Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

       Jerusalem is attested in a number of early extra-
biblical sources:

       the well known Egyptian  execration texts, 19th-18th
 centuries BCE;

       the famous El-Amarna tablets in fourteenth century;

       the  boasting of Sennacherib about his  siege of
 Jerusalem in 701 BCE.

     In none of the above is there a Yud between the Lamed
 and Mem.

     Corresoponding with the above, and significant, is the
 fact that  Jerusalem is spelled in the Hebrew bible in
 overwhelming number of cases without a Yud between the
 Lamed and the Mem.

     The name probably originated, in part, with the name $LM, 
a Ugaritic deity. This can be supported in Gen. 14:18 in
 the reference to Malchizedek, king of Shalem.

  The diphthong at the end of the word does apear in the
 vocalization of the MT. The debate about such a shift
 - there other examples - is still going on. See Yuval Elizur
 (in Heb.).

     Thus ironically the English pronounciation Jerusalem is
 closer to the original in the last two syllables than the
 modern Heb. one. 

   Any reference to 'water' in this context is sheer fancy.
 A better fancy would be 'shoes'  ('na(alayim').

  Uri Hurwitz                           Great Neck, NY