Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Peter Bekins:
 
Thank you for bringing Arno Poebel’s old 1931 article to the attention of 
people on the b-Hebrew list.
 
But did you read Arno Poebel’s own theory for how he accounts for the Hebrew 
word “’Eylam” at Genesis 14: 1?  I notice that you delicately left Arno Poebel
’s theory out of your post.  So in the interest of full disclosure, here is 
Arno Poebel’s actual argument.
 
1.  Arno Poebel:  It Is Highly Doubtful That the Hebrew Word “’Eylam” Came 
from the Babylonian Akkadian Word “Elamtu”
 
Arno Poebel rejects the idea that perhaps the Hebrews picked up the Hebrew 
word “’Eylam” from the Babylonians, via the Babylonian Akkadian word 
“Elamtu”. 
 At p. 25 he states that he rejects this argument because “then, of course, 
arises the question why the Hebrews did not, in conformity with the Akkadian, 
call the country ayin-yod-lamed-mem-tav or ayin-yod-lamed-mem-heh, but 
dropped 
the ending tav or heh and called it ayin-yod-lamed-mem, a difficulty which 
Speiser apparently overlooks.”
 
The historical Hebrews knew the Babylonians, but Arno Poebel explicitly 
insists that the Hebrews did not get the word “’Eylam” from the Babylonians, 
via 
the Babylonian Akkadian word “Elamtu”.
 
So far, so good.  I agree that the absence of any T sound at the end of 
ayin-yod-lamed-mem is a devastating argument against “’Eylam” coming into 
Hebrew 
from Babylonian Akkadian.  (In fact, that’s why scholars like to focus on the 
sumerogram “NIM”, which has no T.)
 
2.  Arno Poebel:  The Hebrew Word “’Eylam” Came Directly Into Hebrew in the 
3rd Millennium BCE from Sumer, Without the Babylonians Playing Any Role
 
Believe it or not, Arno Poebel argues for the Hebrew word “’Eylam” to be a 
3rd millennium BCE word.  Never mind that there weren’t any Hebrews in 
existence in secular history until at least 500 years after that.  Here is 
what Arno 
Poebel says in his published article:
 
“If, however, the Sumerian form of the name was Elam and not Nim, then the 
Hebrew form ayin-yod-lamed-mem is easily explained;  it was the Sumerian name 
of 
the eastern country that the Hebrews adopted.  There is nothing surprising in 
that [!!!!!!!!!].  For, as late as the 3d dynasty of Ur, at least the 
official language of the Babylonian Empire was Sumerian;  and since the kings 
of Ur 
held sway over the Martu-country, i.e., over Arabia, and at least sometimes 
their dominion probably extended even over Palestine, the adoption of the 
Sumerian name for Elam by the then inhabitants of Arabia and Palestine might 
even be 
considered as what one should expect.”
 
Given the foregoing, you just know that Arno Poebel is going to go on and 
identify Amrapel with Hammurabi, a view that is now almost universally 
rejected 
by modern scholars:
 
“If Amraphel, king of Sinar, in Genesis, chapter 14, really is identical with 
Hammurabi….  Hammurabi was a king of Sumer and Akkad, i.e. the whole of 
Babylonia….”  At p. 26
 
3.  Jim Stinehart’s Conclusions
 
How on earth could the Hebrews pick up a name directly from Sumer, without 
being influenced by Babylonia?  Is that a sensible theory of the case?  There 
were no historical Hebrews in existence until at least 500 years after Sumer 
went extinct.
 
Once one properly rejects Amrapel as being Hammurabi from Sumer, why continue 
to try to see Chedorlaomer as being from the predecessor of Persia?
 
Notice that, like all other scholars who have examined this matter, including 
today’s scholars, Arno Poebel never once asks if the Hebrew word “’Eylam” 
at Genesis 14: 1 references the predecessor of Persia.  No scholar has ever 
asked that question.  Why?  Chedorlaomer does not act like a king of the 
predecessor of Persia.  No king of the predecessor of Persia ever did 
anything that 
Chedorlaomer is presented as doing in chapter 14 of Genesis.  The name “
Chedorlaomer” consists of three Hebrew words which are also three Ugaritic 
words.  
Princeling ruler Niqmaddu II of Ugarit in fact did many of the things that 
Chedorlaomer is presented as doing in chapter 14 of Genesis.
 
Arno Poebel’s article is so old that one wonders if he was aware of the 
historical “four kings against the five”, in which one ruler of Ugarit, one 
ruler 
of Amurru, one Hurrian princeling, and one Hittite king, as 4 attacking 
rulers, smashed a league/bereit of 5 rebellious princelings in Year 14 of 
Akhenaten’
s reign.
 
Arno Poebel’s assertion that the Hebrew word “’Eylam” came into Hebrew 
directly from Sumer in the 3rd millennium BCE defies belief.  He is right to 
say 
that the Hebrew word “’Eylam” does not match at all well to any Babylonian 
word for the predecessor of Persia.  I agree with that part of his analysis 
completely.  But Arno Poebel certainly is dead wrong to dream that the 
Hebrews 
picked up a Sumerian word directly from 3rd millennium BCE Sumer, while the 
Hebrews paid no attention to the later Babylonian words for Babylonia’s 
eastern 
neighbor.
 
Unless you are going to posit an historical Abraham dueling with Hammurabi, 
the old 1931 proposition that the Hebrew word “’Eylam” came into Hebrew 
directly from 3rd millennium BCE Sumer cannot be taken seriously.
 
In fact, “’Eylam” derives naturally from “elam”, a routine Hebrew verb that 
means “to hide, conceal or dissemble”.  “’Eylam” is a run-of-the-mill west 
Semitic Hebrew word with a west Semitic Hebrew derivation and etymology.  The 
northern pre-Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives used “’Eylam” as a 
pejorative nickname for hated Ugarit, meaning “Dissembler”.  
 
There is no reason to suppose an ultra-exotic non-Semitic etymology of the 
Hebrew word “’Eylam”, particularly a derivation that would require such word 
to 
come into Hebrew directly from Sumer in the 3rd millennium BCE, more than 500 
years before the first Hebrews lived.  In fact, at Genesis 14: 1 “’Eylam” is 
not referencing the predecessor of Persia, and not a single one of the four 
attacking rulers is “Mesopotamia-based”.  We have learned some things since 
1931.
 
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)