Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Matthew T. Williams and Rev. Bryant J. Williams III:
 
The traditional view errs in seeing Melchizedek as being a king and priest 
of Jerusalem.  Note that in chapter 14 of Genesis Melchizedek plays no 
kingly role whatsoever, but rather functions solely as a Canaanite priest.  
Nor 
is Melchizedek connected to Jerusalem in the Patriarchal narratives.
 
1.  Non-Biblical Sources Not Relating to Melchizedek
 
Jerusalem is never called Salem.
 
2.  Non-Biblical Sources Relating to Melchizedek
 
Such sources frequently repeat the misinterpretation that Melchizedek is 
king of Jerusalem.  For example the Josephus cite.
 
3.  Biblical Sources Relating to Melchizedek
 
If the Septuagint unambiguously refers in Greek to Melchizedek as being 
king of Jerusalem, that is reflecting the traditional misinterpretation of 
the 
Hebrew text of Genesis 14: 18.
 
4.  Biblical Sources Not Relating to Melchizedek
 
(a)  I view $LM at Genesis 33: 18 as meaning “safely” [not Jerusalem, 
which as at Genesis 14: 18 would not fit the geographical context].
 
(b)  Psalm 76: 2 is ambiguous.  B-$LM there could mean “in Jerusalem”, but 
it could alternatively mean “safely” or "in peace".  [Perhaps Psalm 76: 2 
is indirectly referring to the traditional view of Melchizedek.]
 
(c)  With the possible, though not certain, exception of Psalm 76: 2 [which 
is an ambiguous reference], the Bible never refers to Jerusalem as “Salem”.
 
In the Patriarchal narratives, “Melchizedek” is not a king, nor is he 
associated with Jerusalem.  Rather, he is a Canaanite priest, whose long, 
sentence name, MLK-Y-CDQ MLK $LM, means “The-Righteous-(Divine) 
King-Reigns-in-Peace”.
 
Jim Stinehart