Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Jack Kilmon:
 
1.  You wrote:  “The original name of Jerusalem is Canaanite and it was 
URU-SALIM meaning "City of Salim.  It is also so called in the Amarna 
Tablets…."
 
The Execration Texts of the 19th and 18th centuries BCE refer to a “
Rusalimum”.  This is usually, though not always, viewed as being an early 
name of 
Jerusalem.  Note the difference from Urusalim of the Amarna Letters.  
Scholars split as to explaining the first component of the Biblical version 
of this 
name:  YRW.
 
2.  You wrote:  “[Jerusalem] was the "City of Shalem" often referred to 
simply as Shalem.”
 
To the best of my knowledge, Jerusalem is  n-e-v-e-r  referred to as “Shalem
” in any non-biblical inscription.
 
3.  Consider now that a high priest, to whom victorious fighters would 
render great tithes, would be expected to be associated with a temple.  There 
was no temple at Jerusalem prior to the Iron Age, based on archaeology and 
other non-biblical evidence.  Melchizedek, as a high priest, needs a temple.
 
Archaeologically, the main sites of temples in Late Bronze Age Canaan, 
which in many cases carry over from the Middle Bronze Age, are:
 
(i)  Beth Shan
(ii)  Tel Mevorakh
(iii)  Hazor
(iv)  Megiddo
(v)  Shechem
(vi)  Lachish
 
Many were first built at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and continued 
into the Late Bronze Age.  Many have obvious similarities to Syrian temples.  
Shechem and Megiddo famously have migdal fortress temples, which suggests 
Hurrian architectural influence.  By contrast, the Temple of Mekal at Beth 
Shan is pure Canaanite.  5 of the 6 sites are located well north of Jerusalem.
 
Note that half of the temple sites (3 of 6) are in or near the Jezreel 
Valley:  Tel Mevorakh (just northwest of the Jezreel Valley), Megiddo and 
Beth 
Shan.  Thus the most likely site for a high priest in Late Bronze Age Canaan 
is the Jezreel Valley, which is where one finds the most Bronze Age temples.
 
If chapter 14 of Genesis was composed in the Bronze Age, by an author who 
knew what he was talking about (my view), then there was no high priest in 
Jerusalem during the Bronze Age, and no temple at Jerusalem.  There was the 
famous Temple of Mekal at Beth Shan in the mid-14th century BCE, but no 
temple 
at Jerusalem.
 
So the claim that Melchizedek is portrayed as being a high priest at 
Jerusalem (who is also the king of Jerusalem) would only work if chapter 14 
of 
Genesis were composed late, by a person who did not know what he was talking 
about.  Although that is certainly a mainstream view (though probably a 
minority view) within the university community, it is demonstrably false.  
Look at 
all the Hurrian words in chapter 14 of Genesis, with knowledge of Hurrian 
having vanished from Canaan by the end of the 13th century BCE.  Moreover, 
scholars have noted that the protocol at the end of chapter 14 of Genesis 
(where Melchizedek appears) has a close parallel to the diplomatic protocol 
in 
the Great Syrian War in the mid-14th century BCE, when the Hurrians in Syria 
were disastrously and definitively defeated by the Hittites.  In particular, 
when Abraham says at Genesis 14: 23 that “I would not take a thread or a 
sandal strap or anything that is yours”, that is almost verbatim the wording 
used in several treaties in Syria at the end of the Great Syrian War.
 
So Jack, unless you are asserting that chapter 14 of Genesis was composed 
late, by a person who did not know what he was talking about, Melchizedek 
cannot be a high priest of Jerusalem, because there was no temple in Bronze 
Age 
Jerusalem.  By contrast,  e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g  in the received text makes 
perfect sense if Melchizedek is the high priest of the Temple of Mekal at 
Beth Shan.  Jerusalem has nothing to do with chapter 14 of Genesis.  
Jerusalem 
was not a holy city to the Hebrews prior to the Iron Age, and Jerusalem was 
not a holy city to anyone prior to becoming a holy city to the Hebrews.
 
What the received text of chapter 14 of Genesis says fits perfectly with 
the historical record, as being an accurate account by a contemporary.  But 
we 
need to recognize that just as the pagan god Mekal had two different kinds 
of attributes, so also does Mekal’s high priest at Beth Shan have a double 
name that exemplifies those two different sets of divine attributes:
 
MLK-Y-CDQ MLK-$LM
 
Mekal was both a god of “righteous victory”/CDQ, and a god of “protection”
/$LM.  If you’re a high priest, you can have a very long, grandiose name 
that highlights both aspects of Mekal.  Remember, chapter 14 of Genesis 
consistently gives us very long names, never shortened names.  
Ashteroth-karnaim 
(not just Ashteroth), Xa-tsi-ts-ni tam-ri (not just Hasi), (YN M$P+ HW) QD$ 
[not just QD$ or Kedesh or ka-du-u-$a], etc.
 
So if chapter 14 of Genesis is very old [which is probably the majority 
view of university scholars, by the way], then it makes no sense for 
Melchizedek to be portrayed as being a high priest of Jerusalem, where there 
was no 
temple in the Bronze Age, whereas it makes perfect historical sense for 
Melchizedek to be portrayed as being the high priest of the Temple of Mekal 
at 
Beth Shan.  Why not consider an historical interpretation of this text?  The 
Patriarchal narratives have pinpoint historical accuracy, if we’re willing to 
look at the text from an historical perspective.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois