Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/370

 combination of the kingly and priestly offices has been abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters. The existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early times is perfectly credible, though not historically attested (comp. the patesis of Babylonia). Šālēm is usually understood to be an archaic name for Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. i. 180; T$[$OJ], Jer. [Qu.], IEz. al.), as in Ps. 76$3$, the only other place where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view is the typical significance attached to Melkiẓedeḳ in Ps. 110$4$, which is hardly intelligible except on the supposition that he was in a sense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty or hierarchy of Jerusalem.

Whether the name was actually in use in ancient times, we do not know. The Tel Amarna Tablets have certainly proved that the name Uru-Salim is of much greater antiquity than might have been gathered from the biblical statements (Ju. 19$10$, 1 Ch. 11$4$); but the shortened form Salem is as yet unattested. It has been suggested that the cuneiform uru was misread as the determinative for 'city' (see Sellin, 941).—The identifications with other places of the name which have been discovered—e.g. the Salim 8 R. m. from Scythopolis (where, according to Je. [Ep. ad Evagr.], the ruins of Melkiẓedeḳ's palace were to be seen)—have no claim to acceptance.

On the name (God Most High), see below, p. 270 f.—bread and wine] comp. 'food and drink' (akalî šikarî) provided for an army, etc., in the TA Tablets: KIB, 50$22$ 207$16$ 209$12f.$ 242$16$ (Sellin, 938).—19, 20. The blessing of

Arabian and Phœnician deity (Baudissin, Stud. i. 15; Baethgen, Beitr. 128). That Ẓedeḳ was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see Is. 1$21. 26$, Jer. 31$23$ 50$7$, Ps. 118$19$) there is no reason to believe.—19. has two senses in the OT (if, indeed, there be not two distinct roots: see G-B.$14$ s.v.): (a) 'create' or 'produce' (Ps. 139$13$, Pr. 8$22$, Dt. 32$6$ [? Gn. 4$1$]); (b) 'purchase' or 'acquire by purchase' (frequent). The idea of bare possession apart from purchase is hardly represented (? Is. 1$3$); and since the suggestion of purchase is here inadmissible, the sense 'create' must be accepted. That this meaning can be established only by late examples is certainly no objection so far as the present passage is concerned: see on 4$1$.—20. After, G$L$ ins.