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.
A Hippodrome on the Road to Ephrath 219
structure devoted to horses, the targumist transforms the area of the city
gate into a royal stadium. In context, a race-course for horses, i.e., a
hippodrome, is clearly intended. Finally, if the Persian etymology
proposed by various scholars for syr is correct, then “hippodromeâ€
would indeed be one of its primary meanings (25).
How does Tg. Onq. come to stage the reception of Abram in a
royal hippodrome? As in the previous instance, we must first ask if the
translation can be explained without appeal to the existence of a
genuine race-course in a place otherwise associated by tradition or
interpretation with Gen 14,17. Several scholars have taken this route,
suggesting that to make sense of MT’s “Valley of the King†(which is
also an “empty plainâ€), Tg. Onq. projects onto the verse a generally
familiar contemporary reality of royal hippodromes (26). Not surpris-
ingly, some go further and identify the particular hippodrome
envisioned by Tg. Onq. with the Herodian hippodrome of Jerusalem,
discussed above (27). After all, Melchizedek the king of Shalem is
widely (though not exclusively) understood to be king of Jerusa-
lem (28), so such a locale might be thought well-suited to the encounter
between him and Abram (29).
(25) See A. KOHUT, Aruch Completum (Vienna 1926) VII, 285 (Hebrew), and
cf. B. Geiger’s note in Additamenta ad Librum Aruch Completum (ed. S. KRAUSS)
(Vienna 1937) 384 (Hebrew); J.T. MILIK, “‘Saint-Thomas de Phordêsa’ et Gen.
14,17â€, Bib 42 (1961) 82, n. 3.
(26) See M. ABERBACH – B. GROSSFELD, Targum Onqelos to Genesis. A
Critical Analysis Together With An English Translation of the Text (New York
1982) 89; B. GROSSFELD, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 6;
Edinburgh 1988) 69; MCNAMARA, “Melchizedekâ€, 4-5; and cf. the following
note.
(27) S. KLEIN, The Land of Judah (Tel Aviv 1939), 87 (Hebrew); MILIK,
“‘Saint-Thomas de Phordêsa’â€, 82-83; R. LE DÉAUT, Targum du Pentateuque (SC
245; Paris 1978) I, 163, n. 17; L. SMOLAR – M. ABERBACH, Studies in Targum
Jonathan to the Prophets (New York – Baltimore 1983) 119; R. HAYWARD, The
Targum of Jeremiah (The Aramaic Bible 12; Wilmington, DE 1987) 35, 135, n.
39; M. MAHER, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1B;
Collegeville, MN 1992) 58, n. 39; PATRICH, “On the Lost Circusâ€, 186-187.
(28) For discussion of some exceptions see NEWMAN, Jerome and the Jews,
264-268; MCNAMARA, “Melchizedekâ€, 8-10.
(29) MILIK, “‘Saint-Thomas de Phordêsa’â€, 77-84 (esp. 82-84), suggests that
the Herodian hippodrome stood to the southwest of the Temple Mount; cf.
PATRICH, “On the Lost Circusâ€, 186-187. In his treatment of the problem, Milik
introduces several items of doubtful relevance and utility. For example, legends
of the hippodrome of Solomon belong to a much later chapter of Jewish literature
and do not shed light on the emergence of the targumic traditions here; see the
criticism of PATRICH, “On the Lost Circusâ€, 184, n. 41. Milik understands