Talk:Names of Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 TNK,Bible,OT,etc. 2 References for Ha-Qedosha? 3 Hebrew spelling transliterations instead of pronounceable name? 4 More names 5 Query 6 Shalim outside Ugarit? 7 Jehovah-jireh , Yahweh-yir'eh, Adonai-jireh 8 What is meant by Ir haQdoosha 9 Sky 10 Urushalim vs. yerushalayim 11 "Shalem" - Possible Canaanite Origin

[edit] TNK,Bible,OT,etc.

Instead of using a multitude of terms, why not just use the term "bible"? It's the most nuetral, and most commonly used, term.--Yoshiah ap 21:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I considered that too. But I realized that "Bible" means different things for different religions. To Samaritans, it's the first five books. To Jews, it's what makes up the Tanakh. To Christians, it includes the Tanakh along with the New Testament. But if I say "Book of Genesis", no one is too confused. :) Either someone knows what it is and knows what I'm talking about, or they don't know what it is and have no clue about most of these words anyway. :) - Gilgamesh 01:56, 17 June 2004 (UTC)

Well, there aren't that many Samaritans, let alone Samaritans that surf English websites. I think an honest estimate would be 10 Samaritans check out English websites reguarly. Jews recognize when someone says "The Bible", they are generally talking about the Christian Bible. The word "Tanakh" is used excuslively when speaking of a Jewish Bible, and the phrase "Old Testament" to refer to a Christian translation of the bible.--Yoshiah ap 03:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There might indeed be only ten Samaritans that check English pages but that does not mean we can ignore them. I think Wikipedia, being an international effort, must avoid anything that can cause cross-cultural confusion. It is best to stick to specific terms, rather than using ambiguous terms. Just saying 'Bible' is confusing for Turks too, as they would mostly assume that what's being referred to is the New Testament but sometimes it is used for OT plus NT. Let's not confuse people :) -- EnginGunduz 16:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should "City of David" be added? - Mustafaa 01:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that distinction goes to Bethlehem. - Gilgamesh 02:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References for Ha-Qedosha?

From what I know of Aramaic's methods of adapting loanwords, I find it difficult to believe that this particular title would have entered Aramaic in a form that could generate "al-quds" any more than it could have entered Arabic in that way. Can you cite a reference in support of this claim? - Mustafaa 02:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ha-Qedoshah (the Holy) is applied to Jerusalem on coins from the Bar Kokhba period. In later hymns one finds usage of the masculine Ir Ha-Qodesh (City of the Holiness) as well. In Aramaic Ha-Qodesh is Qodsha' which if I am not mistaken gives rise to Arabic Al-Quds ? Kuratowski's Ghost 13:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ir Ha-Qodesh is phonologically a much more plausible source than "Ha-Qedoshah"; I'm willing to accept that one as the source even without references. Ha-Qedoshah itself, though, doesn't really work. - Mustafaa 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew spelling transliterations instead of pronounceable name?

I see Gilgamesh has replaced the pronounceable names with direct transliterations of Hebrew spelling? I don't see how this is useful to anyone, surely proper words that can be pronounced make more sense than this? Also do we need this Tiberian vs Standard Hebrew stuff? Kuratowski's Ghost 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More names

• We agreed that Ir Ha-Qedoshah "The Holy City" is different to Al Quds / (Ir) Ha-Qodesh "(City of) the Holiness/Holy Place", so it should be listed as a separate name.

• City of David is indeed used for Jerusalem so we need it as well.

Kuratowski's Ghost 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query

The article lists these:

• Akkadian (Uru) Salim
• Assyrian (Ur) Salimmu

I'd like to ask whether these names ever appear in the Akkadian/Assyrian sources without the prefixes "Uru" and "Ur". If not, why the parentheses? --Zero 13:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Uru is a determinative placed before names of cities. The general thinking is that determinatives were not actually pronounced. So yes, Ur(u) always appears with Salim(mu) but the same is true of all city names. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So it is like the "River" in "Mississippi River" but we never write it as "Mississippi (River)". We should follow the practice of academic sources and drop the parens. I've looked at dozens of books and journal articles and never saw anything else. That doesn't prevent the name being explained.

Not really the same, seeing that "river" in Mississippi River is really pronounced, its not punctuation like cuneiform determinatives. I think the Akkadian and Assyrian names should be listed as Salim and Salimmu with only a parenthetical note following that they are always preceded by the determinative Uru/Ur which is unrelated to the Jeru- in Jerusalem. I've often come across non-academic articles that include the Uru/Ur as if it is a full part of the name which very easily leads to the misconception that the Uru/Ur is equivalent to Jeru-. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good enough reason. In my experience, all academic sources write Urusalim or similar and we should follow that example. The best way to handle the Uru=Yeru problem is just to explain it. --Zero 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::::One does see "Urusalim" but this is just an unthinking perpetuation of the first few times this was done. Usually in academic works the Uru is written as ^URUsalim. And moreover when discussing the names of all other cities the Uru is not placed in the English name, this is something that is only done with Jerusalem and appears to be directly related to the misconception that the "Jeru" is related to "Uru". Kuratowski's Ghost 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit I was wrong here. I have consulted with my former lecturer on this and the text has both the Uru as a determinitive AND spelled out in two syllables after the determinative, so the name is indeed Uru Shalim / Urushalim with the uru pronounced, meaning City (still correct that this is not identical to "Jeru"). Also the consonent is also definitely Sh in the cuneiform not S and Shalim does mean peace elsewhere in the text, found in Abdi Heba's third letter. (Still trying to find a good online source showing this.). Kuratowski's Ghost 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the derivation of yeru from yerusha is no longer the preferred theory. The majority opinion today is that yeru comes from yarah (to lay a cornerstone, as in Job 38:6) and so probably means something like "foundation". --Zero 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you give a source for this? My understanding is that speculation that its based on the verb yarah is an old idea which was never more than speculation and which has been dismissed (not to mention that the form "yeru" wouldn't make gramatical sense if it were based on yarah). Kuratowski's Ghost 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Another problem with deriving the "yeru" from "yarah" and attempting to explain it as meaning "foundation" or "founded by" is that the only connection between the word and "foundation" is the verse you mention in Job, the verb "yarah" actually means to shoot or cast, the verse in Job uses it in connection with the cornerstone of the world resulting in translations in English like "laid" or "put down", but the original Hebrew is basically asking "who cast the cornerstone of the world into place?" Kuratowski's Ghost 01:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Iirc, refs [1] and [7] in [| my report on this that doesn't have a proper home yet] give this theory and one of them says that it is the most popular now. I don't think it is true that only Job is involved here; the specialists would have also considered related words and constructions in other Semitic languages. However, nobody claims that it is proved beyond doubt, nor that the "yerusha" theory is disproved beyond doubt. --Zero 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well its been about 15 years since I studied this at university. But at the time an explanation using "yarah" was mentioned but quickly dismissed, the main problem being that trying to interpret it as "founded" is based on shoddy scholarship that misses the fact it literally means cast or shot. There is also as I mentioned above an obvious problem with making sense of the grammar if its from yarah. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shalim outside Ugarit?

My addition that the god Shalim is not mentioned outside Ugarit as well as my statement that the name in the Amarna letters is identical to the word used for peace were commented out by Zero0000. Can you give a reference for Shalim outside Ugarit? As for the meaning in the Amarna letters, I am looking for a good online copy of the text as a reference. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It would have been easier to answer the first question before I returned 10-12 books on the subject to the library a few months ago... The Jewish Encyclopedia lists Phenoecian and Egyptian appearances, and I know there are South Arabian and Mandaic appearances but I can't give a reference immediately. Shalim's twin Shahar has even many more appearances (dozens). The Armana letters are also taken as an appearance by almost everyone. I can find a modern source if you ask (it would take a few days). As for the Armana letters, the issue is not whether the letters can also spell "peace" (I recall "safety", which is similar) but whether that is seen as a reasonable translation in context by the Amarna experts. I do not recall seeing that even once even though I looked in a large number of journal articles and texts. I might have forgotten some, but I'm quite certain that the consensus is that it refers to the god. I'm also certain that the consensus on the "salem" of "Jerusalem" is that it refers to the god. We should not be making our own arguments here but rather quoting named scholars. --12:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia article is badly dated, its suggests "City of Shalim" and then says compare with the Assyrian god Shalman, mentioned in Egyptian as Sharamana etc etc. This doesn't make sense, the Ugaritic "Shalim" means "dusk/sunset" and he was the counterpart of Shahar (dawn). Shalman on the other hand was the Assyrian god of peace. Perhaps ultimately the words are related both coming from an original root sh-l-m meaning "complete" but Ugaritic Shalim is not the same deity as Assyrian Shalman nor do they represent the same concept. Also, don't confuse the god Sahar (s-h-r) Arabian god of the crescent moon with Shahar (sh-ch-r) Ugaritic god of dawn, the names are unrelated but happen to look similar in English transliteration. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article should reflect what the consensus is among relevant modern scholars. Are you going to quote any? --Zero 11:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a consenus. What I have been taught is that the explanation involving "yerush-" + "shalem" is considered the most plausible, where shalem is simply the original name denoting peace. I don't know of any academic references to the god Shalim outside Ugarit (as opposed to Assyrian Shalman obviously found in any text mentioning the emporer Shalmaneser whose name contains it). Kuratowski's Ghost 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah-jireh , Yahweh-yir'eh, Adonai-jireh

The Bible calls the place Y-h-w-h yir'eh. (The apostrophe is a glottal stop, spelt as an aleph) I know that modern Jewish custom orders Adonai ( 'aðōnay) to be said instead; but this rule arose long after the time of Abraham. Anthony Appleyard 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is meant by Ir haQdoosha

In Hebrew, both Qodesh and Q'dushah mean holiness, while the prior may also denote a holy place, whilst the latter refers more to the state of separation from impurity. I'm not sure what is meant by Ir haQdoosha - Ir (city) is feminine, therefore "Holy City" would be Ir Q'doshah would refer to the city, but Ir haQ'dushah would mean "The City of Holiness". Personally, I have not heard the latter expression, while in religious cirles Jerusalem is always called ירושלים עיה"ק "Yerushalaim Ir haQodesh", which is usually translated as The Holy City of Jerusalem, and "Jerusalem, City of Holiness" which is the literal translation.

Ir Ha-Qodesh means "City of the Holiness", Ir Ha-Qedoshah is the "The Holy City", Qedoshah being the feminine adjective. This is what the article originally had but someone changed it to the odd Qdoosha nonsense and everyone was too lazy to change back. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sky

I have removed the section claiming that celestis was a title for Jerusalem:

In a drawing discovered beneath the ruins of King Solomon's temple, Jerusalem is referred to as Celestis.(ref)Rand Flem-Ath and Colin Wilson, The Atlantis Blueprint, ISBN 0-7515-3100-6(/ref)

I have removed it because:

• Its anglicised latin; latin would be caelestis. English (and Anglicised latin) isnt a classical language
• Latin is an odd language to be used in this way by people who view the romans as a destructive force to be fought (cf First Jewish Revolt etc).
• The Temple of Solomon, has, as far as I am aware, never been found; indeed its very location is a matter of controversy. How anything could have been found under ruins that have never themselves been found needs quite a bit of justification.
• The reference supporting it is a piece of scatter-gun pseudoscience (according to numerous reviewers) seeking to prove a thesis concerning Atlantis.

In essence, I feel that the claim is extremely dubious, the source for the assertion even more dubious, and essentially backed up by virtually no-one.

I will be happy to add it back in if someone can produce a reputable source for the assertion. --User talk:FDuffy 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urushalim vs. yerushalayim

I am surprised no one has commented on the fact that yerushalayim only appears in the masoretic punctuation whereas the consonants of the name in Tanakh corresponds to what we find elsewhere (including Aramaic and Greek), i.e., yruslim, i.e., irushalim and the like. This raises the question, when and where we first encounter the so-called dual form of the name reflected in the masoretic punctuation. -- In my view, this is a rabbinic midrash on the name that continues the trend, already present in Scripture, of obliterating the obviously pre-Israelite character of the name of the holy city.

[edit] "Shalem" - Possible Canaanite Origin

[Discussion transferred from User talk:Kuratowski's Ghost]

You censored my addition regarding the possible Canaanite origin of the word Shalem. This seems extreme to me, considering that the idea already existed in the article (as well as in the Hebrew Wiki) and I was merely adding other Biblical examples (all from other Wikipedia articles). Why is the theory okay for Beit Shemesh (see Wiki for Bet Shemesh) but forbidden for Jerusalem? Even if you have somehow disproved this theory (which I doubt), I think it should at least be mentioned, and you may freely add your rebuttal or criticisms. What happened to freedom of thought? Wouldn't you say blanket censorship of this sort is paternalistic? Why not let the reader judge for himself Yabti, from Jerusalem

Its a old crank idea that was criticized and rejected long ago. Shalim together with Shachar were Ugaritic minor gods representing dusk and dawn and were always invoked together. No mention of these minor gods is found outside Ugarit and moreover the root sh-l-m did not carry the same meaning outside Ugarit. As a rejected idea from modernist pseudo-scholarship it doesn't deserve mention. Moreover the name of the city is not Beth Shalim which is what one would get if it was derived this way. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC) The name would not necessarily be "Beth Shalim" - see for example the village of "Anathoth" which is surely nameed after the (major) goddess Anat and does not include the term "Bet". In addition, as I understand it Canaanite mythology is generally poorly attested outside Ugarit so part of your answer relies on the famed "Argument From Silence", with all that entails. In any event, I thank you for your speedy response Yabti.

Its not simply an argument from silence as the root sh-l-m is well attested in the region and means "peace" or "whole" and not "dusk" as in the language of Ugarit. The idea that Anathoth is named after Anat is also modernist presumption since the name can be understood to mean simply "answers". Kuratowski's Ghost 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)