Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Jerusalem - spelling, in historical perspective

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: bjwvmw AT com-pair.net, uhurwitz AT yahoo.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Jerusalem - spelling, in historical perspective
  • Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:35:20 -0500



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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page