The Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle 561 preceding verse: ‘O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness” (14). The integration of the narrator’s interjection and evaluation of Ahithophel’s counsel, immediately after the first advice he had given Absalom, provides the narrator’s comment with an additional layer of meaning (15). Through the description of Absalom lying with David’s mistresses, the narrator-editor presents the realization of Nathan’s prophecy after David’s sin with Bathsheba: “I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house, and I will take thy wives before thy eyes and give them to thy neighbors and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun” (12,11-12). Indeed, in the description of Absalom, it is emphasized that the deed had been done before all Israel: “and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel” (16,22). As said, immediately after this description, the narrator intervenes and tells the reader that David and Absalom had appreciated Ahithophel’s advice very much, “as if a man would inquire of the word of God”. Besides the unconcealed reading of this advice, lies an additional, concealed one: Ahithophel’s advice is like God’s. More specifically: Ahithophel’s advice to Absalom to lie with his father’s mistresses should be understood as the realization of God’s will as well, as a continuation of God’s punishment of David: “Ahithophel’s advice unwittingly fulfills the threat of Nathan. Absalom’s defiance and challenge to David may be an act of raw, daring politics; it is at the same time, however, the narrative makes clear, an implementation of Yahweh’s decree given long before Absalom and Ahithophel are present in the narrative. The coup of Absalom, informed by the wisdom of Ahithophel, implements Yahweh’s awesome judgment voiced by Nathan” (16). The concealed meaning of the narrator’s observation is even more emphasized if the ketiv version is adopted (17). According to this version, which lacks the word “that person”, the verse states that “The advice of (14) D.M. GUNN, “From Jerusalem to the Jordan and Back: Symmetry in 2 Samuel XV- XX”, VT 30 (1980) 111. Polzin feels this by comparing the narrator’s comment later on: “For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel” (17,14) and David’s prayer: “O LORD I Pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel” (R. POLZIN, David and the Deuteronomist: 2 Samuel [Bloomington 1993] 176). (15) The realization of an ambiguous expression in the text should be divided into several levels (GROSSMAN, Ambiguity in the Biblical Narrative, 112-113; 294-296). In our context, I want to emphasize that even if the main meaning of the discussed expression in clear to the reader, the accompanying hidden meaning is still important and even if it hasn’t the same status of reading, it has a role in the process of reading and in decoding the meaning of the text. (16) W. BRUEGGEMANN, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation; Louisville 1990) 310. (17) The acceptable way among the various researchers and translations is to adopt the qere: “was like that of one who enquires of God” (NIV) and for example: NAU, JPS. There are those who claim that there is no difference between the two versions, (Like: D.K. BUDDE, Die Bucher Samuel [KHC 8; Tübingen 1902] 278), and it is possible that the justice is with them. However, it is possible that the meaning of the written version is that Ahithophel’s counsel is compared to a situation where he is the one asking the advice of God.