Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature

In this essay I intend to examine the biblical narrative on Melchizedek as translated and paraphrased in the Aramaic translations (Targums), and as interpreted in rabbinic tradition¹. The biblical text in question will be principally Gen 14,18-20. Since the biblical text would lead one to believe that Melchizedek’s encounter with Abram occurred in the Valley of Shaveh (Gen 14,17), I shall begin by an examination of this verse. While the name of Melchizedek does not occur in Targum of Psalm 110, in view of the importance of this text I shall also examine the treatment of Melchizedek in this psalm. Reference will also be made to Targum of 1 Chronicles 1,24 where the person of Melchizedek is implicitly referred to ("Shem the high priest"). With regard to rabbinic tradition, rabbinic texts will be our principle source. However, since some patristic texts also present or comment on current Jewish beliefs, or have traditions very similar to those of some Targumic texts, I shall draw on these Christian sources (Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, Antiochene tradition) as occasion indicates.

which are contained in the manuscripts given the sigla PVNL. Shorter texts have also been preserved in the marginal glosses to Tg. Neof. (Tg. Neof. marg), and in some citations from the Targums in targumic dictionaries, such as the Aruk of Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome (died 1106), the Meturgeman of Elias Levita (published in 1541), and in some medieval Jewish writers. Notable in this regard is Midrash Bereshit Zuta composed by Rabbi Shemuel ben Nissin Masnut (13^th century), who worked in Aleppo and may have been born there. Some of his citations from the Pal. Tgs. are identical with, or close to, the text of Tg. Neof.². No fragments of Gen 14 have been found among the Genizah fragments. With regard to the verses that interest us (Gen 14,17-20), only v. 18 has been preserved in Frg. Tgs.^PVNL. There is a brief citation in the Aruk, and a longer one in Bereshit Zuta.

Although the targumic texts to be examined here are very limited in extent, the evidence emerging from the analysis may well have significance for the larger question of the nature and origin of the Targums, in particular of the Pal. Tgs. of the Pentateuch. Furthermore, an awareness of this larger question of nature and origins may help us understand better some of the texts we are now to study. For this reason I include here a few brief remarks on relevant questions on the individual Targums we are to examine. All the Targums we are to consider probably originated in Palestine. Some scholars would postulate a primitive Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, possibly of the first century CE, which would stand behind both the Tg. Onq. and an original of our present Pal. Tgs. This original Palestinian Targum would have been a written and rather literal translation. Tg. Onq. may have originated in Palestine some time before 135 CE³. Linguistically, the text or form behind our present Pal. Tgs. can hardly have been earlier than the third century CE. Its original form, if it had one, is not easily reconstructed since it has been transmitted in a variety of texts, with the same essential paraphrase, and differences with regard

The HT says that on Abram’s return after victory the king of Sodom went out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King’s Valley. Shaveh here is presumably different from the Shaveh-kiriathim of v. 5. There is a King’s Valley mentioned in 2 Sam 18,18, where Absalom erected a pillar for himself. The place-name is rendered literally in Tg. 2 Sam. Josephus (Ant. 7, 243) says that this was two stadia from Jerusalem. 1QapGen 22,13-14 identifies this "Valley of Shaveh — that is the Vale of the King ()klm qm( )whw )w#$ qm(b)" as "the Valley of Beth-hacherem" ()mrk tyb t)qb). The Valley of Beth-haccherem is mentioned in Jer 6,1 in parallelism with Tekoa (cf. Neh 3,14), and in Josh 15,39. Going on this evidence, as well as evidence from the Mishnah and the Copper Scroll, J. Fitzmyer⁴ believes that it is quite plausible to locate Beth-haccherem at the modern site of Ramat Rachel, which is situated some 400 yards to the east of the old route from Jerusalem to Bethlehem on a summit which dominates the Valley of Rephaim.

Tg. Onq. has "to the empty⁵ plain, which is the race-course of

the king" ()klmd )syr tyb )wh )npm r#$yml), a translation followed by Tg. Ps.-J. Tg. Onq.’s rendering as "empty" ()npm) is in keeping with the meaning of the hw#$ of the HT (in Hebrew and Aramaic) and also with the identification of "King’s Valley" that follows. Given the existence of royal hippodromes and amphitheatres (for those of Herod at Jerusalem see Josephus, Ant. 15.268-276), Tg. Onq.’s identification of "King’s Valley" is quite understandable.

The Frg. Tgs.^VNL (not Frg. Tg.P) here identify the Valley of Shaveh as "the Valley of Hazoza, hzwzx, (that is the place of the Valley of the King)", a text also found in the margin to Tg. Neof., where it is obviously drawn from Frg. Tgs. "Hazoza" is most probably an error for "Hazweh" (hwzx), "[the Valley of] the Vision", a phrase used to render "Oaks of Mamre" in Pal. Tg. Gen 12,6; 13,18; 18,1; Deut 11,30, and in a related manner in Tgs. Neof. and Ps.-J. Gen 14,13. (Gen 14,13 has not been preserved in any of the texts of Frg. Tgs.)

Tg. Neof. identifies the Valley of Shaveh of v. 17 with the"Valley of the Gardens" ("in the Valley of the Gardens", pardesaya – )klm hr#$m )[w]h )ysdrp r#$ymb). Tg. Neof. is alone in this identification.

An inscription with the words "Of St Thomas of Phordesa" occurs in a processional cross, coming from the environs of Jerusalem, and the place-name Phordкsa, (from the Aramaic pordesaya/pardesaya "gardens"), on the outskirts of Jerusalem is attested for the Byzantine and early Arab periods⁶. There was a hospice for the poor and elderly there. This place-name has been regarded to be the same as the Valley of Beth Carma (the Valley of Beth-haccherem), already noted, given in 1QapGen 22,13-14 as the identification of the "Valley of Shaveh – that is the Valley of the King". J.T. Milik has expressed the view that "the Valley of the Gardens" ()ysdrp r#$ym) of Tg. Neof. Gen 14,17 makes direct reference to this place-name near Jerusalem. He writes: "Since the word saweh, whatever of its etymology, in no way presents itself spontaneously as a synonym of pardesaya, I would readily see in this last name a place-name that really existed at the time of the composition of the Targum, and attached to a geographic entity in the vicinity of

Jerusalem"⁷. There are difficulties with this understanding of the evidence. One is that, given the instability of the reading (the Frg. Tgs. have "the Valley of Hazoza") we do not know if the Tg. Neof. text here represents the original reading. It may be, of course, that irrespective of an "original" Pal. Tg. reading, the compiler of Tg. Neof. opted for the identification pardesaya, "Gardens", of our present text because of his acquaintance with the Jerusalem place-name.

As against this, however, we must recall that the same Tg. Neof. has consistently identified or translated "the Valley of Siddim" (Myd#& qm() of Gen 14,3,8,10 as "the Valley of the Gardens" (h/)ysdrp r#$ym), and the extant texts of Frg. Tgs. (VNL) agree with regard to Gen 14,3 as does a citation from the Pal. Tg. in Masnut’s Bereshit Zuta⁸. Likewise, Tg. Ps.-J. agrees with the rendering pardesaya in all three texts (Gen 14,3,8,10). This understanding of Siddim (Myd#&) in Gen 14,8 as "gardens", "park", may agree with Jerome’s understanding of the translation of the word by Aquila and Theodotion, which Jerome takes as "meaning ‘pleasant groves’" (amoena nemora significantes)⁹. It appears, then, that there a solid unity in the Pal. Tg. tradition with regard to the "valley of the gardens", )ysdrp. It is the identification of the MT "Valley of Siddim". And this was not near Jerusalem but near the Sea of Salt, the Dead Sea: "the Valley of Siddim, that is the Sea of Salt" (Gen 14,3). Here, of course, the Pal. Tg. tradition may not be

referring to a known-place name, but rather understanding the MT Myd#& as the plural of hd#&, "field, open place". Whatever of this, it is unlikely that the author or compiler of Tg. Neof. would have used the same Aramaic term to identify two quite distinct place-names of the Hebrew Text.

Ml#$ Klm qd( yklmw (a)
Nyyw Mxl )y(wh (b)
Nwyl( l)l Nhk )whw (c)

Targum Onqelos¹⁰

Ml#$ryd )klm qdc yklmw (a)
rmhw Myxl qyp) (b)
h)ly( l) Mdq #$ym#$m )whw (c)

hbwr M#$ )wh Ml#$wryd )klm qdc )klmw (a)
rmxw Mxl qp) (b)
h)l( )hl) Mdq htbr [h]tnhkb #$m#$m Nhk hwh )whw (c)

)yyly( )hl)l (as variant for h)l( )hl) Mdq htbr [h]tnhkb)

)br M#$ )wh Ml#$wryd )klm qdc yklmw (a)
h)ly( l)l Nyhk hwh (c)

)br M#$ )whd Ml#$wryd )klm qdc yklm (a)
h)ly( Nhk hwh (c)
rmxw Nwzm qyp) (b)
h)ly( l) Mdq )tbr )tnwhkb #$m#$mw My)q )whw (c)

Mrb) twmdql qpn Myl#$wryd )klm xn rb M#$ )wh )qydc )klmw (a)
rmxw Myxl hyl qyp)w (b)
h)ly( )ql) Mdq #$m#$m hwh )nmyz )yhhbw (c)

a) The Name "Melchisedek"
The name in Hebrew is Melchisedek, written in the critical edition of the MT as qdc-yklm. The name qdc-yklm is reproduced in Tg. Onq. and in Frg. Tgs.^PVNL. Tg. Ps.-J. has )qydc )klm, "the righteous king" — in full: "the righteous king, he is Shem son of Noah, king of Jerusalem". In Tg. Ps.-J. the change is probably intentional: the identification of Melchisedek with Shem has been so thoroughly made that he has lost his identity and name. Tg. Neof. has qdc )klm (in full Ml#$wryd )klm qdc )klm), where the final alef in )klm is hard to explain. It may have arisen through a contamination between the forms in Tg. Onq. and the Frg. Tgs., or may represent a confusion between y (yod) and ) (aleph)¹¹.

b) Identification of Salem with Jerusalem (v. 18)
"Melchizedek king of Jerusalem ... brought out bread and wine". The MT has "Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine", Nyyw Mxl )ycwh Ml#$ Klm qd#&-yklmw. If by Salem a town or city was originally intended in the narrative, this may well have been the town of Sвlim, north east of Nablus¹².

Whatever of the original meaning or intended identification in MT Gen 14,18¹³, in Ps 76,3 Salem (in parallelism with Zion) means

The identification of Salem as Jerusalem is also, naturally, that of rabbinic tradition. This rabbinic tradition seems to be faithfully reported by Jerome in his work Hebrew Questions on Genesis, completed between late 391 and early 393. He begins his comment on Gen 14,18-19 with the remark: "Because our little book is, in a word, a collection of Hebrew questions or traditions, let us therefore introduce what the Hebrews think about this. [...] by ‘king of Salem’ is meant the king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem"¹⁴. Writing some years later (in 397), in Letter 73 (on Melchizedek) Jerome will defend quite a different view, namely that Salem of Gen 14,18 was in Samaria. To this we shall presently turn.

Some scholars would regard the identification of Salem as Jerusalem in the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon as an anti-Samaritan trait¹⁵, a point not proven.

There was also an ancient city named Salem (or Salim), in Samaria, near Nablus. It is apparently mentioned in Judith 4,4 ("Samaria ... the valley of Salem", to( au)lw=na Salhm). It occurs in the LXX of Gen 33,18 (LXX: "and Jacob came to Salem [Salhm] a city of Secima"; HT: Mk#$ ry( Ml#$ bq(y )byw, generally rendered today as "and Jacob arrived safely at the town of Shechem") and in the LXX of Jer 48,5 (LXX: "and there came men from Sychem, and from Salem (Salhm), and from Samaria" = MT: 42,4: "men arrived from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria"). It also occurs in Jub 30,1 ("In the first year of the sixth week he [Jacob] went up to Salem, which is east of Shechem, in peace in the fourth month"), which is parallel to Gen 33,18. It is probably the site mentioned in John 3,23: John was baptizing at Aenon near Salim (Salei/m).

AD 390-395) located the Salem of Gen 14,8 in Samaria, near Scythopolis. In fact the ruins of Melchizedek’s palace were believed to be still visible there and were visited by pilgrims¹⁶.

The tradition linking Salem and Abram’s encounter with Melchizedek with Samaria is an old one in Samaritan tradition. It is found in the anonymous Samaritan writer Pseudo-Eupolemus (2^nd cent. BCE), in his work Peri_ 'Ioudai)wn, a writing cited by Eusebius from Polyhistor¹⁷. In a section on Abraham Pseudo-Eupolemus follows Gen 14,18-20 rather faithfully but situates the encounter with Melchizedek not in the valley of Shaveh but in a city near Garizim, the sacred mountain of the Samaritans. This tradition is probably older than Pseudo-Eupolemus. Curiously, this tradition is not reflected either in the Samaritan Pentateuch (which agrees with the MT apart from writing Ml#$ as Mwl#$) or in the Samaritan Targum.

c) Melchizedek identified with Shem (the Great) (v. 18)¹⁸
In all texts of the Pal. Tgs. and in Ps.-J. Melchisedek is explicitly identified with "Shem (the Great)". Thus Frg. Tg.^PVNL ()br/hbr M#$), Tg.

Neof. (hbwr M#$). The identification has gone further in Tg. Ps.-J. where Melchisedek has practically ceased to be a proper name: "The righteous king ()qydc )klm, that is, Shem son of Noah".

There is a partly parallel passage in WaR (Qedoshim) 25,6, in a discussion on the passing of the priesthood from Melchisedek to Abram, with a debate on the issue between R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. There are other texts in rabbinical literature with the same tradition¹⁹.

This rabbinic view is also attested to in patristic texts. It is also found, without any explanation for it given, in the commentary on Gen 14,18-20 by Ephrem (ca. 306-373 CE)²⁰. Epiphanius, 315-403 CE

(Panarion haer. 55.6.1; Adv. Haer. 2.1 [Contra Melchizedecianos]) knew of the tradition²¹. He uses the LXX of Gen 11 to prove that Shem could not possibly have been Melchizedek, which belief he attributes to the Samaritans rather than to the Jews.

In Hebrew Questions on Genesis 14,18-19 (a work completed, as just noted, between late 391 and early 393), Jerome succinctly states the Jewish tradition of his own day on the matter²²:

The computation of the years of Shem’s life mentioned here by Jerome is referred to again, and spelt out, in his Letter 73.5 to the presbyter Evangelus on Melchisedek (written in 398). Here Jerome says that the Hebrews have a tradition that Melchisedek of Gen 14 was the eldest son of Noah and that at the time of the birth of Abram he (Shem) was three hundred and ninety years old. He goes on to tell us the manner in which they calculate this, giving us from Gen 11 a chart of the sort we find in modern scientific treatments of this question²³. The Hebrew computation chart as given by Jerome runs as follows:

Jerome’s text continues:

Shem the Great is mentioned twice in the Pal. Tgs. with regard to events in the lives of Isaac and Rebekah. As Rebekah was being taken in marriage to Isaac, Isaac "was coming from the schoolhouse ()#$rdm tyb) of Shem the Great, to the Well over which was revealed the One who sustains every age. And he was dwelling in the land of the South" (Pal. Tgs. Gen 24:62; Frg. Tgs.^PVNL; Tg. Ps.-J.; Tg. Neof. has "from the sanctuary of", )#$dqm tyb, which is obviously an error. The NRVS renders MT as: "Now Isaac had come from [Hebrew: )wbm )b, "coming from to"] Beer-la-hai-roi, and was settled in the Negeb"). The Pal. Tgs. Gen 25:22 say that when the children pushed themselves together in her womb, Rebekah "went to the schoolhouse (#$rdm tyb) of Shem the Great to beseech mercy from before the Lord" (Frg. Tgs.^PVNL; Tg. Neof.; Tg. Ps.-J.) (NRSV: "She went to inquire of the Lord").

This Palestinian Targum tradition is found in extenso in the Commentary on Genesis by Ephrem the Syrian (ca. 306-373)²⁴, probably composed about 373 – although Ephrem makes no mention of any Jewish connection. The comment on Gen 14,18-20 in this commentary, in fact, consists almost entirely of material as found in the Palestinian Targums. Not only is Melchisedek identified with Shem, but Shem who is believed to have lived on into the time of Jacob is identified with Melchisedek. The relevant section of Ephrem’s commentary on Gen 14,18-20 (section 11, 2,4) merits reproduction in full.

e) Origin of Identification of Melchizedek with Shem
It is natural to seek the origins of this identification of Melchizedek with Shem. M. Simon²⁶ thinks that it was due to the embarrassment felt by Jews in view of Abraham’s paying homage to Melchizedek. If Melchizedek is identified with Shem, then Abraham was merely showing deference to an ancestor. It is doubtful if there was any polemical tendentious intention, anti-Christian or otherwise, in the identification. The identification of Melchizedek with Shem, in any event, may well pre-date Christianity. R. Ishmael takes the identification for granted, and the texts as found in Jewish or Christian sources do not indicate any embarrassment with it. The rabbinic, targumic and patristic texts (especially Jerome) would seem to indicate that the identification arose from chronological considerations on the biblical age attributed to Shem, and the overlap of his life-span with that of Abraham, Isaac and even Jacob²⁷. Providing Melchizedek with a genealogy may have been a contributory factor of course. So too may have the Jewish belief or tradition that all the first-born sons of Noah,

It has been noted above that in accepting the identification of Melchizedek with Shem R. Ishmael did not have any polemical point to make. The same cannot be said of his statement which follows immediately on this regarding Melchizedek’s priesthood. This, he says, was taken away by God from Shem (=Melchisedek) and given to Abram. Shem (=Melchizedek) was a priest but his descendants were not. God transfers the priesthood of Shem (=Melchizedek) to Abraham and addresses Ps 110,1 to him: "Sit on my right hand...", as he also does Ps 110,4: "Your are a priest for ever according to the order of (ytrbd l() Melchizedek", which is interpreted as meaning "on account of what (wrwbyd l() Melchizedek said". The reason for the demotion of Melchizedek’s priesthood is seen in Melchisedek having blessed Abram before he uttered his blessing to God Most High. As Petuchowski observes: there can be no doubt that R. Ishmael’s reference to Melchizedek is polemical²⁸. But against whom is R. Ishmael’s polemic directed?

One possibility is that his target is the Christian understanding of Melchizedek’s priesthood, particularly as presented in the Epistle to the Hebrews (especially Heb 7, with the use of Gen 14,17-20 and Ps 110,4). L. Ginzberg believed that it was very likely directed against the Christians, such as the author of Hebrews 7,1-3 and especially Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, 33 and 96) who took Melchizedek to be a type of Jesus²⁹; likewise R. Travers Herford³⁰, P. Billerbeck³¹

and M. Simon³². Others do not consider such a conclusion necessary or warranted. The polemic may have originally been directed against a Jewish (or Samaritan) misuse of Ps 110,4, possibly Hasmoneans, such as Simon. In 1 Macc 14,35.41 we read: "The people saw Simon’s faithfulness and the glory that he had resolved to win for his nation, and they made him their leader and high priest. ... The Jews and their high priests resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise". Ps 110, in particular Ps 110,4, would present legitimization for the Hasmonean union of royalty and kingship in the one person of Simon and his successors. The Hasidim strongly objected to Simon’s exercise of the high priesthood. The rift between the Pharisees and the Hasmoneans is dwelt on at length by Josephus (Ant. 13). An anti-Hasmonean interpretation of Ps 110 may have originated already in the second century BCE, in an effort to undermine this particular use of the psalm. This interpretation of the psalm would have been transmitted in Pharisaic and later in early rabbinic tradition. In this case R. Ishmael’s interpretation would in origin have been pre-Christian, rather than anti-Christian, although he may have used it in an anti-Christian polemic. This view has been put forward by J.J. Petuchowski³³.

According to R. Ishmael’s viewpoint, in Ps 110 the Lord addresses Abraham, and the psalm is interpreted as referring to him. This view is also found in other rabbinic texts³⁴. In this interpretation Ps 110,1-3 would refer to Abraham’s campaign against the four kings (Gen 14)³⁵. We do not know how widely this particular view was held in Jewish circles in the fourth century. It does not appear to have left much trace in Christian sources. Jerome, living and writing in Palestine, makes no mention of it. However, matters appear to have been different in Antioch on the Orontes, at least among scholars of the exegetical school founded

by Diodorus, later bishop of Tarsus (died ca. 390). Diodorus himself seems to have written a commentary on the Psalms, and in the opinion of a number of patristic scholars the work has recently been identified in hitherto unpublished manuscripts. Only part of this newly identified commentary (on Pss 1–50) has as yet been published³⁶. One of the best known scholars of the Antiochene school was Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428). He wrote a very well known commentary on the Psalms in Greek, which was translated into Latin by Julian of Eclanum. Portions of the Greek text and of Julian’s full translation have come down to us. For the greater part, however, the Latin is known only through an Epitome of it. The Latin texts, whether full commentary or Epitome, have been transmitted mainly through Irish sources³⁷. In the most complete of the manuscripts (MS Milan, Ambrosiana C. 301 inf.), from ca. 800, the Latin text is heavily glossed in Old Irish.

All we have is the Epitome of the Latin translation. The introductory words inform us that the Lord himself in the Gospel interpreted this Psalm of himself to the Pharisees. The exposition, which is not extensive, interprets the entire psalm of Christ, and introduces a theological element on the relationship of the Son, or of Verbum, to the Father. In the comment on the opening words Dixit Dominus Domino up to meis in the Epitome two interpretations of the Jews are rejected: one taking the speaker as Abraham’s servant, the other as David, describing what God had said to Abraham at the time he was prepared for war³⁸.

The Irish glosses, as is usual, concentrate on bringing out the meaning of the Latin text³⁹. One (Ml 127d3) identifies Abraham’s

According to Justin Martyr (Dialogue, 33) the Jews understood this psalm as speaking of King Hezekiah. No such interpretation is attested in our extant rabbinic sources⁴⁰. Possibly Justin was led to believe that Jews held this opinion on Ps 110, since he knew that they interpreted as referring to Hezekiah other texts taken by Christians as messianic. Some rabbinic texts understand Ps 110 of David, as a ruler in history⁴¹. Then there were others who interpreted the Psalm of the end times: as referring to the Messiah himself or to David and his role in the new eschatological age, or of the eschatological age without mention of any Messiah⁴².

The Targum of Psalms is known to exist in fourteen manuscripts. Linguistically scholars date the work as late, from the seventh-ninth centuries. The text was published in the second Rabbinic Bible (1525), printed by Daniel Bomberg (given siglum B), and reproduced in later printed editions. The text of MS Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense 116-Z-40 (siglum M) was edited by L. Dнez Merino. There has been no critical edition of the entire work, although E. White has made a critical edition of the first two books of the Psalter (Pss

1–41; 42–72⁴³. Dr. David Steck, of the University of Sheffield, is preparing an English translation from the manuscripts, and also preparing a critical edition of the Aramaic text of the Targum⁴⁴. He uses four manuscripts (Cambridge, Cambridge University Library Ee. 5.9 = siglum C; Paris, BNF Hйb. 17 = siglum P¹⁷; Paris BNF Hйb. 110 = siglum P¹¹⁰; Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3231 = siglum Pm) and the two printed texts. These six witnesses represent 3 distinct text types: 1) C P¹⁷ Pm; 2) M P¹¹⁰; 3) B. The base text used by D. Steck for his translation is MS Paris, BNF Hйb. 17 (P¹⁷).

As P. Billerbeck has noted, this interpretation of v. 1 is that of R. Juda ben Shallum the Levite (died ca. 370), and is taken from the rabbinic Midrash on Psalms (Ps 110, par. 5)⁴⁵.

y)kz Kylm tywhd )twkz (llgb) Nynb yt)d )ml(l )brl ynmtm )t)d Tg.Ps.
qdc-yklm ytrbd-l( Mlw(l Nhk ht) HT

The exact traditions behind this rendering remain to be identified. While all mention of Melchizedek appears to be lost, the rendering is modelled on the Hebrew text. The Hebrew Nhk, "priest" (originally designating Melchizedek), is rendered as )br, "prince", the term used in the Targums of the Pentateuch to render Nhk of the Hebrew text when a respected, non-Jewish, priest is in question, for instance Putiphar (Gen 41,45.50; 46,20), priest of On, and Jethro (Exod 3,1; passim), priest of Midian. The following word, Mlw(l, "for ever" is paraphrased as "the world to come". The words ytrbd-l( ("according to the order of"?), somewhat in the tradition of R. Ishmael, is taken as if it meant "because", while qdc yklm is paraphrased (as in Tg. Ps.-J.) as "a just king".

This observation is found only in Tg. Ps.-J. It is not in the HT, in the LXX or in the other Targums. In the translation of this verse Tg. Ps.-J. has inserted what has been said with regard to the king of Sodom in v. 17. Tg. Ps.-J.’s added detail is interesting in that it is also found in Heb 7,1. The author of Hebrews may have been influenced by targumic or Hebrew tradition, although this is not required by the evidence⁴⁶.

The targumic renderings seem to exclude any liturgical-sacrificial interpretation of Melchizedek’s action. All the Targums translate the HT )y(wh by q[y]p), the aphel of qpn. With regard to the objects brought out, Tgs. Onq., Neof. and Ps.-J., with the LXX, and Pal. Syr, with the

HT have "bread and wine". The Frg. Tg.P has "food and wine"; 1QapGen has "food and drink" (ht#$mw lk)m), indications of the hospitality on Melchizedek’s part.

Melchizedek was a priest of El-Elyon (Gen 14,18), Nwyl( l)l Nhk. That Melchizedek was a priest was not denied by R. Ishmael, whose point was that his priesthood (namely that of Shem) was transferred to Abraham. The biblical statement that Melchizedek was a priest is repeated in such texts as 1QapGen 22.15; the LXX; Josephus, Ant. 1.180; War 6.438; Philo, Leg. all. 3.79,82; De congr. 18.99. Likewise the Syro-Palestinian translation and Frg. Tg.^VNL ("He was priest of God Most High"). See also Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg.^P both of which say Melchisedek was a priest, and add a reference to his having served in the high priesthood. We shall return presently to these texts.

Some targumic texts speak of a high priesthood with regard to Melchizedek ⁴⁷ (=Shem). With regard to Shem (and by implication Melchizedek) we may note Tg 1 Chr 1,24 where Shem of the HT is paraphrased as "Shem the high priest" ()br )nhk M#$)⁴⁸.

The title "high priest" for Melchizedek may be an ol

---

Карта сайта