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? 487
than a place very close to Bethlehem, where an architectural structure
identified with a fortress can be found, namely Ramat Rahel, located
between Bethlehem and Jerusalem.
4. Ramat Rahel as the biblical Ophra?
The site was inhabited at the turn of the 9th and 8th centuries BCE.
Initially, there was only a citadel, though the city gained in importance
in later centuries (especially during the divided-monarchy period) (29).
The large number of lmlk-type seals found in Ramat Rahel from that
period suggests the importance of the city in the Judahite
administrative system (30). After being rebuilt for residential purposes,
and later used as the royal palace (31), the old citadel was destroyed at
the beginning of the 6th century BCE, which may point to the
Babylonian invasion or the early Babylonian period (32). Finds from the
Persian period indicate intensive civil inhabitation, evidenced in the
many seals and stamps of the yhd / yhwd type. In Ramat Rahel, there
existed from the 5th to the 3rd centuries BCE a structure which Yohanan
Aharoni called the Persian fortress (33).
The surprisingly few finds dating from the Hellenistic period may
be attributed to the destruction of the site in the early 2nd century
BCE (for example during the Antioch III invasion in 199 BCE) (34).
The well-dated finds from the period come only from the later times,
such as coins from the time of Alexander Janneus’ reign (103-76
(29) Y. AHARONI et al., Excavations at Ramat Rahel. Seasons 1961 and 1962
(Roma 1964) 119-120; see Y. AHARONI, “Excavation at Ramat Rahelâ€, BA 24, 4
(1961) 98-118; ID., “The Citadel of Ramat Rahelâ€, Archaeology 18, 1 (1965) 15-
25; ID., “Ramat Rahelâ€, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in
the Holy Land (ed. E. STERN) (Jerusalem – New York – London 1993) III, 1261-
1267; cf. Z. HERZOG, Archaeology of the City. Urban planning in Ancient Israel
and its Social Implications (Jerusalem 1997) 250, who points to Northern
Kingdom influences in architecture, leading to the assumption that “refugees from
the north introduced the stonecutter’s craft into Judah after the fall of Samaria and
were employed by the royal court for construction work in the Capital and its
surroundingsâ€. Future digs on the site, to be conducted by Oded Lipschits, could
well reveal further precious finds.
(30) AHARONI, Excavations at Ramat Rahel, 119; N. NA’AMAN, “An Assyrian
Residence at Ramat Rahel?â€, Tel Aviv 28 (2001) 260-280.
(31) AHARONI, Excavations at Ramat Rahel, 120.
(32) Ibid.; the later destruction of the citadel is advocated on the base of King
Jehoiakin’s seal (in stratum V A).
(33) AHARONI, The Citadel, 16.
(34) AHARONI, Excavations at Ramat Rahel, 121.