tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post3051285688039353869..comments2023-10-22T18:58:50.693-07:00Comments on Kefirah of the Week: Melchizedek: Priest of what exactly?A Kefirahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17474560089122987417noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-40114986170860028932016-11-07T06:45:01.425-08:002016-11-07T06:45:01.425-08:00> there are references in Nach to AdoniTzedek K...> there are references in Nach to AdoniTzedek King of Jerusalem - apparently, this was a title commonly given to the kings in Jerusalem. <br /><br />An important note is that these references are ahistorical. No name like melchizedek or adonizedek show up in the Amarna letters for example. So at best these are a mythological prototype Canaanite king invented by later Israeli writers.<br /><br />>What purpose would be served by inserting verses 18-20 and break up the conversation with Melech Sodom? And if just verse 18 was inserted, you would have to also hold that the whole tithing at the end of verse 20 was also inserted.<br /><br />No, the tithing of verse 20 is fine with just an insertion of verse 18. Although there are opinions that all verse 18-20 are an insertion, I'm not sure that's necessary.<br /><br />As far as what the purpose is, that's tricky. There are a lot of possible reasons for this, but it's been a long time since I thought about it.<br /><br />I agree that Rishonim discuss this episode in detail, and if their answers are satisfying to you, then that's fine. However, to me the answer you outlined above makes a lot of assumptions that I do not think are justified. For example, the El Elyon worshipped by Melchizedek is the same as the YHWH worshipped by Avram. That does not appear to be the case, since Avram uses a different name of God in his "reply." As if to say, you worship El Elyon, I worship YHWH. Another assumption is that the king of Sodom is worshipping some other god (this is one reason for the Melchizedek insertion btw, the redactor, for whom El Elyon and YHWH were synonymous, found it difficult that the king of Sodom worshipped the same god as Avram). There's nowhere in the text any indication that the king of Sodom or any other king worshipped different gods. That's just an added explanation the Rishonim provide to fit things nicely into their worldview. I don't think it's justified.<br /><br />The idea of textual alterations or emendations is not a possibility that the Rishonim ever entertained. If you reject this completely as a possibility, then a lot of their answers seem more plausible. But if you allow for textual alterations, then the explanations become a lot more simple than anything the Rishonim could come up with. A Kefirahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17474560089122987417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-81297046809320478632016-10-26T20:37:15.640-07:002016-10-26T20:37:15.640-07:00Re: MalkiTzedek - there are references in Nach to ...Re: MalkiTzedek - there are references in Nach to AdoniTzedek King of Jerusalem - apparently, this was a title commonly given to the kings in Jerusalem. <br />What purpose would be served by inserting verses 18-20 and break up the conversation with Melech Sodom? And if just verse 18 was inserted, you would have to also hold that the whole tithing at the end of verse 20 was also inserted. Emendations are easy. Explanations are more difficult. <br />Check out Rashi/RMBN/OrHachaim - this question is a thousand years old. Melech Sodom meets Avram at the "Empty Valley, the Valley of Kings" - all the surrounding kings were there to acknowledge Avram as their king and emissary to Elokim. The King of Jerusalem is there as well along with all the kings. Only he comes bearing gifts and blessings, as opposed to the rest of the kings. Only he gets a tenth of the recovered treasure (not the other priests), because he served the El Elyon, as opposed to the other Elim. It's only after the tithing that King of Sodom realizes that Avrum intends to keep the treasure (why else would he tithe), so reduces his negotiating posture to just the captives. <br />Lot to say about this episode, but no need to emend it. Joseph Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10814902201080637595noreply@blogger.com