DEPARTMENT OF LITERATURE, HISTORY OF IDEAS, AND RELIGION

The Mystery

The Life of Melchizedek After Melchizedek

Olivia Rizk Gustavsson

Semester: Spring 2020 Course: RT2902, 15 hec Level: Masters Supervisor: Kamilla Skarström Hinojosa

Abstract This essay examines the reception history of the character known as Melchizedek, in three different texts, belonging to different genres and composed in different languages. The two Old Testament passages, Genesis 14:18–20 and , where Melchizedek is mentioned are first examined through a brief grammatical analysis, in order to better understand the passages which, the examined three texts, in one or another way, refer to. The three texts, which include the , 2 (Slavonic) and the document , all relate to Melchizedek in varying ways. In Hebrews, the -king Melchizedek is used as a type of , without adding to the original character as found in Gen 14:18–20. In the longer recension of , two Melchizedeks are mentioned. In both cases, explanations are given to how the persons came into existence. In 11Q13, Melchizedek is said to be the redeemer of the Sons of Light, and the one to finally set captives free. Though the texts differ from each other in many ways, not least in genre, they have a common denomination: the emphasis on the priesthood of Melchizedek

Key words: reception history, Melchizedek, Hebrews, Qumran, Slavonic Enoch, Genesis, , pseudepigrapha, . 2

CONTENTS 1. Abbreviations ...... 4 2. Introduction...... 5 3. Aim and purpose ...... 6 4. Methods and theory ...... 7 5. Material ...... 12 6. Demarcations...... 13 7. Structure ...... 14 8. Previous research ...... 14 8.1 Old Testament texts ...... 14 8.2 Texts outside the Old Testament ...... 16 9. The Hebrew Texts ...... 22 9.1 Genesis 14 ...... 22 9.2 Psalm 110 ...... 26 10. Texts outside the Hebrew Bible ...... 29 10.1 Hebrews ...... 29 10.2 11Q13 ...... 34 10.3 2 Enoch ...... 36 11. Discussion ...... 43 12. Conclusion ...... 48 13. Summary ...... 50 14. Material for further research ...... 51 15. References ...... 53 16. Appendix ...... 58

3

1. ABBREVIATIONS

2EM – The Exaltation of Melchizedek BDB – The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon BHS – Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia DJD – Discoveries in the Judaean Desert ISV– International Standard Version ITC– International Theological Commentary JSJ – Journal for the Study of JSNT– Journal for the Study of the JSP– Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha KJV– LXX – MT – Masoretic Text NIV – New International Version NT – New Testament OT – Old Testament WUNT – Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

4

2. INTRODUCTION.

“The character Melchizedek appears in Genesis in a very episodic fashion. He crosses the sky like a meteor, nobody knowing where he comes from or where he is going.”1

The above quote illustrates the very fact that the way Melchizedek appears in the Bible, which is to say, in a very unceremonious manner, seems to spark as much interest as what he actually does in the biblical passages. Yet his meteor-like appearance, and disappearance, is certainly not the end of the story.

The character known as Melchizedek is mentioned only twice in the Hebrew Bible.2 In Genesis, he appears before Abram as the king of Salem and a priest of (Gen 14:18– 20), commonly translated as God Most High. The second mentioning is found in the Book of Psalms. In Psalm 110, the character the psalmist curiously refers to as “my lord” is said to be “a priest forever” in accordance with Melchizedek (Ps 110:4).

Although mentioned only briefly in two completely different genres in the Old Testament, a character by the name of Melchizedek continues to live a life of his own outside the Hebrew Bible. In the New Testament, his priesthood, and how it relates to the priesthood of Christ is discussed at length in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the Qumran literature, a heavenly being referred to as Melchizedek will appear at the end of time to deliver the righteous from the hand of (11Q13).

1 Mathias Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews”, JSJ, vol. 2, nr. 2 (1971), 116. 2 I use the terms “Hebrew Bible” and “Old Testament” interchangeably. Further, as the term “Hebrew Bible” denotes , such a term, though commonly used among scholars, excludes other versions, such as the Septuagint. The term “Old Testament” will therefore be used in certain cases to include ancient translations. 5

Beyond ancient texts and traditions, to this very day, Melchizedek remains an often talked about element within my own religious tradition, the Coptic church of Egypt. In spite of his brief biblical appearances, the priest and king of Salem is talked about in everyday religious life, to the same degree as other more prominent biblical characters such as or even .

Although the person known as Melchizedek’s sole appearance in the Old Testament is limited to a few verses in the Genesis narrative describing Abram’s military endeavors, the legend of the king and priest continues to live on outside of the Hebrew Bible, and as a part of everyday life for many Copts today.

3. AIM AND PURPOSE .

The purpose of this essay is to examine how Melchizedek as a legendary figure is presented and used outside of the Hebrew Bible, in both Jewish and early Christian strands of tradition. The three texts that will be analyzed are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Qumran document known as 11Q13, and the last part of 2 Enoch. The three texts, although differing from each other in terms of both genre and original language, all have the character Melchizedek in common.

My aim for this essay is to map out and identify possible similarities and differences in how Melchizedek is presented in three different texts, chiefly stemming from classical antiquity, and how they compare to the two Old Testament passages making mention of Melchizedek. My research question is therefore the following: How is the Old Testament character known as Melchizedek received in later texts and traditions?

In order to facilitate the process of identifying how the two Melchizedek passages have been received in later texts and traditions I will be using the following questions as guidelines in the analyses.

6

1. How is Melchizedek presented in the Hebrew bible?

2. How do the studied texts compare to the Old Testament passages in regards to how Melchizedek is presented?

The first of the two ancillary questions are geared towards the two passages in one of my primary sources, the passages in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, whereas the succeeding question will be answered in order to analyze the primary sources found outside of the BHS.

4. METHODS AND THEORY

In this study, two different approaches will be employed; grammatical critic and intertextual analysis.

To examine one of my sources, the MT as found in BHS, a method within the historical- critical field, namely grammatical criticism will be employed. As a method of analysis, I will make my own translation of Genesis 14:17–23 and Psalm 110. The translation will function as means of analysis, and is not in itself as a goal. Therefore, the BHS will be employed as a basis for textual analysis, and variations listed in the text critical apparatus will be examined on the same conditions as the MT.

The second approach I will be using is specific to the material which is not included in the Hebrew Bible. To be able to answer my research question I will need to pinpoint if, and how the material from outside the Hebrew Bible, both canonical and non-canonical, relates to the Old Testament pericopes. The suitable approach in this quest is what many scholars refer to

7 as a recent approach: that of reception history.3 Reception history as one single and unified approach stems from two different interrelated concepts, wirkungsgeschichte and rezeptionsgeschichte.4 The two German language concepts, proposed by Gadamer and Jauss, respectively5 find parallels in the English language term “reader-response criticism, concerned with the dialectic between reader and text.6 However, since a distinction between the two German language concepts said to be strictly theoretical and not easily separated from one another,7 I will therefore use the more broadly defined approach in English known as reception history.

Since the focus of my study is related to how the Old Testament passages have been received in other texts and traditions, whether canonical texts or otherwise, approaches within the historical-critical field will not be applied to the primary material other than the MT texts.

Closely related to the second approach I will be using in this study is my theoretical framework.

Intertextuality, as described by J. Gorman permeates the Bible.8 In order to make meaningful intertextual analyses and to conduct reception historical studies, it is crucial to set up criteria for what can be said to be ‘text within text’. Steve Moyise focuses on quotations, allusions and echoes in his introduction to Old Testament use in the New Testament. He defines quotations as something indicated by a citation formula, i.e., “it is written”. Allusions, on the other hand, are less precise and therefore harder to identify. Moyise reports that there are debates among scholars to whether an allusion needs to have been intentional or

3 Masiiwa Ragies Gunda, “Reception History of the Bible: Prospects of a New Frontier in African Biblical Studies” in Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice (eds. Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 127. 4 Gunda, “Reception History”, 128. 5 Robert Evans, Reception History, Tradition and Biblical Interpretation: Gadamer and Jauss in Current Practice (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 2. 6 Evans, Reception History, 9. 7 Gunda, “Reception History”, 128. 8 Michael J. Gorman, Elements of Biblical : A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), 109. 8 not.9 Echoes, however, are said to be vague enough for intention to have been unlikely. In this essay, I will use the three criteria mentioned above as a reference for what can be considered to be intertextuality.

Tracing the reception history of Old Testament texts in the new Testament poses an issue which needs to be dealt with before moving into the analysis. It is known that the NT authors often quote the Greek translation, the Septuagint. The Epistle to the Hebrews is no exception. On the relationship between the Old Testament and New Testament, Georg A. Walser argues “In short, at the time when Hebrews was composed, the Old Testament in Hebrew was not as uniform as is usually taken for granted, and thus the Greek rendering, or rather renderings, of the Hebrew texts were equally differentiated.”10 Although I am not convinced the completion of the Hebrew Bible at the time of New Testament is usually taken from granted, the above quote pinpoints one of the major issues in doing biblical, and specifically intertextual reception history. The issue here, of course, is that of “the Bible” as a concept. As “the Hebrew Bible” as we know it today, was unavailable to the authors of the New Testament texts, Walser emphasizes the significance of LXX and LXX studies to understand how the Old Testament is used in the new.

Reception history and the fluidity of texts

As biblical texts typically have a long and complex transmission history,11 the notion of establishing an “original” text has generally fallen out of favor with many researchers. The quest for establishing the “the original text” has rather been replaced by attempts to reconstruct a particular text’s “final literary product”, a state from which, using Old

9 Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction (2nd ed.: London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 7. 10 Georg A. Walser, Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews. WUNT 356. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 4. 11 See discussion on the goal of textual criticism in Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible. Lexham Methods Series (rev.ed, Douglas Mangum; Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2018), 40-42. 9

Testament texts as an example, “the Septuagint developed and the final form from which the Masoretic text (and thus, the English Bible) developed.”12

The issue here, as with all studies within the field of biblical reception history, is that of delineation. Where should the line be drawn between “original” and “reception”?

Brennan W. Breed explores and challenges common ideas of original texts and thereby also their reception history. Considering how translations such as LXX, Theodotion, targumim and Peshitta has functioned as the “original” for many readers, the border between “reception” and “original” is blurred. Using the Book of as an example, he argues that the oldest imaginable Hebrew text is at once reception as well as an original, as the story of Job seems to predate any written text, including the MT.13 The difficulties in distinguishing between “original” and “reception” is further illustrated with the example of BHS as the standard for Old Testament scholarship: “The Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia, the most commonly used critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, is a modern scholarly edition of a medieval manuscript with late antique vowels, written in an anachronistic script and surrounded by diachronous layers of paratextual symbols.”14 Instead of perceiving texts as something which could either be ‘original’ or ‘reception’, he suggests that biblical texts are more like nomads than refugees, supposedly exiled from their original context. The alternative he presents is “a new model of the biblical text, one that draws on reception history’s potential to conceive of texts as nomads instead of refugees or migrants. Nomads do not come from any fixed point, and neither are they headed toward any fixed point.”15

Connected to both theory and texts is the question of what reception history of a biblical text is. The ‘reception history’ part might be easier to define than ‘biblical text’. In the case with Hebrews, the traditions explored were liked based on the LXX (based on the usage of direct

12 Anderson, Widder, Textual, 42. 13 Brennan W. Breed, Nomadic Texts: A Theory of Biblical Reception History. Indiana Series in Biblical Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014), 2. 14 Breed, Nomadic, 6. 15 Breed, Nomadic, 203. 10 quotes from the LXX) and not any Hebrew texts. Given the fact that LXX is quoted in Hebrews, and not Hebrew bible texts, there is a valid point in questioning what material, if any, has been used, interpreted and expounded on, in both 11Q13 and 2 Enoch. As each New Testament text has been studied extensively throughout the centuries, in comparison to the Dead Sea scrolls and certain recently rediscovered pseudepigrapha, such as 2 Enoch, quotations, allusions and other references have also been studied more extensively. In the case of 2 Enoch, though best preserved in Slavonic, stating with certainty what translation, text(s) or oral traditions might have been used, is in itself a complex matter. In the case of Qumran, biblical material (i.e. non-sectarian texts), has been found in both Hebrew and Aramaic,16 something which obscures the border between a perceived ‘original’, supposedly in Hebrew, and the Aramaic translation.

The theory of “texts as nomads”, as developed by Breed, will be employed when doing the grammatical analysis of Hebrew Bible texts, as well as in the analysis of my other material.

Doing a reception historical study on a biblical character, or any bible text, which does not have a clear point of origin, has a certain drawback; the issue of not being able to properly date texts and traditions, and therefore not being able to discern how old they are in relation to each other. Thus, deciding what text should be considered ‘reception’ of a certain text is not any less complicated than dating the texts themselves. This is especially true for the case with the narrative in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 where the dating of the respective texts differs greatly, even to the point where the Psalm is older than the Melchizedek-Abram encounter as found in Genesis. Creating a timeline in the reception history of Melchizedek is possible, however, the timeline would remain tentative.

The very necessity of creating a timeline in the reception history of Melchizedek could in itself be questioned. The texts existing today tell their story, regardless of their age and which

16 A. Fitzmyer, The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (New York: Paulist Press, 2009), 44.

11 text came first; the descriptions of Melchizedek remain the same in the respective texts. Yet, the historical aspect of reception historical studies can should not be overlooked. A historical survey where chronology is disregarded, either by design or otherwise, makes for an incomplete study. Tracing Melchizedek’s literary presence throughout the millennia would, naturally, require a precise dating of each text analyzed. However, since the aim of this study is to analyze how Melchizedek is presented in each text, and how they compare to each other, efforts to create a timeline would be beyond the scope of the essay.

5. MATERIAL

The pericopes Genesis 14:18–20 and Psalm 110:4 according to the Masoretic text, as found in BHS, will used as one of my primary sources in this essay. My other primary sources include the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews,17 the Qumran document 11Q13.18 The book known as both 2 Enoch and Slavonic Enoch, although its origins are unclear19 will also be studied and compared to my primary material found in BHS.

The selection of the three texts, Hebrews, 11Q13 and 2 Enoch, is meant to illustrate how various different texts, with different origins and genres, all approach the same character.

My secondary sources include monographs on both biblical and extra-biblical texts, articles, modern-day commentaries, dictionaries and concordances. In addition to contemporary literature, certain other texts, such as ancient Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible,

17 New Testament text in translation, as found in NIV unless otherwise stated. 18 11Q13 as found in Florentino Garcia Martinez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran cave 11, II:11Q2-18, 11Q20-31. DJD XXIII. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 221-241. 19 See “previous research” below. 12 known as targumim,20 as well as a midrash21 on Genesis will be consulted for comparative purposes.

6. DEMARCATIONS

Melchizedek is a commonly recurring character in ancient Jewish and Christian literature. The selection of the three analyzed texts is based on the fact that they are disparate in terms of genre and origin, but similar in content, in regards to Melchizedek’s presence in respective text. The balance between similarity and dissimilarity among the texts is meant to illustrate how, although divergent at surface level, they all emphasize the role and importance of the same literary character.

I do not intend to examine every antique text making possible reference to the person or tradition of Melchizedek as there are numerous texts, biblical and extra biblical making use of words, phrases and allusions commonly associated or used in connection with, the two biblical passages containing explicit references of Melchizedek. Such an exclusion means not examining, in depth, the idea of priesthood or kingship in the OT. Other words also associated with Melchizedek, such as righteousness, will also be excluded from deeper analysis, as the purpose of this study is to examine the reception history of passages.

The two texts from my primary source, BHS, will be examined, as mentioned above, using grammatical criticism. A part of my material, however, is written in a language that is unavailable to me, i.e., Slavonic. Therefore, these texts will not be examined using the same methods as my primary source. Using grammatical criticism to examine my secondary material would also be inappropriate as the purpose of this essay is that of reception history.

20 Qumran scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer defines targum as “an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text of a biblical book”. Impact, 45. 21 Defined shortly by Neusner as “biblical exegesis by ancient Judaic authorities”. What is a ? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), XI. 13

7. STRUCTURE

After the introductory part of this essay, the second part will be dedicated to the pericopes in 1) Genesis 14 and 2) Psalm 110. My own translation is first propounded, then a brief background to the respective pericope will be presented. This will be followed by a grammatical analysis of the texts, in order to gain a deeper understanding of how ancient readers and listeners may have interpreted the texts. In this section, relevant textual witnesses will also be examined.

The third part of the essay will deal with my non-Hebrew bible material. An overview of the historical background to each text will presented which will be succeed by excerpts, relating to Melchizedek, from the texts themselves. An analysis of each text will be made, aiming at answering the question of how the secondary texts relate to the Old Testament passages.

The fourth and final part is a discussion about similarities and differences found in the material outside of the Old Testament and how they together compare to the Old Testament passages making mention of Melchizedek. The fourth part will also contain a discussion of possible ideological differences rendering different interpretations of the same pericope. The final part will then be concluded by a brief summary.

The appendix of this essay features the translated texts of 11Q13 and 2EM. The Epistle to the Hebrews is not included in the appendix as it is readily available elsewhere.

8. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

8.1 Old Testament texts

As my pericopes are found in two well-researched books in the Hebrew Bible, Genesis and the Book of Psalms respectively, numerous studies regarding the two books’ history have already been made.

14

Genesis

The first pericope, as it is found in the , is usually included by researchers in the larger scheme of documentary hypothesis.22 Some researcher, however, indicate that the Melchizedek passage in Genesis has been edited into the text to ideological reasons. Terrence Fretheim suggests that the Melchizedek verses may be traced to Davidic-Solomonic apologists, who “sought to anchor new forms of royal/temple practice in Abrahamic times in order to legitimize them, perhaps in view of questions raised about ‘new’ practices associated with the Davidic regime.”23

In terms of form and genre, Fretheim identifies two main literary forms: narrative and genealogy.24 Curiously enough, Abram/Abraham, although one of the most significant persons in Genesis, and the Hebrew bible altogether, is without elaborate genealogy. His father Terach is mentioned only twice in the Bible (Gen 11:24–32, Josh 24:2). As for Melchizedek, his lack of genealogy is emphasized in later traditions.25 It is therefore obvious that Melchizedek passage in Genesis does not belong to the , or genealogy, strand of tradition.

A few works on Genesis have been published where Melchizedek’s role, although only passingly mentioned in the biblical text, is examined. Although a historical basis for the Abram-Melchizedek interaction is hard to establish, all commentaries I have consulted conclude that Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest and king.26 As Melchizedek was Canaanite, Turner concludes that Melchizedek and Abram were devotees of different gods.27

22 See for example Lawrence A. Turner, Genesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 12. 23 Terrence E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections”, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. I (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 439. 24 Fretheim, “Genesis”, 224–325. 25 See “Epistle to the Hebrews” below 26 See for example Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis”, 117, Turner, Genesis, 71 and Fretheim, “Genesis”, 439. 27 Turner, Genesis, 71. 15

Psalm 110

Regarding the Book of Psalms however, I have not found any monographs or longer articles elaborating on the somewhat unexpected mentioning of Melchizedek in Psalm 110. Commentators such as J. Clinton McCann, Jr. explains Melchizedek’s presence in the Psalm on the basis of combined priesthood and kingship in one person. A “historical” Melchizedek, such as the one in Genesis 14 is not discussed. It is his double offices, as both priest and king, that are emphasized commentary series. As Psalm 110 is identified as a royal psalm,28 the connected between the royal office and the religious, priestly office is easily made. As McCann proposes in regards to the pericope in Genesis 14, the advocates of the Davidic priestly line would have seen no issue with a king performing religious duties.29 In an article about Melchizedek in certain extrabiblical literature, Delcor discusses the possibility that there is more to the Melchizedek reference in Psalm 110 than just an attempt to legitimize the Davidic, and therefore uninherited, claim to the throne. Delcor’s conclusion regarding the reference to Genesis 14, however, seems to reaffirm that there was a need to anchor an alternative anointing, one different to the Aaronic.30

8.2 Texts outside the Old Testament

Epistle to the Hebrews

The Epistle to the Hebrews contain a large number of references to the Old Testament. Over 30% of these, are references to the book of Psalms.31 Of all Psalms, Psalm 110 is the most commonly referred to. In fact, George W. Buchanan proposed the theory of Hebrews as a Christian midrash on Psalm 110.32 The genre classification of Hebrews as a midrash on Psalm 110 has however not been widely employed by other scholars. Elke Tönges argues that Hebrews should be understood, not as a midrash in the traditional sense, but rather as a “Jesus

28 J. Clinton McCann, Jr, “Psalms”, in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. IV (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 1129. 29 McCann, “Psalms”, 1130. 30 Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis”, 122-123. 31 Jordaan, Gert, J.C and Nel, Pieter. “From Priest-King to King-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews” in Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception (ed. Human, D. and Steyn, G. J. New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 229. 32 George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions. The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972), xxi-xxvi. 16 midrash”, where the end goal of the author is that of establishing a certain .33 Consequently, the focus for the author is not the content of Psalm 110, but rather on the person of Christ. On a similar note, Fred L. Horton holds that the portrayals of Melchizedek’s perpetual priesthood, as well as other aspects of his ministry “held no real interest for our author apart from their connection with the ministry of Christ.”34

Further, Horton explores the relationship between the Melchizedek traditions in 11Q13 and those in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In his findings, he disproves theories that the Melchizedek portrayals in Hebrews are directly based on those stemming from the Qumran community in general, and the ones in 11Q13 in particular.35

There is only one New Testament book that contains explicit reference to Melchizedek: the Epistle to the Hebrews. J.H Davies briefly discusses whether or not Hebrews was originally a letter. The questioning of the designation is widely based on the fact that there is a lack of formal greetings in the onset of the text. What has been suggested, instead, is that the text was originally a sermon or tract, reused as a letter. This theory is rejected by Davies on the basis of the fact that a particular group of readers, individuals even, are addressed in the text.36

The very name of the Epistle is itself also debated. “Hebrews” suggest that the readers where Hebrew speakers, native or otherwise, although a more common designation for Jewish Christians would be either Israelites and plainly, Jews. On the addressees of the letter, R.T France concludes “[t]here is wide (but not universal) agreement that the letter was written to Jewish Christians, or at least to Christians who, as former Jewish proselytes, had a deep

33 Elke Tönges, “The Epistle to the Hebrews as a ‘Jesus-Midrash’”, Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 89–105. 34 Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek tradition: A critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 170. 35 Horton, Melchizedek, 167. 36 John Howard Davies, A Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 2. 17 knowledge of the OT.”37 Regarding the authorship of Hebrews, France summarizes the traditional views as the following:

The eventual inclusion of Hebrews among Paul’s letters in the Western church (largely under the influence of and Augustine) was due not to literary conviction concerning its authorship (for few readers, especially of the letter in Greek, can fail to recognize this is not how Paul wrote) but to the need to find a suitable place in the canonical list for a book that had by then become widely accepted but did not name its author.38

The author of Hebrews, though subject of great scholarly effort, remains unknown. The text is usually dated to some time before 70 AD.39

2 Enoch

2 Enoch, or Slavonic Enoch, where Melchizedek is found towards the last section of the book, is notoriously hard to date. However, there seems to be a general consensus among scholars regarding the dating of traditions behind the text. Although the Slavonic texts, extant in two recensions, and consisting of many differing manuscripts, date back only to the Middle Ages, and is believed by some to be the work of Christians,40 a Coptic language version of the shorter recension was found 2009, which predates the Slavonic one by several centuries.41 According to Collins, there is a general consensus among scholars that the traditions present in 2 Enoch are 1) Jewish (as opposed to Jewish-Christian or plainly Christian) and 2) traceable to no later than the first century CE. Arguments for both origin and dating are

37 Richard T. France, “Hebrews” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol. 9, Hebrews- Revelation (ed. Tremper Longman III and E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 22. 38 France, “Hebrews”, 21. 39 Hebrews is quoted by Clement of at around 95 AD. Further, there is no mentioning of the destruction of the temple, which makes commentators, such as J.H Davies, to believe it to have been written before 70 AD. Davies, Hebrews, 8–9. 40 See for example J.T Milik, The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 107–116. 41 Joost L. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia”, in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Boston: Brill, 2012), 16. 18 largely based on how the text itself relates to sacrificial offerings.42 The early dating of the traditions behind the extant texts are also the reason why 2 Enoch is included in the study.

R. H. Charles held 2 Enoch to be a pre-Christian work composed originally in Hebrew. Further, Charles theorizes that the author behind 2 Enoch was a Hellenistic Jew in Alexandria, and a contemporary of .43

The last chapters of 2 Enoch are referred to as “the Exaltation of Melchizedek” or 2EM. Some of the earliest English translations of 2 Enoch, such as the one by R.H Charles, does not include “the Exaltation of Melchizedek” as this was believed to be a later addition to the text.44 Russian-American scholar Andrei Orlov, who has dedicated a large portion of his career to pseudepigrapha in general and 2 Enoch in particular, argues in an article about the origins of 2 Enoch, that the Melchizedek portion of the book is original, and not, as certain other researchers would argue, a later appendix of some sort.45

11Q13

One of the scrolls found in Qumran in 1956,46 retrieved in cave 11, is referred to either as 11Q13, or 11QMelchizedek due to the prominence of the name. The document dates back to the mid-first century BCE.47

By virtue of 11QMelchizedek being a part of the larger body of texts discovered in Qumran, much of the research on this particular text is related to the greater enterprise of Qumran

42 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 302. 43 Robert H. Charles, William R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1896), xxvi. 44 This view is reflected in the short commentary by R.H Charles which precedes the translation by Morfill, featured in the appendix of this essay. 45 Andrei Orlov, “Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch.” JSJ vol. 31, 1 (2010): 25. 46 John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1. 47 Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 2004), 532. 19 research. As research on the Dead Sea scrolls and the Qumran community is substantial in its own right, and the purpose of this essay is not mapping out the current scholarly activity on this matter, this section will not contain any presentation to the texts at large, nor the Qumran community and their overall ideology unless relevant to 11QMelchizedek.

The extant text is preserved only in a highly fragmentary condition, where only the second, out of three which have been identified, column is preserved.48 Sentences are in almost all cases incomplete which makes for challenging attempts at interpreting the text. The text is written in Hebrew and contains many references, quotes or otherwise from both the Books of , prophetic literature, and the Psalter.

The overall genre of the text is apocalyptic. As the extant text is damaged, the first legible line begins with a quote by someone who speaks of the last Jubilee. The tenth and the last Jubilee49 is thus the context for the events described in the scroll. Collins summarizes the historical periods in the scroll as being based on 9 as well as the division of time made in the Apocalypse of Weeks,50 which can be found in 1 Enoch.

In the case of the Dead Sea scrolls, the discoveries of such texts reshaped scholars’ outlook on “postbiblical Judaism, not least on the area of Jewish apocalypticism.”51 Although 11Q13, or 11QMelch exists in a highly fragmentary state, scholars have paid attention to both text itself and to its intertextuality. In summarizing the aforementioned scroll, Collins conclude that Melchizedek, although referred to at one point referred to as , is one of three names for the Angel of Light.52 Many researchers contrast the name Melchizedek to the name or title of another king, Melkiresha, “king of wickedness”, as described in the Testament of Amram.53 Further, Collins suggests that Melchizedek plays a similar role to that of Michael in the Book of Daniel.54

48 Garcia Martinez, Tigchelaar and van der Woude, Qumran 11, 221. 49 Cf. Lev 25:8–13 50 Collins, Apocalyptic, 194. 51 Collins, Apocalyptic, 178. 52 Collins, Apocalyptic, 194. 53 Collins, Apocalyptic, 194. 54 Collins, Apocalyptic, 238. 20

Rick van der Water debates the possible identities of Melchizedek, as described in 11Q13. The first possibility he presents, is Melchizedek as a created angel, or even archangel Michael55 performing tasks usually associated with angelic beings, thus should be understood as an ‘intermediary’.56 The second possibility he presents, is Melchizedek as a divine title, making Melchizedek in 11Q13 none other than YHWH.57 The conclusion van der Water makes is in itself inconclusive; understanding Melchizedek as an intermediary does not rule out the possibility that it is also a title for God.58

On the identity of Melchizedek in 11Q13, scholars debate whether he should be understood as not just human or angel but even God. Many researchers theorize Melchizedek to be the antithesis of Melkiresha, the wicked king, figuring in another Qumran text, .59 Before his imminent death, Amram, the father of Moses and , sees two angelic beings contesting over him. The two opposing beings are presented as each having three names, yet only one of these names is preserved: Melkiresha.60 Although the name Melchizedek is not preserved in the text, although the possibility of Melchizedek’s name having been featured in the text remains a possibility.

meaning “evil” is direct opposite of the latter part of ,רשע ,As the latter part of the name Melchizedek’s name, meaning “righteous” or “righteousness”, Melchizedek as the potential antonym to Melkiresha is certainly not implausible. If this is the case, Melchizedek would again be ascribed the role of redeemer. As Stuckenbruck puts it “[...] if Melki-zedek is the name to be restored, the presentation of this angelic being has taken on a life of its own; he

55 Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 532. 56 Rick van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13”, JSP, vol 16.1 (2006): 78. 57 Van de Water, “Identifying”, 76. 58 Van de Water, “Identifying”, 85–86. 59 4Q543–549 as featured in Emile Puech, Qumran Grotte 4: XXII, Textes Araméens, Première partie, 4Q529-549. DJD XXXI (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001). 60 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Melchizedek in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” JSNT, vol 41.2, (2018):130. 21 has become the subject of speculation within a cosmological-ethical of opposing figures [...]”61

All speculations on the identity of Melchizedek in 11Q13 point towards the same idea; the Qumran Melchizedek is either a divine or angelic being. The Melchizedek of Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 is a character vastly different from the one presented in 11Q13. Even the very title of the English translation of 11Q13 by Geza Vermes is “The heavenly prince Melchizedek”.62

9. THE HEBREW BIBLE TEXTS

This section of the essay includes my own translations of the two pericopes from BHS.63 Textual variants, if present, will also be discussed. The two translated pericopes will be will be followed by a grammatical analysis.

9.1 Genesis 14

In this section, the narrative in Genesis is discussed. My translation is, as mentioned in the introduction, based on the MT as found in BHS. The verses preceding the Melchizedek portion of the text have also been included in translation, to showcase the verses narrowest context.

And the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after his return from the slaughter of , and the kings who were with him at the valley of Shaveh, that is, the king’s valley. And Malki- Tzedek, king of Shalem, brought out bread and wine, and he is a priest of El Elyon. And he blessed him and said, “blessed be Abram by El Elyon, owner of heaven and the earth and blessed be El Elyon, who has given your enemies into your hand” and he gave him a tenth of everything. And the king of Sodom said to Abram “give me the people and take the goods for yourself”. But Abram said to the king of Sodom “I have lifted my hand to the Lord, El Elyon, owner of heaven and the earth, if I take a thread or a strap of a sandal, I will not take anything that is yours, so you will not be able to say “I made Abram rich”. (Gen 14:17–23)

61 Stuckenbruck, Melchizedek, 130. 62 Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 532. 63 All Old Testament translations are my own, unless otherwise stated. 22

It is quite striking that Melchizedek’s only actual appearance in the Bible seems to be an interpolation into a narrative about a different king, namely the king of Sodom. The pericope 14:17–23 is part of a larger narrative with Abram and his nephew . Chapter 14 as a whole describes the battle between seven kings, divided into two alliances, one consisting of the kings of Shinar, Ellasar, Elam and Goiim and the other of the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela. As Abram’s nephew Lot is taken captive by the Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, upon which Abram sends his men to set Lot free, along with people and the goods which had also been taken by the king. Melchizedek is presented without a genealogy, which is picked up on in later references. However, several other persons in Genesis are also without genealogy.

Two textual variants are listed in to BHS in connection with Genesis 14:17–23. One of them, corresponding to v.17, shows that some manuscript has Chedorlaomer as one word, instead hyphenated. Also, in connection with v.17, the has a definite article before the word Shaveh. No textual variations listed in the text critical apparatus relate to the Melchizedek passage.

A Canaanite priest

, “priest”, as the first mentioning in ,כֹהֵן The translated passage above contains the word the Hebrew Bible. The Abraham story, according to the biblical narrative, takes places several generations before Aaron and his descendants are called to be , in Ex 28:1. That makes Melchizedek the first priest in the Bible. As mentioned under “previous research”, there is a consensus among scholars saying that Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest, and therefore a priest serving another god than the god of Abraham. Curiously enough, El Elyon, “God Most High” in , לאֵ עֶלְיֹון ,Abram uses the same name, or possibly epithet ,YHWH ,יְהוָה reference to his own god, in v. 22 but not without first mentioning the name “the Lord”. In addition to Melchizedek being the first priest in the Bible, the same passage El, “god” for the first time in the Bible. According to Strong’s ,אֵ ל also makes use of the word

23 concordance, the word occurs 248 times in the Hebrew Bible.64 BDB defines the word as “god, but with various subordinate applications to express idea of might; — hardly ever in prose except with defining word (adjective or genitive)”.65 In this case, the defining word is ,עָלָה a word with 43 occurrences according to Strong’s. The word is said to come from ,עֶלְיֽ ֹון to עֶלְיֽ ֹון alah, “to go up”, hence “most high”. A little over half the occurrences use the word refer to God, whereas the rest of the occurrences denote physical position, typically translated to English as “the uppermost” (Gen 47:17 in KJV), or “the highest” (Ez 41:7 in KJV and ISV). In the Book of Psalms, however, the word occurs 22 times and only once does it not of (עֶלְיֽ ֹון) refer directly to God (“And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted the kings of the earth.” Ps 89:27 NIV).

Old Testament scholar Bill T. Arnold concludes that “[T]he divine epithet ‘Most High’(‘elyōn), is attested in numerous extra-biblical inscriptions in Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Greek, reflecting its widespread use in ancient West Semitic religion in diverse times and places to exalt any god thought to be supreme”.66 In addition to this epithet, Arnold which I have translated “owner of heaven and the earth”, as “an ,קֹנֵה שָמַיִם וָאָרֶ ץ describes archaic title attested in abbreviated form in the Canaanite world for the high god el as early as the Late Bronze Age”.67 In a monograph dedicated to Genesis 12–50, Gerald Janzen concludes that El Elyon is not just a Canaanite god but “chief god of the Canaanite council of gods as such is worshipped as ‘maker of heaven and earth’.68

Although El is the name of the supreme god in Canaan69 and many scholars identify Melchizedek’s god with a Canaanite god, I have not found any other claims of El Elyon, in that exact combination, being the chief god in any pantheon. According to Qumran scholar

64 Strong’s #410. .”אֵ ל“ ,BDB 65 66 Bill T. Arnold, Genesis. The New Cambridge Bible Commentary. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 148. 67 Arnold, Genesis, 148. 68 Gerald J. Janzen. Abraham and All the Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 12–50. ITC. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 33. 69 See for instance Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis”, 118. 24

Mathias Delcor, El Elyon has been “identified necessarily with ”, on account of Israel’s monotheistic tradition.70

A righteous king

The meaning of the name, or possible title, Melchizedek itself has been debated amongst -malki ,֙מַלְכִ י־צֶֶ֙דֶ ק ,scholars. In the MT, Melchizedek is written as two words with a hyphen meaning king, and the second ְמֶ לֶך tzedek. There are two parts to the name, the first being listed in BDB as ‘rightness’ or ‘righteousness’.71 However, there seems to be more ,צֶדֶ ק being to the name (or title) than just its parts. In an article about the identity of Melchizedek in 11Q13, Rick van de Water discusses a few different renderings of the name. On the assumption that Melchizedek unequivocally means “king of righteousness”, van de Water as something different than a hireq מַלְכִ י discusses possibility of interpreting the yod in compagninis; he suggests the yod could be understood as a first singular pronominal suffix giving the name “my king is righteousness”.72 Further, Delcor suggests that Melchizedek is a .73 However, as opposed to many other theophoric names in the Bible, it is not YHWH who seems to be referred to. According to Delcor, both of the two components malki and tzedek are found ancient near eastern divine names. On the first component of the name, he writes “Mlk is known as a divine name particularly in anthroponyms at Assur, Mari and also at Ugarit.”74 On the second component, Delcor theorizes that the Phoenician god Sdk could be referred to, as name constructions similar to that of malki-tzedek have been found in both Phoenicia and Carthage.75

In the pericope, Melchizedek is said to be the king of Shalem, usually rendered Salem. This ,שָ לֵם place, whether city or state, has traditionally been identified with . The word Shalem, is found in two places in the Bible with Genesis 14:18 being the first. The second occurrence is in Psalm 76:2. In the Psalm, Shalem is paralleled with Zion: “In Salem is his

70 Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis”, 116. .”צֶדֶ ק“ ,BDB 71 72 Van de Water, “Identifying”, 78. 73 Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis”, 115. 74 Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis”, 115. 75 Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis”, 115–116. 25 , in Zion his dwelling places”. The psalm becomes incomprehensible should not Shalem be synonymous with Zion as the psalm has an overall chiastic structure.

Summary

In conclusion, Melchizedek appears, and disappears, without any notice. He is not presented with a genealogy, and no background to his dual offices is given. He is explicit said to be king of Shalem/Salem and priest of El Elyon, or God Most High. Since the god he serves is mentioned by name, it is possible to draw the conclusion that he was separate from the god of Abram but has subsequently been identified with YHWH and the god of Israel for ideological reasons.

9.2 Psalm 110

Similar to the analysis of Genesis pericope, the psalm will first be analyzed on a grammatical level to overview a possible original meaning of the text. The psalm will then be analyzed in terms of Melchizedek’s significance in the text.

A Psalm of David. The Lord’s utterance to my lord: sit at my right-hand side until I make your enemies your footstool. The Lord will send a rod of your strength from Zion. Rule in the middle of your enemies. Your people offer itself in the day of your strength, in the splendors of your holiness, from the womb of dawn, for you, is the dew of your youth. The Lord has sworn and will not relent “you are a priest forever in the order of Malki-Tzedek”. The Lord is at your right-hand side, he will crush kings in the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, he has filled [places] with corpses, he will crush the heads of many lands. From the brook by the way, he will drink so he can lift up [his] head. (Ps 110:1–7)

The psalm is commonly said to be a so-called royal psalm, more specifically a coronation psalm. There is certain discussion about who exactly is addressed in the Psalm. This is perceivable in two ways. The psalm, which begins with a quote from the Lord, changes voice verse 4. The first person singular, the voice of the Lord, changes to third person singular.

26

Further, if the first addressee is the king, it makes little sense to refer to him as priest, even though the king did perform certain religious duties.76

Textual witnesses in conflict

The translation of the pericope above proved to be an arduous work, even though my translation is based solely on the MT. The psalm contains certain combinations of words that are themselves quite striking. As stated by Eric Zenger, no other psalm has evoked as much scholarly debate as Psalm 110.77 A large number of textual variations are listed in the critical apparatus of BHS. These textual witnesses, upon closer inspection, differ greatly both from each other as well as from the MT. Unsurprisingly, many of the variations are found in the LXX, where the psalm has the number 109. Many of these variations are significant enough to change the very understanding of the psalm. Only one is directly related to the Melchizedek strophe, found in v. 4. Since the scope of this essay is not textual criticism of Melchizedek passages in the Hebrew Bible, only a few of the variations listed in the text critical apparatus of the BHS, deemed to be significant for the broader understanding of the psalm, will be discussed here.

The highest concentration of textual variations is found in v.3.The subsequent verses also which I have ,ָעַמְ ָך נְדָבֹת בְ יֹום חֵילֶך :present a high number of variations. In the MT, verse 3 reads translated “your people offer itself in the day of your strength”. The Septuagint however has: μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου, “with you is dominion in the day of your strength”. The rendering of the LXX seems plausible, perhaps more so than the MT, as

76 For reference, the combined priest-ruler office is also envisioned in Zechariah 6:9–14: “The word of the LORD came to me: “Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of . Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, son of Jozadak. Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’” (NIV) 77 Frank Lothar Hossfeld and Eric Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150. Hermeneia. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 143. 27 dominion is useful, to say the least, for a king on the day of his coronation. Further, without could be read in more than one way. The root of ,ָעַמְ ך ,vocalization the first word in verse 3 which has a pronominal suffix in the MT pericope, can, depending on ,עם ,the word and the עַם vocalization mean both ‘with’, and ‘people’. According to BDB, the noun seem to have a common root and suggests the meaning behind both words to עִ ם preposition be “those united, connected, related”,78 which is possibly the explanation to why the Septuagint and the MT drastically differ from each other in regards to verse 3.

which is itself an unusual ,ָבְ הַדְרֵ י-קֹדֶ ש מֵרֶ חֶם מִ שְ חָ ר לְָך טַל יַלְדֻתֶיך The rest of verse 3 reads combination of words. Not unexpectedly, there is also a large number of textual witnesses in connection with this strophe. The LXX states: ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε, which I translate “in the glories of your holies, I have begotten you from the womb before the morning”. The differences are quite striking, and are not easily explained. Some of the differences can be attributed to vocalization, such as the case with your youth”, which can be understood as both “your youth(fulness)” and “your“ ,ָיַלְדֻתֶ יך can be read as a verb, meaning “I ,ילדתיך ,young ones”.79 The unvocalized word, however have begotten you”. These textual variations are in themselves worthy of a longer consideration, one which cannot be afforded within the scope of this essay as none of the deviations affect the understanding of Melchizedek in the psalm.

Whoever is addressed in the Psalm, is said to be ‘a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’. An eternally lasting priesthood is in no way mentioned in Genesis 14, and neither are any actual claims of Melchizedek’s priesthood being eternal actually made in the Psalm. A certain ideological basis for using the Melchizedek trope in the Psalm can be detected as he is said to the king of Salem, which in the Psalm may correspond to Zion. Further, if the addressee of the Psalm is a Davidic ruler, who is also designated priest, the usage of Melchizedek as a type can be understood as legitimizing a non- priest.

,”עַם“ ,BDB 78 79 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 142. 28

Summary

To conclude, Psalm 110 as a whole is difficult to grasp for various reasons. One of them being the shifts in imagery and unusual combinations of words in the MT. Another reason is how many times the textual variations differ from each other. The one verse containing reference to Melchizedek however, is relatively unaffected by textual variations. The passing reference to Melchizedek is in itself unanticipated, and much like in Genesis 14 concluded without further notice.

10. TEXTS OUTSIDE THE HEBREW BIBLE

Texts discussed under this headline are analyzed in terms of how they relate to Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. None of the translations in this section are my own, as the analyses would be inconsistent given the fact that some of the original languages are available to me, while others are not.

10.1 Hebrews

Melchizedek is mentioned explicitly at five occasions in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Further, allusions to the priesthood are made, as part of a longer Christological discourse where Jesus is presented as a high priest. Throughout the Epistle, Christ is compared to a number of Old Testament characters, not limited to and prophets, but even to angels. The writer of the Epistle generally argues for a high Christology.80 In the initial chapter, Christ is said to be superior to all angels. The statement made by the author of the letter “[s]o he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.” (Heb 1:4) is backed by seven passages from the Old Testament. These passages are primarily from the book of psalms, but also include a quote from 2 7:14 where, in its original context, king David is said to be son of the Lord.

80 See for example Eric F. Mason, ‘You are a Priest Forever’: Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 12–13. 29

In , Christ is compared to Moses. Christ is said to be greater than Moses, “Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself.” (Heb 3:3).

An additional comparison is made in the Epistle: Christ, though not explicitly, as with the cases of Moses or the angels, is explained to be greater than Abraham. The comparison is not made the same way the two preceding ones, but through a longer exposition where Abraham is juxtaposed with Melchizedek, the conclusion of which, can be summarized, “Just think how great he was: Even the Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!” (Heb 7:4). Christ, in turn, is likened to Melchizedek. After a discussion about entering God’s sabbath rest, the author swiftly moves on to a lengthy passage on Jesus, the , as a high priest able to identify with people in their weaknesses. Further, the same way Aaron was called by God to be a priest, so was Christ (Heb 5:4–5). The calling of Christ to be a priest is in this passage motivated by two quotes from the book of psalms. The first quote has already been used before in the same letter, and is taken from Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” The second quote illustrating how Christ was chosen for his role is, as is often the case with Melchizedek references, unanticipated. The quote in :6 reads: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek”. The author uses Melchizedek in an effort to demonstrate how the priesthood of Christ is to be properly understood, but lets the quote speak for itself; at this point in the Epistle, to further explanation is given to explain the quote and its relevance A few verses after the direct quote from Psalm 110:4, the author reaffirms Melchizedek as a type for Christ without added elaboration:

Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. (Heb 5:8–10)

Melchizedek is mentioned again, in his role as a priest in :20. Similar to the previous mentions in the same letter, similar even to the Hebrew bible passages where Melchizedek appears, the reference here is unannounced. The passage in Hebrews 6 does not describe the role of the high priest but rather discusses the hope of God’s promise. The

30 discussion is finished with:

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. (Heb 6:20)

In the passage quoted above, the link between hope in God and the high priest is certainly not obvious. The anchor of hope is said to enter the inner sanctuary, where only the high priest would go. Noteworthy here is the designation of Melchizedek as not only a priest, but a high priest. All possible connections to Canaanite cults are eradicated in a passage where Melchizedek is imagined as a high priest, worthy of entering the holy of holies.

“Just think how great he was”

Further along in the letter, there is however an explanation to the Christ-Melchizedek pairing. The author, after what can be described as name dropping, finally introduces Melchizedek to the audience:

This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham. This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. (Heb 7:1–10)

“Just think how great he was”, seems to be fitting words for how the author behind the Epistle perceives the role of Melchizedek. In the passage above it is not the priesthood that captivates the author. The meaning of his name is discussed, and not unexpectedly, no connection is made to Canaanite gods. Salem is not directly identified as Jerusalem, but is rather connected to the root of the word, and its derived meaning. So far, what has been written about Melchizedek in Hebrews is not more than a retelling of the Genesis passage. In 31 the following verses, there is however a midrashic-styled elaboration on the personhood of the priest and king of Salem. At no point in the Hebrew bible, as is available to us today, is Melchizedek said to be without mother or father. Moreover, with the words “without beginning of days or end of life” it is manifest that Melchizedek has moved from perceived historical reality to eschatological character of sorts. Melchizedek now has a life outside the texts.

The author moves back to the literary context where Melchizedek blesses Abram. The author clearly expresses that Melchizedek is the greater of the two, since the greater blesses and the lesser would receive the blessing. The tenth Melchizedek received from Abram then stretched beyond the generations; as Abram is the forefather of Levi, the author tentatively expresses that Levi paid a to Melchizedek through his ancestor.

The non-Levitical priest

So why does the author of Hebrews make use of the rather obscure character Melchizedek? The answer seems to be an alternative priesthood.

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? (Heb 7:11)

In the very same sentence the author asks and answers his own question. Perfection cannot be attained through the Levitical priesthood, and thus a priest of another order is needed. Since Jesus was from the tribe of Judah and not Levi, there is a need to revise the priestly order to harmonize with him. This priestly order is the order of Melchizedek. Further, the Levitical priesthood is coupled with the Mosaic covenant. As Christ is presented as having established a new, better covenant (Heb 8:6) corresponding to what is described in 31:31–34, this covenant calls for another type of priest. Although Melchizedek’s kingship is not elaborated on in relation to the role of Jesus, it appears convenient to use a character of dual offices as a type for Jesus, as this would imply only one anointed, or , is needed.

32

“About him we have much to say that is hard to explain” (Heb 5:11)

Before concluding the chapter on Melchizedek in Hebrews, a few important points need to be discussed.

First, the author of Hebrews closes his first discourse on the Melchizedek-Christ relation by explicitly stating that there is much more to say in the matter. Unfortunately, the addressees of the Epistle were deemed not mature enough for this information; the truth about Melchizedek is reserved for those who require solid food, and have already been weaned. The statement in Hebrews 5:11 might however be a cliffhanger, as Melchizedek is reintroduced in , where his life and actions are revisited. Should the statement in 5:11 not be seen as a cliffhanger, however, and the information presented in Hebrews 7 not be a continuation of ’that which is hard to explain’, the actual core of the author’s view on Melchizedek is lost. Further, in Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek brings out bread and wine and presumably gives Abram. To Christian readers today, the bread and wine element of the story likely invokes thoughts of the last supper of Jesus. Interestingly enough, this connection is not made by the author.

To summarize the usage of the Melchizedek character in the Epistle to the Hebrews, two different points are made which both relate to Christ in slightly different ways. The first point made by the author of Hebrews pertain to Melchizedek’s relation to Abram/Abraham. The author concludes that Melchizedek was superior to Abram, as the former blessed the latter. As Melchizedek is used as a type of Christ, or possibly, Christ is used as a type of Melchizedek, and Melchizedek is argued to be superior to Abram/Abraham, the author makes a case for Christ being greater than Abraham. The second point the author makes relate to the priesthood of Melchizedek. The fact that Melchizedek is not a Levitical priest makes for a good parallel between him and the roles ascribed to Christ. Still, it should be noted that Melchizedek is not the only non-Levitical priest in the Old Testament. A notable example is Moses’ own father-in-law Jethro.81 There are both similarities and differences between Jethro and Melchizedek: both of them lack genealogies in the Hebrew Bible, for instance. Moreover,

81 Moses’ father-in-law is known by many different names. In Judges 4:11, he is referred to as Hobab, whilst in Exodus 2:18 his name appears to be Reuel. In Exodus 2:16, he is said to .”kohen midian, “priest of Midian ,כֹהֵן מִדְ יָן be 33 both of them are priests before Aaron, and both of them are associated with two of the most significant persons in the OT, Abraham and Moses. Yet, Moses’ father-in-law, the Midianite priest, is referred to on many different occasions in the Hebrew Bible. Nonetheless, Moses’ father-in-law has not found his way into the New Testament. Before drawing any conclusions to what might be inferred from his absence, one important aspect must be addressed. While Melchizedek is said to have been the priest of El Elyon, Jethro is only said to have been a Midianite priest. As Midian is a toponym, Jethro’s priesthood is not specified; he was likely a priest serving idols.82 If the New Testament writers shared this belief or not is impossible to say, though if they did, Melchizedek, priest of God Most High, is obviously a preferable type of Christ.

Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews is attributed with certain features not found in the Hebrew bible. These attributes include a complete lack of genealogy, which makes him a mystical character rather than a historical reality. The lack of genealogy in the Genesis narrative is elaborated upon in an unexpected fashion. Melchizedek is not connected with earlier characters in the Bible, such as or even Adam. The author of Hebrews concludes that Melchizedek has no father or mother. Further, he is said to be more than just a priest, he is said to be a high priest forever.

10.2 11Q13

In the beginning of the 11Q13, in line five out of 25, the name Melchizedek appears for the first time. The passage describes the remission of debt where Melchizedek will proclaim liberty to the captives, and he will free them from all their iniquities (line 6) In the day of atonement of the tenth Jubilee, atonement will be made over the sons of light, and a certain

82 In rabbinic literature, where Moses’ father-in-law is a commonly recurring character, he is said to have been a reformed idol worshipper, who may or may not have been reformed before the giving of the Law. In fact, in the Mekhilta of , he is said to have worshiped every idol ever existed. For further discussion on Jethro, his past and his reception in rabbinic literature, see Beatrice Lawrence, Jethro and the Jews: Jewish Biblical Interpretation and the Question of Identity. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism (Boston: Brill, 2017). 34 group of people referred to as “the men of the lot of Melchizedek” (line 8). The rites performed on the Day of Atonement is otherwise associated with the high priest.83 Melchizedek, not designated High priest in the text, thus performs rituals associated with the priestly office.

Melchizedek as Elohim

Further, the tenth Jubilee is said to be the year of grace of Melchizedek, (not YHWH) and his armies, consisting of the nation of the holy ones of God. There is a direct quote from Psalm 82 which is not only applied to Melchizedek, but said to have been written about him. The in ;(אל) shall stand in the assembly of God (אלוהים) text is damaged but appears to read, “God he shall judge”. Psalm 82, in its context, describes God’s (אלוהים) the midst of the gods judgement, but here is applied to Melchizedek. The first sentence of the quoted psalm is itself is hard to interpret as it would imply God standing in his own assembly, either amongst himself or other celestial beings, i.e., gods. As the psalm is said to refer to Melchizedek, he is here referred to both as Elohim and El.84 Further, it is Melchizedek who will judge the people. The writer(s) further elaborated of Melchizedek’s role as divine judge towards the end of the same line. The line contains a reference to Psalm 7:8.85 The text appears to read, “and about him, it is said ‘to the heights, return: God shall judge the nations’”, again indicating that Melchizedek will return to the heights, where he supposedly descended from, and judge the nations. The passage is then finished by returning to Psalm 82, where v.2 is quoted “how long will you judge unjustly and be partial to the wicked? Selah.” The interpretation of the quotes follows immediately: the judgement is said to be over Belial and the spirit of his lot, those who turn away from God’s commandments (line 12). Melchizedek is then said to be the one who carries out the vengeance of God’s judgement, and he will be the one to free them from the hands of Belial. To his aid, he will have “the gods [of justice]”

83 Cf. Lev 16 where the role of the priest during the Day of Atonement is declared. 84 For reference, Moses is also commonly interpreted as being designated Elohim on two occasions. Twice in Exodus does the word ‘Elohim’ appear in connection with Moses’ role as וְהָיָה הּוא יִהְ יֶה-לְָך :a leader for his brother Aaron, and to his people. In Ex 4:16, the verse reads He will be a mouth to you, and you will be a god to him”. In Ex“ ,לְפֶה, וְאַתָה תִהְ יֶה-לֹו לֵאֹלהִ ים I have made“ ,נְתַתִִּ֥יָך אֱֹלהִִ֖ים לְפַרְ עֹֹ֑הוְאַֽ הֲרִֹּ֥ ןאָחִִ֖ יָך יִֽהְ יִֶּ֥ה נְבִיאֶֽ ָך :the Lord speaks to Moses and says ,7:1 you a god to pharaoh, and Aaron into your prophet.” 85 Garcia Martinez, Tigchelaar and van der Woude, Qumran 11, 231. 35 and “all the sons of God” (line 14). Next, 52:7 is quoted and interpreted. The interpretation is in turn made with help from quote from Daniel 9:25. The name Melchizedek appears again in the last preserved line of the document. Melchizedek is again said to deliver the righteous sons from the hand of Belial (line 25).

It is noteworthy that a psalm referring to God, Psalm 82, is here applied to Melchizedek. In the document, Melchizedek is ascribed roles as both divine judge and savior. He acts both as an agent of God, executing His will, and as the final redeemer who defeats Belial. Moreover, the last Jubilee is referred to as “the year of Melchizedek’s grace”, echoing Isaiah 61, which describes “the year of the Lord’s grace”, where a person anointed by Lord will proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa 61:1).

No reference is made to the narrative in Genesis 14. He is not explicitly referred to as neither priest nor king. The city, state or perhaps city-state Salem is not mentioned in the text. Although quotes and references to the book of Psalms can be identified in the document, no reference is made to Psalm 110. In fact, the character Melchizedek, understood from what is preserved in 11Q13, does not bear any strong resemblances in terms of function to what is described in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110.

10.3 2 Enoch

As stated above in “previous research”, the history behind 2 Enoch is not certain. Two recensions exist, one shorter and one longer, both in Slavonic (“Old Bulgarian”) language. In 2009, parts of the shorter recension were found in Coptic language. As the name implies, 2 Enoch is part of the larger Enoch tradition(s). The Enoch known from Genesis is, similar to Melchizedek, an enigmatic character. He is mentioned passingly in the genealogy of Adam, presented in Genesis 5–6. He is the son of Jared and the father of Methuselah. Although his lifetime is said to be 365 years, Enoch appears to never have died. Rather, Enoch is said to have walked with God, until God took him (Gen 5:24). The Enoch tradition at large rests on the premise of Enoch having been taken by God, and is confided the secrets of creation.

36

The analysis of Melchizedek’s role in 2 Enoch is based primarily on an eclectic version of the longer recension, translated from Slavonic to English by William Richard Morfill in 1896,86 and the French translation by André Vaillant from 1952.87 In the Morfill’s translation, the chapters on Melchizedek is referred to as “the Melchizedek appendix”.88

Slavonic Enoch describes Enoch being taken by two angels, to see the ten heavens of God. Secrets, both cosmological and eschatological, are revealed by both the angels and the Lord. Enoch is then given 30 days on earth to instruct his sons in what has been revealed to him. Methusalem,89 one of Enoch’s sons, is made priest before his father once again ascends to heaven. Methusalem fathers Lamech, who in turn fathers two sons, Noe and Nir. Nir is given the priestly office from his grandfather Methusalem.

In 2EM, “the Exaltation of Melchizedek”, the very last part of 2 Enoch, Nir, brother of Noe,90 son of Lamech and great grandson of Enoch, is married to Sopanima, who is barren. In her old age, she becomes pregnant without having been with her husband Nir since the day he became a priest. After Nir accuses his wife of infidelity, she falls dead before him. Nir is stricken by sorrow upon his wife’s death when the archangel Michael appears and informs him of the special child who will be born. Nir along with his brother Noe the leaves Sopanima’s dead body to dig a grave with the intention of burying her in secrecy. When the two return, they find a child has been born from Sopanima’s corpse. This terrified Nir and Noe, as the child’s body was already developed. The newborn child spoke and praised to Lord and the two brothers recognized the seal of the priesthood on the child’s chest. After washing the child, dressing him in the priestly shroud and giving him blessed bread to eat, they gave him the name Melchizedek (2:21). The two brothers fear for his life of the newborn

86 Translation by Morfill, which was published in 1896 together with introduction and notes by R.H Charles. 87 André Vaillant, Le Livre Des Secrets D'Hénoch. (Paris: Institut D'Études Slaves, 1952). Featured in the appendix of this essay is Morfill’s English translation, whereas the French translation has been consulted for the analysis of the text. 88 Verses and chapters are according to Morfill’s translation. In Morfill’s translation, 2EM is divided into five chapters. 89 Or Methuselah, as spelling of names appear to vary from one manuscript to another. Morfill’s translation of 2EM consistently render the name Methusalem. 90 In some versions, the name is spelled Noah. 37 child, believing the people will want to kill him. The Lord then speaks to Nir and informs him of the imminent destruction he will send to earth. Melchizedek, however, will be spared, as the angel Michael91 will place him in the paradise of Eden:

No not trouble thyself about the child, Nir, for in a short time I will send my chief captain Michael and he shall take the child and place him in the paradise of Eden, in the garden where Adam was formerly during a period of seven years, having the heaven always open until the time of his sin (3:28)

The quote above is a clear reference to Genesis 3:1–24. The Lord explains how the paradise of Eden is vacant as a result of Adam’s sin. Melchizedek, a child born through extraordinary means, is to take the place of Adam in the . No theological conclusions are drawn in relation to Melchizedek replacing Adam. It is stated in a very factual manner before moving on with the prophecy.

Nir’s brother Noe is explained to be spared, and to become the father of a new people. Melchizedek will then be made an eternal priest for all priests, and he will be made into a great people. Before the time of the flood, the destruction sent by God, Michael takes Melchizedek on his wings, and places him in the paradise of Eden, where he will remain forever.

In some versions of the longer recension, archangel Michael informs Nir that Melchizedek will be “the head over twelve priests who lived before” and at last he will be “the head over all, (being) the great high priest, the Word of God, and the power to work great and glorious marvels above all that have been” (3:34). Melchizedek is then said to one day become a priest and king of a place called Akhuzan. Akhuzan is not explicitly identified with Jerusalem, but is said to be “in the middle of the earth where Adam was created” (3:35). Akhuzan is also the place Melchizedek at last will be buried.92

91 Certain manuscripts of the shorter recension have instead of Michael. 92 In the beginning of 2EM, Akhuzan appears to be a prediluvian place of worship where Methusalem, upon the people’s request, awaits a revelation. Initially unsuccessful, Methusalem is later in a nightly vision appointed priest by the Lord. 38

Michael then informs Nir of the great confusion that will lead to the killing of all people on earth, except for Noe. After the time of this peril, a new Melchizedek will arise, who will be the head of the priests of the people:

And when the twelfth generation shall be, and a thousand and seventy years shall be, in that generation a just man shall be born, and the Lord shall tell him to come out upon that mountain where the ark of thy brother Noe shall stand, and he shall find there another Melchizedek who has lived there for seven years, concealing himself from the people who worship idols, so that they should not slay him, and he shall lead him forth and he shall be priest, and the first king in the town of Salem after the fashion of this Melchizedek, the commencement of the priests (4:6).

The second Melchizedek will first live in concealment for seven years. In this verse, it is unclear what refers to whom. There are essentially two possibilities. The first possibility is that the just man described in the beginning of the verse is Melchizedek. The second possibility is that the just man is someone else, who goes on to find Melchizedek hidden in the mountains. The issue becomes more intricate in the latter part of the verse, where the line between the roles of the two are blurred. The words “he shall lead him forth” can be interpreted in two ways: either Melchizedek leads the just man forth or the just man leads Melchizedek forth. Whoever, is brought forth, the just man or the second Melchizedek, will later appear as priest and the first king of a place called Salem. As this is said to be “after the fashion of Melchizedek”, and there are two Melchizedeks in the story, the second Melchizedek could still be a candidate for this role, if the description refers to the first the fashion of the first Melchizedek. The very formulation “after the fashion of Melchizedek” is strikingly similar to that in Psalm 110:4.93 If this is a direct quote from the Psalm or not, can be decided only through a comparison requiring knowledge in Slavonic language as none of the commentaries or translations I have consulted address the issue. However, the similarity in formulations appear too great to be merely a coincidence.

”and LXX, “κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδεκ ”עַל-דִבְרָתִ י מַלְכִ י-צֶדֶ ק“ The BHS reads 93 39

The longer recension thus speaks of two Melchizedeks. Consequently, if the first Melchizedek was ascended to heaven before the deluge, and to remain in Eden forever, the Melchizedek Abram encountered should necessarily have been the second one, the king of Salem.

Melchizedek as “the Word of God”

The longer recension thus speaks of two Melchizedeks; the child taken up by Michael and the future Melchizedek, who will appear after the flood. Noteworthy here is the designation of Melchizedek as “the Word of God”. In the prologue to the gospel of John, the Word (λόγος) of God, is equated with the incarnate Christ. Although there might be a lexical gap in translation between Slavonic, Greek and English which may not be explored in this essay, the very concept of “Word of God”, or λόγος, is explored also by Philo of Alexandria.94

The miraculous birth and exaltation of Melchizedek is otherwise the focal point of 2EM. This is especially true for the shorter recension where no future Melchizedek is promised. The birth of Melchizedek has parallels in other biblical stories. Sopanima struggles with childlessness, as does Sarah (Gen 11:30), Rebecca (Gen 25:21) and Hannah, who becomes the mother of Samuel (1 Sam 1:5). Like Sarah, Sopanima gives birth at an advanced age. Although the origins of 2 Enoch are not certain, whether Christian or Jewish, Sopanima giving birth without having been with her husband has obvious similarities to the birth of Christ (Luke 1:35). As Melchizedek is presented as having been conceived without the involvement of a biological father, the words “in the glories of your holies, I have begotten you from the womb before the morning”, based on the LXX version of Psalm 110:3, makes for an interesting parallel to the text. The character addressed in Psalm 110, king or otherwise, is begotten by the Lord, not unlike the first Melchizedek in 2 Enoch. After the

94 Melchizedek in his role as a high priest is identified with , or ‘reason’. Melchizedek as a ‘righteous king’ represents lawfulness, is contrasted with the despot, ‘the ruler of war’ who represents lawlessness. Philo, Legum Allegoriae III, 79–80. 40 birth of the child, an imminent threat to the child’s life arises which can be paralleled to both the story of a young Moses (Ex 2:3) and the holy family fleeing to Egypt (Matt 2:13).

Similar to the texts in both Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, his priestly office is emphasized. If the priestly duties will be performed in the paradise of Eden, or if Melchizedek will be reinstated on earth is not further expounded on in the narrative. The genealogy of the characters in 2 Enoch seems to be of great importance. The genealogies of 2 Enoch, although aligned with the genealogies in Genesis 5, includes characters not mentioned in Genesis. The father of Melchizedek and brother of Noah, Nir, is one of them.

In stark contrast to Hebrews, where Melchizedek is said to be without mother or father, his genealogy is emphasized in 2 Enoch. The emphasis on Melchizedek’s genealogy is also common is Chazalic95 literature. In the ,96 Melchizedek is identified as , one of Noah’s three sons97 in a passage on the various biblical names for Jerusalem.98 In the God“ ,יְהוָה יִרְ אֶ ה same chapter, Salem is said to be the same place as the one Abraham calls will provide”, after the binding of in Gen 22:14.

The Aramaic ‘translation’, or perhaps more, appropriately, interpretation Targum Pseudo- Jonathan also identifies Melchizedek with Shem, son of Noah.99 Thus, the Genesis Rabbah

our sages, may the memory of them be“ ,חכמינו זכרונם לברכה ” is an acronym for“ 95 blessed” and refers to Rabbinic literature, such as the Mishah, Tosefta and . 96 Midrash containing aggadaic (non-legalistic) material, believed to be compiled by rabbis some time around 400-450 CE. Neusner, Midrash, 52. 97 Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah vol II: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 286. 98 The cited passage discusses 22:4-19. The section in the Genesis Rabbah discussing Genesis 14, i.e., 43 also identifies Shalem, or Salem with Jerusalem. Melchizedek is said by rabbi Samuel bar Nahman to have instructed Abram in the . The bread and wined brought forth is said to represent the show-bread and drink-offerings, respectively, something which is backed by a verse from Proverbs 9:5: “Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have the literal translation ,”קֹנֵה שָמַ יִם וָאָרֶ ץ“ mixed.” A large portion of chapter 43 discusses God as of which, “buyer of heaven and the earth”, leads to be inevitable question of who God could possibly have ‘bought’ heaven and earth from. 99 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is typically referred to as Targum Jonathan in rabbinic contexts. On the website sefaria.com, the Targum is listed as Jonathan. The texts in Aramaic reads: 41

(along with other midrashim) identifies Melchizedek with Shem, son of Noah as opposed to 2 Enoch where Melchizedek is Noah’s nephew. The genealogies presented in 2 Enoch and rabbinic literature are thus not in concordance.

The first Melchizedek described in 2 Enoch, born from Sopanima’s corpse, is not ascribed any explicitly redemptive roles. His role as a priest, however, is emphasized, both with the first Melchizedek and the one who was to come after the flood. From the narrative in the longer recension of 2 Enoch, the Melchizedek who encounters Abram would have been the second Melchizedek, as his antecedent remains in heaven.

Summary

In the longer recension of 2 Enoch, two Melchizedeks are mentioned. The first is presented with a genealogy; his family ties are of great importance in the narrative where his father and uncle are the ones receiving the message from angel. The first Melchizedek, the newborn child, is said to be assumed into heaven. The first Melchizedek is said to one day become king of a place called Akhuzan. The second Melchizedek is described as appearing after the flood. Both Melchizedeks are ascribed roles as priest.

.”ּומַלְכָא צַדִ יקָא הּוא שֵ ם בַר נחַ מַלְכָא דִירּושְ לֶם” https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Genesis.14.18?lang=he&with=all&lang2=he 42

11. DISCUSSION

The method: Reception History of What Text?

Before moving along to the discussion about the texts, one issue on my theoretical framework needs to be settled.

As useful as the ideas of ‘texts as nomads’ and ‘the fluidity of texts’ proved to have been for understanding how a reception historical study can be conducted, one issue remains, which may seem simplistic, or even appear to undermine aspects of the theory itself. The issue that needs to be addressed is the issue of author intention. It is generally assumed that there have been many different oral traditions in circulation before any stage of the written text existed, yet at one point in time, someone intended to communicate something. This ‘something’ must have been more than a vague tale as it was deemed worth preserving, at a particular point in time. To continue the nomad analogy of Breed, even nomadic tribes originate from somewhere. Keeping in mind that although texts can be seen as fluid, a solid core which the texts intend to communicate simply must exist, as this is the very purpose of putting something in writing.

The texts

Priesthood and kingship

In Genesis 14, Melchizedek appears before Abram. In the very same sentence he is said to be both a king and a priest. Both his kingship and priesthood are specified; he is the king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He proceeds to bless Abram and then receives a tenth of Abram’s spoils. Melchizedek is mentioned again in Psalm 110. Although the addressee of the psalm is typically thought to be the king, only Melchizedek’s priesthood is mentioned. As the king did perform certain religious duties, Melchizedek, as a character with both a political and religious office, could be seen as a type for the ideal leader.

Although scholars believe Melchizedek’s god to have been a Canaanite god, and thus different from the god of Abraham, this (potential) issue is not addressed in any of the ancient 43 texts analyzed in this essay. Rather, it is the priesthood of Melchizedek that is strongly emphasized in both the Epistle to the Hebrews and 2 Enoch. In Hebrews, the priesthood of Melchizedek is used as a type for the priesthood of Christ. As Christ was not a Levite, he could not have been a priest in the ordinary sense, as the Levitical priesthood is indeed inherited through blood. As Melchizedek is said to have blessed Abram and received a tithe from him, he is, by the author of Epistle, understood to be greater than Abram/Abraham. In John 8:58, when asked about his relation to Abraham, Christ speaks the words, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Christ thus declares himself to be superior to Abraham. Although the people’s strong reaction was likely based on the “I am” part of the statement, as this echoes the name of God as revealed in Exodus 3:14, Jesus’ words regarding his relation to Abraham are in themselves noteworthy.

Both the first and the second Melchizedek are said to be priests in 2 Enoch. The first Melchizedek, the newborn child, is said to one day become “the head over all” and the one to perform greater miracles than anyone before him. If the angel’s words regarding Melchizedek’s role and actions were to be fulfilled at a distant future, as an eschatological promise which would imply the return of the first Melchizedek, or immediately where Melchizedek is placed, in heaven, neither of the recensions foretell. However, the first Melchizedek, though said to be a priest, would not be the same Melchizedek as the one Abram encounters after defeating Chedorlaomer and his allies, as the first Melchizedek in 2 Enoch ascended to heaven. To harmonize with the narrative in Genesis 14, it would rather be the second Melchizedek, or possibly the returning Melchizedek, who blesses Abram.

In 11Q13, the word ‘priest’ is not used in connection with Melchizedek. However, priestly duties are described as being performed by Melchizedek on the day of atonement, in “the year of Melchizedek’s grace”. The priestly duties associated with the Day of Atonement, as described in Leviticus 16, were performed by the Levitical high priest. Should the Melchizedek envisioned in the Qumran document be of Levitical bloodline or not, is not revealed in the extant text. However, given the Qumran community’s general disdain for the contemporary Jerusalem priesthood,100 Melchizedek can be seen as a symbol for an

100 Collins, Qumran, 46. 44 alternative priesthood, either from the Levitical bloodline through , who was the first priest to serve in 's temple (2 Sam 8:16–18), as opposed to the Hasmonean priestly line, or a completely different priestly line altogether, comparable to the usage of Melchizedek in Hebrews. Thus, Melchizedek may have been used as a type for an ideal priest, with emphasis on the righteousness of the priest.

Although Melchizedek is portrayed as performing priestly duties in 11Q13, he is also presented as serving as a judge or an agent executing God’s judgement. As the distinction between God and Melchizedek is blurry in terms of their roles, Melchizedek can be seen as either judge, redeemer, or possibly and simultaneously, both. The roles as judge and redeemer differ from the short descriptions in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. Further, towards the very end of preserved document, Melchizedek is said to deliver the righteous sons from the hand of Belial. In this case it is clear that Melchizedek, not God, will be the deliverer. If, however, Melchizedek is a divine title, as theorized by ,101 the Melchizedek found in the Qumran document needs to be understood as God, and therefore likely separate altogether from the Melchizedek appearing in Genesis 14. The supposition of Melchizedek being a title for God makes for two possible interpretations of his presence in 11Q13. The first interpretation, based on premise of Melchizedek being a divine title, is that God alone acts as priest, judge and redeemer in the document. Thus Melchizedek, the righteous king, is merely a designation for God and hence unrelated to the character in Genesis 14. The second interpretation, based on the same premise, would imply that Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is a theophany. Should Melchizedek be understood as a divine title applied to the character in Genesis 14, Abram would have been blessed by, and paid tithe to, God himself. The logical issue with such an interpretation is, would God bless God in the name of himself?

The above-mentioned discussion illustrates the difficulties in determining whether Melchizedek in 11Q13 is in any way based on the character with the same name, or perhaps title, in the Genesis narrative. Either way, 11Q13 bears witness to how Melchizedek is transformed from “historical” person to a trope characterized by eschatological expectations.

101 Franco Manzi, Melchisedek e l’angelologia nell’epistola agli e a Qumran. (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1997), 67-96. 45

Melchizedek’s kingship as presented in Genesis 14 is not emphasized in either of the three texts. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, his kingship is mentioned (Heb 7:1) in connection with the retelling of Abram paying him a tithe. Identically to Genesis 14, Melchizedek is said to be the king of Salem. In 2 Enoch, the first Melchizedek is said to one day become king of a place called Akhuzan. The second Melchizedek, the antediluvian one, is described as one day becoming the first king of Salem. The priesthood of both Melchizedeks are thus combined with kingship, which reveals a certain ambition to perpetuate the priest-king dual office.

The Melchizedek of 11Q13 is not presented as royalty in the document. In fact, political aspects are downplayed in the document in favor of an eschatological aspect.

Genealogy versus eternity

Nothing is said about the genealogy of Melchizedek in Genesis 14. In the reception history, this has led to a certain divide. Texts such as Hebrews strongly underline that Melchizedek in fact had no mother or father, he had just plainly existed forever. This is in stark contrast to 2 Enoch where genealogy is greatly emphasized, although matters become more complicated when a second Melchizedek is promised to appear in concealment. Based on the shorter recension of 2 Enoch, where there is no mentioning of a second Melchizedek, the genealogy and miraculous birth is focal point of the story. Should 2EM have been the work of Christians, an obvious conflict of tradition can be detected between Hebrews and 2 Enoch. If, however, 2EM is an exclusively Jewish product, the contradiction in terms of genealogy is diminished, yet not solved, as Melchizedek is said to be the son of Noah in Chazalic traditions, rather than his nephew.

On the matter of Melchizedek’s lineage two different strands of interpretation can be found in the studied texts. There is on the one hand the downplaying of genealogy, to the point where none exists, perpetuating the mystery of Melchizedek’s very existence. On the other hand, there is the creation of a detailed genealogy which puts him into context and possibly demystifies the character. Genealogy, or lack thereof, thus becomes a tool which steers the understanding of character, either towards that of Melchizedek as fully human, or towards that of eternal existence. 46

Melchizedek as a new Adam

On a few different occasions in 2EM, Melchizedek is contrasted with Adam. The place from which Adam was expelled, the garden of Eden, will be the new residing place of Melchizedek. Further, the place where Adam was born will serve as the burial ground for Melchizedek. The contrasting between life and death in relation to Adam and Melchizedek has certain parallels in the New Testament. To a Christian reader, the Adam-Melchizedek pairing may evoke thoughts of the discourse in Romans 5:12–21,102 or the conclusion in 1 Corinthians 15:22.103 Nowhere in 2 Enoch is Melchizedek explicitly said to be a new Adam, yet the contrast between Adam and his sin and Melchizedek and his righteousness is striking. Similar to the New Testament notion of Christ restoring Adam’s lost glory, the first Melchizedek of 2 Enoch replaces Adam as a dweller of Eden.

Melchizedek as redeemer

In all three texts, the character(s) presented as Melchizedek is given an eschatological role. In Hebrews, Melchizedek is explained to be a type of Christ. Although Melchizedek himself is not ascribed any redeeming functions, on account of his mystical existence, which is said to be without end or beginning (Heb 7:3) and him being a type of Christ the high priest, who is said to bring salvation for those who are waiting for him (Heb 9:28), certain eschatological undertones can be detected. In 2 Enoch, both the first and the second Melchizedek are ascribed roles that differ from, and even eclipse, the roles described in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. The first Melchizedek is prophesied to perform miracles greater than anyone before him. Though not explicitly redemptive, as the first Melchizedek is said to become “the head over all”, which can be interpreted both eschatologically, as this would take place in heaven, or in a more straightforward political fashion.

102 In Romans 5:12–21, Adam is an (anti)type for Christ. The discourse on Adam’s sin can be concluded with the pericope’s very first line, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). 103 “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22).

47

The Melchizedek presented in 11Q13 is ascribed obvious redemptive qualities. Passages from both prophetic texts and Psalms, usually associated with messianic expectations, are applied to Melchizedek. As the Qumran community was characterized by eschatological expectations,104 and more specifically “the expectation of a messianic priest, which shows the importance this group attached to the temple and its cult”,105 the usage of the Melchizedek and a priest, in addition to being of mysterious (צדק) character, understood as both righteous origin, brings together several strands of these expectations.

12. CONCLUSION

After having examined three different texts, of different origin, genre and language, with a character referred to as Melchizedek as their common denominator, a few different points can be made. The first point is a broad-based one: all three texts all make reference, or allude to, the Melchizedek described in Genesis 14. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the exact narrative is retold. No new information specifically on Melchizedek is added. In the longer recension of 2 Enoch, two Melchizedeks are presented. In both cases, backgrounds and explanations are given. In 11Q13, the character is quite far removed from the one in Genesis 14:18-20. No additional information is given on his background and no interpretations are made of the Abram-Melchizedek encounter. Yet, it is implied that Melchizedek is a priest of a very special kind, as he performs the priestly duties on the last Day of Atonement.

The second point, and which all three texts have I common, is the emphasis on priesthood. The emphases seem to be the result of a few different ideological and religious reasons. In the case of Hebrews, the reason Melchizedek is used as a type of Christ is explicit: neither Christ nor Melchizedek were , hence they didn’t qualify for the ‘traditional’ priesthood. To the author of Hebrews, a type of Christ needed to be more than just an anonymous well- wisher, and the importance of Melchizedek is consequently elevated to even supersede that of Abram.

104 Collins, Qumran, 33. 105 Collins, Qumran, 34. 48

For the Qumran community, the disdain for what they considered to be an illegitimate priesthood serving in the temple in Jerusalem make for a valid reason to look for an alternative priesthood. As the character Melchizedek is completely removed from any links to the Hasmonean dynasty, he represents an uncorrupted priesthood.

In the case of 2 Enoch, as its provenance is unknown, the rationale behind usage of the Melchizedek trope is equally unclear. Until the origins of 2 Enoch are established, all analyses on the very reason why Melchizedek appears in the text with such significance is sheer speculation.

Melchizedek’s new roles

The roles ascribed to Melchizedek vary in the three different texts. In Hebrews, Melchizedek’s roles are not any different to the ones described in the Genesis narrative. As the Melchizedek presented in Hebrews is explicitly said to be the character which Abram encounters, all references can be traced back to Genesis 14. The significance of “the historical Melchizedek” of the Genesis narrative is elevated, yet is not ascribed new, additional functions besides being a type of Christ. The two Melchizedeks of 2 Enoch are ascribed roles as great miracle workers. Both of them are said to become leaders of the priests, yet they are not attributed any redeeming functions. In 11Q13, the character named Melchizedek is declared a redeemer. Certain texts, such as Isaiah 61, which describes “the year of the Lord’s grace”, when captives will be set free, is alluded to. A significant change is made however; in 11Q13, the captives will be set free in the year of Melchizedek’s grace. When quotes and references to biblical passages, which are explicitly said to describe God’s acting with the world, are applied to Melchizedek, his significance to the author of the document, as well as the Qumran community as a whole, is greatly highlighted. The roles of Melchizedek in 11Q13, as judge and redeemer, illustrate how Melchizedek as a trope has moved from “historical person” to apocalyptic savior.

49

13. SUMMARY

Melchizedek, the priest of God Host High, and the king of Salem, appears for the first and last time in Genesis 14. However, he lives on well beyond the Genesis narrative. Melchizedek is mentioned once again in the Hebrew Bible, in Psalm 110, which is generally considered a royal psalm or, more specifically, a coronation psalm. Although the Psalm has a royal theme, Melchizedek’s role in the Psalm is that of a priest. The three texts analyzed in this essay, all pertaining to the reception history of Melchizedek, all emphasize the priesthood of Melchizedek over his kingship. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the priesthood of Melchizedek is used as a type of the priesthood of Christ. The author of Hebrews does not elaborate on the origins of Melchizedek, but instead plays up his mysterious nature. The opposite could be said about the first Melchizedek according to 2 Enoch, where his origins, in terms of genealogy and priesthood, are accounted for. In spite of the genealogical account, the character remains surrounded by mystery, as he is assumed into the paradise of Eden. Two Melchizedeks are disclosed in the longer recension of 2 Enoch. The first, who is born from his mother Sopanima’s corpse, is presented with a detailed lineage and is shortly after birth taken by the angel Michael into Eden to be a ‘priest above all priest’. The second Melchizedek, is foretold by the angel Michael to appear on earth after the great flood, to be the leader of a new race of priests, and to bring forth all things invisible and visible. The Melchizedek presented in 11Q13 performs priestly duties, but is not explicitly referred to as “priest” in the preserved document. Besides the priestly duties, no similarities between the Melchizedek of the Genesis narrative and the one in 11Q13 can be detected. The descriptions in 11Q13 are of an eschatological character where Melchizedek is the final redeemer.

50

14. MATERIAL FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Further references to Melchizedek worthy of careful examination can be found throughout Jewish, Christian and even , Melchizedek, as part of the Abraham motif, is mentioned on numerous occasions in the midrashim, such as the Genesis Rabbah and the . In rabbinic literature, Melchizedek’s significance is typically toned down. In the Babylonian Talmud, for instance, Melchizedek is said to have lost his priesthood as he blessed Abram before he blessed God.106

In other traditions, Melchizedek’s significance is rather highlighted than toned down. Philo of Alexandria relates Melchizedek as a priest to Logos, the mediator between God and mankind.107

As Melchizedek appears to have been a part of Egyptian religiosity for a long time, it is hardly surprising that a text discovered in the Egyptian in 1945, contains the name Melchizedek. In fact, in third century Egypt, Melchizedek became the center of a Sethian gnostic cult.108 The Melchizedek Apocalypse, found at Nag Hammadi presents the main character as triumphant over God’s enemies. The Melchizedek Apocalypse is explained to demonstrate a mix of Christian, Jewish and Sethian influences.

In the retelling of the Abraham story in the , Melchizedek’s role is neither emphasized nor reduced, but is missing altogether.109 After Abraham has defeated Chedorlaomer and his allies, at which point Melchizedek appears in Genesis 14, text appears

106 “Nedarim 32b” https://www.sefaria.org/Nedarim.32b?lang=he 107 See footnote 94. 108 Elizabeth A. Parton, Apocalyptic and Sethian Trajectories and Melchizedek Speculations in Late Antique Egypt: The “Melchizedek Apocalypse” from Nag Hammadi (NHC IX, 1) as a Test Case (Ottawa: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2008), 78. 109 Jubilees 13:2 as in Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis. Translated from the Editor's Ethiopic Text, and Edited with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London: 1902), 100–101.

51 to be missing in the Book of Jubilees. In text critical editions, this is usually indicated by an ellipsis. Abraham then pays a tenth of his spoils to God, before the king of Sodom appears again.

52

15. REFERENCES

Bibles and Bible translations:

The Holy Bible: Authorized King James Version, revised ed. London: CollinsBible, 2001.

The Holy Bible, ESV, English Standard Version Containing the Old and New Testaments. New York: American Bible Society, 2001.

Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Septuaginta, vol.2, Rahlf, Alfred (ed.). Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th ed., Elliger, K., Rudolph, W. (ed.) Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelsellschaft, 1997 [1967].

Ancient Texts and Pseudepigrapha:

Charles, Robert Henry. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis. Translated from the Editor's Ethiopic Text, and Edited with Introduction, Notes. London: 1902.

Charles, Robert Henry and Morfill William R. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1896.

García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert. J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. Qumran Cave 11, II (11Q2–18, 11Q20–30). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Milik, Jozef, T, ed., The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumran cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.

Neusner, Jacob, Genesis Rabbah vol II: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis. Brown Judaic Studies 105. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

Philo. Philo volume I (translated by F.H Colson and G.H Whitaker). Loeb Classical Library 261. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929.

53

Puech, Emile. Qumran Grotte 4: XXII, Textes Araméens, Première partie, 4Q529-549. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXXI. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.

Other literature:

Anderson, Amy S., Wendy Widder, and Douglas Mangum. Textual Criticism of the Bible. Revised ed. Lexham Methods Series. Belligham: Lexham Press, 2018.

Arnold, Bill, T. Genesis. The New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Breed, Brennan W. Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History. Indiana Series in Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014.

Brown, Francis, Driver, S.R, Briggs, Charles, A. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 16th ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2015 [1906].

Buchanan George Wesley. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions. The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1972.

Collins, John, J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

Collins, John, J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Delcor, Mathias, “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 115-135 in Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 2, 1971.

Davies, John Howard. A Letter to Hebrews: Commentary. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Edited by P.R Ackroyd, A.R.C Leaney and J.W. Packer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Evans, Roberts. Reception History, Tradition and Biblical Interpretation: Gadamer and Jauss in Current Practice. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.

Fitzmyer, Joseph, A. The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Paulist Press, 2009.

54

France, Richard T. “Hebrews.” Pages 19–195, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol. 9, Hebrews-Revelation, edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Fretheim E. Terrence. “The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections.” Pages 321–674 in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. I. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Gorman, Michael, J. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006.

Gunda, Masiiwa Ragies. “Reception History of the Bible: Prospects of a New Frontier in African Biblical Studies.” Pages 125–138 in Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice. Edited by Emma England and William John Lyons. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

Hagen, Joost L. "No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia." Pages 7–34 in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only. Boston: Brill, 2012.

Horton L. Fred. The Melchizedek tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Hossfeld, Frank, Lothar and Zenger, Eric. Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150. Hermeneia Commentary Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011.

Janzen, J. Gerald. Abraham and All the Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 12-50. International Theological Commentary. Edinburgh: Grand Rapids: Handsel Press: Eerdmans, 1993.

Jordaan, Gert, J.C and Nel, Pieter. “From Priest-King to King-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews.” Pages 229–240 in Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception, edited by Human, Dirk J. and Steyn, Gert, Jacobus. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.

Lawrence, Beatrice. Jethro and the Jews: Jewish Biblical Interpretation and the Question of Identity. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism. Boston: Brill, 2017.

Manzi, Franco. Melchisedek e l'angelologia nell'Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran. Analecta Biblica 136. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1997.

55

Mason, Eric Farrel. 'You are a Priest Forever': Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Brill, Leiden, 2008.

McCann J. Clinton. “Psalms.” Pages 639–1280 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. IV. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

Neusner, Jacob. What Is Midrash? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Orlov, Andrei. "Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch." Pages 23–38 in Journal for the Study of Judaism 31, no. 1, 2000.

Parton, Elizabeth A. Apocalyptic and Sethian Trajectories and Melchizedek Speculations in Late Antique Egypt: The “Melchizedek Apocalypse” from Nag Hammadi (NHC IX, 1) as a Test Case. Ottawa: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2008.

Stuckenbruck, Loren, T. “Melchizedek in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 124–138 in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, vol 41.2, 2018.

Turner, Lawrence, A. Genesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Tönges, Elke. “The Epistle to the Hebrews as a ‘Jesus-Midrash.’” Pages 89–105 Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Vaillant, André. Le Livre Des Secrets D'Hénoch. Paris: Institut D'Études Slaves, 1952.

Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin, 2004.

Walser, Georg A. Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Van de Water, Rick. “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13.” Pages 75–86 in Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, vol 16.1, 2006.

Online resources:

Talmud Bavli. https://www.sefaria.org/Nedarim.32b?lang=he (retrieved 2020-05-20). 56

Targum (pseudo-) Jonathan. https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Genesis.14.18?lang=he&with=all&lang2=he (retrieved 2020-05-20).

57

16. APPENDIX

This appendix includes a translation of 11Q13 and 2EM, respectively.

11Q13, as featured in García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert. J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. Qumran Cave 11, II (11Q2–18, 11Q20–30). Discoveries in the Judean Desert XXIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, pages 229–230:

58

2EM, the last part of 2 Enoch as featured in Charles, Robert Henry and Morfill William R. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1896, pages 85–93:

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68