Melchizedek

[Jim Stinehart]

“Melchizedek”

An apt priestly name for the priest who blesses Abram after Abram’s military victory in rescuing Lot and Lot’s women and Lot’s goods in chapter 14 of Genesis would be: (i) “Righteous God Reigns in Peace”, or (ii) having the same meaning, but using “King” to reference the divine in this priestly name: “King-Righteous Reigns in Peace”. Note that this man performs no kingly actions whatsoever (having not participated in any military operations); rather, he operates exclusively as a priest. His name is not saying that he is a king; he isn’t a king. Rather, this man is a priest whose name proudly proclaims that God is righteous and rules in peace: “King-Righteous Reigns in Peace”.

In Hebrew, the way to write the name “King-Righteous Reigns in Peace” is by using the exact letters that we see at Genesis 14: 18 in setting forth the long name of the priest (who is not a king) who blesses Abram:

1. MLK = “King” [Especially in the context of a priest’s name, this is clearly a reference to the divine.]

2. Y = xireq compaginis, being equivalent to a modern dash. [Compare a similar use of the ancient xireq compaginis at Genesis 46: 17, where Malch-i-el is: MLKY’L.]

3. CDQ = “Righteous”.

4. MLK = “[he] Reigns”. [In unpointed text, there is no difference between MLK as a noun, meaning “king”, and MLK as a verb, meaning “to be or become king” or “to reign”.]

5. $LM = “in Peace”.

MLKYCDQMLK$LM at Genesis 14: 18 is the following long, but apt, priestly sentence name: “King-Righteous Reigns in Peace”. This is manifestly not as KJV grotesquely mistranslates it: “Melchizedek, king of Salem”. No, the man who blesses Abram is solely a priest, namely “the priest of the most high God”, and he is in no way, shape or form a king or princeling or secular ruler.

In Bronze Age Canaan proper (south of Lebanon), no priest-kings are attested outside of the Bible. Genesis 14: 18 is historically accurate in portraying Melchizedek as being (i) a priest, who (ii) is not a king or princeling, etc., and who (iii) has an apt priestly name for a “priest of the most high God”, honoring God’s power and righteousness, namely: “King-Righteous Reigns in Peace”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Mark Lightman]

Hi, Jim,

While your theory is possible, מלכיצדקמלכשׁלם seems a little long for a Biblical name. I place more stock in the LXX than do some others, but their rendering (Μελχισεδεκ Βαιλεὺς Σαλημ) does not support your theory. Almost everyone else in the chapter is indeed a king, so I think that is the simplest explanation for the phrase.

[Isaac Fried]

The "xireq compaginis" is certainly the contracted personal pronoun היא 'he'. Thus, מלכיצדק = מלך-היא-צדק

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Mark Lightman:

1. You wrote: “While your theory is possible, מלכיצדקמלכשׁלם seems a little long for a Biblical name.”

It is 13 letters long. Somewhat similarly, the name and title of the other most prominent non-Hebrew in chapter 14 of Genesis is likewise 13 letters long [after omitting the interior yod/Y that, unfortunately, was added in post-exilic times in an attempt to change the meaning of this mysterious name]: KDRL‘MR MLK ‘LM. [That name and title make perfect sense in Ugaritic, while being senseless in any non-Ugarit context. Such name and title constitute the following pejorative Patriarchal nickname, using Ugaritic words and phrases: kdr l ‘mr mlk ‘lm.]

2. You wrote: “I place more stock in the LXX than do some others, but their rendering (Μελχισεδεκ Βαιλεὺς Σαλημ) does not support your theory.”

Even before we get to the Septuagint, we find that Biblical authors, centuries after the composition of the Patriarchal narratives, misinterpreted chapter 14 of Genesis to try to view Melchizedek as being the priest-king of Jerusalem, when in fact (i) he’s solely a priest, playing no kingly role whatsoever, and (ii) he has nothing whatsoever to do with Jerusalem. Yes, by the time one gets to the Septuagint, the “urban myth” that Melchizedek was the priest-king of Jerusalem had become dogma. But that is not how the Patriarchal narratives portray Melchizedek; moreover, historically there were no priest-kings in southern Canaan in the Bronze Age.

If we want to recover the pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in a Late Bronze Age context, then instead of accepting the traditional views of “Melchizedek” and “Chedorlaomer”, which have zero historicity and precious little textual support either, we need to look at what the received unpointed Hebrew text actually says. If we do that, then we will be delighted to find that what the received unpointed Hebrew text actually says has pinpoint historical accuracy -- in the context of what is well-documented from non-biblical sources as having actually occurred in and about Year 13 [with such exact year, in the Amarna Age, being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4].

3. You wrote: “Almost everyone else in the chapter is indeed a king, so I think that is the simplest explanation for the phrase.”

But so unlike Melchizedek, “almost everyone else” in chapter 14 of Genesis is manifestly a princeling who acts like a princeling [or, in the case of “Tidal”, is the mighty Hittite king Suppililiuma, who historically had seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly expedient of murdering his own older brother named “Tidal” (hence the nasty Patriarchal nickname “Tidal”), and who then in the Great Syrian War conquered northern Syria in Year 14, being the exact year referenced for such military conflict at Genesis 14: 5]. The “four kings with five” referenced at Genesis 14: 9 are 9 rulers [princelings or kings]. Historically, in Year 14 [Genesis 14: 5] a coalition of 4 rulers smashed a rebellious group of 5 parties in the Great Syrian War: “four kings with five” [Genesis 14: 9]. Plus, Mamre the Amorite [historical Milk-i-ilu the Amorite] and Eschol [a Canaanite] and Aner [a Hurrian] at Genesis 14: 13 are all princelings in southern Canaan, with whom Abram is in confederate relationship. All 12 of those rulers, along with Abram, take part in the fighting, including several of them in “Hobah” [meaning H/the-Obah : the district of Damascus, where H is the Hebrew word for “the”, and “Obah” is the attested Hurrian name for the Damascus district in Amarna Letter EA 189 rev. 12: U2-bi] near Damascus, per Genesis 14: 15.

By sharp contrast Melchizedek, who at Genesis 14: 18 is expressly said to be “the priest of the most high God”, functions solely as a priest. He has taken no part in any fighting anywhere. Rather, Melchizedek’s sole function is to bestow a fine priestly blessing upon Abram at Genesis 14: 19-20. Historically, a priestly blessing was given only by a priest, not by a king, and in southern Canaan in the Bronze Age there was no such thing as a priest-king. Note that everything makes perfect sense, on all levels, if Melchizedek is solely a priest, whose apt, priestly name is “King-Righteous Reigns in Peace”, meaning: “ The Righteous God Who Reigns in Peace”.

* * *
The traditional interpretation of Melchizedek is not possible historically. But if one looks at what the received unpointed Hebrew text actually says, one finds that the text in fact has pinpoint historical accuracy in depicting a priest [who is not a king or a priest-king, and who has nothing to do with Jerusalem] at Beth-Shan [the locale of “the king’s dale” per Genesis 14: 17, which is the place near Beth-Shan where the Jezreel Valley dramatically makes a wide turn and empties into the Jordan River Valley], who fittingly gives a fine priestly blessing to Abram.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

In evaluating the historical time period of Melchizedek, it is important to note that per my prior post, I see Biblical “Tidal” as being historical Hittite King Suppiluliuma, and Biblical “Chedorlaomer” as being historical King Niqmaddu II of Ugarit. Let’s compare their exact historical words in Year 14 [shortly after their victory in the Great Syrian War] with Abram’s exact words, after Abram receives Melchizedek’s priestly blessing, to the king of Sodom at Genesis 14: 23 [also in Year 14, per Genesis 14: 5].

A. Biblical Wording

“22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom,…23 I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: 24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.”

B. Historical Wording

“Speiser correctly observed that the phrase…neither a string nor a sandal lace [alternative translation of Genesis 14: 23] is based on Near Eastern formulae…. We now have a text from Ugarit remarkably close to Gen. 14 in some ways. Niqmaddu, King of Ugarit [whom I see as being Biblical “Chedorlaomer”] has been plundered by his enemies [in Year 13, per Genesis 14: 2-4, where Ugarit’s geographical location is accurately described as being “in the vale of Siddim, that is the salt sea”, that is, the place where the vale of Siddim/valley of tilled fields/Orontes River Valley in Syria empties into the salt sea/Mediterranean Sea]. His suzerain, the Hittite king Suppiluliuma [whom I see as being Biblical “Tidal”] comes to his rescue and drives the invaders away [in Year 14, per Genesis 14: 5, 8-10]. In response, Niqmaddu attempts to give Suppiluliuma a gift as a sign of his appreciation. The text is damaged at this point, but may be restored to read as follows: ‘Suppiluliuma, the Great King, saw the loyalty of Niqmaddu, and as far as what belongs to Ugarit…Suppiluliuma, the Great King, will not touch anything, be it straw or splinter….’ Abram appears to follow similar royal etiquette in refusing anything from the king of Sodom in return for his accomplishments.” Victor P. Hamilton, “The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17” (1990), pp. 413-414.

C. Comparison

Abram says (depending on the translation): “I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, …I will not take any thing that is thine”

or: “neither a string nor a sandal lace would I take, from anything that is yours”

Hittite King Suppiluliuma, in the same year [Year 14], regarding the same military conflict, uses almost the same words: “as far as what belongs to Ugarit…Suppiluliuma, the Great King, will not touch anything, be it straw or splinter”.

D. Conclusions

In fact, Hittite King Suppiluliuma only pretended to be magnanimous in victory. He subsequently demanded, and always got, a huge annual tribute from Ugarit, which forevermore was beholden to the Hittites.

The important point that Genesis 14: 23 is making is that if the Hittite king can pretend to be magnanimous in victory [in Year 14, historically], Abram surpasses him by actually being magnanimous in victory [in Year 14, per Genesis 14: 5]. Abram and Abram’s men not only take no share of the spoils, but also [so unlike the Hittite king] they never demand anything further from the parties they rescued.

E. Blessings: Historical (Hittite Treaties) and Biblical (Melchizedek)

Abram, Melchizedek and the king of Sodom operate on an oral basis, not on the basis of a treaty in writing. In that setting, the blessing of the victorious noble warrior (Abram) naturally comes from a priest, namely Melchizedek.

Similarly, Hittite treaties that were signed shortly after Year 14 always included a blessing, though such blessing was in writing, rather than literally being made by an actual priest:

“[T]he ‘blessing’…is a major component of…Hittite treaties”. Johnson M. Kumuhu, “Leviticus: The Priestly Laws and Prohibitions from the Perspective of Ancient Near East and Africa” (2008), p. 27.

“Blessings are found…in treaties/covenants of the late second millennium (ca. 1400-1200) such as Hittite treaties.” John H. Walton, “Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy” (2009), p. 510.

One cannot have a grand military victory in the Late Bronze Age without a blessing shortly to follow, either orally by an actual priest (such as Melchizedek), or as formally embedded in writing in a treaty that the victor would often impose on the party he had rescued (such as Hittite treaties).

* * *

The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is truly breathtaking. Here at Genesis 14: 23 we see the accurate reproduction of the specific wording of proper royal diplomatic protocol regarding the Great Syrian War in Year 14.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Mark Lightman]

Hi, Jim.

Mark Lightman:

1. You wrote: “While your theory is possible, מלכיצדקמלכשׁלם seems a little long for a Biblical name.”

It is 13 letters long. Somewhat similarly, the name and title of the other most prominent non-Hebrew in chapter 14 of Genesis is likewise 13 letters long [after omitting the interior yod/Y that, unfortunately, was added in post-exilic times in an attempt to change the meaning of this mysterious name]: KDRL‘MR MLK ‘LM. [That name and title make perfect sense in Ugaritic, while being senseless in any non-Ugarit context. Such name and title constitute the following pejorative Patriarchal nickname, using Ugaritic words and phrases: kdr l ‘mr mlk ‘lm.]

I mean long not only in letters but in syntactical units. Aren't most ancient names confined to two?

Also, no one has mentioned Psalm 110:4, which gives the name as מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶֿק, not מלכיצדקמלכשׁלם, adding to the list of ancient authorities who would have to be wrong in order for you to be right.

... historically there were no priest-kings in southern Canaan in the Bronze Age.

The Hebrew Bible read on its surface says there was at least one (Melchizedek.) If there was one, there would likely be others. How do you know otherwise? Do we have enough extent sources to say such things?

Note that this man performs no kingly actions whatsoever (having not participated in any military operations);

Only a few words are devoted to him (one of which says that he was a king) so this is an argument from silence. In the New Testament, Joseph is called a carpenter, but we do not have any accounts of him performing any actions of a carpenter. Would anyone say on this basis that he was therefore not a carpenter?

The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is truly breathtaking.

Except that if Abraham lived in the 14th century and not much earlier, then the whole chronology of the Exodus, the most important event in OT Biblical history, would be a pack of intentional lies, right?

[Jim Stinehart]

Mark Lightman:

You wrote: “f Abraham lived in the 14th century and not much earlier, then the whole chronology of the Exodus, the most important event in OT Biblical history, would be a pack of intentional lies, right?”

No.

1. Most advocates of an historical Exodus nowadays pick the 13th century BCE. As we will see, that’s O.K. for Abraham living in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age.

2. There was an historical first Hebrew. But does the author of the Patriarchal narratives use artistic license to tell that one historical man’s story 4 times over, using four different names, in 4 different generations, in order to get his point across as to the key characteristics of who historically was a single person?

(a) Note all the key characteristics shared by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and often Judah as well, to the point that one should logically ask whether all four reflect a single historical person: the first Hebrew.

Each is a younger son.
Each is not his father’s favorite son.
Each surpasses an older brother, despite their father’s favoritism for the father’s firstborn son.
Each has big trouble siring a son as a proper heir by his original main wife #1.
Each Patriarch ends up making a gut-wrenching decision as to which of two sons should be his proper successor, in each case rejecting his favorite son, and always picking a younger son whose birth mother was the Patriarch’s original main wife #1.
Each Patriarch deals with a drought-famine in Canaan, which seems suspiciously like one actual drought-famine: the Year 13 drought-famine in the Ayalon Valley near Jerusalem.

(b) Now consider that each Patriarch experiences historical actions in Year 13. Abram witnesses the Year 13 instigating events of the Great Syrian War in what Genesis 14: 4 openly says is “Year 13”. Isaac arranges for his favorite son, firstborn twin son Esau, to marry two Hurrian women born in Canaan; that makes good historical sense in Year 13, but not earlier or later: not earlier, because few Hurrian women born in Canaan would be old enough to marry prior to Year 13, and not later, because beginning in Year 14 the Hurrians soon lost power and influence in Canaan (so that Hurrian women were no longer ideal brides). Jacob witnesses the ruler of Shechem being assassinated under unusual circumstances in Year 13: Biblical Hamor is historical Labaya from the Amarna Letters. This is portrayed Biblically as occurring 13 tenfold 12-month years after Abraham’s birth, thereby indicating that it’s historical Year 13. And yet it’s still Year 13 in the Patriarchal narratives when, historically, pharaoh Akhenaten confiscates much valuable land along the Nile River for the royal household, and just before that story is told in Genesis, Jacob is pointedly stated at Genesis 47: 9 to be age 13 tenfold shanah, with the accent on 13, indicating that both Biblically and historically it’s Year 13.

Do you see my point? The Patriarchal narratives are not fiction. Far from it. But their brilliant early Hebrew author has taken the one single first historical Hebrew, and using artistic license has told that first Hebrew’s story by means of telling the stories of 4 successive generations of the first Hebrews, when in fact it’s really the story of the one and only first Hebrew.

3. But now to get to your original point. If you could accept my point #2, you would see that the Patriarchal Age is incredibly short. Most of the stories in the Patriarchal narratives focus on what historically happened in Year 13.

So if the Patriarchal Age historically is incredibly short, and took place primarily in Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE, then there’s plenty of time for an historical 13th century BCE Exodus.

The problem is not, as you had put it, “the whole chronology of the Exodus”. Rather, the key issue is to recognize that the Patriarchal Age is incredibly short. Historically, there was only one first Hebrew, only one Hebrew Patriarch. In order to emphasize his key characteristics (some of which are noted above, and as noted above apply to all 3 Patriarchs and often to Judah as well), the brilliant early Hebrew author used artistic license to treat this one historical individual as being 4 generations of the first Hebrews.

The good news is that the Patriarchal narratives have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in describing how the historical first Hebrews managed to survive their year of living dangerously: Year 13.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[kwrandolph]

Dear Mark:

Except that if Abraham lived in the 14th century and not much earlier, then the whole chronology of the Exodus, the most important event in OT Biblical history, would be a pack of intentional lies, right?

Jim’s whole theory is that Egyptian history based on Manetho’s semi-fiction is accurate, the Bible which claims to be accurate history is false in spite of losing its authority if it is false, and that Abraham lived during the Amarna Letters era. He now clutches at straws to prove his theory.

But Jim is neither a linguist nor a historian, certainly not an archaeologist, but a lawyer; he uses words in a lawyerly fashion. That’s also why his posts are so long. That’s why I found his posts so frustrating to read in their obtuseness. I stopped reading his messages long ago, and in this exchange I read only your responses.

What he doesn’t want to admit is that Manetho wrote what was more of a propaganda piece, not a real history, where he took advantage of the fact that Egyptian pharaohs took multiple names so listed them more than once in his “history” to make Egyptian history “older”. Manetho worked from the theory that an older history would make his people and culture have more gravitas than the upstart Greeks who then ruled Egypt.

When we look at archeology and history, we can see Manetho’s distortions of history. The Biblical history of Joseph is written in such a way as to indicate that Joseph was the first grand vizier of Egypt, which Manetho puts in the “Third Dynasty”. There are historical and archeological evidences for the Exodus in the “13th Dynasty”. There are historical and archaeological evidences that SYSQ, mentioned in 1 Kings 14:25 and in 2 Chronicles 12, was another name for Thutmosis II, making the Egyptian “golden age” based on the wealth looted from Solomon’s treasures. There are historical and archaeological evidences that the Amarna Letters were written during the Biblical divided kingdoms period. A final name I’ll mention is that there’s historical evidence that Necho (2 Chronicles 35:20, 22) was another name for Raamses II.

Jim can admit to none of these.

There’s also almost an “academic mafia” centered on the teachings of Professor Kitchen, claiming that Manetho’s “histories” are basically accurate. Given that there are many more trained historians than openings available for work in the field, they can limit hiring to only those who agree with them. Jim’s theories are based on their teachings.

All of this leads up to that your objections to what Jim wrote are accurate, both linguistically and historically. Linguistically in both Hebrew and in translation into Greek.

My recommendation to you is to do as I do, namely to ignore Jim Stinehart. It will be better for you sanity, as well as saving you time and effort.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jim Stinehart]

Karl W Randolph:

1. Nothing that I post is based on Manetho.

2. You wrote: “There are historical and archaeological evidences that the Amarna Letters were written during the Biblical divided kingdoms period.”

Not a single mainstream scholar agrees with that. Rather, the Amarna Letters are firmly dated to the mid-14th century BCE.

For example, we have Amarna Letters from Hittite King Suppiluliuma, who is firmly dated to the mid-14th century BCE, as is such mighty Hittite king’s greatest triumph: the Great Syrian War. We also have an Amarna Letter written in Hurrian from the Hurrian king of the Hurrian great power state of Mitanni in eastern Syria. By the time of “the Biblical divided kingdoms period” of which you speak, both the Hittites and the Hurrians were long gone from the scene. All of the Amarna Letters fit the mid-14th century BCE time period perfectly, while no Amarna Letter is early 1st millennium BCE in orientation.

Therefore, if the Patriarchal Age is the Amarna Age, in the mid-14th century BCE, that would leave room for an historical Exodus in the 13th century BCE.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[kwrandolph]

Karl W Randolph:

1. Nothing that I post is based on Manetho.

I don’t need to read any further. And I didn’t.

You teach that Thutmosis II lived in 15th century BC? You follow Manetho.

You claim that the Amarna Letters were written in late bronze age? That’s based on Manetho.

In so far as the mainstream historical teachings in universities make the same claims as I mentioned above, they base their claims on Manetho, and in so far as you follow them, you follow Manetho.

Case closed.

Karl W. Randolph.