Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 09.13 25/01/99 +0200, Jonathan D. Safren wrote:
>  I haven't been following this thread very closely (not because of lack of
>interest but because of lack of time - I get guilt feelings just writing
>this letter!, but didn't Lloyd or anyone else cite Gen. 14: 18-19. where
>Melchizedek, Canaanite king of Shalem, blesses Abraham in the name of "El
>Elyon, Creator of Heaven and Earth" 

Dear Jonathan

The earliest document that contains the Melchizedek story we possess is the
Genesis Apocryphon found at Qumran. Unfortunately none of the numerous
Genesis fragments touch on the passage. GenApoc routinely -- though not
exclusively -- uses the Most High God throughout its text, providing a more
"comfortable" home for the Melchizedek account: Genesis only uses el elyon
in this story. In fact, while the parts are used in various situations, the
combination el elyon is rarely used in the OT/HB. The only datable usage of
this reference to God in this form is from the second century BCE, eg Ben
Sira, 1QH, Jubilees, GenApoc. As no datable text outside the second century
uses it, this should make a strong claim for the second century the
temporal centre of its usage.

People then ask me, "are you suggesting that the Melchizedek tradition is
from the second century?" As a hypothesis it is functional. It institutes a
priestly tradition that is "prior" to the Zadokite "branch" of the Aaronid
controlled temple. This would give a hook on which the Hasmoneans could
have hung their claims to the high priesthood after having usurped it from
the Zadokite line which relocated to On. How could a non-Zadokite hold the
high priestly office? Did the priest king of the God Most High need to
belong to the Zadokite line? As I have said here before, the Assumption of
Moses refers to the Hasmoneans as having called themselves the priests of
the Most High God.

But why Melchizedek? It was during Zadokite times that Michael (and the
angels) had been associated with the high priesthood. 1QS(a) & (b) both
cloud the distinction between the priests and the angels. Melchizedek has
an analogous position, reminiscent of Michael and replacing him. The first
9 lines of col 17 of the War Scroll, the high priestly discourse that
mentions Michael, are specifically omitted from the War Scroll version
4Q491, marking a change in high priestly rhetoric -- just as the sons of
Zadok are metaphorised in CD, col 4 (a metaphorization that goes against
the grain with regard to the use and importance of lineages in early Judaism).

The name Melchizedek, however, is important in this analysis, for it is
both a combination of royal and priestly competences that mark the evolving
Hasmonean role in Jerusalem and refers back to the Zadokite past through
its play on zadok/zedek.

>(I seem to remember mention of a Hittite 'el kunirsa), 

I couldn't find this (lack of resources), if anyone could elucidate I'd be
interested.

>and Abraham swears (v. 22 by "YHWH El Elyon, Creator
>of Heaven and Earth" (YHWH missing in ancient translations). 

Interesting. I just checked the LXX and there is no kurios in v22.


Ian