Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

So far, all of this leaves our interpretive options open somewhat, I think. Fatherless and motherless may mean that Melchizedek was angelic or divine in some way, literally having no parents, or they may merely mean that his father and mother are unknown from (because unrecorded in) scripture.

On this topic, I would note that Philo identifying Melchizedek with the Logos in Legum Allegoriae increases the likelihood that the author of Hebrews really is describing Melchizedek in semi-divine terms. There is also the evidence from 2 Enoch of course, in which Melchizedek is born of a virgin and is taken to Paradise before the flood. In other words, he is given a divine incarnation and spared from death, which corresponds well to Hebrews' "having neither beginning of days nor end of life".

Tenorikuma wrote:

So far, all of this leaves our interpretive options open somewhat, I think. Fatherless and motherless may mean that Melchizedek was angelic or divine in some way, literally having no parents, or they may merely mean that his father and mother are unknown from (because unrecorded in) scripture.

On this topic, I would note that Philo identifying Melchizedek with the Logos in Legum Allegoriae increases the likelihood that the author of Hebrews really is describing Melchizedek in semi-divine terms. There is also the evidence from 2 Enoch of course, in which Melchizedek is born of a virgin and is taken to Paradise before the flood. In other words, he is given a divine incarnation and spared from death, which corresponds well to Hebrews' "having neither beginning of days nor end of life".

Perhaps so. Does the author ever do anything with this Melchizedek figure besides compare him to Jesus? Does he treat Melchizedek as a living, eternal entity who can be dealt with? Are there two powers in heaven: Melchizedek and Jesus?

Ben.

Hard to tell. For all we know, he thinks Melchizedek is the Logos and a superior being to Jesus.

The frustrating thing about Christianity is the sparseness of its early texts. Surely the educated, literate author of Hebrews wrote plenty more than just one epistle. Why didn't anyone save it? Was it heretical?

Tenorikuma wrote:Hard to tell. For all we know, he thinks Melchizedek is the Logos and a superior being to Jesus.

Does it not appear to you that our author has packed all of his eggs into one Jesuine basket? Jesus is the Christ, the son, the firstborn, the one who sits at the right hand, the one through whom the very ages were created, the radiance of the divine glory, the heir of all things. And what is Melchizedek? Insofar as he is without beginning of days or end of life, he has been made like the son; does this not imply a directionality that might aid us in determining which of the two our author might consider the superior, Jesus or Melchizedek?

Tenorikuma wrote:The frustrating thing about Christianity is the sparseness of its early texts. Surely the educated, literate author of Hebrews wrote plenty more than just one epistle. Why didn't anyone save it? Was it heretical?

The loss of so much ancient literature is a plague upon us all.

Ben.