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