Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] "'Eylam" Etymology: BDB vs. Strong's

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] "'Eylam" Etymology: BDB vs. Strong's
  • Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:35:46 EST


“‘Eylam” Etymology: BDB vs. Strong’s

There are two basic proposed etymologies of the Hebrew word
ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam. BDB sees ‘Eylam as deriving from the
Babylonian word for the
predecessor of Persia, whereas Strong’s sees ‘Eylam as deriving from the
Hebrew word/verb ayin-lamed-mem/(LM/elem, meaning “to conceal or to hide or
to
dissemble”. On this thread, we will examine those two competing views.

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives Depends on Which Etymology Is
Correct

If the BDB etymology of ‘Eylam is right, then the historicity of the
Patriarchal narratives is lost. First, chapter 14 of Genesis would be
nonsensical and
non-historical in positing a king from the predecessor of Persia coming with
three other Mesopotamia-based kings to discipline 5 rebellious Canaanite
princelings, something which never happened in secular history. Even worse,
chapter 14 of Genesis would thereby be revealed to have been composed very
late,
probably in exilic or post-exilic times, after the Hebrews knew Babylonia
well
and would have found out the Babylonian word for Babylonia’s eastern
neighbor,
the predecessor of Persia, a country with which the Hebrews themselves had no
contact.

Since the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives would be lost if BDB’s
proposed derivation of ‘Eylam were accepted, we should not accept that
proposed
derivation of ‘Eylam without first taking a good, hard look at that proposal.

If there is very little similarity between the Babylonian word for the
predecessor of Persia and ‘Eylam (which we will see is in fact the case),
then we
should be extremely leery about accepting such a proposed derivation. It’s
not
a harmless matter. The historicity of the Patriarchal narratives is riding
on
this etymological issue.

The Great Unlikelihood That ‘Eylam Is Derived From the Babylonian Word for
the Predecessor of Persia

In this first post on this thread, before we get into the actual linguistic
analysis, we should take a moment to realize how unlikely it is that BDB’s
proposed derivation of ‘Eylam could be correct.

Chapter 14 of Genesis is probably one of the oldest parts of the Bible.
Professor E.A. Speiser says at page 106 of “Genesis” (1962): “A fresh
re-examination of all the available scraps of evidence, both internal and
external,
favors an early date [for chapter 14 of Genesis], scarcely later in fact than
the
middle of the second millennium.” But the early Hebrews knew little about
Babylonia and nothing about the predecessor of Persia. Why then would an
early
Hebrew compose chapter 14 of Genesis, which features ‘Eylam playing such a
negative role? Why portray an unknown country, that had no contact with the
Hebrews, in such a negative light? Why would an early Hebrew pick up a
Babylonian
name for this unknown country, when the early Hebrews had almost no contact
with Babylonia? The evidence that chapter 14 of Genesis is very old is very
substantial. For example, the word “chânîykîm” at Genesis 14: 14, referring
to
Abraham's armed retainers, is not present in the secular record after the
15th
century BCE, and is never used elsewhere in the Bible. The names “Arioch”
and “Amrapel” come from the mid-2nd millennium BCE. The name “Tidal”
/Tudhaliya was a well-known Hittite kingly name in the first half of the 14th
century
BCE, but would have become virtually unknown by the beginning of the 1st
millennium BCE. And as discussed on a previous thread, the “four kings
against the
five” military conflict chronicled at Genesis 14: 1-12 bears an uncanny
resemblance to the actual military conflict, in which four attacking rulers
smashed
a league/bereit of five rebellious princelings in northern greater Canaan,
that occurred in Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign in the mid-14th century BCE.
But
if chapter 14 of Genesis really is an old composition (even if the rest of
the
Bible is “late”), it does not seem possible that the word “’Eylam” at
Genesis 14: 1 could mean the predecessor of Persia, being a Hebrew version of
the
Babylonian name for such country, since the early Hebrews knew little of
Babylonia and nothing of the predecessor of Persia.

As to the later Hebrews, in the mid-1st millennium BCE, when would the
politics have been right to portray the predecessor of Persia in such a
negative
light? Neither Persia nor its predecessor did anything terribly bad to the
Hebrews. In fact, Persia liberated Jerusalem and returned the Hebrews from
the
Babylonian Exile to Jerusalem. Though the Hebrews soon enough tired of
Persian
rule, the Hebrews never hated Persia, because Persia had saved Jerusalem for
the Hebrews. So why portray the predecessor of Persia in such a negative
light
in the Hebrew sacred scriptures again and again and again? It makes no
sense.
In fact, the later one posits the composition of the Patriarchal narratives
and Isaiah and Jeremiah, the less sense it makes for those books of the Bible
to be viewed as attacking, relentlessly and unendingly, the predecessor of
Persia, when it was Persia who returned the Hebrews from Exile in Babylon
back to
beloved Jerusalem.

The fact of the matter is that the politics were never right for the Hebrews
to stud their sacred scriptures with anti-Persia propaganda, and prior to
Persia, the Hebrews had no contact with the predecessor of Persia.
Accordingly,
it is inherently unlikely that ‘Eylam refers to the predecessor of Persia, as
BDB would have it.

Finally, Chedorlaomer is from ‘Eylam, and we have seen that the name “
Chedorlaomer”/KDRLAoMR makes perfect sense as both three Hebrew words (KDR +
L +
AoMR), and as three Ugaritic words (kdr + l + Aomr). That strongly suggests
that Chedorlaomer is being presented to us in chapter 14 of Genesis as being
a
west Semitic-speaking ruler of a west Semitic country, in particular the
Amorite
state of Ugarit on the west coast of Syria. Why would a king of the
predecessor of Persia have a name that is made up of three Hebrew words, or
alternatively of three Ugaritic words?

Chapter 14 of Genesis never uses the word “east”, never says that the four
attacking rulers traveled a long distance to get to Canaan, and never says
that
the four attacking rulers had a long way to travel to get home after the “
four kings against the five” military encounter. No, the only possible basis
for
seeing the four attacking rulers as being “Mesopotamia-based” is on the
basis of the names of the four attacking rulers and the names of their
homelands.
We have seen that “Chedorlaomer” is made up of three Hebrew words or three
Ugaritic words, which suggests that Ugarit is Chedorlaomer’s homeland. We
have
seen that “Amrapel” is the same name as the most prominent brother of Aziru,
the iniquitous west Semitic-speaking Amorite of the short-lived west Semitic
country of Amurru in northern Lebanon. Those two west Semitic names strongly
imply that those two attacking rulers lived in northern greater Canaan, not
in
non-west Semitic southern Mesopotamia or in a non-Semitic country east of
southern Mesopotamia.

Accordingly, we should be extremely wary of BDB’s proposed etymology of ‘
Eylam. Even before we get to the pure linguistic analysis of ‘Eylam, we
should
note that all of the above considerations militate against ‘Eylam meaning the
predecessor of Persia. If BDB is right, the Patriarchal narratives and
Isaiah
and Jeremiah repeatedly lambaste the predecessor of Persia, using the
Babylonian word for the predecessor of Persia, yet it is hard to see any time
period
when the Hebrews would have wanted to stud their sacred scripture with
unrelenting attacks on the predecessor of Persia. Unless the linguistic
argument
tying ‘Eylam to the predecessor of Persia is extremely strong, we should not
accept BDB’s etymology of this word, but rather we should instead give
serious
consideration to Strong’s alternative etymology, which sees ‘Eylam as being a
west Semitic word.

When BDB tells us that ‘Eylam derives from KUR elammatum, we have every right
to be suspicious. Even if KUR elammatum is artificially shortened to Elamtu,
as BDB does it, it still is not a good match to ‘Eylam. And remember, if one
accepts this proposed match, the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives is
thereby forfeited.

As we will see in later posts on this thread, the linguistic argument
concerning “’Eylam” boils down to the following:

(1) Is ‘Eylam/ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM a west Semitic word?

(2) Or, on the contrary, is ‘Eylam/ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM a foreign,
non-west Semitic loanword, namely a corrupt version of a corrupt Babylonian
version
of the non-Semitic, pre-Persian word “Hatamtu”, which came into the Hebrew
language via either the sumerogram “NIM”, or through the Akkadian phrase “KUR
elammatum”? Or to put it another way, in order for the BDB derivation of ‘
Eylam” to work, we would need to accept the proposition that all four of the
following words, from four different ancient languages, are linguistic
equivalents: “Hatamtu” and “NIM” and “KUR elammatum” and “’Eylam”.

As we are beginning to see, all the objective facts argue against the
traditional academic view, which incidentally is the Biblical Inerrantist
view as
well, that “’Eylam” at Genesis 14: 1 references the predecessor of Persia.
No
ruler from the predecessor of Persia ever did anything remotely like what
Chedorlaomer is presented as doing in chapter 14 of Genesis. But west
Semitic-speaking princeling ruler Niqmaddu II of the west Semitic Amorite
country of
Ugarit did exactly what Chedorlaomer is presented as doing in chapter 14 of
Genesis. The traditional academic view of this matter simply cannot stand
the light
of objective analysis.

In my view, chapter 14 of Genesis is very old, and is very historically
accurate. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the predecessor of Persia
or
any other “Mesopotamia-based” ruler.


Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)



  • [b-hebrew] "'Eylam" Etymology: BDB vs. Strong's, JimStinehart, 02/04/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page