Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-20 in the Targums,
in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature

In this essay I intend to examine the biblical narrative on Melchizedek as translated and paraphrased in the Aramaic translations (Targums), and as interpreted in rabbinic tradition¹. The biblical text in question will be principally Gen 14,18-20. Since the biblical text would lead one to believe that Melchizedek's encounter with Abram occurred in the Valley of Shaveh (Gen 14,17), I shall begin by an examination of this verse. While the name of Melchizedek does not occur in Targum of Psalm 110, in view of the importance of this text I shall also examine the treatment of Melchizedek in this psalm. Reference will also be made to Targum of 1 Chronicles 1,24 where the person of Melchizedek is implicitly referred to ("Shem the high priest"). With regard to rabbinic tradition, rabbinic texts will be our principle source. However, since some patristic texts also present or comment on current Jewish beliefs, or have traditions very similar to those of some Targumic texts, I shall draw on these Christian sources (Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, Antiochene tradition) as occasion indicates.

I. Nature of the Targumic Evidence

The Aramaic translation of Genesis 14 has been preserved complete in Targum Onqelos (Tg. Onq.), in Codex Neofiti I (Tg. Neof.), and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Tg. Ps.-J.). Fragments of it have been transmitted in the so-called Fragmentary Targums (Frg. Tgs.),which are contained in the manuscripts given the sigla PVNL. Shorter texts have also been preserved in the marginal glosses to Tg. Neof. (Tg. Neof. marg), and in some citations from the Targums in targumic dictionaries, such as the Aruk of Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome (died 1106), the Meturgeman of Elias Levita (published in 1541), and in some medieval Jewish writers. Notable in this regard is Midrash Bereshit Zuta composed by Rabbi Shemuel ben Nissin Masnut (13^th century), who worked in Aleppo and may have been born there. Some of his citations from the Pal. Tgs. are identical with, or close to, the text of Tg. Neof.². No fragments of Gen 14 have been found among the Genizah fragments. With regard to the verses that interest us (Gen 14,17-20), only v. 18 has been preserved in Frg. Tgs.^PVNL. There is a brief citation in the Aruk, and a longer one in Bereshit Zuta.

Although the targumic texts to be examined here are very limited in extent, the evidence emerging from the analysis may well have significance for the larger question of the nature and origin of the Targums, in particular of the Pal. Tgs. of the Pentateuch. Furthermore, an awareness of this larger question of nature and origins may help us understand better some of the texts we are now to study. For this reason I include here a few brief remarks on relevant questions on the individual Targums we are to examine. All the Targums we are to consider probably originated in Palestine. Some scholars would postulate a primitive Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch, possibly of the first century CE, which would stand behind both the Tg. Onq. and an original of our present Pal. Tgs. This original Palestinian Targum would have been a written and rather literal translation. Tg. Onq. may have originated in Palestine some time before 135 CE³. Linguistically, the text or form behind our present Pal. Tgs. can hardly have been earlier than the third century CE. Its original form, if it had one, is not easily reconstructed since it has been transmitted in a variety of texts, with the same essential paraphrase, and differences with regard to the positioning and formulation of the elements of the paraphrase. The growth which has given us our present texts may have been gradual and varied. It is possible that certain phrases were added in the process of transmission to an already established base text. It is recognised among scholars today that Tg. Ps.-J. is a later and scholarly composition, from a scholar's study rather than from a liturgical or community setting. It was probably composed in the seventh-ninth centuries. Its author used Tg. Onq., the Pal. Tgs., rabbinic texts and other sources known and unknown, and probably made additions of his own.

II. Encounter at the Valley of Shaveh,
that is the King's Valley (Gen 14,17)

For an easy and convenient comparative reading of the different Targums we offer here the English translation of Tgs. Onkelos, Neof., Neof. marg, Frg. Tgs.^PVNL and Ps.-J. which correspond to Gen 14,17-20. The Hebrew text of Gen 14,18-20 and the Aramaic text of the Targums are given at the beginning of sections III and IV of this article.

Tg. Onq. 17 Then the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after [Abram] had returned from slaying Chedor-laomer and the kings who were with him to the empty plain, which is the race-course of the king.	Tg. Ps.-J. 17 When he returned from defeating Chedor-laomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him at the levelled plain, which is the king's race-course.	Tg. Neof. 17 And the king of Sodom came out to meet him, after he had returned from slaying Chedorlaomer aand the kings who were with him, in the Valley of the Gardensa, that is, the valley of the king.	Frg. Tgs.PVNL; Tg. Neof. marg 17a-a and the kings who were with him in the Valley of Hazoza, that is the place [lit house] of the Valley of the King (Frg. Tgs.VNL); to the Valley of Hazoza, that is the place [lit: house] of the Valley of the King (Tg. Neof. marg).
18 Now Melkhizedek, king of Jerusalem, brought out bread and wine, for he was ministering before God Most High.	18 And the righteous king – he is Shem, the son of Noah – the king of Jerusalem, came out to meet Abram, and he brought out to him bread and wine; and at that time he was ministering before God Most High.	18 aAnd Melchisedech, the king of Jerusalem — he is Shem the Great — brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest ministering in the high priesthood bbefore God Most Highab.	18a-a and Melchisedek the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the Great, was a priest to God Most High (Frg. Tgs.VNL); and Melchi-zedek the king of Jerusalem — who is Shem the Great — was a priest of the Most High; he brought out
19 And he blessed him and said:“Blessed be	19 He blessed him and said: “Blessed be	19 And he blessed him and said: “Blessed is	food and wine, and he was standing, ministe-

Abram before God Most High whose possessions are heaven and earth.	Abram from [before] God Most High, who for the sake of the righteous created heaven and earth.	Abram abefore God Most Higha who in his Memra made the heavens and the earth.	ring, in the high priesthood before God Most High (Frg. Tg.p). 18b-b=19a-a to God Most High (Tg. Neof. marg).
20 And blessed be God Most High who has delivered your enemy into your hands”. And he gave him one tenth of everything.	20 And blessed be God Most High who has made your enemies like a shield that receives a blow”. And he gave him a tenth of everything that he had brought back.	20 And blessed is God Most High who ashattered your enemiesa before you”. And he gave him one tenth of everything.	20a-a handed over your enemies (Tg. Neof. marg).

The HT says that on Abram's return after victory the king of Sodom went out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh, that is the King's Valley. Shaveh here is presumably different from the Shaveh-kiriathim of v. 5. There is a King's Valley mentioned in 2 Sam 18,18, where Absalom erected a pillar for himself. The place-name is rendered literally in Tg. 2 Sam. Josephus (Ant. 7, 243) says that this was two stadia from Jerusalem. 1QapGen 22,13-14 identifies this "Valley of Shaveh — that is the Vale of the King ()klm qm( )whw )w#$ qm(b)" as "the Valley of Beth-hacherem" ()mrk tyb t)qb). The Valley of Beth-haccherem is mentioned in Jer 6,1 in parallelism with Tekoa (cf. Neh 3,14), and in Josh 15,39. Going on this evidence, as well as evidence from the Mishnah and the Copper Scroll, J. Fitzmyer⁴ believes that it is quite plausible to locate Beth-haccherem at the modern site of Ramat Rachel, which is situated some 400 yards to the east of the old route from Jerusalem to Bethlehem on a summit which dominates the Valley of Rephaim.

Tg. Onq. has "to the empty⁵ plain, which is the race-course of the king" ()klmd )syr tyb )wh )npm r#$yml), a translation followed by Tg. Ps.-J. Tg. Onq.'s rendering as "empty" ()npm) is in keeping with the meaning of the hw#$ of the HT (in Hebrew and Aramaic) and also with the identification of "King's Valley" that follows. Given the existence of royal hippodromes and amphitheatres (for those of Herod at Jerusalem see Josephus, Ant. 15.268-276), Tg. Onq.'s identification of "King's Valley" is quite understandable.

The Frg. Tgs.^VNL (not Frg. Tg.P) here identify the Valley of Shaveh as "the Valley of Hazoza, hzwzx, (that is the place of the Valley of the King)", a text also found in the margin to Tg. Neof., where it is obviously drawn from Frg. Tgs. "Hazoza" is most probably an error for "Hazweh" (hwzx), "[the Valley of] the Vision", a phrase used to render "Oaks of Mamre" in Pal. Tg. Gen 12,6; 13,18; 18,1; Deut 11,30, and in a related manner in Tgs. Neof. and Ps.-J. Gen 14,13. (Gen 14,13 has not been preserved in any of the texts of Frg. Tgs.)

Tg. Neof. identifies the Valley of Shaveh of v. 17 with the"Valley of the Gardens" ("in the Valley of the Gardens", pardesaya – )klm hr#$m )[w]h )ysdrp r#$ymb). Tg. Neof. is alone in this identification.

An inscription with the words "Of St Thomas of Phordesa" occurs in a processional cross, coming from the environs of Jerusalem, and the place-name Phordкsa, (from the Aramaic pordesaya/pardesaya "gardens"), on the outskirts of Jerusalem is attested for the Byzantine and early Arab periods⁶. There was a hospice for the poor and elderly there. This place-name has been regarded to be the same as the Valley of Beth Carma (the Valley of Beth-haccherem), already noted, given in 1QapGen 22,13-14 as the identification of the "Valley of Shaveh – that is the Valley of the King". J.T. Milik has expressed the view that "the Valley of the Gardens" ()ysdrp r#$ym) of Tg. Neof. Gen 14,17 makes direct reference to this place-name near Jerusalem. He writes: "Since the word saweh, whatever of its etymology, in no way presents itself spontaneously as a synonym of pardesaya, I would readily see in this last name a place-name that really existed at the time of the composition of the Targum, and attached to a geographic entity in the vicinity of Jerusalem"⁷. There are difficulties with this understanding of the evidence. One is that, given the instability of the reading (the Frg. Tgs. have "the Valley of Hazoza") we do not know if the Tg. Neof. text here represents the original reading. It may be, of course, that irrespective of an "original" Pal. Tg. reading, the compiler of Tg. Neof. opted for the identification pardesaya, "Gardens", of our present text because of his acquaintance with the Jerusalem place-name.

As against this, however, we must recall that the same Tg. Neof. has consistently identified or translated "the Valley of Siddim" (Myd#& qm() of Gen 14,3,8,10 as "the Valley of the Gardens" (h/)ysdrp r#$ym), and the extant texts of Frg. Tgs. (VNL) agree with regard to Gen 14,3 as does a citation from the Pal. Tg. in Masnut's Bereshit Zuta⁸. Likewise, Tg. Ps.-J. agrees with the rendering pardesaya in all three texts (Gen 14,3,8,10). This understanding of Siddim (Myd#&) in Gen 14,8 as "gardens", "park", may agree with Jerome's understanding of the translation of the word by Aquila and Theodotion, which Jerome takes as "meaning ‘pleasant groves'" (amoena nemora significantes)⁹. It appears, then, that there a solid unity in the Pal. Tg. tradition with regard to the "valley of the gardens", )ysdrp. It is the identification of the MT "Valley of Siddim". And this was not near Jerusalem but near the Sea of Salt, the Dead Sea: "the Valley of Siddim, that is the Sea of Salt" (Gen 14,3). Here, of course, the Pal. Tg. tradition may not be referring to a known-place name, but rather understanding the MT Myd#& as the plural of hd#&, "field, open place". Whatever of this, it is unlikely that the author or compiler of Tg. Neof. would have used the same Aramaic term to identify two quite distinct place-names of the Hebrew Text.

III. Hebrew Texts and Targums: Gen 14,18

Hebrew Text

Ml#$ Klm qd( yklmw (a)
Nyyw Mxl )y(wh (b)
Nwyl( l)l Nhk )whw (c)

Targum Onqelos¹⁰

Ml#$ryd )klm qdc yklmw (a)
rmhw Myxl qyp) (b)
h)ly( l) Mdq #$ym#$m )whw (c)

Targum Neofiti

hbwr M#$ )wh Ml#$wryd )klm qdc )klmw (a)
rmxw Mxl qp) (b)
h)l( )hl) Mdq htbr [h]tnhkb #$m#$m Nhk hwh )whw (c)

Targum Neofiti marg

)yyly( )hl)l (as variant for h)l( )hl) Mdq htbr [h]tnhkb)

Fragment Targums^VNL

)br M#$ )wh Ml#$wryd )klm qdc yklmw (a)
h)ly( l)l Nyhk hwh (c)

Fragment Targums^P

)br M#$ )whd Ml#$wryd )klm qdc yklm (a)
h)ly( Nhk hwh (c)
rmxw Nwzm qyp) (b)
h)ly( l) Mdq )tbr )tnwhkb #$m#$mw My)q )whw (c)

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Mrb) twmdql qpn  Myl#$wryd )klm xn rb M#$ )wh )qydc )klmw (a)
rmxw Myxl hyl qyp)w (b)
h)ly( )ql) Mdq #$m#$m hwh )nmyz )yhhbw (c)

1. Observations on the texts

It will be noticed that for v. 18 Tgs. Onq., Neof. and Ps.-J. follow the order of the HT (a,b,c). The texts of the Frg. Tgs. do not. Manuscripts VNL omit b, while manuscript P has the order a,c,b,c. I have no explanation of this phenomenon. The differences may have arisen within the Frg. Tgs. tradition, but may also conceivably represent an early Pal. Tg. tradition.

2. Melchizedek King of Salem (v. 18)

a) The Name "Melchisedek"
The name in Hebrew is Melchisedek, written in the critical edition of the MT as qdc-yklm. The name qdc-yklm is reproduced in Tg. Onq. and in Frg. Tgs.^PVNL. Tg. Ps.-J. has )qydc )klm, "the righteous king" — in full: "the righteous king, he is Shem son of Noah, king of Jerusalem". In Tg. Ps.-J. the change is probably intentional: the identification of Melchisedek with Shem has been so thoroughly made that he has lost his identity and name. Tg. Neof. has qdc )klm (in full Ml#$wryd )klm qdc )klm), where the final alef in )klm is hard to explain. It may have arisen through a contamination between the forms in Tg. Onq. and the Frg. Tgs., or may represent a confusion between y (yod) and ) (aleph)¹¹.

b) Identification of Salem with Jerusalem (v. 18)
      "Melchizedek king of Jerusalem ... brought out bread and wine". The MT has "Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine", Nyyw Mxl )ycwh Ml#$ Klm qd#&-yklmw. If by Salem a town or city was originally intended in the narrative, this may well have been the town of Sвlim, north east of Nablus¹².

Whatever of the original meaning or intended identification in MT Gen 14,18¹³, in Ps 76,3 Salem (in parallelism with Zion) means Jerusalem. This identification is also that of 1QapGen 22,13 ("Salem, that is Jerusalem"), and probably in what is to be regarded as an original part of the text, not from a later copyist. It is also found in Josephus (Ant. 7. 67; War 6. 438; Apion 1. 174).

The identification of Salem as Jerusalem is also, naturally, that of rabbinic tradition. This rabbinic tradition seems to be faithfully reported by Jerome in his work Hebrew Questions on Genesis, completed between late 391 and early 393. He begins his comment on Gen 14,18-19 with the remark: "Because our little book is, in a word, a collection of Hebrew questions or traditions, let us therefore introduce what the Hebrews think about this. [...] by ‘king of Salem' is meant the king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem"¹⁴. Writing some years later (in 397), in Letter 73 (on Melchizedek) Jerome will defend quite a different view, namely that Salem of Gen 14,18 was in Samaria. To this we shall presently turn.

Some scholars would regard the identification of Salem as Jerusalem in the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon as an anti-Samaritan trait¹⁵, a point not proven.

There was also an ancient city named Salem (or Salim), in Samaria, near Nablus. It is apparently mentioned in Judith 4,4 ("Samaria ... the valley of Salem", to( au)lw=na Salhm). It occurs in the LXX of Gen 33,18 (LXX: "and Jacob came to Salem [Salhm] a city of Secima"; HT: Mk#$ ry( Ml#$ bq(y )byw, generally rendered today as "and Jacob arrived safely at the town of Shechem") and in the LXX of Jer 48,5 (LXX: "and there came men from Sychem, and from Salem (Salhm), and from Samaria" = MT: 42,4: "men arrived from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria"). It also occurs in Jub 30,1 ("In the first year of the sixth week he [Jacob] went up to Salem, which is east of Shechem, in peace in the fourth month"), which is parallel to Gen 33,18. It is probably the site mentioned in John 3,23: John was baptizing at Aenon near Salim (Salei/m).

A tradition attested to by Jerome (AD 398) and Aetheria (probably AD 390-395) located the Salem of Gen 14,8 in Samaria, near Scythopolis. In fact the ruins of Melchizedek's palace were believed to be still visible there and were visited by pilgrims¹⁶.

The tradition linking Salem and Abram's encounter with Melchizedek with Samaria is an old one in Samaritan tradition. It is found in the anonymous Samaritan writer Pseudo-Eupolemus (2^nd cent. BCE), in his work Peri_ 'Ioudai)wn, a writing cited by Eusebius from Polyhistor¹⁷. In a section on Abraham Pseudo-Eupolemus follows Gen 14,18-20 rather faithfully but situates the encounter with Melchizedek not in the valley of Shaveh but in a city near Garizim, the sacred mountain of the Samaritans. This tradition is probably older than Pseudo-Eupolemus. Curiously, this tradition is not reflected either in the Samaritan Pentateuch (which agrees with the MT apart from writing Ml#$ as Mwl#$) or in the Samaritan Targum.

        c) Melchizedek identified with Shem (the Great) (v. 18)¹⁸
In all texts of the Pal. Tgs. and in Ps.-J. Melchisedek is explicitly identified with "Shem (the Great)". Thus Frg. Tg.^PVNL ()br/hbr M#$), Tg. Neof. (hbwr M#$). The identification has gone further in Tg. Ps.-J. where Melchisedek has practically ceased to be a proper name: "The righteous king ()qydc )klm, that is, Shem son of Noah".

This identification is attested at an early date in rabbinic Judaism. It is presupposed in a saying of R. Ishmael, a contemporary of R. Akiba (ca. 110-135 CE), transmitted by R. Zechariah (probably 4^th cent.) (b. Nedarim 32b), and can be taken as having been current in Judaism in the first century CE. I cite the text of b. Nedarim 32b in full here, even though only the first section interests us at the moment. We shall return to a consideration of other elements of it later. The text reads:

R. Zechariah said in the name of R. Ishmael: The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to derive the priesthood from Shem, as it is said: And he was priest to El Elyon. Since he prefaced the blessing of Abram to the blessing of the Place [the Lord God], he derived it from Abram, as it is said: And he blessed him and said, ‘Blessed be Abram by El Elyon who acquired [hnq] the heavens and the earth, and blessed be El Elyon' (Gen 14,19b-20a).

Abraham said to him, ‘Does one actually preface the blessing of the slave to the blessing of the one who owns him [wnwq]'?

Immediately he gave it [the priesthood] to Abraham, as it is said, The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit on my right hand until I shall set your enemies as a stool for your feet' (Ps 110,1), and after this it is written, The Lord has sworn and will not repent. You are a priest forever ytrbd l( [generally rendered: according to the order of] Melchizedek (Gen 110,4), that is, on account of what Melchizedek had said (qdc yklm l#$ wrwbyd l(). This corresponds to what is written, And he was priest to El Elyon. He was a priest, but his descendants were not priests.

There is a partly parallel passage in WaR (Qedoshim) 25,6, in a discussion on the passing of the priesthood from Melchisedek to Abram, with a debate on the issue between R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. There are other texts in rabbinical literature with the same tradition¹⁹.

This rabbinic view is also attested to in patristic texts. It is also found, without any explanation for it given, in the commentary on Gen 14,18-20 by Ephrem (ca. 306-373 CE)²⁰. Epiphanius, 315-403 CE (Panarion haer. 55.6.1; Adv. Haer. 2.1 [Contra Melchizedecianos]) knew of the tradition²¹. He uses the LXX of Gen 11 to prove that Shem could not possibly have been Melchizedek, which belief he attributes to the Samaritans rather than to the Jews.

In Hebrew Questions on Genesis 14,18-19 (a work completed, as just noted, between late 391 and early 393), Jerome succinctly states the Jewish tradition of his own day on the matter²²:

And Melchisedech king of Salem... Because our little book is, in a word, a collection of Hebrew questions or traditions, let us therefore introduce what the Hebrews think about this. They declare that this man is Sem, the son of Noah, and by calculating the years of his life, they show that he lived up to the time of Isaac; and they say that all the first-born sons of Noah were priests before Aaron performed the priestly office. Next, by "king of Salem" is meant king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem.

The computation of the years of Shem's life mentioned here by Jerome is referred to again, and spelt out, in his Letter 73.5 to the presbyter Evangelus on Melchisedek (written in 398). Here Jerome says that the Hebrews have a tradition that Melchisedek of Gen 14 was the eldest son of Noah and that at the time of the birth of Abram he (Shem) was three hundred and ninety years old. He goes on to tell us the manner in which they calculate this, giving us from Gen 11 a chart of the sort we find in modern scientific treatments of this question²³. The Hebrew computation chart as given by Jerome runs as follows:

Shem, on the second year after the Flood, when he was a hundred years old, begot Arpachshad Shem, after the birth of Arpachshad, lived	500 years
	(in all 600 years)
Arpachshad became the father of Shelah after	35 years
Shelah became the father of Eber after	30 years
Eber became the father of Peleg after	34 years
Peleg became the father of Reu after	30 years
Reu became the father of Serug after	32 years
Serug became the father of Nahor after	30 years
Nahor became the father of Terah after	29 years
Terah became the father of Abraham after	70 years

Jerome's text continues:

Compute the number of years through each generation and you will find that from the birth of Shem to the begetting (generation) of Abram there are three hundred and ninety years. Abraham died at the age of one hundred and seventy-five years. Having made the subtraction, it follows that Shem outlived Abraham — his descendant to the tenth degree — by thirty-five years.

d) Shem the Great in Pal. Tg. texts and Melchizedek-Shem in Ephrem the Syrian
Here I may further note some other chronological details pertinent to the mention of Shem in the Pal. Tgs. The targumic midrash has arisen from the biblical data on the patriarchs, taken in conjunction with the chronological consequences of the age assigned to Shem in the Bible.

The biblical evidence is as follows: Abraham was a 100 years old at the birth of Isaac (Gen 21,5). Isaac was thus 75 years old when Abraham died. Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah (Gen 19,2) and was 60 years old at the birth of Esau and Jacob (Gen 25,25). Jacob was thus born fifteen years before the death of Abraham, and consequently 50 years (15 + 35) before the death of Shem. Isaac died at the age of 180 years (Gen 35,28). Shem thus lived during 100 years of Isaac's 180, and during fifty years of Jacob's lifetime.

Shem the Great is mentioned twice in the Pal. Tgs. with regard to events in the lives of Isaac and Rebekah. As Rebekah was being taken in marriage to Isaac, Isaac "was coming from the schoolhouse ()#$rdm tyb) of Shem the Great, to the Well over which was revealed the One who sustains every age. And he was dwelling in the land of the South" (Pal. Tgs. Gen 24:62; Frg. Tgs.^PVNL; Tg. Ps.-J.; Tg. Neof. has "from the sanctuary of", )#$dqm tyb, which is obviously an error. The NRVS renders MT as: "Now Isaac had come from [Hebrew: )wbm )b, "coming from to"] Beer-la-hai-roi, and was settled in the Negeb"). The Pal. Tgs. Gen 25:22 say that when the children pushed themselves together in her womb, Rebekah "went to the schoolhouse (#$rdm tyb) of Shem the Great to beseech mercy from before the Lord" (Frg. Tgs.^PVNL; Tg. Neof.; Tg. Ps.-J.) (NRSV: "She went to inquire of the Lord").

Isaac's association with the schoolhouse of Shem at his marriage (at the age of 40 years) is introduced abruptly. Tg. Ps.-J. prepares his readers for the association of Isaac with Shem at Gen 22,19, immediately after the account of the Aqedah (which in the Palestinian Targum tradition [Tg. Neof. Exod 12, 42; Frg. Tgs.^VN; Frg. Tg.^P Exod 15,18; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 22,1] occurred when Isaac was 37 years). There the MT simply says that Abraham returned to his young men, and went together to Beersheba. Tg. Ps.-J. prefaces this with the words: "The angels on high took Isaac and brought him to the schoolhouse of Shem the Great, and he was there three years". Since this is found in no other Targum text, or known in any other Jewish tradition, it can be taken as a creation of the author of Ps.-J.

We may also note that Tamar of Genesis 38, to become an ancestor of David, is also without ancestry. The text gave rise to questions by reason of the relations of Judah (son of Jacob) with her. In a rabbinic tradition Tamar is regarded as the daughter of Shem (b. Meg. 10b; BerR 85,10; BerR 13,4). The tradition is also found in Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 38,6, but in none of the other Targums.

This Palestinian Targum tradition is found in extenso in the Commentary on Genesis by Ephrem the Syrian (ca. 306-373)²⁴, probably composed about 373 – although Ephrem makes no mention of any Jewish connection. The comment on Gen 14,18-20 in this commentary, in fact, consists almost entirely of material as found in the Palestinian Targums. Not only is Melchisedek identified with Shem, but Shem who is believed to have lived on into the time of Jacob is identified with Melchisedek. The relevant section of Ephrem's commentary on Gen 14,18-20 (section 11, 2,4) merits reproduction in full.

Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out bread and wine... (Gen 14,18-20).

This Melchisedek is Shem, who became a king due to his greatness; he was the head of fourteen nations. In addition, he was a priest. He received this from Noah, his father, through the rights of succession. Shem lived not only to the time of Abraham, as Scripture says, but even to [the time of] Jacob and Esau, the grandsons of Abraham. It was to him that Rebekah went to ask and was told, "Two nations are in your womb and the older shall be a servant to the younger" (Gen 25,22-23). Rebekah would not have bypassed her husband, who had been delivered at the high place, or her father-in-law, to whom revelations of the divinity came continually, and gone straight to ask Melchizedek unless she had learned of his greatness from Abraham or Abraham's son.

Because the length of Melchizedek's life extended to the time of Jacob and Esau, it has been stated, with much probability, that he was Shem. His father Noah was dwelling in the east and Melchizedek was dwelling between two tribes, that is, between the sons of Ham and his own sons. Melchizedek was like a partition between the two, for he was afraid that the sons of Ham would turn his own sons to idolatry ²⁵.

e) Origin of Identification of Melchizedek with Shem
It is natural to seek the origins of this identification of Melchizedek with Shem. M. Simon²⁶ thinks that it was due to the embarrassment felt by Jews in view of Abraham's paying homage to Melchizedek. If Melchizedek is identified with Shem, then Abraham was merely showing deference to an ancestor. It is doubtful if there was any polemical tendentious intention, anti-Christian or otherwise, in the identification. The identification of Melchizedek with Shem, in any event, may well pre-date Christianity. R. Ishmael takes the identification for granted, and the texts as found in Jewish or Christian sources do not indicate any embarrassment with it. The rabbinic, targumic and patristic texts (especially Jerome) would seem to indicate that the identification arose from chronological considerations on the biblical age attributed to Shem, and the overlap of his life-span with that of Abraham, Isaac and even Jacob²⁷. Providing Melchizedek with a genealogy may have been a contributory factor of course. So too may have the Jewish belief or tradition that all the first-born sons of Noah, before the levitical priesthood began with Aaron, were priests. The identification of two named biblical characters is not proper to Shem-Melchizedek. We have other examples in the Targums, particularly in Tg. Ps.-J. Thus Tg. Ps.-J. identifies Putiel of Exod 6,25 with Jethro (inverting the order: "... one of the daughters of Jethro – he is Putiel") and Phinehas of Num 25,12 with Elijah (although here implicitly, without mention of Elijah's name).

3. The Demotion of Melchizedek's Priesthood in Rabbinical Sources (Ps 110,4)

It has been noted above that in accepting the identification of Melchizedek with Shem R. Ishmael did not have any polemical point to make. The same cannot be said of his statement which follows immediately on this regarding Melchizedek's priesthood. This, he says, was taken away by God from Shem (=Melchisedek) and given to Abram. Shem (=Melchizedek) was a priest but his descendants were not. God transfers the priesthood of Shem (=Melchizedek) to Abraham and addresses Ps 110,1 to him: "Sit on my right hand...", as he also does Ps 110,4: "Your are a priest for ever according to the order of (ytrbd l() Melchizedek", which is interpreted as meaning "on account of what (wrwbyd l() Melchizedek said". The reason for the demotion of Melchizedek's priesthood is seen in Melchisedek having blessed Abram before he uttered his blessing to God Most High. As Petuchowski observes: there can be no doubt that R. Ishmael's reference to Melchizedek is polemical²⁸. But against whom is R. Ishmael's polemic directed?

One possibility is that his target is the Christian understanding of Melchizedek's priesthood, particularly as presented in the Epistle to the Hebrews (especially Heb 7, with the use of Gen 14,17-20 and Ps 110,4). L. Ginzberg believed that it was very likely directed against the Christians, such as the author of Hebrews 7,1-3 and especially Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, 33 and 96) who took Melchizedek to be a type of Jesus²⁹; likewise R. Travers Herford³⁰, P. Billerbeck³¹ and M. Simon³². Others do not consider such a conclusion necessary or warranted. The polemic may have originally been directed against a Jewish (or Samaritan) misuse of Ps 110,4, possibly Hasmoneans, such as Simon. In 1 Macc 14,35.41 we read: "The people saw Simon's faithfulness and the glory that he had resolved to win for his nation, and they made him their leader and high priest. ... The Jews and their high priests resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise". Ps 110, in particular Ps 110,4, would present legitimization for the Hasmonean union of royalty and kingship in the one person of Simon and his successors. The Hasidim strongly objected to Simon's exercise of the high priesthood. The rift between the Pharisees and the Hasmoneans is dwelt on at length by Josephus (Ant. 13). An anti-Hasmonean interpretation of Ps 110 may have originated already in the second century BCE, in an effort to undermine this particular use of the psalm. This interpretation of the psalm would have been transmitted in Pharisaic and later in early rabbinic tradition. In this case R. Ishmael's interpretation would in origin have been pre-Christian, rather than anti-Christian, although he may have used it in an anti-Christian polemic. This view has been put forward by J.J. Petuchowski³³.

4. Jewish Interpretation of Psalm 110 according to Antiochene and Early Irish Tradition

According to R. Ishmael's viewpoint, in Ps 110 the Lord addresses Abraham, and the psalm is interpreted as referring to him. This view is also found in other rabbinic texts³⁴. In this interpretation Ps 110,1-3 would refer to Abraham's campaign against the four kings (Gen 14)³⁵. We do not know how widely this particular view was held in Jewish circles in the fourth century. It does not appear to have left much trace in Christian sources. Jerome, living and writing in Palestine, makes no mention of it. However, matters appear to have been different in Antioch on the Orontes, at least among scholars of the exegetical school founded by Diodorus, later bishop of Tarsus (died ca. 390). Diodorus himself seems to have written a commentary on the Psalms, and in the opinion of a number of patristic scholars the work has recently been identified in hitherto unpublished manuscripts. Only part of this newly identified commentary (on Pss 1–50) has as yet been published³⁶. One of the best known scholars of the Antiochene school was Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428). He wrote a very well known commentary on the Psalms in Greek, which was translated into Latin by Julian of Eclanum. Portions of the Greek text and of Julian's full translation have come down to us. For the greater part, however, the Latin is known only through an Epitome of it. The Latin texts, whether full commentary or Epitome, have been transmitted mainly through Irish sources³⁷. In the most complete of the manuscripts (MS Milan, Ambrosiana C. 301 inf.), from ca. 800, the Latin text is heavily glossed in Old Irish.

As is well known, Theodore interpreted only four psalms (Pss 2;8; 44 [45]; 109 [110]) as direct prophecies of Christ. No copy of the Greek text of Theodore's commentary on Ps 109 (110) has come down to us, nor has any part of the full Latin translation.

All we have is the Epitome of the Latin translation. The introductory words inform us that the Lord himself in the Gospel interpreted this Psalm of himself to the Pharisees. The exposition, which is not extensive, interprets the entire psalm of Christ, and introduces a theological element on the relationship of the Son, or of Verbum, to the Father. In the comment on the opening words Dixit Dominus Domino up to meis in the Epitome two interpretations of the Jews are rejected: one taking the speaker as Abraham's servant, the other as David, describing what God had said to Abraham at the time he was prepared for war³⁸.

The Irish glosses, as is usual, concentrate on bringing out the meaning of the Latin text³⁹. One (Ml 127d3) identifies Abraham's servant as ‘a servant who went from Abraham to woo Rebecca for Isaac.' The next gloss (Ml 127d4) interprets v. 1, with Abraham's servant as the intended speaker: Dixit .i. seruus (the speaker is Abraham's servant); dominus .i. deus pater (that is, Abraham's servant said that God the Father said); domino .i. abrachae (that is, the lord who is addressed is Abraham). The gloss goes on to note (as the Latin Epitome being glossed does) that such an interpretation is false. The next gloss (Ml 127d5) tells what the understanding would be if David were speaker (corresponding to the second Jewish interpretation of the Epitome): the subject of dixit is David; Dominus is Deus Pater; domino is Abraham, that is, David said (in this Psalm): God the Father said to Abraham, David's master. With the Latin Epitome, the gloss adds: ‘such an understanding, indeed, is error.'

5. Jewish Interpretation of Psalm 110 according to Justin Martyr

According to Justin Martyr (Dialogue, 33) the Jews understood this psalm as speaking of King Hezekiah. No such interpretation is attested in our extant rabbinic sources⁴⁰. Possibly Justin was led to believe that Jews held this opinion on Ps 110, since he knew that they interpreted as referring to Hezekiah other texts taken by Christians as messianic. Some rabbinic texts understand Ps 110 of David, as a ruler in history⁴¹. Then there were others who interpreted the Psalm of the end times: as referring to the Messiah himself or to David and his role in the new eschatological age, or of the eschatological age without mention of any Messiah⁴².

6. The Treatment of Melchizedek References in Tg. Psalm 110

The Targum of Psalms is known to exist in fourteen manuscripts. Linguistically scholars date the work as late, from the seventh-ninth centuries. The text was published in the second Rabbinic Bible (1525), printed by Daniel Bomberg (given siglum B), and reproduced in later printed editions. The text of MS Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense 116-Z-40 (siglum M) was edited by L. Dнez Merino. There has been no critical edition of the entire work, although E. White has made a critical edition of the first two books of the Psalter (Pss 1–41; 42–72⁴³. Dr. David Steck, of the University of Sheffield, is preparing an English translation from the manuscripts, and also preparing a critical edition of the Aramaic text of the Targum⁴⁴. He uses four manuscripts (Cambridge, Cambridge University Library Ee. 5.9 = siglum C; Paris, BNF Hйb. 17 = siglum P¹⁷; Paris BNF Hйb. 110 = siglum P¹¹⁰; Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3231 = siglum Pm) and the two printed texts. These six witnesses represent 3 distinct text types: 1) C P¹⁷ Pm; 2) M P¹¹⁰; 3) B. The base text used by D. Steck for his translation is MS Paris, BNF Hйb. 17 (P¹⁷).

A feature of Targums of Psalms (like the related Targum of Job) is that within the text itself alternative renderings are given, under the heading "Another translation".

Despite variation among the text types, the central form of translation seems to be the same in all. The Targum carries the heading, as in the HT: "By David. A psalm". The speaker of the psalm is taken as David, who is being addressed by the Lord, and the contents of the translation of v. 1 indicate that the Lord is speaking to David. Tg. Ps. 110,1 reads as follows:

By David. A psalm. The LORD said in his Memra that he would give me the lordship, because I had sat for the instruction of the Law: "Wait at my right hand, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet". Another Translation: The Lord said in his Memra that he would make me lord over Israel. However, he said to me: "Return and wait for Saul, who is of the tribe of Benjamin, until he dies; for you are not associated with a kingdom that is near ()brqm )twklm; or: "the present kingdom"); and afterwards I will make your enemies a stool for your feet.

As P. Billerbeck has noted, this interpretation of v. 1 is that of R. Juda ben Shallum the Levite (died ca. 370), and is taken from the rabbinic Midrash on Psalms (Ps 110, par. 5)⁴⁵.

It is not quite clear what the Lord's words to David, telling him that he is not associated with a kingdom that is near, are intended to mean. There may possibly be an eschatological reference. In any event, the key text of v. 4 (MT: "a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek") practically disappears in translation, and the Targum gives the non-historical, eschatological, understanding of the verse. It reads (without significant variation in the texts):

The LORD has sworn and will not relent: "You are appointed as chief for the world to come, on account of (Nygb; MP110 llgb) the merit that you have been a righteous king".

y)kz Kylm tywhd )twkz (llgb) Nynb yt)d )ml(l )brl ynmtm )t)d Tg.Ps.
qdc-yklm  ytrbd-l( Mlw(l Nhk  ht) HT

The exact traditions behind this rendering remain to be identified. While all mention of Melchizedek appears to be lost, the rendering is modelled on the Hebrew text. The Hebrew Nhk, "priest" (originally designating Melchizedek), is rendered as )br, "prince", the term used in the Targums of the Pentateuch to render Nhk of the Hebrew text when a respected, non-Jewish, priest is in question, for instance Putiphar (Gen 41,45.50; 46,20), priest of On, and Jethro (Exod 3,1; passim), priest of Midian. The following word, Mlw(l, "for ever" is paraphrased as "the world to come". The words ytrbd-l( ("according to the order of"?), somewhat in the tradition of R. Ishmael, is taken as if it meant "because", while qdc yklm is paraphrased (as in Tg. Ps.-J.) as "a just king".

7. "... he (Melchizedek) went out to meet Abram" (Tg. Ps.-J. v.18)

This observation is found only in Tg. Ps.-J. It is not in the HT, in the LXX or in the other Targums. In the translation of this verse Tg. Ps.-J. has inserted what has been said with regard to the king of Sodom in v. 17. Tg. Ps.-J.'s added detail is interesting in that it is also found in Heb 7,1. The author of Hebrews may have been influenced by targumic or Hebrew tradition, although this is not required by the evidence⁴⁶.

8. The Offering of Bread and Wine (v. 18a)

The targumic renderings seem to exclude any liturgical-sacrificial interpretation of Melchizedek's action. All the Targums translate the HT )y(wh by q[y]p), the aphel of qpn. With regard to the objects brought out, Tgs. Onq., Neof. and Ps.-J., with the LXX, and Pal. Syr, with the HT have "bread and wine". The Frg. Tg.P has "food and wine"; 1QapGen has "food and drink" (ht#$mw lk)m), indications of the hospitality on Melchizedek's part.

9. Melchizedek's Priesthood; Melchizedek a High Priest?

Melchizedek was a priest of El-Elyon (Gen 14,18), Nwyl( l)l Nhk. That Melchizedek was a priest was not denied by R. Ishmael, whose point was that his priesthood (namely that of Shem) was transferred to Abraham. The biblical statement that Melchizedek was a priest is repeated in such texts as 1QapGen 22.15; the LXX; Josephus, Ant. 1.180; War 6.438; Philo, Leg. all. 3.79,82; De congr. 18.99. Likewise the Syro-Palestinian translation and Frg. Tg.^VNL ("He was priest of God Most High"). See also Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg.^P both of which say Melchisedek was a priest, and add a reference to his having served in the high priesthood. We shall return presently to these texts.

Some targumic texts speak of a high priesthood with regard to Melchizedek ⁴⁷ (=Shem). With regard to Shem (and by implication Melchizedek) we may note Tg 1 Chr 1,24 where Shem of the HT is paraphrased as "Shem the high priest" ()br )nhk M#$)⁴⁸.

The title "high priest" for Melchizedek may be an old one⁴⁹. However, Melchisedek is not so called in any of the Targums of Gen 14,18, although the designation "high priest" does occur in Pal. Tg. texts. In two texts, however (Frg. Tg.^P and Tg. Neof.) Melchizedek is called "a priest ... who served in the high priesthood".

The words "high priest" (lwdgh Nhkh) are found only two or three times in the entire Pentateuch (Num 35,25.28, and possibly 35,32, see the Greek and Samaritan Pentateuch). In the Pal. Tg. (Tg. Neof.) the title "high priest" occurs a limited number of times, sometimes in free paraphrase, but mostly as a slight expansion of a term in the biblical text. Thus in Tg. Neof. Exod 21,14: "[And if] a man [wilfully attacks] another to kill him treacherously, even if he is the high priest who stands and serves at my altar, you shall take him from there and you shall kill him" (an expansion of the HT: " ...kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar..."). It also occurs as an expansion in Tg. Neof. Lev. 21,1, in a context speaking of the sons of Aaron: "The high priest shall not make himself unclean..." (MT: "No one shall make himself unclean"). In Tg. Neof. Deut 26,3 "the priest who is in office at that time" is expanded in Tg. Neof. as "the high priest who is in office at that time". In the Book of Numbers Tg. Neof. introduces the designation on a number of occasions. Aaron is called "the high priest" at Num 4,16.28.33; there is mention of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, "the high priest" (17,2.4; 26,1); Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the "high priest" (25,11); an unnamed "high priest" (4,20; 35,32)⁵⁰.

In the paraphrase of Gen 14,18 Tg. Neof. and also in Frg. Tg.^P Melchisedek is not directly called a high priest, but is said to have served in the high priesthood. Thus in Frg. Tg.^P: "... he was priest of the Most High ... and stood and ministered in the high priesthood ()tbr )twnhkb #$m#$mw My)q) before God Most High". Likewise in Tg. Neof.: "he was a priest ministering in the high priesthood before God Most High ()hl( )hl) Mdq htbr [h]tnhkb #$m#$m Nhk hwh)".

A priest ministering in the high priesthood is equivalently called high priest. With regard to the term "priest" and this expression "high priesthood" in Tg. Neof. we may note that Neof. reserves the terms for Aaron and his sons, and for Melchizedek⁵¹. The respected non-Jewish Putiphar, priest of On, and Jethro, priest of Midian, each is called a "prince" (hbr); see Tg. Neof. Gen 41,45.50 (also in Tg. Cairo Genizah MS E and 41,45 in Frg. Tg.^P); 46,20; Exod 3,1, etc. The Egyptian priests are called )yrmwkё a term reserved for non-Jewish priests (see Tg. Neof. Gen 47,22.26).

The expression "high priesthood" occurs only once in Tg. Onq., that is at Num 16,10, where it is found in all the Tgs. of the Pentateuch, namely Tgs. Onq., Neof. and Ps.-J. where God's words to the sons of Korah "... you yet seek the priesthood, hnhk-Mg Mt#$qbw, as well", are rendered as "you wish to assume (Tg. Neof.; Tg. Onq. "you seek") the high priesthood also". It may be that the this phrase once occurred more widely in Tg. Onq., and was later deleted.

The term "priesthood", hnhk, occurs eight times in the Hebrew Pentateuch, twice in Exodus (29,9; 40,15) and six in Numbers (Num 3,10; 16,10; 18,1.7.7; 25,13), and only in two of those (Exod 40,15; Num 16,10) does Tg. Neof. expand with the addition of "high". In Tg. Neof. there are 32 occurrences of the term "priesthood" (hnwhk), and in 22 of these the term is qualified as "high"⁵². Of these texts only two are extant in the Frg. Tgs., namely Gen 14,8 (P) and Exod 1,21 (PVN) and here, too, we have the addition "high". A free Palestinian Targum midrash on Gen 49,3 says that the high priesthood was originally destined for Reuben, Jacob's first-born but, because of his sin, the high priesthood was given to Levi (Tg. Neof. Gen 49,3; also Frg. Tgs.^PVN, and possibly a Cairo Genizah Pal. Tg. text, M. Klein's MS Z)⁵³.

The text corresponding to "high priesthood" of Pal. Tg. Gen 49,3 in BerR 98,4 speaks simply of "priesthood"⁵⁴. It must be noted that the frequent use of the phrase "high priesthood" in Tg. Neof. (and the Pal. Tgs) is regarded by some as an indication of late origin for these texts⁵⁵. The matter requires more detailed study before a firm conclusion can be reached. An argument favouring a later date for the designation in Tg. Neof. and the few texts of Frg. Tg. might be drawn from the Cairo Genizah text of Tg. Gen 40,13.15 in Klein's MS E, parchment (considered "early", that is, 9^th–10^th to mid-11^th century), where the text is the same as Tg. Neof. but in both instances lacks the adjective "high"⁵⁶. MS Z, with the added term "high", in paper, is dated as "middle", that is mid-11^th to late 14^th century.

Tg.Onq. Gen 14, 18 does not render the HT word "priest" at all. It translates: "Now Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, brought out bread and wine, and he was ministering (#$ym#$m; mesammes, pael participle) before God Most High". It may be that Tg. Onq.'s translation is intentional, possibly occasioned by a view such as that of R. Ishmael. Elsewhere Tg. Onq. gives a careful rendering of the Hebrew word Nhk in keeping with the context. In Gen 41,45.50, 46,21 Putiphar, priest (Nhk) of On (of the MT) is called )br, "prince". The other pagan priests (HT: Mynhk) of Egypt are called )yrmk. In Exod 2,16; 3,1; 18,1 Jethro, the priest (Nhk) of Midian is translated as )br, "prince". In Exod 19,6 Mynhk is rendered in Tg. Onq. as )ynhk. In all references to Aaron the priest (Nhk) and to the sons of Aaron, the priests (Mynhk), Tg. Onq. renders by the cognate Aramaic terms Nhk, )ynhk. The failure to make explicit reference of Melchizedek's priesthood in Gen 14,18 may be due to the rabbinic discussions on the matter. While #$m#$ (sammes) is a regular term for the exercise of the priesthood, its occurrence here is not a sufficient explanation for the omission of a translation of Nhk of the HT.

On the other hand, it must be noted that in Gen 14,18 Tg. Onq. uses the verbal form (#$ym#$m; mesammes, participle from verb #$m#$) which he regularly uses elsewhere to translate the verb Nhk (kahen) of the HT, "to act as priest" (in the Levitical priesthood; in the priesthood of Aaron). Thus in Exod 28,1.3.4.41; 29,1.44; 30,30; 31,10; 35,19.41; 40,13.15; Lev 7,35; 16,32; Num 3,3.4; Deut 10,6. It appears that in Gen 14,18 Tg. Onq. has read kohen, "priest", of the HT as the verb kahen, "to act as priest", "to exercise the priesthood", and translates this verb as he does elsewhere. While it is possible that Tg. Onq.'s translation is due only to exegetical considerations, it is hard to avoid the impression that it is tendentious, and that he has rendered as he did on ideological grounds⁵⁷.

In Gen 14,18, in the rendering of the HT Nhk we may note, Tg. Ps.-J. follows Tg. Onq. (#$m#$m).

IV. The blessing and the Tithes (Tgs Gen 14,19-20)

Hebrew Text

rm)yw whkrbyw (19)
Mrb) Kwrb
Cr)w Mym#$ hnq Nwyl( l)l
Nwyl( l) Kwrbw (20
Kdyb Kyrc Ngm-r#$)
lkm r#$(m wl-Ntyw

Targum Onqelos⁵⁸

rm)w hykrbw (19)
Mrb) Kyrb
)(r)w )ym#$ hynynqd h)ly( l)l
h)ly( l) Kyrbw (20)
Kdyb K)ns rsm yd
)lwkm )rs( Nm dx hyl bhyw

Targum Neofiti

rm)w hyty Kyrbw (19)
Mrb) )wh Kyrb
 )(r)w yym#$ hnq hyrmymbd h)ly( )hl) Mdq
Kmdq Kbbd yl(b rbt yd )yl( )hl) )wh Kwrbw (20)
hlk Nm hr+( Nm dx hl bhyw

Targum Neofiti marg

For h)ly( )hl) Mdq it has the reading:	)yl( )hl)l
Fragment Targums	None extant

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

[r]m)w hykrbw (19)
h)ly( )ql) [space for one letter in text] Nm Mrb) Kyrb
)(r)w )ym#$ )nq )yqydc Nygbd
 )txm lbqmd )syrtk K)ns db(d h)ly( )ql) Kyrbw (20)
byt)d hm lkm )r#$( Nm dx hyl bhyw

1. The Blessings (Tgs. Gen 14,19-20a)

For the first part of verse 19 (NRSV: "Blessed be Abram by God [l)l] Most High"), Tg. Onq. follows the HT faithfully (l)l), which we may (with R. Grossfeld) render "before God Most High". We have the same variant reading in Tg. Neof. marg, )yyly( )hl)l, "to God Most High", which we may possibly render "before God Most High". Tg. Neof. renders in its usual fashion "before, Mdq (God Most High)". Tg. Ps.-J. has Nm, lit. "from", followed by a space, "God Most High", where we can presume that the original reading was Mdq Nm, "from before", or simply "before".

The second part of v. 19, HT Cr)w Mym#$ hnq is differently understood in the various Targums, especially with regards to the understanding of hnq. Tg. Onq. understands as "possess" and renders "[God Most High] whose possessions are heaven and earth". The Pal. Tgs. understand hnq as "create", but differ in their paraphrases. Tg. Neof. renders (both here and in v. 22) as: "[God Most High] who by his Memra created the heavens and the earth". This is quite in keeping with Tg. Neof.'s frequent references to the Memra of the Lord, and to the creation of the world through God's Memra⁵⁹. Tg. Ps.-J., both here and in v. 22, considers another aspect of God's work of creation, paraphrasing as: "God Most High, who created the heavens and the earth for the sake of the righteous". Creation of the world for the sake of the righteous is a theme found in intertestamental literature, and in targumic and rabbinical theology as well⁶⁰.

In v. 20a Tg. Onq. follows the HT faithfully, rendering Ngm (miggen; NRSV: "delivered") as "delivered"⁶¹. Tg. Neof., remains relatively faithful to the HT, "who has crushed (rbt) your enemies before you". Tg. Ps.-J. seems to have seen a connection between Ngm and magen, "shield", and renders rather freely as: "who has made those who hate you like a shield that receives a blow". A similar connection seems to be made in a comment on the verse in BerR 43,8: "R. Huna interpreted: Who hath turned thy weapons (magnun) against thine enemies"⁶².

2. The tithes (Tgs Gen 14,20b)

The HT is quite ambiguous with regard to which of the pair (Melchizedek or Abram) paid the tithes to the other: "And he gave him a tithe of everything". The ambiguity is left intact in the LXX, Pal. Syr., Tgs. Onq.⁶³ and Neof.

Tg. Ps.-J. is quite clear that it was Abram who paid the tithe: "And he gave him a tithe of all that he had brought back". 1QapGen (22,17) is clearly along the same lines: "And he gave him a tithe of all the flocks of the king of Elam and his confederates".

In the context of the reading of the Bible in the Hellenistic and Roman periods we have examined the manner in which the biblical Melchizedek tradition is presented in the Targums and in related rabbinical and early Christian tradition. Targums, Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, were in the process of formation from the Hellenistic period onwards, and continued to develop during the Roman period and later. While the Targums containing the Melchizedek material (Tg. Gen 14,18-20; Tg. Ps 110) are known only from manuscripts later than the Roman period, the tradition they represent is older, and must be considered not as a single unified whole but possibly varying from one item to another.

A Jewish tradition, first attested as words of R. Ishmael (ca. 130 CE), interpreting Ps 110 of Abraham and regarding the priesthood of Melchizedek as having been transferred to Abraham, may not have originated in an anti-Christian polemic, but may possibly be much older, and as exegesis may have been directed against the Hasmoneans in the second century BCE, although it would also have been used later in an anti-Christian polemic. The Pal. Tg. identification (Gen 14,18) of Melchizedek with Shem, the son of Noah, accepted without question by R. Ishmael, appears to be an old tradition, probably originating before the Christian era. Its origins do not appear to have been polemic. Rather are they to be found in the biblical data on Shem's life-span, that would have stretched into the lifetime of Jacob. The identification was facilitated by another Jewish tradition that all firstborn sons before the priesthood of Aaron were priests. Providing Melchizedek with a genealogy may also have been a factor, even though this factor is not presented prominently in rabbinic or related Christian tradition.

The Targums have no clear evidence of the identification of the Valley of Shaveh (Gen 14,17). The Palestinian Targum tradition is here unstable. Tg. Neof. identifies it as the Valley of the Gardens (or of pardesaya), which may not be original, since all Pal. Tg. texts have so identified the Valley of Siddim earlier in the chapter (Gen 14,3.8.10).

In the Roman Canon of the Mass Melchizedek is called a high priest. This may be an old tradition, possibly even of Jewish origin. In Tg. 1 Chron 1,24 Shem is called a high priest, and the identification of Melchizedek with Shem may form a basis for a similar early Jewish title for Melchizedek. In Palestinian Targum texts (Tg. Neof., Frg. Tg.^P) of Gen 14,18, while Melchizedek is not so designated he is said to be "a priest who served in the high priesthood". It is a matter of debate, however, whether these words "high priesthood" belong to the original, or to an early stratum, of the Targums of the Pentateuch or were introduced only later, even as late as the fifth century if not later still.

The manner in which Melchizedek's priesthood is treated in the Targums is also interesting. All trace of it appears to have disappeared in the Tg. Ps 110 (from the 7^th–8^th centuries?), where Melchizedek even has ceased to be a personal name, but is rendered as "the righteous king". In Gen 14,18 Tg. Onq. treats Nhk (kohen) of the Hebrew Text as a if it were a verb (kahen), and translates simply as "he ministered". This rendering may have arisen from a desire to omit all reference to Melchizedek's priestly status.

The Bible was read in the Roman world by Christians and Jews alike. With regard to Melchizedek it is interesting to see the influence of Targumic-type exegesis on patristic writers. Jerome, writing in Palestine ca. 391-397, draws on Jewish traditions regarding Melchizedek. In the east, in Edessa, Ephrem the Syrian (writing ca. 373) has traditions on Melchizedek extremely similar to those attested in the Palestinian Targums and rabbinic writings, although he makes no reference to any Jewish source. The Jewish tradition was apparently part of his cultural ambiance. Further Jewish interpretations on Psalm 110 (not attested in Jerome) seem to have been known in the school of Antioch. Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428) refers to them, and Theodore's views have been transmitted in early Irish Psalm exegesis.

The Melchizedek tradition we have considered spread from Palestine to influence the reading and understanding of Gen 14,18 and Ps 110 in Edessa in the East and Antioch to the North, and through the writings of Jerome and Theodore of Mopsuestia in central and marginal places in the West. The tradition or traditions or sources enshrined in the Targums probably originated and developed over a number of centuries, possibly from the second century BCE to the sixth or seventh century of our era. Some recent writers speak of the tell-like structure of the Targums, to which we are asked to have sensitivity. The Targums, or sections of them, may well be, as it were, mounds of information, with layers of interpretation from different ages and centuries⁶⁴. This is an approach to targumic tradition that deserves further research, and may have light to throw on the formation and understanding of certain biblical books or blocks of tradition, for instance the Fourth Gospel.

SUMMARY

The essay is introduced by some words on the nature of the Aramaic translations of Gen 14 used in the study (the Tgs. Onq., Pal. Tgs. as in Tgs. Neof. I, Frg. Tgs., Ps.-J.). Tg. Neof. identifies the Valley of Shaveh (Gen 14,17) as the Valley of the Gardens (pardesaya). The value of Tg. Neof.'s evidence here is doubtful. Most Targums retain Melchizedek as a personal name (not so Tg. Ps.-J.). Salem of v. 18 is identified as Jerusalem. Melchizedek is identified as Shem, son of Noah, mainly because of the life-span assigned to Shem in Gen 11. The question of Melchizedek's priesthood in early rabbinic tradition and in the Targums (Tg. Gen 14; Tg Ps. 110) is considered, as is also the use of Jewish targumic-type tradition on Melchizedek in such early Fathers as Jerome, Ephrem, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

NOTES

¹ On this question see in particular A. RODRНGUEZ CARMONA, "La figura de Melquisedec en la literatura targъmica", EstBib 37 (1978) 79-102; J. J. PETUCHOWSKI, "The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek", HUCA 28 (1957) 127-136; ID., "Melchisedech – Urgestalt der Цkumene" in ID., Melchisedech. Urgestalt der Цkumene. Festschrift Th. Herder-Dorneich (Freiburg/B. – Basel – Wien 1979) 11-37; M. SIMON, "Melchisйdech dans la polйmique entre juifs et chrйtiens et dans la lйgende", RHPR 17 (1937) 58-93; ID, Recherches d'Histoire Judйo-Chrйtienne (Paris 1962) 101-126; F.L.HORTON, The Melchizedek Tradition. A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30; Cambridge 1976); C. GIANOTTO, Melchisedek e la sua tipologia. Tradizioni giudaiche, cristiane e gnostiche (sec. II a.C. – sec. III d.C.) (SRivBib; Brescia 1984).

² See further M. MCNAMARA, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 1A; Collegeville 1992) 11-12 (with further references). These citations of the Pal. Tgs. from different sources have been edited by R. GRIСУ, "Anejo I", Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series IV. Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum. I. Genesis (ed. A. DНEZ MACHO) (Madrid 1988) 413-435.

³ See S. KAUFMAN, "Dating the Languages of the Palestinian Targums and Their Use in the Study of First Century Texts", The Aramaic Bible, Targums in Their Historical Context (JSOTSS 166; Sheffield 1994) 118-140, esp. 129-130.

⁴ J. A. FITZMYER, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. A Commentary (Rome ²1971) 173-174.

⁵ )npm r#$yml. I render as if from the root ynp/)np, "to empty", )npm, "vacancy" (M. JASTROW, A Dictionary of Targumim the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [New York 1950] 821), hnpm Mwqm (Hebrew), "a vacant place". Thus the Aramaic )npm r#$ym would mean "a vacant/empty plain"; GIANOTTO, Melchisedek, 105, renders as "pianura sgombra"; R. LE DЙAUT, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Genиse (SC 245; Paris 1978) 163, translates Tg. Ps.-J. as: "plaine dйgagйe". B. GROSSFELD, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 6; Wilmington 1988) 68, 69, n. 13, renders as "levelled" (plain); so also M. MAHER, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1B; Collegeville 1992) 58, an understanding of the verb also given in J. LEVY, Chaldдisches Wцrterbuch ьber die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums (Leipzig ³1867-1868; repr. Kцln 1959) 273: "Gen 14,17 )npm r#$ym ein geebneter Plan, d. h. auf dem sich kein Hinderniss findet". Jastrow also, we may note (A Dictionary, 1188), renders the Aramaic passive participle )npm as "clear, levelled" (with reference to Tg. Gen 14,18).

⁶ On this see J.T. MILIK, "‘Saint-Thomas de Phordesa' et Gen. 14,17", Bib 42 (1961) 77-84.

⁷ MILIK, "‘Saint-Thomas", 81. In note 4 Milik shows that he is aware of a problem; he remarks that this place is not Myd+ qm(, situated south of the Dead Sea, translated also in Tg. Neof. as )ysdrp r#$ym. He has not, however, given attention to the question of the instability of the Pal. Tg. texts with regard to the translation of hw#$ qm(.

⁸ Edited GRIСУ, "Anejo I", 419.

⁹ On Gen 14, 8, see S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Pars I. Opera exegetica. Hebraicae quaestiones in Libro Geneseos [...] (CChrSL 72; Turnhout 1959) 18 (repr. of Hieronymi Questiones hebraicae in libro Geneseos [ed. P. DE LAGARDE] [Leipzig 1868]). The actual Greek words of Aquila and Theodotion given by Jerome are not quite certain: the forms differ in the editions of Vallarsi (reproduced in J.-P. Migne; PL 23, Paris 1865) and De Lagarde. The difficulty regarding the Greek words does not affect the argument: Jerome understood them to mean "pleasant groves". In the Vulgate Jerome translates the valley of Siddim as Vallis silvester, "the woodland valley". For an English trans. see C.T.R. HAYWARD, Saint Jerome's Hebrew Questions on Genesis. Translated with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford 1995) 46 (text translated that edited by D. Vallarsi, reproduced in Migne's PL 23; P. de Lagarde's edition, Hayward regards as inferior), 156 (with Hayward's notes, with full targumic and rabbinic references for this Jewish tradition on the identification of Melchizedek with Shem).

¹⁰ Using the edition of The Bible in Aramaic based on Old Manuscripts and printed texts. Vol. I. The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos (ed. A. SPERBER) (Leiden 1959; repr. 1992), I, 20.

¹¹ See R. LE DЙAUT, "Le titre de summus sacerdos donnй a Melchisйdechest-il d'origine juive?", RSR 50 (1962) 222-229, at 224, n. 11: Tg. Neof.'s mlk) s[dq "compromis malheureux entre mlky s[dq and mlk) s[dyq)?"); J.A. FITZMYER, "‘Now this Melchizedek...' (Heb 7,1)", CBQ 23 (1963) 309-313, esp. 309, 312, n. 32 (=Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [London 1971] 227-230, esp. 227, 230, n. 32) renders qd( )klm of Tg. Neof. as "the upright king".

¹² For literature on this question see GIANOTTO, Melchisedek, 17, n. 28.

¹³ W.F. ALBRIGHT, "Abram the Hebrew. A New Archaeological Interpretation," BASOR 163 (1961) 36-54, esp. 52, has proposed that Gen 14,18 should be read as "ы-Malkо-s[йdeq mйlek s\elфm<o4h> hфs[о' lйh[em wa-yбyin, ‘And Melchizedek, a king allied to him, brought out bread and wine'". The expression melek s\elomoh would mean "a king of his alliance" (literally "of his peace") (cf. Ps 41,10 (|+s\ s\^elo+m|+ literally ‘man of my peace'; NRSV: "my bosom friend"). Albright's emendation has not been generally accepted; see GIANOTTO, Melchisedek, 15-16, n. 18.

¹⁴ S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera, 18, on Gen 14,18-19; English trans., HAYWARD, Saint Jerome's Hebrew Questions, 47.

¹⁵ Thus P. WINTER, "Note on Salem-Jerusalem", NT 2 (1957) 151-152.

¹⁶ Thus Jerome in Epist. 73.7-8: Salem autem non, ut Iosephus et nostrorum omnes arbitrantur, esse Hierusalem, nomen ex Graeco Hebraeoque conpositum, quod absurdum esse peregrinae linguae mixtura demonstrat, sed oppidum iuxta Scythopolim, quod usque hodie appellatur Salem, et ostentatur ibi palatium Melchisedech ex magnitudine ruinarum ueteris operis ostendens magnificentiam;de quo in posteriori quoque parte Geneseos scriptum est: uenit Iacob in Soccoth, id est, in tabernacula, et fecit sibi ibi domos atque tentoria, et transiuit in Salem, ciuitatem regionis Sichim, quae est in terra Chanaan. Considerandum quoque, quod Abrahae a caede hostium reuertenti, quos persecutus est usque Dan, quae hodie Paneas appelatur, non deuia Hierusalem, sed oppidum metropoleos Sichim in itinere fuerit, de quo in euangelio quoque legimus: erat autem Ioannes baptizans in Aenon iuxta Salim, quia aquae multae erant ibi. Nec refert, utrum Salem, an Salim nominetur, cum uocalibus in medio litteris perraro utantur Hebraei et pro uoluntate lectorum ac uarietate regionum eadem uerba diuersis sonis atque accentibus proferantur. Cf., Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae. Pars II: Epistulae LXXI-CXX (ed. I. HILBERG) (CSEL 55, Vienna ²1996) 20-21; PL 22, 680). Likewise in Aetheria's Ad Loca sancta peregrinatio in Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi III – IV (ed. P. GEYER) (CSEL 39; Vienna 1898) 55; also Eusebius, Onomastikon, in Eusebius Werke. III.1. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen (ed. E. KLOSTERMANN) (GCS; Leipzig 1904) 40 (Greek text), 153 (Jerome's translation): "Salem ... in octauo quoque lapide a Scythopoli in campo uicus Salumias appellatur".

¹⁷ See further C. GIANOTTO, Melchisedek, 51-58, 54-56, for Abraham, Melchizedek and Mount Garizim.

¹⁸ On Shem and Melchisedek see J. BOWKER, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969) 196-199; R. LE DЙAUT, Genиse, 163-165 (notes on Tgs. Gen 14,14-24) and literature cited there.

¹⁹ The same identification is also assumed by BerR 43,6; WaR 4,8; ARN 2; PRE 8,2. The principal rabbinic texts have been collected and commented on in the articles on "Melchizedek" and "Shem" in Jewish Encyclopaedia (New York 1904-1905), VIII, 450, and IX, 261.

²⁰ Critical edition: Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii (ed. R.M.TONNEAU) (CSCO 152; Louvain 1955) 68 (Syriac text); English trans. by G. Mathews, Jr. and J.P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works. Commentary on Genesis [...] (ed. K. MCVEY) (FaCh 91; Washington 1994) 151, with a note saying that Ephrem makes the same identification of Melchizedek with Shem in Armenian Hymns 9.11-12. (Ephrem's text is cited below in the section III, 2d.)

²¹ Text in PG 41, 981; Epiphanius. Panarion haer. 34 – 64. (eds. K. HOLL – J. DUMMER) (GCS; Berlin ²1980), II, 331.

²² In the translation of HAYWARD, Saint Jerome's Hebrew Questions, 47.

²³ For instance HORTON, The Melchizedek Tradition, 115-116; GIANOTTO, Melchisedek, 110.

²⁴ Critical edition and English translation as at n. 20 above; for arguments for Ephrem's authorship of the work, see St. Ephrem the Syrian, 62–65. If genuine, Mathews and Amar would date the work towards the end of Ephrem's life (373). On Jewish influence on Ephrem see P. FЙGHALI, "Influence des Targums sur la pensйe exйgиtique d'Ephrem?", OCA 229 (1984) 71-82. See also D. GERSON,"Die Commentarien des Ephraem Syrus im Verhдltnis zur jьdischen Exegese: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese", MGWJ 17 (1868) 15-33, 64-72, 98-109, 141-149; S. HIDAL, Interpretatio Syriaca. Die Kommentare des hl. Ephrдm des Syrers zu Genesis und Exodus mit besonderer Berьcksichtigung ihrer Auslegungsgeschichtlichen Stellung (ConB.OT 6; Lund 1974); see also R.TONNEAU, "Moпse dans la tradition Syrienne", H. CAZELLES et al., Moпse, l'homme de l'alliance (Paris 1955) 242-254; S. P. BROCK, "Jewish traditions in Syriac Sources", JJS 30 (1979) 212-232.

²⁵ In English trans. of G. Mathews, Jr. and J.P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian, 151 (italics as in English trans.). See the discussion of the Shem tradition of the text in HIDAL, Interpretatio Syriaca, 116-118.

²⁶ SIMON, "Melchisйdek dans la polйmique", 61-62.

²⁷ See PETUCHOWSKI, "The Controversial Figure", 129. For the evidence in the Palestinian Targums see pp. 13-14 above.

²⁸ PETUCHOWSKI, "The Controversial Figure", 129.

²⁹ L. GINZBERG, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia 1925), V, 226, n. 104.

³⁰ R. TRAVERS HERFORD, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London 1903) 265 and 338-340.

³¹ P. BILLERBECK, "Der 110. Psalm in der altrabbinischen Literatur. Zu Mt 22, 43ff. u. Hebr 5,6", STR-B IV, 452-465, at 459-460.

³² M. SIMON, "Melchisйdech dans la polйmique", 58-93, who also considers that Church Fathers such as Justin are the intended target.

³³ PETUCHOWSKI, "The Controversial Figure", 127-136, at 130-136; ID., "Melchisedech", 18 (noting that J. Heinemann had put forward compelling arguments that the polemic was directed against the Samaritans; with reference to J. HEINEMANN, Nhytwdlwtw twdg) [Jerusalem 1974] 98-102).

³⁴ Texts in BILLERBECK, "Der 110. Psalm", 456.

³⁵ See BILLERBECK, "Der 110. Psalm", 455-456.

³⁶ Diodori Tarsensis commentarii in Psalmos. I. Comentarii in Psalmos I–L (ed. princ. curavit J.-M. OLIVIER) (CCSG 6; Turnhout 1980).

³⁷ Theodori Mopsuesteni Expositionis in Psalmos Iuliano Aeclensi interprete in latinum versae quae supersunt (eds. L. DE CONINCK – M. J. D'HONT) (CChrSL 88A; Turnhout 1977).

³⁸ Cessant ergo falsae opiniones Iudaeorum, qui aut Abrahae serui personam de domino suo loquentem introduci putant, aut ipsum Dauid, quid Deus Abrahae in procinctu belli dixerit, describentem intelligi (Theodori Mopsuesteni Expositionis in Psalmos, 351–352).

³⁹ Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus. A Collection of Old-Irish glosses, Scholia, Prose and Verse (eds. W. STOKES – J. STRACHAN) (Cambridge 1901; repr. Dublin 1975) I; the glosses on Ps 109 (110) 434-437.

⁴⁰ See BILLERBECK, "Der 110. Psalm", 456.

⁴¹ Ibid., 456-457.

⁴² Ibid., 457-458.

⁴³ E. WHITE, A Critical Edition of the Targum of Psalms: A Computer Generated Text of Books I and II (Diss., McGill University; Montreal 1988).

⁴⁴ I use his translation here with the kind permission of Dr. Steck. The information on the manuscript affiliations is also from him.

⁴⁵ See "Der 110. Psalm", 456-457. For the Hebrew text see S. BUBER, Midrasch Tehillim (Wilna 1891; repr., Jerusalem 1966) 466-467; English translation, W.G. BRAUDE, The Midrash on Psalms (YJS; New Haven 1959; ³1976) II, 206-207. We may note that the central interpretation of the Midrash on Psalms understands Ps 110 as referring to Abraham. R. Shallum's interpretation is introduced as "a different explanation".

⁴⁶ GIANOTTO, Melchisedek, 113 thinks that the letter to the Hebrews is here dependent on targumic tradition.

⁴⁷ In the Roman Canon Melchizedek is called a High Priest, summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech. Some scholars believe that this title may be of Jewish origin. I believe that the targumic evidence, because of the problem of formulation (high priesthood rather than high priest) and date, does not help appreciably in the debate. For a thorough examination of the question see LE DЙAUT, "Le titre de Summus Sacerdos donnй а Melchisйdech est-il d'origine juive?", 222-229. On the priesthood of the first-born R. LE DЙAUT, La Nuit Pascale. Essai sur la signification de la Pвque juive а partir du Targum d'Exode XII 42 (AnBib 22; Rome 1963) 85, n. 43.

⁴⁸ Text in R. LE DЙAUT – J. ROBERT, Targum des Chroniques (AnBib 51; Rome 1971) II, 10; French translation R. LE DЙAUT – J. ROBERT, Targum des Chroniques (AnBib 51; Rome 1971), I, 41 (with note 71); English translation (with extensive note) J.S. MCIVOR, The Targum of Chronicles (Aramaic Bible 19; Collegeville 1994) 41.

⁴⁹ LE DЙAUT, "Le titre de Summus Sacerdos", 222-229, esp. 226-229.

⁵⁰ See also Exod 38,21 (Tg. Neof. marg.) Lev 14,26 (Tg. Neof. marg.); 21,4 (Tg. Neof. marg.); Num 31,1 (Tg. Neof. marg.); 31,6 (Tg. Neof. marg.).

⁵¹ See for example Tg. Neof. Exod 31,10; 35,19; 38,21; 39,41.

⁵² For occurrences other than Gen 49,3 see Tg. Neof. Gen 14,18; Exod 1,21; 28,1.3.4.41; 29,1.44; 30,30; 40,13.15; Lev 7,35; 16,32; Num 3,3.4; 16,10; Deut 10,6. We may also add Tg. Neof. marg. Ex 1,21; 31,10; 35,19; Lev 21,4.

⁵³ In a fragment in the Cambridge University Library, MS T.S NS 182.69; ed. with English translation, M. KLEIN, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati 1986), I, 164-165. The word "high" (htbr) is part of lost text, but is apparently required by the length of the line. In his notes and comments on the text in Genizah Manuscripts (Cincinnati 1986) II, 51, Klein remarks that the exegetic connection between high-priesthood and kingship is spelled out in Midrash Tanhuma (ed. S. BUBER) (Wilna 1885; repr. Jerusalem 1964), 218, where the comment is made on the words of HT Gen 49,3 z( rtyw t)#$ rty (NRSV: "excelling in rank and excelling in power"), "there is no rank other than high priesthood (hlwdg hnwhk) and there is no power other than kingship". The date to be assigned to the Tanhuma is uncertain. Zunz dated it to the first half of the ninth century, and so do many modern scholars; others assign an earlier date, for instance around 400 at the latest. See H. L. STRACK – G. STEMBERGER, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh 1991) 332-333.

⁵⁴ Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar (eds. J. THEODOR – CH. ALBECK) (Jerusalem 1965; repr. of Berlin 1912-1936 edition, with corrections) III, 1253; English trans.: Midrash Rabbah. Translated into English, with notes, glossary and indices. Vol. II. Genesis (eds. H. FREEDMAN – M. SIMON) (London 1939, ³1983) 949 (par. 98.4); also J.NEUSNER, Genesis Rabbah. The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis. A New American Translation (Brown Judaic Studies 106; Atlanta 1985) III, 349 (for par. 98.4.1G).

⁵⁵ Thus M. KASHER, "htbr )tnwhk", in Torah Shelemah (Jerusalem 1983) XXXV (=Aramaic Versions of the Bible, II) 170-185 (a detailed examination of the individual occurrences of the phrase in Pal. Tg. texts in Exod, Lev, Num, Deut). So also A. O. H. OKAMOTO, in his doctoral dissertation (Oxford, with G. Vermes as Director): "Codex Neofiti I on the Book of Exodus: its place in the history of Targumic literature" — summarised in A. DНEZ MACHO, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana (Madrid – Barcelona 1968-1978) II, 74*-76*. In his second letter to DНEZ MACHO, ibid., 76*, Okamoto expresses his conviction that the ground for his statement that "N[eof]'s present form appears to reflect layers of revision into [G]eonic times are the following: ... a strong redactionary tendency evident in N[eof.] can not have emerged much earlier 426 A.D. (d. of Rav Ashi), postulating that there had existed the basic Targum". For Okamoto no. 2 of these redactionary elements is: "The recurring phrase bkhwnth rbth (in the high priesthood) has an overtone towards abstraction, which is characteristic of post-Talmudic exegesis; so also are the frequent phrases in N[eof.] such as l-s\my, byt ‘amaleq, byt qwds\' ". See also H. OKAMOTO's later essay, "A Geonic Phrase in MS. Targum Yerushalmi, Codex Neofiti 1", JQR 66 (1976) 160-167. For the dissertation see: H. OKAMOTO, The Historical Significance of the Codex Neofiti, with Special Reference to Exodus (Diss.; Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion; Cincinnati 1974).

⁵⁶ Text and translation in KLEIN, Genizah Fragments, 104-105. For the dating (by Prof. Malachi Beit Ariй) see KLEIN, ibid., xxxvii.

⁵⁷ See GIANOTTO, Melchisedek, 114.

⁵⁸ Using the edition of The Bible in Aramaic, I, 20. A variant reading in Sperber's edition has l) Mdq ("before God") for l)l ("by God").

⁵⁹ Thus Neof. Gen. 1,1; Neof. marg. Gen 2,3; 5,1; 6,7. See further, D. MUСOZ, "Apйndice sobre el Memra de Yahweh en el Ms. Neophyti", A. DНEZ MACHO, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana (Madrid – Barcelona 1973) III, 70**-83**; D. MUСOZ LEON, Dios-Palabra. Memra en los targumim del Pentateuco (Instituciуn san Jerуnimo 4; Granada 1974); R. HAYWARD, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra (Totowa 1981).

⁶⁰ The world created for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all those who were like them (2 Bar 21,14); for the sake of the righteous (4 Ezra 9,13; 2 Bar 14,19; 15,7); on behalf of God's people (Test. Moses 1,12); for the sake of the many, for all mankind (4 Ezra 8,1.44). For the targums see all Pal. Tgs. on Num 22,39 (Tg. Neof., Frg. Tgs.^PVN, Tg. PS.-J.): the world created on account of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; see also A. MARMORSTEIN, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature (London 1920) 108-128.

⁶¹ Migge4n is taken by BDB as a denominative verb (from ma4ge4n, "shield", etc.). The verb is of rare occurrence: in the sense of "deliver up to an adversary", only in Gen 14,20; Hos 11,8; Isa 64,6; in the sense of "deliver", Prov 4,9. The noun magen occurs 33 times, of these in Gen 15,1.

⁶² English trans. in Midrash Rabbah, I, 357. J. Neusner renders: "[Since the word for ‘deliver' yields the same letters that serve for the word for ‘plans or schemes',] R. Huna said: ‘It is that he turned your plans against your enemies'", cf., NEUSNER, Genesis Rabbah, II, 121 (par. 35–67, through Gen 8,15–28,9).

⁶³ B. GROSSFELD, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis. Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 6; Wilmington 1988) 68, without note, renders the Tg. Onq. as: "And blessed be God most High who has delivered your enemy into your hand and has given him [hl bhyw] a tenth of everything". This translation can hardly be accepted; it does not flow. Grossfeld's earlier rendering, with M. Aberbach, was at pains to make the meaning of the text clear by inserting the intended subject of bhy within brackets: "And he (viz. Abram) gave him a tenth of everything" (M. ABERBACH – B. GROSSFELD, Targum Onkelos to Genesis. A Critical Analysis together with an English Translation of the Text [New York 1982] 90).

⁶⁴ See R. GORDON, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets. From Nahum to Malachi (VTS 51; Leiden 1994) 152-53; similarly B. BARRY LEVY, Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study (Studies in Judaism; Lanham 1986-1987) I, 52-76; 131-135 (for Gen 15,1). For a position against such an approach see D. M. GOLOMB, "Methodological Considerations in Pentateuchal Targumic Research", JSPE 18 (1998) 3-25.