Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Etymology of “’Eylam” at Genesis 14: 1:  Part I
 
The Hebrew word at Genesis 14: 1 for Chedorlaomer’s homeland is 
ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM.  This has traditionally been thought, by Biblical 
Inerrantists and 
modern secular scholars alike, to reference the far-off predecessor of 
Persia, east of the lower Euphrates/Tigris River.  But as we will see in this 
post, 
there is nothing in secular history to support any linkage between the Hebrew 
word ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM and the predecessor of Persia.
 
One standard English transliteration of the Hebrew word 
ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM is:  ’Eylam.  (This is from the Blue Letter Bible.)  
This transliteration 
is much more accurate than the traditional English rendering “Elam”, which 
owes as much to an Akkadian phrase discussed below as it does to the Hebrew 
word 
ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM.
 
Note that both the Hebrew word ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM, and any actual 
transliteration of that Hebrew word, such as ’Eylam, feature a dual initial 
vowel 
sound.  Whether it be ’Ey, or (as in the case of other Hebrew words that 
begin 
with ayin-yod) Ey or ’Ay or Ay, any actual English transliteration of a 
Hebrew 
word that begins with ayin-yod will always feature a dual vowel sound.
 
That is important, because there is no such dual initial vowel sound in any 
version of the secular historical name of the predecessor of Persia.  Nor 
does 
much of anything else match either.  As we will now see, neither the 
predecessor of Persia itself, nor its Babylonian neighbor, ever referred to 
the 
predecessor of Persia by anything approximating the Hebrew word 
ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam.
 
1.  “Hatamtu” or “Haltamti” or “Atamti” vs. ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam
 
Prior to the arrival of the Persians, the locals east of the lower 
Euphrates/Tigris River called their own country “Hatamtu” or “Haltamti” or 
“Atamti”.  
Note that ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam bears no reasonable resemblance to 
the locals’ name for their own country.  This should be no real surprise, 
since 
the Hebrews never interacted with Hatamtu, the predecessor of Persia.  As we 
are starting to see, ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam in Hebrew has no 
connection to any name for the predecessor of Persia in the secular history 
of the 
ancient world.
 
2.  The Babylonians referred to their eastern neighbor in two different ways. 
 But let us note at the outset that although the Hebrews were conquered by 
Babylonia in the 6th century BCE, the Hebrews in fact had little contact with 
Babylonia prior to the 6th century BCE.  If Genesis 14: 1 was composed prior 
to 
the 6th century BCE, which is very likely, then it is hard to see why the 
Hebrews would pay the slightest bit of attention to Babylonia’s name for 
Babylonia’
s eastern neighbor, a far-off country that was irrelevant to the Hebrews 
prior to the Babylonian Exile.
 
(a)  “NIM” vs. ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam
 
Sumer, the predecessor of Babylonia, apparently referred to the predecessor 
of Persia as “NIM”.  What we do know for sure is that the sumerogram used by 
Babylonia for the predecessor of Persia was “NIM”.  
 
NIM is not similar at all to ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam.
 
As discussed in my next post, one cannot get NIM to look like the Hebrew word 
’Eylam without (i) referencing the Akkadian phrase “KUR elammatum” discussed 
immediately below, and then (ii) making eleven, count them 11, changes to the 
words “NIM” and “KUR elammatum”.
 
(b)  “KUR elammatum” vs. ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam
 
The Akkadian phrase used by Babylonia for the predecessor of Persia was “KUR 
elammatum”.  Note that the Hebrew word ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam bears 
no reasonable resemblance to KUR elammatum.  The KUR is not there at all.  
Even 
if KUR is dropped, the Hebrew initial dual vowel sound is not there.  And the 
final “-matum” is completely missing in Hebrew.  BDB shortens KUR elammatum 
to “Elamtu”.  But even that conveniently shortened word “Elamtu” is not very 
close to ’Eylam.  There is no dual initial vowel sound, and the “-tu” ending 
is conspicuously absent in ’Eylam.
 
Once again, none of this should be any real surprise.  Why on earth would the 
Hebrews prior to the 6th century BCE care a fig about the Babylonians’ word 
for the Babylonians’ eastern neighbor?  Prior to the Babylonian Exile, the 
Hebrews had zero interest in Babylonia’s eastern neighbor, so why would one 
think 
that the Hebrew Bible would be studded, nonsensically, with reference after 
nonsensical reference to the predecessor of Persia?
 
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)