Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Etymology of “’Eylam” at Genesis 14: 1:  Part II
 
HALOT’s Reference to “cf. Sum. Elam”
 
When confronted with the claim in my prior post that the Hebrew word ’Eylam 
is not related to the name of the predecessor of Persia, most people on the 
b-Hebrew list might be expected to turn to HALOT.  HALOT says that the Hebrew 
word ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam means the predecessor of Persia, and then 
sets forth the following seemingly airtight etymology:
 
“Haltam/ti, cf. Sum. Elam, Akk. Elamtu”
 
We have already dealt with Hatamtu/Haltamti, and with KUR elammatum/Elamtu.  
But what about HALOT’s reference to “cf. Sum Elam”?  Most people consulting 
HALOT would naturally think that the Sumerian word for the predecessor of 
Persia was “Elam”.  Isn’t that what “cf. Sum. Elam” means?  But nothing could 
be 
further from the truth.
 
In order to get Sumerian “NIM” and Akkadian “KUR elammatum” to look like 
the Hebrew word “’Eylam”, no fewer than 11 changes of letters are needed.  
Count the changes.  To NIM (1) add an E, (2) change the N to L, (3) change 
the I 
to A, and then to KUR elammatum, (4) delete K, (5) delete the first U, (6) 
delete R, (7) delete the second M, (8) delete the second A, (9) delete the T, 
(10) 
delete the second U, and (11) delete the third M.  Note that eleven, count 
them 11, changes of letters are needed to get Sumerian NIM and Akkadian KUR 
elammatum to look like the Hebrew word ’Eylam.  Absent referencing the 
Akkadian 
phrase “KUR elammatum”, there is no reasonable basis for supposing that the 
sumerogram “NIM” is anything like the Hebrew word ’Eylam.
 
HALOT knows all that.  HALOT is trying to mislead people into thinking that 
the Sumerians called the predecessor of Persia “Elam”, a word that seems 
fairly close to the Hebrew word ’Eylam.  But that’s not true, as HALOT knows. 
 The 
Sumerians called the predecessor of Persia “NIM”, a word that bears no 
reasonable relationship to the Hebrew word ’Eylam.   
 
The inconvenient truth is that there simply is no “Elam” in any ancient 
language attested anywhere.  As such, there is no word in any ancient 
language 
that both (i) means the predecessor of Persia, and (ii) sounds like the 
Hebrew 
word ’Eylam.  Accordingly, there is no reason for us to think that the Hebrew 
word ‘Eylam was intended to reference the predecessor of Persia at Genesis 
14: 
1.  Such a reading would make chapter 14 of Genesis nonsensical and 
non-historical.  But why adopt such a forced reading?  No matter how many 
times HALOT 
says “cf. Sum Elam”, there was no word “Elam” in Sumer, there was only “NIM”, 
and HALOT knows that.   
 
Conclusion
 
It does not matter how many times scholars say, with near unanimity, that the 
Hebrew word ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam should be viewed as being 
indistinguishable from, and not under any circumstances possibly meaning 
anything 
other than, “Hatamtu” or “Haltamti” or “Atamti” or “NIM” or “KUR elammatum”.  
It’s just not true.  Secular scholars themselves never seem to make any 
serious inquiry as to what ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam means at Genesis 
14: 1.  
But shouldn’t we be asking that very question?  How on earth could any 
reasonable person be expected to believe that ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam 
at 
Genesis 14: 1 is indistinguishable from, and could not under any 
circumstances 
possibly mean anything other than, “Hatamtu” or “Haltamti” or “Atamti” or 
“NIM”
 or “KUR elammatum”?
 
The plain fact of the matter is that none of the secular historical names for 
the predecessor of Persia bear any reasonable resemblance to the Hebrew word 
ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam.  There’s no there there.  There simply is no 
match there at all.
 
Since ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam in Hebrew bears no reasonable 
resemblance to any secular historical name for the predecessor of Persia, we 
should be 
asking what country ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam may be referring to at 
Genesis 14: 1.  The Hebrew word ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam is found in 
the 
Hebrew Bible, so we have every right on the b-Hebrew list to look first at a 
Hebrew analysis, and then a Ugaritic analysis, of this Hebrew word.  As we 
will 
see, a west Semitic analysis of this Hebrew word 
ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam 
will certainly yield a much closer “match” than Hatamtu, Haltamti, Atamti, 
NIM, or KUR elammatum. 
 
Anyone who examines the Hebrew word ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam from a 
west Semitic standpoint may come under criticism for engaging in “linguistic 
gymnastics”.  But what could possibly be a better example of actual 
“linguistic 
gymnastics” then the scholarly insistence that Hatamtu, Haltamti, Atamti, NIM 
and KUR elammatum constitute a “match” to the Hebrew word 
ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam at Genesis 14: 1?  It takes eleven, count them 
11, changes of 
letters to get NIM and KUR elammatum to come out as “Elam”.  Even then, the 
signature initial double vowel sound of the Hebrew word ’Eylam is not there.  
If 
linguists have to make 11 changes of letters to make two words match, that 
just 
means that in fact there is no match there at all.  
 
The fanciful comparison of those disparate words, none of which is close to 
the Hebrew word ’Eylam, should not be enough to convince any objective 
observer 
to write off chapter 14 of Genesis as being nonsensical and non-historical.  
It makes no sense on any level for ‘Eylam at Genesis 14: 1 to mean the 
predecessor of Persia.  And, indeed, ’Eylam at Genesis 14: 1 does not mean 
the 
predecessor of Persia.  As will be shown in later posts on this thread, 
’Eylam at 
Genesis 14: 1 is, rather, referencing Ugarit, the west Semitic Amorite 
country 
on the west coast of Syria that became wealthy and prominent in the mid-14th 
century BCE, but which, ominously, sold out to the dreaded Hittites in the 
mid-14th century BCE.  The “iniquity of the Amorites” at Genesis 15: 16 is 
referring back to the iniquitous actions of Amorite leaders nicknamed 
“Chedorlaomer” 
and “Amrapel” in chapter 14 of Genesis in historically selling out northern 
greater Canaan to the dreaded Hittites, thereby endangering the future 
existence of the first Hebrews in Canaan proper.  
 
It all makes perfect historical and textual sense, if we can just get 
ourselves to see that ’Eylam at Genesis 14: 1 has nothing whatsoever to do 
with the 
predecessor of Persia, linguistically or otherwise. 
 
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)