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.
220 Hillel I. Newman
Yet before taking for granted that Tg. Onq. refers merely to an
exegetical invention (which still remains something of an oddity) or to
Herod’s hippodrome in or next to Jerusalem, we should first take into
account all the relevant geographical evidence. One place to begin is
Tg. Neb to Jer 31,39, which, as mentioned, portrays the Horses’ Gate
as a royal stadium. Both Jer 31,39 and Neh 3,28 imply that the Horses’
Gate is situated on the eastern side of Jerusalem. But besides the fact
that it is difficult to imagine a hippodrome in the ravine of the Kidron
Valley between the city wall and the Mount of Olives, we recall that
Josephus explicitly placed the Herodian structure on the southern side
of the city. Not surprisingly, no one, as far as I am aware, has suggested
that we seek an historical hippodrome to the east. As we shall see,
other data as well indicate that we should look elsewhere. For these
reasons, we should probably view the usage of Tg. Neb as secondary,
influenced by Tg. Onq. and lacking independent historical-
geographical value.
Another way of approaching the problem is to look in other
sources from antiquity for notions regarding the location of the Valley
of the King and/or the meeting place of Abram, the king of Sodom, and
Melchizedek. According to 2 Sam 18,18, the Monument of Absalom
stood in the Valley of the King. Josephus explains — presumably on
the basis of local tradition — that the monument was a marble pillar
erected in the Royal Valley at a distance of two stadia from Jerusalem,
though he fails to state in which direction (30). The monument is
——————
azwzjd rçym in Frg. Tg. to Gen 14,17 to be a reference to a royal theater, but
MCNAMARA, “Melchizedekâ€, 5, is undoubtedly correct in taking it to refer to the
“Oaks of Mamre†(cf. the reading in the margin of Tg. Neof.). Finally, as
MCNAMARA, “Melchizedekâ€, 5-7, argues, Milik errs in identifying aysdrp rçym in
Tg. Neof. to Gen 14,17 with the aforementioned valley of the hippodrome
adjacent to Jerusalem. Rather, it represents a separate exegetical tradition which
places the meeting between Abram and the king of Sodom next to the Dead Sea.
To the sources discussed by McNamara, add Genesis Rabba 41,5, which
identifies the Valley of Shaveh of Gen 14,17 with the Valley of Siddim of Gen
14,3, by the Dead Sea. Note also that this interpretation has even left its mark on
the Christian pilgrimage tradition: the Piacenza pilgrim tells of seeing the
Monument of Absalom — located by 2 Sam 18,18 in the Valley of the King —
next to Zoar, at the southern end of the Dead Sea (Antonini Placentini Itinerarium
10, in Itineraria et alia geographica [CChrSL 175; Turnhout 1965] 134, 160-161
[recensio altera]). Consequently, we must also reject Milik’s hypothesis
concerning the identity of Phordesa of the Byzantine sources — apparently in the
vicinity of Jerusalem — with aysdrp rçym of Tg. Neof.
(30) Ant. 7.243.