Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

“‘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)