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.
222 Hillel I. Newman
now absorbed within Jerusalem’s extended city limits (35). This
suggestion is beset, however, with various problems. For one thing,
Jerome explicitly states that Beth Hakerem sits atop a mountain
between Jerusalem and Tekoa, and by no stretch of the imagination can
this be said of ‘Ain Karim. For another, it is difficult to square the
archeological remains at ‘Ain Karim with the literary record of Beth
Hakerem (36). Aharoni, on the other hand, has made a far more
compelling case for identifying Beth Hakerem with the settlement he
uncovered in excavations at Ramat Rahel more than forty years
ago (37). Ramat Rahel sits on a prominent hilltop about four kilometers
south of the Old City of Jerusalem, just to the east of the road to
Bethlehem, which is situated roughly another four kilometers to the
south. Between Ramat Rahel and Bethlehem, at the side of the road,
stands the Tomb of Rachel (for which, incidentally, Ramat Rahel is
named). I will not repeat the details of Aharoni’s argument, but I
emphasize that it was made without benefit of race-courses or
hippodromes, whose importance — if not already apparent — will
become clearer shortly.
If Beth Hakerem is indeed to be found at Ramat Rahel, then how
do we define its valley? A maximalist position would be to embrace a
network of valleys and declivities extending roughly from Baq‘a (38) in
Jerusalem in the north to the approaches of Bethlehem in the south (39).
(35) See for example M. AVI-YONAH, Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem
5; Jerusalem 1976) 38; G. REEG, Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen
Literatur (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B,
Geisteswissenschaften 51; Wiesbaden 1989) 139-140; TSAFRIR – DI SEGNI –
GREEN, Tabula Imperii Romani, 82.
(36) In Hieremiam 6,1, in S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Pars I. Opera
exegetica (CChrSL 74; Turnhout 1960) 63. For objections to the identification of
Beth Hakerem with ‘Ain Karim see Y. AHARONI, “Excavations at Ramat Rahel,
1954: Preliminary Reportâ€, IEJ 6 (1956) 153.
(37) AHARONI, “Excavations at Ramat Rahel, 1954â€, 150-155; ID., Excavations
at Ramat Rahel. Seasons 1959 and 1960 (Roma 1962) 50-51; ID., Excavations at
Ramat Rahel. Seasons 1961 and 1962 (Roma 1964) 122. Cf. FITZMYER, Genesis
Apocryphon, 246. G. Barkay has proposed to identify the settlement at Ramat
Rahel with tçmm, known otherwise only from jar handle stamps, but this lone
opinion has not found support; see The New Encyclopedia of Archeological
Excavations in the Holy Land (ed. E. STERN) (Jerusalem 1993) IV, 1267. Equally
unconvincing is the idiosyncratic proposal of G. GARBINI, “Sul nome antico di
Ramat Rahelâ€, RSO 36 (1961) 199-205; cf. ID., “La tomba di Rachele ed ebr.
*bˇrâ ‘ora doppia di cammino’â€, BeO 19 (1977) 45-48.
(38) The Arabic name — indicating a valley — speaks for itself.
(39) See MILIK, “‘Saint-Thomas de Phordêsa’â€, 82.