The dual ending preserved in the perpetual Qere of ירושׁלם is a fairly late development—probably from the 2nd century BC onwards. It's clear from earlier sources and the Ketib of the MT that the word was not originally a dual form, but only became a dual at a later stage. Were there different sections within Jerusalem, warranting a dual form? Did the temple acropolis come to be thought of as a city in its own right, such that there was a cultic Jerusalem within a residential Jerusalem? Was the there a change in pronunciation leading to a diphthongisation at the end of the word? For that particular option, I'm not aware of any other similar shifts (I could be wrong on that, so if anyone has contrary evidence, please let me know).
Jim, I see your argument, but as a couple of others have pointed out, there are some linguistic difficulties with it. I think whichever way we go with the etymology there are inevitably some problems that we encounter, and so I don't think we can give a definitive answer on it. I just provided the 'usual' theory in answer to the original question. Cheers! GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
