Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III:
 
1.  You wrote:  “The name is Melchizedek, King of Salem….”
 
I disagree.  This priest’s name, rather, is “(My Deity Is) King of Righteous 
Victory, King of Safety”.
 
Consider the following factors that support my view:
 
(i)  There is no place called Shalem prior to the common era.
 
(ii)  There is no basis for viewing $LM as being an abbreviation of 
“Jerusalem”.
 
(iii)  The leading analyst of Bronze Age names [Richard Hess] has 
specifically stated that $LM often is part of a hypocoristic name, where the 
deity’s actual name is only implied, but the deity is honored by being said 
to provide “safety”/$LM:  “[$LM] may be a sentence name that was shortened by 
omission of the divine name.”
 
(iv)  An interior yod/Y is optional in a west Semitic name.  Thus the two 
halves of Melchizedek’s name are in fact parallel:
 
MLK-Y-CDQ MLK-$LM
 
(v)  There are more long names in chapter 14 of Genesis than virtually 
anywhere else in the Bible.  Thus it’s not so surprising that this high 
priest has a long, double name.
 
2.  You wrote:  “You are also making the mistake that just because one is a 
priest, then one cannot be a king.”
 
Akhenaten was both a priest and a king, as were all the pharaohs.  They had 
both religious functions and rulership functions.  But Melchizedek does 
nothing in the nature of being a princeling ruler.  He takes no part in the 
fighting.  Rather, Melchizedek operates exclusively as a priest.  The problem 
is not that a person could not have both roles, but rather is that 
Melchizedek clearly has only one role:  high priest.
 
3.  You wrote:  “In this instance the text clearly shows that Melchizedek was 
not only King of Salem, but also a priest of the Most High God (El-Elyon).”
 
Melchizedek was a pagan priest.  He was the high priest of Mekal at Beth 
Shan.  Beth Shan was the site of the Temple of Mekal in the mid-14th century 
BCE.  Beth Shan’s locale is epitomized by the words M$QH, $WH and (MQ H-%DYM. 
 Unlike Abraham, Melchizedek had never been visited by YHWH, nor was he a 
priest of YHWH. 
 
4. You wrote:  “Abram would know of this. Giving tithes to Melchizedek, a 
priest of the Most High God, is in response to the providence of God (EL). 
Does it fit into your scheme of things? No, it does not. Move on.”
 
When you speak about “the providence of God”, the #1 issue on Abraham’s mind 
at that point was whether the dreaded Hittites would overrun Canaan, fresh 
off their total victory in the fully historical “four kings against five”.  
The future history of the world depended on that.  The reason why Judaism was 
born in the mid-14th century BCE is because the Hebrews viewed it as being 
“the providence of God” that the seemingly unstoppable Hittites never invaded 
Canaan.  The first Hebrews’ prayers to YHWH were answered in full.
 
What I’m doing is pointing out the pinpoint historical accuracy of the 
Patriarchal narratives.  The text, as is, is perfect.  The problem is that 
the traditional interpretation of the text is in error.  Melchizedek is not 
the king of Shalem.  There was no Shalem prior to the common era, and 
Mechizedek is not a king.  Rather, Melchizedek is a high priest of Mekal, who 
had a double name, befitting Mekal’s dual nature:
 
MLK-Y-CDQ MLK-$LM.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois