Martin McNamara, «Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature», Vol. 81 (2000) 1-31

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.

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on the Psalms, and in the opinion of a number of patristic scholars the work has recently been identified in hitherto unpublished manuscripts.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