George: I’ve not been a big fan of etymologies, especially of names. Names are sometimes deliberately corrupted so that their etymologies are not easily recognized, making modern reconstructed etymologies of those names possibly wrong.
However, I heard years ago that the first part of the name Jerusalem is a corruption of an ancient form of the word “city”. That was so long ago that I’ve forgotten the details. It appears that the first part was not original to the city, but was added later (see Genesis 14:18). However, if your etymology is correct, that the first part of the name comes from ירה YRH, wouldn’t that be connected with pointing out, as in teaching? Given the absence of founding documents, isn’t it a stretch to claim that the city was named after a god? Karl W. Randolph. On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, George Athas <[email protected]>wrote: > Second, the etymology of Jerusalem is usually based on a form of the > verb ירה, which has within its semantic domain the concept of 'putting up' > or 'founding' (cf. Gen 31.51; Job 38.6). On this basis, it is concluded > that ירושׁלם means 'founded by/for Shalem'. The proper noun Shalem is the > name of a deity known from cognate cultures (eg. Ugaritic). > > > *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
