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”.
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”)
“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,
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
500 Years and Counting: Why the World Is Still Terrified by Machiavelli
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. ….
