Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/371

 Melkiẓedeḳ is poetic in form and partly in language; but in meaning it is a liturgical formula rather than a 'blessing' in the proper sense. It lacks entirely the prophetic interpretation of concrete experiences which is the note of the antique blessing and curse (cf. 3$14ff.$ 4$11f.$ 9$25ff.$ 27$27ff. 39f.$).—Creator of heaven and earth] so GV. There is no reason to tone down the idea to that of mere possession (T$O$, al.); v. infra.—By payment of the tithe, Abram acknowledges the legitimacy of Melkiẓedeḳ's priesthood (Heb. 7$4$), and the religious bond of a common monotheism uniting them; at the same time the action was probably regarded as a precedent for the payment of tithes to the Jerusalem sanctuary for all time coming (so already in Jub. xiii. 25-27: comp. Gn. 28$22$).

The excision of the Melkiẓedeḳ episode (see Wi. GI, ii. 29), which seems to break the connexion of v.$21$ with v.$17$, is a temptingly facile operation; but it is doubtful if it be justified. The designation of Yahwe as 'God Most High' in the mouth of Abram (v.$22$) is unintelligible apart from $18f.$. It may rather have been the writer's object to bring the three actors on one stage together in order to illustrate Abram's contrasted attitude to the sacred (Melkiẓedeḳ) and the secular (king of Sodom) authority.—Hommel's ingenious and confident solution (AHT, 158 ff.), which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and resolves $17-24$ wholly into an interview between Abram and Melkiẓedeḳ, is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism. Sellin's view (p. 939 f.), that vv.$18-20$ are original and $17. 21-24$ are 'Israelitische Wucherung,' is simpler and more plausible; but it has no more justification than any of the numerous other expedients which are necessary to save the essential historicity of the narrative.

The mystery which invests the figure of Melkiẓedeḳ has given rise to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and modern times. The Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem (T$J$, Talm. al.) is thought to be a reaction against mystical interpretations prevalent in the school of Alexandria (where Philo identified him with the Logos), which, through Heb. 7$1ff.$, exercised a certain influence on Christian theology (see Jerome, Ep. ad Evagrium; cf. JE, viii. 450). From a critical point of view the question of interest is whether M. belongs to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage, created to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood in Jerusalem (Well. Comp.$2$ 312). In opposition to the latter view, Gu. rightly points out that Judaism is not likely to have invented as the prototype

.—] only Hos. 11$8$, Is. 64$6$ (G, etc.), Pr. 4$9$. The etymology is uncertain, but the view that it is a denom. fr., 'shield' ([root] , BDB) is hardly correct (see Barth. ES, 4).