Was reading in a post that the name for god used in genesis has conections with the cannanite god el,i was wondering if there is any conection with the story of Melchezidez as he was a cannanite king who worshipped the true got,also i assume as he was king his people would have followed the same religion,who were they and what happened to them,i know some will say hes a mythical character,but supposing the story is true its interesting to me that the first nation worshiping the true god was the cannanites or at least those in the city of salem.
Melchezidek Cannanite?
by openeyes 11 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
Welcome openeyes,
In spite of its apparent archaisms the chapter 14 of Genesis may be a comparatively late addition to the Patriarchal story, and v. 18ss about Melchizedeq an even later one. So it does not necessarily provide any genuine information about early Canaanite/Israelite history.
That being said, in its present context it does work as a justification for the Jerusalem temple and priesthood: Shalem is clearly identified with Jerusalem (Psalm 76:3), the name Melchi-zedeq is tied in with both "pre-Israelite" kings of Jerusalem (Adoni-zedeq, Joshua 10:1) and the Jerusalemite priesthood (Zadoq), and the name/title of Melchizedeq's deity sounds conspicuously Canaanite ('El `Elyôn qoneh shamayim wa'arets) -- although `Elyôn was distinct from 'El in the earlier Canaanite pantheon, it works as a title for 'El in this and other Biblical contexts.
There is indeed an interesting ideological tension within the Biblical narratives, between the idea that "the true god/God" is alien to the land (as the Exodus/Conquest scenario suggests) and the idea that he originally belongs there, making the sanctuaries (and especially Jerusalem's temple after the Deuteronomistic reform) sacred places in an absolute sense.
-
Morgana
According to Jewish tradition, the term "Melchi-Zedek" [ Heb malki^-?edeq ( ?????????????? ) ] that occurs in Gen 14:18-20 and in Ps 110:4 is not understood as a personal name but literally as the title “King of Righteousness” or “Righteous King” (that it is not a regular name is stressed by its being written with a dash or "mappik" in Hebrew); and there is a widely-held tradition (in some Targumim and in the Midrash) that identifies him with Noach's son Shem (who, according to the priestly chronology of Genesis, not only was still alive at the time of Abraham but even survived him by 25 years). After the flood, Shem settled in the place later called Salem and much later Jerusalem and became a priest of El-Elyon (which is an earlier and more universal name for Yahweh who under this name is specifically the covenant God of Israel) and teacher for later generations. According to this tradition, God originally gave the priesthood to Shem / Melchi-Zedek who by his blessing (Gen 14:19–20) conferred it to the descendants of Abraham; and Ps 110:4 was accordingly interpreted "Thou [Abraham] art a priest forever because of the words of Melchi-Zedek."
Also, we should remember that in the priestly tradition, the name YHWH was first made known to Moses (Ex 3:14,15), stating that formerly God was known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El (or, El-Shaddai / El-Elyon) but explicitly not yet by his "national Israelite" name YHWH (Ex 6:2-4). And as El he was also known to the Canaanites.
----------
Edit: It seems the board cannot display my Hebrew even though it appears correctly in the edit window - that's why the many 'formatting edits'.
-
Leolaia
Narkissos....Just a little nit-pick, but I'm not sure if Elyon is known to be a seperate deity from El other than in Philo of Byblos who names Elioun as distinct from Kronos (El). I think there is some question of whether in this instance Philo represents a more ancient tradition or whether he reports a late hypostasization of an attribute. An early independent existence of Elyon is certainly possible, even plausible (since a conflation of deities preceded the rise of henotheism in the ANE), but I'm not sure if it has been independently verified. The Aramaic Sefire treaty from the 8th century might be an example, with 'l-w-'lyn mentioned alongside "heavens and earth" might constitute evidence but it is ambiguous since the pair could refer to: 1) a god and consort, 2) two parts of a whole, and 3) a compound name, like Kothar-w-Khasis from Ugarit. In the case of the author or redactor of this text in Genesis, it is clear at least that El and Elyon refer to the same deity.
What has been independently (and widely) attested is the title in Genesis 14:19, qnh shmym w-'rts, as a title of El in Canaanite, Israelite, and Hittite texts, many of which are listed in the 1980 BASOR article by Patrick Miller. Usually it is in short form as 'l qnh 'rts (El, creator of the earth), such as in the Hittite DN Ilkunirsha from 1200 BC, the Iron Age Jerusalem inscription discovered by N. Avigad with the line ']l qn 'rts, 'l qn 'rts in an 8th century BC Karatepe inscription, two Palmyra Aramaic inscriptions of similar form, and 'l qn 'rts in a Neo-Punic inscription from Leptis Magna; cf. b`shmyn qnh dy r`' in a Hatra inscription. These texts moreover are mostly dedicatory inscriptions, which fits well with the purpose of the epithet in Genesis 14:19. The longer form in Genesis is thought to be a later elaboration of the more original short version. However it is curious that the Sefire treaty lists "heaven and earth" directly after "El and Elyon", and Philo has Elioun as the father of Ouranous (heaven) and Ge (earth), which has a theogonic spin to the "creator of heavens and earth" title (cf. Genesis 4:1, where qnh refers to begetting). So the longer title may be ancient as well.
-
Narkissos
Thanks Leolaia, you are quite right: I should have written that `Elyôn may have been distinct from 'El, as the extant evidence is, indeed, not conclusive.
Glad you are posting again btw. What about the book?
-
peacefulpete
I really like this Mel character and wish I had done more research but here's an old thread where we had fun before: Mel's place
-
theliteissobrite
It's all about Jesus. Look to him ! Arguing about the rest just creates enmity in the body of Christ. Be careful with over studious examinations of the written word. The Word is alive ! He alone will give us life !
-
openeyes
Thanks for the replys guys really interesting reading.Very obviouse you lot are a lot more intelegent than me.If these cannanites were worshing the same god as the isrealites why did they later seem to look down on there beleifs and want to exterminate them.
theliteissobrite you said dont examine the writen word to deeply,why not in case i find something that dosnt add up or ,doent the bible encourage us to do hust that.
once again thanks for the replys.
-
Leolaia
Great to see you, PP! I think you may have sent me an email and I apologize if I haven't answered it, I've been so busy of late. Narkissos....No, still not done, and I still have quite a bit of work to do. I really hope to finish by the end of the month so I can come back here more.
If these cannanites were worshing the same god as the isrealites why did they later seem to look down on there beleifs and want to exterminate them.
Very good and intelligent questions you have there. I would recommend you check out either of the books The Early History of God (Mark Smith) or Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (John Day) for a detailed and complete answer to this question. In short, true monotheism was actually a gradual and late development of the exilic period and prior to this Yahweh was identified with the native Canaanite gods of Baal and El (see Deuteronomy 32:8 for a passage when Yahweh was still distinct from Elyon; this passage was later modified in the Hebrew to eliminate this reference), absorbing their traits and roles. In the pre-exilic period, exclusive Yahwism was henotheistic -- not monotheistic. In other words, the nation should worship Yahweh as its patron deity just as the other nations worship their other gods; Chemosh of the Moabites, Molech of the Ammonites, Baal and Ashtoreth of the Sidonians, etc. were foreign gods that were believed to exist (see Judges 11:24, for instance, "Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the Yahweh our god has given us, we will possess"), but who should only be worshipped by their respective nations. These gods have their own nations as their allotment; Yahweh has Israel as his inheritance (Deuteronomy 32:8), and thus becomes jealous when his nation worships other nations' gods (Exodus 34:14). This is the ideology in the Deuteronomisitic History (i.e. the books of Samuel and Kings), which presents Israel and Judah as usually worshipping the gods of the Canaanite nations that preceded Israel, or the nations of Israel's neighbors (1 Samuel 7:3-4, 2 Samuel 7:23, 1 Kings 9:6-9, 1 Kings 11:2, 5, 33, 2 Kings 17:7, 23:10, 13, 22:17, etc). So even the highly ideological account admits that for most of its history, Israel and Judah were polytheistic and only occasionally henotheistic (or only among certain groups like the prophets who worshipped only Yahweh). This becomes the explanation of why Yahweh let the nations of Israel and Judah become destroyed by their enemies; they "abandoned" Yahweh in favor of other gods, and Yahweh withdrew his protection of those nations in battle. Because Yahweh/Baal became identified with older Canaanite god El, Yahweh eventually became more than Israel's tutelary deity but was worshipped as the creator of all things. But it is not until the exile that Deutero-Isaiah makes the breakthrough that claims that Yahweh is the only god to exist (true monotheism). But even in the subsequent period, the older tuletary scheme survived; cf. Daniel 10 which construes the nations has having their own angelic "princes" that battle for their nations, such as the "prince of Greece" and "Michael", the prince for Israel.
-
peacefulpete
openeyes, Rarely is knowledge a question of intelligence, its usually a question of desire. I'm sure theliteissobrite is plenty intelligent.
As far as why the OT reads the way it does, well, it's a matter of who was doing the writing and why they were writing. First off the "histories" were all written retrospectively with current events and political situations in mind. These writers were hardly alone in having a rather flexible view of the past. For many ancient writers, history was a literary (propaganda) device not a science. Therefore, "histories" more often reveal the mind and life of the writers more than the past. The agenda of the major contributors of the Pentatuch is so transparent that even now after their works have been mashed together their writing can yet be largely separated by style and tendency.
Today only very conservative theologians regard the patriarchal tales as reflecting actual history. Reality is that the characters, whether created wholecloth or drawn from tribal mythology, are being utilized for some religio/political purpose of a writer many centuries after the setting of the stories. What's interesting is when these stories incorporate national or tribal legends and memeory of real antiquity that betray their age by embarassing details like etymology of names and cult practices like piling stones and horned alters etc. Its these tidbits that excite scholars of the ancient Near East.
To summarize the real history of the people of Palestine we should say the Israelites were always an indigenous people who worshipped local deities like El and Baal and Ashera much like their neighbor tribes and who never even attempted to conquor all Palestine and beyond. They never were a nation of slaves in Egypt altho it is possible that a few exiles from Egypt at some point entered their timeline. There never was a "United monarchy" under a warrior king David or Solomon. If these were historical persons at all they were small time and historically insignificant. They therefore did not execute the genocidal crimes of the OT. Egypt actually governed the entire region for most of the period. Its possible that during a brief window of Egyptian withdrawl the tribes of the region fought for land and resources and its this period that became recast thru creative writing by a later Yahwist as a golden age of Iraelite dominance lost because of religious deviation. Yahweh according to best evidence was a deity in Edom/Midia imported into Palestine by traders or possibly migrating people. Even the Bible says this. There was therefore some tension between the worshipers of the indiginous gods and godesses and this imported one. This turned fanatical after Babylonian exile of the royalty and elite. The new breed of Zoroastrian influenced Yahwists used religious difference to explain (pass blame for) the hardship they were experiencing. Most all of the "histories" of the OT were written or edited in this later period. It's a comon technique. Paint the past as better and blame your opponents views for everything bad.