MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985684134 · doi:10.1177/000842980203100105

Motives for defection: Ahithophel's agenda in 2 Samuel 15-17

2002· article· en· W1985684134 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Keith Bodner

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeThronePhilosophyGermanConnection (principal bundle)LiteratureTheologyArtLawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the biblical narrative of 2 Samuel 15-17, Absalom conspires against his father, King David, and attempts to seize the throne of Israel. Absalom's rebellion gains a key ally when Ahithophel, designated as one of David's senior advisors, joins the forces of Absalom. The reasons behind this défection are obscure in the narrative, and there is no motive stated in the text explaining why Ahithophel would act in this manner toward David. However, the German biblical scholar Gerhard von Rad has drawn attention to an interesting connection between Bathsheba (with whom David has an affair in 2 Sam. 11) and Ahithophel. In 2 Samuel 11:3, Bathsheba is mentioned as "the daughter of Eliam." In 2 Samuel 23:34, Eliam is mentioned as "the son of Ahithophel," hence Bathsheba and Ahithophel seem to be close relatives. This article surveys the major scenes where Ahithophel appears in 2 Samuel 15-17, and explores this genealogical connection as a possible motive for Ahithophel's defection: he is angry and disillusioned with David after the Bathsheba affair and subsequent murder by proxy of her husband, Uriah the Hittite.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207