Why Not? (Jonathan)
mc2499 at mclink.it
Tue Jan 26 17:37:24 EST 1999
>>I can't see how it could possibly be a true Davidic psalm, given the role
>>given to the king of priest after the order of Melchizedek, and obviously
>>negating the Aaronid priesthood role. Ps110 seems to me a better fit as the
>>enthronement of the Hasmonean king.
>According to 2 Sam. 8, David's sons were priests. In Israel, as in Ugarit
>and elsewhere in the ANE, the king could assume priestly functions.
Where do we learn that David was a priest? How would you explain
non-levitic priests at any time after the institution of the family of Levi
and Aaron as the rightful priests and high priests of Israel?
>>>making the whole Melchitzedek tradition in Gen. 14 quite early. Abraham,
>>>eponymic ancestor of the later United Kingdom of Israel under the Davidic
>>>dynasty, receives the blessing of the king of Jerusalem, David's future
>>Doesn't that all seem artificial to you though? There is no opaque reason
>>for a necessary blessing from a person who is never heard of before or
>>after. Perhaps I'm missing out on something.
> Melchizedek, a Jebusite Jerusalem priest king,
This description does not come from the text. It seems to me to be a
construction of ideas from various places. That Salem is intended to mean
Jerusalem in Gen14 is not so easy to grant (it appears in only two places
in teh OT/HB). There is nothing to indicate that this Salem had anything to
do with the Jebusites. Worse yet, Shavneh, the valley where Melchizedek
brought his bread and wine is thought to be in Moab, suggesting that the
Melchizedek story was not originally meant for the context it is now in.
>is mentioned twice in the
>Bible in two entirely different and independent contexts. That in itself is
>worthy of note. Add to this the fact the conquest of Jerusalem is
>attributed to David, who did not exterminate or expel the native Jebusite
>population, but lived with them on amicably, even, according to 2 Sam. 24,
>purchasing the Temple Mount from the Jebusite ewir, probably the former
Former ruler? Is this from 2Sam24:23 (which in English is rendered "All
this, O king, Araunah gives to the king", but instead of the vocative in
the AV there is an "as" insinuated)?
>probably of the Melchizedek/Adonizedek dynasty,
Do you think there is really enough evidence to construct a
"Melchizedek/Adonizedek dynasty"? We are after all talking about two
figures who are given a separation of well over 500 years. Empires come and
go in that sort of time!?
>perhaps even Melchizedek himself.
This suggestion has me non-plussed.
>The narrative of 2 Sam. 24 may be unhistorical, but
>the almost inadvertent historical notice of the purchase of nothing less
>than the Temple Mount from the local Jebusite, polytheistic ewir is
>something that should be given serious consideration.
I have perhaps missed out on the significance here of the weight placed on
"ewir". Where is it in the text and what makes you think that this was
>Can you imagine a Second Temple, Hasmonean Period writer putting
>something like that in the Bible?
There was no Bible during the Hasmonean Period. There was a collection of
individual texts, as displayed in the DSS. Texts circulated individually. I
see the book of Ezra as having gained its present form after Josephus used
1 Esdras as his Ezra source, so I can see nothing stopping a writer from
inserting the Melchizedek narrative into Gen14. (If you are referring
instead to the information about the "ewir", I can't answer you because I
am lost with the reference!?)
>The connection between the Davidic
>dynasty and the Melchizedek line is thus given further support from the
I'm sorry, I just can't see any evidence for a Melchizedek line and I can't
see any evidence for a connection between a Davidic dynasty and a
Melchizedek line, so I can't see how they could give support for the
But I'm interested to know more about the "ewir" and my possible
misunderstanding of implications.
More information about the b-hebrew