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? 491
It is enough at this point to state that the place called *Migdal-
Ephra or *Bet-Ephra, and transformed in the Bible into “Ephrataâ€, was
connected with the two. Such an identification must have been
followed, or accompanied, by two other processes in biblical tradition.
Firstly, the place where Rachel gave birth to Benjamin, and later died,
was moved from the territory of Benjamin southwards to the territory
of Judah. Secondly, the artificial identification of Ephrata-Bethlehem
was created. In particular, the latter of these literary events had its
impact on the messianic tradition, although it is quite possible that
Bethlehem appropriated the unusual city prerogatives, which had
originally belonged only to Ephrata (49).
This phenomenon can be best explained by accepting the
hypothesis that Gideon’s origins lay in Ephrata, and accepting the
tradition that David originated from Bethlehem as secondary, with
strong borrowings from the first. If this is the case, David’s figure
would be the personage created out of the tradition of the judge. It is
quite possible in this perspective that the tradition of the king, coming
from the Philistine dominium, and becoming successor to the
Benjaminite king, was built on, and grew with the help of, elements of
the tradition of a different person.
This may suggest a presence in the story of Gideon of the old strata
connecting the figure of the hero with the monarchy, combat against
enemies and religious reform. Characteristically enough, the writer,
coming under the strong influence of deuteronomistic ideology, and
having described the “good†monarch who came from the royal
residence par excellence, had to conclude the story with a sharp
critique of the monarchy and the acts of the same hero (Judg 8,26-27).
In accepting the above reconstruction, we are presented with the
following set of data. Gideon comes from rp[AtyB (i.e., the royal
residence or fortress in modern Ramat Rahel); David comes from
Bethlehem (mjlAtyB). Subsequently, the two places (Bethlehem and
Ephrata - htrpa) become identified with each other. This process (cf.
1 Sam 17,12) had to be associated with the “moving†of Rachel’s
burial place from the territory of Benjamin to the area of Judah
(htrpa). The biblical text claims openly that Rachel died “some
distance from Ephrath†(Gen 35,16), and “on the way to Ephrathâ€
(Gen 35,19). Although this is hardly an appropriate place to discuss the
(49) This issue is far too complicated to be analysed here. I hope to concentrate
on it soon.