C
Chen_Zhen
Guest
Does anyone know the argument for Melchizedek being Shem (Noah’s son)? I have been told that he is, but I do not know the specifics.
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
The idea that Melchizedek may be Shem is actually based on a reading of the Masoretic Hebrew text. According to Genesis 11:10-11 in the Hebrew (Young’s Literal Translation):
These are births of Shem: Shem is a son of an hundred years, and begetteth Arphaxad two years after the deluge. And Shem liveth after his begetting Arphaxad five hundred years, and begetteth sons and daughters.
This would make Shem to be the time of his death 600 years old.
- “When Arpachshad was thirty-five years old, he became the father of Shelah.” Shem is 135 years of age at this time.
- “When Shelah was thirty years old, he became the father of Eber.” Shem is now 165.
- “When Eber was thirty-four years old, he became the father of Peleg.” Shem’s age is 199.
- “When Peleg was thirty years old, he became the father of Reu.” 229 years old and counting…
- “When Reu was thirty-two years old, he became the father of Serug.” Two-hundred and sixty-one!
- “When Serug was thirty years old, he became the father of Nahor.” Age 291.
- “When Nahor was twenty-nine years old, he became the father of Terah.” 320…
- “When Terah was seventy years old, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.” Shem’s now living for 390 years.
- “Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran.” Shem: 465.
- (Unspecified period of time from Genesis 12:9ff-13)
- An invading force led by Chedorlaomer king of Elam, attacked and subdued the Cities of the Plain, forcing them to pay tribute. After twelve years, these cities rebelled. The following year Chedorlaomer and his allies returned, defeating the rebels and taking many captive, including Lot. Abram assembled his men and chased after the invaders, defeating them in Hobah, north of Damascus (Genesis 14).
The text of the Greek Septuagint, meanwhile, has a tendency to add a hundred years to the ages of most patriarchs when they begat their offspring starting from Adam up to Nahor; in Nahor’s case, the translator ‘added’ 150 years! In addition, it also adds an extra patriarch, Cainan, in between Arphachshad and Shelah; Cainan only appears in the Septuagint, his name not being found in the Masoretic Hebrew or the Samaritan Torah. Hence:
- “And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Kainan.” This would make Shem 235. Note the appearance of the ‘extra’ patriarch Cainan.
- “And Kainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala.” Shem is now 365!
- “And Sala lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Eber.” Shem: 495 years old.
- “And Eber lived a hundred and thirty-four years and begot Phalek.” Since Shem’s lifespan is given as 600 years (as in the Hebrew), here he has already apparently died 19 years before Heber fathered Peleg.
- “And Phalek lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Ragau.”
- “And Ragau lived a hundred thirty and two years, and begot Serouch.”
- “And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.”
- “And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharra.”
- “And Tharra lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Arran.”
- “And Abram was seventy-five years old, when he went out of Charran.”
- (Unspecified period of time from Genesis 12:9ff-13)
- Genesis 14
P
patrick457
Guest
In fact, there is some divergence between the Hebrew, Greek, and Samaritan texts over the ages of the patriarchs:
(For the record, the Samaritan has Shem being 629 when the 130-year-old Peleg fathered Reu, implying that he died 29 years ago, when Peleg was 101.)
Leaving aside the question as to which version reflects accurately the ‘original’ text, let’s say for the moment that it was the Greek translator of Genesis that changed things. Why would he do this?
(For the record, the Samaritan has Shem being 629 when the 130-year-old Peleg fathered Reu, implying that he died 29 years ago, when Peleg was 101.)
Leaving aside the question as to which version reflects accurately the ‘original’ text, let’s say for the moment that it was the Greek translator of Genesis that changed things. Why would he do this?
- The translator/s apparently could not comprehend and accept the Hebrew chronology which would infer that Noah did not die until Abram was almost 60 years old, and which has Shem, Shelah, and Eber living up until the time of Jacob, when the latter was already advanced in years. So, to fix this ‘problem’, he/they added a century to the ages of the patriarchs up to Nahor.
- The tradition that Upper and Lower Egypt was united under the first Pharaoh in 3000 BC would not have escaped the translator (the Septuagint is generally held to be first written in or near Alexandria, home to many diaspora Jews). If we take the Hebrew text literally at this point, it would imply that the Flood happened somewhere around 2nd millenium BC, within the bounds of the Old Kingdom! If all save Noah and his family perished in the Flood as Genesis relates, the question then is: how exactly did the Egyptians manage to survive the flood which wiped out every living thing that was not in the ark?
P
patrick457
Guest
It was precisely because the majority of early Christians used the Septuagint that there was no early tradition of Shem being Melchizedek in Christianity as well.
In Jewish writings of the final centuries before Christ and first centuries AD, the emphasis was more on Melchizedek’s being (1) a righteous king and divinely appointed high priest, (2) the founder of Salem, which Josephus and later Targumim understood as referring to Jerusalem, and (3) a generous host – Philo, Josephus and the author of the Genesis Apocryphon (ca. early 1st century BC) all understood the text as meaning that Melchizedek brought out the “bread and wine” to feed Abraham and his men, i.e. as a feast (note that the text does not really specify for whom he intended these for, only that he brought them out). There was still no interest in his actual origins, though Josephus once seemed to suggest that Melchizedek was actually a Canaanite.
Abram camped in the valley of Shaveh, which is the valley of the king, the valley of Beth-ha-Kerem; and Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out food and drink to Abram and to all the men who were with him. He was the Priest of the Most High God. And he blessed Abram and said, “Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, Lord of heaven and earth! And blessed be the Most High God who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him the tithe of all the possessions of the king of Elam and his companions.
“All that befalls from friends we common call.”
And much more are all instances of good fortune common to those whose main object it is to please God.
In Jewish writings of the final centuries before Christ and first centuries AD, the emphasis was more on Melchizedek’s being (1) a righteous king and divinely appointed high priest, (2) the founder of Salem, which Josephus and later Targumim understood as referring to Jerusalem, and (3) a generous host – Philo, Josephus and the author of the Genesis Apocryphon (ca. early 1st century BC) all understood the text as meaning that Melchizedek brought out the “bread and wine” to feed Abraham and his men, i.e. as a feast (note that the text does not really specify for whom he intended these for, only that he brought them out). There was still no interest in his actual origins, though Josephus once seemed to suggest that Melchizedek was actually a Canaanite.
Abram camped in the valley of Shaveh, which is the valley of the king, the valley of Beth-ha-Kerem; and Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out food and drink to Abram and to all the men who were with him. He was the Priest of the Most High God. And he blessed Abram and said, “Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, Lord of heaven and earth! And blessed be the Most High God who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him the tithe of all the possessions of the king of Elam and his companions.
- Genesis Apocryphon (xxii.14ff)
- Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 3.79
“All that befalls from friends we common call.”
And much more are all instances of good fortune common to those whose main object it is to please God.
- Philo, On Abraham 235
- Josephus, Antiquities 1.10.2 (179-181)
- Josephus, Jewish War 6.10
P
patrick457
Guest
The only work from this time in which the origins of Melchizedek are discussed in detail is 2 Enoch (late 1st century AD). Here Melchizedek, despite having human parents, is given some superhuman traits: he is born miraculously to the recently deceased wife of Noah’s brother Nir - obviously with no intercourse involved (a kind of virgin birth, if you will). As soon as he came out of the womb the child, marked on his chest with a priestly seal, speaks and praises God. In a night vision Nir is told of the impending flood; he is also informed that the archangel Michael will bring Melchizedek to paradise, thus enabling him to escape the flood waters. Melchizedek will eventually become the chief of priests among the people, and in the end of days he will be revealed yet another time as the chief priest. Here we find that Melchizedek is actually Noah’s nephew instead of being his son.
Personally, I think that it was only around the time when Christianity began to rise that both Jews and Christians started to take the matter Melchizedek more seriously to the point of trying to formulate various opinions on who he exactly was.
Combining Hebrews 6:19-20 and 7:1-3 (“Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God…”), and some preexisting traditions about Mel being a sort of “heavenly priest,” some gnostic groups and even a number of orthodox Christians mistakenly/naively believed that Melchizedek and Jesus or the Holy Spirit one and the same personliterally, or even that he was superior to Christ (cf. the Melchizedekians)!
It was perhaps because of these ideas of Melchizedek as supernatural being, perhaps an angel or even as the Son of God or the Holy Spirit that the stories of him being a full-blooded human, having a father or mother (which we see in works like The Cave of Treasures, The Book of the Bee, and The Ethiopian Book of Adam) began to circulate, as a way to counter these ideas.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8626/24745470.png
The Cave of Treasures and the Book of the Bee both posit that Melchizedek was the son of a certain Malah, who in turn was Cainan’s (the extra patriarch of the Septuagint!) son. This makes him Shem’s great-great-grandson. In so doing they provide a concrete backstory for Melchizedek, showing him to be completely human - albeit one who experienced some strange events in his lifetime.
The Ethiopian Book of Adam meanwhile makes Melchizedek to be the other son of Cainan instead of Malah - and adds the detail about the pre-incarnate Word of God consecrating Melchizedek to the priesthood Himself (so it goes full circle: pre-incarnate Jesus consecrates Mel to the ‘order of Melchizedek’!
). The Melkite patriarch Eutychius of Alexandria in his Nazm al-Gawahir makes him the son of a certain ‘Phalek’. The author of The Bee, Mar Solomon was well aware of the curse of Canaan (some, perhaps taking their lead from Josephus, believed Melchizedek was an offspring of Canaan), because he noted that:
Neither the father nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shâlâh and Mâlâh, Shâlâh was written down in the genealogies; but Mâlâh was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies.
Personally, I think that it was only around the time when Christianity began to rise that both Jews and Christians started to take the matter Melchizedek more seriously to the point of trying to formulate various opinions on who he exactly was.
Combining Hebrews 6:19-20 and 7:1-3 (“Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God…”), and some preexisting traditions about Mel being a sort of “heavenly priest,” some gnostic groups and even a number of orthodox Christians mistakenly/naively believed that Melchizedek and Jesus or the Holy Spirit one and the same personliterally, or even that he was superior to Christ (cf. the Melchizedekians)!
It was perhaps because of these ideas of Melchizedek as supernatural being, perhaps an angel or even as the Son of God or the Holy Spirit that the stories of him being a full-blooded human, having a father or mother (which we see in works like The Cave of Treasures, The Book of the Bee, and The Ethiopian Book of Adam) began to circulate, as a way to counter these ideas.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8626/24745470.png
The Cave of Treasures and the Book of the Bee both posit that Melchizedek was the son of a certain Malah, who in turn was Cainan’s (the extra patriarch of the Septuagint!) son. This makes him Shem’s great-great-grandson. In so doing they provide a concrete backstory for Melchizedek, showing him to be completely human - albeit one who experienced some strange events in his lifetime.
The Ethiopian Book of Adam meanwhile makes Melchizedek to be the other son of Cainan instead of Malah - and adds the detail about the pre-incarnate Word of God consecrating Melchizedek to the priesthood Himself (so it goes full circle: pre-incarnate Jesus consecrates Mel to the ‘order of Melchizedek’!
). The Melkite patriarch Eutychius of Alexandria in his Nazm al-Gawahir makes him the son of a certain ‘Phalek’. The author of The Bee, Mar Solomon was well aware of the curse of Canaan (some, perhaps taking their lead from Josephus, believed Melchizedek was an offspring of Canaan), because he noted that:Neither the father nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shâlâh and Mâlâh, Shâlâh was written down in the genealogies; but Mâlâh was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies.
P
patrick457
Guest
There is also another story attributed to St. Athanasius which attempts to provide a rather fantastic backstory for Melchizedek:
There was once a queen in Salem whose son was named Salaad. Salaad in turn had a son caled Melchi, who had two sons by his wife named Salem: Melchi (Jr.) and Melchizedek. Now, this royal family was pagan: Mel only became aware of the true God through observation of the heavens and nature and renounced his idols. He then ran away from home to avoid the fate of his brother (who was sacrificed to the seven planets), went up Mount Tabor and asked God to punish those who had slain Melchi Jr., whereupon the earth opened up and swallowed all of his family: thus Melchizedek became “without father or mother,” as the writer of Hebrews says. With no more family, he lived almost naked in a forest on the mountain for seven years until his back ‘like that of a tortoise’. Abram, finding Melchizedek in this state, fetched him, pared his nails and clothed him in priestly garments: in return for this kindness, Melchizedek then blessed Abram and gave “a cup of pure wine and a morsel of bread to him and the three-hundred and eighteen men who were with him” (cf. Genesis 14:14).
The number 318 was very symbolic to the early Christians (Epistle of Barnabas 9:7-8; Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.22; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.11): in Greek, it is written TIH - T representing the Cross and IH representing the Name ‘Jesus’ (IHCOYC). Within this particular context, the 318 men is here also made out to be a prefigurement of the number of the council fathers who attended the Council of Nicaea in 325!
This tradition was apparently known in some form to the Armenian abbot Gregory of Datev, aka Grigor Tatevatsi (1346-1411), venerated as a saint in the Armenian Church. In his book Kirk Hartzmantz (The Book of Questions), he wrote that:
Melchizedek’s father was called Melchi, and his mother Sala; and they dwelt at Salem. From his birth he was consecrated to idols, but he was carried away to Mount Tabor, and fed there until he was grown up. One day a cloud descended from the mountain, and a hand stretched out of the cloud, ordained him priest saying, “Melchizedek, without father, mother or kindred, and like unto the Son of God;” because having been taken from his parents when quite a child, he had grown unlike them, not knowing them, and unknown to them. His dwelling was on Mount Golgotha where he sowed wheat with his own hands and made his own wine, so that when Abraham met him, he brought out to him some unleavened bread still warm and some wine; a figure of the Lord’s supper.
Another idea current in Christian circles was that Melchizedek was uncircumcised. Many of the early Church Fathers saw in this a proof that circumcision was not as important as Jews made it out to be - after all, if Melchizedek was a priest of God, how come he did not undergo circumcision?
This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and dug for yourselves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised; would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. Lot, being uncircumcised, was saved from Sodom, the angels themselves and the Lord sending him out. Noah was the beginning of our race; yet, uncircumcised, along with his children he went into the ark. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to whom also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes, and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest…
…For by this statement, “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,” with an oath God has shown Him (on account of your unbelief) to be the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek; i.e., as Melchizedek was described by Moses as the priest of the Most High, and he was a priest of those who were in uncircumcision, and blessed the circumcised Abraham who brought him tithes, so God has shown that His everlasting Priest, called also by the Holy Spirit Lord, would be Priest of those in uncircumcision.
-St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 19; 33
But Abraham, (you say,) was circumcised. Yes, but he pleased God before his circumcision; nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had accepted circumcision; but such as was to be for a sign of that time, not for a prerogative title to salvation. In fact, subsequent patriarchs were uncircumcised, like Melchizedek, who, uncircumcised, offered to Abraham himself, already circumcised, on his return from battle, bread and wine.
-Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 2
There was once a queen in Salem whose son was named Salaad. Salaad in turn had a son caled Melchi, who had two sons by his wife named Salem: Melchi (Jr.) and Melchizedek. Now, this royal family was pagan: Mel only became aware of the true God through observation of the heavens and nature and renounced his idols. He then ran away from home to avoid the fate of his brother (who was sacrificed to the seven planets), went up Mount Tabor and asked God to punish those who had slain Melchi Jr., whereupon the earth opened up and swallowed all of his family: thus Melchizedek became “without father or mother,” as the writer of Hebrews says. With no more family, he lived almost naked in a forest on the mountain for seven years until his back ‘like that of a tortoise’. Abram, finding Melchizedek in this state, fetched him, pared his nails and clothed him in priestly garments: in return for this kindness, Melchizedek then blessed Abram and gave “a cup of pure wine and a morsel of bread to him and the three-hundred and eighteen men who were with him” (cf. Genesis 14:14).
The number 318 was very symbolic to the early Christians (Epistle of Barnabas 9:7-8; Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.22; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.11): in Greek, it is written TIH - T representing the Cross and IH representing the Name ‘Jesus’ (IHCOYC). Within this particular context, the 318 men is here also made out to be a prefigurement of the number of the council fathers who attended the Council of Nicaea in 325!
This tradition was apparently known in some form to the Armenian abbot Gregory of Datev, aka Grigor Tatevatsi (1346-1411), venerated as a saint in the Armenian Church. In his book Kirk Hartzmantz (The Book of Questions), he wrote that:
Melchizedek’s father was called Melchi, and his mother Sala; and they dwelt at Salem. From his birth he was consecrated to idols, but he was carried away to Mount Tabor, and fed there until he was grown up. One day a cloud descended from the mountain, and a hand stretched out of the cloud, ordained him priest saying, “Melchizedek, without father, mother or kindred, and like unto the Son of God;” because having been taken from his parents when quite a child, he had grown unlike them, not knowing them, and unknown to them. His dwelling was on Mount Golgotha where he sowed wheat with his own hands and made his own wine, so that when Abraham met him, he brought out to him some unleavened bread still warm and some wine; a figure of the Lord’s supper.
Another idea current in Christian circles was that Melchizedek was uncircumcised. Many of the early Church Fathers saw in this a proof that circumcision was not as important as Jews made it out to be - after all, if Melchizedek was a priest of God, how come he did not undergo circumcision?
This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and dug for yourselves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised; would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. Lot, being uncircumcised, was saved from Sodom, the angels themselves and the Lord sending him out. Noah was the beginning of our race; yet, uncircumcised, along with his children he went into the ark. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to whom also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes, and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest…
…For by this statement, “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,” with an oath God has shown Him (on account of your unbelief) to be the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek; i.e., as Melchizedek was described by Moses as the priest of the Most High, and he was a priest of those who were in uncircumcision, and blessed the circumcised Abraham who brought him tithes, so God has shown that His everlasting Priest, called also by the Holy Spirit Lord, would be Priest of those in uncircumcision.
-St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 19; 33
But Abraham, (you say,) was circumcised. Yes, but he pleased God before his circumcision; nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had accepted circumcision; but such as was to be for a sign of that time, not for a prerogative title to salvation. In fact, subsequent patriarchs were uncircumcised, like Melchizedek, who, uncircumcised, offered to Abraham himself, already circumcised, on his return from battle, bread and wine.
-Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 2
P
patrick457
Guest
However, there was (perhaps in response to this Christian claim) a different opinion in Jewish circles:
King of Salem (Shalem). R. Isaac the Babylonian said, “This implies that he was born circumcised.” (shalem means ‘whole’, ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’; i.e. the king who was ‘whole’)
This argument enjoyed quite a bit of popularity (after all, it’s Biblically-consistent, as long as you’re using the Masoretic Hebrew text or something based on it
) that some Christians themselves began to adopt this idea - such as St. Ephrem, St. Jerome (St. Jerome’s case is a bit confusing: on one hand, he seems to merely report about it), and the medieval exegete St. Nicolas of Lyra. On the other hand - some of the Christians who still used the Septuagint or texts based on it found this opinion rather hard to swallow since according to the text that they use, Shem should have been dead at around the time of Abraham. The Armenian abbot Gregory of Datev (1346-1411) was apparently aware of St. Ephrem’s identification of Mel with Shem, and devotes a passage to answering it in his Kirk Hartzmantz:
But why does St. Ephrem in his writings say that Melchizedek was Shem (cf. Commentary on Genesis 11.2)? He had not two names neither is he a different person. But Irinos (St. Irenaeus?) gives the reason which is difficult to understand. Noah blessed Shem, but Shem had no son like himself to bless. Abraham, however, was of the family of Shem, and worthy of a blessing. But Shem was not then living, to bless him; and Terah could not bless. So Melchizedek took Shem’s place and did what Shem would have done: he blessed Abraham, and was called Shem.
(N.B.: The version of the Old Testament in use in the Armenian Church is based from the Septuagint according to Origen’s Hexapla)
King of Salem (Shalem). R. Isaac the Babylonian said, “This implies that he was born circumcised.” (shalem means ‘whole’, ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’; i.e. the king who was ‘whole’)
- Genesis Rabbah (ca. 3rd-5th century AD) 26
- Avot de-Rabbi Nathan (c.700–900)
This argument enjoyed quite a bit of popularity (after all, it’s Biblically-consistent, as long as you’re using the Masoretic Hebrew text or something based on it
) that some Christians themselves began to adopt this idea - such as St. Ephrem, St. Jerome (St. Jerome’s case is a bit confusing: on one hand, he seems to merely report about it), and the medieval exegete St. Nicolas of Lyra. On the other hand - some of the Christians who still used the Septuagint or texts based on it found this opinion rather hard to swallow since according to the text that they use, Shem should have been dead at around the time of Abraham. The Armenian abbot Gregory of Datev (1346-1411) was apparently aware of St. Ephrem’s identification of Mel with Shem, and devotes a passage to answering it in his Kirk Hartzmantz:But why does St. Ephrem in his writings say that Melchizedek was Shem (cf. Commentary on Genesis 11.2)? He had not two names neither is he a different person. But Irinos (St. Irenaeus?) gives the reason which is difficult to understand. Noah blessed Shem, but Shem had no son like himself to bless. Abraham, however, was of the family of Shem, and worthy of a blessing. But Shem was not then living, to bless him; and Terah could not bless. So Melchizedek took Shem’s place and did what Shem would have done: he blessed Abraham, and was called Shem.
(N.B.: The version of the Old Testament in use in the Armenian Church is based from the Septuagint according to Origen’s Hexapla)
L
lauraabarlow
Guest
Wow-fascinating! 
C
Chen_Zhen
Guest
Patrick 457:
I’m going to have to save the information you have given me. That is excellent!
Thanks for all the information!
I had no idea when I asked that question that I would get such a response so thanks for taking the time.
I had been interested in this question because I recently started to read through the Bible again from the beginning.
There is so much going on in Genesis that I can’t imagine myself ever having a dull moment trying to explore all the intimate things within it.
I heard about the problem some time ago where Haydock mentions that Melchizedek was not Shem. I also hear that this was in contradiction to Church Fathers so I wanted to get a little better grasp on it.
Maybe some day I can write a bit on it.
God bless!
I’m going to have to save the information you have given me. That is excellent!
Thanks for all the information!
I had no idea when I asked that question that I would get such a response so thanks for taking the time.
I had been interested in this question because I recently started to read through the Bible again from the beginning.
There is so much going on in Genesis that I can’t imagine myself ever having a dull moment trying to explore all the intimate things within it.
I heard about the problem some time ago where Haydock mentions that Melchizedek was not Shem. I also hear that this was in contradiction to Church Fathers so I wanted to get a little better grasp on it.
Maybe some day I can write a bit on it.
God bless!
P
patrick457
Guest
You’re welcome!
For the benefit of the many, Haydock’s commentary on Genesis 14:18, in part:Ver. 18. Melchisedech was not Sem: for his genealogy is given in Scripture. (Hebrews vii. 6.); nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Ghost, as some have asserted, but a virtuous Gentile who adored the true God, and was king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and Priest of an order different from that of Aaron, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass; as the fathers constantly affirm. (Haydock)
Admittedly, Haydock’s reasoning that Shem can’t be Melchizedek because we know Shem’s lineage whereas Hebrews says that Mel was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God” may not be too convincing for some.
And as I’ve said, the (originally Jewish) idea of identifying the two personages as one is perfectly consistent and reasonable, but only if you’re using the Hebrew (Masoretic) text or something based on it. In fact, one would notice a trend among the Fathers and Christian writers who supported the identification: they know Hebrew, or used texts close to the Hebrew!
In contrast, a good part of Christendom, brought up on the Greek Septuagint and translations, once found it a little hard to swallow because in the text they’re using, Shem was supposed to be already dead at the time of Abraham. St. Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarion 55.6) in fact argues against the very same idea of Melchizedek being Shem by invoking the Septuagint, though he makes a little blunder by attributing the belief to Samaritans instead of Jews (he attributes to Jews meanwhile the idea that Melchizedek was the offspring of a harlot and an unknown father).
But how many other fancies others have about this Melchizedek! Samaritans [sic] believe that he is Noah’s son Shem, but it will be found that they too are absurd. The sacred scripture, which safeguards everything with due order, has confirmed the truth in every way; not for nothing has it listed the time periods, and enumerated the years of each patriarch’s life and succession. …]
Now when he became the father of Abraham, Abraham’s father Terah was seventy years old, and that made about 160 years. Nahor fathered Terah at the age of seventy-nine, and that made 239 years. Serug fathered Nahor at the age of 130, and that made 239 years. Serug fathered Nahor at the age of 130, and that made 369 years. Reu fathered Serug when he was 132, and that came to the five hundred and first year. Peleg fathered Reu when he was 130, and that made 631 years. Eber fathered Peleg in the hundred and thirty-fourth year of his life, and that made 765 years. Shelah fathered Eber when he was 230, and that made 895 years. Kainan fathered Salah in the hundred ninth year of his life, and that made 1004 years. Arphaxad was 135 when he fathered Kainan, and that made 1139 years. And the Shem we spoke of, whom the Samaritans imagine to be Melchizedek, fathered Arphaxad in the hundred second year of his life, and altogether there were 1241 years until the time of Abraham, when he met Melchizedek on his return from the slaughter of the kings Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer and Tidal.
But Shem did not live that many years, as their foolish imagination would have it. He was 102 when he became the father of Arphaxad, in the second year after the flood. “And after that he lived 500 years,” as the sacred scripture says, “and begat sons and daughters, and died.” Now then, if he lived for 602 years and then died, how could he reach the age of 1241 years, they can call Shem the son of Noah, who lived ten generations before Abraham, Melchizedek? How much human error there is!
But if we go by the figure in other copies, there are about 628 years from the date of Shem’s birth until the time of Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek, in the eighty-eighth or ninetieth year of Abraham’s life. Thus on no account can Shem have lived until Abraham’s time, to be thought of as Melchizedek. And the Samaritans’ jabber is likewise all wrong.
P
patrick457
Guest
Some, like Gregory of Datev, tried to harmonize the conflicting ideas (Melchizedek acting as a proxy for the deceased Shem).
Instead, as a way to counteract the wacky ideas of Mel as a heavenly being identical or even higher than the Son of God or the Holy Spirit, some Christian writers of the period have made up creative and often fantastic backstories about Melchizedek the man and how he came to be king of Salem. Many folks speculated on who his parents could be: be it a certain Malah Cainan’s son, Cainan himself, an idolatrous king, a man named Eraclas (Hercules?), or even the sun and the moon!
Now some of the tales do often intertwine Mel with Shem (in a few versions, it was Shem who brings Mel to future Salem in the first place and even the one who consecrates him to the priesthood) but they are shown to be clearly distinct.
A recent proponent of the Melchizedek=Shem theory in Catholic circles as you may know is Scott Hahn, though with all due respect for him, I disagree.
Instead, as a way to counteract the wacky ideas of Mel as a heavenly being identical or even higher than the Son of God or the Holy Spirit, some Christian writers of the period have made up creative and often fantastic backstories about Melchizedek the man and how he came to be king of Salem. Many folks speculated on who his parents could be: be it a certain Malah Cainan’s son, Cainan himself, an idolatrous king, a man named Eraclas (Hercules?), or even the sun and the moon!
Now some of the tales do often intertwine Mel with Shem (in a few versions, it was Shem who brings Mel to future Salem in the first place and even the one who consecrates him to the priesthood) but they are shown to be clearly distinct.A recent proponent of the Melchizedek=Shem theory in Catholic circles as you may know is Scott Hahn, though with all due respect for him, I disagree.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
I think the important thing to remember about Mel is that Christ’s priesthood was like his. Christ, being of the line of David and thus Judah did not have claim to the High Priest, but Psalm 103 tells us that the Lord is a preist forever after the order of Mel. Thus the writer of Hebrews tells us that Christ, who is The Righteous King, is high preist because God has declared Him to be and not because of lineage, parentage etc etc in the same way as was Mel.
God Bless
God Bless
P
patrick457
Guest
Good point!
N
Neo_The_One
Guest
e.g. What is the difference between the Melchizedek priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood?
P
psikeyhackr
Guest
But what does it mean that Enoch was Translated?
How did Melchizedek not have a MOTHER?
What if they were the same person?
If God created the universe didn’t He have to know about RELATIVITY even though Einstein had not figured it out yet?
So if Enoch was TRANSLATED through time then he was no longer there but did not die. If God translated Enoch into the future and Enoch told everyone his name was Melchizedek then he did not have a mother in that time and had no ancestors.
But who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. Why is it in a higher quality Greek than any other books of the New Testament? How did he know about this translation. Translated and translation only appears 5 times in the KJV and three of them are in Hebrews 11:5
psik
How did Melchizedek not have a MOTHER?
What if they were the same person?
If God created the universe didn’t He have to know about RELATIVITY even though Einstein had not figured it out yet?
So if Enoch was TRANSLATED through time then he was no longer there but did not die. If God translated Enoch into the future and Enoch told everyone his name was Melchizedek then he did not have a mother in that time and had no ancestors.
But who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. Why is it in a higher quality Greek than any other books of the New Testament? How did he know about this translation. Translated and translation only appears 5 times in the KJV and three of them are in Hebrews 11:5
psik
B
Blairamir
Guest
Thanks for all the information patrick457.
What do you think are the best dates for when Abraham lived? And how about when the Exodus occurred?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Date
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh_of_the_Exodus#Pharaoh_of_the_Exodus
What do you think are the best dates for when Abraham lived? And how about when the Exodus occurred?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Date
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh_of_the_Exodus#Pharaoh_of_the_Exodus
P
patrick457
Guest
Admittedly I haven’t gotten around to thinking about it yet - because of all the conflicting dates and the ambiguosity (to a certain extent) of the available evidence.
N
nordskoven
Guest
The bigger issue is the monotheist cover-up. All cultures have Genesis-type morals and laws as noted by Christian Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen. The most obvious universals are marriage and a standard of modesty. This suggests we all came from the same monotheist background, a fact to which a variety of rebels are inimical, resulting in iffy pseudo-scholarship that muddies this.
Genesis 3:15 is God’s cursing Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed, the Proto-Evangelium or “pre-Gospel.” Ancient cultures were wild about the Woman & Seed and that’s why Hebrews account their lineage through mom. The revolt against the Woman & Seed system saw her being turned into a temple prostitute having sex with strangers only to have her children killed. That’s the answer to the question, “WWSD?” What Would Satan Do? The same war against women and children is going on today in our “women and children last” culture with abortion; and that includes elements in the Catholic Church with parishes on an orgy of redecorating where once the corporal works of mercy were the pastoral passion.
Moses was raised as a prince of Egypt possibly uncovering the monotheist records, the Torah, in the archives. There were strange tales of people digging in the archives, including the basis of the mummy’s curse in modern film. Egypt’s demonic revolt against Woman & Seed saw their priests fudging their histories, including turning what may be Shem, or the Shem School, into the demonic Typhon; and Set, the wild donkey-headed godlet. They feared and honored Shem enough to marvel at his power while disdaining him; and the “Philition” or “Lover of Righteousness” connection with the Great Pyramid may be part of this, mocking the master builder as a despised shepherd. Shem was persecuted to the extent that he had to leave Egypt with Adam’s bones. This is described in extra-biblical Jewish texts. Shem buried the bones in the cave under Golgotha before translating them to the twin caves, Machpelah, that Abraham later bought to inter Sarah. This is why Catholic crucifixes show Adam’s skull and long bones under Christ’s cross.
Monotheism wasn’t started but was revived by Akhenaton, and the clue may be that Akhenaton gave some juicy concession in the Promised Land to the Hebrews for free. I suggest it is because he recognized the remnant monotheists and did honor to the Hebrews for preserving this truth. Melchizedek, “King of Righteousness” was a refugee with bitter foes whose life may be illustrated in the myth of the “god” flunking the god test of being put to death but not resurrecting; his body parts flung far afield; and his wife claiming the “god” reincarnated and lived on in their son; and the inquisitor being hunted. Shem would have been hunted, not just for revenge, but for the bones of Adam because to possess those bones would have given clout to the rebel forces. So the secret was probably passed to Abraham. Moshe Dayan seized the Machepelah caves; viewed the interior; but sealed them and turned them back over to the Muslims.
Genesis 3:15 is God’s cursing Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed, the Proto-Evangelium or “pre-Gospel.” Ancient cultures were wild about the Woman & Seed and that’s why Hebrews account their lineage through mom. The revolt against the Woman & Seed system saw her being turned into a temple prostitute having sex with strangers only to have her children killed. That’s the answer to the question, “WWSD?” What Would Satan Do? The same war against women and children is going on today in our “women and children last” culture with abortion; and that includes elements in the Catholic Church with parishes on an orgy of redecorating where once the corporal works of mercy were the pastoral passion.
Moses was raised as a prince of Egypt possibly uncovering the monotheist records, the Torah, in the archives. There were strange tales of people digging in the archives, including the basis of the mummy’s curse in modern film. Egypt’s demonic revolt against Woman & Seed saw their priests fudging their histories, including turning what may be Shem, or the Shem School, into the demonic Typhon; and Set, the wild donkey-headed godlet. They feared and honored Shem enough to marvel at his power while disdaining him; and the “Philition” or “Lover of Righteousness” connection with the Great Pyramid may be part of this, mocking the master builder as a despised shepherd. Shem was persecuted to the extent that he had to leave Egypt with Adam’s bones. This is described in extra-biblical Jewish texts. Shem buried the bones in the cave under Golgotha before translating them to the twin caves, Machpelah, that Abraham later bought to inter Sarah. This is why Catholic crucifixes show Adam’s skull and long bones under Christ’s cross.
Monotheism wasn’t started but was revived by Akhenaton, and the clue may be that Akhenaton gave some juicy concession in the Promised Land to the Hebrews for free. I suggest it is because he recognized the remnant monotheists and did honor to the Hebrews for preserving this truth. Melchizedek, “King of Righteousness” was a refugee with bitter foes whose life may be illustrated in the myth of the “god” flunking the god test of being put to death but not resurrecting; his body parts flung far afield; and his wife claiming the “god” reincarnated and lived on in their son; and the inquisitor being hunted. Shem would have been hunted, not just for revenge, but for the bones of Adam because to possess those bones would have given clout to the rebel forces. So the secret was probably passed to Abraham. Moshe Dayan seized the Machepelah caves; viewed the interior; but sealed them and turned them back over to the Muslims.
- Status