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.
486 Òukasz Niesio¬owski-Spanò
On analysing these passages carefully, one may conclude that the
identification of the two names is secondary. There are three
explanations for such an assumption. Firstly, the name Ephrata may be
a denomination not of the city, but of the region in which Bethlehem
was situated. Such a view is supported by Ruth 1,2, within the
expression “Ephrathites from Bethlehemâ€. A further argument for
this interpretation is found in Ps 132,6, where the expression “in
Ephrathah†is put in straight parallelism with the expression “in the
fields of Jaar†(cf. Jub 32,33-34; Mat 2,6).
Another explanation of the discrepancy in identifying the two
toponyms can be provided if we accept the hypothesis that the
toponym Ephrata (or any other, being its Vorlage, for example:
hrp[ tyB) originally denoted a place other than Bethlehem, and was
only secondarily identified with it.
The third explanation comes by the way of a diachronic hypothesis.
It is possible that two different names were not in use simultaneously,
but described the same place during a certain time span. An analogous
situation happened with Jerusalem, which for quite a long time, along
with its traditional name, was called Aelia Capitolina.
Whatever the case, there is no doubt that the material analysed
hitherto points to the area of Bethlehem as the probable location of
Ephrata.
Accordingly, we ought to look for a place fitting the description of
an important administrative centre where a well-known cult place was
situated, and one which would correspond to the description provided
in the biblical account. Is there any place in which one could imagine
Gideon to have demolished Baal’s altar at the top of the fortress, and
where the judge was buried?
There is no need to accept or reject the biblical account of the
brave judge as historically reliable. It is enough to claim that some
elements in the biblical story had to be so plausible as to be accepted
as true. If indeed that were the case, secondary details would be
crucial, and there would be no need to look for an altar. One would
have to search for the fortress itself, which is far from being the
primary element of the account.
If we accept the above argumentation, one ought to look no further
——————
cf. E. TOV, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint
(Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999) 509; J.W. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of
Genesis (Atlanta 1993) 583-584, 811.