peter_kirk at sil.org
peter_kirk at sil.org
Mon Dec 20 16:34:34 EST 1999
Ian, have you read Psalm 110 in Hebrew recently? It is full of the
sort of obscurities which are usually taken as evidence of earlier
dating. How do you account for that? I would account for this by
suggesting early dating, that this was indeed a psalm addressed to
David (rather than written by David) from the period when he took
Jerusalem and became its priest-king. See 2 Samuel 6:17-18, 24:25 for
David acting as priest as well as king in Jerusalem.
There is a simple reason why this psalm (and the Melchizedek story in
Genesis) might have been omitted from the Qumran collections: its
theology (which puzzled the Pharisees: Matthew 22:41-46 and parallels)
was not to the liking of the Qumran sect(s), perhaps because it was
being used by their enemies in Jerusalem to justify their rule.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: JEDP (Melchizedek)
Author: <mc2499 at mclink.it> at Internet
Date: 19/12/1999 23:36
At 19.49 19/12/99 +0200, Jonathan D. Safren wrote:
>The Melchizedek incident of Gen. 14 is not referred to; but Melchizedek
>is, in Ps. 110.
Yes, Jonathan, I did refer to Ps. 110 specifically as not appearing at
Qumran being part of a group that has no presence.
>The Davidic priest-king is designated as M.'s sucessor
It is extremely important to realise the Melchizedek propaganda after the
Michael material used by the later Oniads -- see the usages in the DSS.
When the Hasmoneans had usurped the throne of Jerusalem, they ruled as
priest kings. Whereas the Oniad was known as zedek, the priest king used
the connection with melchizedek, the righteous king. Recourse to
Melchizedek by-passed the Zadokite prerequisite for the high priesthood,
hence its placement before anthing to do with the main line of priestly
Is psalm 110 anything more or less than a Hasmonean incoronation?
>and, if suggested textual emendations are correct, YHWH's adopted son.
>So at least the Temple cultic psalms retained a memory of an earlier
>dynasty in Jerusalemm before the Davidic one. This doesn't at all prove
>that Gen. 14 is early or authentic; but it does indicate that there is
>some historical tradition underlying it.
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk at sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-14207U at franklin.oit.unc.e
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
More information about the b-hebrew