oup. This agrees with Jerome’s statement that it was vicus Ephrem (Ephraim) 5 Roman miles from Bethel, eastward (Lag. Onom.? p. 129;
Ee ee
Eusebius’ text is imperfect; in it the name is κώμη "Agpj\A—Lag. p. 241). The locality so determined is a few miles north of Michmash, and consequentl suits also the Ophrah of 1S 13 (LXX Togepa, Euseb., Jer. Ogpd). The Philistines are said to have sent troops from their camp at Michmash in the direction of Ophrah. There is even an indica- tion that this direction was northward. Two other bands went east and west respectively, it seems, and Saul’s troops were on the south. The modern et-Taiyibe, about 5 miles north-east of Bethel, has been suggested as the site of the ancient Oph-ah (Robinson’, ii. 121 ff., more at length in Bidblioth. Sac. 1845, ii. 398). The place is described as strikingly situated on a conical hill, and part of the argument is that such a site must certainly have been occupied in ancient times. The distance from Bethel corresponds with that given by Jerome. But nothing more decisive can urged. The suggested correspondence of the modern name with the ancient is too hazardous to be assigned any weight (Winer® sub voce). The assumption that the jinsy of Jos 15° is identical with Ophrah is not well founded, for Ephron is plainly on the north-western frontier of Judah. Eusebius’ state- ment, therefore, that Ephron was 20 miles north of Jerusalem Gees P- 260), does not help to determine the site of Ophrah. Negatively it may be argued that et-Zaiyibe lies too far north to have been in- cluded in Benjamite territory (Dillm. on Jos 18%),
Six place names, in addition to Ephron, have been identified with Ophrah. They are :—(1) p75» 2 Ch 13° (Kethibh psy); (2) Ἐφράιμ In 11%; (3) ᾿“Εφράιμ Jos. BJ Iv. ix. 9; (4) ον 28 1353 (Luc. Todpdiu= ?omsy); (5) ᾿Αφαίρεμα 1 Mac 11%; (6) mexd m2 Mic 1", Regarding all of them it should be observed that the mere fact of their being situated on the borders of Judah and Ephraim (or Judea and Samaria) leaves it open to identify them with Ephron. The names also are as much equivalent to 718} as to mn5y, and the testimony of Eusebius is that, later, Ephron actually became ᾿Εφράιμ (Lag.? p. 260; Jerome calls it Efraea). A brief statement may be made regarding each. (1) Presumably on the borders of Judah and Israel, and possibly not distant from Bethel, in which case it may be Ophrah. (2) See EPHRAIM. Eusebius identifies it with the Ephron of Jos 15° (Lag.? p. 262), and so is against an identification with Ophrah. (3) Occupied by Vespasian on his march from Czesarea to Jerusalem, and named along with Bethel. But there is nothing to show that it was near Bethel. If it can be assumed that Bethel was in the toparchy of Gophna, which is mentioned on the same occasion, it might be argued that Ephraim was in the toparchy of Akrabatta, too far from Bethel to be Ophrah. (4) From Jerusalem this town lay in the direction of Ὥρωνήν (B, 258 13%, Lue. Σωράιμ). If that name represents Hebrew 01354 and stands for Beth-horon (Driver, Sam. ad loc.), this Ephraim lay north-west of Jerusalem and may be identical with Ephron. The direction is the same, and Ephron was known to Eusebius as ᾿Εφράιμ. All that supports identification with Ophrah is an uncertain resemblance of name which might equally be claimed for Ephron. (5) On the borders of Judzea and Samaria (᾿Αφερειμά in Jos. Ant. xm. iv. 9). But there is nothing to show at what point, whether to the east or west. (6) See BETH-LE-APHRAH. The direction of Ephron is more suitable than that of Ophrah.—For further references to literature see EPHRAIM.
2. A town in Manasseh (Jg 61-74 857. 82 95) dis- tinguished from the preceding as Ophrah (LXX ᾿Εφραθά ; in 6" 8” Luc. ᾿Εφρά, in 857 9° A ᾿Εφράιμ), of the Abiezrites (see ABIEZER). It was the home of Gideon, and is mentioned only in his history and in that of his son Abimelech. It was situated
OR
evidently on the western side of Jordan and within easy reach of the plain of Jezreel (Jg 6*",* cf. also 8:8). It is natural to suppose that the Abiezrites were apprehensive of Midianite attack when they took the offensive. Jg 9 does not imply the close proximity of Shechem. Abimelech’s relations with that town are expressly accounted for by his kin- ship. The area within which the site may be looked for is accordingly sufficiently wide. No modern name closely resembling the ancient has been pointed out. (Suggestions in Schwarz, Geog. 1850, p. 158; van de Velde, Memoir, p. 337; PEFSt 1876, p. 197, by Conder, who quotes an Arabic translation of Samar. Chron. which gives Fer‘ata, 6 miles west of Shechem, for Ophrah). Some of the places saveny, named because of their identification with Ophrah of Benjamin have also been identified with this Ophrah. The third of them may have been as far north as to come within the boundaries of Manasseh.
8. A family or clan (B Todepd, A Todopd, Luc. ἜἜφράθ) in the tribe of Judah, according to the list of the Chronicler (1 Ch 4"), There are certainly names of towns in this list, and this may be one, the Judean Ephron or even the Benjamite Ophrah. Border towns may be counted at one time to Benjamin, at another to Judah.