562 Jonathan Grossman Ahithophel, given to anyone who asks, was if he (Ahithophel, not the questioner) had asked the advice of God” (16,23). Ostensibly, Ahithophel has Divine inspiration and his advice — such as the advice he gave Absalom to lie with his father’s mistresses, which is mentioned beforehand — is the word of God. Polzin has suggested a completely opposite reading. In his opinion, the narrator emphasizes that David and Absalom address Ahithophel’s counsel as if it were the advice of God in order to slight the point of view of the narrator himself, that he does not appreciate Ahithophel’s counsel so much: “As a matter of equivalence, Ahithophel’s counsel is certainly not equal to God’s word” (18). Yet, the inner tension of the story rests on the assumption that if indeed Ahithophel’s counsel is accepted, Absalom will overpower David. That is, Ahithophel’s counsel is not criticized. On the contrary, as said above at least his first advice is the realization of Nathan’s prophecy to David. An additional advantage of this reading is related to the gap in the way Absalom reacts to the two counsels of Ahithophel. As said, the narrator’s words appear between the two counsels — the one that had been accepted and the one that had been rejected by Hushai (19). It should be noticed that Ahithophel’s first advice (to lie with David’s mistresses) is also given after Hushai has already reached Absalom. Moreover, Absalom phrases his question in the plural: “Give counsel among you what we shall do” (verse 20). Fokkelman (as well as Segal), interpreted this use of the plural as directed towards Absalom’s official council: “Absalom asks his national council for guidance and in so doing uses the plural, v. 20b, but he is speaking to Ahithophel (v. 20a) and the answer also comes from this character alone, v. 21a” (20). But, it can also be assumed that this specific use of the plural is directed towards Hushai, whom the reader has just finished reading about his arrival to Absalom (21), and the reader sees not only Ahithophel — to whom the question is directed — but also Hushai, who faces Absalom. The reader’s expectation to hear Ahithophel’s advice rejected by Hushai, since for that reason he had gone to Absalom is not met. Absalom does turn to Hushai (as he does regarding the second advice) and Hushai does not say a word. This in itself implies that even Hushai cannot overcome the first advice, which is actually divine even if Ahithophel is not aware of it, just as if a man would inquire of the word of God (22). (18) POLZIN, David and the Deuteronomist, 173. (19) In Hushai’s rejection of Ahithophel’s second counsel, an ambiguous expression is also used. Its role is to highlight the great mental stress of Hushai when he stands before Absalom. See: GROSSMAN, “The Use”, 505-508. (20) FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art in Samuel, 209; M.Z. SEGAL, The Books of Samuel (Jerusalem 1987) 334. (21) As claims M. GARSIEL, Samuel (The World of the Bible; Tel-Aviv 1993) 141. See also: A. SCHULZ, Das zweite Buch Samuel (EHAT 8/2, Münster 1920) 200; G. ROBINSON, Let Us Be Like the Nations. A Commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel (ITC; Grand Rapids 1993) 239. (22) Compare: BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art, 26-27; S. HALPERIN, “The Tragic Aspect of the Story of Absalom’s Uprising”, Bar-Ilan Book 18-19 (ed. M.Z. KADDARI – N. KATZBURG – D. SPERBER) (Ramat-Gan 1981) 307-313.