Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

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
tradition.

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.


Cheers,


Ian