What Was the Name of Jerusalem Before It Was Called Jerusalem, and Who Did It Belong To?

According to the Bible, the name of Jerusalem before it became the well-known “Jerusalem” was “Shalem”, which in Hebrew means wholeness or completion (and is also very close to the word “shalom”).

The king of the city was called Melchizedek, and in Jewish tradition—written nearly 2,000 years ago—he is identified as Shem, the son of Noah (the father of the 'Shemites').

Later, Abraham bound his son Isaac on Mount Moriah and chose to call this place “Yireh” (to see/appear), referring to the future time when his descendants would ascend there to “be seen” before God. In other words—this was the site of the Temple.

The merging of the two names, “Yireh” and “Salem,” gave rise to the name “Yerushalayim” (Jerusalem). In Hebrew—the ancient language spoken throughout the land west of the Jordan River—the word carries many layered interpretations: “an inheritance for them,” & “they will see peace/wholeness,” or even “awe and peace,” among other creative combinations possible in the Hebrew tongue.

(As early as the 20th century BCE, records of the city appear in Egyptian Execration Texts as “ú-ru-sa-lim.” In the centuries that followed, many documents mention the city under similar pronunciations.)

Later, the city was conquered from Melchizedek by the Jebusite people, and centuries afterward, by King David, who either purchased or captured it from Araunah the Jebusite. David then gave the city the names “Zion” and “The City of David.” From there, the history (and controversies) unfold—especially after the Roman conquest of the city from the Jews. “Coincidentally,” the Jews likely lost then not just due to Rome’s strength alone, but due to their extreme internal divisions inside Jerusalem.

Anyone who reads the historical accounts of that period—especially Josephus Flavius—will see that Jerusalem might not have fallen to the Romans had the Jews not been at war with each other within the city. One could say the internal conflict destroyed them more than the Romans did. In my view, THIS IS STILL TRUE TODAY.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote in his Histories about the immense difficulty of confronting the city and the many defeats Rome suffered before subduing it.

Returning to the Main Point:

According to the Bible, Jerusalem belonged to Shem, the son of Noah, not to the Canaanites (the descendants of Canaan, son of Ham).

What about the rest of the Land of Israel?

If we speak strictly about territorial division after Noah’s sons left the Ark, then—as we said—Jerusalem belonged to Shem, while the rest of the land was given to the Canaanites.

However, in Jewish tradition (as brought in the Midrash), when Abraham arrives in the land, the verse says: “And the Canaanite was THEN in the land.” From these Hebrew words, the sages learned that the land actually belonged to the descendants of Shem—otherwise, there would be no need to state it. After all, the "Torah" had already told us that Abraham came to the land of Canaan. Why then repeat “and the Canaanite was THEN in the land”? The extra phrase “then in the land” implies that earlier he had not been there (in Hebrew), but at that time the Canaanites were in the process of conquering the land from the descendants of Shem. These descendants had fled to Jerusalem.

(Exactly as happened at the end of the Second Jewish Temple period, when, according to Tacitus, Jerusalem was so hard to capture because it was both heavily fortified and filled with people and fighters who had fled from other towns across the Land of Israel—making Jerusalem the last stronghold that resisted until it, too, eventually fell.)

Conclusion:

According to the Bible—and thus for those who also follow the Qur’an and the New Testament, both of which build upon it—Jerusalem originally belonged to Shem, son of Noah. Not everyone is aware of this part, but the source is there for anyone who wishes to find it.

Hopefully, one day, the name “Jerusalem” will fulfill its deepest meaning and truly become a place of peace.