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? 481
option of the biblical Ophra being identified with Jinsâfût (11). As a
starting point to his hypothesis, he chooses the contemporary names of
those cities located within the territory of Abiezer listed in Samaria
Ostraca. According to Knauf’s theory, from the four toponyms
(Fer ’ata, Immatin, Burin and Jinsâfût), it is only the latter which lacks
a satisfactory etymology in Arabic (12). Philology was a key element of
Knauf ’s interpretation, as he had been intending to discover the
etymology of the modern toponym, i.e., Jinsâfût. The reconstruction
assumes the original form of “Canaanite *gan(n) Ï€Ëpôt, ‘garden of
judgment’, or *gan(n) (ha-)πôpet, ‘garden of the judge’..â€(13). For
Knauf, the presence of a πôpet / Ï€Ëpôt element in the toponym located
within the territory of Abiezer is sufficient enough to justify its
identification with Ophra. A quite similar methodology was used by
Herbert Donner, who advanced the identification of Ophra with Tell
Sofar (14).
Knauf was aware of the importance of archaeological information.
However, in its absence, the only remaining criterion was the
philological one. He advocates the archaic origins of the site and its
name on the basis of a reconstructed toponym, connected to the
Canaanite group of languages. If the name had been created for
example in Hebrew, it clearly would have predated the domination of
Aramaic or Arabic. To summarise, Knauf argues that it would have
been quite implausible for the Abiezer clan to have generated a single
judge (Gideon or Jerubbaal) from Ophra, together with another from
somewhere else. According to Knauf, the original name of modern
Jinsâfût suggests that it was connected with the judge or his
prerogatives, in which case it is hardly possible for it not to be identical
to the biblical Ophra.
The present article aims to propose an alternative location of the
biblical Ophra, and is based, moreover, on a very different set of
methodological assumptions, the first of which is, most notably, a
(11) E.A. KNAUF, “Eglon and Ophrah: Two Toponymic Notes on the Book of
Judgesâ€, JSOT 51 (1991) 25-44, esp. 34-39.
(12) Ibid., 36-37.
(13) Ibid., 37.
(14) H. DONNER, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in
Grundzügen (GAT 4) (Göttingen 1984) I, 171; see ID., “Ophra in Manasse. Der
Heimatort des Richters Gideon und des Königs Abimelechâ€, Die Hebräische
Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65.
Geburtstag (eds. E. BLUM et al.) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990) 193-206, with a list of
previous hypotheses.