To: jkilmon AT historian.net, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Jerusalem - spelling, in historical perspective
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:00:17 -0500
Jack Kilmon:
1. You wrote: "‘The City of Shalem’ (uru-shalem) would be called simply
Shalem and it is in Genesis, inscriptions by the Ramessides and at Mari.”
a) Please set forth a citation that Jerusalem was called “Shalem” by the
Ramessides.
(b) Please set forth a citation that Jerusalem is called “Shalem” at Mari.
My guess is what you are remembering is as follows:
(i) $LM is attested all over the ancient near east, probably being a divine
attribute, but claimed by many to be the name of a pagan god.
(ii) Many people have seen “Jerusalem” as perhaps being based on the idea of
“City of Shalem”, where Shalem is either a pagan deity or an attribute of a
pagan deity.
But to the best of my knowledge, Jerusalem is n-e-v-e-r referred to in any
non-biblical source as “Shalem” or “Salem”, etc.
2. Moreover, what the text says about Melchizedek is utterly incompatible
with Jerusalem. The three key descriptive words of Melchizedek’s locale are
M$QH, $WH and (MQ H-%DYM, all of which fit Beth Shan’s location perfectly,
and none of which fit Jerusalem at all.
3. Finally, Melchizedek is not a king. He takes no part in the fighting.
Melchizedek is solely a priest.