I. INTRODUCTION

 

            The present work is a historical research on the interpretations on the person of Melchizedek. In order to do it, I study the different translations of the Old Testament.[1]

 

            A division of the work is done according to the idea that each different text can offer us. This idea is basically the same one although not necessarily with equal meaning, as we will further see. In fact, many texts want to make the person of Melchizedek their own, or at least to have an important close relationship with him. As a result of this, Melchizedek had a very important role in the history of translation and interpretation, and this is what I intend to present in this work.

 

            Whenever possible, in the main division I follow the historical line, in order to facilitate this reading. So, in the beginning I shortly analyze the Samaritan Pentateuch text, the Book of Jubilees, and the Qumran text. After them I take the Septuagint text and  the Vetus  Latina, together, since this last text, in most of the cases, follows the Septuagint version, and also, the Syriac Version. Then, I present the discussion that the Targums text, the Rabbinic Interpretation, and the Christian Interpretation as the Letter to the Hebrews, offer us and how these three interpretations, give to Melchizedek yet more importance than the old interpretations, giving special place to the priesthood.

 

            To complete this study I present the discussion on source criticism and historicity about chapter 14, but these discussions does not change anything in the conclusion.

 

 

 II. SOURCE CRITICISM

 

      As is generally recognized today, Gen 14 is not derived from any of the usual pentatheucal sources[2] as many authors think. This chapter is not part of J,E, or P. More over, not even the story in that chapter is part of J,E, or P, because it is clear that they interrupt the account of the meeting of Abram with the king of Sodom.

 

            At this point I think as Fitzmayer does, that it is not necessary to support the idea of a later addition as some have tried to argue,[3] but it may be part of an independent poetic saga, as old as the rest of the Genesis 14. Verses 18-20 seem, however, to have been incorporated secondarily into the account of the meeting of Abram with the king of Sodom, because they interrupt the continuity of vv.17 and 21[4].

      

          Several recent commentators (e.g., Emerton, Schatz, Westermann) have argued not only that vv 18–20 are an insertion into a tale of Abram, but that vv 1–11[12] have also been tacked on later. Originally the story only  told of Abram’s defeat of Chedorlaomer and the rescue of Lot. Later on, the campaigns of the Eastern kings were added to the narrative (vv 1–11). In favor of this view, it is noted that Abram is not mentioned before v 13 and that the style of the opening is much terser, more annalistic than later in the chapter. That presupposes that the history of Melchizedek is a later addition to the text.

 

            This gives an isolated and rootless character to these verses which explains some of the details in them, but also shows why Melchizedek appears for a brief moment here and has a little connection with the rest of the text of Genesis 14.[5]

 

      The idiosyncrasies of this chapter have led to very diverse evaluations of its historical worth, some regarding it as based on an old written source, others holding that it was one of the last parts of Genesis to be composed. Generally it has been held that it does not belong to any of the usual pentateuchal sources, but that it comes from a special source. Its annalistic style and international perspective set it apart from J, E, D, or P.

 

      However, it is often held that most of these verses are compiled from two or three originally independent traditions.[6]

      

          But in the other hand we have, at first sight, the text does not look like an insertion. Because, as we have already observed, there are several remarks in Abram’s speech to the king of Sodom that are inexplicable without the Melchizedek interruption. Also Carpenter thinks so, "that the episode of Melchizeck unexpectedly interrupts the interview between Abram and the King of Sodom. It is possible, add he, that 18-20 was a subsequent addition to the story"[7] 

 

       There are also the presence of various glosses, stylistic idiosyncrasies that suggests that it may be based on an older written source, as we can see here for instance the presence of the faith in one God.

 

      The story would, however, lose much of its punch where the introductory verses omitted. And as a conclusion of this point, we can say that, the story of Melchizedek, could be largely of pre-J material, excluding those approaches to the chapter which see it as a later post-exilic midrash with no claim to historicity. Rather it represents old tradition. The presence of various glosses and some stylistic idiosyncrasies suggests that it may be based on an older written source.

 

 

III. DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HISTORICITY OF GENESIS 14:

 

            Would be absolutely impossible to speak about the historicity of Gen 14,18-20 without speaking of the historicity of the whole chapter. I had like to present here, just the general discussion. In fact in Gen 14 the issue of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives is most sharply focused. Throughout most of Genesis the chronology of events is fairly vague, locations are imprecise, and interaction between the patriarchs and gentiles is rare. There is little for either defenders of patriarchal historicity or sceptics to take hold of. The arguments must necessarily rest on fairly general considerations. But Gen 14 is different in that many names of kings, peoples, and places are given. In fact we can see just in Gen 14,18-20 precise names as Melchizedek, as well as precise itineraries of several military campaigns. Here the claim that Abram was part of the international history is clear, as Soggin, Bright and Speicer think in their books .[8]

 

      The names of the Eastern kings have a ring of authenticity about them. Arioch (Hurrian), Tidal (Hittite) are well-attested second-millennium names, and Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, while unknown, have quite plausible Amorite and Elamite etymologies. However, there is no extrabiblical text that brings these kings into temporal conjunction to enable a precise date to be placed on these events.[9]

      

          The reference to Melchizedek, priest of EI-Elyon, also seems to fit in with what is known of second-millennium Canaanite religion, and  according to Soggin, it is usually identified with the King of Jerusalem. He also appears later in Ps 110,4 and in the letter of Hebrews. However, we know nothing of his royal priesthood from the el-Amarna texts, which mention the king of Jerusalem, while the names known to us are only in part western Semitic origin.[10]In fact, they could have names taken from the names of the places of later periods.

     

           The legal phraseology “not a thread or a shoelace” and Abram’s giving up his rights to booty find parallels in second-millennium Hittite and Canaanite texts;[11]and also according to the law of war.[12]

    

            All these archaic features of the narrative seem to support the view that the narrative is based on archaic texts, and as Bright says:

 

"For the Patriarchal narratives are certainly not historically documents contemporaneous with the events of which they tell. Even though many may feel that divine inspiration ensures their historical accuracy(...) but may be trusted to with stand the scrutiny to which other documents of history are submitted."[13]

 

      But on the other hand, according to R. de Vaux, to admit its antiquity is not to prove its historicity. The greatest objections to this being a historical account are of a more general sort.

 

      First, "the picture of Abram in this story is quite different from that found elsewhere in the narratives. Here he is a powerful warrior taking on some of the major kings of the orient, as Hittites, Elam, etc. Elsewhere he appears as an almost solitary figure wandering through Canaan with his wife and a few slaves"[14].

 

      Second, “it is historically quite impossible for these five cities south of the Dead Sea to have at any one time during the second millennium been the vassals of Elam.” [15]

      

          To sum up, the account of Abram’s meeting with Melchizedek king of Salem, has many archaic features which suggest that it is, an old historical source which underlies the present version. However, it is not yet possible to pin down the events described to a specific period, for correlation with non-biblical accounts remains elusive. In these respects Gen 14,18 resembles other parts of Genesis: at many points they bear the hallmarks of antiquity, but to prove that the events happened just as recorded is impossible. While the reasons often adduced for doubting the historical character of these narratives are weak, it is also true to say that neither can it be proved that the events described are historical. The evidence is open to various interpretations in which preconceptions play a large part; and where it is also necessary, to distinguish in any feet the differences of literary gender.[16]

 

 

IV. THE DIVERSE TRANSLATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

 

        We will see the different interpretations. The Masoretic text is  considered older than any of the text that I present immediately after it. The full text of Gn14,18 is:

 

`!Ayl.[, lael. !heko aWhw> !yIy"w" ~x,l, ayciAh ~lev' %l,m, qd,c,-yKil.m;W18

`#r,a'w" ~yIm;v' hnEqo !Ayl.[, lael. ~r'b.a; %WrB' rm;aYOw: Whker>b'y>w: 19

`lKomi rfe[]m; Al-!T,YIw: ^d,y"B. ^yr,c' !GEmi-rv,a] !Ayl.[, lae %Wrb'W 20

  

1.The Samaritan text:

 

            The tradition linking Salem and Abram's encounter with Melchizedek with Samaria is an old one in Samaria tradition. It is found in the anonymous Samaritan writer Pseudo-Epulemus (2nd. Century BCE), in his work Peri. vIudai,wn , a writing cited by Eusebius from Polyhistor. In a section on Abram, Pseudo Epulemus follows Gen 14,18-20 rather faithfully although he situates the encounter with Melchizedek not in the valley of Shaveh but in the city near Garizim, the sacred mountain of the Samaritans. This tradition is probably older than Pseudo Epulemus. Curiously, this tradition is not  reflected either in Samaritan Pentateuch, nor in Samaritan Targums.[17]

 

2.The Book of Jubilees

 

            The Book of Jubilees,[18]does not speak about the episode of Melchizedek, and it leads one to wonder how the author of Jubilees dealt with the fact that the Bible describes him as "priest of God Most High", a title used elsewhere for the Levites.[19]

 

            In fact the text of Book of Jubilees transforms the image of Melchizedek, locating it not where it was expected, as  it is presented in Gen 14,18-20, but in the chapter 13 vv 25-28, the text says:   

 

"... upon Abram and his seed a tenth of the first fruits to the Lord, And the Lord ordained it as an ordinance forever that they should give it to the priests to those who minister before him so that they might posses it forever. And there is no limit of days for this law because he ordained it for eternal generation so that they mighty give one tenth of everything to the  Lord: grain and wine and oil and oxen and sheep. And he gave it to his priests to eat and drink with rejoicing before him."[20]

 

            It is possible to see in the text, that the author speaks of priests in plural, instead of one priest in singular, as is Melchizedek in the M.T. And instead of offering bread and wine, here the priests receives for eating and drinking. The whole episode seems to finish when the account of the institution of the tithe is presented.

 

            This silence seems to be caused  by the fact that the Book of Jubilees is a representative of the Priesthood of Sadok, and the author thinks that Melchizedek is an usurper of the priesthood.[21]

 

3.The Qumran texts.

 

            Also in Qumran Melchizedek appears, and playing a very important role, in the faith of this community, as we can see in the text. The whole text is eschatological, concerning the “latter days” (ah\aréÆt hayyaµméÆm). For the "Sons of Light", Melchizedek will proclaim release and make expiation; for Belial and those of his lot, Melchizedek will exact the vengeance of the judgments of God. In this dualistic struggle, Melchizedek acts as God’s agent.[22]

 

            The conclusion of the majority of scholars is, that Melchizedek in 11QMelch is not a human being, but the archangel Michael in another guise, with royal and high priestly characteristics (cf. Gen 14:18–20; Ps 110:4). In addition, Melchizedek is accompanied by the one who brings good news (mbs?r), the anointed one (hmsûyh\), who could be the Teacher of Righteousness, or the eschatological prophet[23], or the Davidic Messiah.[24]

 

         Although the name Melchizedek appears in full only in this Qumran text, 11QMelch shares certain features with other texts. Its angelology is matched particularly in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400, 403, 405), in which the angels are often designed as <eµl or <eloÆhéÆm as in Ps 82:1 (11QMelch 10) and in 1QM. 4Q>Amram^b and 4Q280 seem to refer to Melchizedek’s chief opponent, Belial, under another name: Melkiresûa>. The exegetical method and eschatological scheme are also paralleled in other texts.

 

            As a conclusion, we can say that, until now, it is still not clear who was precisely, Melchizedek for the Community of Qumran.

 

4.The texts of the  Septuagint and The Vetus Latina

 

            The differences between these two versions are very accidental respect to Melchizedek.

 

The translation and interpretation of Vetus Latina follows the MT, but is influenced by the LXX[25] in v.21 "da mihi homines, equos autem sume tibi", "give me the men, but take the horses for yourself", and in v.22 Abram raises his hand to Deum altissimum, with nothing corresponding to hwhy.

 

5.The The text of Syriac version (Peshita)

 

            In the Peshita[26]the story shows only minor variations from the TM:

 

            1. The king of Salem is named Mlkyzdq, which obscures the real etymology of the name; but he is called kwmr'd'mrym', "priest of God exalted", a term often used to name a pagan priest. Thus denies him the Aramaic title anhk (v.18) and eliminates the problem of his genealogy.[27]

 

6.The  Targums text of Gen. 14,17-20.

 

            The Aramaic translation of Genesis 14 has been preserved complete in Targum Onquelos (Tg.Onq.),in Codex Neofiti (Tg.Neof.), and in the Targum Pseudo - Jonathan(Tg.Ps.-J). Fragments of it have been transmitted in the so called Fragmentary Targum ( Frg. Tgs.), which are contained in the manuscripts given the sigla PVNL. Most of this texts as in this case were studied and also translated by Martin Mc Namara.[28]

 

            For an easy and convenient comparative reading of the different Targums, I place here the English translation of Tgs.Onkelos, Neof., Neof.marg, Frg.Tgs. PVNL and Ps.-J. which correspond to Gen 14,18-20.[29]

 

 

Tg.Onq.

Tg. Ps.-J

Tg. Neof.

Frg,Tgs.PVNL. Tg. Neof.marg.

                                                                                     

 

18.Now Melchizedek King of Jerusalem brought out bread and wine, for he was ministering before God Most High.             19.And he blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram before  God Most High whose possessions are heaven and earth.

18.And the righteous king -he is Shem, the son of Noah-the king of Jerusalem, came out to meet Abram, and he brought to him bread and wine; and at that time he was ministering before God Most High.   19.He blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram from (before)  God Most High who for the sake of the righteous created heaven and earth.

18.And Melchizedek, the king of Jerusalem -he is the Great -brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest ministering in the high priesthood before God the Most High.           19.He blessed him and said: "Blessed is be Abram before  God Most High who in his Memra made the heaven and earth.

18.and Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, he is  Shem the Great, was a priest to God Most High;[30] and Melchizedek the King of Jerusalem-who is Shem the Great-was a priest of the God Most High; he brought out food and wine, and he was standing, ministering, in the high priesthood before God Most High. 18-19 to God Most High.[31]

 

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 enemy like a shield that receive a blow".  And he gave him a tenth of everything that he had brought back.

20.and blessed be God Most High who shattered  your enemies before you". And he gave him one tenth of everything.

20.handed over your enemies.[32]

 

 

    6.1.Some 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. McNamara has 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.

 

    6.2. Melchizedek King of Salem (v. 18)

   

        a) The Name "Melchisedek"

    

        The name in Hebrew is Melchisedek, written in the critical edition of the MT. The name  qdc-yklm is reproduced in Tg. Onq. and in Frg. TgS.PVNL. Tg. Ps.-J. has aqdc-aklm, "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[33] with Shem has been so thoroughly made that he has lost his identity and name. Tg. Neof has qdc-aklm, where the final alef in aklm 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 a (aleph)[34].

 

        b) Melchizedek identified with Shem (the Great) (v.18)

    

        In the whole text of the Pal. Tgs and in Ps.-J. Melchizedek is explicitly identified with Shem The Great. Thus Frg.Tg. PVNL, Tg Neof. The identification has gone further in Tg. Ps.-J. where Melchizedek has practically ceased to be a proper name: "The righteous king , that is, Shem son of Noah". This identification is attested at an early date in rabbinic Judaism.

 

7. The Rabbinical Interpretation:

 

    a) Identification of Melchizedek with Shem.

 

            The Rabbinical Interpretation also  identifies, following the targums text, Melchizedek with  Shem .

It is presupposed in a saying of R. Ishmael, a contemporary of R. Akiba; (ca. 110-135 CE), transmitted by R. Zechariah (probably 4th cent.) (b. Nedarim 32b), and can be taken as having been current in Judaism in the first century CE. There is a partly parallel passage in WaR (Qedoshim) 25,6, in a discussion on the passing of the priesthood from Melchizedek to Abram, with a debate on the issue between R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. There are other texts in rabbinical literature with the same tradition[35].

 

            Also Rashi, in the medieval times, takes the Midrashic explanation, identifying Melchizedek with Shem, son of Noah[36].

 

            This Melchizedek 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 Rebecca went to ask and was told, "Two nations are in your womb and the older shall be a servant to the younger"[37]

 

            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.[38]

 

    b) Origin of Identification of Melchizedek with Shem

 

             It is natural to seek the origins of this identification of Melchizedek with Shem, as we already saw in the Targums and in the Rabbinic Interpretation. M. Simon[39], 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 don't indicate any embarrassment with it. The rabbinic, targumic and some patristic texts 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 Jacob[40]. 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.

 

    c) Observations of Melchizedek's Priesthood in Rabbinical Sources

 

            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 Melchizedek".

 

            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. 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.

 

8.The interpretation of the New Testament.

 

            In the New Testament Melchizedek appears in the Letter to the Hebrews[41] where he becomes the type of Christ when he was designated as a "priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek". He is thus the antitype of Melchizedek, depicted as in Ps.110,4. The main passage about Melchizedek in the Epistle runs thus:

 

            "This "Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High," "met Abraham as he returned from his defeat of the kings" and "blessed him." "And Abraham apportioned to him "a tenth of everything." His name first means righteous king, and he was also "king of Salem," that is, king of peace. Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever".[42]

 

 

V. CONCLUSION:

 

            As we can see, through the diverse translations of the Old Testament and later interpretations carried out along the history, many texts want to make the person of Melchizedek their own, or at least to have an important close relationship with him. As a result of this, Melchizedek had a very important role in the history of translation and interpretation.

 

            1. the Samaritan Pentateuch just changes the location of the place of the encounter between Melchizedek and Abram, locating the encounter very near from the Mount Garizin, principal place of its cult. Very probably looking for authenticating the Garizim, as the true cult place.

 

            2.The texts of Qumran shown Melchizedek, as the celestial agent of God that fights in favor of them, like celestial figure that is between God  and the men. 

 

            3.The Book of the Jubilees, transforms the priestly figure of Melchizedek, as wanting to remove its figure, very probably because he is considered usurper of the legal Priesthood of Sadok, that is Melchizedek was for them a figure that represented the Priesthood that doesn't came from Sadok.

 

            4.Under another respect the LXX, the Syrian version of the Peshita, and the Vulgata Latina can be placed, united, although the LXX is previous to Christ for the sake of these verions present the three the same variations, that it is, variations no very important regarding the T.M. of Gen14,18-20.

 

        On the other hand we can see the new give direction that give to Melchizedek text in the Ps, 110, "you are eternal priest according to the order of Melchizedek", but to enter in this point surpass the limits of my work. 

 

            5.In another line, if until here the changes wasn't  very important, the change of the texts of the Targums, and of the Rabbinical Interpretations are very outstanding.

 

            Indeed both -Targums and Rabbinic Interpretation identify, like we have done Melchizedek with Sem, that which doesn't seem accidental for many, since if Melchizedek was Shem, Abram would not have knelt down before a stranger as Melchizedek, but before a some first born. On purpose of this way, justifies the submission of Abram, and he is integrated to Melchizedek in the Town of Israel, saving this way the dignity of the priesthood of Levi.  According to some scholars the reason of this interpretation is in order to defend, the antichristian polemic, but this lacks arguments. 

 

            6. Lastly the use, of the Priestly Figure of Melchizedek of the Letter to Hebrews, it has a very rich content, since Melchizedek is the nexus among the Christian Priesthood, established by Christ, and the Old Testament, bond that expresses the Letter to Hebrews, "... without father, and without mother, without principle, as the Son of God in the eternity". 

 

            As I have remarked, step after step, in the diverse translations, is possible to see as I had intended at the beginning of the present work it is, as each community in that was read, translated and interpreted the original text of Gene 14,18-20, of the encounter between Melchizedek and Abram, each community looked for having the domain or the important person's of Melchizedek control. Since Melchizedek, King and Priest of the Highly God, is a figure that has all the characteristics to give the authority of the Writings, legitimating for their real and priestly load, the authority and the faith of the community in that this text was read.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

A.SOGGIN, An introduction to the history of Israel and Judah, Bowden,1993.

A. SOGGIN, Introduzione alla Historia dell Antico Testamento Brescia 1979.

ANTHONY ABELA, The Theme of the Abraham Narrative. Malta 1989.

ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY, Melchizedek ,Michael Astour. London 1992,

APOCRIFOS DEL ANTIGUO TESTAMENTO, Vol.2 Madrid 1983.

AULIKKI NAHKOLA, Double Narratives in the Old Testament. The Foundation of Method in Biblical Criticism. Walter de Gruyter-Berlin-New York 2001.

CARLO M. MARTINI, Abraham Nuestro Padre en la Fe. Madrid 1988.

CARPENTER- BUTTERSHY, The Hexateuch London1900.

CLAUDIO GIANOTTO, Melchisedek e la sua Tipologia. Brescia 1984.

J. L. ESPINEL, Israel y la Bendición de Abraham para todas las gentes, Est. Bíblicos 50. Salamanca 1992.

F. M. T .BÖHL, DieKönige von Genesis 14, ZAW 36  Berlin1916.

FLORENCIO GARCIA MARTÍNEZ, Las tradiciones sobre Melchizedek. Biblica 81. Roma 2000.

FRED HORTON, The Melchizedek Tradition. Cambridge 1976.

GERHARD VON RAD, Genesis. London 1981.

GUNKEL, Genesis. Übersetzt und erklärt , KAT 1; Leipzig 1924.

HERMANN, History of Isarael in Old Times. Bowden,1983.

J.A.BRIGHT, History of Israel, London 1972.

J. A. BRIGHT, Historia de Israel Bilbao 1966

JEAN LOUIS SKA, Our Fathers Have Told Us. Roma 1990.

JOSEPH A. FITZMEYER, Melchizedek in the MT,LXX,NT. Biblica 81. Roma 2000.

JOSEPH A. FITZMEYER, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran, Cave I. Roma 1966.

MARTIN McNAMARA, Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-20. Biblica 81. Roma 2000.

J. MUFFS Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and Lows of War in Ancient Israel. JJS Vol 33, n°1-2. Jerusalem 1982.

K.L.NOLL, Looking on the Side of Israel's History. Leiden 1999.

PAUL J. KOBELSKI, Melchizedek and Melchiresa'. Washington 1981.

R.HAYWARD, In Honors of McNamara, Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in the Pentateuchal Targumim. London 1996.

RASHI, Genesis,  transl. By A.M.  Silbermann. Jerusalem 1972.

SMITH ROBERT HOUSTON, Melchizedek (Gen 14 18-20) ZAW 77.Berlin 1966.

SPEICER, Genesis. New York 1962.

THE OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDO EPIGRAPHA, Vol.2 . New York 1985.

THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, Botterweck - Ringgren - Fabry. Michigan - Cambridge 2001.

WENHAM, Genesis 1-15. WBC 1; Waco 1987.

C. WESTERMANN. Genesis 12-36. Mineapolis 1985.