Gard Granerød, «Melchizedek in Hebrews 7», Vol. 90 (2009) 188-202
Hebrews has more to say about Melchizedek than what is said about him in LXX Ps 109,4 (perhaps also MT Ps 110,4) and Genesis 14. Heb 7,3 says that Melchizedek is “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” and that “he remains a priest forever”. I discuss where the author gets this information from. Methodologically, priority should be given to an explanation made on the basis of the hermeneutical techniques that the author uses elsewhere. I argue that the surplus information found in Heb 7,3.8 stems from arguments made from silence. The author explicitly makes arguments from silence in Heb 7,14.20.
Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 197
interprets the Bible ad hoc and sometimes picks up current Jewish
traditions in his works (23).
In the 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 71–72 we find a fully-fledged nativity
narrative concerning Melchizedek. In short, Melchizedek is reported to
have been conceived in mysterious ways without man’s contribution.
His mother Sopanim, who is sterile, dies and out of the corpse the
Melchizedek child comes, already wearing priestly insignia and fully
developed physically, like a three-year old child. The husband of
Sopanim and the child’s stepfather, Nir, is Noah’s brother. Before the
great Flood, the archangel Michael takes the Melchizedek child to
Paradise where, it is said, he will be priest to all holy priests (2 En.
71,28-29). “In the last generationâ€, however, there will be “another
Melchizedek†— apparently a mortal version this time because it is
reported that he will be buried (2 En. 71,35-36). It is intriguing to
speculate whether or not the tradition about the “first†— and heavenly
— Melchizedek of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch has some relevance for
explaining the background of the immortal Melchizedek who appears in
Hebrews (24). Unfortunately, the textual situation of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch
is complicated. No manuscripts of this pseudepigraphic work written in
Church Slavonic earlier than the fourteenth century are known. Yet
today it seems that experts in the field, despite certain Christian
interpolations, date its composition to the first century CE and even
before 70 CE, the year that Titus destroyed Jerusalem (25). Nevertheless,
in my view, the textual situation alone makes it very difficult to draw
any conclusions regarding a possible relation to Heb 7,3.
(23) PEARSON, “Melchizedekâ€, 181. Moreover, see P. BORGEN, “Philo of
Alexandria as Exegeteâ€, A History of Biblical Interpretation (eds. A.J. HAUSER
and D.F. WATSON) (Grand Rapids, MI 2003) I, 114-143.— In any case, Philo
understands the name Melchizedek to mean basileu;" divkaio" “righteous kingâ€,
cf. Leg. All. 3,79.82.
(24) So C. BÖTTERICH, “Hebr 7,3 und die frühjüdische Melchizedeklegendeâ€,
ˇ
The Bible in Cultural Context (eds. H. PAVLINCOVà – D. PAPUSEK) (Brno 1994)
63-68.
(25) BÖTTERICH, “The Melchizedek Story of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reaction to
A. Orlovâ€, JSJ 32 (2001), 445-70; BÖTTERICH, “Die vergessene Geburtsgechichte:
Mt 1–2/Lk 1–2 und die wunderbare Geburt des Melchizedek in slHen 71–72â€,
Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext (eds. H.
LICHTENBERGER – G.S. OEGEMA) (Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus
hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 1; Gütersloh 2002) 222-248 and F.I. ANDERSEN, “2
(Slavonic Apocalypse of) ENOCH (late first century)â€, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. CHARLESWORTH) (AB Reference Library; New York
1983-1985) I, 91-222 (94-95).
FOLLOW US