The position of Ramathaim-zophim is regarded by many scholars as one of the puzzles of Biblical geogra- phy. \- the city is one of greal interest, it may be well to give the principal theories as to its site, and then to state the data on which alone the site can be determined.
(1.) Eusebius and Jerome locate it near Diospolis or Lydda (Onomast. s. v. "Armatha Sophim"), and identify it with the Ariroathsea of the N. T. | Matt, xxvii, 57). Jerome's words are: ••Armathem Seipha: the city of Ilelkana and Samuel. It lies near (irXij/rioy) Diospo- lis: thence came Joseph, in the Gospels said to be from
Arimathiea." Diospolis is Lydda, the modern Ludd; and the reference is, no doubt, to Ramleh, the well- known modern town, two miles from Ludd. Jerome agrees with Eusebius in his translation of this passage; but in the Epitaphium Paulce | EpisLcviii) he connects Ramleh with Arimathsea only, and places it hand pro- mi a Lydda, This last identification may be correct; for the Sept. 'ApfiaSraifi seems to be the same name as lie New-Test. 'ApifiaSaia, and represents the Hebrew ~T'Z~~. with the article. There is no doubt there was a city called Armatha or Ramathem on the plain near Lydda at an early period: and its modern repre- sentative may be Ramleh. as suggested by Reland and oiler- Reland, Paloest. p. 580, 969 ; see, however, Rob- inson, Bib. r . ii. 238). Bul Ramah of Samuel could
not have 1 so far distant from Gibeah of Saul: and
I atal obstacle to this identification in the fact
that Ramleh ("the sandy") lies on the open face of the maritime plain, and cannol in any sense be said to be in Mount Ephraim or any other mountain district Eusebius possibly refers to another Ramah named in Neh. m.:;.;.
(2.) Some would identify this city with Kamah of Benjamin (Gesenius, Tkesaur. p. 1275; Winer, Real- Worii rb, s. v. " Rama") ; bul this Kamah seems too close
to Saul's residence at Gibeah to suit the requirements of the sacred narrative in 1 Sam. xix. 18. ( Vet see below.)
(3.) Robinson has suggested that the site of Kamah may be that now occupied by the village of Soba. which stands on a lofty and conspicuous hill -top. about six miles wesl of Jerusalem. Soba, he thinks, may be a corruption of the old name Zuph. [ts elevation would answer well to the designation Ramah. It might be regarded as included in the mountains of Ephraim, or, at least, as a natural extension ol them: and a not very wide detour would take the travi Her from Soba to <iib- eah by the tomb of Rachel i Bib. Res. ii. 7 9). 'I he ar- guments are plausible, but nol convincing; and it must be admitted that even Robinson's remarkable geograph- ical knowledge has failed to throw light on the Bite of Ramathaim-zophim.
(4.) Wblcott, seeing on the spot the difficulties at- tending Robinson's theory, and finding a remarkable ruin, called Ramet el-Khulil, near Hebron, concluded that this was the site of Samuel's city. A summary of his reasons is given by Robinson in the Biblical Gab- on i ixliii. 51 : sec also Bib. Res. iii, 279). They are not more convincing than those advanced in favor of Soba, yet they have been adopted and expanded by Van de Veldc (Xurrat. ii, 48-54 ; Mi moir, p. 341). This is also supported by Stewart (Ten/ and Khan, p. 2 17 |.
(5.) Gesenius thinks that Jebel Fureidis, or, as it is usually called. Frank Mountain, the conspicuous conical hill three miles south-east of Bethlehem, is the true site of Kamah (Thesaurus, p. L276). This, however, is pure conjecture, without any evidence to support it.
(6.) Ewald is in favor of the little village of Ram- Allah, a mile west of Beeroth (Geschiehte, ii. 550, nob ). It is doubtless situated in Mount Ephraim, retains the old name, and the name Allah, "God," might be an indication of some old, peculiar sanctity; bul it is open to the same objections as all others north of Rachel's tomb. Lieut, fonder inclines to this position (Tent Work in Palestine, ii, 116), remarking that near it is a ruined village called Sueikeh, perhaps the Sechu of 1 Sam. xix. •_'•_'.
(7.) ( >ne of the most ancient, and certainly one of the most plausible, theories is that which locates Ramath- aim-zophim at Neby SamwiL It is most probably to this place Procopius alludes in the statement that Jus- tinian caused a well and a wall to be erected for the convent of St. Samuel (Be ^Edific. Just. v. 9; comp. Robinson, Bib. Res. i, 459). From the 7th century, when Adamnanus described Palestine, and spoke of -the city of Samuel, which is called Ramatha" t Early Travels [Bohn ]. p. 5), down through the Middle Ages to the present day, the name of the prophet has been con- nected with tins spot; .and the uniform tradition of Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans has made it the place of his birth and burial (see authorities cited in Robinson, I. c). The Crusaders built a church over the alleged tomb, which, after the fall of the Latin kingdom, was converted into a mosque; and its walls and tall minaret are Still visible' from afar (QuaresmiuS, ii. 727; Pococke, ii. 48). Neby Samwll is unquestion- ably the site of a very ancient city; its position On the summit of a high conical hill would give it a just title to the name Kamah: it probably lay within the region termed the •■.Mountains of Ephraim;" and it would form an appropriate residence for the great judge of Israel. It is near this place that the great well of Sechu, to which Saul came on his way to Kamah. now- called Saunters fountain, near licit [ska, Or licit Isku.is