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 227
garrison of foreign soldiers (51). At any rate, its very existence would
be significant in its surroundings. Either a better account of the data
than that which I have proposed must be offered, or else one must
come to terms with its implications. Perhaps some of the uncertainty
regarding the structure will be dispelled by future excavations at
Ramat Rahel and its environs, since for the moment most of our
knowledge of the settlement in the period in question comes from
refuse and fills alone (52).
What can be said of the fate of the hippodrome of LXX in later
generations? The only thing we know for a fact is that by Jerome’s
time, six hundred years later, no trace of a hippodrome was to be seen
in the vicinity of Bethlehem. It would be helpful if we could establish
the pedigree of the allusion to the royal hippodrome in Tg. Onq. to Gen
14,17, but this eludes us. We do not know when it was incorporated
into targumic tradition; we do not even know if at the time of its
incorporation remains of this structure were still discernible. In any
event, if our analysis is correct, the substance of the passage should be
counted among the earlier relics of targumic exegesis. Here again,
some will find this conclusion very congenial (53). Since I do not, as a
rule, share the conviction of those who seek the origins of the greater
part of targumic tradition in the pre-Christian era, I refrain from
generalizing from this one case.
*
**
(51) We recall, by way of comparison, the cavalrymen of the military cleruchy
under the command of Toubias the Jew in Transjordan. Their names suggest that
most were gentiles, though at least one member of the cavalry seems to have been
Jewish. See V. TCHERIKOVER, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (Cambridge, MA
1957) I, 12-13, 118-121.
(52) How much remains to be learned of the area is suggested, for example, by
the recent discovery and excavation of the Kathisma church. See R. AVNER, “The
Recovery of the Kathisma Church and Its Influence on Octagonal Buildingsâ€,
One Land — Many Cultures. Archeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao
Loffreda OFM (eds. G.C. BOTTINI – L. DI SEGNI – L.D. CHRUPCAÒA) (Studium
Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Maior 41; Jerusalem 2003) 173-186.
(53) In favor of an early dating for the bulk of the Palestinian targum tradition
see M. MCNAMARA, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the
Pentateuch (AnBib 27; Rome 1966) 64-66, 112-117, 256-258 (and cf. ID.,
“Melchizedekâ€, 30-31); R. LE DÉAUT, “The Targumimâ€, The Cambridge History
of Judaism (eds. W.D. DAVIES – L. FINKELSTEIN) (Cambridge 1989) II, 563-590.
Contrast the cautionary remarks of A. SHINAN, The Embroidered Targum. The
Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem 1992) 193-
196 (Hebrew).