One of the arguments against Revelation and the Fourth Gospel having the same author is their using different spellings for Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem has two different entries in the Greek Strongs Concordance that aren't even right next to each other. The Fourth Gospel uses 2414 while Revelation uses 2419. Thing is, it's only the books attributed to John that strongly go either/or on how to spell Jerusalem in Greek, the Synoptics, Acts, and Galatians use both of them. So if anything the way the John books are selective about using these spellings could be evidence of their continuity.
The core difference between the two spellings I feel is the Revelation spelling much better fits the presumed connection to Salem, while the Fourth Gospel spelling looks more like it wants us to think the city was named after Solomon. Hence forth I shall refer to the Revelation spelling as Ierousalem and the Fourth Gospel spelling as Ierosolum.
Revelation only uses the name Ierousalem when referring to New Jerusalem, Old or Terrestrial Jerusalem is never refereed to by name, even if it's a positive reference like the Beloved City in Revelation 20. The Fourth Gospel however is solely about Terrestrial Jerusalem where Jesus preached and was Crucified. Now other Biblical Authors definitively do use Ierousalem of the terrestrial city, so this distinction could ultimately be one only this Author wanted to make and even then only if they had the same author.
Mark uses Ierousalem only in 11:1. Mark and Matthew don't mention Jerusalem by name in their Olivte Discourse but Luke does and uses Ierousalem. Matthew uses Ierousalem only in Matthew 23:37, a poetically eschatological passage that comes soon before the Olvite Discourse, Luke 19:11 also uses Ierousalem. Hebrews 12:22 uses Ierousalem as does Galatians 4:25-26.
Luke 23:28 is the only time any Gospel uses Ierousalem during a Passion narrative. In that verse Luke refers to "Daughters of Ierousalem" so it is being poetic. The only time Ierosolum is used in the Passion narrative is Luke 23:7 saying that Herod Antipas was there for the Passover.
If Matthew was mainly copying Mark in their parallel passages as mainstream scholars claim, and both were originally in Greek, then it's odd that Matthew 21:1 uses a different spelling then Mark 11:1 even though Matthew uses that spelling elsewhere and so clearly wasn't opposed to it.
What if the two spelling are in some way distinct in what they geographically refer to? Two different places both probably within the city limits of modern Jerusalem, or one being a broader district within which the other is a more specific area? Could it be one refers to the "Old City" and the other Nehemiah/Herod's Jerusalem? In such cases both would still equally be where the above Matthew/Mark parallel implies, west of Bethany, Bethphage and the Mt of Olives.
Ierosolum definitely includes wherever The Temple was since it's always used of the Cleansing of The Temple, and Jesus presentation at the Temple in Luke 2:22. Though three verses later Simeon is identified as a man in or of Ierousalem. Later Anna spoke of Jesus Birth to "all them that looked for redemption in Ierousalem".
In the other Nativity narrative, Matthew 2:1-3 uses Ierosolum of the city the Magi arrived in when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Actually Luke may be the only writer seemingly using them interchangeably, which could be a product of him being the only one who's native language wasn't Semitic, or that he was compiling this from many different older records and eye witness accounts.
Paul uses Ierosolum in Galatians 1 and 2 about his time in contemporary Jerusalem even though Luke uses Ierousalem in Acts 15:2-4, yet Paul uses Ierousalem in Galatians 4 when speaking more poetically/eschatologically. Paul uses Ierousalem of contemporary Jerusalem only when he seems to be identifying the Church there, not when it's simply a location where events happened.
So with all those nuances in mind. This spellings of Jerusalem issues maybe doesn't tell us one way or the other if Revelation and The Fourth Gospel could have the same author.
Does the Septuagint also use these two different spellings? I don't trust the Septuagint but I'm still curious.
The Hebrew Bible also has two different spellings. The Aramaic form Yerusalem which Ierousalem is clearly a Hellenic transliteration of, they are the basis for the modern English standard Jerusalem. However Hebrew Daniel and the pre-Captivity Prophets and the original History of David and Solomon and the references that exist in Joshua and Judges all use Yerushalaim.
Given my theory that the return from Captivity re-built the City on the modern "Temple Mount" and Western Hill even though they were never part of Solomonic Jerusalem, this difference in spelling I think could actually mean more then just the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. Especially since Salem does exist in Hebrew on it's own.
Ierosolum doesn't work as well as a direct transliteration of Yerushalaim. But since Ierosolum looks like it could cryptically have the meaning of being the original Solomonic city, it as equivalent to Yerushalaim works.
Update April 2022: Since I originally wrote this I've changed my mind on that Temple Mount skepticism I alluded to, I do believe Solomon's Temple was on the Temple Mount just probably not the Dome of the Rock specifically.
I've also learned as far as Archeological Inscriptions go which Hebrew variant is actually older is the opposite of what simply looking at the Masoretic Text implies, Yerushalaim seems to be a Hasmonean era development that simply how these books were copied over time. It could be Aramaic Danile and Post-Captivity texts maintained the older form more often because there were the ones written in Aramaic Script originally rather then Paleo Hebrew.
No comments:
Post a Comment