Texts in Conversation
Josephus and the Genesis Apocryphon portray Melchizedek positively, as a priest who blesses Abraham and receives a tithe from him. Both uphold his priestly role and authority and expand the biblical story while preserving its main features.
Share:
2500 BCE
1000+ CE
1Q20 22:14
Genesis Apocryphon
Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical Retellings
12 the captives that they had taken he brought back. And the king of Sodom heard that Abram had brought back all the captives 13 and all the plunder, and he went up to meet him. And he came to Salem, which is Jerusalem, while Abram was camped in the valley of 14 Shaveh, which is the valley of the king, the valley of Beth-hakerem. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out 15 food and drink for Abram and for all the men who were with him. And he was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed 16 Abram and said, “Blessed is Abram by God Most High, Lord of heaven and earth, and blessed is God Most High, 17 who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he gave him a tithe of all the property of the king of Elam and his allies. 18 Then the king of Sodom drew near and said to Abram, “My lord Abram,
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.10.2
Classical
2 After rescuing the Sodomite captives, including Lot, Abraham came home in peace. The king of Sodom met him in the King’s dale, where Melchizedek, king of Salem (meaning “righteous king,” an apt title, for he truly was righteous) and also priest of God, welcomed him and his men generously, providing abundant provisions. As they dined, he praised Abraham and blessed God for subduing his enemies beneath him. After Abraham gave him a tenth of his spoils, Melchizedek gladly accepted. The king of Sodom requested that Abraham keep the loot but restore his citizens, and Abraham refused the reward, taking only what his men had already eaten, but still insisting his three friends—Eschol, Enner, and Mambre—take their rightful share.
Search:
Notes and References
"... Why, then, is the Talmudic discussion silent on the matter of Melchizedek’s circumcision? Given the thrust of the discussion, one might reasonably suggest that the text takes for granted that Melchizedek was indeed circumcised, in order to fulfil the priestly office. But then why does it emphasize instead the transfer of priesthood to Abraham? An explanation of this difficulty may, once more, originate in pre-Rabbinic attitudes to Melchizedek. Again, evidence from Qumran, this time in the shape of the Genesis Apocryphon from cave 1 (1Qap-Gen) provides assistance. (See D.A. Machiela, The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees) This Aramaic ‘re-writing’ of episodes from Genesis certainly pre-dates the Christian era, and is intent on presenting Abraham as a sacrificing priest ..."
Hayward, Robert
Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity
(pp. 384-385) Brill, 2010
* The use of references are not endorsements of their contents. Please read the entirety of the provided reference(s) to understand the author's full intentions regarding the use of these texts.
Your Feedback:
Leave a Comment
Anonymous comments are welcome. All comments are subject to moderation.
User Comments
,