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.

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