Fred L. Horton

Fred L. Horton Jr., The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Paper. Pp. xi + 192. ISBN 0-521-01871-4

Melchizedek is an elusive character. He appears only twice in the Old Testament at Gen 14:18-20 and Ps 110:4. Although these references are almost extraneous, this does not prevent the author of Hebrews from making such a monolithic claim as “being made like the son of God, he remains priest into perpetuity” (Heb 7:3). Why Melchizedek is given so much attention in Hebrews is the question which Horton seeks to address in his modified dissertation.

Chapter 1 begins with outlining the scope of the project. His task is two-fold. First, his aim is to understand why Melchizedek is given so much prominence within Hebrews. Second, he will attempt to trace the growth of the Melchizedek tradition from the OT to fifth century CE to see how Hebrews is positioned in it. The study is divided between background and later sources. The background texts are those that appear prior or contemporaneous to Hebrews. Horton admits he makes no attempt to date the letter, and thus sources such as Philo, Josephus, and Qumran, although contemporaneous, are discussed as background since they may contain prior traditions to Hebrews. The latter sources are divided between Christian heresies, Rabbinic sources, and Gnostic literature. Early patristic leaders are not discussed apart from combating heresies because this would extend Horton’s discussion beyond this study’s parameters. Heresies also provided an optimal place to ascertain the orthodox view. Horton then gives the occasion of his study by surveying the secondary literature on Melchizedek within the fifty years prior. With the discovery and then publishing of 11QMelchizedek in 1965, no full treatment of this text with Hebrews has been made though there was much speculation about a relationship between the two.

Chapter 2 looks at the two OT texts and then draws some conclusions. He is concerned with the theory that Melchizedek reigned in Jerusalem as a priest-king prior to the Israelite conquest. Horton first examines Gen 14:18-20. He concludes that it is an insertion into Gen 14 with the possibility that whoever inserted this text also redacted Gen 14 into its present form. The form of this text is a ‘lay saying’ which blesses Abraham and promises relief from his enemies. Dating this text is nearly impossible, but with a probable date later than P but earlier than the Genesis Apocryphon. Also, the Hebrew is ambiguous as to who gives whom the tithe. Psalms 110:4 is then analyzed. It is a ‘royal Psalm’ which Horton actually dates to the monarchy, possibly a ‘song of victory’ sung upon David’s return to Jerusalem after the Davidic/Ammonite war. Horton proceeds by searching for the historical Melchizedek. He finds that though Melchizedek appears to be an early-sacral king in the Bible, the extra-biblical evidence is lacking. The El-Amarna tablets present pre-Davidic Jerusalem as having a ruler prince, but one who was not a priest who was chosen by Pharaoh. Though this is not definitive, it is evidence against a notion of dynastic succession as well as a sacral-kingship in Jerusalem. Furthermore, Horton argues that although Melchizedek is called a priest in both texts, this probably does not refer to full-fledged duties of Levitical priests. Rather, he claims that when כהן is used to refer to a king, this probably refers to a secular official (equivalent to the Canadian use of the term ‘minister’ which can either refer to a secular or cultic office). Furthermore, there is no firm evidence that Jerusalem used to be called Salem. Horton concludes that the biblical data remembers Melchizedek as a warrior chieftain of Salem designated by the term כהן. He thus finds the evidence weak for Melchizedek as an actual sacral-king ruling pre-Davidic Jerusalem. Furthermore, there is no evidence that indicates that Melchizedek was ever viewed as a divine redeemer as later literature suggests.

The third chapter examines Philo, Qumran, and Josephus. Horton is concerned with a) the exegesis of the above OT passages and b) if there is a Melchizedek tradition which does not stem from an author’s exegesis of the OT. Philo mentions Melchizedek in three places. All three agree that Melchizedek was unlearned and had a self taught priesthood. Next he examines the only two Qumran texts which mention Melchizedek, the Genesis Apocryphon and 11QMelchizedek. The Genesis Apocryphon is a literal translation of Gen 14:18-20 with two modifications. The more important change for this study is the clarification that Melchizedek receives the tithe. The second is the fragmentary text titled 11QMelchizedek which understands him as a superhuman eschatological figure who comes to combat Belial. There is no mention of Melchizedek being a priest in this text, aside from a tentative reconstruction. Finally, Horton examines two Josephus passages. Josephus understands Melchizedek to be a priest who founds the first temple, as well as receives the tithe. Horton then finds two traditions emerging by the end of the first century. The first represented by Philo, Josephus, and Genesis Apocryphon characterized Melchizedek as a historical figure who receives the tithes from Abraham. The second is 11QMelchizedek which understands him as a heavenly, eschatological figure, as well as אלהים.

The early church and the Rabbis are addressed in chapter 4. Horton finds that generally the early church thought of Melchizedek as representing an uncircumcised priesthood, which returned when Jesus arrived. The heresies provide more fertile ground to understand this tradition’s development. The first group analyzed was the Melchizedekians. Surveying all early church literature discussing the group, he finds that the Melchizedians are nothing more than a sect part of the dynamic monarchian movement that lasted for only two decades. They believed that Melchizedek was the highest priest who was mediator to the angels whereas Christ was mediator to the humans. But this belief was secondary to their main Christological beliefs. The second figure is Hierakas the Egyptian who was an ascetic. He was Christologically sound, but understood Melchizedek as the Holy Spirit. Lastly, Horton surveys concerns brought up by Mark the Hermit, Epiphanius, and a tractate called Quaestiones. They seemed to be opposing a group that believed Melchizedek to be of the same nature of Christ. Horton then comes to three conclusions. All three of these movements wrestle with Heb 7 and Psalm 110. They are only connected by understanding Melchizedek as divine. Lastly, there is much less speculation about Melchizedek in Christian circles than suggested. He then turns his attention to the Rabbinic literature where he finds two general trends. First are the texts which refer to Melchizedek and the priesthood. Though the tradition changes over time, what is agreed upon is that Melchizedek passed on something important (whether it was the priesthood or the Torah), but he is secondary to Abraham. The second trend is Melchizedek as an eschatological figure. Though he appears alongside the Messiah in some texts, his role is never elaborated and warrants Horton’s conclusion that he is not fundamental to any Rabbinic eschatological system.

Chapter 5 engages with the Gnostic literature. There are three sources. The first is Kahle Fragment 52 which could be considered a Gnostic midrash on Genesis. Hebrews 7:3 is cited here but its interpretation is not extant. The second and third sources are considered to be part of a developing tradition. They are the Book of Ieû and the Pistis Sophia. Throughout the whole tradition Melchizedek is considered divine. In books I-III of the Pistis Sophia, considered to be the last phase of this process, Melchizedek has the role of collecting light from the aeons, purifying it, and bringing it into the treasury. Eventually this collection of light extends to living souls. Thus Melchizedek is considered to be a redeemer at this stage. There is no clue why the Gnostic tradition considers him divine though.

The final chapter attempts now to understand why Melchizedek has such prominence in Hebrews and why he gains divine status in other literature since he is a minor character. The most common explanation for Hebrews extraordinary use is the Latin principle, quod non in thora non in mundo, which is important for Alexandrian and Rabbinic exegesis. The reading from silence argument is lacking, as Horton points out, because there are other qualified priest/kings in the Torah who meet the description of Heb 7:3. For example Jethro is connected to Moses and the wilderness wandering (which is important for Hebrews) and he too has no mother, no father, nor a genealogy. The principle which unifies the later material together then is that Melchizedek is the first priest of God because he is the first priest mentioned in the Torah. Where Philo and Josephus understand him as self taught and the first priest respectively, this can account for that logic. This also explains why Philo, Josephus, and the Genesis Apocryphon assume that Abraham gives the tithe. He must since Melchizedek is the first priest. For Horton then, the silence of Scripture underscores the originality of Melchizedek’s priesthood. In the Rabbinic tradition, Melchizedek passes on something important to Abraham because he is the first priest. This also explains the relationship between Christ and Melchizedek. The point of comparison is with reference to the priesthood and thus 7:3 could be understood as without benefit of genealogy. Where the Aaronite priesthood claimed supremacy through lineage, Jesus, not descending from the Aaronite priesthood (7:14), is part of a greater priesthood, one according to the order of Melchizedek which requires no privileged lineage. The Christian heresies stem from their exegesis of Heb 7. The Gnostics seem to show no demonstrable link to anything apart from a similarity of Melchizedek making purification also referred to in 11QMelchizedek. Lastly 11QMelchizedek seems like the thought of an isolated religionist.

The above cannot do justice to the amount of material Horton has surveyed as well as the detail used to survey relevant literature. Horton has accomplished his goal well. His careful erudition causes him to take very conservative steps. So if there is no direct literary correspondence between sources, Horton will not posit a connection. This is wise when attempting to reconstruct a tradition rather than stacking arguments upon hypotheses. Furthermore, Horton will in most cases cite primary sources in full (in some cases full Latin for Patristic citations). This allows one to evaluate what Horton is arguing with the texts at hand.

His reconstruction of the two traditions around Melchizedek is well argued. One wonders though why 11QMelchizedek seems to be aberrant. If 11QMelchizedek is the work of an isolated religionist, why come to conclusions that are made? One wonders if assistance can be gleaned from 2 Enoch 71-72 which is a miraculous birth narrative of Melchizedek. Although its manuscripts are late, it may represent an early tradition. Horton dismisses this text by stating it only appears in one recension (81). F. I. Andersen has responded and stated that this tradition appears “in both recensions, in six MSS representing four text families” (“2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) ENOCH in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [vol. 1; ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983] 92). Although it may have a complicated textual history, this has not stopped Horton from addressing similarly complicated textual issues in other texts. So it is unfortunate that he does not interact with it.

This reviewer finds Horton’s principle behind the speculation of Melchizedek quite compelling. If the principle of quod non in thora non in mundo is nascent within ancient Jews, then the omission of כהן up until Melchizedek would appear to be quite striking. Since Melchizedek is the first priest, it is no small wonder that the history of interpretation has understood him as an important figure. One wishes that Horton pressed this issue further. Although Melchizedek is the first person designated as priest in Genesis, how does this relate to other figures which may be considered priests such as Adam, Abel, or Noah? Although they are not labelled priests, they seem to practice some priestly functions. Is there literature from the second temple period which emphasizes these figures as priests? If this were the case, would this in any way affect Horton’s proposal? Can Horton actually claim that for Philo and Josephus Melchizedek is the first priest? Or is it enough to say that he is the first כהן in the Torah?

This book overall is well researched. The way Horton approaches the texts can teach one on how to rightly claim parallels are being made between them. Anyone who attempts to relate Melchizedek in Hebrews to any background sources must first seriously engage with Horton.… (altro)