First Person: From Shalem to Jerusalem
As published in BAR, November/December 2019
Robert Cargill
October 10, 2019
6 Comments
19241 views
I recently published a book titled Melchizedek, King of Sodom: How Scribes Invented the Biblical 
Priest-King. A highly technical book, it contains much textual analysis of the Hebrew Bible. It specifically examines Abram’s encounter with Melchizedek and the king of Sodom in Genesis 14, the notoriously difficult-to-translate Psalm 110, and a discussion of the origin of the toponym Mt. Moriah in Genesis 22. Controversially, I argue that Melchizedek was the king of Sodom.
In two of the chapters, however, I found my research leading me to an equally controversial topic involving Jerusalem. As readers of BAR know, anything concerning Jerusalem is bound to incite controversy.
Simply put, contrary to what the Genesis Apocryphon, Josephus, the Aramaic Targums, and other interpretive traditions of the late Second Temple period say, I argue that Shalem (or Salem as it often appears in the Bible) was never an early or alternate name for Jerusalem. That is to say, despite the prevalence of this popular tradition based on the recognizable presence of the syllables “shalem/salem” in the name “Jerusalem,” I suggest that Shalem was never an early name for Jerusalem. And because of this, I contend that prior to the Second Temple period, Shalem was not understood to be Jerusalem.
If Shalem was not Jerusalem, then where was it? My research led me to conclude that Shalem was actually a city in Samaria near Shechem. And here you can see the controversy begin to brew. Not only was Shalem not identified with the ancient capital of Judah, it was actually associated with the capital of its rebellious Israelite rival, Shechem.
I offer archaeological and textual evidence to support this claim. First, I point out that several inscriptions refer to Jerusalem by name prior to the establishment of ancient Israel. An Egyptian execration (curse) text, dating to around 1800 B.C.E., lists Jerusalem’s name as Ru-ša-li-mum. Likewise, multiple Egyptian Amarna letters, dating to about 1400 B.C.E., spell Jerusalem variably as U-ru-ša-lim and U-ru-sa-lim. Thus, it is clear that the “early” name for Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלם or Yerushalayim) was still a polysyllabic word much longer than “Shalem.”
Some scholars have countered that the “URU” prefix on these early names, which became the “Yeru-” beginning of Yerushalayim, was simply the vestige of the Akkadian determinative—a symbol used before a personal name to indicate that it was the name of a city and not of a people or deity. The problem with this argument is that the Akkadian determinative prefix “URU” is not affixed directly to the name “Shalem,” but appears in addition to the signs for Ú-Ru-Sa-Lim, rendering a lengthy, polysyllabic name URUÚ-Ru-Sa-Lim. Thus Jerusalem’s name was never simply Shalem; it was always longer.
As far as textual evidence is concerned, I spend much time discussing Psalm 76:1-2 and Genesis 33:18. I translate Psalm 76:2 as, “His tent was in Shalem, but his residence is in Zion,” and argue that the poem is not synonymous parallelism, with Shalem and Zion referring to the same location. Instead, I argue that Psalm 76:2 is a chronological reference to the progress made by the Ark of the Covenant from its northern Samaritan locale in Shiloh near Shalem, where it resided in a tabernacle under the supervision of the priest Eli and his family, to Jerusalem, where it ultimately resided within the Temple. This same chronological relocation of God’s dwelling place is found in Psalm 78:56-68 and Psalm 87:1-2.
I then discuss the explicit claim in Genesis 33:18 that states, “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city (within the jurisdiction) of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan.” I also explain that most subsequent ancient translations of this verse substituted the word “safely” in place of the name “Shalem” in an effort to obscure the reference to Shalem near Shechem—a trend that grew throughout the Jewish interpretative tradition of the Second Temple period.
So, if you are interested in a highly technical discussion of how Shalem came to be associated with Jerusalem in the third century B.C.E., there’s a new book out there for you to read. And I certainly welcome your comments and queries.—B.C.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
Previous First Person Columns:
First Person: The Gender Divide
First Person: Who Owns History?
First Person: A Little Jot on a Jerusalem Column
First Person: The American Bible Society’s Electronic Inquisition
First Person: Festschrift: A Celebration of Hershel Shanks
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
All-Access Membership
All-Access Membership
Dig into the illuminating world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access Membership. Get your print subscription to BAR and your online access to the BAS Library—as well as FREE online talks and Travel/Study discounts. Start your journey into the biblical past today!
Sounds like an interesting investigative work with some footsteps worth following whether or not one reaches the same conclusions. I regret that I do not have sufficient knowledge of Hebrew or related Semitic languages to be of much help, but I did note a couple of interesting things aside from that in your introduction to your book..
Indicating that there is an argument for Melchezidek being the King of a city other than Salem, and that being Sodom, I often wonder what the archeological evidence is for Sodom, the other side of the BAR coin. If not the site, then what about Akkadian or Sumerian records of trade circa the era that Abram lived, ( 3rd millenium BC)?
Secondly, I am more familiar with discussions of glosses in the New Testament based on comparisons with manuscripts from of, say, 3rd or 4th century AD. But it is interesting to hear that, say 2nd Temple period, that “Salem” and “safely” could be substituted or interpreted from text. How is this identified? Is it that we have variational texts Masoretic and Qumrum to compare? Or is it that commentators of the period quoted the text and
we see differences there? Not to mention, that arriving safely to somewhere and arriving at at a particular destination are results distinctive enough to note.
This is also covered in the Wikipedia article on Jerusalem under “Etymology”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Etymology The cited references are in footnotes 76 through 81
Salem means peace, Melchizedek the King of Peace is the Hole Spirit ! When the Holy Spirit came upon Mary she had a child called Jesus, which Isaiah said he shall be called the Prince of Peace. Why? Because when a King of a country has a child, they are called Prince of that country. When God called Abraham, he chose the best human being he could find in the whole world. Paul said: that the less paid tithes to the greater. When David became King he called the Jebusite city Jerusalem because it was the city that was suppose to represent Heaven here on earth. When Salomon became King he place the Temple on Mount Moriah, which was where Abraham was going to sacrifice Issac. So there was no city there or he would not or taken the wood with him or the way to make fire. Study the Bible before you teach false doctrine.
Absolutely! Even with just a glance at the Bible seeing that Abraham and King Melchizedek the son of the King of that region or more, roamed that region together with Abraham’s famous nephew Lot, obviously Salem was in the vicinity of Sodom and Gomorrah, which Jerusalem also is in that same Dead Sea vicinty. And why anyone insists that Jerusalem and Salem have to be the same city, when all the evidence says otherwise, is without explanation, probably just emotions getting in the way of science as usual. Emotion attachment to things. Everyone also thinks there was only Sodom and Gomorrah. There are no less than 3 other cities in that vicinity also burned to a crisp, still standing, solid ash buildings, for all the world to visit and admire. But nobody does! Every nation erases the nations that existed before it, and patriotism, nationalism, zealotry always blinds truth, rather than promoting truth. Even the USA has an inconvenient truth hidden in the ancient ruins beneath its modern day cities. It wants to believe that it was justified in massacring all the natives of that continent and creating a new society above those native’s scattered bones. Egypt is perhaps the greatest example of modern societies trying to claim ownership of the ancient ruins underneath it. For all we know the ancient Egyptians were from China! But we’ll never know because humans always go blind with patriotism, nationalism, zealotry, propping up their own tribe above all others, and ESPECIALLY above the tribes that were there thousands of years before us. Like picking up a bone in Antarctica and saying, this was George Washington’s great great great great great great Grandfather who was a God and betrothed divinity and all of divinity’s powers and the Kingdom to George Washington, and naming Antarctica: Georgetown (or Columbia, they LOVE that name for some reason). And saying that such and such hill was where the Temple of Herod stood. When in fact that hill never had any such structure on it BECAUSE there’s NO WATER anywhere near that hill!!! How can you have rituals, purification, wash away the blood of millions of animals slaughtered, and so on… with zero water?!! Mount Olives is MUCH bigger than the hill on Mount Jerusalem. Mout Olives is higher and overlooks Temple Hill and dwarfs it. Mount Jerusalem is already a Mount all by itself. There’s a hill on Mount Jerusalem. That hill is just a hill! David’s City is the only place anywhere near the hill that has any water! I’m going off on another topic, oops, getting back on topic, yes, truth is so easily hid, lost, forgotten, etc. Why are lies, the darkness that envelopes when the light is extinguished, so much easier to come by?! People always believe only what they WANT to believe instead of the evidence and facts. Otherwise your book would be taught in every school and spoken of on TV by every news source. And would be a staple of today’s education and society. Your work spreads truth! God bless you for it!!!
Fascinating. Wasn’t Jerusalem (Yerushalaim) known as Jebus (Yevus) which David conquered and renamed ‘Yerushalaim’? If it were Shalem, it would have been named in the Bible rather than Yevus.
And there’s the proof! So much evidence and yet the powers that be, who have the power to place this truth in front of the masses, are either blind or intentionally avoid truth! Thank you for sharing that priceless fact!!!