Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>> 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?
>>
>
>Your whole theory rests, so it appears to me from your posting, on tw
foundations:
>1) Ps. 110 has not been found at Qumran.
>2) The similarity in the names Melchizedek and Zadok.

Actually, no. First the context of the Melchizedek episode is the one place
in the Pentateuch where the term el elyon is used. The Hasmoneans were
known in the Assumption of Moses as the priests of the Most High God, just
as in Josephus Hyrcanus II was known in a similar manner. There is a
relatively strong connection between the Hasmoneans and the use of el elyon
(theos hypsistos). It is the connection between Melchizedek and el elyon
that is the foundation, along with the emergence of the Melchizedek
tradition in later Qumran production as a replacement for the Michael imagery.

>As for your first foundation, has every chapter of every biblical book
been found at
>Qumran? The absence of Ps. 110 from Qumran is no proof of its
lateness.This may be due
>to the vicissitudes of time and chance.

The cave 11 psalms scroll is rather interesting because it knows nearly all
the later psalms except that one sequence.

>As for the name Melchizedek and Zadok, don't forget King Adonizedek of the
Conquest
>and Setllement Narratives. And don't forget the astral deity Zedek.
Adonizedek and
>Melchizedek are theophoric names indicating worship of that god.

But the context in which we find Adonizedek, Joshua's conquest of the long
abandoned Ai, cannot be given any historical weight at all. The text was
clearly written so long after the hypothetical date that the writer didn't
even known that the ruin (Ai) was abandoned at the time. This leads us to
ask when that part of the Joshua tradition was penned.

>Why must they be late figures, except for your desire to see them as late?

If you can make a case for them, given what I've already said, I'm happy to
listen.


Cheers,


Ian