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.
480 Òukasz Niesio¬owski-Spanò
Shechem, advanced that it was possible to identify Ophra with modern
Far ’ata (10). This site had been previously — and according to Na’aman
incorrectly — identified with the biblical city of Pirathon. Na’aman
also advanced a philological argument, stating that the original
toponym of the site was indeed Ophratha (¿prth) — it had merely been
metathesized at some earlier point. This would explain the modern
form of the site name: pr¿th.
One can identify a similar method of argumentation in both the
above hypotheses, namely that, from the biblical text, one is able to
approximately gauge where the site must have been located, and from
this point locate the place whose name could be traced back to the
form attested in MT.
Such theories demonstrate a few common characteristics; firstly,
the acceptance of the biblical topography and geographical details,
where the location of Ophra within Manasseh and Abiezer is taken for
granted; secondly, the main criterion used to examine the theory is its
conformity to the biblical account. Here, one must look for the site in
the area suggested by the book of Judges, and the site must fit the
description transmitted by the Scriptures. This means that the site
identified with biblical Ophra would have had to be a big city at a point
in time that corresponds to the so-called period of Judges.
Another common feature of a great many hypotheses suggesting
the location of the biblical city is the assumption of toponymical
persistence. This leads scholars to assume that, in spite of linguistic
changes in Palestine, toponyms known from written sources and from
different times (and in fact still used today) can be traced back to the
form attested in MT. There is also another important assumption in
such a methodology, namely the conviction of the toponymical
originality in MT. Even if we consider modifying the place name, it is
always the form attested in MT which is seen as the closest to the
original toponym.
The hypothesis advanced by Ernest Axel Knauf represents a very
different point of departure, and suggests that the modern place name,
known from biblical material, need not necessarily be connected
etymologically with the biblical form. Knauf accepts the possibility
that the modern toponym was altered over a long period of time, and
therefore no linguistic connection between the current form and that
presented in MT can be found. Accordingly, Knauf considers the
(10) Ibid., 15.