Talk:Melchizedek

Armenian name

Why is the Armenian name relevant? the book is in Hebrew and the king isn't Armenian

2004 thread refactored - it was factored wrongly at the head of the page

The Book of Jasher ISBN: 1-55517-914-2 Page 41 Chapter 16:11 " And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem, went out with his men to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they remained together in the valley of Melech."

This states that Adonizedek was Melchizedek was Shem the son of Noah. A study of the geneologies will show that Shem outlived Abraham.

Disagree, a study of genealogies does not show Shem outlived Abram. In fact both extended and short Genesis, can, and do, have him die before Abram. In long extended Genesis it is obvious that 500 years after the Flood will not reach Abram with figures of 135+130+134+130+132+130 as grandpa Nahor'a birth. So this eliminates Shem (by reconstructions accepted as Gentile secular facts). Now the short chron is where Shem dies when Abram is 150 (a contrast to dying 60 years later after Abram) so Shem dies before Abram who was born when Terah was 130 and scriptures verifies Terah died at 205. Though some will say this 205-year life is (70+135) as in living 135 (75+60) after Abram's birth (as if Terah dwelt in Haran 60 years after Abram left Harran), the evidence against this is in almost all chronologies having Terah die when Abram is 75 (whether Terah he be 145 or 205). Further, the Masoretic 205 is astronomy (208 of 360-day of 13-year Mars 6 orbits of 780 day). It has to do with the word Mar or Mars meaning The Son, and so Marduk of the temple is the son of the high priest father. It implies Abram is proclaimed The Son on Terah's death bed leaving Ur and going to Harran. (I must admit the temptation for an ancient chronologer is there if you know of the 137-year blessing by Shiloh /Arpaxad's son Shelah; as if Terah recognized these 135 years as 137 of 360-day so that Jasher has Abram come back to Harran Syria to get the blessing at death. Unfortunately the formula is 137 Julian are 139 calendar years.) Further, although Jasher says Terah was 70 for Abram, Jasher uses the same Flood year as Ussher, and the same birth year as Terah, and then merely gives Abram the 70 instead of Haran. Yet Jasher still makes Haran as a first born when Terah is 39 (3x Mars) so Abram is born in his 32nd year. This indicates that death of Haran is the only way Abram got the firstborn right. BUT even grandson LOT did not get it because clearly Haran and Nahor and Sarai were all half-siblings to a second wife that Abram was firstborn of legal first wife, and only son of her. BUT all long chrons have extended-Shem die a minimal of 540-590 years before Shem-Melchizedek dies. (Add 600 replace 159 (29+130) with 149 (79+70), or add 600 and replace Terah's 130 with 70. My study of not genealogy but other chronologies indicates Melkizedek is a title of longevity given to postFlood Noah before Shem built Salem. When Noah died, this title got divided between passive Shem and activist Nimrod. The indications of this is the two math figures they all share, that of 500 years and 600 years. Noah 500 to children, 600 to Flood. Shem 500 of his postFlood children until he dies at 600. Nimrod dies at age 500 in the year 600 after Noah (short chron 600 after Flood; long chron 600 after Noah's death). Compare the Era of oriental calendars and one keeps getting years that the death of short chron Shem (as long chron Salem Melkizedek), and the death of Abram. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Shem gave his title to Abram to stop those who will honor Nimrod after Shem dies before Nimrod. I submit three chronologies. Japanese (3060bc +1200 to 1860bc +1200 to Era 660bc versus Jewish Demetrius and Jewish Eupolemus who pivot 1200 and 600 on 1843bc 25 years after 1868bc. The 8 before 1860bc is due to 600 after Flood being 608 of 360-day, and the 17 before 1843bc is due to postFlood 1200 Julian are 1217 of 360-day. Thus 1860bc bridges the gap dispute of a Melkizedek 1868bc (Shem) and Melkizedek 1843bc (Abram) both being given Nimrod's death year 600 reckoned as 1200. Discussion (charts)? rschiller@wi.rr.com 75.86.172.174 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Major revision of article. I added a detailed historical section. 217.225.12.236 21:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)Eypper217.225.12.236 21:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question on pronunciation guide: The pronunciation is given as (/mɛl.ˈkɪz.ə.dɪk/). Why should it not be rendered (/mɛl.ˈkɪz.ə.dɛk/) with the the fourth vowel matching the first? I.e. «mĕl-kĭz´a-dĕk»; Deck AOT Dick. Such would be consistent with any of the standard spelling transliterations that include vowels, with the 1st and 4th vowels matching and the 2nd vowel distinct from the 4th. I know the citation is from the LDS pronunciation guide, but I do not think that should be taken as authoritative and it may well be a typo itself. All other E logograms in the guide are rendered as either short or long E's-- ĕ or ē-- in pronunciation. Venqax 03/17/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venqax (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How to NPOV?

"Whether he actually existed as a person or as an abstraction remains a mystery."

At the moment, this sentence is POV (e.g. Bible literalists will not consider it a mystery). — Matt 18:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think you need to look up what NPOV means. (anon)

Why? — Matt Crypto 12:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because if you take even the most general timeframe for this story as Genesis:12 and the battles therein described, then Melchizdak cannot be the king of the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem (URU Uri Šalim KI) is still no more than a fortified well in the time of the Amarna letters. Melchizdek is at best a commander of a garrison. The NPOV must at a minimum pay some attention to known historical facts or the whole encyclopedias credibility is tarnished.Rktect 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical literalism may be a legitimate thesis. Once you strip the religious gloss away, most of the Old Testament is reasonably consistent with historical and archaeological textual artifacts such as the form of contracts and the price of slaves which can be used to date it. Given that it makes no sense to contradict the historical and archaeological foundations of said consistancy by making claims for fantasies that don't agree.Rktect 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because biblical literalism is a fringe view with no evidence. NPOV policy applies to differing mainstream viewpoints that are supported by evidence. --Rob117 04:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

One does not need to subscribe to anti-biblical literalism to create a NPOV entry. In fact, such a stance being represented seems to be entirely POV unless sources can be cited. I am new here, and I have appreciated the NPOV stance of this community quite a bit. This article is in error in that there are a few things that are still held as debatable, and without citation. This goes directly against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Until the claim regarding the "majority of biblical scholars" is substantiated, it should be omitted. To make a blanket statement such as "biblical literalism is a fringe view with no evidence" without defining your terms or providing any substantiation to the grand accusation you have made, is an error at best. Can we agree that unless a controversial statement can be substantiated by reputable sources, it should be omitted from a wiki article? It seems like this is the CORE of the NPOV policy. --Zipfool 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)::

I'm bewildered at the "fringe view" comment about Biblical literalism. Considering most worldwide Evangelical churches are literalist, one has to wonder what other "mainstream" ideas and thoughts fall into Rob's "fringe" category.... --Benson Verazzano (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If we begin with a view that anything religious or pro-supernatural is necessarily without evidence, any view expressed by believers in the historical claims of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Bahai, etc. is therefore excluded. Any scholars within a religious tradition would be considered disqualified from comment (despite the fact that 80% of people in the world identify themselves with the traditions of the Christian, Islamic, Hindu, or Buddhist scriptures). Going the anti-religious route is something that Wikipedia intentionally sets out to avoid. If there is conflict between a traditional interpretation of a religious group and the consensus of modern scholars, that should be noted. In fact, if the scholarly community doesn't support a religious interpretation, we could say something along the lines of, "The majority of scholars are of the view that no individual matching the Biblical description of Melchizedek could ever have existed." Although some religious folk won't like it, that sort of approach has the advantage of being accurate and neutral. We can't cater to the religious, but neither can we pass judgment(as wikipedia, that is; individually we all pass some sorts of judgment) on the religious views of various groups.

And while we're at it, it seems that people are always beating on what they call biblical literalism. Other than people who have no familiarity with the Bible, everyone, believer and non-believer alike, holds some parts of the Bible to be literally true and some not to be. For example, no one will deny the Biblical claim that cattle have hooves. And no one will deny the figurative nature of Jesus' calling King Herod a fox, or John the Baptist calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers. So people who hold that Melchizedek was a historical figure aren't necessarily "literalists" per se, but rather religious people whose interpretation of the Bible leads them to believe that this is a historically accurate account. No one takes all the Bible as figure or all as literal truth. That's just a gross oversimplification that allows us to pigeon-hole the views of others. Mitchell Powell (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Bible Scholars

I fail to see any evidence that this is most bible scholars. All non-Christian? all non=Jewish? all non-Moslem? Has the writer of this article been devoted to Shinto scholars of the Hebrew Bible as the majority!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elijah Michael (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Historical Melchizedik

What is this section? It seems to be solely one man's (completly surmised) account of an occurance, which could have many historical explanations. It ought to be a paragraph long at the most and suplemented by other historian's views. Or at the very least this stuff should be explained: What evidence is there that Melchizedek refers to an 'El-elyon' rather than Yahweh (Who is also refered to as El throughout the bible, anyway). Why would an 'outside source' be inserted into the bible? Why? Why? I think this article is in severe need of cleanup.

It is an essay presenting someone's personal opinion. Actually to me it feels like a copyvio - can someone look in the Anchor Bible to see how much of this text is here? Whatever the result of that check, this section is unacceptable. I propose wholesale deletion. --Zero 12:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree; whether personal essay or copyvio, it should be deleted. This person did the same thing to tithe, which should probably get the same treatment. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found it amusing reading this article for the first time. Where only a moment earlier I read of Melchizedek mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and then this paragraph saying there is NO mention of him anywhere else except for the Bible. It should be revised.[mauger@gmail.com]

Mr. Mauger -- just a thought -- it could be possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls that reference Malkizedek are copies of Biblical texts, as many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were.

To NPOV:

I removed this from the article for now:

As a commentary on Psalm 110, Hebrews is important in New Testament theology, but, written over a thousand years after the Melchizedek episode, it has nothing to contribute to the historical discussion."

POV, really: Hebrews has nothing to contribute to the historical discussion unless (for example) you believe Hebrews to be the inspired word of God. Is there a point here that's worth salvaging and reinserting in NPOV form? — Matt Crypto 09:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All scripture in the New Testiment is the inspired Word Of God. The Bible even says so.[mauger@gmail.com]

Melchezedek is the son of Seth his mother is Edokla, he is one "born of the Word" as per John 1 v1

Indian reference

What is Melik-Sadaksina doing on this page? Shouldn't it be on its own page? If people believe Melchizedek was this other guy, then perhaps we should cross-reference them. Otherwise, I don't think it belongs here at all. Jgardner 18:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

I believe the link to Dominion of Melchizedek and other things with references to Melchizedek are highly relevant. Please voice your concern if you don't think so. Jgardner 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Jgardner: Instead of voicing her concern see removed it without explanation after she just finished saying that she doesn't know anything about this subject.KAJ 07:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a link to the DOM and their Melchizedek Bible, ev en if not directly relevant to the original Melchizedek.

-- Beardo 05:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

DOM is at least as relevant to Melchizedek as Morman teaching about Melchizedek which is in this article. Their Bible includes the Genesis verses about Melchizedek and is named after that Biblical character. A micronation named after the Biblical character deserves a reference here. Harvardy 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone objecting to it on the talk page. I don't mind at all. Just make sure it focuses on Melchizedek as a person and his history/the beliefs about him specifically within DOM. Wrad 15:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Testament/New Testiment

The last part of the section on the Old Testiment and the section on the New Testiment are cut and paste straight from another website of essays from a person. It may be copyright. at least there shuld be a link or reference to the site. http://www.crystalinks.com/melchizedek.html. Could someone let me know if the etiquette for editing. Shoud these sections go in the order of the article or the order they are inserted. TY [mauger@gmail.com]

When it comes to copyright, permission does not exist unless given explicitly. And everything automatically falls into copyright if it is produces as the original work of an author. So if we're copying stuff without citation or permission, it needs to be removed swiftly, lest we expose Wikipedia to possible litigation.

As for editing, the general principle on Wikipedia is "Be Bold," tempered, of course, by respect for the goals and policies of Wikipedia. If you make an edit in good faith, without reason to believe you're violating Wikipedia's policies, you'll be fine. Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Urantia

An anon added a "See also" section referring to Paper 93 of The Urantia Book. In so doing, he or she (possibly inadvertently) deleted some information including categories and links to other language wikis. Never having heard of The Urantia Book, and thinking that the new section read like one of those breathless flyers that is pasted on telephone poles, I then deleted the entire section and restored the earlier version. Then I went and read the linked "Paper 93" and the rest of the urantia.org website (and the Urantia article here) and discovered that this is in fact an established, er, thing. So I restored as much of the information as I felt belonged in this encyclopedia entry. Apologies to the anon for hastily calling the addition "utter nonsense"; following this investigation I would upgrade the characterization to mere "crank." -EDM 08:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The entry referenced above was extremely incomplete and potentially confusing. I replaced it with a paragraph very briefly summarizing some of the key concepts from The Urantia Book related to Melchizedeks and, specifically, Machiventa Melchizedek, the Melchizedek said by the book to have been a supernatural associate and inspiration to Abraham during a major part of his lifetime. This seems reasonable in view of the vast amount of inconsistent and confusing beliefs of various religions about Melchizedek, as presented earlier in the article. You may think it's "crank" but it at least makes a degree of historical and cultural sense. LDM [ldmjr@comcast.net] 16:50 22 October 2006 (EDT)

Merger

I think that the article Melchizedek Priesthood (Christianity) should be merged into this one. There needs to be one article about the Priesthood, and one about Melchizedek himself, in my opinion. the sections describing Melichizedek as a person should be moved to this article. Many parts of these articles seem to have directly copied and pasted from each other.Wrad 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just erased most of the duplicated information on the other website. I don't know if much else needs to be done. Wrad 00:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Organization

As it is, I think this Article has a lot of good info, but that it could be organized better. Other Biblical characters, such as David, are carefully organized to shows the facts and points of view of different religions. I think we have the info, just not the organization. Wrad 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Heb. 7

I deleted a paragraph interpreting the Dh in terms of Heb.7 - i.e., questioing the theories of scholars concerning the passage in Genesis on the grounds that Hebrews says something to the contrary. The author of Genesis can hardly have been aware of the opinion of the author of Hebrews, and the line of thought is frankly unscholarly (tho I can see that if you believe that God inspired both Genesis and Hebrews, then it's QED, but that line of reasoning is not open to biblical scholars). Anyway, the paragraph doesn't belong in a section discussing scholarly theories about the origins of the passage in Genesis. PiCo 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• There are a lot of problems with that section. It isn't really a "scholarly" section at all. Maybe making the section better organized would better support your deletion. As it is, I don't really see how it was a bad paragraph. It was a theists vs. scholars type debate. Maybe we need a scholar section and a Jewish section, or something. Wrad 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaronic priesthood

Where does the reference to "Aaronic priesthood" come from. There is no discussion of the meaning of this term and there is no link for further information about it. What is Aaronic priesthood and why is its relation to Melchizedek priesthood important. This sounds like a reference to LDS belief, but it is not clearly marked as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.184.211 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the view you're referring to might be an LDS doctrine, the comparison and contrast of the priesthood of Malkizedek and the priesthood of Aaron is a central theme anonymously written New Testament book of Hebrews. Aaron, being a descendent of Levi the grandson of Abraham, is the ancestor in the biblical story of all Jewish priests (Kohanim). Melchizedek, however, is called a priest by the Biblical account although he was several hundred years before Aaron or Levi. This, in conjunction with the Psalm 110 reference to "a priest according to the order of Melchizedek," is why the two concepts are referred to as linked. Hope that helps, Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Melchizedek's name can be translated (from Hebrew) either as Zedek is my king or as My king is righteous."

This isn't quite true. The yud is the hiriq compaginis expressing a genitive relationship (see GKC [Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar] section 90l), an archaic form sometimes seen in poetry and names. For example, in Ps 110:4, the other verse relating to Melchizedek, we get, "You are a priest forever according to the _order of Melchizedek_ (divrati melchizedek)." The name should be translated, "Zedek's king" or "King of righteousness." (We would leave Zedek untranslated probably only if we assume that it refers to the Phoenician or South Arabian deity of that name, cf Skinner, Genesis 267-8). The same is true for the name Adonizedek (Lord/Prince of Righteousness), and for a good deal of names throughout the Bible (e.g. Melchi-el [deut 8:16], Hani-el [num 34:23]).

So what prevents the reverse. If Zedek is my king (Righteous is my king), why not the god Molech is right? Molech the righteous one. I have yet to see where linguist translate properly, i.e. how does Abbi Nu Melki Nu mean our father out king when still today the Kurds in Turkey tell me Nu is Noah so it must be Father Noah King Noah. I am not defying a change in who is meant by the expression, but rather that origin began in relating everything our father Noah does as if it to be what our God wants. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For further discussion, see Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition (CambridgeUP, 1976), 42-45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmusic85 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a fairly common mistake especially among those who know modern Hebrew to misinterpret the hiriq compaginis as the first person possessive. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Bible is not Hebrew Tanakh

I am not an expert nor I want to start any sterile debate. The Bible (from greek βιβλία = biblìa, plurale di biblìon, means books) is a common definition of two books one is a sacre book of the Hebrew and one of the Christian religion. If this is accepted (being consolidated), Tanàkh and Bible are derived from the same sources BUT are not the same book. Nor is the Bible derived by Tanakh which was an oral tradition. Therefore to unilaterally state that the Christian Bible is the Hebew Tanakh is a mistake. you can draw plenty of litherature from univrtisty and vatican itself . To mention one and not the other would be therofore a mistake and inaccurate. Specifically from the Vatican web page www.vaticano.vc "Nelle traduzioni in lingua moderna della Bibbia, specialmente cattoliche, sono compresi alcuni libri e passi che si riscontrano nella antica traduzione greca, detta dei LXX; questi libri vengono generalmente chiamati «apocrifi» o «deuterocanonici». " transaltion: "In the modern translation of the Bible, specially Catholic, are included books and passes , derived from the old greek translation, named of LXX, books generally sail "deuterocanonical". The Lone Ranger^{Hit me with a good one!} 22:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

King of Salem

SamuelTheGhost insists on adding the word "often" to the remark that Salem is identified with Jerusalem. If one does not provide any alternative identifications let alone references for such identifications, "often" constitutes a weasel word (see WP:WEASEL). Either explain what other identifications are made providing references or remove the word "often". It is a well preserved tradition that Salem is Jerusalem, the identification is recorded by Josephus and in commentaries such as Genesis Rabbah and Rashi and is understood also in the Talmud's explanation of the name Jerusalem from yira + Shalem (Salem). It also accords with the name for Jerusalem in the Amarna letters which is a cognate of Hebrew Ir Shalem (City of Salem). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Amarna letters evidence is against the identification, since it has the full form of the name Jerusalem; whereas we're considering whether SLM must be identical. The New American Bible translation, see Genesis 14:18) has a footnote:

[18] Salem: traditionally identified with Jerusalem (Psalm 76:3), but the Hebrew text is not certain; instead of the present melek shalem ("king of Salem"), the original may have been melek shelomo ("a king allied to him"). In Hebrews 7:2 "king of Salem" is interpreted as "king of peace" (shalom).

This is sufficient to prove the lack of unanimity. If KG thinks "often" is a weasel word, I'd willingly settle for "wrongly" or "without foundation" or "fancifully", I'm offering him "often" or an equivalent as an NPOV compromise. The onus is on him to prove that scholars are unanimous, and clearly they aren't. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Amarna letters do not have the full form, it has URU URU Shalim KI, with the URU and KI being determininative signs. The e in Hebrew corresponds to i in Akkadian so it supports the name. Why don't you include a footnote referring to the NAB commentary, then there won't be a problem. Readers will see that tradition is that it is Jerusalem and that melek shelomo is one modern(ist) commentator's wild speculation out of an infinite number of possible wild speculations by such modernits commentators. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly content with "traditionally" rather than "often", if you'd prefer that. But your description of a note which has the authority of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops behind it as "one modern(ist) commentator's wild speculation" is just ridiculous. WP is meant to be NPOV, as I keep reminding you, so that where opinions differ, as they certainly do here, WP does not take sides. I'm not trying to assert my view in the article, and I'm not going to let you assert yours. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The commentary includes modernist reinterpretations because it is trying to be inclusive, this does not mean that equal weight is given to all such interpretations and this is clearly seen in the wording which states tradition first and then the alternative introduced with "may have been" clearly indicating it is pure speculation ... if pigs had wings they might fly, if the text had been melek shelomo then it would have meant .... capisc? Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't indicate that it is "pure speculation", it indicates that they are aware that it departs from tradition and they don't want to be too dogmatic so as not to offend anyone. As Christians, they regard Epistle to the Hebrews as authoritative, and if the author of that had believed Salem to be Jerusalem, he would surely have said so. No doubt you will also dismiss Encyclopaedia Biblica here. You keep on trying to convert me to your POV, which is not the point. Not all scholars share it, so we don't adopt it. I really can't see why you have such a problem with giving Salem=Jerusalem as the "traditional" view, and leave it at that. Why is it necessary to be so dogmatic? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the deliberate smart-alec modernist approach of inventing new interpretations that are deliberately contrary to tradition annoying. The fact that anything can be made up with such an approach I find particularly irksome. Like off the cuff one can say, maybe there was an aleph missing and melekh was originally mal'akh meaning messenger and that maybe shalem should be read shalom so that Melchizedek was really the "messenger of peace". Maybe its really a double textual corruption of Sodom and Melchizedek was really another name for the king of Sodom. Maybe if pigs had wings they would fly .... maybe this maybe that ... Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did ask, so thanks for your amusing answer. When it comes to the article, however, it's WP:NPOV and WP:RS, whatever they say and whatever we think of them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

a suggestion: why don't you expand the section with all the infos you have? Something like: Because of Josephus / Genesis Rabbah and Rashi / Talmud's Salem is identified with Jerusalem. Important scholars like X, Y, Z agree with this identification. On the contrary scholar W suggests that Salem means peace, scholar K suggest that .... A ntv (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that approach. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus as Melchizedek

There is an interesting biblical theory which identifies Melchizedek as none other than Jesus Christ himself before the holy incarnation with the Holy Family in Bethlehem. It would be interesting if this could be mentioned in the article at some point. ADM (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC) [1] [2]

Your first reference, from Epistle to the Hebrews is fully discussed in Melchizedek priesthood#The Melchizedek priesthood and Christianity, with a link to that given here under Melchizedek#Melchizedek in the New Testament.

There is an old theory about M's identity, discussed under Melchisedechians, and there certainly ought to be a link to that. Your second reference seems to be indicating something else again, and I'm not convinced it's well enough known to be included. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Melchisedek can be seen as the 'typos' of Christ (as Elias was the 'typos' of John the Baptist). There is a lot of literature on it, like the serious article by Margaret Barker. But it is not a 'official teaching' of any Christian church or denomination, so if you want to summarize it in a few lines for Wiki, I suggest to add it to Article Melchizedek priesthood A ntv (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A further mention of this idea is given in the article, under Melchizedek#Melchizedek in Nag Hammadi Library. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Melchizedek as priest

I've made an addition about Melchizedek as a priest - Gen. 14 describes him as a priest but without giving him the required lineage (he seems not to be a descendant of Abraham at all, at least as far as one can tell from Gen.14). It's this that created a problem for Jewish theologians, as I've tried to put in the article. Others are welcome to express this better if they wish. PiCo (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right in every way, but WP:RS would help. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm comforted by your faith in my correctitude :). I'm sure a source can be found if we look hard and long. PiCo (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Since your latest edits, however, I'm not quite sure you're right in absolutely every way, in the following cases:

• You've put "Salem, (identified with Jerusalem since at least the 1st century writings of the Jewish historian Josephus". It would be nice to have the precise reference within Josephus. Also the reference to Salem in Epistle to the Hebrews, which is approximately contemporaneous with Josephus, makes no such identification.
  • I'll check this.PiCo (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• In discussing Genesis and Psalms you say "(There is little doubt that the two refer to the same individual)". This is slightly missing the point. The doubt which has been expressed, particularly in the NJPS 1985 translation of Psalms, is whether the Hebrew is expressing a personal name at all. Indeed, nobody at all as far as I am aware has tried to create two Melchizedeks. I suggest that this sentence is just deleted.
  • Done.PiCo (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• You've just added "Thomas Thompson has demonstrated that Genesis 14 as a whole cannot be dated earlier than the mid-1st Millennium BCE." Thomas L. Thompson is a highly controversial writer, so the word "demonstrated" is far too strong.
  • I don't know that TT's thoughts on Genesis 14 are particularly controversial, but I've added some extra to make it less dogmatic.PiCo (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

SamuelGhost, you got in before I was really finished. For sure I can't be right in absolutely every way, since such perfection is beyond the grasp of man. Please feel free to edit anything I put in. Even delete it entirely if it's totally offensive. I'm glad you're interested and that we can chat about this fascinating character. PiCo (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some amendments as noted above. Thanks. PiCo (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more interim comments here:

• The word "pericope" seems a bit otiose. (Though it does contain "pico" as a substring). Something a little more generally familiar would make for easier reading without losing anything important.
• "Psalm 76:2 shows that Salem was another name for Jerusalem". My interpretation of the parallellism is that it implies that Salem is a place different from Zion. But in any case this is WP:OR, and a secondary source is needed.
• "If, however, the verses are inserted ....." in the same paragraph. I'm not convinced that presenting these as connected in that way is necessary. Albright's proposal stands on its own.
• "There is general agreement ..." There are three quite separate points in this paragraph. (a) Chapter 14 doesn't fit into the JEPD classification. Widely agreed, and worth mentioning. (b) Thompson's dating of it. Uncertain, and pretty irrelevant in my view. (c) Verses 18-20 may be an interpolation. Yes, widely noted, though uncertain, and should be mentioned as such. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to carry through on your recommendations, but please feel free to edit further if you feel I've fallen short. PiCo (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Kamal Salibi

There's a fair amount of material in the article based on the ideas of Kamal Salibi. Does anyone know if Salibi's work in this area has wide acceptance, or is it fringe? If it is, it shouldn't be included. PiCo (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are four sentences based on the ideas of Kamal Salibi. In the circumstances this is indeed a "fair" amount. Salibi himself is a notable scholar. He has written several books on the history of Lebanon, which have won scholarly approval, and on the Bible, which have not. His observations quoted here about Genesis 14, 18-20, although they appear in The Bible Came from Arabia, don't actually depend on that theory of his. Our aim is to inform our readers in accordance with WP:NPOV. We would be wrong to present his suggestion as in any way authoritative, but equally wrong to suppress it. We could qualify his views as "controversial", or in some other way warn our readers that he is in some quarters considered "mad, bad and dangerous to know", but his suggestions themselves are too valuable to omit. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

the sentences in "Retranslations and re-interpretations" where some Salibi ideas are shown appeared twice in the article (also in the section about Hebrew Bible), thus I've deleted one occurrence. These "Retranslations and re-interpretations" are surely POVs and there is not consensus about them. I like the present structure of the Article, that lists, according a criteria based on time, the occurrences of Melchidedek (in the Hebrew Bible, in Qumran, in 2Enoch, in the NewTestament, in Nag Hammadi Library, etc), and leave at the end modern understandings, including but not limited to Salibi ones. I suggest to move the section The name "Melchizedek" after Latter-day Saint beliefs concerning Melchizedek (but for the references of Philo and Joseph) A ntv (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. Might I say what a pleasure it is to work with such leaned and civilised people. Anyway, having read your thoughts, I now have some of my own to offer. It seems to me that Salibi is noted as a historian, but not as a biblical scholar.

The question therefore is, is he a reliable source on this matter? Fortunately not all of the material in the section is actually from Salibi, and for this material the question of his acceptability as a RS doesn't arise. So, for the first point in the section: For the second half of Psalms 110:4 the KJV has Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. For the same place the New Jewish Publication Society of America Version, 1985 edition, has You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree, the source is the NJPS 1985 - if either of you has a page reference, let's use it.

Similarly for the third point, the source is the NAB. Do you have a page ref?

That leaves two points from Salibi. In your opinion, is he OR enough to include them, even with a note that it's controversial?

Finally, there's the summing-up at the end: Immediately before and after this short passage in Genesis 14, in verses 17 and 21, Abram is represented as in conversation with the King of Sodom. The implication of retranslations 2 and 4 above is to say that the king (whichever one) brought out food, then gave his blessing, then he and Abram broke bread together. The net effect of retranslations 3 and 4 might imply that the whole interchange was with the King of Sodom. This needs to be sourced to someone authoritative, otherwise it's an editorial comment from WIkipedia, which is a no-no. But logically it's true enough, and I could probably re-word things so that it doesn't stick out so obviously. (By the way, I'm a journalist, a professional writer, not a biblical scholar - I rely on you gentlemen to guide me in matters of substance).

PiCo (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem in many Biblical issues is that it is impossible to get a 'proof' of any suggestion. All suggestions, even the ones made by reliable scholars, are simply guesses. All what we can do is to list all the suggestions of reliable scholars, indicating if there is a consensus among scholars (that anyway is never absolute, and don't is by itself a proof). So is correct to list all the suggestions, including Salibi ones, but it is not correct to indicate them as the truth. The only sure things we know are 1) the masoretic text (that is anyway 8th century CE) writes Melkisedek using two words, thus allowing different interpretations, and 2) at Christ's time, as confirmed by the LXX, Philo, Joseph, 2Enoch and the Qumran scrolls, Melkisedek was understood as a personal name, and the meaning (always according Joseph and Philo and Hebrew) was interpreted as 'the king of righteousness'. A ntv (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If biblical studies is anything like history as a subject of study, and I suspect it is, then one does not look for proof, only for persuasive evidence. Whether it actually does persuade is a matter of taste and prejudice (is that a book title from Jane Austen?)PiCo (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, history can usually studied with by far more strong 'proofs' than a simple internal study of a text. For example the Qumran discovery of a copy of Psalm 151 in Hebrew is by far a stronger proof of the Hebrew origin of this psalm than the prevuios consensus among scholars was that it was a late Christian Greek text. So it is important to understand on which base a scholar supports his suggestion. A ntv (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The connection that the retranslations imply that "the king (whichever one) brought out food, then gave his blessing, then he and Abram broke bread together" is made by Salibi himself where he proposes the translations, so that solves the WP:OR problem on that bit.

James L. Kugel's book Traditions of the Bible is currently given under "Further reading" but not used as a reference. It contains some valuable information. For example (page 277, footnote) the fact that in the traditional Hebrew text, the name Melchizedek is written with a space between the two parts, melchi zedek, as if it were two separate words (compare Salibi's theory). Also (page 292) that according to the Samaritan al Asaṭir (considered by them very authoritative) Melchizedek was King of Sodom. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Al Asatir (see Samaritan#Religious texts) is a 11-12th century CE text, and so not considered very authoritative. Actually the well-done Kugel's book shows that Salem could be a name for the area of Sichem, supporting this idea with references from the LXX and from other sources (pag 291-292). In this case it is quite obvious that the Hebrews couldn't accept this interpretation, suggesting the more acceptable interpretation of "king of righteousness" as Joseph actually did. In any case, it is also probable that the name M. had different interpretations in different times and among different groups. A ntv (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

PiCo -- I'm not sure exactly what you meant by 'page reference', so forgive me if I'm pointing out something you already know. When Bible versions are cited, generally page references are not given, because the Bible has been printed in so many different editions in so many different versions that page refs provide a much handier method of looking up passages (especially so today, for those doing so online). Especially with the much-printed KJV, a page reference wouldn't do anyone much good. Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits

I hope you'll consider favourably my latest edit. The material from Salibi is still there, and I've tried to present it in a way that seems less like a personal synthesis. PiCo (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i think that User:Benson Verazzano edit [3] about not to say general agreement among modern scholars was correct. Actually in these issues you can find all and the contrary of all, and to decide which is the scholar school to be worth to represented the majority is a POV. The same base scheme of pentateucal sources is not shared by all, not even the existence of the same separate sources. We could move that sentence in section "Textual criticism", stating that "Many scholars that follow the Documentary hypothesis agreed that Genesis 14 is not derived from any of the usual pentateuchal sources...". A ntv (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to moving that sentence to the "Textual criticism" section, but it was my understanding that it is in fact generally understood (not completely agreed) that Genesis 14 doesn't "belong" with the rest of Genesis. Speiser and others are cited in the footnote. This is something separate from whether one accepts the documentary hypothesis - Van Seters, for example, does not accept the hypothesis, yet he does accept that Genesis 14 is foreign to the rest of Genesis. I'm sure we can come to an acceptable form of words. I'll have a try later. But I'd like your views on the larger edit I made - do you approve? PiCo (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Without the ascription it looks like Wikipedia endorses the position. It's not a universally agreed or understood position. As such "some scholars" with their names, is more helpful and neutral, when in the main body of the text.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Benson, I suggest you to provide some sources that consider the M.'s Genesis passage to be not a addition.A ntv (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some source that doesn't believe Gen.14 to be an adition - it's very much the standard belief. PiCo (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In matters of interpretation like this, the default position must be that opinions vary, and they nearly always do. Therefore if someone wants to assert a "standard belief" the burden of proof is on them to prove that it exists. This whole argument is bit of a storm in a teacup, but it seems to me that Benson's formulation is preferable since it asserts less, and I can't see any good reasons to object to it. After all, there are certainly people around who believe that the whole of Genesis was written by Moses. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be some input from early dikduk works indicating a difference between the way the word "מעשר" (tith) is nikkuded (in the genesis story).. it may be noteworthy for the above discussion--חודר לעומר (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

use of bibleverse

I notice that after PiCo's recent edits there was a drastic reduction in the number of uses of template:bibleverse. Was this an accident, or is there some reason to avoid it? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an accident. I'm not familiar with the template. Please put it back. PiCo (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Melchizedek in the New Testament section POV?

After examining Hebrews, I see no mention of the Temple of Jerusalem. Why is the Temple of Jerusalem mentioned in the Melchizedek in the New Testament section? Is the section writer injecting interpretation? An encyclopedia article ought to simply describe the facts: Exactly what does the text say about Melchisedec? No more no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.203.13 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To find the Temple in Hebrews, you'll have to look for the word Tabernacle. The Tabernacle is the name given to the structure put up by Moses in which the Jewish system of centralized worship was first established. In referring to the Mosaic laws of priestly regulations, the writer of Hebrews repeatedly refers to the Tabernacle, speaking as though it were still in existence, whereas in fact the practices instituted for the tabernacle were being carried out in the Temple, which served the same general purpose. So therefore, arguments all throughout Hebrews for the replacement of the tabernacle which had been gone for a thousand years are in effect arguments for the replacement of the entire Temple system. A first-century religious reader of Hebrews (or second-century, depending on your view of New Testament authorship) would in all probability grasp this point clearly, especially a reader who had the education to understand the Old Testament references throughout the book. I hope this helps, Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor name change

based on the nikkud of the name in the original text, may i purpose changing the page name to Malchi-Tzedek?--108.6.69.139 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

opposed. As per WP:COMMONNAME the page shall have the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.A ntv (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Although English-language sources commonly spell with the segol sound, i have not found a hebrew text without the patach sound on the "mem". but WP:COMMONNAME is the accepted usage here at wikipedia. In any case, nice of you to suggest.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

incomplete

I've placed an "incomplete" box in the article as i see a bit of excess (repetitious material) and some sentences that could use more explanation (take "zohar" for example, what is upper and lower world in kabbalah usage?)..--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

ive gone ahead and made some changes (and sentence moves) to the "Midrash" commentary section to include "torah commentaries" not mentioned and hope they are welcome, i'd like to return to the page s/t this week to touch up a bit though so i've placed an "incomplete" tag--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Urantia Book

I'm going to create a separate article about "Melchizedek in the The Urantia Book" and leaving a short-wording section about it, as the other sections on "M. In later literature". If the same strategy is used for "Melchizedek in the New Testament", which is surely not a Fringe theory, it shall be convenient also for "Melchizedek in the The Urantia Book" (WP:Fringe). A ntv (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do, go for it. You could do one on Melchizedek in Mormonism at the same time - that section is not much more WP:Weight than the Urantia one. .......I have just reordered the article to separate out Judaism and Christianity, and therefore see no need for Melchizedek in the New Testament, but plenty of OR/POV/muddle/mix remains.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved material to Melchizedek in the Urantia Book. A ntv (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sholem or Shlomo?

The article reads "William F. Albright has proposed that "king of Salem" is a corruption of an original text which he reconstructed as: "And Melchizedek, a king allied to him"

Does indeed the Samaritan Pentateuch have a spelling of שלמו?--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Error removal

article quotes an opinion that msr "could perhaps also mean just portion" -this statement is untrue as "maasar" (as sourced from the word עשר -ten) means a tenth in every and all biblical sources. ill give till tomorrow for any feedback b/f i delete it (again)--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

While it would seem to be an outlying view, outlying views are acceptable if sourced. And this is sourced, which plenty of the other outlying content in this article isn't. What does worry a bit though is the ref saying that the argument is applied from Arabic. An appropriate counter source would be "the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary lists no such use" etc. Before moving the content to the author's own entry a reliable Hebrew dictionary is needed.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I afford you the honors of the content removal?

1. Maasar never means a morsel in hebrew!--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Even in English (a language I know rather well) it is possible to be surprised by words used in previously unencountered senses. Our knowlege of Biblical Hebrew is based on a finite corpus of ancient documents, so there must have been words, phrases and usages in it of which no evidence now survives. Salibi only suggests that msr might mean "portion", since that is a small semantic shift that allows the whole sentence to make sense. The fact that msr is not attested elsewhere with that meaning weakens the hypothesis but does not destroy it. (In fact if it were so attested, it would make Salibi's interpretation practically certain.) In the article we're recording what Salibi proposed, not requiring you or anyone else to agree with it. It would be reasonable to insert a remark such as "not otherwise attested in Biblical Hebrew" in the article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

a statement such as "not otherwise attested in Biblical Hebrew" sounds fair enough, although it does seem mr. Salibi pulled this one out of his hat

cheers with beers--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Extended reasoning

Hi Marecheth - you reverted a clarification I made to the explanation on the following 2 points:

• ..of one-time "customs offering" (trumat ha-mekhes תרומת המכס ; such as Moses gave to God in Numbers 31:41) ---- this may not be perfect but what was there before was incomprehensible to a non-Hebrew reading reader. At least this way it's clear where this Hebrew phrase trumat ha-mekhes תרומת המכס comes from.
• ...the Zohar's commentary on Genesis 14 cites a certain Rabbi Yitzchak as saying that it was God who gave tithe to Abram in the form of removing the Hebrew letter He from his throne of glory and presenting it to the soul of Abram for his benefit, so his name became "Abra-ha-m". ------ so his name became "Abra-ha-m" is what is intended is it not? If not what does God giving the letter H to Abram mean?
• I changed italics [Rabbi Yitzchok] to [a certain Rabbi Yitzchak] --- do you know to whom Moses de León is referring? Does this rabbi Isaac have a wikipedia entry we can link to?

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for explaining;

1. I am not fond of translating Meches as customs since such connotes a mandatory implication -a connotation negated by the commentaries I've seen
2. As stated in reason for revert, the source does not say that the letter was added to his name (rather other sources indicate the addition happened 24 years later, while this may have been a precursor to the later letter addition is a possibility though -but writing thus is not verifiable)
3. Introducing rabbi yitzchok as "a certain" is unnecessary as there is only one rabbi yitzchok (and quiet popular too) in Zohar text (a page on him would be nice.. i'll add it to my list :-))--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Marecheth

1. Fair enough mekhes is "customs" in modern Hebrew, but I have changed it to "tribute" to fit the Numbers31:41 use from JPS1917. Remember that before I supplied the translation there was no translation, which on English Wikipedia is unhelpful.

2. Okay have separated those 2 lines on Abraham's he. The Zohar one needs a page citation.

3. removed "a [certain] rabbi" now "a rabbi". There's a section in the Wikipedia Zohar article already where the possible identity of Moses de Leon's characters can be discussed. This may be a fictional character or an amalgam, so doesn't warrant an article. If it's a real historical person he'll probably already have one.

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew texting

Upon doing some work to the "Psalm 110" paragraph I feel that keying in the original hebrew text would be beneficial in explaining the various components of the text.. is this acceptable here at Wikipedia?--חודר לעומר (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be more use at he.wikipedia Here on en.wikipedia if there's something relevant/important it would require a verifiable English source. With 100s of English versions if there isn't one that makes the point chances are that the point is WP:OR. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact what you've done using the JPS 1985 version is good enough isn't it? If there's a Jewish commentary explaining why JPS and Septuagint/KJV are different here then by all means.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. May I suggest that perhaps all material in this par. not immediately related to this article be placed by Psalm 110?--חודר לעומר (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Place of Zohar in the article, sources

Hi Marecheth, this relates to Melchizedek edits in particular, but may cover other articles. Surely material from a late pseudepigraphic work such as Moses de Leon's Zohar should really stay down in the Zohar section of articles relating to Rabbinical tradition and not be up among earlier source material such as Genesis. Sorry, Zohar material moved back to Zohar.In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you immediately reverted that, okay.

Is there a source that shows the following: Zohar Chodosh to Bereishit chap. 14 (the Zohar text, however, does not state that a name change to "Abra-ha-m" occurred at this point).

Is there in fact an English text of the Zohar that can be given as a primary source?

Just asking. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Urantia

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melchizedek&curid=8285608&diff=637955911&oldid=637942934 Good removal. Belongs in the bio of the writer or in the book. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Possessive suffix

The revision I found had this text:

The Epistle to the Hebrews, along with Josephus interpret the name "malki" as meaning "the king", and "tzedek", meaning "righteous(ness)" or "justice". This interpretation is upheld by modern scholars because in the Dead Sea Scroll 4QAmram 2.3 is found the opposite name Melchi-resha ("king of evil") for a chief angel of darkness.

Based on the detail that the word "malki" appears to contain a first-person singular possessive pronoun, connoting a meaning of "my king", the Ramban opines that the name implies "my king is tzedek", based on the notion that the city of Salem is associated with the attribute of "tzedek" (righteousness).

Clearly this was based on poor understanding on the part of whoever put this together. You do not need to take recourse to the Epistle of the Hebrews or Josephus to establish that the name combines malik "king" and tzedek "righteousness": this is completely undisputed and straightforward. Therefore, there is also no need to take recourse to unnamed "modern scholars" who "uphold" this.

The question is, rather, the presence of the possessive suffix, as Hebrews 7:2 explicitly states the translation of the name is "βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης", i.e. "king of righteousness", omitting translation of the possessive pronoun. What we need is not evidence that "malik" means "king" or "tzedek" "righteousness", but that some "modern scholar" has explicitly argued that the original name does not, in fact, contain the possessive pronoun.--dab (𒁳) 08:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I now understand that people want to get rid of the possessive pronoun because the New Testament says "king of righteousness". Well, find some philologist commenting on this, otherwise we can just state the fact that Paul in Hebrews renders the name so. Paul did not make a philological argument, he was making a rhetorical statement associating Melchizedek with the Christ. --dab (𒁳) 08:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it by using references. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Salibi (1985)

Cut as WP:UNDUE:

Salibi (1985) suggested that the name is a corruption of an Arabic phrase ʾlwk ṣdq meaning "mouthful of offering" (a reference to the food offered to a guest). ["Arabic dictionaries cite ʾlwk ṣdq (vocalised ālūk ṣidq, literally 'mouthful of offering'). as an archaic euphemism for 'food', especially food offered to a guest."]

The implication is to say that the king (whether of Sodom or of Salem) brought out food, then blessed Abram and El Elyon. afaics, this is WP:FRINGE literature with no shred of credibility. Salibi (1985) apparently wanted to build a case of an "Arabian origin of the Hebrew Bible", and consequently made up Arabic etymologies for everything (which is extremely easy because of the close relation of Hebrew and Arabic and the consonantal script). Unless we have some evidence that this book met with anything like a charitable reception, I see no reason to mention it here. --dab (𒁳) 08:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

*Ahem!*

@PiCo and Seraphim System:

WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRD. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll transfer this from my talk page:

Undue is not determined by the number of followers a religion has - though you are acting in good faith, referring to a religion as "undue" is extremely offensive. The section has been in the article for a long time. You can not unilaterally delete an entire section from an article without consensus. That is not how we do things. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"You can not unilaterally delete an entire section from an article without consensus." You can (the essence of bold), but if someone reverts it, then indeed it's time to discuss it and reach or acknowledge consensus rather than removing it again. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 13:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System - I didn't say that Mormonism is an undue religion (whatever that might mean), I said that because it has so few followers its inclusion in the article is undue weight. Even 15 million is "few" in this context - if we start including every religion's ideas on Mechizedek there's be no end to it. Maybe you could cut the section back to the essence?PiCo (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss with you on talk. The section may be too long, but undue weight is a policy about the inclusion of sources availble. When we try to determine what it due for inclusion, sometimes we consult tertiary sources, like Britannica. In this case Britannica has an entire article on the Melchizedek priesthood in Mormonism. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the section is that it's got nothing to say. What in there is there that's worth keeping?PiCo (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty close with the encyclopedia article. I don't see anything in particular that needs to be removed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It says (taking out the refs):

In the Latter Day Saint movement, the Book of Mormon makes reference to Melchizedek (Alma). In Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, Melchizedek is described as "a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions." Because he was a righteous and God-fearing man, Melchizedek was "ordained a high priest" The Joseph Smith Translation notes that, when the Epistle to the Hebrew speaks of Melchizedek, it is the order of the priesthood named for him that is without father and mother, etc., and not Melchizedek himself. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, Melchizedek is a descendant of Noah. Latter Day Saints are unclear as to whether Melchizedek was Shem, or a descendant of Shem. LDS Doctrine and Covenants 138:41 mentions "Shem, the Great High Priest" but not Melchizedek in a recitation of prominent righteous people who are now dead. In 1973, an article in an official LDS Church magazine quoted this passage and others and came to the conclusion that there was not enough revealed knowledge to answer the question definitively. The Latter Day Saint Melchizedek priesthood is named after him, so as not to over-use the name of the Son of God, after whom it was originally named.

This is a combination of the trivial and the near-crazy (it reads as if the author really believes that Shem and Noah and Melchizedek were real people). Please justify having this in the article. PiCo (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm I agree that this doesn't say much. Except the last part where we finally learn about Melchizedek priesthood (Latter Day Saints) being named after it... about your concern for claims expressed as truth, what could be done is rephrase differently like: according to ..., ... claims, etc. But some context seems lacking as most of the paragraph is discussing aspects which to non LDS may seem unimportant (which may also be why when we read this we fail to understand why this is discussed at all)... Something which may help there would be for the first sentence to immediately justify the importance (if any), for instance we could immediately start with the priesthood being named after Melchizedek. About tertiary sources, they can be useful to assess the notability. If those mention it, then maybe we also should, like Seraphim System suggests. — PaleoNeonate — 14:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We could trim it to reflect this quote from Britannica's article on Joseph Smith:

Smith’s teachings departed from conventional Christian traditions by incorporating certain practices from the Hebrew Bible. The temples he built (in Smith’s lifetime, two were erected and two more were planned) were modeled on the temples of ancient Israel. He appointed his male followers to priesthoods, named for the biblical figures Melchizedek and Aaron, that were overseen by the office of High Priest

Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems more comprehensible to me. PiCo? — PaleoNeonate — 17:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's better, but if you want to stick to the subject of the article the last sentence about priesthoods is the only one that's relevant.PiCo (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the section; improvements welcome. — PaleoNeonate — 22:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In other traditions

I don't see the value of this section since it only says that in two other traditions Melchizedek is of no importance... — PaleoNeonate — 13:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed. — PaleoNeonate — 13:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fringe, OR

Article needs an edit to clarify statements like "Reference between the messhiac and Melchizedek appears in subsequent biblical verses: ", in lede, and make clear the distinctions between teh bible text and the interpretations of it by various exegetes and sects.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this is also not lead material... Some of the claims appear to be made later in their respective sections, where they belong. Others appear to not be in the article. —PaleoNeonate – 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melchizedek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822184924/http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20120522.htm to http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20120522.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hebrews 7:3

Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek was without mother and father, without beginning or end, a priest forever. ("Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever", NIV, but every translation is similar). The surrounding verses make clear that this is meant as a literal statement of facts about Melchizedek (which is what makes him worthy to be compared to Jesus later).

This article doesn't even mention this line. Priesthood of Melchizedek mentions it only in passing, in the middle of a paragraph, to explain why some Christians believe Melchizedek was Jesus (not just a Christophany, or a typos of Christ, but literally him).

But the line is not only important to that small minority viewpoint, it's central to why Melchizedek is important, and mysterious, to all Christians. (And, for that matter, it's also part of why many Jews, Muslims, and atheists reject the NT as the inspired word of God.) Leaving it out is like leaving the virgin birth out of an article about Jesus, and mentioning it nowhere else except a subarticle about Mariology, buried in a paragraph about the Thomistic perspective. --157.131.168.209 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an interpretation. Here's a source that disagrees[4] which suggests it means his parents are unknown. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

157.131.168.209, You can find yourself some reliable sources about that (or at least stating that some Christian believe that) and improve the article yourself. A ntv (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"It has been suggested" by whom?

I changed "It has been suggested" to "Joseph Blenkinsopp has suggested", so that people can have a name to easily look up to see if the fellow is at all credible, and to see how many people were suggesting such. He wrote the book cited, so I assume he is the one who suggested it. "It has been suggested" falls under the category of "weasel words", in my opinion.