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.
484 Òukasz Niesio¬owski-Spanò
I propose that Gideon’s Ophra is in fact Ephratah, which in some
instances is identified as Bethlehem (21).
3. The place-name: Ophra
In the Hebrew version of the Bible the difference between the two
names is limited to the first radical letter (ayin in “Ophra†– hrp[ and
aleph in “Ephrata†– htrpa), although this difference does not present
an obstacle to the identification of the two. The verbs ÷pr and ¿pr are
closer to each other than one may think. The name htrpa possibly
derives from the noun rpa, meaning “dust†or “ash(es)†(22). The verb
÷pr is not attested in the Bible. The name hrp[ is usually derived from
the root ¿pr II, while the verb ¿pr I is a verbum denominativum
(attested only in 2 Sam 16,13) - meaning “dusting with dust†—
created from the noun rp[ — meaning “dry earthâ€, “dustâ€, “debris of
ruined cityâ€, “earth of the grave†(23). These two verbs seem to be very
close in meaning (24). Even though we know that in Mishnaic Hebrew
the first radical ayin and aleph were able to replace one another, we are
not able to determine whether the root ¿pr and ÷pr were exchangeable.
Let us consider the hypothesis that the toponyms are in close
proximity not through any linguistic rule of their exchangeability, but
rather as a result of the actions of Bible redactors. They were conscious
of the closeness of meaning and phonetic value of the two, and
replaced one with the other.
The same Greek word, being a transliteration of both forms, can
be seen as another supporting argument. Both hrp[ and htrpa are
rendered in LXX by the word Efraqa, which may point to the
identification of the toponyms. The linguistic aspect therefore sustains
our hypothesis of a close interrelationship of the two place-names:
“Ophra†and “Ephrataâ€.
(21) Such an idea had been presented by G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary
(London 1956).
(22) Cf. Num 19,9.10; 2 Sam 13,19; Job 13,12; Ps 102,10; Isa 44,20.
(23) BDB, 779-780; L. KOEHLER – W. BAUMGARTNER, The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden – New York – Köln 1994) II, 861-
862; Cf. A. MURTONEN, Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting. A Comparative
Survey of Non-Masoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions (Leiden – New York –
Kobenhavn – Köln 1989) I/Bb, 99.
(24) U. CASSUTO, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem 1989) I,
75, pointed to the equivalence of the nouns ‘pr and ’pr in Genesis 3,19 and Ezek
28,18 respectively.