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.
226 Hillel I. Newman
Herodian interpolation becomes even less likely than it appeared
before.
According to this reading of the sources, LXX to Gen 48,7 raises
the curtain for a fleeting moment over a small portion of Judea during
one of the lesser known chapters of its history (47). What is revealed to
us comes as something of a surprise: a fixture of Hellenistic culture in
the heart of pre-Hasmonean Judea, several kilometers south of
Jerusalem. For those following in the footsteps of Hengel, who argues
for the existence of pervasive Hellenistic influence throughout
Palestine long before the events that directly precipitated the
Hasmonean revolt, this will undoubtedly be taken as welcome
confirmation of an accepted notion (48). On the other hand, among
various criticisms properly levelled against Hengel’s thesis (49), it has
been noted that he fails to discriminate sufficiently between the degree
of Hellenization in the non-Jewish cities surrounding Judea and that of
the Jewish towns of Judea itself (50). I do not seek to invalidate the
distinction, but I do wish to point out that LXX to Gen 48,7, which
may be one of the most significant pieces of evidence for Hellenistic
influence in Ptolemaic Judea, has been ignored in this discussion.
Note, however, that even if the argument presented here is correct, it
does not necessarily imply the direct Hellenistic acculturation of Jews;
a hippodrome could, for example have been built for the benefit of a
(47) This implies a certain degree of familiarity on the part of the translators
with the contemporary reality of Palestine, though such knowledge need not have
been derived from autopsy. On LXX and Palestinian tradition see M. HENGEL,
Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early
Hellenistic Period (London – Philadelphia 1974) I, 102.
(48) HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism; ID., “Judaism and Hellenism Revisitedâ€,
Hellenism in the Land of Israel (eds. J.J. COLLINS – G.E. STERLING) (Christianity
and Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame 2001) 6-37.
(49) See A. MOMIGLIANO, JTS 21 (1970) 149-153; L.H. FELDMAN, “Hengel’s
Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospectâ€, JBL 96 (1977) 371-382; M.D. HERR,
“Hellenism and the Jews in the Land of Israelâ€, Eshkolot 2-3 (1977-1978) 20-27
(Hebrew); F. MILLAR, “The Background to the Maccabean Revolution:
Reflections on Martin Hengel’s ‘Judaism and Hellenism’â€, JJS 29 (1978) 1-21;
M. STERN, Studies in Jewish History. The Second Temple Period (Jerusalem
1991) 578-586 (Hebrew); J.J. COLLINS, “Cult and Culture: The Limits of
Hellenization in Judeaâ€, Hellenism in the Land of Israel, 38-61; L.H. FELDMAN,
“How Much Hellenism in the Land of Israel?â€, JSJ 33 (2002) 290-313.
(50) See the literature in the preceding note, and cf. in general M. STERN,
“Judaism and Hellenism in the Land of Israel in the Third and Second Centuries
BCEâ€, Studies in Jewish History, 3-21 (Hebrew).