When looking into the story of Abraham’s interactions with Melchizedek we see that Melchizedek was a priest of “God Most High”. Abraham was also blessed by this God and paid a tenth of his spoils to him as an offering. The Hebrew El Elyon was this God Most High. My understanding is this was most likely the Pagan God El and Melchizedek was a pagan priest to El. The Jewish and Christian understanding is that this El Elyon was their God. Was Melchizedek a pagan priest and did Abraham give an offering to this pagan God? Could Abraham and the early Hebrews have been henothistic?
Abraham textually originates in Hindu Scripture. Genesis derives from the Hindu Flood Myth
“Matsya Purana” — Matsya means Fish — God as a Fish saves humanity from the Flood. Now
the Hindu Trinity Brahma, Hara(or Shiva) and Narayana are onomastically connected to Abraham, Harran
and Nahor. Now Brahma’s wife is the Goddess Saraswati who is a cognate of Asherah, hence the name Sara.
The God El is the creator God, like Brahma. Now the story of Abraham and his wives and descendents
is readapted from the story told in Matsya Purana of Abraham’s equivalent. Genesis fully derives
from its Puranic counterparts. There is mostly only ONE story that is Patriarchal in that sense. All other
stories are derived from the Typology and related linkages of the original set of stories.
An interesting perspective. What makes you think that it is true? It seems simpler and more direct to place the writings of the Hebrew Bible within an Ancient Near Eastern context. In fact the scholarly consensus seems to be that the flood story found in Genesis is a late variation of a trope that went back many millennia in the ANE. I refer you to the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh, both of which are based on sources considerably older than the Matsya Purana.
Melchizedek is fascinating.
Equally fascinating is what traditional Judaism has come to say about him:
1. Melchizedek was the Shem, the son of Noah (not sure the ages work out for this, but, oh well…)
2. The encounter between Abraham and Melchizedek caused the priesthood to pass from Melchizedek to Abraham’s descendants.
Proof I am not making this stuff up can be found at: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Not sure where the article got its translation.
“This is reflected in the only other place in Scripture where Melchizedek is mentioned: where we read, “. . . you are a priest forever because of the speech of Melchizedek.” Because of Melchizedek’s ill-chosen speech, the priesthood was taken from him and given to the seed of Abraham forever.”
I looked it up online, OJB.
“Hashem hath sworn, and will not relent, Thou Moshiach art a kohen l’olam al divrati Malki-Tzedek (kohen forever in respect to the order of Malki-Tzedek; note it is the kohen who makes kapporah for sin.”
It almost sounds like a tradition of an ancient priesthood predating the Yhwh worshippers.
Melchizidek from Salem. The names Jerusalem and Solomon are examples of theophory?
And along those lines I find:
Zedek theophory[edit]
Zedek (or Sydyk or Sedek) was the name of a Phoenician deity worshiped in Canaan. In Hebrew, “tzedek” (from the root tz-d-k) means “righteous”.
The following is an alphabetical list of names referring Zedek, and their meanings in Hebrew:
Melchi-zedek – My king is Zedek
Adoni-zedek – My lord is Zedek
Rabi-zedki – My great one/master is Zedek (EA 170)
from wiki on Theophory in the Bible
So this has really taken on a life of its own for me. The verse with Melchizedek is actually Genesis 14:18. 18 And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.[c] NRSV . God Most High is El Elyon in the footnotes.
the crazy part is that the verse has no business being there, in that part of the story, situationally. The author is referencing the King of Sodom mostly.
The list of kings fighting (5 kings against 4 kings) names the king of Sodom, but not the king of Salem or Jerusalem.
Verse 17 sets up the meeting between Abraham and the king or kings, but it says the king of Sodom came out to greet him.
Verse 18 Melchizedek brings out bread and wine.
Verse 19 and 20 are generally attributed to Melchizedek, but you cannot be blamed for thinking the king of Sodom would have been more likely to have said them, considering Abram had just recovered the goods and people of Sodom.
19 He blessed him and said,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,[d]
maker of heaven and earth;
20 and blessed be God Most High,[e]
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”
To further this argument, read the next verses, where the King of Sodom negotiates with Abram over the people and goods that Abram has recovered.
And Abram gave him one-tenth of everything. 21 Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.” 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to the Lord, God Most High,[f] maker of heaven and earth, 23 that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, so that you might not say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ 24 I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me—Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. Let them take their share.”
So you see, this part of the chapter is fully about Abram and the king of Sodom. It references El Elyon. It talks about what to do with the spoils of Sodom. And the words in verses 19 and 20, if you simply delete verse 18, make complete sense coming out of the mouth of the king of Sodom!
Now let us focus on Melchizedek. Is he the king of Salem? I think he is supposed to be the king of Jerusalem. The only other OT mention of Melchizedek is in Pslams 110:4, The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” This psalm is to David, who is the beginning of the Isrealite/Judahite kings of Jerusalem.
But there is another -zedek that is a king of Jerusalem as well. Adonizedek. The name is so similar, My Lord is Zedek or my King is Zedek. The midrash Book of Jasher uses the name Adonizedek in its chapter 16 account of the 5 kings against the 4 kings and Abram’s rescue of Lot. So where Genesis uses Melchizedek, midrash Jasher uses Adonizedek.
The book of Joshua chapter 10 has another story that looks a little out of place. It has a story of 5 kings who fight against the Gibeonites and Israel. One of these kings is an Adonizedek king of Jerusalem. These kings are listed as being Amorites, which is one of the groups Chedorlaomer of Elam subdued in Genesis 14. These kings are killed, and there is a break in the text which usually suggest poetry or quoting of another source.
“Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.”
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.
Then the text tells us this is all written in the Book of Jasher! (This is not the midrash written in the 1500s that I referenced above. I referenced that to show that at least one later source thought the person greeting Abram was named Adonizedek. This same midrash says “Adonizedek, which is Shem,” so the author thought the person greeting Abram was the actual son of Noah. Yes, the numbers add up, could have been.) This Book of Jasher seems to have been a genuine source material, as it is also mentioned as where the Song of the Bow (David’s mourning of Saul and Jonathan) is written, as referenced in Samuel.
So what I think is there was Book of Jasher that had this monumental battle of the 5 kings. (Search for 5 kings, there are only two references, Genesis 14 and Joshua 10). These stories were late additions, because both seem very out of place. While the two stories took on their own forms, one for Abram, one for Joshua, the author of the Abram story got confused and put Melchizedek (Adonizedek) into the story in an awkward fashion.
Just another tidbit on Genesis 14. It calls Abram a Hebrew. All other references using the word Hebrew can be interpreted as being derogatory. Egyptians called Israelites Hebrews, Philistines called them Hebrews, and the Torah talks about what to do with Hebrew slaves. But Genesis 14 calls says Abram the Hebrew.
Consider as well that we really do not need an introduction to Abram here. We are well into his story. This may mean the writer is using an Egyptian source. The writer may consider himself an Isrealite, and may consider Abram a patriarch, but I think this shows the source material was Egyptian.
Another tidbit. Judges chapter 1.
Adoni- Bezek.
At the place called Bezek, a king named Adoni-Bezek is defeated. He is captured and his thumbs cut off.
7 Then Adoni-Bezek said, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and big toes cut off have picked up scraps under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them.” They brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there.
They take Jerusalem by the sword again (as in Joshua). This is different from Genesis 14, where Jerusalem survives. Judges continues with the conquests of Hebron and Debir again as seen in Joshua 10. Of course a few verses later we see that Jerusalem is still full of Jebusites living with the Benjaminites. Jerusalem was an Amorite city in Genesis and Joshua. And of course the Amorites still here (after being destroyed in Genesis 14 and Joshua 10), confining the Danites to the hills in the north.
Now I want to bring in another part of the Dt history that has both Bezek and mutilation. 1 Samuel 11 also mentions Bezek as a place. This time it is Saul who is gathering forces for the conquest of Canaanites because the king of the Ammonites is gouging out the eyes of the men of Jabesh-Gilead. (According to Judges 21, this is one of the tribes of Israel!) Saul shuts down the Ammonites until the heat of day (Joshua 10, sun standing still?), then retires to Gilgal (like Joshua did) to renew the kingship. Of course it is Saul’s successor, David, who will eventually take Jerusalem for good and be compared in the Psalm to Melchizedek.
So what to make of these stories. So many similarities, yet so different. That they are similar could be explained away be the limited number of towns they COULD campaign in. Its a very limited geography. Yet there are plenty of other campaigns, and they seem to differ more than these campaigns do.
Is the storytelling formulaic? All of these are considered the writing of Dt historian except for Genesis 14. Or is a single source being used over and over again, with different parts actually being transferred to what made it into the Bible? These repetitions of the conquest of Israel might (maybe, possibly, conjecturally) all be from the Book of Jashar mentioned in Joshua 10 and again in 2 Samuel 1, with David mourning Saul. I suppose we can safely say David’s story is also from Jashar since the story of his mourning Saul is supposedly from Jashar? Solomon’s story is attributed to the Book of the Annals of Solomon in 1 Kings 11. Jeroboam and Rehoboam split the kingdom, Josiah is predicted and even named in 1 Kings 13, and then we have a multitude of alternate listings of the Book of the Annals of the King of Israel and the Book of the Annals of the King of Judah as sources.
I recently ran across the idea that the story of Abraham is written specifically to put the Israelites or Judeans in a good light as good people.
Notice the inversions by the Genesis author of the relationships in the Dt. Hist.:
The Amorites are friends (the Amorites/Ammonites are pushed out in Joshua 10, Judges 1, and Samuel 11)
Melchizedek is friendly (Adonizedek, Adonibezek, and the Ammonites at Bezek are enemies)
Abram is called a Hebrew, with no negative connotation
FocusMyView said
I recently ran across the idea that the story of Abraham is written specifically to put the Israelites or Judeans in a good light as good people.Notice the inversions by the Genesis author of the relationships in the Dt. Hist.:
The Amorites are friends (the Amorites/Ammonites are pushed out in Joshua 10, Judges 1, and Samuel 11)
Melchizedek is friendly (Adonizedek, Adonibezek, and the Ammonites at Bezek are enemies)
Abram is called a Hebrew, with no negative connotation
The Bible portrays Abraham as living in a Philistine World. Some scholars would date Abraham circa 2000 BC. The problem? The Philistines did NOT settle in Canaan until circa 1175 BC in the days of Pharaoh Rameses III who mentions defeating their attempt to invade and conquer Egypt, and settle in that country with their wives and children. Further more Rameses III states that these Sea Peoples (of whom the Pelest were one tribal group) were ferocious fighters and they destroyed all nations in their path, only Egypt could withstand them! The anonymous author of Genesis is unaware of the fact that the Philistines were not in Canaan in Abraham’s days (2000 BC) to contest a well at Beersheba. What has archaeology to say about all this? The Bible portrays Beersheba’s founding by Abraham to be in a Philistine World. Israeli archaeologists were able to confirm the Bible was right! Beersheba had indeed been founded in a Philistine World, for the sites’ earliest strata (layer IX) had Philistine pottery sherds in its midst, it was these sherds’ presence that dated the site’s founding. The problem? These sherds were dated to the Late 12th century BC, or early 11th century BC, NOT Abraham’s world of 2000 BC. It would appear, then, that Abraham is a fictional personage who has been situated in an Iron Age I World (1200-1100 BC) archaeologically speaking. The Jewish scholar, Nahum Sarna, in his Commentary of Genesis, noted a “strange” statement about Abraham, that he was of “Ur of the Chaldees” according to the Bible. Sarna observed that Ur (Tell el Muqayyar in Iraq) did NOT become part of the Chaldean Empire until the 8th/7th century BC (thus making Abraham a personage of the Late Iron Age II Period).
hsourceofthebible said
Now the Hindu Trinity Brahma, Hara(or Shiva) and Narayana are onomastically connected to Abraham, Harran
Steefen
Brahma Vishnu Shiva I’ve heard of. Is Narayana connected to Vishnu?
Narayana: is the one who is in yogic slumber under the celestial waters, referring to the masculine principle linked with Vishnu according to Vaishnavite Hindu belief. He is also known as Purushottama and is considered the Supreme being in Vaishnavism.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)