|by Joachim Jeremias[*]|
1. The Problem
|Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalēm)||Ἱεροσόλυμα (Hierosolūma)|
|Hebraic Form||Hellenized Form|
The table above informs us that in New Testament times there were two Greek forms of the name for the Holy City and that both appear frequently in the New Testament: Ἰερουσαλήμ 76xx, Ἱεροσόλυμα 63xx. But it is strange that sometimes one and sometimes the other form is used, and sometimes the very same New Testament author used both forms side by side: thus Mark and John always have Ἱεροσόλυμα, Hebrews and Revelation always have Ἰερουσαλήμ, but Paul, Matthew, Luke and Acts alternate between the two forms. The problem posed by this inconsistent use of language becomes even more complicated if we consider Luke-Acts in isolation. The form Ἰερουσαλήμ occurs frequently both in the Gospel (27xx) and in Acts (36xx). The form Ἱεροσόλυμα, on the other hand, while it occurs frequently in the Acts of the Apostles (23xx), is quite rare in the Gospel of Luke (4xx). Can we discern some meaning behind these facts? Or must we resign ourselves to Walter Bauer’s assessment that “No certain conclusions can be drawn concerning the use of the two forms of the name”?
2. Ancient Judaism
Any attempt to explain these strange facts must begin with the history of the Greek versions of Jerusalem’s name. The oldest evidence for the Greek form of the name can be found in Clearchus of Soli (born before 342 BCE), who refers to his teacher Aristotle. Josephus quotes him in Contra Apionem:
τὸ δὲ τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν ὄνομα πάνυ σκολιόν ἐστιν· Ἰερουσαλήμην γὰρ αὐτὴν καλοῦσιν.
Their city has a remarkably odd name: they call it Ιerusaleme. (Apion 1:179; Loeb [adapted])
The textual attestation for Josephus varies:  The L manuscript (which is the source of all other Contra Apionem manuscripts) reads Ἰερουσαλήμη (Ieroūsalēmē). Eusebius quoting Josephus in Praep. ev. 9:5 §6 reads Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalēm), without the unusual -η ending, while the Latin translation reads Hierosolyma. There can hardly be any doubt that the reading offered by L is the oldest because of the unusual -η ending.
The next witness to the Greek name for Jerusalem is the Septuagint, which remarkably—if we disregard its most recent layer, the Apocrypha—always and without exception, over 600xx, reads (ἡ) Ἰερουσαλήμ ([hē] Ierousalēm), the correct rendering of the Hebrew name ירושלם (y-r-u-sh-l-m).
But now a completely new actor comes onto the stage. For the first time in Hecataeus of Abdera (ca. 300 BCE) and on two Zenon papyri from the year 259 BCE a new form of the name appears: (τὰ) ‘Ιεροσόλυμα ([ta] Hierosolūma). This form, which arose through an adjustment of Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalēm) to ἱερος (hieros, “holy”) and the common name Σόλυμοι (Solūmoi), combined with the addition of a final vowel, is a Hellenization of Jerusalem’s name. This Hellenized form was quickly adopted. From the outset, non-Jewish authors regarded ‘Ιεροσόλυμα as the normal form, as a look W. Bauer’s lengthy list spanning from Polybius of Megalopolis (2nd century BC) to the magical papyri shows. Additional citations to supplement his list could also be adduced.
Jewish authors, on the other hand, fall into two groups. A minority writes the Hellenized form ‘Ιεροσόλυμα: so Pseudo-Aristeas, 2nd Maccabees, 3rd Maccabees, 4th Maccabees and Josephus (who never used the Hebrew form, but used the Greek form 574xx); these were authors of historical works, propaganda, and didactic writings that aimed at or included a non-Jewish readership. The Hebrew form Ἰερουσαλήμ, on the other hand, which was familiar to Jews from the Septuagint, was chosen by Jewish writers when they translated from Semitic texts (Ben Sira, Judith, Psalms of Solomon, Baruch, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs), but above all when they translated sacred texts into Greek (Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Quinta). The evidence from Philo, who mentions Jerusalem’s name 7xx, is informative: once in an historical report and five times when quoting Agrippa I’s letter to Caligula, Philo used the Greek form. On the other hand,  when Philo spoke of Jerusalem in the course of an allegorical interpretation of its name, he wrote Ἰερουσαλήμ.
In summary it can be said that in New Testament times there were two Greek forms of the name for the Holy City: Ἰερουσαλήμ and ‘Ιεροσόλυμα. The former possessed dignity and a sacred connotation on account of the Greek Bible; it is no coincidence that (apart from Clearchus) it is found exclusively in Jewish authors. The Hellenized form ‘Ιεροσόλυμα, on the other hand, was the profane name of Jerusalem that was common among non-Jews, but was also used by Jewish authors when they wanted to address Greek-speaking audiences.
3. The Two Forms of the Name in the New Testament (Excluding Luke-Acts)
We may now apply what we have learned in section 2 to the overview printed at the beginning of this essay.
We begin with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation of John, which exclusively used the form Ἰερουσαλήμ. Both authors had no choice but to use Ἰερουσαλήμ because they referred either to the heavenly (Hebrews) or the eschatological (Revelation) city of God, for which only the sacred Hebrew form of the name would have been appropriate. Conversely, if the Gospels of Mark and John throughout, and Matthew—with the sole exception of Matt. 23:37 [2xx] (where Matthew, as the parallel in Luke 13:34 [2xx] shows, transmitted a fixed tradition)—used the Hellenistic form of the name, then it is because they wrote as authors who addressed non-Jewish readers. At the same time one can see how far they were from regarding their writings as sacred texts.
Finally, Paul, who wrote Ἰερουσαλήμ in seven places and ‘Ιεροσόλυμα in three places, also becomes understandable. In Galatians Paul used the profane form of the name when he mentioned his visits to the Holy City (Gal. 1:17f.; 2:1) but he used the sacred form of the name where he contrasted the earthly and heavenly city of God (4:25f.). The solemn form of the name is found in the remaining passages (Rom. 15:19, 25f., 31; 1 Cor. 16:3), because he speaks of Jerusalem as the mother church and the center of the mission.
Only in the case of Luke-Acts do we not succeed in finding regularity in the use of the two forms of the name according to the standards obtained so far. The questions that arise here can be specified as follows: 1) How is it that the Gospel of Luke has 27 instances of the form Ἰερουσαλήμ, which otherwise only appears in a single place in the four Gospels (Matt. 23:37 ∥ Luke 13:34)? 2) Why does the Hellenistic form appear next to the Hebraic form on four occasions in the third Gospel? And 3) how is it to be explained that this profane form, used so sparingly in the Gospel of Luke, occurs no less than 23xx in the Acts of the Apostles (besides the 36 instances of Ἰερουσαλήμ)?
Answering these questions is only possible with the help of new data, which can be obtained by examining Lukan redaction. Luke’s treatment of Mark provides unbiased information about his redactional technique and intention. Our analysis gives the following picture: In the Markan material he used, the author of Luke encountered the profane form ‘Ιεροσόλυμα  only 6xx.
He took over ‘Ιεροσόλυμα 1x (Luke 19:28 ∥ Mark 11:1),
omitted ‘Ιεροσόλυμα 3xx (Luke 18:31 [cf. Mark 10:32]; 19:45 [cf. Mark 11:27]; 23:49; cf. 15:41),
changed ‘Ιεροσόλυμα to Ιερουσαλήμ 2xx (Luke 6:17 [cf. Mark 3:3]; 18:31 [cf. Mark 10:33])
and inserted Ιερουσαλήμ into Markan material 4xx (Luke 5:17; 9:31; 21:20, 24).
From this new data we learn that in his treatment of Mark the author of Luke—except in Luke 19:28—radically eradicated the Hellenized form ‘Ιεροσόλυμα and replaced it with Ἰερουσαλήμ.
This analysis brings us to the answers to our three questions: 1) the author of Luke found it inappropriate to use the profane form when the Holy City was referred to in the Gospel, preferring instead the sacred form Ἰερουσαλήμ, with which he was familiar from the Greek Scriptures. 2) When the author of Luke nevertheless adopted the profane form in Luke 19:28 from Mark 11:1, this was an obvious oversight. The three remaining examples of the Hellenistic form in the Gospel of Luke (2:22; 13:22; 23:7) are to be judged in the same manner; they, too, are pre-Lukan. 3) The only question that remains unanswered is how it can be explained that Luke proceeds quite differently in the Acts of the Apostles than in the Gospel, in that he now uses both forms of the name side by side without any recognizable principle (36xx Ἰερουσαλήμ, 23xx ‘Ιεροσόλυμα).
The attempt to ascribe the two forms of the name in Acts to different sources does not succeed, as shown, for example, in the “we” section in Acts 21:1-17, which in v. 4, 15 and 17 reads ‘Ιεροσόλυμα, but in v. 11, 12 and 13 reads Ἰερουσαλήμ. Nevertheless, precisely in this section the alternation is not purely accidental. In v. 11 an utterance of the Holy Spirit is quoted verbatim and in v. 12f. an echo thereof reverberates; for this purpose only the sacred form of the name was possible. Moreover, in Acts the alternation between the two forms of Jerusalem’s name reflects the multiplicity and diverse origins of the traditions available to Luke. However one may explain the juxtaposition of the two forms in Acts in individual cases, the inferior dignity that in Luke’s eyes was due to a church history compared to a Gospel is expressed in the increased usage of the profane form of Jerusalem’s name. However, one should not overlook the fact that in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles (with the sole exception of the verse 1:4, which belongs to the introduction) Luke exclusively (11xx) used the sacred form of the name Ἰερουσαλήμ and only in 8:1 does the aforementioned promiscuity of both forms begin. If pure chance is not at work here, one will have to conclude that for Luke (or for the tradition he used in Acts 1-7) the origin of the early church still belonged to the period of revelation.
Click here to return to the Whole Stones blog.
[*] This article originally appeared as: Joachim Jeremias, “ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ/ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΑ,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 65.3/4 (1974): 273-276. Original pagination is marked in blue like this: .
 Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 470.
 Precise figures cannot be given because of variations in the MSS.
 Both in the “real” Hecataeus (quoted by Diodorus Siculus 34. 35 fragment 1, 1. 2. 3. 5; 40, 3) and later in the “pseudo-Hecataeus” (quoted by Josephus in Ap. 1:197: καλοῦσιν δ ̓αὐτήν ‘Ιεροσόλυμα)
 Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum I ([CPJ]; ed. Tcherikover-Fuks, Cambridge, Mass. 1957, No 2a Ιεροσολυμ[οις], No 2b Ιεροσολ]υμοις. Both papyri are lists.
 Bl-Debr §56, 1 and § 38 Appendix at the end.
 Loc. cit., col. 737 s. v. ‘Ιεροσόλυμα line 8-15, 22f.
 There are also Dios (quoted in Jos., Ap. 1:114; Ant. 8:148), Menander of Ephesus (quoted Ap. 1:120; Ant. 8:147) as well as the Latin authors who wrote Hierosolyma (Cicero, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius).
 A. Schalit, Namenswörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1968), 59f.
 Prof. Dr. Dr. Hanhart kindly informed me that he also includes 1 Esdr. (apocr) and 1 Macc. in this category, since he—unlike A. Rahlfs—tends to consider Ἰερουσαλήμ in both works to be the original reading in every instance.
 Hatch-Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint, Suppl. I (Oxford, 1900), 81f.; Reider-Turner, An Index to Aquila (Suppl. to VT 12; Leiden, 1966), 116f.
 Legatio ad Gaium §156.
 278, 288, 312f., 315.
 Somn. 2:250.
 How easily such an oversight could be made is shown by Luke’s treatment of the praesens historicum. He found it 90xx in the Markan material he took over, removed it 89xx, but kept it only once (Luke 8:49), the latter certainly unintentionally.
 In v. 4, the Spirit does not speak.
 Adolf Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1909), 76-81; E. Lohse, “Σιών κ.τ.λ.,” ThW VII (1964), 326 n. 33ff.
Would you like to offer a correction
You must be logged in to post a comment.