spin

Why would you suppose that? What's historical about the Abraham traditions or any of those which follow in the biblical accounts down to the time when Israel comes into contact with Assyria?

Do you find it historical that kings of Elam and "Shinar" were involved in petty Canaanite squabbles a thousand kilometers away from their own territories? What about the same prank of Abraham passing his wife Sarah off as his sister in both Egypt and Gerar and Isaac passing Rebekah off as his sister in Gerar to avoid trouble with the king only to cause trouble. You'd think that Abimelech would have learnt from the Abraham experience not to trust Hebrews claiming that their women are their sisters. This same story told thrice should make you wary of supposing "that the historical account of the OT begins with Abram".

Are you another adherent to the two million tramping out of Egypt to spend 38 years at Kadesh Barnea with innumerable sewerage problems then conquer a land which shows no population change in the hundreds of years before the iron age. Well, Hebrew is a Canaanite language which shows no Egyptian linguistic influences for supposedly having been in a technologically superior culture for 400 years.

El Elyon, "god most high", of Gen 14 is a means of referring to god which was popular in the 2nd c. BCE -- you'll find it frequently in Ben Sira for example (Qeos hupsistos) -- only found once in any other part of the Hebrew bible. It is the main means of referring to god in the Genesis Apocryphon which features the Melkizedeq story, and while El Elyon is par for the course in the G.A. it is strange in Genesis. In fact the book of Jubilees lacks the Melkizedeq story completely, suggesting that it was not an original part of the early history of the Jews.

What was the real purpose of introducing a priest whose credentials were not due to being a member of the Aaronid families? The name Melkizedek is illustrative here. MLK indicates "king", while CDQ indicates "righteous(ness)", a prerogative of the high priest, and the two parts of the name tie together the roles priest and king, a feature known in Jewish history during the latter part of the Hasmonean dynasty, when priests from a non-high priestly clan of the sons of Aaron not only became high priests but also kings. They could not appeal to the Davidic line for royalty, nor could they appeal to being from the sons of Zadoq (the priests who kept the covenant and did not stray when the Israelites strayed). They needed another claim to fame, which the priest-king Melkizedeq could supply. There was a greater priesthood.

El Elyon was favoured during the 2nd c. BCE and the Hasmonean kings flourished from the end of the century. They were usurpers according to Hebrew customs and needed justification for their having taken both roles. This is what the Hasmoneans could appeal to. Notice that, while David was not a priest, Ps 110 also combines the two roles of priest and king, as well as mentions Melkizedeq. The Psalm collection was not complete during the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as Ps. 110 was not included in the psalms roll that should have included it.

I think supposing that "the historical account of the OT begins with Abram" is not only daring but also foolhardy.


spin

spin

Entry into the holy of holies was the privilege of the sons of Zadoq, the high priestly family. They ruled the temple.

Further information on privilege.

Lack of argument usually indicates empty bias.

Why do you hang onto the old?


spin

Clouseau

When would you like to start it? 1948 CE?

Clouseau

To show that the argument is all spin?

spin

We are trying to do history. Even you make the pretense:

If we suppose that the historical account of the OT begins with Abram,...

So why not try to deal historically with the material, rather than slavishly cite it as though it were history itself?


spin

Clouseau

Indeed. So where shall we begin? You can decide. I'm very generous.

spin

What would you like to demonstrate as historical from the bible? -- and I mean, not assume it as you did with Abraham.


spin

spin

Are you trying to show that you are another contentless religious poster or would you like to show that you know something about the topics of Biblical Criticism and History -- ie what this forum is about?

Loomis

So what if 15:2 reads “adonay Yahweh?” How does that get you off the hook? You appear to be claiming that the Melchizedek character of 14 was talking about “adonay Yahweh” character in chapter 15 - and that is where I disagree.

It looks to me like Genesis 14 (the entire chapter) is an insertion. The deity in Genesis 14 was not Yahweh until someone injected him into the scene (maybe around 1000AD).

The “adonay Yahweh” of 15:2 was unknown to the original author chapter 14. So how could the Melchizedek character possibly have been referring to him?

Loomis

Fwiw - in Genesis 14 Mamre is a person, but everywhere else Mamre is a place. Same deal with Eshcol.

But I bet you knew that.