'Order' of Melchizedek or 'speech'?

[Vouthon]

“al dibrati malki-sedeq”

אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק

This single Hebraic idiom - ‘dibrati’ - in Psalm 110:4b shapes the climax of a critical theological argument in Hebrews 7, which can be understood as a kind of midrash on Genesis 14:18-20 and the royal Psalm, in which the inspired author declares Jesus Christ to be a “a priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 7:17).

I’ve read that the septuagint LXX word is katha which means “order, arrangement” or something similar. Hebrews and the septuagint therefore both understand the Hebrew original to be referring to the mode of Melchizedek’s priesthood (i.e. that it is eternal).

However, there is a competing Rabbinic translation in the Talmud which reads the Hebrew not as ‘modal’ but as ‘causal’ and as referring to the “speech of Melchizedek”, with the implication being that Hebrews (and the LXX) is wrong in interpreting the verse as a reference to the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek (which precedes the Levite priesthood and is thus superior to it) and that it, on the contrary, refers to Melchizedek’s ‘speech’ to Abraham in Genesis and that the psalm is either about Abraham or his seed (i.e. David).

The exegesis is complicated but the linguistic rationale goes as follows: the root word “דבר” means speak or thing, when you add the suffix ת it becomes “speech of”. Thus, in English the sentence becomes: ‘because of what Melchizedek said [i.e. to Abraham]’ (presumably Gen.14:19).

There is an article online by a Rabbi who claims - I think - that this may be a mistranslation by the sages of the Talmud (the entire article is worth reading):

Who Assumed Melchizedek’s Priesthood? - TheTorah.com

Melchizedek, the oft-overlooked priest-king of Salem scarcely appears in the Bible, yet centuries later he becomes a source of fascination in Jewish and Christian literature alike. | Prof. Rabbi Joshua Garroway

www.thetorah.com

The rabbis, in contrast, were hardly looking to legitimize an alternative priestly line. To them, Melchizedek threatened the exclusivity of the Levitical priesthood. By no means did they consider Melchizedek inimical. He is identified with Noah’s son, Shem, and is said to have composed psalms, taught torah to Abraham, and helped God to name Jerusalem.[8] The rabbis, however, simply could not countenance the idea that this non-Levite is called a priest of God the Most High—and in Jerusalem, no less! The Torah later insists that God’s priesthood belongs perpetually to the descendants of Levi through Aaron, so how can there be an eternal priestly order through Melchizedek?

The issue is resolved in the Talmud (b. Nedarim 32b)…

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

According to Rabbi Ishmael, Psalm 110 was spoken by God to Abraham at the time of his encounter with Melchizedek. God indeed appointed Melchizedek the first priest, but God became disappointed with him when he blessed Abraham before blessing God, and therefore punished him by transferring the priesthood from his descendants to the descendants of Abraham. Psalm 110 therefore opens with God relegating Melchizedek to be Abraham’s footstool.

God goes on to call Abraham “a priest forever” on account of Melchizedek’s rash utterance, an interpretation made possible by a clever misreading of the phrase עַל דִּבְרָתִי. The word dibrati is read as if it were a different word with the same root, dibburo , such that Psalm 110 has God say “You are a priest forever after the utterance of Melchizedek.” In other words, “You, Abraham, have become a priest because of what Melchizedek mistakenly said.” The coup de grace in this reinterpretation comes when Rabbi Ishmael notes that Gen. 14:18 can be read in a limited sense: yes, Melchizedek was a priest, but it does not say that his descendants would also be priests.

I don’t have the linguistic knowledge to evaluate this but I was hoping that someone on here might be versed enough in biblical Hebrew and Greek to weigh in?

 

[phil19034]

Honestly… who should Catholics trust more on this subject? Jesus Himself or modern day scholars?

 

[edward_george1]

I don’t think that’s how I would frame it, given that there’s no good reason to be adverse to all modern scholarship simply because it is modern scholarship.

That said, my question would be why we should think that Jesus himself and the author of Hebrews are getting it wrong?

I did my Masters thesis on Hebrews, so I am interested to see this thread unfold.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Vouthon]

That said, my question would be why we should think that Jesus himself and the author of Hebrews are getting it wrong?

I should note that I am certainly not meaning to imply that they did get it wrong but rather (from devil’s advocate) making the case of the Rabbis in the Talmud.

Also, a free translation or allegorical paraphrase is not necessarily ‘wrong’ either. Scripture has many senses, the literal being only one.

However, I would like to know more about this from someone in the know, so to speak - so that I can better evaluate the argument being made on this side and its relative merits about the actual translation of what appears to be a highly contested but consequential Hebrew idiom.

 

[edward_george1]

Also, a free translation or allegorical paraphrase is not necessarily ‘wrong’ either. Scripture has many senses, the literal being only one.

Certainly, and maybe there are multiple ways to interpret this phrase. But I think the fact that we have Jesus and the author of the Hebrews interpreting it one way shows us that that view was at the very least in currency at the time. And the fact that the Septuagint translates it one way also attests to this view. There might be an additional reading possible for it, but that doesn’t necessarily negate the earlier one. And it doesn’t necessarily mean that the later reading is superior or even correct.

 

[po18guy]

The salient point here would be when this particular exegesis was arrived at. Post-70AD would be my guess, therefore it may well be construed so as to provide other possibilities than the Catholic teaching.

 

[Vouthon]

The salient point here would be when this particular exegesis was arrived at. Post-70AD would be my guess, therefore it may well be construed so as to provide other possibilities than the Catholic teaching.

I have read other scholars who opine that this may in fact be the case (the Rabbi whose article I cited in the OP also appears to be implying this) and that it was arrived at in the context of counteracting the interpretations of the church fathers derived from the LXX and Hebrews (I think the Peshitta also renders it “manner/order”).

However, I personally feel we should consider the linguistic argument on its own merits as well - and not simply discount it offhand as a result of its possible partisan origins - so as to discern if there is, or isn’t, credibility to the actual argument (i.e. regarding this root word, I think it was dabar - to speak).

 

[edward_george1]

However, I think we should consider the linguistic argument on its own merits as well - and not simply discount it offhand as a result of its possible partisan origins - so as to discern if there is, or isn’t, credibility to the actual argument (i.e. regarding this root word, I think it was dabar - to speak).

I agree, actually. I don’t think everything has to be some grand conspiracy against Christianity.

That said, if anything, the “utterance” rendering gives further credence to the sacramental nature of the Christian priesthood, since the uttering of words are essential for conferring ordination. This is supported by the verse in Hebrews referring to “the sacrifice of praise, which is fruit of lips that confess his name.” This passage may most plausibly be interpreted as referring to the Eucharist, and so an utterance which brings about the sacrifice of praise as its fruit would fit very much with that reading.

 

[po18guy]

Thus we arrive at the risks and vagaries of textual exegesis. Without a guiding force, or principle, or tradition, it can be like driving through fog, being diverted by the minutiae. Or worse, reversing or backing up through fog.

It might be a form of reverse-engineering, but the purpose of that is to arrive at as near a duplication of the original as possible. Inserting an agenda or bias into the process assures inaccuracy.

 

[Bithynian]

The exegesis is complicated but the linguistic rationale goes as follows: the root word “דבר” means speak or thing, when you add the suffix ת it becomes “speech of”. Thus, in English the sentence becomes: ‘ because of what Melchizedek said [i.e. to Abraham] ’ (presumably Gen.14:19).

I don’t think there’s any profound linguistic reason for Rabbi Ishmael’s interpretation of דִּבְרָתִי dibratiy (order of). As Rabbi Galloway writes, it’s a simple (intentional or unintentional) misreading.

As context: the absolute state of dibratiy (order of) is דִּבְרָה dibrah ( order), which is formed from the addition of the feminine suffix ה ַ (ah) to the root ד.ב.ר (d.b.r). This is the same root of the דָּבָר dabar (word). Because of the close semantic relationship between ‘order’ and ‘word’ in Hebrew (and that דִּברָה dibratiy is a fairly rare word in the OT), it’s probably more likely to misinterpret one for the other.

For some reason or another, Rabbi Ishmael reads דִּבְרָתִי dibratiy as דּבְרֵי dibrey (the words of), which in unpointed Hebrew would differ only in one consonant (ת t): דברתי (dbrty) vs דברי (dbry). Note that his use of the word דִּבּוּרוּ dibburu is just a Mishnaic Hebrew translation of the Biblical דּבְרֵי dibrey.

 

[Vouthon]

I don’t think there’s any profound linguistic reason for Rabbi Ishmael’s interpretation of דִּבְרָתִי dibratiy (order of). As Rabbi Galloway writes, it’s a simple (intentional or unintentional) misreading.

As context: the absolute state of dibratiy (order of) is דִּבְרָה dibrah ( order), which is formed from the addition of the feminine suffix ה ַ ( ah ) to the root ד.ב.ר (d.b.r). This is the same root of the דָּבָר dabar (word). Because of the close semantic relationship between ‘order’ and ‘word’ in Hebrew (and that דִּברָה dibratiy is a fairly rare word in the OT), it’s probably more likely to misinterpret one for the other.

For some reason or another, Rabbi Ishmael reads דִּבְרָתִי dibratiy as דּבְרֵי dibrey (the words of), which in unpointed Hebrew would differ only in one consonant (ת t ): דברתי (dbrty) vs דברי (dbry). Note that his use of the word דִּבּוּרוּ dibburu is just a Mishnaic Hebrew translation of the Biblical דּבְרֵי dibrey .

This is very interesting, thank you Bithynian!

It’s exactly the kind of linguistic analysis I was hoping to receive.

 

[Vouthon]

to the root ד.ב.ר (d.b.r). This is the same root of the דָּבָר dabar (word)

If may ask just one more linguistic question and pick your brains: the root ‘d.b.r’ only becomes ‘word’, then, when given as דָּבָר? Does the root have any meaning in and of itself?

I read one Jewish exegete who opined that it might mean “you are a priest forever because of the matter of Melchizedek”, in the sense of it referring to the episode involving Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis (i.e. coming later or as a consequence of Melchizedek’s words or actions in that scene).

Also, if דִּבְרָתִי does indeed mean ‘order’ - what kind of order is this referring to in terms of Melchizedek (in your opinion) in Psalm 110? Does it mean to imply ‘arrangement’ / things ordered in a certain way?

I also read that the root is used to form part of deborah (bee), the name of the biblical judge, as well - which would make sense, I guess, given that bees are renowned for their ‘ordered’ hive societies.

 

[BartholomewB]

I’ve read that the septuagint LXX word is katha which means “order, arrangement” or something similar. Hebrews and the septuagint therefore both understand the Hebrew original to be referring to the mode of Melchizedek’s priesthood (i.e. that it is eternal).

The LXX reads, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ. κατὰ is a preposition, here translated as something like “according to”. The noun is taxis, which in the LXX appears as the translation of several different Hebrew words.This is the only instance, I believe, where it is used for dibrah.

There is no agreement on the exact meaning of the expression “the order of Melchizedek,” either in Hebrew, Greek, or English. One possibility is that is has to with the genealogical requirement for the Temple priesthood. In the NT, the author of Hebrews develops at considerable length the idea of Jesus as “a priest in the order of Melchizedek”, beginning at 6:13 and continuing all through chapters 7 and 8. The passage stresses that Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Jerusalem to whom Abraham paid tithes, obviously could not be in compliance with the “order of Aaron” rule introduced many generations later, which stipulated that only descendants of Aaron were entitled to serve as priests in the Temple. Similarly Jesus, being descended from Judah, lacked the genealogical qualification for the Temple priesthood, but nevertheless is rightly honoured as a priest and king, just as Melchizedek was.

 

[Vouthon]

The LXX reads, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ. κατὰ is a preposition, here translated as something like “according to”. The noun is taxis , which in the LXX appears as the translation of several different Hebrew words.This is the only instance, I believe, where it is used for dibrah.

There is no agreement on the exact meaning of the expression “the order of Melchizedek,” either in Hebrew, Greek, or English. One possibility is that is has to with the genealogical requirement for the Temple priesthood. In the NT, the author of Hebrews develops at considerable length the idea of Jesus as “a priest in the order of Melchizedek”, beginning at 6:13 and continuing all through chapters 7 and 8. The passage stresses that Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Jerusalem to whom Abraham paid tithes, obviously could not be in compliance with the “order of Aaron” rule introduced many generations later, which stipulated that only descendants of Aaron were entitled to serve as priests in the Temple. Similarly Jesus, being descended from Judah, lacked the genealogical qualification for the Temple priesthood, but nevertheless is rightly honoured as a priest and king, just as Melchizedek was.

Hebrews is such a fascinating letter of scripture, thank you for the above!

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you for your kind words! Yes, I fully agree about Hebrews. Please bear in mind that the explanation I have given you here is just one among several possibilities. It’s the explanation that makes most sense to me, but I have no academic qualifications of any kind in Biblical languages. The experts here at CAF, that I know of, are @OddBird, @Bithynian, and @Gorgias.

 

[Bithynian]

If may ask just one more linguistic question and pick your brains: the root ‘d.b.r’ only becomes ‘word’, then, when given as דָּבָר? Does the root have any meaning in and of itself?

This is a somewhat complex question as Hebrew (both Classical and Modern) are generally written without vowels. It’s important to note that this is an orthographic (that is, related to writing) convention: all languages - including Hebrew - involve speaking vowel sounds, but it just happens to be the case that most Semitic languages don’t actually write them down.

Roots by themselves have no syntactic meaning (that is, they can’t be used in sentences), but they often share the same consonant sequence with a few words which are derived from the root. For example, דבר (d.b.r) as it is ordinarily written without vowels can be variously interpreted as דָּבָר dābār (word), דְּבַר d’bar (word of), דַּבֵּר dabbēr (speak, as in a command), דִּבֵּר dibbēr (he/she/it spoke). It’s ultimately an issue of context as to determine which is more appropriate.

Also, if דִּבְרָתִי does indeed mean ‘order’ - what kind of order is this referring to in terms of Melchizedek (in your opinion) in Psalm 110? Does it mean to imply ‘arrangement’ / things ordered in a certain way?

A challenging question. דִּבְרָה dibrah (order) only occurs four times in the OT: Ps 110:4, Ec 7:14, Ec 8:2 and Job 5:8. It’s sufficiently rare to make interpretation difficult, and I haven’t read much extra-biblical Classical Hebrew literature to make any inference that way. I think @BartholomewB is very close to the mark, based on how the Septuagint translates the term. τάξις taxis, when applied to people, generally meant some specific arrangement or grouping of people who were appointed for a particular purpose. In extra-biblical Classical Greek literature, the word was most often applied to different military units (e.g. companies, battalions, etc.).

 

[Vouthon]

That was very enlightening, I cannot thank you enough @Bithynian for taking the time to explain the linguistics to me. It is greatly appreciated.

One tiny little third query (I know, I’m like Oliver Twist asking ‘please sir, can I have some more’ ) but this is genuinely of real interest to me:

I read elsewhere that the parent root of דבר is דר ( DR ), which means “order” (which would take us full-circle back to order at root, anyway, if true). In light of your explanation above about roots having no syntactic meaning in and of themselves, could you shed some light on how that person may have arrived at this understanding?

Again, you are a brilliant intellect - many thanks!

 

[Bithynian]

I read elsewhere that the parent root of דבר is דר ( DR ), which means “order” (which would take is full-circle back to order at root, anyway, if true). In light of your explanation above about roots having no syntactic meaning in and of themselves, could you shed some light on how that person may have arrived at this understanding?

I should say that “syntactic meaning” is not actual linguistic terminology: I just coined it on the spot as I couldn’t think of a more appropriate way to describe it.

It’s important to conceptualise what roots are and what they aren’t: they’re simply a particular sequence of consonants to which vowels and other consonants may be added to form meaningful words. Roots lack grammatical features that allows them to be meaningfully used in sentences: they lack person, number, mood, aspect, etc. As an analogy: houses are built using bricks, but one cannot live in a brick itself.

For example, take the sentence: בְּנֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל דִּבְּרוּ אֶל מֺשֶׁה b’ney yis’rael dib’ru el moshe (the people of Israel spoke to Moses). The verb דִּבְּרוּ dibru is the 3rd person masculine plural piel yiqtol of the verb דָּבַר dabar (this is the 3rd person masculine singular qal qatal “he spoke”, and this is the form of verbs given as the entry in dictionaries, the “lexical form”). דָּבַר dabar itself is derived from the root ד.ב.ר.

Roots often have some very general semantic values. That is, they’re associated with basic ideas and concepts, but they don’t have precise meanings in and of themselves (nor the features to relate that meaning to other words) to the extent that they can serve a function in sentences: בְּנֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל ד.ב.ר אֶל מֺשֶׁה b’ney yis’rael d.b.r el moshe is just gibberish.

Regarding דבר and דר: this is a very complex linguistic question related to the derivation of morphologies, and much of this relies on sophisticated modelling of the rules which govern Hebrew sound changes. I’ve only ever read over this cursorily, but I would be wary of “folks etymologies” that try to establish some sort of substantive (sometimes wacky) connection between words based on some vaguely similar sounds.

There are an abundance of examples of this occurring in Christianity. For example, the incorrect explanation that διάκονος diakonos (deacon) is derived from the phrase “δία dia (through) + κόνις konis (dust)”, the general idea being that deacons were dusty from racing all over the polis attending to congregants. Likewise, the explanation of ‘liturgy’ as ‘the work of the people’ based on its Greek etymology, which is woefully incorrect: Greek Orthodox theologian Kallistos Ware wrote “bad etymology, but good theology”.

 

[Vouthon]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain this complicated subject to me so excellently