The Melkiedeq Memoirs The Social Memory

THE MELKIṢEDEQ MEMOIRS:
THE SOCIAL MEMORY OF MELKIṢEDEQ THROUGH THE SECOND TEMPLE

PERIOD
by
Cale A. Staley
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the Master of Arts
degree in Religious Studies in the
Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
May 2015
Thesis Supervisor: Assistant Professor Robert Cargill

Copyright by
CALE A. STALEY
2015
All Rights Reserved

Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
____________________________
MASTER’S THESIS
_________________
This is to certify that the Master’s thesis of
Cale A. Staley
has been approved by the Examining Committee for

the thesis requirement for the Master of Arts degree
in Religious Studies at the May 2015 graduation.
Thesis Committee: ____________________________________________

Robert Cargill, Thesis Supervisor
____________________________________________
Paul Dilley
____________________________________________
Jordan Smith
To my father, Steve Alexander Staley, even though you are not here to see me finish this
milestone in my life, I know you would approve of it, no matter how obscure or
ridiculous my thesis is. And to my dearest Karen, I would not be where I am without you,
you pushed me to be a better person and for that I am truly grateful.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Robert Cargill, who allowed me to pursue my
research, no matter how crazy I sounded. Without his guidance I would not have been
able to create this work. I would also like to thank the other two members of my
committee, Paul Dilley and Jordan Smith, who were both of indescribable help to me and
my studies.
To my family, thank you for supporting my dreams and not questioning my
choices in life. Grandpa, you supported me through everything and helped me achieve my
dreams; Dad would be happy. Thank you for everything.
iii

ABSTRACT
The study of Melkiṣedeq has been highly fragmentary among modern scholars,
proving to be difficult to discuss over the long Second Temple Period. This study will
focus on the social memory of Melkiṣedeq to understand the evolution of the tradition
surrounding his character among sectarian groups in the Second Temple Period. Through
an analysis of the components from the Hebrew Bible that compromise the social
memory of Melkiṣedeq a deeper understanding of how his memory is used by later
groups can be made. The redaction and expansion of his character changes greatly over
time.
The study of social memory allows scholars to understand how different
memories form within a collective group, thus exploring the societal and ideological
elements of disparate groups that form the over-arching memory of Melkiṣedeq. In order
to properly identify these memories, redactional, historical, and textual criticisms will be
employed to analyze the texts of Melkiṣedeq, answering such questions as: Who is
Melkiṣedeq? What is the relationship between Melkiṣedeq and the king of Sodom? What
is a priest-king? Did Abram tithe to Melkiṣedeq? This study will address the Near Eastern
context of Melkiṣedeq in Genesis 14, in order to examine which features of his social
memory are accentuated or excluded in Second Temple literature.
iv

PUBLIC ABSTRACT
Individuals remember things differently. This is a fact of life; different people
remember different aspects of events, people, and ideas, but this does not necessarily
make any single memory the correct memory. This aggregate of individual memories
contributes to a collective, creating a social memory. The present thesis addresses the
social memory of the biblical priest-king Melkiṣedeq from Genesis 14:18-20. Throughout
the Second Temple Period (530 BCE-70 CE), Jewish groups interpreted the Hebrew
Bible to further their own agenda. Melkiṣedeq was one of the most popular interpretive
points for priestly purposes because of his role in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110.
Second Temple groups such as the Qumran community, the early rabbinic
movement, early Christians, and other Jewish philosophers of the time adapted the
already present social memory of Melkiṣedeq to fit their societal needs. These various
groups needed to provide legitimization for their ideologies and looked back through their
memories of biblical characters to find one that would provide the precedent needed to
promote their theology. Melkiṣedeq was able to provide precedent for the role of priest-
king, tithing, and a priestly alternative to the Jerusalem priesthood for these new groups
arising in Second Temple Palestine. This work will demonstrate the complete social
memory of Melkiṣedeq’s character and how it was reinterpreted over time.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures vii
Introduction and Methodology 1

I. 1 Methodology: How does one study a memory? 4
Chapter 1: History of Melkiṣedeq Research 10

1.1 Modern Interpretation 12
Chapter 2: Melkiṣedeq in the Hebrew Bible 21

2.1 An Overview of Genesis 14 21
2.2 Melkiṣedeq in Genesis 14:18-20 35
2.3 Melkiṣedeq in Psalm 110 57
Chapter 3: The Second Temple Memories of Melkiṣedeq 61

3.1 Melkiṣedeq at Qumran 62
3.2 Melkiṣedeq in 2 Enoch 70
3.3 Samaritan Melkiṣedeq 72
3.4 Melkiṣedeq in the Targumim 73
3.5 Melkiṣedeq in the Rabbinical Literature 75
3.6 Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus’ interpretations of Melkiṣedeq 78
3.7 Melkiṣedeq in the Early Christian World 83
Conclusion 87
Bibliography 91
vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1- Map of instances of names containing the theophoric root ṣ-d-q 37
Figure 2- The lengthy name of Jerusalem 48
Figure 3- List of waw consecutive verbs 55
vii

Introduction and Methodology
Biblical characters come in all shapes and size and some are better known than others.
While these minor characters do not affect our everyday understanding of the Hebrew
Bible, they can be extremely influential in the development of biblical traditions. At first
reading Genesis 14 appears to be a disjointed and complicated narrative that does not
quite fit with the larger biblical Abram narrative. In Gen. 14 Abram is a conqueror
leading a fierce, personal group of warriors, and who interacts with a unique character,
Melkiṣedeq, the focus of this study.1 Melkiṣedeq is introduced as a previously unknown
Canaanite priest-king, but his character is expanded throughout the Second Temple
period until he reaches divine status. The expansion of Melkiṣedeq’s role in not uniform,
but rather takes several quite distinct paths, which are the result of different Jewish
groups experimenting with various interpretations of the Melkiṣedeq story and utilizing
them to develop and differentiate their own sectarian identities, solidifying their
distinctive niches within society.
The social memory2 of Melkiṣedeq existed for centuries, beginning in pre-Davidic
Canaan and extending through the Second Temple Period through the Early Christian

1
The traditional English transliteration of the name ‫ מלכי–צדק‬is “Melchizedek.” However,
this is not an accurate transliteration. Melkiṣedeq more accurately represents the ‫ כ‬of ‫מלך‬,
and the ‫ צ‬and ‫ ק‬of ‫ צדק‬orthographically.
2
For a complete analysis of the term “social memory” see: Fentress and Wickham, Social
Memory (New Perspectives on the Past; Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell,
1992): 2-30.; Hinchman and Hinchman, Memory, Identity, Community: The Idea of
Narrative in the Human Sciences (SUNY series in the philosophy of the social sciences;
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997).; Wyer and Srull, Memory and
Cognition in Its Social Context (Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1989).; Climo and
1

world and beyond, even into the modern day. The metanarrative of Melkiṣedeq is
constructed from a wide range of memories and beliefs about the biblical character, due
to his enigmatic nature in the canonical literature.3 The absence of information provided
about Melkiṣedeq and his abrupt appearance and disappearance within the narrative of
Gen. 14 provide an excellent platform for constructed memories to flourish into the social
memory of Melkiṣedeq during the Second Temple Period. Gen. 14:18-20 provides the
reader with very limited information about his character:
And King Melkiṣedeq of Shalem brought out bread and wine; he was
priest of ʾEl ʿElyon.
He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by ʾEl ʿElyon, maker of
heaven and earth;
and blessed be ʾEl ʿElyon, who has delivered your enemies into your
hand!” And he gave him one tenth of everything.4
From this passage, which is the only direct interaction with the character of Melkiṣedeq
in the Hebrew Bible (the only other passage, Psalm 110, is merely referential), the reader
learns only limited information regarding Melkiṣedeq’s character: he was king of
somewhere named ‫שלם‬, or “Shalem;” he was priest of ʾEl ʿElyon; he brought bread and

Cattell, Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives (Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press, 2002).
3
For a complete study of “metanarrative” see: Michener, Engaging Deconstructive
Theology (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies;
Aldershot, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007).; Zufelde, “Comment savoir?”,
“Comment dire?”: metafiktionale, metanarrative und metahistoriographische Diskurse
über Referenz und Repräsentation in Claude Simons Romanen “La Route des Flandres”
(1960), “Triptyque” (1973) und “Les Géorgiques” (1981) (Etudes Littéraires Françaises
74; Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 2009).;Davies and Edelman eds. The Historian and the Bible:
Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe ed., vol. 530 of The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament Studies; London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2010). ; Conley,
We Are Who We Think We Were: Christian History and Christian Ethics (Emerging
Scholars; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013).
4
All translations from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are my own except where otherwise
noted.
2

wine to Abram and his men; he blessed Abram; and there was an exchange of goods
between Melkiṣedeq and Abram. This constitutes the sum of all activity involving
Melkiṣedeq in the Hebrew Bible.
In Gen. 14, the Hebrew Bible has created a closed, and very small system of
development for the character of Melkiṣedeq. However, the large, open, and uncontrolled
natural system of literature and memories of the Second Temple period allowed for the
growth of the metanarrative, which remained free from the more closely guarded,
hierarchical traditions governing the Hebrew Bible. To gain a clear image of the
development of the social memory of Melkiṣedeq in the Second Temple period, one must
understand his context in Gen. 14. The narrative presented in Gen. 14 appears to be a
unified narrative of how Abram overcame the oppressive force of the coalition of the
eastern kings, and rescued Lot and the misguided Cities of the Plain. However, this
unique chapter serves many historical and theological purposes that have allowed the
narrative and characters to be employed for specific purposes that were not originally
intended. As the Pentateuch became considered more holy and revered over time, Gen.
14 (and Melkiṣedeq in particular) caused several major issues with later Jewish and
Christian traditions.5 This work will analyze the background of Melkiṣedeq’s character
both in the context of Gen. 14 as well as his greater Near Eastern context, will address
these elements that comprise his social memory, and will examine how various Second
Temple Period sectarian groups interpreted and utilized his memory.

5
Bird, “Typological Interpretation within the Old Testament: Melchizedekian
Typology,” Concordia Journal 26 (2000).
3

I.1 Methodology: How does one study a memory?
The Hebrew Bible essentially acts as a book of memories; it was all written down
after the fact and consists of the authors’ memories of events, not descriptions of the
actual events as they occurred. The scribal culture of the time was not a solitary entity; it
consisted of many scribes and scholars at times collaborating with one another, which
often led to disagreements or the mis-remembering of textual details. Because not
everyone remembered everything the same way, multiple memories of events could result
in discrepant accounts of each event. As a result, we are presented with the opportunity to
deconstruct the memories presented by the biblical authors to better understand the
society that created them.
In the 1950’s, Parisian historian Maurice Halbwachs released his work, La
mémoire collective, one of the first influential works in the field of memory studies.
Halbwachs demonstrated how individuals constructed memories together as a collective
and how the collective’s use of an individual’s recollection of memories could ultimately
shift them.6 Many scholars have used Halbwachs’ work to identify the elements of how
memories became collective or social, features including social-loafing, collaborative
inhibition, cross-cueing, and transactive memory.7 Social-loafing is the act of an
individual putting less effort into retaining specific information, relying instead more
heavily upon the group to recall more detailed events, causing the conflation of multiple
sources into one. Collaborative inhibition is the act of individuals within a group or
multiple groups collaborating to remember events. Cross-cueing occurs when individuals

6
Halbwachs and Alexandre, La mémoire collective. Ouvrage posthume publié (1 ed.;
Bibliothèque de sociologie contemporaine; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1950).
7
Wyer and Srull, Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context: 2-30.
4

are conversing and a cue from one individual’s contribution to the conversation sparks
the memory of forgotten pieces of information in another individual, creating an
enhanced memory. Transactive memory is an unconscious group mentality that results in
individuals becoming specialized in remembering distinctive details; in this case it would
result in one person remembering where Melkiṣedeq reigned as king, and another who
remembered which deity he served, and so on.8 These processes give birth to collective or
social memories.
In his article, What is Social Memory? Scot French defines social memory and
differentiates it from what Halbwachs calls collective memory:
“Social memory is a concept used by historians and others to explore the

connection between social identity and historical memory. It asks how and why
diverse peoples come to think of themselves as members of a group with a shared
(though not necessarily agreed upon) past: Hatfields and McCoys, southerners
and northerners, blacks and whites, natives and immigrants, Americans all. Some
historians use the term ‘collective memory,’ placing the emphasis on the
internalization of group identities. I prefer the term ‘social memory’ because it
calls attention to the social contexts in which people shape their group identities
and debate their conflicting perceptions of the past.”9
While French is referring above to the southern United States in modern history, his
methods transfer well into the ancient world. The formation of a social memory and how
it can change over time and space is like a game of telephone: as more people play the
game, the more confused and corrupted the phrase becomes, with the phrase sometimes
becoming unrecognizable, while yet all players have their own opinions of what the word
or phrase was, each of which becomes incorporated into the final product. This is what
was happening in the ancient world to many religious texts written as history; the

8
Climo and Cattell, Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives.
9
French, “What is Social Memory?,” Southern Cultures 2/ 1 (1995): 9.
5

memories of events and their interpretations were being spread out over a great deal of
cultural history, giving rise to inconsistencies during the transmission of the texts from
one scribal school to another, which in turn become incorporated into the social memory.
Several prominent scholars have undertaken the study of memory in the ancient
Near East, including Ronald Hendel, Ehud Ben Zvi, and Diana Edelman, upon whose
work this study has been modeled. The majority of work to date has related to the biblical
patriarchs, primarily Abraham.10 In Hendel’s Remembering Abraham, he examines
Abraham’s portrayal throughout the Hebrew Bible and the influence of his memory on
other biblical figures. This approach allows readers to view the trajectory of memory in
the Hebrew Bible, and shows how the memories can change over time and how they
influence other memories, acting as a form of cross-cueing.
Zvi and Edelman have also been prolific in the study of memory in the Hebrew
Bible publishing countless articles and essays and co-editing numerous volumes that
further the study of memory and cognitive science in relation to the Hebrew Bible. In The
Memory of Abraham, Zvi creates a study of memory as a token possession in relation to
landmarks and their meaning within the general discourse of the community. This idea
ties in directly with the fulfillment of the commandment for Abram to walk the length
and breadth of Israel in Gen. 14.11 The concept of memories in relation to spatial analysis
is important to the social memory of Melkiṣedeq when attempting to discern the location

10
See: Hendel, Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew
Bible (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).; Edelman and Ben Zvi,
Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social
Memory and Imagination (1st ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
11
Ben Zvi, “The Memory of Abraham in Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Yehud/Judah,”
Pgs. 3-37 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic
periods: Social Memory and Imagination, eds. Edelman and Ben Zvi; (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013): 15.
6

of Shalem. David Aaron’s essay, Reflections on a Cognitive Theory of Culture, presents
us with a few problematic functions of the study of memory. He states, “The cognitive
theory of culture can accommodate a wide spectrum of variance, which when used
properly avoids essentialisms that all to frequently result in circular and rigid
reasoning.”12 The study of social memory can assist in identifying examples of cultural
and religious syncretism by allowing scholars to understand the processes involved in the
internal combination of memories as opposed to the act of an external culture influencing
and changing another group’s stories.13 The study of the memory of a place, individual,
or concept allows a further level of deconstruction that incorporates not only the
historical context, but also environmental and spatial aspects.
The study of memory and ancient texts is an emerging field that possesses the
ability to influence biblical studies, especially when combined with existing
methodologies. The present study combines memory theory with traditional methods of
redaction and historical criticism of the Hebrew text. Using widely accepted standards
like those described by Emanuel Tov in his book, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,
this thesis will show the redactional layers within the text of Gen. 14 and how
Melkiṣedeq fits within the original narrative.14 By rooting Gen. 14 within its proper
historical context, an analysis of the Near Eastern compositional structure of
Melkiṣedeq’s character can be accomplished. A text critique allows the text to be
exploded and one to view the substructure of the narrative and make hypotheses about the

12
Aaron, “Reflections on a Cognitive Theory of Culture and a Theory of Formalized
Language for Late Biblical Studies,” Pgs. 451-474 ibid.): 455.
13
Ibid., 459.
14
Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
2012).
7

origin of the text using linguistic markers. By understanding Gen. 14 fully, only then can
the Second Temple Period tradition of Melkiṣedeq be deconstructed into its various
components of his social memory.
Chapter one outlines the history of literature regarding Melkiṣedeq from the
enlightenment to modern times, with the final part focusing on the three recent volumes
by Horton, Mathews, and Granerød.15 An explanation of the merit of these three works
will demonstrate that the present research is needed to further the study of Melkiṣedeq
and provide new insight to the social memory and tradition of his unique character.
Chapter two is an analysis of the canonical literature concerning Melkiṣedeq, namely
Gen.14 and Ps. 110. Gen. 14 is analyzed verse-by-verse to unpack evidence of the Near
Eastern backgrounds within the text, as the unique nature of Gen. 14 is key to
understanding the appearance of Melkiṣedeq in the narrative. This chapter will also focus
on understanding Ps. 110:4 in the context of the Hasmonean dynasty; the conclusions of
this chapter differ from most other studies, which view the verse as original to the text.
Chapter three is a series of case studies of Second Temple sectarian groups and their
relation to Melkiṣedeq. This chapter aims to show the uniqueness and diversity of the
social memory of Melkiṣedeq and how his character shifts over time, and will fill a large

15
See: Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times in
Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft Bd. 406; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010).; Horton, The
Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D.
and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
30; ed. Black; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).; Mathews, Melchizedek’s
Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18-20 and its Echoes
throughout the Tanak (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 8; Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2013).
8

gap in Melkiṣedeq studies, as the last study of the Melkiṣedeq tradition in its entirety was
Horton’s confessional study in 1970.
9

Chapter 1: History of Melkiṣedeq Research
The complex nature and structure of Gen. 14 has long plagued scholars, which has left
the chapter significantly under-researched. Likewise, the history of Melkiṣedeq research
and interpretation has had a long and complex history fueled by the pursuit of making
Melkiṣedeq fit specific theological purposes. The enigmatic nature of Melkiṣedeq has
created many holes in the understanding of his role within Jewish thought and history.
Thus, subsequent scholarship and interpretation of Melkiṣedeq has aimed at filling in
these gaps and establishing a background and history of his character. The entirety of
Gen. 14 does not fit into any of the sources traditionally associated with the Documentary
Hypothesis, which has caused controversy among scholars as it exhibits both very early
and much more recent linguistic traits and vocabulary. The overall uniqueness of the
form of the Melkiṣedeq episode within the chapter only adds further confusion.16 As a
result, the range of arguments for the date and source of Gen. 14 and of the Melkiṣedeq
episode are vast and encompass both critical and theological explanations. As of the
publication of this thesis, there is still no consensus on almost any aspect of Gen. 14, or
the Melkiṣedeq tradition.
The early interpretation of Melkiṣedeq began in the late Second Temple period
and flourished among the various sectarian groups of the time. Interpretation of the
character began with attempts to understand his role in the history of the Israelite
priesthood. These attempts to understand the role of Melkiṣedeq resulted in rewritten and

16
Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1985): 190.
10

newly composed texts describing the character of Melkiṣedeq and his place in the social
memory of the Jewish mind. These texts include several scrolls from Qumran, 2 Enoch,
writings of Philo of Alexandria, and many early Christian sources. The subsequent
chapters will discuss these early interpretive traditions.
Many of the early interpretive sources deal with issues of Melkiṣedeq’s priestly
nature, namely, the fact that the text of Gen. 14 names him both king and priest, an act
prohibited by Jewish law, yet an act that appears to be subsequently supported by Ps.
110.17 In the Early Modern and Reformation periods, many of the theologians of the time
looked to Melkiṣedeq for legitimization of Christ’s kingship and priesthood. In his
Commentary on Genesis, Martin Luther looks at Melkiṣedeq as a prototype for Christ and
even acknowledges and agrees with the Jewish tradition that Melkiṣedeq was Shem.18
Luther sees Melkiṣedeq’s office as king and priest as a prefiguration for Christ, but he
differs from other early scholars arguing that the bread and wine were not a precursor to
the Eucharist, but rather just a thanksgiving offering.19 John Calvin shares many of the
same views as Luther regarding Melkiṣedeq, however Calvin does not believe that
Melkiṣedeq is Shem.20 Calvin offered several reasons for his assessment, citing, “There is
no reason for Shem to have a new obscure name; if Shem really was living so near to
Abram in Canaan, Abram would have paid respects to him sooner; and Melchizedek has

17
Philo highlights this fact in his tractate, The Allegorical Interpretation Of Genesis and
his description of Melkiṣedeq’s innate priesthood. This idea of having both kingship and
priesthood in the same entity is also the basis for most Christian interpretations of the
Melkiṣedeq tradition. Cf. Section 3.6.
18
Luther, Commentary on Genesis (trans. Muller; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1958): 1:253.
19
Ibid., 1:254.
20
Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis (trans. King; 2
vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948): 752.
11

no origin and we know the origin of Shem.”21 Luther and Calvin like others of their time
represent a unique blend of Jewish tradition with an extremely formative period for
Christianity that led to many of the interpretative pathways of modern scholarship.
1.1 Modern Interpretation
Within modern scholarship, Gen. 14 as a whole and its Melkiṣedeq subsection
have sparked many debates, which have resulted in several schools of thought about the
text. There is a division between those who believe the main body of Gen. 14 was
composed in the Monarchic Period (i.e., the 10th century BCE),22 and those who believe it
is a later composition of the Persian or Hellenistic Periods (e.g., the 5th-2nd centuries
BCE).23 This division becomes even more fractured when scholars are posed with the
question of whether the chapter is original to the Abram cycle or added at a later date for
legitimizing purposes.24 And while these two issues deal with the entirety of the chapter,
the Melkiṣedeq episode itself, consisting of a mere three verses (Gen. 14:18-20), creates

21
Ibid., 1:387-88.
22
See also: Andersen, “Genesis 14: An Enigma,” Pgs. 497-508 in Pomegranates and
Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature
in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, eds. Wright, et al.; (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995).;
Cohen, “Genesis 14 - An Early Israelite Chronographic Source,” Pgs. 67-107 in The
Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, eds. Younger, et al.; vol. 4 of Scripture in
Context; (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991).; Cornelius, “Genesis XIV,” Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 72 (1960).; Fitzmyer, “Melchizedek in the MT, LXX,
and the NT,” Biblica 81 (2000).; Petuchowski, “The Controversial Figure of
Melchizedek,” Hebrew Union College Annual (1957).
23
See also: Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to
the Hebrews,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 2 (1971).; Fabry, “Melchisedek,” Pgs.
79-81 in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, eds. Kasper and Baumgartner; (Freiburg:
Herder, 1993-2001).; Glissmann, “Genesis 14: A Diaspora Novella?,” Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 34/ 1 (2009).
24
Westermann, Genesis 12-36: 192.
12

further disagreement among modern scholars. The overwhelming majority of modern
scholarship sees the Melkiṣedeq episode as a later interpolation into the narrative.25
Scholars are also divided about the relationship between the Melkiṣedeq episode
in Gen. 14 and his mention in Ps. 110. Scholars differ on whether the date of the psalm is
pre- or post-exilic, and about whether verse four is a later interpolation.26 The rest of this
chapter will survey recent major scholarship on the subject of Melkiṣedeq in modern
times.
Scholarship began to address the problems created by Melkiṣedeq’s appearance in
Gen. 14 in the nineteenth century. The earliest of the scholars to tackle “Melchisedec”
was Granville Sharp whose 1810 monograph, Melchisedec; or An Answer to a Question
Respecting the Reality of Melchisedec’s Existence, attempted to study the historicity of
Melkiṣedeq and the narrative of Gen. 14 while theologizing on the Christological
implications of Melkiṣedeq’s appearance in the text.27 One popular interpretive and
analytical tactic at this time in biblical scholarship consisted of searching for parallel
names or events in various ancient archives, such as the Amarna Letters, Mari Texts,
Egyptian and Babylonian Steles, Ugaritic texts, and most interesting to the present topic,
the Spartoli (or Chedorlaomer) tablets.28 In E. Schraeder’s 1887 work, Die keilschriftliche
babylonische Königsliste, he equated King Amraphel of Shinar to be Hammurabi of

25
For a thorough treatment of this topic, see Chap. 19 of Granerød, Abraham and
Melchizedek.
26
See also Chap. 10 of ibid.; Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early
Christianity (SBL Monograph Series 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973).; Jefferson, “Is
Psalm 110 Canaanite?,” Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (1954).
27
Sharp, Granville. 1810. “Melchisedec.” Bristol Selected Pamphlets: 1-64.
28
See also: Sayce, “The Chedor-Laomer Tablets,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology 28/ 6 (1906).; Sayce, “The Archaeology of Genesis 14,” Expository Times
17 (1905).; Albright, “Shinar-Šanǧar and Its Monarch Amraphel,” American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literatures 40 (1924).
13

Babylon, citing that Amraphel is a Hebraized form of Hammurabi.29 This conclusion
implies that Abram and Hammurabi were historical contemporaries, which solidified in
the minds of scholars at the time the assumption that Gen. 14, and thus the Melkiṣedeq
episode, was a historical reality. With the discovery and decipherment of the Spartoli
tablets, scholars were able to make connections with three more names from the battle
narrative, which again furthered ideas of historicity in the narrative.30 In 1934, George
Barton took a similar approach in his article, A Liturgy for the Celebration of the Spring
Festival at Jerusalem in the Age of Abraham and Melchizedek, with a text from Ugarit.31
In his article, Barton draws similarities between the toponym Shalem and the ritualistic
use of bread and wine and concludes that a poem published by M. Virolleaud in Syria is a
festival poem for a temple in southern Canaan contemporaneous with the encounter of
Abram and Melkiṣedeq.32 Westermann points out though in his Genesis commentary that
in these studies “no account was taken of the fact that historically attested names can also
occur in non-historical texts.”33 The attempts to prove the historicity of Gen. 14 and
Melkiṣedeq remained the prominent route of scholarship until the mid-twentieth century.
The turning point in Melkiṣedeq research came when the traditio-historical
approach was applied to the text and near eastern historical accounts and material culture

29
Schrader, “Die keilschriftliche babylonische Königsliste,” Sitzungsberichte der
Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 31 (1887).
30
Astour, “Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and in its Babylonian
Sources,” Pgs. 65-112 in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transforamtion; vol. 3 of Studies
and Texts; (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966).
31
Barton, “A Liturgy for the Celebration of the Spring Festival at Jerusalem in the Age of
Abraham and Melchizedek,” Journal of Biblical Literature 53/ 1 (1934).
32
Virolleaud, “La naissance des dieux gracieux et beaux: Poème phénicien de Ras
Shamra,” Syria 14/ 2 (1933).; Barton, “A Liturgy for the Celebration of the Spring
Festival at Jerusalem in the Age of Abraham and Melchizedek”: 61.
33
14

became important clues to understanding traditions. Critical scholarship took the earlier
methods and improved on them with archaeology and textual criticism. W. F. Albright
provided a thorough study of the text and Melkiṣedeq in his 1961 work, Abram the
Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation, and his 1926 article, “The historical
background of Genesis XIV”, where he amends the text of Genesis 14:18 from the
original (“And King Melkiṣedeq of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of
God Most High”), to read: “And Melchizedek, a king allied to him brought out bread and
wine”.34 According to Albright this is the most logical reading because it fits well with
the narrative and Abram cycle as a whole, while solving several problems with the flow
of the narrative and internal inconsistencies in the text. In his Anchor Bible Series on
Genesis, E. A. Speiser developed the previous research on the “Chedorlaomer Tablets”
and concludes that Gen. 14 stems from an earlier Babylonian account based on the
origins of the eastern coalition of kings in the text and the similarities in the names of the
two texts, mainly Chedorlaomer and Amraphel.35 In 1966, Michael Astour published the
most in-depth treatment of Gen. 14 and its relation to the “Chedorlaomer Tablets” in
Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and its Babylonian Sources.36 Astour
draws the conclusion that Gen. 14 is a part of the Deuteronomistic History and is a
redaction of earlier Babylonian annals.37 The problem with both Speiser and Astour’s

34
Albright, “Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation,” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (1961).
35
Speiser, Genesis (1st ed.; The Anchor Bible 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964).
36
Astour, “Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and in its Babylonian
Sources”.
37
Ibid., 102.
15

conclusions is that the “Chedorlaomer Tablets” date to the 2nd century BCE and are based
on events that at the earliest date to the 7th century BCE.38
In the 1970s and 1990s, J. A. Emerton published a series of articles dealing with
Gen. 14 and Melkiṣedeq.39 Emerton examined previous scholarship and highlighted the
holes in research and attempts to create a more realistic explanation; he views the chapter
as having ancient roots, but the Melkiṣedeq episode as a later interpolation.40 Because of
Emerton’s work, this theory—Melkiṣedeq as a gloss into an older text—remains popular.
Emerton also tackles an extremely important theological aspect of the Melkiṣedeq
episode, the location of Shalem. In his essay, The Site of Salem, Emerton explores the
unknown location of ‫שלם‬, or as Emerton transliterates it, Salem. He accesses the ancient
sources and the modern theories regarding the location of Shalem and after an extensive
study concludes that Shalem is Jerusalem, which is the most common identification of the
site.41 In 1971, John Gammie published The Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition in Genesis
14:18-20, where he looks at biblical and extra-biblical traditions that draw similarities to
the Melkiṣedeq tradition, including the theophoric elements of his name and the location
of Shalem.42 He concludes that the Melkiṣedeq tradition was kept alive independently by

38
Speigel. The State of Jewish Studies. pg. 24
39
Emerton, “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV,” Vetus Testamentum 21/ 1
(1971).; Emerton, “The Riddle of Genesis XIV,” Vetus Testamentum 21/ 1 (1971).;
Emerton, “Some Problems in Genesis XIV,” Pgs. 73-102 in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed.
Emerton; vol. 41 of Vetus Testamentum Supplements; (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990).;
Emerton, “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis XIV 18),” Pgs. 45-71 in
Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. Emerton; vol. 41 of Vetus Testamentum Supplements;
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990).
40
Emerton, “The Riddle of Genesis XIV”: 435.
41
Emerton, “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis XIV 18)”: 68.
42
Gammie, “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:18-20,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 90/ 4 (1971).
16

the priesthoods of Shiloh, Shechem, Nob, and Jerusalem.43 Werner Schatz takes part in
this 1970s renewed interest in Melkiṣedeq, with his 1972 work, Genesis 14: Eine
Untersuchung.44 Schatz follows the traditional research of the period and draws similar
conclusions that the chapter is based on early traditions, but Melkiṣedeq is late.45 This
remains the large focus of Melkiṣedeq research: predominantly small articles and essays
that deal mainly with the historicity or interpolation of Melkiṣedeq in relation to his
counterpart in the text, Abram. A great deal of Melkiṣedeq research has branched out
from research on the patriarch Abram and a full volume devoted to understanding
Melkiṣedeq was needed.
Various smaller articles detailing aspects of Melkiṣedeq’s character appeared
sporadically through the decades. R. H. Smith attempted to tie the tradition of Gen.
14:18-20 to Ugaritic writings, which was refuted by J. A. Emerton.46 Roy Rosenberg
undertook a detailed study of the Phoenician god Ṣedeq and examined Melkiṣedeq’s
relationship to the deity.47 A large portion of research has also been devoted to
understanding Melkiṣedeq as both king and priest.48 Another avenue of research has

43
Ibid., 396.
44
Schatz, Genesis 14: Eine Untersuchung (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/2; Bern
and Frankfurt: Herbert Lang and Peter Lang, 1972).
45
Ibid., 128.
46
Emerton, “Some False Clues”: 28.
47
Rosenberg, “The God Ṣedeq,” Hebrew Union College Annual 36 (1965). See also:
Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personification of Ṣedeq in Jewish
Apocalyptic,” Pgs. 219-239 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte
und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, eds. Temporini and Haase; (Berlin:
W. de Gruyter, 1979).; Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A
Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1981).
48
Bird, “Typological Interpretation within the Old Testament: Melchizedekian
Typology”.; Day, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of
the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 270; eds. Clines and Davies; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic
17

examined Melkiṣedeq’s relation to the first priest of Jerusalem explicitly mentioned in the
Bible: Zadok.49 One of the more compelling theories surrounding Melkiṣedeq in recent
scholarship is that the bread and wine offering described in Gen. 14:18 was part of a
peace treaty between a king, Melkiṣedeq, and a conqueror, Abram.50 Although these
works helped further research within the field, they do not address the long tradition that
grew from Melkiṣedeq’s appearance in Gen. 14.
The Melkiṣedeq tradition was first examined in its entirety in Fred L. Horton’s
work The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth
Century A.D. an the Epistle to the Hebrews.51 In his volume, Horton attempts to
understand the historicity of Melkiṣedeq and his relationship to Christ in the New
Testament book of Hebrews. While Horton does a fine job analyzing the textual sources,
his interpretation leaves something to be desired. Horton views the Melkiṣedeq Episode
as a later interpolation into the text of Gen. 14. However, Horton views Ps. 110:4 as
original to the text and not a later Hasmonean insertion.52 His analysis of the secondary
literature about Melkiṣedeq is aimed at showing how the text relates to the Christian
interpretation of the text. Horton’s volume remained the main resource for Melkiṣedeq
studies until recently.

Press, 1998).; Hay, Glory at the Right Hand.; Knohl, “A Model for the Union of
Kingship and Priesthood in the Hebrew Bible, 11QMelchizedek, and the Epistle to the
Hebrews,” Pgs. 255-266 in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early
Christianity, eds. Clements and Schwartz; vol. 84 of Studies on the Text of the Desert of
Judah; (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
49
Rowley, “Zadok and Nehustan,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58/ 2 (1939).
50
Elgavish, “The Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek King of Salem: A Covenant
Establishing Ceremony,” Pgs. 495-508 in Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature,
Redaction and History, ed. Wénin; vol. 155 of Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum
lovaniensium; (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001).
51
Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition.
52
Ibid., 34.
18

In the past decade, several large studies have been published regarding the
tradition of Melkiṣedeq, many of which update Horton’s work. Birger A. Pearson
authored a chapter in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible examining Melkiṣedeq in his
extra-biblical traditions including Qumran, early Christianity, and Gnosticism.53 In 2013,
Joshua Mathews published Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional
Analysis of Genesis 14:18-20 and its Echoes throughout the Tanak.54 In this volume,
Mathews address the priestly side of Melkiṣedeq in an attempt to locate a priesthood that
supersedes the Levites. Mathews’ assessment of Gen. 14 is sound; he agrees that the text
is unified in whole, including the Melkiṣedeq Episode. He also concludes that the text
itself is earlier than what most scholars say, however his end results appear to be quite
theologically driven.
One of the most recent and most thorough treatments of Melkiṣedeq is that of
Gard Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times in
Genesis 14 and Psalm 110.55 In this work, Granerød meticulously dissects Gen. 14 and
the Melkiṣedeq episode exposing many connections with the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
Granerød’s treatment of the text results in his claim that the entirety of Gen. 14 was
composed in the late Second Temple Period and that the Melkiṣedeq episode was
composed and inserted even later.56 This argument is the inverse of what the present
research will demonstrate in Chapter 2 with its exploration of Gen. 14.

53
Pearson, “Melchizedek in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism,” Pgs. 176-202
in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, eds. Stone and Bergren; (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity
Press International, 2002).
54
Mathews, Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order.
55
Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek.
56
Ibid., 170, 242, 252, 258.
19

As this brief summary into the history of research of Gen. 14 and the Melkiṣedeq
Episode has shown, there are many competing theories and virtually no consensus about
the date or origin of the text. Furthermore, the extended tradition of Melkiṣedeq has not
had a thorough treatment since that of Horton, whose conclusions do not thoroughly treat
the origins of the text. Throughout the remainder of this thesis, I will demonstrate using
social memory analysis, historical and redaction criticism, and archaeological evidence,
that the tradition of Melkiṣedeq is pre-exilic, yet originally independent of the Abram
narrative, and evolves drastically in the Second Temple Period, giving rise to numerous
disparate sectarian Jewish interpretations and traditions.
20

Chapter 2: Melkiṣedeq in the Hebrew Bible
Few biblical characters have garnered as much extra-biblical attention as has Melkiṣedeq.
His reputation is on par with that of Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and others within non-
canonical and pseudepigraphical literature. Yet despite having such a large tradition
attesting to him, Melkiṣedeq is relatively unknown within the Hebrew Bible, appearing in
only two places: Gen. 14:18-20 and Ps. 110:4. He appears suddenly within the narrative
of Abram in Gen. 14 and disappears just as suddenly, and then is only referenced once
again: a brief mention in Ps. 110. The robust tradition surrounding Melkiṣedeq can only
be understood following in-depth study of the canonical texts from which he arises.
Previous scholarship has foregone much of the critical analysis of the origins of the
character of Melkiṣedeq, and has focused too narrowly on the aspects that become
relevant to later New Testament Christology.57 The origins of the various Melkiṣedeq
traditions that arise in the Second Temple Period can be viewed as individual adaptations
of the original roles in which Melkiṣedeq was to have served. In order to understand the
context of the initial Melkiṣedeq Episode, an overview of the text of his first appearance
is necessary.
2.1 An Overview of Genesis 14
The text of Gen. 14 is a unique narrative in the Abram cycle and in Genesis as a
whole. It appears to be independent of the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and
Deuteronomistic traditions in its composition.58 This thesis agrees with most scholars

57
Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition.; Mathews, Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly
Order.
58
21

today, who dismiss the account contained in Gen. 14 as an Israelite adaptation of a hero
legend, and who dismiss its historicity. In fact, scholarship today has grown comfortable
with the words of Roland de Vaux, who said regarding Gen. 14 that it “appears as an
erratic block and is more of a hindrance than a help to the historian.”59 Originally, Gen.
14 was attributed to the P tradition due to its repetitive nature and use of numerics,
however this has since been abandoned as a viable thesis.60 The text itself can be
separated in to three sections of narrative; verses 1-11 comprising section one, verses 12-
17 and 21-24 comprising section two, with verses 18-20 forming a third section. Gen.
14:1-11 consists of an annalistic style account of a rebellion led by the kings of Sodom,
Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Zoar and the subsequent conquest of these kings by the
eastern coalition from which they rebelled, consisting of the kings of Elam, Shinar,
Ellasar, and Goyim. The second section, which consists of Gen. 14:12-24, excluding
14:18-20, is a hero type narrative similar to stories found in the book of Judges, which
detail the military exploits of the patriarch Abram and the rescue of his nephew Lot.61
Lastly, the Melkiṣedeq Episode is comprised of Gen. 14:18-20 and is of key concern for
the foundation of the Melkiṣedeq tradition.
Before I analyze Melkiṣedeq’s role within in the narrative, Gen. 14 as a whole
must first be unpacked. Part one of the narrative begins with a description of a coalition
of kings that are controlling the cities of the Pentapolis: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah,
Zeboyim, and Zoar. The coalition of kings has been a source of interest in the narrative
for some time, and scholars have long tried to find proof of these kings in extra-biblical

59
de Vaux, “The Hebrew Patriarchs and History,” Theology Digest 12 (1964): 240.
60
Andersen, “Genesis 14: An Enigma”: 497.
61
22

documents to support the historicity of the narrative.62 From the information given in
Gen. 14:1, we can conclude at least two historically attested facts: one, that Elam is
region known from antiquity that was functioning during the proposed dates for Abram’s
life, and second, Shinar is an attested name for Babylon.63 From these two observations it
is apparent that the initial conquest narrative of the text could be rooted in historical
reality. Further attempts have been made in this vein to establish identities for the other
two localities and the four kings.
There has been a wide range of speculation about the identities of the eastern
coalition of kings. The names Chedorlaomer, Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal had been
elusive of direct parallels in Near Eastern texts, but scholars have offered some
explanations for their names in history.64 As noted in the previous chapter, Albright
connected the names Amraphel and Hammurabi (c. 1810-1750 BCE).65 In 1903, Hugo
Radau published a detailed linguistic breakdown of the two names to show the
correlation between the two.66 Radau compares the Hebrew transliteration of Hammurabi,
‫חמרב‬, to Amraphel, ‫אמרפל‬, citing that they are both of “Canaanitish” origin, which he
bases on the similarities in the Amarna Letters.67 In his explanation of the shift in the
names, Radau cites examples from the Amarna Letters showing that the Babylonian

62
Cline, From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible (Washington, DC:
National Geographic Society, 2007).
63
Albright, “The Historical Background of Genesis XIV,” Journal of the Society of
Oriental Research 10 (1926).
64
TgPsJ of Gen. 14:1 provides new information and etiologies for these four kings. It
states that Amraphel was actually Nimrod and was the king of Pontus (Greek for “rivers”,
signifying Mesopotamia) and not Shinar. Arioch was the size of a giant and the King of
Tellasar, not Ellasar. Chedorlaomer was short and rolling like sheaves. And Tidal was the
king of peoples who were obedient to him, not the Goyim (Hebrew for “peoples”).
65
Albright, “Shinar-Šanǧar and Its Monarch Amraphel”: 126.
66
Radau, “Hammurabi and Amraphel,” The Open Court 17/ 12 (1903).
67
Ibid., 706.
23

cham (‫ )חמ‬equates to the Hebrew am (‫)אמ‬, and that the Babylonian bi (‫ )ב‬equates to the
Hebrew phel (‫)פל‬.68 In this rendering of the Babylonian name into Hebrew would result
in (‫)פל >– ב – ר – אמ >– חמ‬, which allows a mechanism by which Hammurabi can shift to
Amraphel. The linguistics of this theory appear to work, however this is not the only
evidence that ties Amraphel to Babylon. Amraphel is the king of a locale, Shinar, which
has elsewhere been argued to be Babylon.69 Albright exhibits that at multiple times in the
Hebrew Bible, Shinar is equated with the historical area of Babylon. He notes that in the
LXX translation of Isa. 11:11 and Zech. 5:11, the two locations are equated, as well as in
the original text of Dan. 1:2.70 Albright notes that these occurrences are referencing
Babylon, but he argues that this is a corruption of the text, and that the name is actually
referring to the Mitanni Empire.71 The equation of Shinar to Mitanni is based on
Albright’s understanding of historical geography; he identifies these two localities as
cognates based on Egyptian and Akkadian transliterations of Hebrew phonemes.72 These
two theories fell out of popularity in recent times, until Kenneth Kitchen revived the
theory in his book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kitchen reaffirms the theory

68
Ibid.
69
Albright, “Shinar-Šanǧar and Its Monarch Amraphel”.
70
Ibid. Isa. 11:11 reads: “On that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to
recover the remnant that is left of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros,
from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the
sea.” (NRSV). Zech 5:11 reads: “He said to me, ‘To the land of Shinar, to build a house
for it; and when this is prepared, they will set the basket down there on its base.’”
(NRSV) This passage in Zechariah appears just before the description of the four chariots
in Zech. 6, in which later rabbinical traditions coincidentally describe Melkiṣedeq as the
driver of one of the chariots. Dan. 1:2 states: “The Lord let King Jehoiakim of Judah fall
into his power, as well as some of the vessels of the house of God. These he brought to
the land of Shinar, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his gods.” These three verses
are all retroactively describing events and using antiquated terminology to describe the
area of Babylonia or southern Mesopotamia used in Gen. 10:10.
71
Ibid., 125.
72
Ibid., 126.
24

that Shinar refers to Babylon and presents theories for the origins of the three other kings
presented in Gen. 14.73
The identity of Chedorlaomer is posited to be an Elamite king in the text and
bears a typical Elamite name, with the first half Kutir meaning “servant”, and Laomer
being a theophoric element.74 While there is no known deity by the name of Laomer,
there does exist a well-attested deity known from the texts at Mari by the name of
Lagamer.75 As with Amraphel, scholars have attempted to massage the name of
Chedorlaomer into extant Near Eastern texts, namely the Spartoli or Chedorlaomer
tablets, which consist of a series of Babylonian chronicles. Spartoli discovered these
tablets in the late 19th century and upon translation, he discovered a name that he claimed
to be that of Chedorlaomer and that the tablets were the origin of Gen. 14.76 There are
several problems with this theory and with the tablets themselves. While the tablets
describe a similar situation with rebelling vassals, none of the other names are similar and
the localities are incorrect.77 The text is being forced into the context of Gen. 14 and
doing so creates more problems than it solves. The most important aspect of the tablets
that contradicts their dependence of Gen. 14 on them is their date. The tablets date to the
3rd or 2nd century BCE, long after the composition and redaction of Gen. 14. Arguments
can possibly be made that the tablets are based on earlier events, however there is no

73
Kitchen uses the same argument as Albright for equating Shinar and Šańgar. He cites
several Amarna letters, Babylonian, and Akkadian documents as evidence of sibilant
switches and Shinar as an alternative for the region of Babylonia. See Kitchen, On the
Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003): 321.
74
Ibid., 320.
75
Sasson, “About ‘Mari and the Bible’,” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale
92 (1998): 92.
76
77
Cohen, “Genesis 14”.
25

evidence to suggest that these events are set during the same time period depicted in Gen.
14.
Likewise, the possibility of Elam being an influential power in Canaan is an
interesting theory. While Elam was powerful entity in the first half of the second
millennium BCE and controlled a significant portion of central Mesopotamia, there is no
evidence on which to date Elamite influence in Canaan.78 There have been theories
proposed which, due to the late redaction of the Abram cycle in Genesis, suggest that
Elam is actually representative of the Achaemenid Empire, symbolically placing their
subjugation of the Judahites and Israelites into the patriarchal narrative. This fits within
the Jewish and later Christian paradigm of referring to one’s oppressor by earlier names
to disguise the original intent of the passage.79 Regardless of why the region of Elam was
used in the narrative, there is still no substantive evidence for Chedorlaomer as a
historical figure.
The kings Arioch and Tidal, of Ellasar and Goyim respectively, are easier and
more difficult to pin down in the historical record. Both kings’ names follow linguistic
structures of languages known to scholars. The name Arioch can be found in the Mari
Letters in several forms as Arriwuk/Arriyuk, which transliterates into Hebrew as Arioch.80
The name bears a northern Mesopotamian linguistic structure, but it does not give an
identity to the biblical Arioch. The several instances of Arriwuk/Arriyuk in the Mari
Letters are spread out over decades and different localities. The only evidence to be

78
Hendel, “Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Biblical
Archaeology Review 21/ 4 (1994).
79
Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic
Literature (2nd ed.; The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).
80
Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965).
26

gained from this parallel is that the name existed, but it sheds no insight into the location
of Ellasar.81 For now, Ellasar has eluded the archeological record, while a northern
Mesopotamia locale can be suggested from the linguistic evidence. The name Tidal is of
a typical early Hittite structure, Tudkhalia, which appears in documents from Bogazköy,
in Anatolia.82 This evidence suggests that the Goyim, of which Tidal is king, are the
Hittites, a theory supported by many scholars as the most probable identification of the
Goyim.
Gen. 14:2 presents the identity of the rebelling kings of the Pentapolis: Bera of
Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admah, Shemeber of Zeboyim, and the unnamed
king of Bela.83 Interestingly the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of Admah and
Zeboyim are typically used in parallel with one another or as replacements, most
commonly in the Book of Deuteronomy.84 Bela is unique as a toponym in the Hebrew
Bible, however it is used later in Genesis, Numbers, and Chronicles as a personal name.85

81
Alexander, “Geography and the Bible: Early Jewish Geography,” Pgs. 977-988 in
Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. Freedman; (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
82
83
TgPsJ provides unique etymologies for the individual kings. The targumist dissects the
name of Bera, breaking it down into his assumed etymological components “in evil”, and
cites him as having done evil deeds. The same approach is taken with Birsha, which the
targumist renders as “in wickedness,” whose deeds were wickedness. Shinab is broken
down into “the king who hated his father,” while Shemeber receives the distinction as
one who “destroyed his member with a prostitute.” The targumist takes great detail in
working with the unnamed king of Bela; he produces a play-on-words that shifts Bela to
mean “swallow up,” while commenting that Zoar was the city “that swallowed its
inhabitants.”
84
See Deut. 29:23 and Hos. 11:8.
85
Cf. Gen. 36:23-33; Gen. 46:21; Num. 26:38-40; 1 Chr. 1:43; 1Chr. 1:44; 1Chr. 5:8;
1Chr. 7:6; 1Chr. 7:7; 1Chr. 8:1; 1Chr. 8:3. It is possible that there was confusion in the
description of Bela. It could have originally been the king’s personal name, but because
there was no place name associated with him, the subsequent gloss is added explaining
that Bela is Zoar. This idea solves one issue with the later glosses present in the text, but
requires further study.
27

The text presents the Pentapolis as a cohort of kings that were under the subjugation of
the eastern coalition for twelve years and then rebelled in the thirteenth, which incited the
coming conquest of Canaan by the eastern coalition.
The location of the Pentapolis is a contentious topic with no unanimous opinion
regarding where it lies. The specific problem lies in Gen. 14:3, where the text says that
the kings of the Pentapolis joined forces in the Valley of Siddim, which the subsequent
gloss, ‫הוּא י ָם ַה ֶמּלַח‬, equates with the Dead Sea or Salt Sea. However, the text does not say
on which side of the sea this took place. The cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and
Zeboyim are typically referred to as the ‫ע ֵָרי ַה ִכּכָּר‬, or the “Cities of the Plain”, which lends
contextual clues to their location. The closest plain that lies on the shore of the Dead Sea
is that of the ‫ ִכּכָּר‬, or “disc,” mentioned in Genesis, which is on the northeastern side of the
Dead Sea. This fits with descriptions of Sodom and Gomorrah having fertile lands in
Gen. 13 and it fits with the description Deut. 34:3, which says that Zoar lies in “the Plain,
that is, the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees,” which lies to the north of the Dead
Sea.
The coming onslaught followed down the Jordan River Valley and subdued the
Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, the
Horites in the hill country of Seir and El-paran, the Amalekites in En-mishpat, and the
Amorites in Hazazon-tamar.86 This is a completely devastating attack that would have
demonstrated complete dominance by the eastern coalition. Interestingly, in this section
the reader is presented with several mythical and antiquarian groups and localities. The
Rephaim, Zuzim, and Emim are all races of giants described in Genesis and

86
Gen. 14:5-7.
28

Deuteronomy—giants that should have be destroyed by the flood in Gen. 6-9. The
Rephaim are a well-documented tribe of people in the Hebrew Bible, who are described
as giants and have otherworldly ties.87 The Zuzim are then later equated to the tribe of
Zamzummim is Deut. 2:20, which is a tribe of the Rephaim. The Emim are also said to be
a tribe of the Rephaim, who are described in Deut. 2:10-11 as “many and tall like the
Anakim.” It is also apparent that several of the toponyms are either antiquated names that
had been forgotten by the time Genesis was being compiled and redacted, or that they are
mythical place names. This can be detected by the presence of interlinear glosses defining
places as other localities. This can be seen in the names of Bela, “which is Zoar,”
according to the gloss; the Valley of Siddim, “which is the Dead Sea;” En-mishpat,
“which is Kadesh;” and the Valley of Shaveh, “which is the King’s Valley.”88 These
glosses suggest that the initial compilers of Genesis were unfamiliar with the text and the
locations described therein, and that they attempted to force the narrative into a familiar
context within the Abram cycle, updating the place names to make the overall narrative
more cohesive.
After the eastern coalition reaches the Valley of Siddim, both forces assemble and
the Pentapolis is defeated. The Valley of Siddim is described as being “full of bitumen
pits,” and this description can lend support to the date of the narrative. The bitumen pits

87
For description of the Rephaim as giants, see: Gen. 15:20; Deut. 2:11; Deut. 2:20;
Deut. 3:11; Deut. 3:13; Josh. 12:4, Josh. 13:12; Josh. 15:18; Josh. 17:15; Josh 18:16; 2
Sam. 5:18; 2 Sam. 5:22; 2 Sam. 23:13; 1 Chr. 11:15; 1 Chr. 14:9; and Isa. 17:5. For a
description of the Rephaim as residents of Sheʾol, see: Isa. 14:9; Isa. 26:14; Isa. 26:19;
Psa. 88:11; Prov. 2:18; Prov. 9:18; Prov. 21:16; and Job 26:5. The Rephaim are also
mentioned in Ugaritic funerary texts as “the dead” or “dead kings”. For more, see: KAI
13.7-8, 14.8, 177.1; CTA 6.6.46-52, CTA 20-22 = KTU 1.161; KTU 1.161 = Ras Shamra
34.126.
88
Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 17.
29

are written in an archaic Hebrew manner, ‫ ֶבּאֱר ֹת ֶבּאֱר ֹת ֵחמָר‬, doubling the word for pits
thereby signifying the large number of bitumen pits present.89 It is at these bitumen pits
that the most important event of the battle takes place, the fleeing and death of the kings
of Sodom and Gomorrah.90
Most English translations of the Bible render this verse as does the NRSV: “and
as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them.” However, the Hebrew
verse actually reads ‫שׁמָּה‬

ָ -‫סְד ֹם ה ַועֲמ ָֹר ַויִּפְּלוּ‬-‫ ַויָּנֻסוּ ֶמלְֶך‬, which translates to “and the King of
Sodom and Gomorrah (they) fled, and they fell there”, with the next clause in the verse
reading, ‫ְאָרים ה ֶָרה נָּסוּ‬

ִ ‫“( ְו ַהנִּשׁ‬and the rest fled to the hills”). In Gen. 14:10, it is clear that the
kings of Sodom and Gomorrah were not a part of the group of individuals that fled to the
hills, but rather fell there together, suggesting that the kings died in battle.91 After this
battle, the eastern coalition led by Chedorlaomer plunders the cities of the Pentapolis and
even kidnaps Lot, the nephew of the biblical patriarch Abram.
At this point in the narrative it appears as though two separate narratives have
been stitched together to weave the conquest narrative into the existing patriarchal
context of Genesis. In Gen. 14:11-12, there appears to be a dittography of the clause
describing the taking of the goods of Sodom, with Lot’s capture placed in between the
two. According to the narrative, word of Lot’s kidnapping reaches Abram by means of
one of the escapees, and Abram enlists his tribesmen and the help of Mamre, in whose

89
Andersen, “Genesis 14: An Enigma”: 502.
90
Gen. 14:10.
91
The Genesis Apocryphon addresses the problem of the apparent death of the king of
Sodom and his reappearance seven verses later. 1QapGen col. 31, lines 31-33 detail the
king of Gomorrah death in the bitumen pits, but alters the text to note that the King of
Sodom was routed and fled to the hills with the survivors, allowing him to reappear in
Gen. 14:17.
30

oaks Abram dwelled, along with Aner and Eshcol.92 The depiction of Abram in this
narrative is quite unique in the Hebrew Bible, as here he is described as ‫אַב ְָרם ָה ִעב ְִרי‬, or
“Abram the Hebrew.” While the designation of Abram as “the Hebrew” seems like a
natural occurrence at first, this is not the first introduction of Abram in the Genesis
narrative. Furthermore, the defining of a character as specifically a Hebrew appears only
in narratives dealing with a foreign context, as in the story of Jonah, where he is
described as a Hebrew.93 Abram’s character also exhibits qualities in this narrative that
do not fit with his image throughout the rest of the Abram cycle. The Abram known in
the rest of Genesis is a small pastoralist with a smaller group of people surrounding him.
But, the Abram of Gen. 14 is more akin to a mercenary, surrounded by a group of 318
soldiers, and who is in league with the Amorites Aner, Eschol, and Mamre. This
equivocation of Abram to a mercenary led Albright to suggest that the designator
“Hebrew” is actually a corruption of the term “Apiru”, the desert bandits known from the
Amarna letters.94 This reading has been discredited and it does not fit with the rest of the
narrative where Abram refuses payment from the king of Sodom, but if this story was
appropriated from an existing story and shaped into an patriarchal hero narrative by
inserting Abram’s name and modifying ‘Apiru to Hebrew, then the suggestion makes
sense, especially if we see the haggling between Abram and the King of Sodom in Gen.
14:21-24 as a epilogue to the story grounding the character of Abram once again back
into the expected depiction of Abram as a pastoral nomad, who wants no one to think he
stole anything from anyone. Regardless of Abram’s societal status in the warring city-

92
TgPsJ describes the escapee as being Og, the giant King of Bashan.
93
94
Albright, “Abram the Hebrew”: 127.
31

states known in Canaan during this time, he is portrayed as accomplishing a phenomenal
feat of war, while fulfilling scripture and preparing the land for the future Davidic
kingdom.
After Abram is informed of Lot’s capture, he musters a group of 318 men from
his tribe to pursue of the eastern coalition of kings.95 Abram is commanded by YHWH in
Gen. 13 to walk the length of the land of Canaan, however he does not and instead settles
in the Oaks of Mamre. Beginning in the Oaks of Mamre, which is later identified as being
outside of Hebron, Abram pursues the kings to Dan (which is anachronistically used here,
as the Danites did not conquer Laish until after this campaign), “and he defeated them
and pursued them to Hobah, which lies north of Damascus.”96 By completing this action
Abram fulfilled YHWH’s command while concomitantly laying out the boundaries for
the future Davidic kingdom outlined in his conquest narrative of 2 Sam. 8.97 This gives a
theological motivation for placing this narrative within the Abram cycle; Abram does not
disobey YHWH and it provides a patriarchal precedent to David’s conquest of Saul’s
kingdom and Canaan.
It is upon Abram’s return that the story takes an interesting turn. In Gen. 14:17,
after his defeat of Chedorlaomer and the eastern kings, the King of Sodom, who Gen.
14:10 describes as having died earlier in the Valley of Shaveh, now goes out to meet

95
Westerman notes that in order to have a group of 318 men, Abram’s tribe would have
had to have been over 1,000 individuals, which does not match with the rest of Abram’s
narrative, where his people are relatively few. Cf. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: 98. There
has also been speculation that the 318 are actually a result of gematria, symbolizing the
priest Eliezer of Gen. 15:2. Cf. Gevirtz, “Abram’s 318,” Israel Exploration Journal 19/ 2
(1969).
96
Hobah is currently unidentified in the archaeological record.
97
Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek: 124.
32

Abram.98 And it is at this point, after the text has (re-)introduced the King of Sodom, that
we are all of a sudden met with a wholly new character in Gen. 14:18, Melkiṣedeq the
king of Shalem. Notably, it is at this point in the text that we find the first instance of
dialogue in the entire chapter, which begins with words of blessing from Melkiṣedeq, but
then oddly continues not with a conversation between Abram and Melkiṣedeq, but
between Abram and the King of Sodom. For the time being we will postpone our
examination of the Melkiṣedeq episode (verses 18-20), and continue with the
examination of Gen. 14:21-24.
The king of Sodom propositions Abram to return only his kidnapped citizenry,
offering him to keep the recovered stolen booty for himself. Note that this exchange takes
place immediately after Abram’s conversation with Melkiṣedeq, which describes an
exchange of goods between Melkiṣedeq and Abram in Gen. 14:20, following a blessing
from Melkiṣedeq. Interestingly, this interaction takes place in the ‫שׁוֵה‬

ָ ‫ ֵעמֶק‬, or the “Valley
of Shaveh,” where ‫שׁוֵה‬

ָ in Hebrew means “equal” or “level valley” (like the ‫ִכּכַּר‬
mentioned above, which is elsewhere described as the location of the “Cities on the
Plain”), but also as the “valley of reconciliation,” where the two parties may have been
attempting to reconcile accounts from Abram’s pursuit and return of Sodom’s goods and
people, possibly signifying the equal nature of the two parties after the transaction.99 The
offering of bread and wine, which Elgavish argues was a peace covenant, further supports
this reading. The context of a covenant would fit with the overall structure of the

98
The Valley of Shaveh is unknown in antiquity, however the word ‫שׁ ֵו‬ ָ ‫ ה‬is derived from
Ugaritic and can be translated as “to be level or equal.” See: Wieder, “Ugaritic-Hebrew
Lexicographical Notes,” Journal of Biblical Literature 84/ 2 (1965).
99
This reading of the text is in initial phases and warrants further research.
33

encounter and allow Abram to be seen as a respectable and powerful force in southern
Canaan.100
As Abram returned the King of Sodom’s people and goods, Abram swore an oath
that he would not be made rich by the King of Sodom, so not to be labeled a mercenary.
This oath draws a parallel to Weni’s Oath, an oath made by Egyptian soldier dating from
2300 BCE.101 Abram is concerned throughout Genesis about being perceived as a thief,
mercenary, or unjust trade partner, often paying above and beyond the price negotiated,
as is reflected with Abram’s negotiation for a burial site for his wife, Sarah, when he
overpays for the burial cave at Makpelah.102 The same wariness of being perceived as
unjust in matters of fiscal gain is evident here when Abram takes no payment for himself,
asking only for what is owed his men. Thus, Gen. 14’s portrayal of Abram lends weight
to the earlier claims in Gen. 12 that he would be a father of great nations. Gen. 14 depicts
Abram as being able to conquer a much larger coalition of kings (one that had previously
defeated three tribes of giants); as completing YHWH’s command to walk the length of
Canaan thereby solidifying the Israelite claim to the land; and refraining from the unjust,

100
Elgavish, “The Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek”.
101
Morschauser, “Campaigning on Less Than a Shoe-String: An Ancient Egyptian
Parallel to Abram’s ‘Oath’ in Genesis 14.22-23,” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 38/ 2 (2013). Morschauser also notes on pg. 133 several other close parallels
as well, namely, the Akkadian phrase “straw and a splinter”, the Hittite and Mitanni
phrase “not even a blade of straw or a splinter of wood”, and the Ugaritic phrase “[the
Great King will not touch anything, be it straw or] splinter.” See also: Speiser, “A
Figurative Equivalent for Totality in Akkadian and West- Semitic,” Journal of the
American Oriental Society 54 (1934).; Westermann, Genesis 12-36: 105.; For more on
the treaty between Suppiluliuma of Hatti and Shatiwaza of Mitanni, see Beckman and
Hoffner, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Writings from the Ancient World 7; Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1996): 40. The passage is cited in CAD, VI, p. 259.3 (Keilschriftexte aus
Boghazkoei, I, 2:32).
102
See Gen. 23.
34

or even questionable gain of wealth by engaging in what some might perceive as the
mercenary rescue of people and goods in exchange for payment.
2.2 Melkiṣedeq in Genesis 14:18-20
A previously unmentioned king of an unmentioned city appears abruptly in Gen.
14:18, disrupting the flow of the narrative and the interaction between Abram and the
King of Sodom. This infiltrator is Melkiṣedeq, King of Shalem.103 From these three
verses, Gen. 14:18-20, we are given very little information about Melkiṣedeq’s character.
We know that he is the king of a place called Shalem, that his name contains the
theophoric element Ṣedeq, that he is a priest-king, that he is a priest of ʾEl ʿElyon, and
that he is not provided with a genealogy or a death. However, his appearance in the
narrative raises several questions: Where is Shalem? Is Shalem Jerusalem? What does
Melkiṣedeq mean? Who is ʾEl ʿElyon? And why does Abram tithe to a Canaanite? These
elements provide the basis for the Melkiṣedeq traditions that later arise. In order to
understand these elements, we must first unpack Melkiṣedeq in the context of Gen. 14
and the greater Near Eastern context of that time.
First, what is in a name? Melkiṣedeq has traditionally been translated as “my king
is righteous,” “king of righteousness,” “righteous king,” and other combinations of the
words righteous(ness) and king.104 However, it is the contention of the present thesis that
the name should be understood as having the theophoric element Ṣedeq, and should be

103
In most modern English translations of the Melkiṣedeq episode, the Hebrew toponym
‫“( שׁלם‬Shalem”) is actually transliterated as Salem, with the Hebrew letter shin wrongly
translated as a śin, possibly to strengthen the theoretical tie to Jerusalem, but more likely
due to the LXX’s inability to translate the “sh” sound of the ‫שׁ‬, and its substitution of the
Greek sigma in its place.
104
Cockerill, “Melchizedek or “King of Righteousness”?,” Evangelical Quarterly 63
(1991).
35

translated “My King is Ṣedeq.” There is a question regarding how the phrase “a righteous
king” might be represented in Hebrew. The problem is that at no point are the words ‫ךמל‬
and ‫ צדק‬used in a standard adjectival construction. We should expect ‫ מלך צדק‬or ‫צדקמלך‬,
with no maqqef or yod in between the words. However, the names ‫ מלך‬and ‫ צדק‬are present
together in a 10th century BCE epigraphic Phoenician text from Byblos, which states
“Yeḥimilk, King of Byblos, should be rewarded with a long life on the ground that he
was a ‘righteous king (‫)מלך צדק‬.’”105
While there are multiple ways of equating qualities with deities in theophoric
names, there is a relatively standard convention in Hebrew employed when attributing
first-person possessive qualities with deities in theophoric names. The convention is that
the desired quality is listed first as a noun or adjective with the 1cs suffix (-i) added to the
pronems, followed by the name of the deity. That is, the name of the deity comes in the
second position, and the first-person possessive quality comes in the first position. The
the root ‫ צדק‬appears as an element in several other names in the Hebrew Bible, including
‫“( יהוֹצָדָ ק‬Jehozadak,” or “YHWH is righteous”), ‫“( צָדוֹק‬Zadok,” the active participle of
‫)צדק‬, and most famously ‫צֶדֶ ק‬-‫“( אֲדֹנִי‬Adoni-ṣedeq,” or “My lord is Ṣedeq/righteous”) of
Jerusalem, who is mentioned in Joshua 10.106 In the greater Near East, ‫ צדק‬is a common
theophoric element that has spread from Phoenicia to as far as the south Arabian

105
Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Cardiff: Wales U.P., 1967): 36.;
KAI 4,3 in Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften (5., erw. und
überarbeitete Aufl. ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002). See also: Rosenberg, “The God
Ṣedeq”: 161.
106
Josh. 1:6 mentions a king by the name of Adonibezek, which Rosenberg suggests is a
emendation that should be understood as the Adoniṣedeq of Jerusalem, mentioned in
Josh. 10:1. Cf. Rosenberg, “The God Ṣedeq”: 163.
36

Peninsula, It is even found within the known state of Israel at Avdat.107 McKay states,
“As names compounded with Zedek are now known to have been widespread, from
Phoenicia to South Arabia, territorial connection with Melchizedek can no longer be
deduced from the name of Jerusalem’s king six centuries later.”108
As the map in figure 1 shows,
‫ צדק‬as a theophoric element is spread
in many cities and empires across the
ancient Near East. This presents the
problem of how to translate the root
‫ צדק‬within the Near Eastern personal
names, and whether it should be
translated as a theophoric element or
simply as “righteous(ness).”109
However, due to the context it should
be concluded that if there is no other
theophoric elements present in the

Figure 1. Map of theophoric names containing
name, then it is most likely to be a
the root ṣ-d-q.

107
Ibid.
108
MacKay, “Salem,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 80 (1948): 123.
109
There is a large corpus of ‫ צדק‬theophoric names from Old Babylonian texts,
specifically from the palace archives at Mari. The names that could be understood at
signifying righteousness are: Ṣidqum-maṣi, Ṣidqu-ištar, Ṣidqum-matar, Ṣidqiya, Abi-
ṣaduq, Bahli-ṣaduq, Ṣaduqi-AN, Ṣaduq-Ašar, Ṣaduqqi, Ṣidqu-la-nasi. The names that can
be understood as theophoric are: Ṣidqi-epuh, Ṣidqum-matar, Ili-Ṣidum/Ṣidqi, Ug Pi-
Ṣidqi, Rabi-Ṣidqi, Ili-Ṣaduq, ilṣdq, ṣdqil, adnṣdq, Ammi-ṣaduqa. Several of these names
are present within Ugaritic texts, strengthening the tie of Ṣedeq to Gen. 14 with its
various Ugaritic loan words and phrases. See Batto, “Zedeq,” Pgs. 929-934 in Dictionary
of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. van der Toorn, et al.; (Leiden: Brill, 1999): 931.
37

Ṣedeq theophoric name. But, this does not explain the origin of the root ‫צדק‬.
The root ‫ צדק‬most likely refers to the Phoenician god Ṣedeq described by Philo of
Byblos in a work preserved by Eusebius in his work Praeparatio Evangelica, in which
Philo claims to have received his information from the earlier writer, Sanchuniathon. This
deity is the spawn of ʾEl and Gaia and is the twin of the god Misor, who together were
the creators of salt.110 The association with salt can help strengthen ties to the theophoric
element of ‫ צדק‬in Melkiṣedeq and Sodom, both of whom are within close proximal range
of the Valley of Siddim, or the Dead Sea. Ṣedeq is not an isolated entity in Phoenicia; he
also appears in the Babylonian and Amorite pantheons as his Akkadian cognate, Kittu.
This is supported by the Babylonian kings-list which lists the Amorite king Ammi-ṣaduqa
as Kimtum-kittum, demonstrating the parallel relation of the two names.111 It is apparent
by the spread of the theophoric root ‫ צדק‬across space, time, and culture that Ṣedeq is an
important deity to the local peoples. His association with salt would have made Ṣedeq a
popular deity, especially in the Dead Sea region, as salt was the life force of the ancient
world, allowing people to preserve meat, its use for medicinal purposes, and its use as a
currency for a period of time—all of which would have elevated the deity who was
understood to have created the salt.
The next important aspect of Melkiṣedeq was his role in society as priest-king.
The Hebrew Bible establishes a precedent that separate individuals are to serve as kings
and priests; kings are to be from the tribe of Judah, while priests are of the tribe of
Levi.112 This is the practice depicted in the biblical record of Israelite government

110
Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary.
111
Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal “: 235.
112
See: Ex. 29:1-35; Lev. 8-9.
38

through the exile to Babylon. Following the exile, Persian administrators allowed their
new province of Yehud to appoint its own line of priests, but did not allow a return of the
Judean monarchy, appointing instead a series of Persian-approved governors. Still,
different individuals performed the priestly and the civil administration duties until the
rise of the Hasmonean Dynasty. However, Melkiṣedeq was a Canaanite, who was not
bound by Hebrew laws and who existed before the establishment of the tribe of Levi.
Thus, he is able to hold both offices and not infringe on Hebrew regulations. Because of
this, Melkiṣedeq serves as a model in the late Second Temple Period for a conflation of
the two offices, which the Hasmoneans kings would point to as precedent for their
authority to serve both as king and high priest simultaneously.
It is well established in the Amarna Letters, Mari texts, tablets from Ugarit, the
library of Ašurbanipal, and other ancient Near Eastern texts and inscriptions that the
kings of the Canaanite city-states and the greater Near East also severed priestly
functions. The Mari texts specifically state that the king is responsible for the upkeep and
renovation of the temples and organizing the dates for religious festivals. In Babylon, it is
the king that leads the statue of Marduk from the temple through its annual procession of
the city. In Phoenicia, the kings are active in the building and dedication of temples. All
of this evidence demonstrates that the Near East is full of blurred lines between priestly
and kingly roles in society.113
But while there is a clear division between the role of priest and king in the
Hebrew Bible as we now have it, we must ask if these texts reflect the reality of early
Israelite culture. Within the Hebrew Bible there are actually hints that the lines between

113
For more, see Day, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East:
Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar.
39

the two roles may have been a bit more blurred that the tradition presently suggests. For
instance, in 1 Sam. 13:9-10, Saul offers sacrifices at Gilgal—a duty traditionally reserved
for the priesthood. In 2 Sam. 6:14, David performs several functions traditionally
associated with the priesthood, including wearing an ephod, a linen garment worn
exclusively by priests in the Bible.114 David also leads the Ark into Jerusalem in 2 Sam. 6
and 1 Chron. 15, an act reminiscent of other Near Eastern kings leading the cult statue
through the city. In 2 Sam. 6:13, 17-18, and 24:25, David is described as offering
sacrifices. Thus, throughout his entire reign as king, David is depicted as performing
duties that are exclusively described as duties performed by priests in the book of
Leviticus. King Solomon is also depicted as performing priestly duties. Solomon
performs sacrifices and liturgies at the dedication of the Jerusalem temple in 1 Kgs. 8:1-
66, and offers sacrifices at Gibeon in 1 Kgs. 3:4 and 15. Both David and Solomon bless
the people of Israel in the sanctuary—a rite that Num. 6:22-27 says is reserved for the
Levites. Thus, it may be argued that the first three and only kings of a united Israel
functioned as both kings and priests—an act later forbidden by Jewish law.
There is also evidence that this conflation of the two roles continued after the
division of the kingdom. In 1 Kgs. 12:33, King Jeroboam of Israel is said to have offered
sacrifices on an altar at Bethel. In 2 Kgs. 16:12-15, King Ahaz of Israel is described as
offering a sacrifice on an altar. Interestingly, Ahaz’ father-in-law, Ithoba’al, Queen
Jezebel’s father, is described as a priest-king of Tyre in 1 Kgs. 16:31, whom Josephus

114
Ephods were garments that Aaron and his priestly descendants were commanded to
wear in Ex. 28 and 39 in order to distinguish them as priests. The boy priest Samuel is
also described as wearing an ephod in 1 Sam. 2:18, 28.
40

specifies was a priest-king of Astarte.115 King Uzziah of Judah gives an incense offering
on the altar in the Jerusalem temple according to 2 Chr. 26:16-21 and King Manasseh of
Judah is said to have constructed many high places and temples for his various wives. In
fact, it is possible to view the religious reforms of Asa in 1 Kgs. 15:9-24, Jehoshaphat in
1 Kgs. 22:41-55, Joash in 2 Kgs. 12:1-17, and the great reforms of Josiah and Hezekiah
as instances of Judean kings performing explicitly religious acts. It is worth noting that
none of these kings are ever explicitly labeled as a priest-king in the Bible, which is
likely why Melkiṣedeq became such an attractive candidate for Second Temple sectarian
groups attempting to subvert or circumvent the Jerusalem priesthood.
The deity that the priest-king Melkiṣedeq served also creates a problem for the
overall patriarchal narrative. Melkiṣedeq is a priest of ʾEl ʿElyon, who is later equated
with YHWH via a widely acknowledged gloss in Gen. 14:22. ʾEl ʿElyon eventually
became understood as an alternative name or epithet for YHWH, but the Hebrew Bible
does retain some examples of the names ʾEl and ʿElyon being used to represent other
deities. ʾEl and ʿElyon are used together as a single name in Ps. 78:35, which G. Levi
Della Vida demonstrates in El Elyon in Genesis 14:18-20 was set in parallel with Elohim,
and obviously referring to YHWH.116 He further goes to say that Ps. 78 is almost
certainly of a late date, and perhaps a literary attempt to harmonize the name with
Elohim, and is therefore not a reliable source for understanding the early of ʾEl ʿElyon as
a deity or deities separate from YHWH.117 The uniqueness of this deity’s name in Gen.
14 has presented scholars with a difficult problem because each individual component of

115
Josephus, Against Apion,1.121-124, Antiquities 8.
116
Della Vida, “El ʿElyon in Genesis 14:18-20,” Journal of Biblical Literature 63 (1944):
2.
117
Ibid.
41

the name actually represents a unique deity. This is supported by the fact that there is an
absence of the composite name of ʾEl ʿElyon as a singular unit in the archaeological
record.
The deities of ʾEl and ʿElyon are attested separately in Ugaritic and Phoenician
documents, where ʾEl is the lord or creator of Earth and ʿElyon is the lord or creator of
Heaven.118 According to Philon of Byblos’ Phoenician History, his account of the life of
Kronos details the birth of deities named:
809:14 Elioun, called Hypsistos, and a female called Berouth. And they
lived in Byblos.
809:15 From these is begotten Epigeios Autochthon, whom they later
called Ouranos, so [beautiful] that from him the element above us,
on account of its exceeding beauty, is called Ouranos.
809:17 To him a sister is begotten of the above-mentioned parents and was
correspondingly called Ge, and on account of [her] beauty, he says,
they named the earth, which also bears this name, after her.
809:19 But their father Hypsistos, having died in an encounter with wild
animals, was sanctified, and his children offered libations and
sacrifices to him.
809:21 And Ouranos, succeeding to his father’s sovereignty, takes his
sister Ge to wife, and has four children by her: El or Kronos, and
Baitylos, and Dagon (who is Siton), and Atlas.
Note here that the Phoenician deity ᾿Ελιοũν (Elioun) is said to have begotten two
children, Οὐρανός (Ouranos, or Heaven) and Γῆ (Ge, or Earth). Thus, we have an
established Phoenician tradition where a Phoenician deity named Elioun, which is an
unmistakable Hellenization of the Semitic word ‫“( עליון‬ʿElyon”), is said to have “created”
(as progeny) Heaven and Earth. In Gen. 14:19, where ʾEl ʿElyon is described as “creator

118
Ibid., 4. It should also be noted that in the family tree of the Phoenician pantheon ʾEl
and Ṣedeq are directly related to one another and could be one of the reasons both deities
are present in the narrative. This suggestion warrants further exploration, but is outside
the scope of this work.
42

of heaven and earth,” the Hebrew word that would be expected for the characteristic
“creator,” typically ‫בּוֹרא‬,

ֵ the active participle of the verb ‫“( ברא‬to create”), found for
instance in Isa. 40:28 and 43:15, is not used. Gen. 14:19 and 22 actually employ the more
archaic form, ‫קֹנֵה‬, which typically means, “to acquire, buy,” but in archaic Hebrew, and
more importantly for the purposes of this study, in Ugaritic, can also mean “to create.”
This archaic participle, ‫קֹנֵה‬, has its roots in Northwest Semitic linguistics and is found in
the same epitaph to ʾEl in a Late Hittite tablet.119 The tablet describes a myth of Asherah,
who attempts to seduce Baʿal. But, after she is rejected, Asherah went to “ʾEl, creator of
the Earth” (El-qônê-eṣri) to complain about the storm god.120 ʾEl and ʿElyon both appear
to be popular deities in the Near East, a fact that is made apparent by the numerous
epigraphic references to them and the abundance of theophoric personal names
representing them all across the Levant.
ʾEl and ʿElyon are both found within the Deir ʿAlla inscription and its Hebrew
Bible parallel, the Bilʿam narrative in Num. 24:16.121 In both instances the names ʾEl and
ʿElyon are present, but are used in parallel with one another and not as a single entity.122
The names’ parallel usage suggests that the two deities were portrayed in conjunction
with one another in the historical record. This is also apparent in the Aramaic Sefire

119
Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting
Faiths (The Jordan Lectures, 1965; Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, 7; Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1968): 123.
120
Ibid. It is also interesting to note that Asherah goes to ʾEl, a Hebrew Bible epithet for
YHWH. The inscriptions found at Kuntillet ʿAjrud in southern Canaan from the 9th
century BCE suggest that YHWH and Asherah were consorts of one another, providing
another reason to conflate ʾEl with YHWH.
121
Kooten and Ruiten, The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early
Christianity and Islam (Themes in Biblical Narrative 11; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008).
122
Della Vida, “El ʿElyon in Genesis 14:18-20”: 4.
43

Treaty of the 8th century BCE.123 In line 11 of the inscription, the text states that the
author was in the presence of ʾEl and ʿElyon, among other deities. The author
individually refers to multiple deities each in their own independent clauses, except in the
case of ʾEl and ʿElyon, who are mentioned together, connected by the letter waw.124 This
is the only instance of this form of coupling in the entirety of the treaty, providing
evidence that by the 8th century BCE the two deities were being used in conjunction with
one another, which possibly led toward the conflation of the two names into a single
appellation, as seen in Gen. 14:18-20.
Throughout the Hebrew Bible the two-name unit, ʾEl ʿElyon, is either used to
describe or elevate YHWH. Habel describes this usage perfectly:
“El Elyon, procreator of heaven and earth, represents an El tradition that is

a forerunner or prototype of Yahweh, maker of heaven and earth. The
transition from the former to the latter rendering of the formula is
explicable in terms of the development of Israelite religion, especially the
modification of Canaanite El traditions in terms of later
Yahwism…Throughout its history, however, this formula continued to be
a source of appeal and the point of departure for defining Yahweh (El), the
God of Israel. Through this title a continuity with the early El traditions of
Israel’s past was preserved, even if radically refashioned by the urgency of
later crises. This continuity points to a significant role which the Canaanite
concept of El continued to play in the development of the character of
Yahweh in Israelite religion.”125

123
The Sefire inscriptions consist of three large 8th century BCE basalt stone steles
discovered in Aleppo, Syria. They consist of two treaties written in Aramaic concerning
smaller kings in the region of Arpad in the Aramaean kingdom.
124
Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre (Biblica et orientalia Sacra Scriptura
antiquitatibus orientalibus illustrata, 19; Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institute, 1967).
125
Habel, “Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91
(1972): 325, 336-37.
44

However, when examined through the lens of the Canaanite mindset, the names make
sense together. The conflation of the two gods, with ʿElyon serving as a fixed epitaph for
ʾEl, in combination with the use of the earlier verbal participle ‫“( קֹנֵה‬to create”) as a fixed
descriptor, demonstrates that the presence of the phrase ‫ָאָרץ‬

ֶ ‫שׁ ַמי ִם ו‬
ָ ‫“( אֵל ֶעלְיוֹן קֹנֵה‬ʾEl
ʿElyon, Creator of heaven and earth”) in Gen. 14:19 and 22 is a vestigial remnant of early
Canaanite, Phoenician, or Ugaritic religious and linguistic influence on the narrative,
providing still more evidence that the Melkiṣedeq episode is the result of northern
Canaanite influence, and hence its antiquity.
‫שׁלֵם‬
ָ (“Shalem”) is described as the city over which Melkiṣedeq rules as king in
Gen. 14:18. However, the text does not define specifically where Shalem lies. There have
been many theories regarding the true identity of the city, the earliest coming from the 3rd
century BCE, where the Genesis Apocryphon identifies Shalem explicitly as
Jerusalem.126 This tradition is carried on through Josephus, Philo, the rabbinic texts, the
Targumim, and the early Christian texts. One of the earliest modern scholastic
explanations for the name of Shalem identifies it as a Ugaritic deity. Early scholars
recognized the similarities between the name Shalem and the moon goddess of Ugarit,
Šalim.127 There was a short movement to identify Melkiṣedeq as a priest of Šalim,
however the overwhelming majority of scholars chose to accept the identification of
Shalem as Jerusalem. However, the apologetic claim that ‫שׁלֵם‬

ָ is an early abbreviation or
alternative name for Jerusalem (‫ )י ְרוּשָׁלִ ַם‬is actually rooted in a false etymology. Examples
of these false origins can be found in Josephus and the New Testament letter to the

126
1QapGen 22:13.
127
Barton, “A Liturgy for the Celebration of the Spring Festival at Jerusalem in the Age
of Abraham and Melchizedek”.
45

Hebrews. Later Second Temple traditions seize on the earlier desire to link Shalem with
Jerusalem due to the absence of any mention of Jerusalem in the entirety of the
Pentateuch. While the LXX leaves the identification of Shalem unchanged, later
Targums, rewritten accounts of Genesis like 1QapGen and Josephus’ Antiquities, and the
NT book of Hebrews all make explicit the identification of Shalem with Jerusalem.
However, an examination of the archaeological and literary evidence
demonstrates that at no time was the name of Jerusalem ever found in a shortened form
like ‫שׁלֵם‬
ָ . In fact, every extant reference to Jerusalem in pre-Second Temple antiquity
demonstrates that without exception, Jerusalem is always referred to in a long
orthographic form. Thus, the etymological argument that Shalem was simply another,
shortened name for Jerusalem is a later development within Judaism, and one that almost
certainly derived from attempts to link Jerusalem with references to Shalem for various
apologetic purposes centered on the Melkiṣedeq episode in Gen. 14.
From the Egyptian textual sources, we find that the name of Jerusalem is always
recorded as having a long, non-abbreviated name. Other sources like Sennacherib’s Prism
reinforce the length of Jerusalem’s early name, further diminishing the argument that
Shalem should be understood as a shortened version of Jerusalem. This argument is
rendered even less likely when another Egyptian source provides evidence that Shalem is,
in fact, a city named Shalem to the north of Jerusalem. Thus, not only is Jerusalem
always referred to with a lengthy spelling and with no epigraphic evidence whatsoever
that Jerusalem ever appeared with an abbreviated spelling, but we also have positive
identification of a city named Shalem associated with an area to the north of Jerusalem.
John Gammie argues:
46

“The name Shalem (srm) is found in the so-called Ramesseum-list of
Ramesses II (ca. 1290-24 B.C.), but the context in which this name
appears makes it plain that a town considerably north of Jerusalem – in
Samaria, Galilee or Syria – is intended.”128
Simons points out that all of the names listed in the XIXth Dynasty diagram are “confined
to a relatively small geographical area which, as far as the better preserved names show,
is the western part of the Galilee.”129
Given the fact that the name of Jerusalem is consistently recorded in multiple
sources as being an orthographically long name of at least four syllables (see Fig. 2), it
quickly becomes clear that the tradition associating Shalem with Jerusalem is an
argument that dates to a time later in the Second Temple period, likely after the
association of Melkiṣedeq with Shalem in Gen. 14. But if Shalem is not Jerusalem, then
where is it? Several historical sources—including the text of the Bible itself—offer
suggestions about the location of Shalem, and each source consistently depicts Shalem as
being located somewhere north of Jerusalem, most likely near Shechem.130

128
Gammie, “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:18-20,” ibid. 90/ 4 (1971):
389. Cf. Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to
Western Asia (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1937): 149.
129
Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western
Asia: 66. See also Cheyne and Black, Encyclopædia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the
Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archæology, Geography, and Natural
History of the Bible (4vols.; New York: Macmillan Company; etc., 1899): Vol. 3, Col.
3545-47.
130
The text of Gen. 33:18 provides a clue about the location of the city of Shalem. Gen.
33:18 is conventionally translated as follows: “And Jacob came in peace to the city of
Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram; and
encamped before the city.” (NRSV) However, ‫ שלם‬in the text should be translated this
way, “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan,
when he came from Paddan-aram; and encamped before the city.” Such a translation is in
accordance with how Albright and Westermann register the word. There are several
reasons to translate ‫שׁלֵם‬
ָ as a proper name. Note that both translations are grammatically
47

Name of Jerusalem Source Date
Ru-ša-li-mum Egypt Execration Texts (e27) 1800 BCE
U-ru-ša-lim EA 287, 290 1400 BCE
U-ru-sa-lim EA 287, 289 1400 BCE
Ur-sa-li-im-mu Sennacherib Prism, col. 3, line 15 7th C. BCE
Figure 2. The lengthy name of Jerusalem.
This thesis contends that Shalem is not original to the text and that the text
originally read, Melkiṣedeq, king of Sodom.131 This simple emendation to the text
explains many of the problems that are present in the text and provides the simplest
answer to the question of Melkiṣedeq’s appearance in the text. Charles Edo Anderson
suggested in 1903 that there was most likely a switch in the text, from ‫ סדמ‬to ‫שלם‬, caused
by a misreading of the text.132 This observation went largely unnoticed by the academics

problematic. In the traditional translation, there is nothing to indicate that the word ‫שׁלֵם‬ ָ is
an adverb. In fact, the translation seems forced; one would expect the Hebrew ‫ בשׁלום‬to
represent going or coming peacefully or “in peace” as in 1 Sam. 29:7 (‫ְועַתָּ ה שׁוּב ְולְֵך ְבּשָׁלוֹם‬
“And now return and go peacefully”) and 2 Sam. 19:24/25 (‫בָּא ְבשָׁלוֹם‬-‫הַיּוֹם ֲאשֶׁר‬-‫“ עַד‬until
the day he came in peace/safety”). 2 Chron. 19:1 provides another example of arrival at a
destination peacefully: ‫שׁפָט ֶמלְֶך י ְהוּדָ ה אֶל בֵּיתוֹ ְבּשָׁלוֹם לִירוּשָׁלִ ָם‬
ָ ‫“ ; ַויָּשָׁב י ְהוֹ‬And Jehoshaphat,
King of Judah, returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem.” If the translation of ‫שׁלֵם‬ ָ as a
proper name were correct, the city of Shalem would be north of Jerusalem, within the
jurisdiction of the northern kingdom of Israel’s first capitol, Shechem. The reason the
author might have mentioned the less significant Shalem and not merely Shechem may
be because, “at the time of the author Shechem lay in ruins but Salem was still standing.”
(Emerton, “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis XIV 18)”: 47-48.) It
should also be noted that the 6th century CE Madaba Map preserves the name CΑΛΗΜ
(“Salem”) near Ainon (cf. John 3:23), and places them in the Jordan River valley near the
northeast border of Samaria, well north of Jerusalem. Eusebius’ Onomasticon describes
Salem in a similar manner.
131
The issue of resolving this emendation to the text is rather difficult, due to the lack of
this narrative from any of the Genesis scrolls found at Qumran.
132
Charles Edo Anderson argued that the transition from ‫ ס‬to ‫ ש‬was based on the
interchangeability of sibilants, and that the shift from ‫ ד‬to ‫ ל‬could be possible
paleographically by leaving off the top stroke of the lamed, which would render the
remaining letter similar to a dalet in Anderson, “Who Was Melchizedek? A Suggested
48

of the time and fell to the wayside over the decades. However, by restoring the toponym
‫ שלם‬back to its original ‫סדם‬, the text of Gen. 14:18-20 no longer appears to be a later
interpolation.133 It additionally explains the abrupt introduction of Melkiṣedeq into the
encounter between Abram and the previously slain king of Sodom, the problems
associated with the “tithing” done during the encounter, the theophoric element of Ṣedeq,
and it improves the overall flow of the narrative.
In verse 17 of the text, the king of Sodom goes out to meet Abram in the Valley
of Shaveh, but is then immediately interrupted by the introduction of Melkiṣedeq, King
of Shalem, into the narrative. The sudden interruption has long been the fuel behind the
suggestion that the Melkiṣedeq episode was a later interpolation into the text.134 But, the
meeting between the two parties becomes clearer when Melkiṣedeq is understood to be
the king of Sodom. After the original king of Sodom’s death in verse ten, one would
expect a new king, likely Bera’s son, to succeed him. This new king would want to cut a
covenant with the returning Abram to thank him for returning the stolen goods and
people, hence the offering of bread and wine. Bread and wine, or food of some type, was

Emendation of Gen. 14:18,” Hebraica 19/ 3 (1903). However, this assumes the use of a
square (typed) script that was not employed until well after the change would have been
made. It is possible that since the lamed in the late Second Temple period is made with
two strokes (an angled or curved line to the left, followed by a stroke upward and often
toward the right), that the addition of a near vertical descending stroke from the top right
of the lamed that closed the letter into a triangle could produce a dalet (if we additionally
disregarded top line alignment). Thus, a dalet could be changed to a letter looking like a
lamed (to a novice scribe) by simply leaving off the final down stroke of the dalet.
However, this is highly speculative and ultimately not as likely of solution as a simple,
and demonstrably common medial letter substitution for apologetic purposes.
133
In Gard Granerød’s most recent study of the text, he claims that the Melkiṣedeq
Episode is a product of Second Temple Period scribal activity. This is one of the most
prominent theories surrounding the narrative. Cf. Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek.
134
Granerød and Horton both suggest this in their monographs: ibid.; Horton, The
Melchizedek Tradition.
49

typically presented as an offering of peace for a treaty.135 Elgavish argues that the
presentation of bread and wine from Melchizedek to Abram was the finalization of a
peace treaty between the parties.136 He draws parallels between Melkiṣedeq’s offering to
the conquering Abram and the passages Gen. 26:30, Gen. 31:35, Josh. 9:12-14, and 1
Sam. 10:3-4. Elgavish also draws a parallel with the peace treaty of Tudhaliya IV, King
of Hatti, and Shalmaneser I, King of Assyria, where he wrote; “If he [Shalmaneser]
would enter my land or if I was to enter his, we would eat of the bread of one another.”137
Elgavish argues that this is the convention of the time, and fits the context of the narrative
of Gen. 14; the conquering Abram is greeted by the local King of Shalem with an
offering to declare peace between the two parties. This interpretation supports the present
research’s argument that Melkiṣedeq is the King of Sodom, who greets Abram not only
with a peace offering of food and wine to signify the peace between the two parties (cf.
Gen. 14:13, where Mamre, Aner, and Eshkol are said to be “covenant partners” with

135
Likewise, a text from Ras Shamra offers a liturgy, which George A. Barton claims
was originally written for a temple in southern Palestine. The liturgy is noteworthy
because it specifically mentions the goddess Salem/Shalim in conjunction with an
offering of bread and wine: “6. Eat of bread with me, and drink of wine, my weary ones!
7. O Salem, thou shalt be queen – Salem, queen of those who enter in and pour a
libation.” Cf. Barton, “A Liturgy for the Celebration of the Spring Festival at Jerusalem in
the Age of Abraham and Melchizedek”. Within this text we are introduced to the goddess
Salem, who gives bread and wine to weary travelers. The parallel to Melkiṣedeq, Priest-
King of Shalem, offering bread and wine to Abram is certainly worthy of note. However,
Barton’s claim that the later texts of the Targumim, Josephus, and rabbinical literature
support an identification of the Salem in this Ugaritic liturgy as Jerusalem is problematic.
This is because the identification of Shalem with Jerusalem is a late development, which
does not explicitly occur in the MT. Additionally, the LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta all
identify Shalem as a city of Shechem, not Jerusalem (cf. Gen. 33:18). Thus, while we can
dismiss Barton’s speculation about the Ugaritic liturgy’s association with Jerusalem, the
correlation between Salem and bread and wine is an important contribution.
136
Elgavish, “The Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek”: 505.
137
Ibid., 506.
50

Abram (‫אַב ְָרם‬-‫) ְוהֵם ֲעלֵי ַבּ ב ְִרית‬, but as an offering of gratitude for the return of his abducted
people and possessions (cf. Gen. 14:21ff).
To further support the interpretation that Melkiṣedeq is the new king of Sodom
and that he is making a peace treaty with Abram, we must return to the Valley of Shaveh.
An ancient treaty is typically struck in plain view of the public and the names of the place
are symbolic of the specific event. As it has been demonstrated previously, the word ‫שׁוֵה‬
ָ
can mean “equal” or “level,” which is exactly what is recorded as transpiring between the
king of Sodom and Abram. Abram has returned to return the goods and people of Sodom
back to their king, where he might expect to be greeted by a treaty or covenant marking
the two as equals in the land. If this is indeed the case, then the so-called tithe also comes
into question.
For many readers of the Hebrew Bible, Gen. 14:20 is the first instance of tithing,
and sets the precedent for priestly tithing. But is this exchange of goods really a tithe? It
comes well before the divinely mandated practice of tithing is outlined in Leviticus, and
more problematic to the text, Abram is not tithing to a Levitical priest, but the Canaanite
priest-king Melkiṣedeq.138 In addition to not wanting Abram to have dealings with
Sodom, which this thesis argues is the initial motive behind the scribal redaction of
Sodom to Shalem, the redactors of Genesis equally cannot have the patriarch tithing to a
Canaanite priest to a foreign deity. The redactors attempt to fix this by inserting a hu
clause into the text of Gen. 14:22 equating ʾEl ʿElyon as YHWH, thus making
Melkiṣedeq a priest of YHWH.

138
Josephus identifies Melkiṣedeq as a Canaanite in Antiquities 1.10.2, and it is never
stated whether he is Canaanite or not within the canonical text.
51

There is also the problem with the origin of the goods tithed to Melkiṣedeq,
namely, whence came the tithed goods? The text depicts Abram as on his way to return
the goods and people of Sodom to the (new) king of Sodom, when along the way he
makes a detour to be blessed by Melkiṣedeq. At this point, Gen. 14:20 states that there is
an exchange of goods: ‫לוֹ ַמ ֲעשֵׂר מִכּ ֹל‬-‫“( ַויּ ִתֶּ ן‬he gave him a tenth of everything”). There is no
subject in the sentence, and thus the context of the passage suggests that it was
Melkiṣedeq who was the one offering the tithe, as he is the last named subject of the
sentence. Thus the tithe most likely went in the direction of Melkiṣedeq to Abram, and
not vice versa.
Yet another problem arises if we are to understand the text as Abram giving a
tenth to Melkiṣedeq. The goods that Abram would have given to Melkiṣedeq were
necessarily taken from the goods retrieved by Abram from Chedorlaomer, who stole
them from the king of Sodom. If Abram then gives a portion of the goods previously
belonging to the King of Sodom to Melkiṣedeq, then Abram was taking from the king of
Sodom and giving it to another. This is not congruent with Abram’s obstinate behavior
only a couple verses later, when he refuses to take money from the king of Sodom.
However, if Abram tithed to Melkiṣedeq, then he would have given away what was not
his to give, and would have indeed taken goods from the King of Sodom.
All of these problems are solved if Melkiṣedeq was the king of Sodom. If
Melkiṣedeq is the king of Sodom, the direction of the tithe can be reversed. And because
it is no longer a theologically motivated tithe, but rather a payment offered by the king
for recovery services rendered, then Abram can take the moral high ground when the
king of Sodom offers him all of the goods. If Abram has already been offered a payment,
52

(i.e., the “tithe”), then he can refuse the offer and claim what is claimed in Gen. 14:22-24.
This reconstructed scenario flows more evenly with the narrative; it allows Abram to
establish his dominance over the land of Canaan and specifically over Sodom, while
being able to claim that he did so out of propriety and responsibility toward his kinsman,
Lot, and not for monetary gain.
It is also worthy of note that (oddly) there is not a single condemnation of Sodom
in Gen. 14. While Abram swears an oath that he will not be made rich by Sodom, he
never condemns it. In every other instance of the Hebrew Bible where Sodom and
Gomorrah are mentioned (with the exception of the table of nations listed in Gen. 10),
they are described in a negative way, often with a parenthetic comment referring either to
their sin or their destruction. The positive, or at best, neutral portrayal of Sodom in Gen.
14 would have been viewed as problematic and contradictory to the rest of the Hebrew
Bible, thus offering an additional theological motivation for switching Sodom to Shalem.
Changes for theological purposes are not an isolated instance within the text of
the Hebrew Bible. Theological changes were regularly made during the composition of
the text and ancient scribes documented many of these changes. The practice of
deliberate scribal alterations for theological purposes ranges in extent and degree of
alteration. While some scribes simply rewrote the narratives of the Hebrew Bible
resulting in a trove of compositions including the Genesis Apocryphon, the Books of
Enoch, Jubilees, various attempts at a rewritten Pentateuch, and others, other changes
were made within the text of the Bible. These vary from the Tiqqune Sopherim,139 to

139
McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the
Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 36; Freiburg, Schweiz
and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981).
53

changes that are evident by comparing the books of Samuel and Kings to Chronicles.
This thesis proposes that the name ‫ סדם‬was altered to ‫ שׁלם‬for the theological purpose of
distancing Abram from dealings and oath takings with the King of Sodom, and that the
change took place after the legend of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was
popularized by numerous prophetic texts highlighting the sin of Sodom and its
destruction. The most likely scenario for Gen. 14:18 is that Melchizedek was originally
the King of Sodom, not Shalem.
There are three points of grammatical evidence in support of reading of Gen.
14:18-20 as a continuation of verse 17. First, note that verse 18 begins awkwardly with a
S-V-O construction. This is unlike verse 17 and most of the preceding verses, which
preserve a standard V-S-O format. Second, note that the verb ‫ הוֹצִיא‬is not in the expected
waw consecutive format like many of the preceding and subsequent verbs in the
narrative, in particular those that begin verses. In fact, note that each of the hero narrative
verses preceding verse 18 begins with a verb in the waw consecutive. That is, from the
capture of the goods of Sodom in verse 11 to the going out of the King of Sodom in verse
17, each verse begins with a verb in the waw consecutive. This pattern ends abruptly with
our verse in question—verse 18—when suddenly the narrative shifts to a S-V-O structure
and begins with a verb that is not in the waw consecutive. Note also that the pattern of an
initial verb in waw consecutive then resumes again in verse 19, and continues on through
verse 22. Thus, verse 18 is clearly a grammatical outlier within the narrative as it now
stands, and is further evidence of redactional tampering. Note also that verse 18 would fit
the larger pattern were it simply a continuation of the previous verse modifying the
subject introduced in verse 17, namely, the King of Sodom, not a new King of Shalem.
54

Figure 3. List of waw consecutive verbs.
Gen. 14 Preceding
Verse Hiphil verb Qal verb Subject Qal English Hiphil English
14:5 ‫ַויּ ַכּוּ‬ ‫ בָּא‬Chedorlaomer & kings “came” “and they smote”
14:13 ‫ַויַּגֵּד‬ ‫ ַויּ ָב ֹא‬fugitive “came” and “told”
14:14 ‫ַויּ ֶָרק‬ ‫שׁ ַמע‬

ְ ִ ‫ ַויּ‬Abram “heard” and “led to
battle”
14:15 ‫ַויַּכֵּם‬ *‫ ַויּ ֵ ָחלֵק‬Abram’s forces “(were) divided” and “smote”
14:15-16 ‫שׁב‬
ֶ ָ ‫ַויּ‬ ‫ ַויּ ְִרדְּ פֵם‬Abram “pursued” and “brought
back”
14:16 **‫שׁיב‬
ִ ‫ֵה‬ ‫ ַויּ ְִרדְּ פֵם‬Abram “pursued” and “brought
back”
14:17 ‫ֵמהַכּוֹת‬ ‫ שׁוּבוֹ‬Abram “his return” “from smiting”
14:18 ‫הוֹצִיא‬ King of Shalem “brought out”***
14:22 ‫ִרמ ֹתִ י ֲה‬ ‫ וַיּ ֹא ֶמר‬Abram “and said” “raised”
14:23 ‫שׁ ְרתִּ י‬
ַ ‫ֶה ֱע‬ ‫ ת ֹא ַמר‬King of Sodom “will say” “made rich”
14:18 (original) ‫הוֹצִיא‬ ‫ ַויֵּצֵא ִל ְק ָראתוֹ‬King of Sodom “and went out to meet” “brought out”***
* ‫ ַויּ ֵ ָחלֵק‬is the niphal impf. (wc) 3ms.
** This second use of the hiphil of ‫ שׁוב‬actually follows the previous use of hiphil of ‫שׁוב‬, but is clearly a
distributive use of “bringing back” goods following the “pursuit” (qal), distinguishing the people and
goods that were taken from Sodom and the allied rebellious cities from Lot and his goods.
*** If the text originally listed Melchizedek as the King of Shalem, this would be the only time in Gen. 14
that a hiphil verb does not follow a qal verb describing the actions of the same subject. However, if
the text originally read “King of Sodom” as I propose, then this use of the hiphil would be consistent
throughout Gen. 14, and would follow the qal verb of the same root (‫ )יצא‬used to describe the King of
Sodom in v. 17, which is interrupted by the lengthy relative clause comprising the last two-thirds of v.
17.
Third, Elgavish notes the narrative shift from the use of the qal in the Gen. 14:17
verb ‫“( ַויֵּצֵא‬he went out”), to the hiphil ‫“( הוֹצִיא‬he brought out”), and argues that this shift
from the qal to the hiphil “indicates an action performed simultaneously with the
55

previously mentioned action.”140 The present research suggests that this can be taken one
step further. Fig. 3 above demonstrates that in every other instance in Gen. 14, causative
hiphil verbs only appear when following non-causative, D-stem verbs in the qal (and one
instance of a niphal in verse15) describing the action of the same subject, of course, with
the sole exception of the verb ‫“( הוֹצִיא‬he brought out”) in Gen. 14:18. This additional
evidence supports this thesis’ claim that the epithet “King of Shalem” was modified from
it original form, “King of Sodom,” because if the verb ‫ הוֹצִיא‬is referring to the King of
Sodom introduced in 14:17, the use of the hiphil in Gen. 14 remains consistent.
It is apparent that the scenario surrounding Melkiṣedeq in Gen. 14 is ripe for
extra-biblical traditions. He appears suddenly and is given no genealogy or death. He
exists within the microcosm of the narrative, which allows for speculation and conjecture
about his character. From the previous analysis of his character within the context of Gen.
14, this thesis has demonstrated that Melkiṣedeq is a Canaanite priest-king typical of the
Near East, he is priest of ʾEl ʿElyon, who is a well-known Phoenician deity in antiquity,
his name has a theophoric element relating to the god Ṣedeq, and that he was originally
the king of Sodom, not Shalem, which resolves many problems created by the hypothesis
that the Melkiṣedeq episode is a later priestly interpolation into the text. With this
understanding the Melkiṣedeq was originally the king of Sodom, there is no longer the
need to assume that Gen. 14:18-20 is a later addition; it flows more smoothly into a
coherent narrative that accords with early hero type narratives, such as the story of
Gideon in Judg. 6-8.

140
Elgavish, “The Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek”: 505.
56

However, because the text of Gen. 14:18 was, in fact, altered from Sodom to
Shalem, and the because Shalem came to be associated with Jerusalem, the Pentateuch
can now be depicted as claiming a patriarchal endorsement for Jerusalem (which it
previously lacked), for the Jerusalem priesthood, and for the practice of tithing to the
priests in Jerusalem. It is for these reasons that the social memory of Melkiṣedeq is
allowed to grow so greatly in the later Second Temple Period. During this period of
uncertainty of Jewish life, when there is no king in Persian Yehud, and the Persian-
backed priesthood in Jerusalem is competing with rival priesthoods in Samaria,
Elephantine, and elsewhere, the figure of Melkiṣedeq allows Judahites of the time to
circumvent the traditional priesthood and establish their own priestly authorities that are
more conducive to their sectarian beliefs. This is evident with the case of Psalm 110.
2.3 Melkiṣedeq in Psalm 110
Ps. 110 has been a source of much debate in the scholarly community, specifically
surrounding its date. There are two main proposed dates for the psalm: an early date from
the Monarchic period, and a later date from the Hellenistic period.141 The source of the
debate is centered on Ps. 110:4, which reads; “The LORD has sworn and will not change
his mind, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’” (NRSV) The
verse in question has messianic ties that subvert the Levitical priesthood, which became
an attractive model for sectarian Jewish groups in the late Second Temple Period.
The dating of Ps. 110 is the key component to understanding Melkiṣedeq’s role
within the text. The text itself exhibits archaic features in its vocabulary, style, and poetic

141
Hay, Glory at the Right Hand.; Jefferson, “Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?”: 152-156.;
Skinner, Prophets, Priests, and Kings: Old Testament Figures who Symbolize Christ (Salt
Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2005).
57

meter. It bares the likeness of a Canaanite enthronement or coronation psalm due to its
conquest vocabulary.142 The usage of the term ‫“( הֲד ֹם ל ְַרגְלֶיָך‬footstool for your feet”) to
reference one’s enemies is indicative of early Hebrew poetry and it associated with
reference to YHWH’s enemies specifically.143 Many scholars have argued that this is in
reference to David’s conquest of Saul’s kingdom and that this is a psalm for David’s
coronation.144 However, this is incongruent with the preface to the Psalm that states it is a
psalm of David, hence he would not have written his own enthronement psalm. It appears
to be an apologetic attempt to tie the Davidic line to the Melkiṣedeq priesthood.145 Ps.
110:1 is ambiguous about to whom the psalm is referring when it states, ‫נְאֻם י ְהוָה לַאדֹנִי‬
(“YHWH says to my lord”). But who would be David’s lord in this scenario. The
Gospels interpret this as David speaking of Jesus, but these interpretations do not fit with
the enthronement context of the original psalm.146 The psalm itself is best understood
within the context of the Hasmoneans.
The Hasmonean dynasty succeeded in their attempt to serve in both the roles of
king and high priest “until a trustworthy prophet should arise” to fill the role.147 Because
this practice was against established Jewish religious protocol, the Hasmoneans likely
commissioned the Books of Maccabees to provide propagandistic support for their dual
claims. Still, the merging of both roles of king and high priest required a scriptural

142
Jefferson, “Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?”: 154.
143
Cf. Ps. 8:6, 18:38; Josh. 10:24.
144
Mason, ‘You are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the
Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of
Judah 74; Leiden: Brill, 2008).
145
Hay, Glory at the Right Hand.
146
Cf. Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42, 43; Acts 2:34, 35.
147
1 Macc. 14:41
58

precedent if it was to satisfy the objections of devout Jews. This scriptural authorization
may have been found in Ps. 110:4.
Ps. 110 in its original Hebrew is not as clear-cut as many English translations
would have readers believe. The verse does not flow with the rest of the text; the psalm
clearly celebrates a conquest narrative, and yet a priestly reference appears in verse four,
followed by a return to the conquest language. The vocabulary of the psalm is also
problematic. The term that is typically used to designate priestly “divisions,” ‫ ַמחֲֹלקֶתּ‬, is
not used.148 Instead, the Hebrew expression, ‫על תידבר‬, is employed, conveying a more
likely translation of “on account of” or “because of” Melkiṣedeq.149 This condition would
necessitate that only the person being specifically referenced in the psalm is a priest
forever, and not an entire “order.” The meter of the psalm is also contentious; verse four
is in an irregular meter in relation to the rest of the psalm. The psalm, minus verse 4,
follows a regular 2/2-meter, typical of early psalms, however verse 4 follows a 4/3-meter,
which can be found mostly in Hellenistic period Greek poetry.150 Thus, the oddities
present in Ps. 110:4 suggest that it is a later interpolation and not original to the psalm,
and if it is original, that its unconventional translation is the result of the later LXX

148
Cf. 1 Chr. 27:1ff.
149
Cf. Gen. 12:17; 20:11, 18; 24:9; 43:18; Ex. 8:8(12); etc. Ex. 32:34 preserves an
example of asher-dabarti (“which I told”), which is similar to the expression in Ps.
110:4. The text may also be read, “according to what I said/told” (to) Melki-Ṣedeq. The
similar expression ‫ק ַֹרח‬-‫דְּ בַר‬-‫“( עַל‬according to the matter of Qoraḥ”) in Num. 17:14 is seen
as a parallel, but as ‫ דְּ בַר‬can simply mean “matter” or “affair”, and since Qoraḥ did not
succeed in creating a priestly order, but rather Num. 16:6 and 16 refer to his company
with the word ‫“( אדת‬company”), translation as the “order of Qoraḥ” is unlikely.
Nonetheless, the translation, “according to the order of Melki-Ṣedeq,” is unprecedented
in the Hebrew Bible.
150
I would like to thank Cory Taylor for this metric analysis of Ps. 110 that came out of
our Targumic Aramaic seminar in the Fall of 2014. It is a preliminary reading that
deserves further study.
59

translation, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδεκ, which employs the word τάξις (“order”) to
translate ‫על דברתי‬.
The Hasmonean period is the best candidate for this piece of scribal activity, as it
fits the needs of the time and the mechanics of the change. As there is no prior record of
an “order of Melkiṣedeq” in any of the priestly lists, Ps. 110:4 is the first instance of
Melkiṣedeq being used for alternative purposes, but certainly is not the last. The
Hasmonean dynasty gave precedent to the “order of Melkiṣedeq,” a precedent that
becomes immensely popular among other Jewish sectarian groups. Ps. 110 is a perfect
example of how a text can be slightly altered to fit a specific time and place, just as the
switch from Sodom to Shalem in Gen. 14:18 achieved similar apologetic goals. The role
of Melkiṣedeq is fluid and dynamic, which is exemplified by later interpretations of Ps.
110:4. This corrupted verse becomes a launching point for many traditions; it influences
the way Christians understand the role of Jesus, it elevates Melkiṣedeq to heavenly status,
and provides a way for the everyday Jew to get out from beneath the shadow of the
Jerusalem Temple and priesthood. Melkiṣedeq’s character provides an escape for
sectarian movements—an escape from an elite class that is becoming richer, more
Hellenized, and eventually more Romanized during the Second Temple Period.
60

Chapter 3: The Second Temple Memories of Melkiṣedeq
The Second Temple Period was a flourishing time for extra-biblical traditions. Many
Jewish communities were still living in a mindset of cognitive dissonance, attempting to
figure out life without a true Davidic king or Levitical priesthood. Melkiṣedeq became a
popular option around which groups could fashion new ideologies, as was done with
Enoch. Melkiṣedeq’s enigmatic, but pervasive memory in the Hebrew Bible and later
Judahite minds created a long tradition spanning through the Second Temple Period and
even into the early Christian world.151 His ties to Jerusalem, his direct access to God, his
lack of genealogy, and his role as a priest-king allowed his character to become highly
adaptable and to mesh with different motives and ideologies.
This is the period in the history of Palestine that social memory becomes an
extremely important and persuasive concept. When groups are competing for followers
and relevance in the Second Temple Period, any greater connection to YHWH they can
claim can help their causes, and Melkiṣedeq became an attractive advertisement as the
first priest of YHWH. The sectarian world is a battle for heavenly resources. Each group
is trying to outsource its opponents and drive them toward the ideological margin in order
to gain the favor of the mainstream and become perceived as the “true” Israel. One of the
easiest tactics used in proving superiority over another group of people was to prove that
one’s group was more ancient than another’s. One of the main tactics employed by early
Christians in the Roman world was establishing themselves as the natural progression of

151
Pearson, “Melchizedek in Early Judaism”.
61

Judaism.152 This is routinely used in connection with Melkiṣedeq, either by attaching him
to a group to show their antiquity, or by making Melkiṣedeq appear older than he already
is to attribute antediluvian knowledge to him, as is similarly done with 2 Enoch. Many
sectarian groups in the Second Temple Period employed these and other tactics, such as
transactive memory and social loafing to transform the social memory of Melkiṣedeq to
further their respective goals.
3.1 Melkiṣedeq at Qumran
The study of Melkiṣedeq at Qumran is highly problematic in two main respects:
first, there is no canonical reference to the character found within any of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. All copies of Genesis scrolls are missing Gen. 14 due to breaks and deterioration.
Interestingly, however, the Psalms scrolls simply skip over 110. In fact, among the
collection of Psalms scrolls at Qumran, 11Q5 preserves most of Ps. 109 all the way
through verse 31, and 4QPsb contains Ps. 112. Without Ps. 110 attested among the DSS,
the closest piece of evidence to a canonical presence of Melkiṣedeq at Qumran is the
Genesis Apocryphon, which retells the story of Gen. 14 with a slight adjustment to
Shalem, explicitly making it Jerusalem.153
Second, the scrolls that do mention Melkiṣedeq or allude to his character are
highly fragmentary and quite difficult to interpret. In Cave 11 at Qumran, a highly
fragmentary scroll was discovered that contains a string of eschatological midrashim and

152
Noveck, Great Jewish Personalities in Ancient and Medieval Times (The B’nai B’rith
Great Books Series 1; New York: Farrar, 1959).; Aitken and Paget, The Jewish-Greek
Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2014).
153
In a tactful manner the Genesis Apocryphon makes another slight change to the text. It
replaces “bread and wine” with “food and drink,” most likely in an attempt to further
distance the community responsible for its creation from the practices at the Jerusalem
Temple.
62

pesharim centered on Melkiṣedeq. 11QMelch (11Q13) consists of two fairly complete
columns comprised of ten fragments that can be pieced together. This appears to be
physically consistent with the end of a scroll and contains an extremely fragmentary third
column that has lost most of its text.154 It was first discovered in 1957, but since it was a
part of the last cave that produced scrolls, it was not until published until 1965 by S. Van
Der Woude.155 The document itself is congruent with the Sectarian literature found
among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Emanuel Tov demonstrates that the scroll fits with the
themes and linguistic properties of other sectarian documents, such as the Serekhs and
Damascus Document, found throughout the rest of the site.156 Cave 11 lies several
kilometers away from the main site of Khirbet Qumran, surpassed in distance from the
site only by Cave 3. According to the research of Joseph Patrich, Cave 11 shows no sign
of Qumran era occupation and the cave was used strictly for storage.157 All of the
evidence supports the notion that the scrolls found within this cave should be associated
with the community responsible for the sectarian documents at Khirbet Qumran.
The paleography of 11QMelch suggests a date of around 100-25 BCE due to its
style, which was described by Frank Moore Cross as “later Herodian” due to the poorly

154
García Martínez, et al., Qumran Cave 11 (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 23; ed.
Tov; vol. 2; Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press, 1998).
155
Ibid., 221.
156
See Tov, “The Special Character of the Texts Found in Qumran Cave 11,” Pgs. 187-
196 in Things Revealed: Studies In Early Jewish And Christian Literature In Honor Of
Michael E. Stone, eds. Chazon, et al.; vol. 89 of Supplements to the Journal for the Study
of Judaism; (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
157
Patrich, “Khirbet Qumran in Light of New Archaeological Explorations in the
Qumran Caves,” Pgs. 73-96 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, eds. Wise, et al.; vol. 722
of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (New York: New York Academy of
Sciences, 1994).
63

constructed archaic styles and the idiosyncratic construction style of the lamed.158 The
text also matches the orthography of many other Qumran scrolls, while the biblical
quotations in the text match those of the Masoretic text.159 The scroll is composed in a
unique way; it is a string of biblical verses, much like a florilegium, and it also contains
interlinear interpretation of the verses, like a pesharim, including the word “pesher”
three times in 2.4, 12, 17.160 Based on J. Carmignac’s work with the two types of
pesherim, it is apparent that 11Q13 is made up of discontinuous or thematic pesherim.161
These verses and their interpretation are used to expand upon the social memory of
Melkiṣedeq present within the community.
The group is focused on ritual purity and priestly activity, and yet they are
opposed to the Levitical priesthood in Jerusalem. What is one to do in this situation? One
solution is to create a new priesthood around a divine eschatological priest, who rules
over the judgment of the good and the evil. This is precisely how 11QMelch describes
Melkiṣedeq. In much the same manner that Enoch becomes the heavenly scribe and
otherworldly psychopompos, Melkiṣedeq becomes the heavenly priest that sits with
YHWH in his divine council. The Qumran community has an affinity for taking early
biblical characters and elevating them to heavenly proportions, such as Enoch, Moses,
Lamech, Levi, and Melkiṣedeq. Anders Aschim attempts to clarify the muddy
relationship between 11Q13 and the canonical Melkiṣedeq by arguing that there are

158
García Martínez, et al., Qumran Cave 11: 223.
159
Ibid., 224.
160
Aschim, “The Genre of 11QMelchizedek,” Pgs. 17-31 in Qumran between the Old
and New Testaments, eds. Cryer and Thompson; vol. 290 of Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series; (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998): 24.
161
Carmignac, Les textes de Qumran (Autour de la Bible; 2 vols.; Paris: Letouzey et Ané,
1961).
64

similar themes present in 11Q13 that appear in Gen. 14, but his interpretation of Gen. 14
is traditional and differs from those of the author greatly.162 Aschim also attempts to draw
speculative connections to the New Testament as well, none of which are supported
textually.163 The text appears to function as an eschatological, exegetical pesherim that
focuses on the future final Jubilee year and the subsequent judgment and war of good and
evil.
The extant text is centered on the eschatological judgment day, which is set to
happen on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. This is set to occur in the tenth jubilee,
which according to the narrative is the “Year of the Grace of Melkiṣedeq.” This is
important for two reasons: first, it connects the text with the sectarian community at
Qumran. The group at Qumran followed the Jubilees calendar, which is evident from the
prevalence of the Damascus Document and the strong Enochic tradition present in the
sectarian manuscripts.164 Therefore, it logically follows that the eschaton and Day of
Judgment would take place in a Jubilee year. Second, the text details a large pesher on
the activity of the Jubilee year described in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, namely, the
returning of property and the release from creditors, to show the release of people from
their wrong-doings and place them in the inheritance and lot of Melkiṣedeq.165 This is
also apparent in the quotation from Isa. 61:1, stating that Melchizedek will proclaim

162
Aschim, “Melchizedek the Liberator: An Early Interpretation of Genesis 14?,” Pgs.
243-258 in Society of Biblical Literature 1996 Seminar Papers; vol. 35 of Society of
Biblical Literature Semonar Papers; (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
163
Aschim, “Genre of 11QMelchizedek”: 18.
164
See: Boccaccini, Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005).; Boccaccini, et al., Enoch and the Mosaic Torah:
The Evidence of Jubilees (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009).
165
See García-Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Paperback
ed.; 2 vols.; Leiden and Grand Rapids: Brill and Eerdmans, 2000): 2:1207-09.
65

liberty to the captives, meaning the captives of Belial.166 This follows the long-studied
strong pattern of predeterminism in the Qumran community, and sets up the army for the
eschatological battle described in 11Q13 2:25 to take place (similar to the battle
described in the War Scroll), where Melkiṣedeq arrives at the sound of the trumpets.167
Melkiṣedeq’s main role in this text is to resurrect the dead and pass final judgment
over them.168 The text references and interprets Ps. 82:1-2 to give Melkiṣedeq this
authority. Ps. 82:1-2 reads, “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of
the gods he holds judgment. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the
wicked?” Ps. 82 proves to be a problematic text within the Hebrew Bible due to its
suggestion that there may be more than one god. 11Q13 attempts to solve this problem by
creating a hierarchy of the heavenly beings, and setting Melkiṣedeq as a subordinate to
YHWH. In this text, the author uses Elohim as an interchangeable name for Melkiṣedeq
to elevate him to head of the “Gods of Justice,” who will come to his aid in the battle
with Belial169. Melkiṣedeq will also drag the spirits from the hands of Belial according to
his lot. The role of Melkiṣedeq in this section is made clear when the text says,
“Melkiṣedeq will avenge the vengeance of God.” In the context of this narrative, it could
be interpreted that Melkiṣedeq is going to review God’s judgment, possibly prescribing a

166
Isa. 61:1: “The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to
proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners” (NRSV).
167
11Q13 2:25: “[…Melchizedek, who will fr]e[e them from the ha]nd of Belial. And as
for what he said, ‘You shall blow the hor[n in] all the [l]and of …’”. Trans by García-
Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition: 2:1208-09.
168
This role appears reminiscent of the Saoshyant in Zoroastrian eschatology. Both
characters serve similar purposes of performing the final judgment during the eschaton,
while rescuing the captives of the underworld and bringing them to salvation. The
similarities are quite strong and the subject deserves further research.
169
Vermès, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Rev. ed.; Penguin Classics;
London: Penguin Books, 2004): 533.
66

harsher or more lenient judgment, but it is the final judgment nonetheless. The text is
unclear if the judgment is solely Melkiṣedeq’s job or whether he is carrying out YHWH’s
judgment as a proxy.170. The authors of 11Q13 appear to interpret the ‫ אלוהים‬mentioned in
Ps. 82:1 not as the deity YHWH himself, but as a godlike figure, which the authors of
11Q13 understand to be Melkiṣedeq, whom YHWH has appointed to judge those other
divine beings, namely Belial and his predestined spirits, about whom the text complains,
“How long will you judge unjustly?” This allows Melkiṣedeq to act as the cosmic judge,
presiding over one final and just judgment, under the aegis of YHWH.
The text also describes the day of peace or salvation mentioned in the Book of
Isaiah in relation to the judgment day of Melkiṣedeq. The text uses Isa. 52:7 and equates
the mountains with the prophets, and the messenger with the messiah mentioned in the
Book of Daniel.171 This could be viewed as the prophets and their prophecies constituting
the pillars or foundations of the new world of peace ushered in by Melkiṣedeq’s judgment
and defeat of Belial. In this interpretation of Isaiah, the last part of the verse, “your
Elohim reigns,” is repeated at the end of the passage, which reads, “your Elohim is
Melkiṣedeq, who will save them from the hand of Belial.”172 This statement shows the
highly elevated status of Melkiṣedeq at Qumran; they were willing to refer to him as
Elohim, a name otherwise reserved for YHWH. Throughout the sectarian documents of
Qumran, there are other texts that allude to the sophistication and prevalence of the
Melkiṣedeq tradition at Qumran.

170
Ibid.
171
Isa. 52:7 “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who
announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion,
‘Your God reigns’” (NRSV).; ibid.
172
11Q13 2:24-25. Ibid., 532.
67

Within the sectarian texts there is a strong presence of dualism. In 4QAmram, the
Vision of Amram, a possible divine adversary to Melkiṣedeq is introduced named
Melkireshaʿ. The text is a series of visions attributed to Amram, the father of Moses. In
these visions, the three names of the chief Angel of Darkness are revealed to him with the
main name being Melkireshaʿ, or “King of Wickedness.”173 There is also mention of the
three names of the leader of the Sons of Light, which unfortunately have been lost to a
lacuna.174 While the identity is lost in fragment four of the text, there are clues that
suggest a possible interpretation of the missing text. Through a close reading of the
context of the vision, it is evident that the text is referring to Melkiṣedeq. The text
references names written for Moses and Aaron, and states that the mysterious identity is a
holy priest to ʿElyon.175 It goes on to say that all his seed will be holy and that he will be
chosen as a priest forever.176 These hints at an identity of the priest correspond to the
canonical references to Melkiṣedeq in Gen. 14 and Ps. 110, in which he was a priest of
ʾEl ʿElyon and a priest forever, respectively. Putting Melkiṣedeq in this role fits the
schema of the Qumran community, having and ultimate good pitted against an ultimate
evil. Likewise, at the end of the fragment it alludes to a battle between the Sons of Light
and the Sons of Darkness, which would fit with 11Q13177. 4QAmram exhibits a

173
4Q544 2:13.
174
Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša’ (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph
Series 10; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981).
175
4Q543 f22:2.
176
4Q545 f416-19. Cf. Vermès, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English: 533.
177
Collins, “Messiahs in Context: Method in the Study of Messianism in the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” Pgs. 213-229 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, eds. Wise, et al.; vol. 722
of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; (New York: New York Academy of
Sciences, 1994).
68

continuous eschatological theme from 11Q13, based on the language and the strong
Melkiṣedeqian references.
Another text found at Qumran that alludes, with no explicit mention, to the
elevated, heavenly status of Melkiṣedeq is 4Q246, an Aramaic Apocalypse. The
interpretation of Melkiṣedeq in 4Q246 is difficult to solidify, however, the text does refer
to the ‫בר עליון‬, the “Son of the Most High,” a name given to Melchizedek in 11Q13.178
The text here says that the Son of the Most High will be ‫“( כזיקיא‬like the shooting
star”),179 a symbol that immediately draws to mind the ‫“( כוכב מיעקב‬star from Jacob”),180
the symbol of the priestly messiah prevalent at Qumran in the Damascus Document.181 If
this is the case, then this reference to a star coupled with the reference to the Son of the
Most High could be alluding to the heavenly priest Melkiṣedeq, which has been shown to
be a well-known figure at Qumran.
It is clearly apparent that Melkiṣedeq was awarded an elevated cosmological
position within the Qumran community based on his priestly status in the Judean social
memory. Of the elements of Melkiṣedeq’s social memory, Qumran focuses mainly on his
priestly status and the interpretation of his name as righteousness, instead of the god
Ṣedeq. Righteousness is a central theme within the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
interpretation of Melkiṣedeq as “King of Righteousness” would fit well within Qumran
conventions, drawing a connection with the leader of the community, the Moreh Ha-

178
4Q246 f1ii:1. See also García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Atudies on the
Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 9; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1992).
179
Vermès, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English: 533.
180
Num. 24:17.
181
4Q265 7:18-20. Cf. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010).
69

Ṣedeq, or “Teacher of Righteousness,” and his followers, the Bene Ha-Ṣedeq, or “Sons of
Righteousness.”182 This thesis contends that the community’s obsession with the concept
of righteousness led them to incorporate the memory of Melkiṣedeq and his role as a
priestly outsider into their ideology. The community adapted the memories of Melkiṣedeq
to fit their specific needs; they needed a priesthood that wasn’t Levitical and they needed
an eschatological judge—two roles that Melkiṣedeq fulfilled perfectly.
3.2 Melkiṣedeq in 2 Enoch
The book of 2 Enoch was most likely composed in the 1st century CE. It is
preserved in Old Church Slavonic, but was probably originally produced in Greek in
Alexandria.183 2 Enoch proves to be a difficult document to date; one debate centers on
whether it dates to the 1st century CE or is from the Byzantine period. This is likely due
to a later Christian redactional layer in the text, most of which is Jewish in nature, with
sporadic Christian insertions.184 The text details heavenly journeys and revelations of
Enoch in accord with the book of 1 Enoch. 2 Enoch 71-72 records the account of
Melkiṣedeq’s birth. In the text, Sothonim, the old and barren wife of Noah’s brother, Nir,
miraculously conceives Melkiṣedeq. The birth of Melkiṣedeq is equally impressive; after
Nir chastises and accuses Sothonim of being unfaithful, she dies and Melkiṣedeq emerges
from her as a fully developed child bearing the marks of the priesthood—the breastplate
with the Urim and Thummim—on his chest.185 Afterwards, the archangel Michael

182
Carmignac, Christ and the Teacher of Righteousness: The Evidence of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1962).
183
Pearson, “Melchizedek in Early Judaism”: 184.
184
Ibid.
185
Orlov, “Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” Journal for the Study of
Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 31 (2000).; Bötterich, “The
Melchizedek Story of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reaction to A. Orlov,” ibid. 32 (2001).
70

appears and whisks the young Melkiṣedeq away to survive the impending flood. The
narrative fills in another gap in the Melkiṣedeq tradition that the Qumran material does
not address: his genealogy.
One of the most attractive elements of the social memory of Melkiṣedeq is his
lack of genealogy. Because of this, he has the ability to become anyone that a groups
needs. In the case of 2 Enoch, we are dealing with a text that is written shortly after the
destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the priesthood. This creates a vacuum in the
Jewish world that needs to be filled; if the priesthood has been destroyed, then who
represents the Jewish people before YHWH? However, if there existed an earlier
priesthood, one that survived a cataclysmic event such as the deluge, then it could fulfill
the priestly role as needed. This is exactly what 2 Enoch does: Nir is said to be a priest of
YHWH, which transfers then to Melkiṣedeq, who is born bearing the symbols of the
priesthood, and who is saved from the flood to preserve the priesthood.186 The text is
attempting to show that the priesthood and Judaism in general can survive these
destructive events that are out of their hands with the help of YHWH. Melkiṣedeq’s
character allows the group of people responsible for the text to continue their religious
existence through the formation of a new social memory by adapting the previous
memories of Melkiṣedeq from Jewish lore.
3.3 Samaritan Melkiṣedeq
The Samaritan tradition of Melkiṣedeq works in a similar manner to the
traditional Jewish tradition, as they are both attempting to legitimate their respective
religious centers. The Jewish tradition eventually identifies Melkiṣedeq with Jerusalem

186
Orlov, “Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” ibid. 31 (2000): 30.
71

following the textual switch of Sodom to Shalem. This identification is first stated in the
Genesis Apocryphon, and then later in Josephus’ Antiquities, where a false etymology of
Jerusalem is given.187 In the Samaritan Pentateuch, Melkiṣedeq is associated with
Shalem—however it is located on the slopes of Mt. Gerizim.188 This serves the same
legitimating function; it gives Samaria the claim to first priesthood. In one manuscript of
the Samaritan Pentateuch, Shalem is rendered in as ‫שלמו‬, meaning “his peace” or “allied
with him,” according to Albright’s translation of Gen. 14:18.189 This interpretation is in
accord with the earlier rendering of Shalem as a city of Shechem in Gen. 33:18, and as a
northern Israelite worship center. The 2nd century BCE writer Pseudo-Eupolemus writes:
“He [Abraham] was accepted as a guest by the city at the temple of Argarizin
[that is, Mt. Gerizim] which means ‘mountain of the Most High.’ He also received
gifts from Melchizedek, who was a priest of God and king as well.”190
It is evident that there was a strong push to identify Melkiṣedeq with Gerizim to solidify
the Samaritans as the true followers of YHWH. However, according to Kugel, in the
considerably later Samaritan text Al-Asatir, there is no glorification of Melkiṣedeq, but
there is a very interesting alteration in the text, especially relevant to this thesis; at least

187
Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 6.438
188
Crowfoot, et al., The Buildings at Samaria (1st ed.; Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the
Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, no 1;
London: reprinted by Dawsons for the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1966).; Pearson,
“Melchizedek in Early Judaism”: 185.
189
Albright, “Abram the Hebrew”: 52.
190
Pseudo-Eupolemus, Frag. One, 5-6.; Cf. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the
Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1998): 283.; Crown, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (Texts and Studies in
Ancient Judaism 80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001): 7.
72

one manuscript of the Al-Asatir labels Melkiṣedeq as the king of Sodom and not
Shalem.191
The rendering of ‫ שלם‬as ‫ שלמו‬is most likely a theological change made during the
composition of the Samaritan Pentateuch, in order to place Melkiṣedeq and the
priesthood on Mt. Gerizim. The post-exilic relationship between Yehud and Samaria was
a constant struggle between the religious centers of Gerizim and Jerusalem, as made
evident from Achaemenid records and the Elephantine Papyri.192 The authoritative
groups of their respective provinces attempted to discredit one another in order to prove
the supreme divine authority of their own lands, resulting in two divergent traditions
supporting both Yehud and Samaria during the Persian Period. The ambiguity of the
Melkiṣedeq’s original locality allows his social memory to conform to the location of
specific groups, either by creating a false etymology of another city using the toponym
Shalem, or by altering the way that Shalem should be translated.
3.4 Melkiṣedeq in the Targumim
Beginning in the early Post-Exilic period, the need for targumim was in high
demand, as many of the Jewish returnees spoke Aramaic. The targumim originated as
verbally spoken translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic, but eventually became
solidified into various text recensions, containing large midrashim and expansions of the
biblical text.193 Many of these later expansions were used to explain troublesome

191
Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the
Common Era: 392.
192
Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2002).
193
Cathcart, et al. eds. Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin
McNamara ed., vol. 230 of Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
73

passages within the biblical text, including new explanations given for the identification
of Melkiṣedeq. In the three complete targum recensions of Gen. 14—Onqelos, Neofiti,
and Pseudo-Jonathan—the identity of Melkiṣedeq is described in similar manners in
order to resolve one of the problematic features of the original text of Gen. 14, namely,
that Melkiṣedeq was a Canaanite and therefore could not receive a tithe or be a priest of
YHWH. The targumists works around this problem within the social memory of
Melkiṣedeq by identifying him with Shem, the son of Noah and father of the Semites.194
The tradition of Melkiṣedeq as a Canaanite becomes especially problematic in the
Persian period with Ezra’s laws banning the intermixing of Judahites with local people,
the Am Haʾaretz.195 So, the targumists and the rabbis of the time used the dates of Shem’s
life to prove that Melkiṣedeq and Shem were one in the same, and that the name
Melkiṣedeq was merely the title “Righteous King” for Shem.196 Targum Onqelos, which
is generally considered to be the earliest targum, does not explicitly equate the two, but it
does state that he is the king of Jerusalem and not of Shalem, a concept continued
through all of the targums.197 The first textual reference to Melkiṣedeq as Shem appears
in TgNeof of Gen. 14:18, which states:
“Then Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, he was Shem the Great, brought out
bread and wine, and he was a priest serving in the high priesthood before God
Most High.”

194
McNamara, “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early
Christian Literature,” Biblica 81/ 1 (2000).
195
Cf. Ezra 10.
196
McNamara, “Melchizedek”: 23.
197
TgOnq of Gen. 14:18: “Then Melchizedek, the king of Jerusalem, brought out bread
and wine, and he was serving before God Most High.”
74

TgNeof is attempting to employ a similar strategy to that of 2 Enoch; both are referencing
a pre-diluvian character that is able to keep the priesthood intact in the post-deluge era.
Once again, the highly adaptable social memory of Melkiṣedeq allows his character to
thrive in multiple situations. In TgPsJ, his social memory is carried on even without his
name. TgPsJ represents Melkiṣedeq’s name as an epitaph for Shem the Great, who was a
righteous king of Jerusalem.198 The targumist demonstrates tactics of cleaning up
additional troubling parts of the Pentateuch; now, instead of Abram dealing with a
Canaanite priest-king of an ambiguous city, he is dealing with the son of Noah and in the
holy city Jerusalem and thus the social memory of Melkiṣedeq has expanded to include
those of Shem as well.
3.5 Melkiṣedeq in the Rabbinic Literature
Much in the same way of the targumists, the rabbis of the post-Jerusalem Temple
destruction world of Palestine altered Melkiṣedeq’s social memory to fit with the new
Jewish faith sans priesthood. The rabbis supported the identification of Melkiṣedeq as
Shem, however they also had several other creative measures to deal with the “otherness”
of Melkiṣedeq.199 One of the main problems that the rabbis noticed was in Gen. 14:19,
where Melkiṣedeq blessed Abram before he blessed YHWH. The rabbis saw this as a big
problem—so big that they attempted to take the priesthood away from Melkiṣedeq.

198
TgPsJ of Gen. 14:18: “Then the righteous king, who was Shem the son of Noah, king
of Jerusalem, came out towards Abram, and he brought out for him bread and wine. Now
at that time he was serving before God Most High.” TgPsJ also draws another connection
to another antediluvian character. In Gen. 14:13, the escapee from the battle that informs
Abram of Lot’s capture is said to be Og, who was the wicked giant king of Bashan. The
text describes Og as surviving the flood by riding on the side of Noah’s ark and surviving
on what he could steal from inside. This draws a dualistic comparison of good and evil
characters, who survived the flood in the narrative of Gen. 14.
199
McNamara, “Melchizedek”: 20.
75

Genesis Rabbah explains that this act so angered YHWH that at that moment, YHWH
transferred the priesthood to Abram, who eventually passed it on to Levi.200 Taking the
priesthood away from Melkiṣedeq cleans up the problematic nature of Melkiṣedeq’s
Canaanite origin, which is arguably the most difficult element of his social memory.
Melkiṣedeq only appears once in the Babylonian Talmud, in b. Nedarim 32b,
which deals both with Gen. 14 and Ps. 110, as well as the problematic blessing. B.Ned.
32 reads:
“R. Zechariah in the name of R. Ishmael said: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He,
sought to bring forth the priesthood from Shem, as it is said: “And he was the
priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). When he placed the blessing of Abraham
before the blessing of the Omnipresent, He brought it (the priesthood) forth from
Abraham as it is said: “And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abram of God
Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High (Gen.
14:19–20).” Abraham said to him: “Now is it the case that the blessing of a
servant should take precedence over the blessing of his master?” Immediately He
gave it (the priesthood) to Abraham, as it is said: “The Lord said to my lord...your
feet” (Ps. 110:1); and after it is written (Ps. 110:4), “The Lord has sworn and will
not repent: You are a priest forever ‫ על דברתי‬Melchizedek”—that is, because of
the word of Melchizedek.” And this corresponds to what is written (Gen. 14:18),
“And he, ‫והוא‬, was priest of God Most High.” He was priest, but his seed was not
a priest.’”
In this passage, it appears that the rabbis are attempting simultaneously to deal with the
odd syntax of ‫ על דברתי‬while using their correction to disprove Christian claims of
Melkiṣedeq at the time.201 By supplying Melkiṣedeq with a genealogy and removing the

200
Hertzberg, “Die Melkisedek-Tradition,” Pgs. 36-44 in Beiträge zur
Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments; (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1962): 40.
201
See: Simon, “Melchisédech dans la polémique entre juifs et chrétiens et dans la
Légende,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 27 (1947): 110.; Bowker, The
Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1969): 196-199.
76

priesthood from his seed, the rabbis are able to refute the Christian claims of an eternal
priesthood coming from one without mother or father as claimed in Heb. 7, essential
turning the social memory of Melkiṣedeq into an anti-Christian polemic.
The rabbinic literature also emphasizes the messianic and eschatological elements
of Melkiṣedeq present in Gen.14. Even though Melkiṣedeq is not directly related to
Abram’s victory, he is still tangentially related—a fact that allows his memory to
incorporate aspects of a conqueror. In Zech. 1:20, it is stated that there will be four
craftsmen that come to Jerusalem, and the text describes the actions the respective
craftsmen, but does not divulge the identity of any of them.202 However, in b. Sukkah
52b, the identities are given and one is referenced as the “Righteous Priest,” which could
be referencing Melkiṣedeq.203 This would accord with the later tradition that Melkiṣedeq
was the first king of Jerusalem.
Another point of contention among the rabbis is Melkiṣedeq’s circumcision. One
must be circumcised in order to be a priest to YHWH, but nowhere in the text does it
mention whether or not Melkiṣedeq is circumcised, as the topic of circumcision does not
even arise until Gen. 15. According to Rabbi Isaac the Babylonian, Melkiṣedeq must
have been born circumcised. He bases this exegesis on Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, who

202
Petuchowski, “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek”: 127-136.
203
B. Sukkah 52b: “And the Lord showed me four craftsmen. Who are these ‘four
craftsmen’? R. Hana b. Bizna citing R. Simeon Hasida replied: ‘The Messiah the son of
David, the Messiah the son of Joseph, Elijah, and the Righteous Priest’. R. Shesheth
objected, ‘If so, was it correct to write, “These are the horns which scattered Judah”,
seeing that they came to turn [them] back’? The other answered him, ‘Go to the end of
the verse: These then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations,
which lifted up their horns against the Land of Judah, to scatter it, etc.’ ‘Why’, said R.
Shesheth to him, ‘should I argue with Hana in Aggada’”?
77

states, “Circumcision makes one complete, perfect, or ‫שלם‬.”204 This would make
Melkiṣedeq a ‫מלך שלם‬, or “complete king,” one who was born circumcised, thus adding
another layer to the ever-expanding tradition and social memory of Melkiṣedeq. There
are many other small rabbinic interpretations dealing with Melkiṣedeq’s interactions
(e.g., the details of the bread and wine, etc.), but these main points show his problematic
and important nature within the Jewish mindset.205
3.6 Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus’ interpretations of Melkiṣedeq
In the 1st century CE, there were two prolific Jewish writers of the time that would
go on to influence later Jewish writers for centuries: Philo of Alexandria and Flavius
Josephus. Philo was a Jewish philosopher that wrote many works in the first half of the
1st century CE, and among his vast corpus of literature three works are especially
important for this study: De Congressu, On Abraham, and his Allegorical Interpretation
of Genesis III.206 Philo’s biggest contribution to the social memory of Melkiṣedeq is his
dissection of the term “king of righteousness” and his office of “great priest,” which leads
to his identification of Melkiṣedeq as the Logos.
In a section of his work De Congressu, Philo is concerned with providing a proof-
text for the practice of temple tithing and uses Melkiṣedeq as his precedent.207 Philo
writes:

204
Hertzberg, Hans Willhelm. 1962. “Die Melkisedek-Tradition.” In Beiträge zur
Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments, 36-44. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
205
For more information, see Ch. 19 in: Hayward, Targums and the Transmission of
Scripture into Judaism and Christianity (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of
Scripture 10; ed. Flesher; Leiden: Brill, 2010).
206
Seland, Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2014).
207
Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: 55.
78

“For the first and best thing in ourselves is our reason, and it is very proper to
offer up the first-fruits of our cleverness, and acuteness, and comprehension, and
prudence, and of all our other faculties which we have in connection with our
reason as first-fruits to God, who has bestowed upon us this great abundance of
power of exerting our intelligence. (99) From this consideration it was, that Jacob,
the practicer of virtue, at the beginning of his prayers, says: “Of all that thou
givest me, I will set apart and consecrate a tenth to thee” (Gen. 28:22). And the
sacred scripture, which was written after the prayers on occasion of victory, which
Melchisedek, who had received a self-instructed and self-taught priesthood,
makes, says: “For he gave him a tenth of all things” (Gen. 14:20), assigning to
him the outward senses the faculty of feeling properly, and by the same sense of
speech the faculty of speaking well, and by the senses connected with the mind
the faculty of thinking well.”208
In this section, Philo exemplifies the innate nature of Melkiṣedeq’s priesthood.209 By
highlighting the unlearned nature of Melkiṣedeq, Philo is adding an interesting element to
his social memory: now he has received his instruction directly from YHWH from the
beginning. This is the smallest section concerning Melkiṣedeq in the corpus of Philo,
however, it provides the basis for understanding Melkiṣedeq as the Logos.
In his work, On Abraham, Philo details the life of Abraham, including Gen. 14
and his encounter with the “High Priest.” Philo lays out a fairly canonical approach to the
text of Gen. 14:18-20, however, he does add several new aspects. Philo states that when
Abraham had returned from his campaign against Chedorlaomer and his cohort, he had
not lost a single man from his 318, which is an unexpected feat. Philo says that
Melkiṣedeq was so impressed by this that he brought out food and wine to his men and
blessed them. Line 235 of On Abraham reads:

208
See Philo, “De Congressu quaerendae Eruditionis gratia,” translated by Yonge; in The
Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus; London: H. G. Bohn, 1854):
2:157-194.
209
Seland, Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria.
79

“And when the great high priest of the most high God beheld him returning and
coming back loaded with trophies, in safety himself, with all his own force
uninjured, for he had not lost one single man of all those who went out with him;
marveling at the greatness of the exploit, and, as was very natural, considering
that he had never met with this success but through the favour of the divine
wisdom and alliance, he raised his hands to heaven, and honoured him with
prayers in his behalf, and offered up sacrifices of thanksgiving for his victory, and
splendidly feasted all those who had had a share in the expedition; rejoicing and
sympathising with him as if the success had been his own, and in reality it did
greatly concern him.”210
In this interpretation, Philo is exalting Abraham while he sets Melkiṣedeq subservient to
his conquest. Philo’s interpretation supports the theory that the interaction between
Melkiṣedeq and Abram served as a peace treaty. This description of Melkiṣedeq also fits
with De Congressu and shows that Melkiṣedeq’s priesthood prefigured anything of its
kind. The work overall does not deal much with the social memory of Melkiṣedeq, but it
does progress the innate nature of Melkiṣedeq’s priestly status.
The most important treatment of Melkiṣedeq by Philo is in his third book of the
Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis. Here, Philo explicitly states that Melkiṣedeq was a
peaceful (‫ )שלם‬king who was worthy of a priesthood—a novel claim—making him the
first priest of YHWH.211 Philo is attempting to show how YHWH is working through
Melkiṣedeq to influence Abram. In contrast to the inhospitable reception of Moses and
the Hebrews following the Exodus by the Ammonites and Moabites, Melkiṣedeq, who

210
Daniélou and Colbert, Philo of Alexandria (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014).
211
Line 79: “Moreover, God made Melchisedek, the king of peace, that is of Salem, for
that is the interpretation of this name, “his own high Priest” (Gen. 14:18.), without having
previously mentioned any particular action of his, but merely because he had made him a
king, and a lover of peace, and especially worthy of his priesthood.” Philo, “Allegorical
Interpretation of Genesis,” translated by Colson and Whitaker; in Philo: Volume I, (Loeb
Classical Library 226; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
80

was living in the land allotted to Abram, received him openly with bread, and rather than
water, offered wine: “But Melchisedek shall bring forward wine instead of water, and
shall give your souls to drink, and shall cheer them with unmixed wine, in order that they
may be wholly occupied with a divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself.”212
The essence of Melkiṣedeq exudes the divinity of YHWH and exhibits the hospitality that
Jews are supposed to show to travelers, possibly referencing the treatment of strangers by
the inhabitants of Sodom in Gen. 18-19. Philo uses the memory of Melkiṣedeq being
associated with peace (‫ )שלם‬to elevate the Jewish priesthood among all others in the land,
because it was a pre-existent priesthood associated with the Logos.213 This interpretation
fuels the later traditions that build off of the social memory of Melkiṣedeq, who possesses
an innate, untaught priesthood, and is associated with the Logos.
Flavius Josephus was a 1st century CE Roman Jewish historian, who was tasked
by the Emperor Vespasian to give an account of the history of his people. Josephus
composed two of the most influential works of Jewish History, The Antiquities of the
Jews and The Jewish Wars, the former of which is of direct importance to this study.
Within the text of Antiquities, Josephus describes Melkiṣedeq as a Canaanite priest-king
of Solyma, meaning Shalem, who is a priest of God Most High.214 It is interesting to note
that Josephus, who is attempting to show the ancient roots of Judaism to his Roman
audience, does not try to force Melkiṣedeq into a Jewish role. Rather, he addresses his

212
See line 82 in ibid.
213
This could be understood as an anti-Christian polemic against the John’s description
of Jesus as the Logos, or vice versa. John could have been channeling this work when he
associated Jesus with the Logos, due to the association of Jesus with Melkiṣedeq in Heb.
7, which most likely dates to earlier than John.
214
Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (New updated ed.; trans.
Whiston; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987).
81

Canaanite heritage and devotion to a possible pagan deity, depending on how the text is
translated. Josephus then portrays the exchange between Melkiṣedeq and Abram as a
positive endeavor, and that Abram gave to Melkiṣedeq from his “prey,” or spoils of war,
making sure to remedy the ambiguous problem in Gen. 14:20 of Abram giving recovered
property stolen from the king of Sodom to the king of Shalem.215 As for Sodom, Josephus
attempts to make it look even worse than it does in the canonical text, referencing the
wickedness of Sodom and portraying the king of Sodom as trying to prey on Abram,
correcting the canonical text of Gen. 14, which is one of only two instances in the Bible
where no such condemnation of Sodom appears.
From the Roman point of view, Josephus’ portrayal of Melkiṣedeq does not at
first appear to promote the view of the Jews, but this work instead adds to the social
memory of Melkiṣedeq. Melkiṣedeq is portrayed as the exact opposite of Sodom; he is
welcome and inviting compared to the predatory nature of Sodom in the text.
Melkiṣedeq’s warm reception of Abram in Jerusalem could also be designed to repair the
reputation of Jerusalem after the second Jewish revolt. By making Melkiṣedeq and his
city, Jerusalem, appear to be a place of utmost hospitality, it offered to Rome a
multicultural and peacefully accommodating view of Jerusalem, with its first priest—a
Canaanite—possessing strong merit and morals. Thus, the social memory of Melkiṣedeq
is strengthened by Josephus’ treatment, who employed him to improve Jerusalem’s
reputation in the eyes of the Romans.

215
Josephus, et al., Joseph’s Bible Notes = Hypomnestikon (Texts and translations /
Society of Biblical Literature 41; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996).
82

3.7 Melkiṣedeq in the Early Christian World
Outside of Qumran, the early Christians gave Melkiṣedeq the most transformative
treatment. His status as a “positive other” within Judaism made his character the perfect
launching point for a sectarian movement that no longer wished to be perceived as
“Jewish.”216 This concept is exemplified in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author of
Hebrews combed through the social memory of Melkiṣedeq and chose the most
influential traditions, and then applied them to Jesus in an attempt to make Melkiṣedeq’s
appearance in Gen. 14 a Christophany. The early Christians acted in a stereotypical
sectarian way by attributing these extraordinary stories and powers to their charismatic
leader posthumously. The use of Melkiṣedeq promoted Jesus following his death from
being an apocalyptic prophet to the status of a priest-king that joined the world creatio ex
nihilo—an act that would spur many more traditions to come.
Heb. 7 attempts to portray Melkiṣedeq in an enigmatic light in order to make him
as malleable as possible. The chapter begins with dissecting the etymology of
“Melkiṣedeq” and “Melek Shalem,” or “King of Peace,” citing that they are both
referencing the righteousness and peacefulness of the character of Melkiṣedeq.217 This is
designed to reflect the positive nature of Jesus and solidify his reputation as the king of
the Jews. By allying Jesus with an outside king that was understood to have been given a
tithe by the Hebrew patriarch, the author of Hebrews is able to elevate Jesus above
Abraham, who was said to have received the priesthood from Melkiṣedeq in rabbinic
literature. Not only does the social memory of Melkiṣedeq allow Jesus to supersede the

216
Levine and Brettler, The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard
Version Bible Translation (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011): 414.
217
Ibid.
83

Levitical priesthood, it elevates him above the perceived notion of Abraham’s priesthood
evolving at the same time.
The genealogy of Melkiṣedeq plays an important role in developing the character
of Jesus as well. Heb. 7:3 states, “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having
neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a
priest forever.”218 By highlighting Melkiṣedeq’s lack of genealogy, the author of
Hebrews suggests a stronger claim by which to identify Jesus as eternal and pre-existent.
As with all biblical characters that do not have a record of their birth or death recorded in
the Bible, Melkiṣedeq has a privileged status accorded to him. This is different than
Matthew and Luke’s recorded (albeit somewhat confusing) narratives of Jesus’ birth and
death, which were told to portray him as fully mortal. But, a movement based on the
return of a savior cannot have said savior rooted in mortality, as it undermines the
purpose of the movement’s eschatology. Thus, by understanding the sudden appearance
of Melkiṣedeq as an ancient theophany, it provided Jesus with a precedent for his claimed
ability to transcend time and space and to be disconnected from the corporeal body that
one might have expected form an apocalyptic Messiah.
The memory of Melkiṣedeq provides still another function for early Christianity.
Jewish legal precedent within the biblical text strictly prohibits the merging of the roles
of priest and king. However, because Melkiṣedeq is said to have done so, and to have
received the endorsement of a tithe from Abram himself, he became an appealing
precedent for this kind of vocational merger. Just as the Hasmoneans used Melkiṣedeq in
Ps. 110:4—whether the verse was inserted or not—to legitimize the priesthood of

218
Ibid.
84

Melkiṣedeq and therefore their claims to both offices of king and high priest, the early
Christians use the priesthood of Melkiṣedeq to legitimize Jesus as Davidic king and as
High Priest.219 The Melkiṣedeq tradition is key to understanding the heavenly elevation
of Jesus; without the precedent established in Gen. 14 and Ps. 110, Melkiṣedeq’s lack of
genealogy, the ties to ‫שלם‬, the role of priest-king, and the innate nature of the priesthood,
Christianity would not have been able to draw the same conclusions with the elevated
Christology of Jesus.220
Heb. 7 creates two new layers in the social memory of Melkiṣedeq; first, it ties
Melkiṣedeq to Jesus creating a new familial line in the divine family. Second, it elevates
Melkiṣedeq to a heavenly place within the divine hierarchy. Both elements become
expanded in later texts in late antiquity. The “canonical” tradition exemplifies the
characteristics of Melkiṣedeq that accord with the innate nature of Christ. For example,
Justin claims that the priesthood of Melkiṣedeq is uncircumcised and therefore gentiles
can readily become apart of it.221 But, Melkiṣedeq is just as much at home in the sectarian
Christian world as he was in the Jewish world. The Theodotians and the Melchizedekain
heresies as described by Epiphanus viewed Melkiṣedeq as a higher divinity than Jesus;

219
Granerød, “Melchizedek in Hebrews 7,” Biblica 90/ 1 (2009).
220
Fitzmyer, ““Now This Melchizedek...” (Heb 7,1),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25
(1963).
221
For more information of Melkiṣedeq in the Orthodox church, see: Fitzmyer,
“Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the NT”.; Granerød, “Melchizedek in Hebrews 7,”
ibid. 90/ 1 (2009).; Kennedy, “St. Paul’s conception of the priesthood of Melchisedech:
an historico-exegetical investigation” (Thesis, Catholic University of America, 1951).;
Needham, Melchizedek and Aaron as Types of Christ: The Royal Priest (New York: C.
C. Cook, 1904).; Mitchell, Hebrews (Sacra Pagina 13; ed. Harrington; Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 2007).
85

they argued he was the intermediary between Jesus and God.222 His memories also fueled
many Gnostic traditions as well, such as the Melkiṣedeq tractate found among the Nag
Hammadi codices, the Books of Jeu, the Balaʾizah fragment, and the Pistis Sophia.223 The
evolution of the social memory of Melkiṣedeq in early Christianity spawned many
traditions that stretch beyond the scope or focus of this work, but the tradition is alive and
ever-changing even in the modern world. From the earliest forms of Jewish sectarianism
to the rise of what is arguably the most populous Jewish sect, Christianity, the social
memory Melkiṣedeq has played an extremely important role in the development of their
ideologies.

222
For more on this topic see: Warfield and Warfield, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine
(New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1930).; Rebillard, Transformations of
Religious Practices in Late Antiquity (Variorum collected studies series; Farnham,
Surrey, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013).; Stortz, “Exegesis, Orthodoxy and
Ethics Interpretations of Romans in the Pelagian Controversy” (Ph D, University of
Chicago, 1984).; Pearson, “Melchizedek in Early Judaism”.
223
For more information on Melkiṣedeq in Gnosticism see: Giversen and Pearson,
“Melchizedek (IX,1),” Pgs. 438-444 in Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. Robinson;
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996).; Culture and Pearson, Philo and the Gnostics on Man and
Salvation: Protocol of the Twenty-ninth Colloquy, 17 April, 1977 (Protocol Series of the
Colloquies of the Center 29; Berkeley, CA: The Center, 1977).; Funk, et al.,
Melchisédek: NH IX, 1: oblation, baptême et vision dans la gnose séthienne
(Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Textes 28; Québec, Louvain, and Paris:
Les Presses de l’Université Laval and Peeters, 2001).; Pearson, “The Figure of
Melchizedek in Gnostic Literature,” Journal of Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian
Christianity 62 (2006).
86

Conclusion
The social memory of Melkiṣedeq has formed a tradition that has stood for millennia, and
his enigmatic presence and adaptive nature have allowed his memory to flourish among
sectarian groups. The initial social memory of Melkiṣedeq consisted of his role as priest-
king, the supposed first priest of YHWH, or ʾEl ʿElyon. He came to be known for his lack
of genealogy and as establishing the precedent for tithing. When combined together, his
character has the potentiality to adapt to many diverse situations, much like Darwin’s
finches. The study of a memory or group of memories can shed new and interesting
perspectives on how society changes and on the different exegetical needs those groups
require. With the case of Melkiṣedeq, it is the contention of the present thesis that the
point of origin for the Melkiṣedeq tradition lies in pre-biblical Canaan, and that “Abram
the Hebrew” was added to the narrative at a later date. Thus, the figure of Melkiṣedeq is
original to the narrative and not a product of later Second Temple scribal activity.224 This
is the basis for the social memory of Melkiṣedeq.
It is evident that the narrative of Gen. 14 is about the relationship between Abram
and the king of Sodom—a relationship that possibly prefigures his attempt to spare
Sodom from the destruction of YHWH. This relationship makes sense if we understand
Melkiṣedeq to be the king of Sodom. The social memory of Melkiṣedeq underwent many
changes in its early conception. Initially we are presented with the priest-king of Sodom
who was a worshipper of ʾEl ʿElyon or most possibly ʾEl and ʿElyon, who cut a peace
treaty with the rescuer of his people. However, when this narrative was being edited into

224
Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek: 170.
87

the larger book of Genesis during the Exilic or post-Exilic period, certain elements of the
story were no longer theologically acceptable. No longer could the Jewish patriarch,
Abram, have financial dealings or an exchange of blessings with the king of Sodom.
Likewise, no longer could a Canaanite prefigure the modern Jerusalem priesthood,
especially a Sodomite. So, the redactors changed his character to fit the conventions of
the day by making him Jewish and demarcating him as a priest of YHWH. It is at this
point now that the Jewish meta-narrative of Melkiṣedeq begins.
The sudden appearance of a priest-king of the previously unmentioned city of
Shalem caused alarm and subsequent confusion, which the various sectarian groups that
were reading him certainly recognized. The first departure from the traditional source of
Gen. 14 is Ps. 110.225 This psalm (and especially the LXX translation of this psalm)
introduces the world to the “Order of Melkiṣedeq,” a priesthood that encapsulates and
supersedes not only the Levitical priesthood, but also the Davidic monarchy. Hasmonean
redactors of the book of Psalms saw the perfect chance to solidify their roles as priest-
kings in the newly independent Judaea by reinterpreting this earlier enthronement psalm
and either by adding Melkiṣedeq as precedent, or interpreting him as one. It is during this
period of conflicting views about what it means to be Jewish that social memory and the
identification of a group around an individual character began to rise.
As it was shown in chapter three through the case studies of Second Temple
sectarian groups and movements, the ambiguity of the Melkiṣedeq’s character allowed
his social memory to expand exponentially. It is apparent to the present researcher that

225
In his book, The Melchizedek Tradition, Horton argues that Ps. 110 is the earliest form
of the Melkiṣedeq tradition. However through the demonstration presented in chapter
two, it is likely that Melkiṣedeq is a later Hasmonean insertion.
88

given the amount of extant literature discussing Melkiṣedeq and his role in Jewish and
early Christian divine hierarchies, there was a large and popular tradition surrounding
Melkiṣedeq—certainly larger than what we know today. His role as a priest that lies
outside the Levitical tradition created a sense of dissention among the people and allowed
groups to circumvent the Jerusalem Temple. The elite group of priests and later
Sadducees that managed the Temple restricted temple ideology and practices to their
small minority. In response to this, the need for an alternative priesthood in the Persian
and Hellenistic periods became a popular endeavor. The community responsible for the
Dead Sea Scrolls, the book of 2 Enoch, and the early Christians all portray Melkiṣedeq as
a priest that exists outside of the corporeal boundaries of life and on the same plane as
YHWH. This allowed them to escape their meek lives as sectarian groups persecuted by
the powers that be, and to idealize their communities as priestly communities faithful to
YHWH. Philo and the rabbinic literature attempted to understand Melkiṣedeq as a
problematic figure in the Hebrew text because he exists as a positive other, and who was
awarded the same treatment as a Jew, even though he was not one.
The social memory of Melkiṣedeq culminates in a large meta-narrative that exists
outside of conventional ethnic and societal boundaries of time; he exists as positive
“other” in the Hebrew world. As a Canaanite with a privileged status, Melkiṣedeq could
transcend communities that would otherwise exclude certain Hebrew characters. This is
the true draw to his tradition for so many groups of people; there is a great deal to be said
about identifying with an outsider that still portrays the values of one’s group. It is
amazing to witness the transformation of a bronze age Canaanite local priest-king into a
heavenly judge, a pre-existent being, and the intermediary between the savior of the
89

world and God. For a relatively insignificant character in the canonical text, Melkiṣedeq
exemplifies the diversity, uniqueness, and innovation of the scribes and sectarian groups
of the Second Temple Period.
90

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaron, David H., “Reflections on a Cognitive Theory of Culture and a Theory of
Formalized Language for Late Biblical Studies.” Pages 451-‐474 in Remembering
Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic periods: Social Memory and
Imagination. Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013.

Aitken, J. K. and James Carleton Paget, The Jewish-‐Greek Tradition in Antiquity and
the Byzantine Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Albright, William Foxwell. “Shinar-‐Šanǧar and Its Monarch Amraphel.” American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 40 (1924): 125-‐133.

Albright, William Foxwell. “The Historical Background of Genesis XIV.” Journal of the
Society of Oriental Research 10 (1926): 231-‐269.

Albright, William Foxwell. “Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological
Interpretation.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (1961): 36-‐
54.

Albright, William Foxwell, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of
Two Contrasting Faiths. The Jordan Lectures, 1965; Jordan Lectures in Comparative
Religion, 7. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968.

Alexander, Philip S., “Geography and the Bible: Early Jewish Geography.” Pages 977-‐
988 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.

Andersen, Francis I., “Genesis 14: An Enigma.” Pages 497-‐508 in Pomegranates and
Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature
in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David Pearson Wright, David Noel Freedman,
and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.

Anderson, Charles Edo. “Who Was Melchizedek? A Suggested Emendation of Gen.
14:18.” Hebraica 19/ 3 (1903): 176-‐177.

Aschim, Anders, “Melchizedek the Liberator: An Early Interpretation of Genesis 14?”
Pages 243-‐258 in Society of Biblical Literature 1996 Seminar Papers. Vol. 35 of
Society of Biblical Literature Semonar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996.

Aschim, Anders, “The Genre of 11QMelchizedek.” Pages 17-‐31 in Qumran between
the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson.
Vol. 290 of Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
91

Astour, Michael C., “Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and in its
Babylonian Sources.” Pages 65-‐112 in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transforamtion.
Vol. 3 of Studies and Texts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Barton, George A. “A Liturgy for the Celebration of the Spring Festival at Jerusalem
in the Age of Abraham and Melchizedek.” Journal of Biblical Literature 53/ 1 (1934):
61-‐67.

Batto, Bernard F., “Zedeq.” Pages 929-‐934 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the
Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst.
Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Baumgarten, Albert I., The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary.
Leiden: Brill, 1981.

Baumgarten, Joseph M., “The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personification of Ṣedeq in
Jewish Apocalyptic.” Pages 219-‐239 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt:
Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by Hildegard
Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1979.

Beckman, Gary M. and Harry A. Hoffner, Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Writings from the
Ancient World 7. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996.

Ben Zvi, Ehud, “The Memory of Abraham in Late Persian/Early Hellenistic
Yehud/Judah.” Pages 3-‐37 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and
Early Hellenistic periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by Diana Vikander
Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Bird, Chad. “Typological Interpretation within the Old Testament: Melchizedekian
Typology.” Concordia Journal 26 (2000): 36-‐52.

Boccaccini, Gabriele, Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten
Connection. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

Boccaccini, Gabriele, Giovanni Ibba, Jason von Ehrenkrook, James Alan Waddell, and
Jason Zurawski, Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2009.

Bötterich, Christfried. “The Melchizedek Story of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reaction to
A. Orlov.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman
Period 32 (2001): 445-‐470.

Bowker, John Westerdale, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to
Jewish Interpretations of Scripture. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

92

Briant, Pierre, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Calvin, Jean, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis. Translated by
John King. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948.

Carmignac, Jean, Les textes de Qumran. 2 vols., Autour de la Bible. Paris: Letouzey et
Ané, 1961.

Carmignac, Jean, Christ and the Teacher of Righteousness: The Evidence of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1962.

Cathcart, Kevin J., Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara eds. Targumic and Cognate
Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara. Vol. 230 of Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Cheyne, T. K. and J. Sutherland Black, Encyclopædia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of
the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archæology, Geography, and Natural
History of the Bible. 4 vols. New York: Macmillan Company; etc., 1899.

Climo, Jacob and Maria G. Cattell, Social Memory and History: Anthropological
Perspectives. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002.

Cline, Eric H., From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible. Washington, DC:
National Geographic Society, 2007.

Cockerill, Gareth Lee. “Melchizedek or “King of Righteousness”?”. Evangelical
Quarterly 63 (1991): 305-‐312.

Cohen, Chaim, “Genesis 14 -‐ An Early Israelite Chronographic Source.” Pages 67-‐107
in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Edited by K. Lawson Younger,
William W. Hallo, and Bernard Frank Batto. Vol. 4 of Scripture in Context. Lewiston,
NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991.

Collins, John J., The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic
Literature. 2nd ed., The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.

Collins, John J., The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.

Collins, John Joseph, “Messiahs in Context: Method in the Study of Messianism in the
Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 213-‐229 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by
Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee. Vol. 722 of
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of
Sciences, 1994.
93

Conley, Aaron D., We Are Who We Think We Were: Christian History and Christian
Ethics. Emerging Scholars. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013.

Cornelius, Friedrich. “Genesis XIV.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
72 (1960): 1-‐7.

Crowfoot, J. W., Kathleen M. Kenyon, and Eleazar Lipa Sukenik, The Buildings at
Samaria. 1st ed., Samaria-‐Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in
1931-‐1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, no 1. London: reprinted by
Dawsons for the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1966.

Crown, Alan David, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts. Texts and Studies in Ancient
Judaism 80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.

Culture, Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern and Birger A.
Pearson, Philo and the Gnostics on Man and Salvation: Protocol of the Twenty-‐ninth
Colloquy, 17 April, 1977. Protocol Series of the Colloquies of the Center 29. Berkeley,
CA: The Center, 1977.

Daniélou, Jean and James G. Colbert, Philo of Alexandria. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books,
2014.

Davies, Philip R. and Diana Vikander Edelman eds. The Historian and the Bible:
Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe. Vol. 530 of The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament Studies. London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2010.

Day, John, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the
Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 270 Edited by David Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield,
England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

de Vaux, Roland. “The Hebrew Patriarchs and History.” Theology Digest 12 (1964):
227-‐240.

Delcor, M. “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the
Hebrews.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 2 (1971): 115-‐135.

Della Vida, G. Levi. “El ʿElyon in Genesis 14:18-‐20.” Journal of Biblical Literature 63
(1944): 1-‐9.

Donner, Herbert and Wolfgang Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. 5.,
erw. und überarbeitete Aufl. ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002.

94

Edelman, Diana Vikander and Ehud Ben Zvi, Remembering Biblical Figures in the
Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. 1st ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Elgavish, David, “The Encounter of Abram and Melchizedek King of Salem: A
Covenant Establishing Ceremony.” Pages 495-‐508 in Studies in the Book of Genesis.
Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. Vol. 155 of Bibliotheca
ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001.

Emerton, John A. “The Riddle of Genesis XIV.” Vetus Testamentum 21/ 1 (1971): 403-‐
439.

Emerton, John A. “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV.” Vetus Testamentum
21/ 1 (1971): 4-‐47.

Emerton, John A., “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis XIV 18).”
Pages 45-‐71 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by John A. Emerton. Vol. 41 of Vetus
Testamentum Supplements. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.

Emerton, John A., “Some Problems in Genesis XIV.” Pages 73-‐102 in Studies in the
Pentateuch. Edited by John A. Emerton. Vol. 41 of Vetus Testamentum Supplements.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.

Fabry, Heinz-‐Josef, “Melchisedek.” Pages 79-‐81 in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche.
Edited by Walter Kasper and Konrad Baumgartner. Freiburg: Herder, 1993-‐2001.

Fentress, James and Chris Wickham, Social Memory. New Perspectives on the Past.
Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. ““Now This Melchizedek...” (Heb 7,1).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
25 (1963): 305-‐321.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. Biblica et orientalia Sacra
Scriptura antiquitatibus orientalibus illustrata, 19. Rome: Pontificial Biblical
Institute, 1967.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the NT.” Biblica 81 (2000): 63-‐
69.

French, Scot. “What is Social Memory?”. Southern Cultures 2/ 1 (1995): 9-‐18.

Funk, Wolf-‐Peter, Jean-‐Pierre Mahé, and Claudio Gianotto, Melchisédek: NH IX, 1:
oblation, baptême et vision dans la gnose séthienne. Bibliothèque copte de Nag
Hammadi, Section Textes 28. Québec, Louvain, and Paris: Les Presses de l’Université
Laval and Peeters, 2001.

95

Gammie, John G. “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:18-‐20.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 90/ 4 (1971): 385-‐396.

García Martínez, Florentino, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Atudies on the Aramaic Texts
from Qumran. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 9. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992.

García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran
Cave 11. Vol. 2, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 23 Edited by Emanuel Tov. Oxford
and New York: Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press, 1998.

García-‐Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study
Edition. Paperback ed. 2 vols. Leiden and Grand Rapids: Brill and Eerdmans, 2000.

Gevirtz, S. “Abram’s 318.” Israel Exploration Journal 19/ 2 (1969): 110-‐113.

Giversen, S. and A. Pearson, “Melchizedek (IX,1).” Pages 438-‐444 in Nag Hammadi
Library in English. Edited by James M. Robinson. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996.

Glissmann, Volker. “Genesis 14: A Diaspora Novella?”. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 34/ 1 (2009): 33-‐45.

Granerød, Gard. “Melchizedek in Hebrews 7.” Biblica 90/ 1 (2009): 188-‐202.

Granerød, Gard, Abraham and Melchizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times
in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft Bd. 406. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010.

Habel, Norman C. “Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 91 (1972): 321-‐337.

Halbwachs, Maurice and Jeanne Halbwachs Alexandre, La mémoire collective.
Ouvrage posthume publié. 1 ed., Bibliothèque de sociologie contemporaine. Paris:
Presses universitaires de France, 1950.

Hay, David M., Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBL
Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

Hayward, Robert, Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and
Christianity. Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 10 Edited by Paul V.
M. Flesher. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Hendel, Ronald S. “Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives.”
Biblical Archaeology Review 21/ 4 (1994): 52-‐59, 70-‐72.

Hendel, Ronald S., Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the
Hebrew Bible. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
96

Hertzberg, Hans Willhelm, “Die Melkisedek-‐Tradition.” Pages 36-‐44 in Beiträge zur
Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1962.

Hinchman, Lewis P. and Sandra Hinchman, Memory, Identity, Community: The Idea of
Narrative in the Human Sciences. SUNY series in the philosophy of the social
sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Horton, Fred L., The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to
the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 30 Edited by Matthew Black. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.

Huffmon, Herbert Bardwell, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural
and Lexical Study. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.

Jefferson, H. G. “Is Psalm 110 Canaanite?”. Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (1954):
152-‐156.

Johnson, Aubrey R., Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Cardiff: Wales U.P.,
1967.

Josephus, Robert M. Grant, and Glen W. Menzies, Joseph’s Bible Notes =
Hypomnestikon. Texts and translations / Society of Biblical Literature 41. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars Press, 1996.

Josephus, Flavius, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by
William Whiston. New updated ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.

Kennedy, Gerald Thomas. “St. Paul’s conception of the priesthood of Melchisedech:
an historico-‐exegetical investigation.” Thesis, Catholic University of America, 1951.

Kitchen, Kenneth A., On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2003.

Knohl, Israel, “A Model for the Union of Kingship and Priesthood in the Hebrew
Bible, 11QMelchizedek, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 255-‐266 in Text,
Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity. Edited by Ruth A. Clements
and Daniel R. Schwartz. Vol. 84 of Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah. Leiden:
Brill, 2004.

Kobelski, Paul J., Melchizedek and Melchireša’. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Monograph Series 10. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1981.

97

Kooten, Geurt Hendrik van and J. van Ruiten, The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet
Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Themes in Biblical Narrative 11.
Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008.

Kugel, James L., Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of
the Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Levine, Amy-‐Jill and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New
Revised Standard Version Bible Translation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press, 2011.

Luther, Martin, Commentary on Genesis. Translated by J. Theodore Muller. 2 vols.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958.

MacKay, Cameron. “Salem.” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 80
(1948): 121-‐130.

Mason, Eric Farrel, ‘You are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and
the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Studies on the Texts of the
Desert of Judah 74. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Mathews, Joshua G., Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional
Analysis of Genesis 14:18-‐20 and its Echoes throughout the Tanak. Bulletin for Biblical
Research Supplements 8. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

McCarthy, Carmel, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the
Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 36. Freiburg,
Schweiz and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.

McNamara, Martin. “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-‐20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and
Early Christian Literature.” Biblica 81/ 1 (2000): 1-‐31.

Michener, Ronald T., Engaging Deconstructive Theology. Ashgate New Critical
Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies. Aldershot, England and
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007.

Mitchell, Alan C., Hebrews. Sacra Pagina 13 Edited by Daniel J. Harrington.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007.

Morschauser, Scott. “Campaigning on Less Than a Shoe-‐String: An Ancient Egyptian
Parallel to Abram’s ‘Oath’ in Genesis 14.22-‐23.” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 38/ 2 (2013): 127-‐144.

Needham, George C., Melchizedek and Aaron as Types of Christ: The Royal Priest. New
York: C. C. Cook, 1904.

98

Noveck, Simon, Great Jewish Personalities in Ancient and Medieval Times. The B’nai
B’rith Great Books Series 1. New York: Farrar, 1959.

Orlov, Andrej. “Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch.” Journal for the Study of
Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 31 (2000): 23-‐38.

Patrich, Joseph, “Khirbet Qumran in Light of New Archaeological Explorations in the
Qumran Caves.” Pages 73-‐96 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O.
Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee. Vol. 722 of Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994.

Pearson, Birger A., “Melchizedek in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism.”
Pages 176-‐202 in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Edited by Michael E. Stone and
Theodore A. Bergren. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002.

Pearson, Birger A. “The Figure of Melchizedek in Gnostic Literature.” Journal of
Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity 62 (2006): 108-‐123.

Petuchowski, Jakob Josef. “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek.” Hebrew Union
College Annual (1957): 127-‐136.

Philo, ed. De Congressu quaerendae Eruditionis gratia. of The Works of Philo Judaeus,
the Contemporary of Josephus. London: H. G. Bohn, 1854.

Philo, ed. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis. Vol. Loeb Classical Library 226. of
Philo: Volume I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Radau, Hugo. “Hammurabi and Amraphel.” The Open Court 17/ 12 (1903): 705-‐707.

Rebillard, Éric, Transformations of Religious Practices in Late Antiquity. Variorum
collected studies series. Farnham, Surrey, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013.

Rosenberg, Roy A. “The God Ṣedeq.” Hebrew Union College Annual 36 (1965): 161-‐
177.

Rowley, H. H. “Zadok and Nehustan.” Journal of Biblical Literature 58/ 2 (1939):
113-‐42.

Sasson, Jack M. “About ‘Mari and the Bible’.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie
orientale 92 (1998): 97-‐123.

Sayce, Archibald H. “The Archaeology of Genesis 14.” Expository Times 17 (1905):
498-‐504.

99

Sayce, Archibald H. “The Chedor-‐Laomer Tablets.” Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology 28/ 6 (1906): 193-‐200, 241-‐251.

Schatz, Werner, Genesis 14: Eine Untersuchung. Europäische Hochschulschriften
23/2. Bern and Frankfurt: Herbert Lang and Peter Lang, 1972.

Schrader, Eberhard. “Die keilschriftliche babylonische Königsliste.” Sitzungsberichte
der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 31 (1887): 579-‐
607.

Seland, Torrey, Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2014.

Simon, M. “Melchisédech dans la polémique entre juifs et chrétiens et dans la
Légende.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 27 (1947): 93–113.

Simons, Jan Jozef, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to
Western Asia. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1937.

Skinner, Andrew C., Prophets, Priests, and Kings: Old Testament Figures who
Symbolize Christ. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2005.

Speiser, E. A. “A Figurative Equivalent for Totality in Akkadian and West-‐ Semitic.”
Journal of the American Oriental Society 54 (1934): 200-‐203.

Speiser, E. A., Genesis. 1st ed., The Anchor Bible 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.

Stortz, Martha Ellen. “Exegesis, Orthodoxy and Ethics Interpretations of Romans in
the Pelagian Controversy.” Ph D, University of Chicago, 1984.

Tov, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2012.

Tov, Emanuel, “The Special Character of the Texts Found in Qumran Cave 11.” Pages
187-‐196 in Things Revealed: Studies In Early Jewish And Christian Literature In Honor
Of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth A. Clements.
Vol. 89 of Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Vermès, Géza, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Rev. ed., Penguin Classics.
London: Penguin Books, 2004.

Virolleaud, Charles “La naissance des dieux gracieux et beaux: Poème phénicien de
Ras Shamra.” Syria 14/ 2 (1933): 128-‐151.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge and Ethelbert Dudley Warfield, Studies in
Tertullian and Augustine. New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1930.
100

Westermann, Claus, Genesis 12-‐36: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985.

Wieder, Arnold A. “Ugaritic-‐Hebrew Lexicographical Notes.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 84/ 2 (1965): 160-‐164.

Wyer, Robert S. and Thomas K. Srull, Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context.
Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1989.

Zufelde, Sabine, “Comment savoir?”, “Comment dire?”: metafiktionale, metanarrative
und metahistoriographische Diskurse über Referenz und Repräsentation in Claude
Simons Romanen “La Route des Flandres” (1960), “Triptyque” (1973) und “Les
Géorgiques” (1981). Etudes Littéraires Françaises 74. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 2009.
101

The Melkiedeq Memoirs The Social Memory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Melkiedeq Memoirs The Social Memory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE MELKIṢEDEQ MEMOIRS:

THE SOCIAL MEMORY OF MELKIṢEDEQ THROUGH THE SECOND TEMPLE

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

Thesis Supervisor: Assistant Professor Robert Cargill

All Rights Reserved

This is to certify that the Master’s thesis of

has been approved by the Examining Committee for

Thesis Committee: ____________________________________________

I would like to thank my advisor, Robert Cargill, who allowed me to pursue my

To my family, thank you for supporting my dreams and not questioning my

dreams; Dad would be happy. Thank you for everything.

memory of Melkiṣedeq a deeper understanding of how his memory is used by later

The study of social memory allows scholars to understand how different

memory are accentuated or excluded in Second Temple literature.

Individuals remember things differently. This is a fact of life; different people

memory of Melkiṣedeq’s character and how it was reinterpreted over time.

List of Figures vii

Introduction and Methodology 1

Chapter 1: History of Melkiṣedeq Research 10

Chapter 2: Melkiṣedeq in the Hebrew Bible 21

Chapter 3: The Second Temple Memories of Melkiṣedeq 61

Figure 1- Map of instances of names containing the theophoric root ṣ-d-q 37

Figure 2- The lengthy name of Jerusalem 48

Figure 3- List of waw consecutive verbs 55

Melkiṣedeq, the focus of this study.1 Melkiṣedeq is introduced as a previously unknown

distinctive niches within society.

The social memory2 of Melkiṣedeq existed for centuries, beginning in pre-Davidic

reader with very limited information about his character:

learns only limited information regarding Melkiṣedeq’s character: he was king of

Melkiṣedeq in the Hebrew Bible.

Temple Period sectarian groups interpreted and utilized his memory.

often led to disagreements or the mis-remembering of textual details. Because not

society that created them.

In the 1950’s, Parisian historian Maurice Halbwachs released his work, La

Halbwachs demonstrated how individuals constructed memories together as a collective

memories became collective or social, features including social-loafing, collaborative

inhibition, cross-cueing, and transactive memory.7 Social-loafing is the act of an

multiple groups collaborating to remember events. Cross-cueing occurs when individuals

the memory of forgotten pieces of information in another individual, creating an

enhanced memory. Transactive memory is an unconscious group mentality that results in

individuals becoming specialized in remembering distinctive details; in this case it would

differentiates it from what Halbwachs calls collective memory:

“Social memory is a concept used by historians and others to explore the

patriarchs, primarily Abraham.10 In Hendel’s Remembering Abraham, he examines

influence other memories, acting as a form of cross-cueing.

Memory of Abraham, Zvi creates a study of memory as a token possession in relation to

internal combination of memories as opposed to the act of an external culture influencing

historical context, but also environmental and spatial aspects.

ability to influence biblical studies, especially when combined with existing

historical context, an analysis of the Near Eastern compositional structure of

Melkiṣedeq’s character can be accomplished. A text critique allows the text to be

components of his social memory.

Chapter two is an analysis of the canonical literature concerning Melkiṣedeq, namely

Horton’s confessional study in 1970.

the chapter significantly under-researched. Likewise, the history of Melkiṣedeq research

Thus, subsequent scholarship and interpretation of Melkiṣedeq has aimed at filling in

the Melkiṣedeq tradition.

chapters will discuss these early interpretive traditions.

looked to Melkiṣedeq for legitimization of Christ’s kingship and priesthood. In his

Christianity that led to many of the interpretative pathways of modern scholarship.

1.1 Modern Interpretation

Within modern scholarship, Gen. 14 as a whole and its Melkiṣedeq subsection

Scholarship began to address the problems created by Melkiṣedeq’s appearance in