Lukasz Niesiolowski-Spanò, «Where Should One Look for Gideon’s Ophra?», Vol. 86 (2005) 478-493
The hypothesis presented in this article offers a new way of explaining a number
of discrepancies in the biblical text. Perhaps more importantly, it opens the door
to the identification of a place known from the biblical tradition with a known site
of archaeological importance. Finally, the identification of Ophra with Ramat
Rahel, which in ancient times was very likely called hrp(-tyb@ / rp(-tyb@, sheds light
on the tradition of connecting Ephratah (htrpa) with Judah, (1 Chr 1,19. 50), and
the hitherto difficult hrp( tyb@ in Mic 1,10.
Where Should One Look for Gideon’s Ophra? 479
territory of Abiezer is clearly identifiable (5). In the biblical account,
Gideon was described as a descendent of Abiezer (Judg 6,11.24.34;
8,32). It thus seems quite simple to determine which tell, in such a
well-defined area, ought to be identified with the city referred to in the
Book of Judges.
This basic conformity led many scholars to look for a site that
corresponded to the account in Judges within the area of the tribe of
Manasseh, thus prompting the hypothesis that identifies Gideon’s
Ophra with modern ‘Affuleh in the Jezreel valley (6). This
identification is based on two arguments; one exegetical, which
maintains that if Gideon had in fact been living in the North (within
the tribe of Manasseh, and moreover within the territory of Abiezer),
then one could expect the city only to exist in such an area (7); the other
toponymical, stating that the modern name ought to reflect, in some
way, the original name (commonly assumed to be that preserved in
MT), in which case the modern name must be derived from the root
¿pr. The hypothesis identifying Ophra with ‘Affuleh’ fits both
arguments quite comfortably. The toponymical evaluation would
require the prerequisite assumption that the final vowel “r†had been
replaced by the vowel “lâ€. Scholars advancing this hypothesis have
attempted to give it further force by recalling the site-name ¿-p-r, listed
in the Thut-mose’ III inscription (8). The Egyptian text does not point to
any precise area, but does suggest that it was a big, if not important,
place, and if, in fact, this city were Gideon’s Ophra, it would surely
have had to be a centre both big and important.
Nadav Na’aman has proffered another identification (9). Very much
in line with the earlier scholarly consensus, Na’aman based his
hypothesis on the idea that Ophra existed within the territory of
Abiezer and, having established that Abiezer lay to the south of
(5) A. LEMAIRE, Inscriptions Hébraïques (Litératures anciennes du Proche-
Orient 9) (Paris 1977) I, 60-61, 65.
(6) Y. AHARONI, The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography (London
1967) 240-242; Z. KALLAI, Historical Geography of the Bible (Jerusalem –
Leiden 1986) 422-423; J.M. HAMILTON, “Ophraâ€, Anchor Bible Dictionary (=
ABD) (ed. D.N. FREEDMAN; Doubleday 1992) V, 27-28.
(7) KALLAI, Historical Geography, 422; a similar argument was presented
half a century earlier, by J. GARSTANG, Joshua Judges (London 1931) 319, who
stated that it is: “Silet el Dhahr, six miles nearer Shechem, a situation which seems
to satisfy the contextâ€.
(8) KALLAI, Historical Geography, 422-423.
(9) N. NA’AMAN, “Pirathon and Ophrahâ€, BN 50 (1989) 11-16.