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.
490 Òukasz Niesio¬owski-Spanò
tower†does not support the Masoretic reading (46). The above-
suggested emendation rp[AlDgm* would not be an isolated case, as
similar forms are to be found in the Hebrew Bible (cf. µkvAlDgm in Judg
9,46-52, and dGAlDgm in Josh 15,37). Perhaps then one must look at 1
Chr 2,51: “Salma father of Bethlehem, and Hareph father of Beth-
gaderâ€. Although the genealogy of Kalebites points to the separation
of two places Bethlehem and Beth-gader, it does support their
closeness, which together with the meaningful version used by
Eusebius, might suggest the identification of rdgAlDgm / rdgAtyB and
rp[AlDgm* / rp[AtyB* (47). To summarise, if in fact rp[AlDgm* is referred
to in both Micah and Genesis 35, there is hardly any doubt as to why
some messianic hopes were connected with a person like Gideon.
That said, one is inclined to say that the identification of Gideon’s
Ophra with Ephrata (modern Ramat Rahel), in other words the
reconstructed rp[AtyB* / rp[AlDgm*, is far more plausible than any
connection with Bethlehem.
We may suppose that the Greek version of the Bible contains the
original form of the name, which would rather be pronounced
“Ephrata†as opposed to “Ophraâ€. If we agree that the form “Ophra†is
an artificial creation used merely to replace the older form “Ephraâ€
(rp[) (or *Migdal-Ephra; *Bet-Ephra), with both being used to denote
the place known now as Ramat Rahel (48), we must then ask the
question ‘why?’. The key lies in the royal ideology concentrated
around the house of David. This royal house, which had become holy
as part of the process of increasing messianic thought, was anchored in
“the†certain city — the city of origin of the first king.
5. Rachel’s burial place or Gideon’s capital?
The above hypothesis presents the identification of Gideon’s home
city with the place where Rachel is said to have been buried. A clear
question remains: which tradition, or which reality, was original —
Rachel’s burial place or Gideon’s capital?
(46) The Hebrew word rdG appears in connection with toponyms Bethlehem
and Ephratah in 1 Chr 4,4.
(47) Cf. S.E. MCGARRY, “Beth Gaderâ€, ABD I, 686.
(48) Cf. H. CAZELLES, “Bethlehemâ€, ABD I, 712-715. The identification of
“Bethlehem†and “Ephrata†can also be found in the work of the Jewish historian
from the 3rd century BCE – Demetrius (fr. 2, 10). For editions see F. JACOBY, Die
Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin 1923) 722; A.-M. DENIS,
Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca (Leiden 1970); C.R.
HOLLADAY, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Chico 1983), I, 68-69.