What Marked Jerusalem as Holy
What was it about the location that became Jerusalem that inflamed Yahweh priests with the obsession that a temple must be built upon one certain mount in Judaea? Even before the priests of Yahweh arrived at the mount, the site had been regarded as sacred by inhabitants of the region. The earliest known name for the site was Ur-Shalem (or Yeru-Shalem), and from as far back as can be traced the hub area of Ur-Shalem encompassed three particular mounts. The most ancient names of the mounts seem to point to some singular association that is yet to be discovered. The southernmost mount had the name of “Mount of the Signal” in antiquity; the northernmost peak is said to have been known as “Mount of the Observers.” The central mount, however, seems to have been central in more ways than one, for it bore the name “Mount of Directing.” This is the mount which is claimed to have been seen by Abraham from a distance; he is alleged to have witnessed a heavy cloud over this mount in which the glory of god was seen. The word Ur translates roughly as fire or light, but the word Shalem is remarkably similar to the Hebrew shalom, the greeting or farewell meaning peace. Jerusalem has thus been said, rather ironically considering its history of discord, to mean light and peace. Another speculation is that shalem means something like the perfect place.
Curiously the barren mountain site that would become Jerusalem lacked the basic needs for a center of religious or political pursuits. There was neither water nor food sources near the site, nor even any trade or military routes anywhere near. One might be inclined to call it a god-forsaken place! Around c. 2000-1800 BCE there was little in the region but small sparsely inhabited highland areas. When the Yahweh priests arrived they were already determined that one particular spot there was marked out as a center that god favored. What was the supposed special indicator that the place was blessed by heaven? It was a massive artificially cut rock. The priests were divinely certain that despite the stone’s antiquity it had all been fashioned just for them.
The sacred rock was known in Hebrew as Eben Sheti-yah, and translates as the “Stone from which the world was woven.” This reference seems to hold an intricate relationship to the more ancient names for the three mounts mentioned earlier upon which Jerusalem evolved. The sacred rock can be deduced as once having served as a kind of platform that was put in place atop artificially cut massive stone blocks—in pre-diluvial times. The sacred rock at the Jerusalem location has a startling similarity in age and structure to the more massive stone platform located at Baalbeck, in today’s Lebanon. This sacred rock, therefore, existed for millennia before c 1000 BCE—which is the timeframe when David is alleged to have captured the sparse area (today’s Mount Zion) from the Jebusites (an early tribal league).
Tradition says that the sacred rock was cube-like, with its corners precisely facing the four directions of the compass. In addition, it is said that two tube-like funnels had been bored out of the rock, and these connected to a subterranean tunnel. How these feats could have been accomplished in prehistory times, or the purpose they served is unknown. Tradition has it also that the construction plans for the temple that was erected later had been provided directly by an unnamed source which holy myth, of course, credits to “the Lord.”
We should also note that ancient names of the valleys in the area carried special implication as well. For example, Isaiah spoke of one of them as the Valley of Hizzayon, which loosely translates as Valley of Vision. Ugaritic texts tell of divine healers in a valley they called Valley of Repha’im (the healers). Legends from prehistory times also tell of a subterranean region in “the Valley of Hinnom,” where the entrance could be discerned by a column of smoke that rose between two palm trees.
Archeological research has shown that the biblical accounts of Canaan-Israel-Judah history are far from reliable. A brief example: the character of Saul (c. 1025-1005 BCE), the alleged first king of Israel, was supposedly installed by the eleventh century BCE judge and “prophet” Samuel. This places it in the Iron Age I period. Nothing has ever been unearthed in archeological digs that even suggests that a prosperous united monarchy existed then. And no archeological evidence has ever been found of David’s alleged kingdom, and no indication of the conquests attributed to David have been unearthed either. In fact, evidence reveals that settlements in the Jerusalem region in this Iron Age I timeframe experienced no interruption of Canaanite culture. Likewise, in regard to David’s alleged son Solomon (time setting c. 970-931 BCE), nothing has ever been brought to light of any monumental architecture in Jerusalem, Megiddo or Hazor in this timeframe as has been attributed to Solomon.
The holy truth is that precious little reliable priestly accounting of Israel or Judah surfaces until around 800 BCE. Even then much of the priest-written “history” has been freely embroidered upon. It is wise to remember that Jews are never mentioned until the Maccabees (Hasmonaeans), a Jewish dynasty of “patriots,” high priests and kings of the 2nd and 1st century BCE who sought to rouse the Jews against their Seleucid ruler.
- See related posts, The David Saga, parts 1 and 2; and Solomon’s Majesty, August 2009.
Time Frames and Taboo Data Blog 
Leave a Reply