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.
492 Òukasz Niesio¬owski-Spanò
entire complicated issue related to the “moving†of Rachel’s burial
place and other borrowings of traditions from Benjamin to Judah, it is
possible that there existed at a certain time the tradition of Rachel’s
tomb being close to the royal residence and fortress in rp[AtyB, where
Gideon came from, and very close to the city of Bethlehem, where
David is said to have come from.
The situation could well be viewed (by the Bible-writers) as
complicated, given that Gideon originated from the royal city (and had
very strong connections with royal ideology as well; let us recall the
Seper ha-Yamim where he is called “kingâ€). On the history-mythical
level Gideon had become rival to the main figure of the royal (and
consequently messianic) ideology originating from Bethlehem —
namely David. The changes seen in Judges, as well as the attempt at
removing Gideon from the royal city of Ephratah, may be understood
as a means of guaranteeing the dominant position of David.
The same reasons may well have influenced the putting in
Gideon’s mouth of the important statement following his defeat of the
Midianite army, declaring an unwillingness to become king: “Then the
Israelites said to Gideon, ‘Rule over us, you and your son and your
grandson also; for you have delivered us out of the hand of Midian’.
Gideon said to them, ‘I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule
over you; the LORD will rule over you’†(Judg 8,22-23).
The well-known case of building the heroic myth of king David,
whilst diminishing the fame of others, or constructing the myth thanks
to the fame of others, can be recalled in this case. The figure of
Elkanah (2 Sam 21,19), whose triumph over Goliath was attributed to
David, may offer the best example of the practice of building the myth
of David through the actions of others. A similar thing could have
happened with Gideon, who — like Elkanah — was not deleted from
the Bible, but whose fame was attributed to David. There is still a
certain difference between Gideon and Elkanah, given that the former
was so well known it was impossible to erase his importance and fame
from the text. This slight correction was made by creating the city of
his origin so as not to present a form of rivalry to David. The mythical
plot of Gideon’s acts remained in the Bible, but the Bible-writer tried
to hide the similarities between the two royal figures.
One may summarize by stating that it is possible that, by a process
of assimilation, the tradition of the brave, righteous and God-fearing
judge Gideon was incorporated into the large tradition concentrated
around Bethlehem. Maybe here the connection between Gideon and