Hillel I. Newman, «A Hippodrome on the Road to Ephrath», Vol. 86 (2005) 213-228
LXX to Gen 48,7 refers to a hippodrome in the vicinity of
Rachel’s Tomb. This cannot be satisfactorily explained as an exegetical creation
of the translator’s imagination and probably refers to a genuine structure. This
is also true of the stadium or hippodrome mentioned in Tg. Onq. to Gen
14,17, as the meeting place of Abram, the king of Sodom, and Melchizedek. Since
1QapGen locates the same meeting in the Valley of Beth Hakerem, which should be
identified as the valley between Ramat Rahel and Bethlehem, it is reasonable to
assume that both versions refer to the same hippodrome. There is no textual
justification for assuming a late interpolation in LXX and no geographical or
archeological justification for explaining these passages as allusions to a
Herodian hippodrome. LXX may attest to a case of profound Hellenistic influence
in Judea already under Ptolemaic rule.
216 Hillel I. Newman
activity in the manuscripts (10). Rather, it is based on the general cons-
ideration that neither our literary sources nor the material evidence of
archeology attest to the existence of any hippodromes in Judea before
the time of Herod. A brief survey of the earliest evidence will
suffice (11), but a preliminary terminological remark is in order. Scholars
have long suspected Josephus of using the terms “amphitheater†and
“hippodrome†interchangeably, generating more than a little confusion
in the process. That suspicion has been dramatically confirmed by the
recent discovery of the Herodian hippodrome of Caesarea — the same
one which Josephus calls an amphitheater (12). Describing the outbreak
of violence precipitated by Herod’s death, Josephus also mentions a
hippodrome apparently adjacent to Jerusalem from the south. Despite
the best efforts of archeologists, the remains of that facility continue to
evade detection (13). Finally, Josephus speaks alternately of a hippo-
drome and an amphitheater in Jericho at the time of Herod’s death;
(10) HARL, La Bible, 303. For the manuscript evidence see WEVERS, Genesis,
452. FRANKEL, Ueber den Einfluss, 18, argues that the hippodrome of section (b)
of the verse is a doublet and should be taken as a gloss (he proposes no date), but
even he makes no such claim for that of section (c). At any rate, a doublet (if there
is one in [b], which is far from certain) is not necessarily evidence of late
redactional or scribal activity but may reflect conflation of exegetical traditions
at the earliest stages of composition. The methodological question has been
discussed at length by Z. TALSHIR, “Double Translations in the Septuagintâ€, VI
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies.
Jerusalem 1986 (ed. C.E. COX) (SBLSCS 23; Atlanta, GA 1987) 21-63; cf. N.
FERNÃNDEZ MARCOS, “On Double Readings, Pseudo-Variants and Ghost-Names
in the Historical Booksâ€, Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and
Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of E. Tov (ed. S.M. PAUL – R.A. KRAFT – L.H.
SCHIFFMAN – W.W. FIELDS) (VTS 94; Leiden – Boston 2003) 591-604.
(11) For further details see J.H. HUMPHREY, Roman Circuses. Arenas for
Chariot Racing (London 1986) 528-533. Several of Humphrey’s conclusions
must be revised in light of recent archeological discoveries. See Z. WEISS,
“Buildings for Entertainmentâ€, The City in Roman Palestine (ed. D. SPERBER)
(New York – Oxford 1998) 85-91; and cf. in the same volume J.J. SCHWARTZ,
“Archeology and the Cityâ€, 169-170.
(12) B.J. 1.415; Ant. 15.341. On the excavations of Caesarea and Josephus’
nomenclature see Y. PORATH, “Why did Josephus Name the Chariot-Racing
Facility at Caesarea ‘Amphitheater’?†Scripta Classica Israelica 23 (2004)
63-67.
(13) B.J. 2.44; Ant. 17.255. This structure is identified by some with the
amphitheater built by Herod “in the plain†(Ant. 15.268). See in general J.
PATRICH, “On the Lost Circus of Aelia Capitolinaâ€, Scripta Classica Israelica 21
(2002) 173-188.