The Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle in the Narrative of Absalom’s Rebellion The principle of dual causality, according to which the same event is projected twice for two different reasons — Divine and human — is known among researchers of the Bible (1). Some have even suggested seeing this principle as the founding principle of the biblical historiosophy in general: “all biblical literature, as it appears before us, including all its parts and layers, expresses the principle of dual causality” (2). Often, the development of the unconcealed plot of the story relies on human factors, while the Divine cause that sets the plot in motion can be felt only in a latent reading. One of the outstanding stories in which this principle becomes evident to the reader is Absalom’s rebellion (3). On the surface level, the narrator credits Absalom’s successes at the beginning of his rebellion as due to Absalom’s wisdom and unique cunning: “so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (2 Sam 15,6); while his failure during the war with David is ascribed to Hushai’s wisdom, which overcame Ahithophel’s advice. However, various hints in the story, as well as the fact that structurally, the story of the rebellion is integrated into a wider cycle of stories, convey the message that this rebellion is but another stage in the punishment David receives because of his sin with Bathsheba. In a latent reading, it is obvious that the narrator encourages the reader to sense the Divine intervention throughout the complete story of the rebellion. This principle of dual causality in the story is realized through several explicit sayings, including: “For the LORD had ordained it to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom” (17,14), and Shimei’s curse: “The LORD hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned” (16,8). Additionally, David’s attitude towards the curse reflects this principle: “let him alone and let him curse; for the LORD has bidden him” (16,11). This verse typifies David’s perception throughout the whole story, and it is obvious that the narrator identifies with it (4): “If I (1) Beginning with I.L. SEELIGMANN, “Menschliches Heldentum und Göttliche Hilfe — Die doppelte Kausalität im alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken”, ThZ 19 (1963) 385- 411 (see especially p. 386, n. 1); Y. KAUFMANN, The Book of Joshua (Jerusalem 21987) 128. (2) Y. AMIT, “Dual Causality — An Additional Aspect”, Bet Mikrah 38 (1993) 44. This stance is different than the author’s stance in a previous article, where she suggested that the dual causality principle reflects the world of beliefs and knowledge which had started forming in Judah from the end of the 8th century B.C., that is, reflects the deutronomistic school (Y. AMIT, “The Dual Causality Principle and its Effects on Biblical Literature”, VT 37 [1987] 385-400). (3)When David Gunn and Danna Fewell wanted to demonstrate the phenomenon where God operates secretly, they brought as example two stories: the story of Joseph in Egypt (Gen 37-50) and the story of Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam 15-20). D.M. GUNN – D.N. FEWELL, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford 1993) 81. (4)About the narrator’s identification with David throughout the story see W. CASPARI, “The Literary Type and Historical Value of 2 Sam 15-20”, in: Narrative and Novella in Samuel. Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars (ed. D.M. GUNN) (Sheffield 1991)