Melchizedek in Renewed Perspective.docx

MELCHIZEDEK in Renewed Perspective WHO’S WHO SERIES Melchizedek’s identity is a most puzzling and unresolved quiz. From a religious perspective, Abraham is only accountable to God. But from a political point of view, the new religion he represents is heavily indebted to the Persian king Cyrus already praised in other texts. I intend to show that the stories in Genesis 14 narrating a battling Abraham victorious against the coalition led by the mighty Chedorlaomer of Elam followed by the Melchizedek encounter, enacted the Babylonian tragedy and a praised King Cyrus. Act I. For readers today, Abraham does not need to be presented. It may not have been the case for fifth century BCE auditors on the reconstructed Temple’s esplanade. We therefore must first look at the general context after the return from the Babylonian exile and try not to be entrapped in Temple propaganda and enduring beliefs. I would like to stress that Herodotus, travelling through Palestine around 460-440 BCE (therefore a century after the acclaimed return from Babylonian captivity) was unaware of Jewish culture. He did not mention Abraham and circumcision as a local custom and was silent on Moses. Surprised scholars ask: “But where are the Jews?” Here, we enter a different world. It means that the great Egyptian epics were not yet composed and that they relied on more recent historical events. Furthermore, during the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424 BCE), the Temple reconstruction was impeded, and it was certainly not rebuilt in five years as boasted. Ezra 4:7-24: “This is the meaning of the letter that they (the Cuthim, quoted as adversaries of the returning exiles) sent to him, to Artaxerxes the king: "Your servants are the people of the other side of the river and Ke'eneth. Let it be known to the king that the Jews who ascended from you upon us have come to Jerusalem, the rebellious and sinful city they are building, and the walls they have completed, and the walls they have joined. Now let it be known to the king that if this city is built and the walls are founded, they will not give the king's due, the head tax, or the meal tax they will not give, and the tax of the kings will suffer. Now, in view of this, that we wish to destroy the Temple, and it is improper for us to witness the king's disgrace, we have therefore sent and notified the king. That one should search in the annals of your fathers, and you will find in the annals, and you will know that this city is a rebellious city, and it injures kings and countries, and they have made rebellion in its midst since days of yore; because of this, this city was destroyed. We make known to the king that if this city is built, and its walls founded, because of this, you will have no part in the other side of the river.” Facing political instability and vigilant local opposition against the Temple project made it crucial for the priests to establish a sense of national identity around Yahweh and to rebuild a pact of confidence vis-à-vis the Persian overlord they too often recklessly accused of idolatry. Herodotus’ silence implies that the Moses epics framed in Egyptian captivity and liberation were a fictional rendering of the historical Babylonian episode (captivity, exile, and return authorized by Cyrus, the true liberator). It has already been noted that Moses recalls the infant and childhood legends attributed to Cyrus and Darius as Herodotus reported. Furthermore, many themes in Genesis are based on ancient Persian literature and bear witness to the influence of Persian thought acquired during the Babylonian exile. The most known being the flood story from the Gilgamesh epics, transferred into Yahweh’s hands. As for Abraham, is he not described as native of Ur in Mesopotamia? But why was Egypt chosen to stage the Babylonian events? Because Babylonia was under Persian control. Jeremiah’s prophecy of a destroyed city of Babylon by an angered and vengeful Yahweh failed. The only ‘politically correct’ way of narrating their ‘recent’ past was to situate it in remote Egyptian times, well before the Persian Empire came to power, thus setting the episode out of Persian reach and criticism. Because even ‘contemporary’ Egypt was under Persian dominion. The Persian monarchs of the fifth and fourth century held the title of Pharaoh, and that was the closest the biblical writers got in associating epics and reality. Furthermore, Canaan was ancient Egypt’s vassal and enemy of Babylonia until Cyrus intervened. Interestingly, when one draws a straight line from Babylonia to Jerusalem, it passes by an endless wilderness, exactly at Mount Nebo, then the Jordan river and then the Promised Land. This was the frame that the writers used to seam together the historical return from Babylonia and the fictional exit from Egypt. Scholars as I. Finkelstein Finkelstein Israel, Silberman N.A. The Bible Unearthed. The Free Press 2001 have shown that the Egyptian episodes cannot be historically backed on the ground of lacking archeological evidence. He also inferred that Jews listening to the Egyptian epics would feel that it echoed the Babylonian trauma. Having created a brilliant fictional narrative capable of stirring a sense of national identity centered on Yahweh and the first Temple, the writers also had to reestablish the previous pact of submission vis-à-vis the Persian overlord and acknowledge Cyrus’ outstanding role and that of his followers. Cyrus saved the Abrahamic inspired Yahweh religion by allowing a return to Jerusalem. Obsequious declarations attesting their reliance on Persia found their place in: Isaiah 45:1: “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes…” Thus, Cyrus is the only non-Jewish personality to receive the rare honor of being ‘anointed’ by the Lord. 45:13: “I have aroused Cyrus in righteousness, and will make all his paths straight; he (Cyrus) shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for a price or reward…” Esdras and 2 Chronicles 36:23: “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms on earth, and he has charged me to build him (Yahweh) a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.” Take notice that Isaiah and Ezra are at variance as to whom assumes the responsibility of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple, as the parenthesis show. The contemporary events, building a national identity and kissing the hand they could not bite (too hard), were two imperatives for the priests to continue their Temple project. With this renewed context in mind, we will go back to Genesis. *** In Genesis 14, before the encounter with Melchizedek, the Abram (not yet called Abraham) war themes used by the biblical writer comprise: Invasion by outsiders coming into Canaan led by Chedorlaomer. Destruction of cities. Deportation of Abram’s nephew Lot with family and goods outside of their homeland: an obviously forced exile. Informed, a battling Abram (already over 75) ventures war against these invaders, comprising the powerful king Chedorlaomer of Elam. With a handful of three hundred-and-eighty men Abram nevertheless defeated the seasoned war lord Chedorlaomer. Abram’s intervention has his family returned to homeland, the previous situation restored. The themes of invasion, destruction, deportation, exile and return that steer the narratives are reminiscent of the phases of the Babylonian tragedy. This foundational event articulated the first and second Temple and was a major theme of inspiration. Was this the first biblical attempt to evoke the Babylonian events before inventing the Egyptian epics, or a secondarily inspired narrative to reinforce the antiques of the Pharaoh episodes? (Gen 12:10-20, Abram is enacting a forced captivity in Egypt, his wife so pleasing to Pharaoh. But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues, leading offended Pharaoh to expel his visitors. The allegory anticipates the ‘Egyptian’ tragedy and liberation giving Abram the role of a tale forerunner). Let us now look at Abram’s enemies. Chedorlaomer is King of Elam, an ancient civilization that is now Iran. He is portrayed here as the leader of a coalition with three other kings, campaigning against five rebellious city states in Canaan. This mighty military leader controlled many territories and plundered tribes and cities. He was an able general and defeated the Rephaim, the Zuzim, Emin, Horites. Amongst his vassals, we also find the Amorites who occupied large parts of Mesopotamia from the 21st to 17th century BCE, notably Babylon. The story-telling places the events in a far-away past, a thousand years before the Babylonian captivity under Nebuchadnezzar and the end of the exile under Cyrus. Abram acts here again as a tale forerunner. A bird’s eye view on Cyrus’ military deeds will show essential parallels. As his predecessors, the young Cyrus was under Median overlordship. The Medes were an ancient Iranian people, their territory spreading into Asia Minor. The Median King Astyages launched an attack against Cyrus led by Harpagus who in fact changed sides and encouraged Cyrus’ revolt against Media. Through military conquest and marrying his former enemy’s daughter, Cyrus was in command of a vast domain. Followed warfare against the Lydian Empire and Asia-Minor. By the year 540 BCE, Cyrus had captured Elam (Chedorlaomer was King of Elam). And finally, also took over the neo-kingdom of Babylonia (attributed to the Amorites, that ranked as Chedorlaomer’s vassals). He thereafter proclaimed himself “king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four corners of the world.” As becomes apparent, the Genesis 14 narrative is giving Abram a similar span of enemies as those Cyrus encountered, namely Elam and Babylon. Abram, in his own God’s hands, is shown to have been just as worthy as Cyrus in terms of military deeds under the auspices of his own religion. Thus, we have an outstanding battling Abram facing similar enemies as Cyrus in ‘later’ days, guided by exceptional divine interest, and determined to bring his family home. Here, Abram is just as powerful as Cyrus, a thousand years before, his reputation is being built on borrowed gowns. And now a bird eye’s view of Cyrus’ religion. Cyrus had a general policy of religious tolerance throughout his vast Empire. He restored the Babylonian God Marduk and was talked into letting the Yahweh supporters return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. Ahura Mazda was the highest spirit of worship in Zoroastrianism. It is debated whether Cyrus followed this God, but his successors certainly did and Ahura Mazda was the dominant Persian belief during the reigns from Darius I to Artaxerxes II. Ahura Mazda means Lord of Wisdom. Zoroaster had proclaimed Ahura Mazda as the uncreated spirit, everlasting, wholly wise, benevolent and good, as well as the creator and upholder of truth. Persian rulers were the servants or priests of Ahura Mazda and an empty chariot, drawn by white horses symbolized the God’s immaterial presence on battlefields. Persian rulers were the priests of a ‘Lord of Wisdom’. Act II. Melchizedek, a mysterious figure bursts onto the scene. As the text in Genesis 14:18-20 runs: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most-high God. And he blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of the most-high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most-high God, which had delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” And Abram gave him tithes of all.” Melchizedek associates many superlatives. Riddles allow biblical writers not to name directly their actors. It is up to us to understand their cunning artifices. Melchizedek is a composite name associating King and Righteousness (or Justice). He is also King of Salem, meaning King of Peace. Salem refers also to Jerusalem. He was a priest of his most-high God. (This is the first mention of a priestly figure in the Bible). And he blesses Abram. And Abram gave him tithes of all. There is an exceptional and outstanding mutual recognition. Abram gives tithes to a non-Jewish figure. He is deeply indebted to this welcoming stranger that comes out of nowhere. We can find many parallels evoking Cyrus’ largesse. He was a King of Justice (or righteousness) for his religious tolerance. (Isaiah 45:13: “I have aroused Cyrus in righteousness”). Cyrus was virtually the King of Jerusalem (Salem), a territory vassal to the Persian overlord. He, and even more his followers, was the priest of his most-high, uncreated and everlasting God. The words exchanged are however a bit odd and don’t seem to fit in perfectly well. Where does the strange monologue come from? I will remain within the Cyrus context. The Cyrus Cylinder denounces the deposed Babylonian king Nabonidus as impious and portrays Cyrus as pleasing to the chief god Marduk. It describes how Cyrus had improved the lives of the citizens of Babylonia, repatriated displaced peoples and restored temples and cult sanctuaries. Although not mentioned specifically in the text, the repatriation of the Jews from their "Babylonian captivity" has been interpreted as part of this general policy. The Cyrus edict appears to have been reinterpreted, guided by Temple self-righteousness, in Chronicles and Ezra: “So, said Cyrus the king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth has the Lord God of the heavens delivered to me, and He commanded me to build Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Judea.” Melchizedek’s monologue to Abram draws on the Temple’s rendering of the Cyrus Edict: “Blessed be Abram of the most-high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most-high God, which had delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” The monologue setting the commanding role without dispute in Yahweh’s hands, and not giving into a foreign God of idolatry, abhorrent to the Second Temple priests would have been offensive to the Persian favors. It would have clearly shown the duplicity of the redactors, as complained by the letter of the Cuthim, adversaries of the returning exiles: “you will know that this city is a rebellious city, and it injures kings and countries, and they have made rebellion in its midst since days of yore.” However, the monologue as read today, hailing Yahweh, could be the result of a later correction, at a time when the Temple priests were no longer accountable to Persia. The original text could have read: “Blessed be Abram by (and not of) the most-high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most-high God, which had delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” With this simple change, the Persian most-high God is restored, and Abram’s blessings become more conform to attested history accountable to the Persian King of righteousness. The same remark can be applied to Ezra “He commanded me to build (Him) a House in Jerusalem.” Before the inferred small but highly significant changes correcting the initial text, ‘the most-high God’ and ‘The Lord God of the heavens’ refer to the Persian God who supports Abram and commands unto Cyrus to build a house in Jerusalem. Thus formulated, the text would not attract Persian censorship. With the probable changes produced by later Temple propaganda, it is the great God of Abram who enlightened Cyrus. As also expressed in Isaiah 45:13: “I (Yahweh) have aroused Cyrus in righteousness.” Redactors harmonizing the text to suit the agenda of later Jerusalem Temple priests, Abram and Cyrus are only accountable to Abram’s God for his kingdoms on earth, his military successes, and for rebuilding the Temple. I will retain that the narratives leading Abram to war were an ersatz of the Babylonian conquest, deportation and return. That Chedorlaomer King of Elam created a military link between Abram and Cyrus’ campaigning against Elam and the neo-kingdom of Babylonia. And that the figure of Melchizedeck stands for a mutual recognition between the saved religion and Cyrus, a king of righteousness, prince of Jerusalem, and priest of his most-high God. Thus, an outstanding event—rescuing the Abrahamic inspired Yahweh religion—was cryptically introduced into the founding Biblical text. Melchizedek portraying a famed Cyrus in biblical disguise gives a different measure to psalm 110, a Davidic poem where God declares “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” David as Abram previously, is invested with the same outstanding Cyrus stature, also God’s anointed, when biblical writers still knew the cryptic meaning of the Melchizedek riddle. As possibly also the Melchizedek identity centered on the messianic (anointed) figure in Slavonic 2 Enoch on which the Qumran Melchizedek probably relied. As for equating Christ as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, it responds to an exegetical attempt of a mid-second century CE writer to link a divine Son and his sacrificial death that relies on Scripture and psalm 110. (See Hebrews in Academia.edu) The initial meaning of Melchizedek was most likely long lost at that time. Using Melchizedek no longer needed knowledge of the original purpose.