From ʾEl ʿElyon to YHWH

This chapter examines the references to the deity (or deities) ʾEl ʿElyon in Gen. 14:19, 20, and 22. Using archaeological evidence in the form of Phoenician, Aramaic, and Hittite inscriptions, this chapter specifically looks at the northern Phoenician origin of the deity and his peculiar epithet “Creator of Heaven and Earth” as evidence of the antiquity of this text. Finally, this chapter provides evidence that the name of YHWH in verse 22 is a later gloss.

Conclusion

The conclusion summarizes the central arguments and evidence presented in the book. It demonstrates that the original purpose of Gen. 14 was that of a hero narrative, presenting the über-righteous Abram as a YHWH-empowered warrior who rescues his nephew, Lot, and returns the kidnaped and plundered Sodomite people and their goods to their homeland, without exacting a payment! Abram was to be depicted as the ultimate righteous hero, fighting the good fight on behalf of his extended family and demanding no payment in return. He is victorious in battle and generous in victory, “blessing those who bless him and becoming a curse to those who curse him.” However, as the history of Israel unfolded, parts of the Abram narrative required updating in the eyes of the Jerusalem priesthood. Given the sectarian political battles that came to shape Judean and Samaritan history in Israel following the collapse of the two kingdoms and the Babylonian exile, the Melchizedek encounter underwent small changes over time, each of which created new problems with each problem it solved. It was this redaction history of the Melchizedek encounter that created Melchizedek as an individual separate from the king of Sodom and gave rise to the varied Jewish interpretations of him in the late Second Temple period.

Psalm 110

This chapter examines the presence of Melchizedek in Ps. 110 (LXX Ps. 109) and asks if the Hebrew text refers to the same priest-king mentioned in Gen. 14:18 or to another priest-king—the Israelite king the psalm celebrates as part of his coronation. This chapter closely examines the extraordinary measures taken by Hebrew interpreters to alter references to the metaphorical birth of the king in verse 3 that are clear references to birth in other psalms. This chapter also examines the LXX’s “inventive” interpretation in verse 4 of a priestly “Order of Melchizedek”—a translation that is not supported by later translations like the Aramaic targums.

The Tithes That Bind

This chapter explores the grammatical problem caused by the exchange of goods, commonly interpreted as a tithe, in Gen. 14:20. The chapter argues that the unstated direction of the exchange should actually be from Melchizedek to Abram (contra traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation) and that the exchange should not be viewed in a cultic setting as a tithe but as a part of the negotiation of the exchange of goods and people that immediately follows between Abram and the king of Sodom. This chapter argues that one motivation for understanding the exchange of goods as a tithe and of the reversal of direction of the exchange to one from Abram to Melchizedek was to establish a biblical precedent of tithing to Jerusalem priests by none other than Abram himself.

History of Interpretation of Melchizedek

This chapter is a standard history of literary research on the topics of Melchizedek, Gen. 14, and Ps. 110. It looks at each of the research questions, including whether Gen. 14 is unified or composite; whether it is early (i.e., an eleventh- to ninth-century BCE Mesopotamian or Canaanite chronicle adapted by Hebrew scribes) or late (i.e., a Persian or Hellenistic period composition); and whether the Melchizedek episode is original to the narrative or a later gloss. Likewise, questions regarding Ps. 110 are addressed, including whether it is early (i.e., a tenth- to ninth-century BCE Canaanite coronation psalm adopted by the Israelites) or late (i.e., a Hellenistic or even Hasmonean composition), whether verse 4 is a Hasmonean gloss, and whether the personal name Melchizedek is mentioned in verse 4.

From Shalem to Jerusalem

This chapter presents evidence that demonstrates, in a manner similar to Moriah detailed in the previous chapter, that the city of Shalem was relocated in a two-step redactional process. First, Shalem was moved from being “a city of Shechem” (Gen. 33:18) to being located in an unknown region. In Jer. 41:5, a reference to Shalem was replaced outright with a reference to Shiloh so as to obscure its mention, but not before the LXX preserved the original reference to Shalem. Later, Shalem was associated explicitly with Jerusalem, using texts from the Second Temple period like Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the works of Josephus. The location of the Valley of Shaveh was also relocated from the Dead Sea to Jerusalem to correspond to the relocation of Shalem to Jerusalem.

Melchizedek the Man in the Context of Gen. 14

This chapter examines the structure of the overall narrative and the context of the Abram-Melchizedek interaction in Gen. 14. It explores the origin of the name Malki-Ṣedeq, which it concludes to mean “My king is [the deity] Ṣedeq.” It then examines the prevalence of Ṣedeq worship throughout Canaan and the deity’s association with salt. Finally, this chapter examines the prevalence of priest-kings in Phoenicia, Canaan, and early Israel. The chapter concludes that the idea of a priest-king early monarchic Israel would not have been surprising, but instead the norm, as rulers serving a symbolic priestly role was typical of Phoenician and Canaanite kings.

Evidence of Sectarian Redaction in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Text

This chapter provides the theoretical and methodological foundation for the second central thesis of the book. The chapter systematically explores examples in the HB of growing redactional competition between the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch, with each sectarian group making slight alterations to key texts in order to promote their respective holy mountains and denigrate the others’. This leads to the presentation of evidence for a third compelling thesis: that the Moriah mentioned in conjunction with Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen. 22 originally read Moreh, and was initially a reference to the Oak of Moreh near Shechem in the shadow of Mt. Gerizim. To combat this, the hapax legomenon Moriah was created to remove the central theophany from the holy Samaritan mountain, Gerizim, and later, utilizing a gloss in 2 Chron. 3:1, was relocated from the desert to Jerusalem.

From Sodom to Shalem

This chapter details the first central thesis of the book, its principal text-critical argument: that Melchizedek originally appeared in the text of Gen. 14 as the king of Sodom, but that this text was altered to Shalem to distance the patriarch Abram from the city that would come to represent God’s destruction of perversity and inhospitality. The chapter proceeds step by step through the redaction process of the word Sodom to Shalem. The chapter then discusses the death of Beraʿ, the king of Sodom, and how later literature altered the account of his death so that he could reappear later in the story, thereby causing Melchizedek to appear as someone other than the heir to the throne of Sodom. The chapter concludes with a thorough grammatical examination of Gen. 14 demonstrating that verse 18 was manipulated and wrongly interpreted to understand Melchizedek and the king of Sodom as separate individuals.

Introduction

The introduction provides a summary of the research questions pursued and the arguments made in the book, focusing on two central theses regarding Melchizedek, with the second depending on the first. The first thesis is that Melchizedek, king of Shalem, was originally king of Sodom, and that his dominion was altered deliberately to prevent the Jewish patriarch Abram from having positive interactions with the king of Sodom, whose city would soon be destroyed by God. The second thesis is that Shalem was originally associated with the city of Shechem, in the shadow of Mt. Gerizim in Samaria, but later came to be associated with Jerusalem through a number of scribal and interpretative maneuvers designed to promote Jerusalem and denigrate Samaria.