, so much” that the Lord “sent the prophet Nathan to reflect his soul”, and David “repented and cried: ‘I have sinned’”.

“I would like to stress only this”, Francis stated: “there is a moment when the tendency to sin or a moment when our situation is really secure and we seem to be blessed; we have a lot of power, money, I don’t know, a lot of ‘things’”. It can happen even “to us priests: sin stops being sin and becomes corruption. The Lord always forgives. But one of the worst things about corruption is that a corrupt person doesn’t need to ask forgiveness, he doesn’t feel the need”.

The Pope then asked for prayer “for the Church, beginning with us, the Pope, bishops, priests, consecrated people, lay faithful: ‘Lord, save us, save us from corruption. Sinners yes, Lord, we all are, but never corrupt! Let us ask the Lord for this grace’”, Francis concluded.

Jonadab-Achitophel, as the grandfather of Bathsheba - and thus likely having shared a close family bond with her husband, Uriah - might well have become embittered against King David for what the latter had done to his family. The counsellor’s once ‘god-like’ advice would now set the Davidic world spinning out of control - as we read above, “wise man, though in this case his wisdom was put to base uses”. Had not David been fore-warned in a dread prophecy (2 Samuel 12:10): ‘… the sword shall never leave your house’?

To begin with, Absalom - urged on by Jonadab-Achitophel - will slay his brother, Amnon. Andrew E. Hill writes on this:

“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”.

No doubt the “wise” Jonadab-Achitophel had discerned that Absalom would make a far more willing candidate, than would Amnon (then heir to the throne), for overthrowing King David.

Then everything changes. Amnon is killed, this sending a shudder through the royal palace. David is told (2 Samuel 13:30): ‘Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons; not one of them is left’. But, while David is in the process of doing one of the things that he does best, grieving (v. 31): “The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants … with their clothes torn”, Jonadab-Achitophel will (with his insider’s knowledge) reassure the king (v. 32): ‘My lord should not think that they killed all the princes; only Amnon is dead. This has been Absalom’s express intention ever since the day Amnon raped his sister Tamar’.

“Meanwhile, Absalom had fled” (v. 34).

Now, did Absalom on this occasion take with him his ‘sister’ Tamar, as well as “his men” who had slain the unsuspecting Amnon (vv. 28-29)? “Absalom fled and 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” (vv. 37-38).

According to 2 Samuel 15:32, there was already a significant place of worship on the Mount of Olives – some thousand years before Jesus was crucified: “But David continued up the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went; his head was covered and he was barefoot. All the people with him covered their heads too and were weeping as they went up. Now David had been told, “Achitophel is among the conspirators with Absalom.” So David prayed, “O Lord, turn Achitophel’s counsel into foolishness.” When David arrived at the summit [place of the head], where people used to worship God, Hushai the Arkite was there to meet him, his robe torn and dust on his head” (2 Samuel 15:30-32).

Absalom’s prized hair would bring him undone: “He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom's hair got caught in the tree. He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going” (2 Samuel 18:9). This made him easy pickings for David’s “too hard” man, Joab, who “took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive in the oak tree” (v. 14) – against the wish of King David: ‘Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake’ (v. 5).

Prior to this Absalom had, for once, put aside the advice of Achitophel in favour of another counsellor, Hushai (17:14). And this snub would lead to Achitophel’s suicide – something of a rarity in the Bible (v. 23): “When Achitophel saw that his advice had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and set out for his house in his hometown. He put his house in order and then hanged himself. So he died and was buried in his father’s tomb”.

In this, his final act, Achitophel draws comparisons with Judas Iscariot.

Whilst, ultimately, we are all responsible for our own actions, it is terrible to think that the tragedy that was Achitophel may have been set in train by King David’s callous murder of Uriah, the husband of Achitophel’s grand-daughter with whom David had committed adultery.