City Of The Beloved

FOOTNOTES:

{1  This would be preposterous EVEN IF the Dutch had designated the location as some sort of Netherlandish holy site.  Such an eventuality, though, would be entirely beside the point.  Over the course of human history, there have been countless peoples around the world who have considered various locations to be sacred (for a myriad of reasons).  None of these instances–every one of which is an accident of history–has any more/less legitimacy than any of the others.  (Indeed, a “temenos” can theoretically be ANYWHERE; and declared to be ANYTHING by ANYONE for any number of reasons.)  Such an exigency can hardly be used as justification for waging a geo-political campaign (of oppression) against an indigenous people.  In every conceivable case, autochthony is indeterminate, as it is invariably predicated on a delimited timeframe (typically determined by a tribe-centric narrative).  Some might point to the Dutch basis for the names of certain parts of New York City–as with Harlem, Brooklyn, and Flushing (three of the most ethnically-mixed places in the world).  The etymology of such onomastics is a moot point.  With regards to New York City, were we to extend our purview beyond the 17th century, we would find that the famed metropolis is located on the Lenape homeland.  To consider ANY city to be the eternal city of ANYTHING is not only spurious; it is OSTENTATIOUSLY spurious.  (One might say that ascribing eternality to a social construct is an ornery way to be nonsensical.)  As the Lenape vis a vis Manhattan–like the Jebusites vis a vis Jerusalem–are no longer around to assert ownership, the best we can now do is ensure cosmopolitanism prevails in every instance where irreconcilable legacies collide.  This means repudiating any and all claims of “blood and soil” (irrespective of who is making them), ALL of which are prima facie insidious.  Ethnocentricity is categorically–not conditionally–iniquitous.}

{2  The prophet, Samu-El, who mentored King David, did his apprenticeship for Eli, the high priest of the Abrahamic deity.  The location: “Shilo[a]h”.  That temonos was not a temple; it was a TENT: “mishkan”–that is: a tabernacle originally erected by the Judah-ite, Beza-l-El ben Uri-El ben Hur at Beth-El (Luz), as described throughout Exodus (chapters 25-27, 35-40; note esp. 33:7-10).  The mythical “M-L-K-i zedek” [“king of righteousness”; typically rendered “Melchizedek”] was the first Abrahamic priest–according to Judaic legend.  (Note: This lexeme also occurs in the moniker, “Adon-i-Zedek” and in phrases like “mishpat Zedek”, “moreh Zedek”, and “bene Zedek”.)  Per Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek was the priest of “El-Elyon”.  It was he who blessed Abraham, thereby anointing him as the eponymous patriarch of a distinctly Hebrew Faith.  He hailed from S[H]ALEM, NOT from the place that would later be dubbed the “city of David”.  Initially, Yah-weh-ists (read: the first Hebrews) had no singular “temenos”–a fact made clear in passages like Second Kings 16:4 and 17:10.  (Indications that the City of David would eventually come to be considered the “temenos” crop up in chapter 12 of Deuteronomy.)  So WHERE DID the proto-Hebrews worship their godhead?  As mentioned, one of the earliest sacred places was, indeed, “Shilo[a]h”.  As with Solomon’s fabled temple, this was not a place of worship, but (seen as) the literal dwelling place of the Abrahamic deity.  (Interestingly, the Torah’s description of the so-called “first temple” corresponds to the standard design of pagan temples in the region–as with the one at Ain Dara, also seen as the literal dwelling place for the godhead.)  Tellingly, there was an ACTUAL temple at Tel Arad (in the Judean countryside) dating from the 8th or 7th century B.C…which appears to have been dedicated alternately to the godhead of the Shasu (“Yah-weh” / “El Elyon”) and to the Canaanite goddess, “Asherah”.  In addition to “Shilo[a]h”, there were several auspicious locations throughout Canaan where worship of the earliest incarnation of the Abrahamic deity (variously considered Yah-weh and Baal) was done: Gibeon, She[c]hem, Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, Ramah, Dan [alt. “Shfela”], etc.  The Hebrew iteration of Yahweh was likely based on the godhead of the Shasu.  This fact is attested in inscriptions from the 13th century B.C. at “Karnak” in Egypt–commemorating the triumph of Seti (father of Ramses the Great) over the “people of Y-H-W”.  By the 8th century B.C., the Edomites were STILL referring to their godhead as “Y-H-W-H” (viz. Yahweh of Teman).  It’s worth noting that Zedek / [t]Zadok also refers to a prophet under Solomon’s reign who had purportedly descended from the Nubian, Pa-Nehas[i] ben El[e]azar ben Aaron (a.k.a. “Phine[h]as”).  This figure was originally a JEBUSITE priest (and possibly even a Samaritan “kohen”).  The Jebusites worshipped the precursor to the Abrahamic godhead, which means that THAT was likely the form of Abrahamic monotheism at the time (i.e. when Solomon appointed Phine[h]as); and would subsequently serve as the basis for the godhead of the Torah.  Links to even EARLIER Canaanite theism are indicated by the fact that Aaron’s grandson (Phine[h]as) was still contending with those–like the Midianites–who worshipped Baal (ref. the Heresy of Peor).}

{3  “Philistines” is a moniker for the nefarious “other tribe” (rendered “allophuloi” in ancient Greek).  The Hebrew “Plishtim” is the plural of “P-L-Sh-T”, which was based on the antecedent Assyrian name “Palastu” / “Pilistu”, a variant of the name used by the Ancient Egyptians: “Peleset”.  It is for this reason that the Romans referred to the region “Palestinae”.  I explore this etymology in the previous essay: “The Land Of Purple”.}

{4  A noted Amorite ruler of the city from the late Bronze Age was Abdi-Hebat (from the 14th century B.C.), as mentioned in the Amarna letters.}

{5  Prior to 110 B.C., pace Simeon’s rule from 142 to 135 B.C., the (Maccabean) Hasmoneans were vassals of the Seleucids–an arrangement that began c. 164.  Hasmonean ascendence to sovereignty followed in the wake of the Maccabean Revolt of the 160’s B.C.  Before that uprising, there were likely more Samaritans and (pagan) Gentiles living in Canaan than there were mainline Yehudim.  (The Samaritan temple was not in Jerusalem; it was on Mount Gerizim…until, that is, the Hasmoneans destroyed it.)  The Maccabees referred to the land as “Judea”.  (Referring to it as “Israel” would not have made sense; as they considered THEMSELVES “Israel”.  For Israel was the name of a people, not of a place.)  From 63 to 40 B.C., the Hasmoneans were vassals of the Roman Republic; then, for the next three years, of the Parthian Empire.  Thereafter, the Herodian rulers (who thought of the region as “Judea”, not as “Israel”) were vassals of the Roman Empire (who referred to the region as “Palestina[e]”).  During this epoch, Jews remained in the minority; and any Jewish leader in the city was a suzerain, not a sovereign.  Moreover, Judaic cynosures in the Levant were not even necessarily ethnically Jewish (as with Helena of Adiabene).  It should be noted that if we were to take Herodian rule as precedent TODAY, we would be forced to propose that Hauran, Peraia, and Batanaia (in present-day Jordan) as well as Itur[a]ia (in present-day Lebanon) be annexed by the modern nation-state of Israel…in addition to the entirety of the West Bank.  (The most voracious Revisionist Zionists ACTUALLY DO envision a retrogression to ancient regimes.  It’s no accident that Sheldon Adelson’s fundraising apparatus is dubbed the “Maccabee Task Force”, signaling a resurrection of the Hasmonean order.)  Moreover, we would be forced to use the Pharisees as a precedent for Judaism–replete with Sanhedrin and regular animal sacrifices. (See footnote 6 below.)  It is unclear, though, whether today’s Revisionist Zionists seek to use the Second Temple period as precedent…or aim to harken back even further, and resurrect the regime of the unified kingdom from the 10th century B.C.  It’s hard to figure which proposal would be more ridiculous.  See footnote 7 below.}

{6  Sure enough, the modern nation-State of Israel refers to its parliament as the “Knesset”, a reference to the “Anshei Knesset Ha-Gedolah” [People of the Great Assembly], which allegedly existed during the Second Temple period.  According to Judaic lore, the assembly was founded by Ezra in the 530’s B.C. (in the advent of the Exilic Period’s conclusion).  The claim that this political body was intended in any way to be secular (to wit: to be a means for effecting genuine democracy) is derisory.  Even the president of the modern nation-State is referred to as “Nasi”, the ancient term for the “rosh” [head] of the Sanhedrin.  (The “rosh” of Israel’s “hemshala” [government] is referred to in English as the “Prime Minister”.)  Jewish citizens are afforded a panoply of entitlements unavailable to anyone else in “Israel”.  It is no secret that Arabs are subalterns.  To pretend that there is nothing theocratic (or ethno-centric) about such a government, then, is risible.}

{7  For the Revisionist Zionists who indulge in the more fanciful historiographies, we are exhorted to harken back to the last Judaic sovereign regime: the (Hasmonean) kingdom of the Maccabees–as Sheldon Adelson does with his rather on-the-nose “Maccabee Task Force”.  Such thinking reminds us that etiological myths are the bread and butter of present-day ethno-nationalist ideologies.  (Judeo-fascist organizations focused on hegemony in Jerusalem include “El-Ad” and “Ateret Kohenim” [“Crown of Priests”].) Calling for the establishment of a “Qahal” (Jewish theocracy) requires one to indulge in the cockamamie notion of resurrecting a regime from over two millennia ago.  Presumably, said regime is to be somehow transposed into the modern era.  We are then supposed to pretend that doing so is the most reasonable–and equitable–thing to do; and that–in any case–it would be fulfilling the wishes of the Creator of the Universe.}

{8  Nebuchadnezzar II has become the stuff of legend.  Naturally, this fabled Babylonian king is vilified in the Book of Daniel–a fantastical tract that was not composed until the 2nd century B.C. (i.e. four centuries after the fact).  The book is almost entirely apocryphal–based, as it is, on Aramaic lore that predates Hebrew lore by almost a thousand years.  (The eponym is merely an adaptation the Canaanite hero, Dan-El of Ugarit, tales of whom date back to the 2nd millennium B.C.)  There is also a Samaritan version of this book–which is just as disconnected from history.  Other Judaic (read: dogmatic) accounts of the Babylonians’ siege of the city are found in the Book of Jeremiah (also from the 2nd century B.C.) and the second Book of Kings (derived from Deuteronomic sources).}

{9  The Babylonian Exile lasted about 48 years (until c. 538 B.C.)  It was during that time that the earliest Judaic texts were composed.  (Judaic lore is ABOUT events prior to that, of course; but the lore ITSELF was codified during the Exilic Period.  Analogously, Jain lore is ABOUT events going back trillions of years; that doesn’t make Jainism itself trillions of years old.  At the conclusion of the Exile, when the Persians allowed the Hebrew residents of Babylon to return to the City of Judah, most of them opted to remain in Babylon.  This would have been a peculiar decision had they’d felt themselves to have been held captive.  In fact, later (in the 3rd century A.D.), Talmudists opted to set up academies in Mesopotamia–as with the storied “yeshivot” [Talmudic academies] at Pumbedita (present-day Fallujah), Sura, and Nehardea.  The fact that the Persians (at that point, the Parthians; later, the Sassanians) allowed these Jewish institutions to be built and operated AT ALL belies any claims of persecution. (See footnote 10 below.)  By the 1st century B.C., prominent rabbis were STILL hailing from Babylon–most notably: Hillel the Elder.  Those who WERE in Palestine were typically not located in Jerusalem.  (A possible exception was the fabled Akiba ben Yosef, who originally hailed from Lod.)  The famed “Council of Jamnia” was held in Yavneh [alt. “Jabneh”], on the Mediterranean coast.  Tellingly, even the so-called “Jerusalem Talmud” (from the 4th century) was actually composed in Galilee, not in the city of David. (!)  And it was composed in ARAMAIC.  (The Babylonian Talmud was composed at the Talmudic academies in Babylonia over the following two centuries.)  Throughout Late Antiquity (i.e. the Mishnaic period), the most prominent Jewish figures in Palestine operated out of Usha rather than Jerusalem: Shimon bar Yochai, Judah ben Ilai, Jose ben Halafta (a.k.a. “Rabbi Yossi”), Rabbi Meir, etc.  In fact, when the Sanhedrin was re-established in the 2nd century A.D., it was done in Usha, not in the city of David.  Meanwhile, major figures like Shammai, Yohanan ben Zakkai, and [y]Ishmael ben Elisha “Ba’al Ha-Baraita” resided in the Galilee, not in the city of David.  The renown “amora”, Hoshaiah Rabbah, established his schools in Galilee c. 200–first at Sepphoris, then at Caesarea (which is also where Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef had taught).  Even the chief compiler [“tanna”] of the Mishnah, Yehudah ha-Nasi (a.k.a. “Judah the Prince”) did all his work while in Usha and in Bet[h] She’arayim (both in the Galilee), not in the city of David. (See footnote 11 below.)  Throughout Late Antiquity, most of the other rabbinic sages remained in Babylonia–as with “amora-im” like Rav Huna (at Sura) as well as “Rava” and “Abaye” (at Pumbedita).}

{10  Cyrus the Great not only allowed any Babylonian Jews interested in migrating to Palestine to do so, he granted them permission to build the “second temple” in Jerusalem–a gesture of striking magnanimity that a regime seeking to persecute them would certainly never have even considered.  Nevertheless, the rabbinic sages overwhelmingly chose to operate in other locations–as the present Endnote makes clear.  The Romans, who took control over the Levant in the 1st century B.C., were–of course–a different story.  While the Herodian period was relatively accommodating to Palestinian Jews (see Appendix), the Roman persecution intensified after the decisive tamp-down c. 70; and even more-so after the quashing of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132-135 A.D.}

{11  Prior to THAT, the centers of Judaic activity in Canaan for the fabled “tanna-im” had been Lod [alt. Lydda] and Jabneh.  Note that the latter city was rendered “Iamnia” in Greek.  The city was called “Jamnia” by the Romans and “Ibelin” by medieval Europeans.  It is now known as “Yavne” in Hebrew and “Yibna” in Arabic.}

{12  By the end of the 4th century, the Romans had become what can only be described as tyrannical Christian theocrats.  Consequently the Sassanians and Jews tended to ally themselves against them, per the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” protocol.  Note, for example, the slaughtering of over 10,000 Christians in the city by Persian general Shahrbaraz and Jewish general Benjamin of Tiberias IN CONCERT c. 614.}

{13  The timeline of this celebrated historiography is highly dubious.  Modern scholarship places the temple’s likely construction–IF, that is, it even existed–at some point in the late 9th to late 7th century B.C.  Though Judaic lore would lead us to believe otherwise, Solomon’s projects were not exclusively Mosaic.  We should bear in mind that Solomon also erected shrines to Molek (a.k.a. “Moloch”, a deity worshipped by the Ammonites, likely adapted from the Phoenician version of Ba’al at Tyre: Melqart) and to [c]Hemosh (godhead of the Moabites), as recounted in First Kings 11:7.  This would seem to indicate that he accommodated pagan (esp. Assyrian) idolatry in his theological repertoire.}

{14  When referring to the House of God (qua temple), this has also been rendered “Beit-i-El” (Genesis 12:8) and “Bet [ha] Elohim”.  There have been attempts by Judaic apologists to find a conjectured town called “Bethel” in order to explain such references to a “House of El”.  Such attempts have been unsuccessful.  The problem with this tac is that “Bet[h]-El” is described as the place where the king had his court…which would pose problems for a Jerusalem-centric portrayal.  For, as we have seen, the Judaic center was often NOT in the City of David.  And even if it HAD been, why wouldn’t the location be designated by the city’s putative name?  Bottom line: Until Late Antiquity (the Talmudic era), the salient descriptor for the Judaic temenos was “House of El”.}

{15  This was an alternate way of referring to the city of David as “Zion”.  This is illustrated by the fact that “New Jerusalem” has alternately been referred to as the “new Zion”.  Originally, “Zion” simply referred to a hill within that city (ref. Micah 4:8 and Isaiah 10:32), likely the location of the fabled Jebusite fortress referenced in Judges 19:10.  The moniker was eventually rendered a synecdoche for the entire city–as we find in, say, Isaiah 62:1-12.  And so it went: Through much of Classical Antiquity, the city of David was alternately referred to as “Metsudat Zion” [Fortress of Zion].}

{16  Recall that the Psalms were adapted over the course of many centuries–culminating in the Masoretic texts of the Dark Ages.  Many were revampings of antecedent lore–as with Psalm 29, which was a Judaized version of a hymn to Baal.}

{17  Ezekiel envisioned a new temple to be erected, and was very specific about its design (ref. chapt. 40-48).  Isaiah 54:11-14 elaborated upon this; and buoyed the vision with augmented Messianic fervor–thereby inaugurating Judaic apocalypticism.  The Christian fanatic, John of Patmos got even more carried away with sensational apocalyptic prognostications (as with Revelation 21:18-23); and–revealingly–referred to the city simply as “the city”.  The fact that such vague descriptors (“place where Yahweh is” [YHWH-Shammah] and “the city”) were used is very telling.  It means that nobody though of the city as “Yerushalem” until much later.}

{18  There is debate about the single appearance of the city’s familiar moniker in the First Book of Samuel (17:54).  However, it is used throughout the Second Book of Samuel.}

{19  The Roman Catholic Church took its queue from the prevailing Judaica of the time–thus including the “y” in their moniker-of-choice: “Hiero-solyma” (Romanized with the key morpheme, “hiero-”).}

{20  An explanation for why one of these scenarios ended up happening (this singular rabbi proselytizing in Jerusalem) while the others did not does not speak to its legitimacy.  It merely illustrates why a Jewish proselyte in the city was so noteworthy: the city was not a Jewish city, so the occurrence was novel enough to mention.  Think of it this way: It is highly unlikely that a Muslim who’s métier was “dawa” (promotion of the Sunnah) would have made the front-page news by doing so in Mecca.  Such a proselyte would have been no more noteworthy than an itinerant preacher touting the Roman Catholic catechism in Vatican City. (See footnote 21 below.)}

{21  As it turns out, up until the 19th century, the vast majority of Jews in Palestine were Sephardim and Misra[c]him.  The former spoke Ladino, as they hailed from Andalusia and the Maghreb.  The latter spoke Arabic.  It was only in the late 18th century that Jews from Eastern Europe started migrating–in tiny amounts–to Palestine.  These “Ashkenazim” predominantly hailed from the Pale of Settlement, and were (primarily) descendants of the [k]Hazars; not of Semitic peoples (a matter I explore in a forthcoming essay.)  They founded small, agrarian settlements (the bucolic socialist communes known as “kibbutzim”) in the area; and did so at the pleasure of the Ottomans.  These were, effectively, the first Zionists.  While residents were generally observant, such humble communes were primarily secular in nature.  We might bear in mind that the “Zionist” movement began as a secular / socialist movement, that did not claim any right to displace the indigenous peoples.}

{22  The trick is to accuse anyone who dares debunk the faux historiography of being “anti-Semitic”, an epithet that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.  Such perfidious casuistry is–unfortunately–not uncommon.}

{23  The same analogy could be drawn with the Dutch vis a vis Jakarta in Indonesia.  Jakarta–as “Batavia”–was Dutch for 323 years (1619 to 1942), after which it was Japanese for three years.  That was less than three generations ago.  This means that, in terms of sovereignty, up until the Second World War, the capital of Indonesia had been officially Dutch for over double the CUMULATIVE time that Jerusalem had been officially Jewish.  Granted, Jakarta was never considered a Netherlandish holy site; but EVEN IF it had been, the point would remain.  For if Netherlandish lore HAD–for whatever reason–posited sacred ground in Java, this would change nothing about how the rest of the world is obligated to view the place that was originally called “Sunda Kelapa”.  (And while we’re at it, me might notify the Spanish that the Arabs will be retaking Cordoba.)  Bottom line: Jerusalem is no more inherently Jewish than Jakarta is inherently Dutch.}

{24  “Bab-El” is Aramaic for “gates of god”.  Jesus of Nazareth is even said to have referred to himself as “bab-El” in the Gospel of John (10:9), meaning that he was the doorway through which the saved would enter.  Again, the phrasing in scripture is suffused with metaphor, and often found across cultures.  Jesus is said to have proclaimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”…the same declaration Siddhartha Gautama of Lumpini (a.k.a. the “Buddha”) had made five centuries earlier.}

APPENDIX:

When Herod, the Idumean (Edomite) suzerain of Judea, rose to power (primarily due to his friendship with famed Roman general, Marc Anthony), he wasted no time ingratiating himself with both Palestine’s Pharisees and the Emperor in Rome: Octavian (a.k.a. “Caesar Augustus”).  Herod had nothing but contempt for the (Maccabean) Hasmoneans.  Even as Herod supplanted the Hasmoneans, he obliquely identified with Beth Israel.  (One of his wives was of Hasmonean lineage, whom he soon executed; another was of Sadducee / Boethusian lineage, whom he soon banished; and yet another was a Samaritan.)

Herod is known for having placed a golden eagle over the entrance to the temple in Jericho: clearly not something a unreconstructed Jew would have done.  It’s also telling that when the Parthians attacked Jerusalem, the city’s Jews sided with the Parthians over the Herodian regime, whom they held in abeyance.  That Herod eventually minted coins depicting himself alongside the menorah was likely a ploy to ingratiate himself with the city’s Kohenim (Jewish High Priests) than it was a sincere profession of personal Faith.  (For a similar use of religious affiliation as propaganda, see Constantine vis a vis Christianity.)  In the end, Herod’s fealty was an awkward hybrid of Roman paganism and Judaism.  In other words: As the Palestinian vassal to the Roman Imperium, Herod was playing both sides.

In the late 1st century B.C., Herod–anointed King of Judea–erected the “Antonia citadel” (named for his Roman patron, Mark Antony), which would serve as barracks for the city’s Roman garrison.  The facility was located at the eastern edge of the old city, in the gulley between Bezetha and the north side of the Temple Mount, next to the Struthion cistern (a.k.a. Sparrow Pool).  Some revisionists contend that the primary function of this structure was to “protect” the Second Temple; which makes no sense, as it housed the very soldiers who would raze said temple c. 70.  (The same goes for the Roman fort atop Masada.)

What is now referred to as the “Second Temple” was not–by that time–the same temple as the Jewish temple purportedly erected by Vassal-King Zerub-Bab-El of Judah c. 516 B.C., who served at the pleasure of the Persian governor, “Shin-azzar” (alt. “Sheshbazzar”).  THAT would have been the second temple…if, that is, we are to suppose that there was a previous temple erected by Solomon in the 10th century B.C. (That would have been some sort of “hekhal” where the Canaanite godhead, Baal, was worshipped for much of the 7th century.)  The fabled “First Temple” was destroyed by the Babylonians c. 587 B.C.  The “Second Temple” was erected c. 516 (at the behest of Persian king, Darius); but THAT was destroyed by the Seleucids in the 2nd century B.C. (whereupon it was replaced by a temple to Zeus).  So the temple built at the behest of Herod (a.k.a. “Herod’s temple”) was actually the THIRD temple.

It is unclear what, exactly, was at the site during the Hasmonean era.  There is reference made to a tabernacle of some sort located on the Temple Mount, replete with Ha-Dvir.  It should be noted, though, that the Hasmoneans were Hellenized Jews, so had a creed that was not identical to whatever may have existed prior to the Exilic Period…and was certainly different from the Judaism of the Pharisees and Sadducees that existed during Herod’s reign.  (The standard ruse is to impute ethnic continuity where none existed.)

It is also unclear what may have occurred between c. 63 (when the Romans usurped Hasmonean rule) and c. 37 (when Herod took over); but it is likely that no major Judaic structure was permitted at the location.  What we do know is that Herod commissioned a new temple in a gambit to secure support from the city’s Jewish community.  “Herod’s Temple” was constructed primarily between 19 and 11 B.C.  This was in keeping with his overall enhancement projects–not only in Jerusalem (amphitheaters, aqueducts, etc.), but from Caesarea Maritima on the coast to Jericho in the Jordan Valley and up to Damascus in Syria.

Expansions like the Huldah Gates, Robinson’s Arch, and Wilson’s Arch were not added until the tenures of Valerius Gratus, Pontius Pilate, Agrippa, and Tiberius Julius Alexander (that is, up until the razing of Herod’s Temple c. 70).  Further enhancements would be made to surrounding structures through the end of the 1st century A.D. by Agrippa II.  This was in keeping with his overall enhancement projects–from Berytus to Caesarea Maritima.

It’s worth bearing in mind that, during the Herodian period, the Romans were in charge of the city; and allowed Jews to engage in religious observance…so long as it didn’t disrupt civic life.  (Undermining Roman authority was considered an act of sedition; as JoN would soon learn.)  The Antonia citadel was not made for the benefit of anyone but the Roman rulers; yet its existence was retroactively incorporated into Jewish hagiography during the Mishnaic period.

Such revisionism was common practice.  It was easy to concoct a potpourri of “just so stories” around long-lost architecture; so it comes as no surprise that that’s what people did.  Useful tid-bits could be culled from the accounts of, say, Josephus, and then integrated into whatever apocrypha served each expositor’s purpose.  To appreciate the context within which Josephus would have given his accounts, the region was percolating with Jewish Messianic prophecies.  Josephus was smitten with these tall tales even as he had pledged fealty to the Roman Imperium; which would have influenced the lens through which he recounted most events.

Postscript:

Looking back at the 2nd millennium B.C., we find “[u]Ru-shalim” (as it appears in the Egyptian hieratic “Execration” texts of the 19th century B.C.)  We then find the Canaanite moniker, “Uru-Shlem” [“foundation of the deity, Shalim”] in the Amarna letters of the 14th century B.C…which was a cognate of the Sumerian / Akkadian moniker that had likely already been in use for centuries.  In neither case can the name be correlated with the (manufactured) legacy with which the Judaic tradition came to be affiliated.

In other words: The Semitic etymology of this moniker had nothing to do with Judaism.  Its use long antedated Abrahamic lore–which, in any case, designates as its point of departure a Bet[h]-El and various other (rather obscure) locations.  Yahweh had about as much to do with the City of David as Jupiter had to do with Rome.

Rome, by the way, was initially the Etruscan city of “Sabinium” / “Latium”.  Jupiter was simply the Latin reification of the Greek god, Zeus…who was, it might be noted, unconcerned with the Italic peninsula.  That; and, well, he didn’t actually exist.