The deal with Melchizedek

Melchizedek is a name that is mentioned in the OT in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 (and also in Hebrews in the NT).

Here's the thing with him:

He is abruptly introduced in Genesis 14:18-20 as the king of Salem who also happens to be a priest of the same God whom Abram followed. Out of nowhere, this king comes into the picture with bread and wine and blesses Abram, and then Abram gives him a tithe. And then he is never mentioned again (until Psalm 110).

It has been argued by a few scholars that this king was initially meant to be the same king of Sodom mentioned in Genesis 14, but then later changed to a separate character by redactors exactly to avoid the embarrassment that Abram was being subservient here to the king of a corrupt nation. Part of the case they put forward here is that the Hebrew for "Sodom" and "Salem" only differ by one character.

That one-letter difference may just be a coincidence, though. Nevertheless, because of how Melchizedek was abruptly presented as both king of a mysterious region and as priest of God, he has become quite a mystery and a regular topic of debate among scholars and laypeople.

For many Christians, Melchizedek is Jesus. But even before Christianity was a thing, you can see in Psalm 110:4 how Melchizedek was already being suggested as an almost divine figure.

I suspect the redactors had access to some tradition about the great king Melchizedek and made the decision to patch that in Genesis 14:18-20 in the middle of the account of Abram and the king of Sodom in the aftermath of the hostage rescue described earlier in the chapter. And it was likely a creativity decision to emphasize a contrast between the great king of Salem and the not-so-great king of Sodom and reiterate that Abram was blessed by God. This would've been the best spot to include this in.

So the king himself would not have been intended to be a mysterious figure to the ancient Israelites but part of their lore. It is only later that he is made legendary by Christians (and Jews).

Might be David.

(June 7, 2026 at 9:08 am)GrandizerII Wrote: So the king himself would not have been intended to be a mysterious figure to the ancient Israelites but part of their lore. It is only later that he is made legendary by Christians (and Jews).

This guy seems like a perfect example of what we were talking about on the other thread. It looks as though he's been inserted into the story to make a serious point. And he may have been based on a real person or on a pre-existing legendary figure (Wikipedia points to about two dozen theories of his origin, based largely on how his name might be translated.) But the writer or editor wasn't bothered about the obvious (to us) fact that his presence would raise troubling questions and inconsistencies. 

My guess is that the author[s] had already sufficiently established that Abram was chosen by God. But they wanted to show that earthly authorities also recognized him. Melchizedek, whether he was a king of Salem or Sodom or some other place, or simply a well-known fiction, would serve as the human non-Hebrew authority who demonstrates to the reader that Abram is worthy. 

In this way he functions a bit like Simeon in the New Testament when baby Jesus is presented at the temple. He is the first person with authority -- a figure in the temple -- who sees Jesus's true role. 

It's easy to think of this as poor writing. If Stephen King introduced such a significant character in two lines and explained nothing about him, no doubt his editors would send him back to the drawing board. But as always the ambiguity here becomes an opportunity for creative interpretation. Most significantly, I think, is the fact that he offers bread and wine as a blessing, and this becomes for Christians an important foreshadowing of the Eucharist. So as usual, a meaning which is different from the original, literal meaning has taken on importance for a lot of people, and this is not a bad thing. 

Do you know the Dirk Bouts altarpiece of the Mystic Meals? A wonderful Flemish painting full of symbolism. The central panel shows the Last Supper, but depicts it as a Eucharist ceremony. And the four panels around it are Old Testament scenes which were interpreted as foreshadowing this event. Melchizedek is top left. Abraham is wearing fancy Renaissance armor. Melchizedek has a fanciful priest's outfit, with a pointy hat normally used to show Jews. And of course the desert landscape of Canaan looks exactly like Flanders. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altarpiece..._Sacrament

The people writing all the later stuff believed that david himself was the author of the psalm - but it's now believed to be something like a coronation hymnal written about him.

Read exactly as it is written, the psalm says..of david...." you are a priest forever, according to my title, king of righteousness". Later jews and christians would not have made this connection as their messianic hopes had not been fulfilled by david... and so we get the mythology surrounding a davidic archetype later filled by -insert crackpot here century by century-.

@Belacqua

Quote:If Stephen King introduced such a significant character in two lines and explained nothing about him, no doubt his editors would send him back to the drawing board.

I take your point, but it’s valid to be aware that King and his editors have very different motivations from the compilers of holy writ.

Boru

Particularly in that, in this case, the editors in question were nt authors looking for their boy...in 70ad... anywhere ..... in the narrative of the psalmists, in 1000bc.

Nothing before Ezra is even based in reality. It's all fiction.

(June 10, 2026 at 11:35 am)Mr Greene Wrote: Nothing before Ezra is even based in reality. It's all fiction.

Calling religious texts ‘fiction’ always makes me a little uncomfortable. Pedantically it absolutely is, no question about it.

But when I think of fiction, it always has an element of intent - the author is telling a story, not necessarily what s/he believes to be true, with no ulterior motives (other than making money, usually), whereas when someone pens a religious narrative, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re writing what they believe to be true.

It’s just a personal peeve, but I think ‘mythology’ or ‘folklore’ are better terms to describe the Testaments, along with the Eddas, the Kalevala, the Irish Cycles, and so on.

Boru

I'll stick with fiction.

Calling it fiction allows one to pivot to making points about the unknown concerning authorial intent.