Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] The Word "'Eylam" in Ugaritic

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] The Word "'Eylam" in Ugaritic
  • Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:01:01 EST


The Word “’Eylam” in Ugaritic

On a west Semitic analysis, the Hebrew word ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM/’Eylam
comes from the Hebrew root verb ayin-lamed-mem/(LM/’elam, meaning “to hide or
conceal or dissemble”. The only difference in the spelling of these two
Hebrew
words is that the root verb does not have a yod.

When we look at Ugaritic, we note first that there was no yod in Ugaritic
writing. So there cannot be an identical equivalent in Ugaritic to ‘Eylam,
which
has a yod. But there could be the same underlying root verb, which has no
yod.

In fact, the underlying root Hebrew verb ayin-lamed-mem/(LM/’elam is the same
in Ugaritic. Here is the entry for ayin-lamed-mem in one standard Ugaritic
dictionary:

“to be hidden…(Hb. ayin-lamed-mem…)”

Quoted from “HdO, A Dictionary of Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic
Tradition”, G. del Olmo Lete & J. Samartin, Brill, Boston (2003)

Thus if ’Eylam comes from the west Semitic verbal root ’elam meaning “to be
hidden or to dissemble”, the word ’Eylam makes sense both in Hebrew and
Ugaritic, and has essentially the same meaning in both of these two west
Semitic
languages. (It is possible that the undertones of the Hebrew word ’elam are
darker than for the Ugaritic word ’elam, as in Hebrew the word ’elam is
almost
always used in a very negative sense, such as to mean “dissemble”. The
pre-Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives would naturally know Hebrew
much
better than Ugaritic, and would be strongly influenced by the Hebrew
overtones of
all words.)

As to the yod, that presumably has no counterpart in Ugaritic, but is used in
Hebrew to distinguish ’Eylam as a noun from its verbal root ’elam.

Note once again how very simple and straightforward a west Semitic etymology
of ’Eylam is, both in Hebrew and Ugaritic. By stark contrast, consider the
great leaps of linguistic faith that are needed to try to make ’Eylam be the
same as pre-Persian, non-Semitic “Hatamtu”, the sumerogram “NIM”, and/or the
Babylonian Akkadian phrase “KUR elammatum”. When the west Semitic analysis
is
so clear and straightforward, why go the ultra-exotic route of trying to view

Eylam as deriving from a non-west Semitic word for the predecessor of Persia?

The traditional view, and the Biblical Inerrantist view, is that Chedorlaomer
of ’Eylam is a king of the predecessor of Persia. But why has no modern
secular scholar ever asked any questions about that traditional, Biblical
Inerrantist view? In chapter 14 of Genesis, virtually nothing that
Chedorlaomer does
would make sense if Chedorlaomer were a king of the predecessor of Persia.
And just as surely, everything that Chedorlaomer does in chapter 14 of
Genesis
is either (i) something that Ugarit princeling ruler Niqmaddu II historically
actually did, or (ii) something that Niqmaddu II would have been willing to
participate in doing as an historical ally of the Hittites in the mid-14th
century BCE under mighty Hittite King Suppililiuma I.

In a word, chapter 14 of Genesis makes perfect historical sense, rather than
being nonsensical and non-historical, if we jettison the erroneous scholarly
insistence that the Hebrew word ’Eylam could never, under any circumstances,
mean anything other than the predecessor of Persia. If we no longer think
that
Abraham historically dueled with Hammurabi, why then continue to insist that “
the king of ’Eylam” at Genesis 14: 1 must be referencing a king of the
predecessor of Persia? Why hasn’t a single modern scholar ever once asked
whether ’
Eylam at Genesis 14: 1 was originally intended to reference the predecessor
of Persia? Why is that question verboten? If we no longer accept the
Biblical
Inerrantist views of 1931, why then can’t we ask what the word ’Eylam was
intended to mean at Genesis 14: 1? If modern secular scholars honestly think
that J, E, P or D made up chapter 14 of Genesis as non-historical fiction
(not
my view!), why then are modern secular scholars so terribly averse to raising
the question of what ’Eylam was originally intended to mean at Genesis 14: 1?

Why is this one Biblical Inerrantist view, concerning geography and secular
history, so sacrosanct, that it has never been questioned in any way, shape
or
form by any modern secular scholar? Today’s secular scholars question
virtually everything else about the Bible, and in particular view chapter 14
of
Genesis as being non-historical. Why then is it forbidden to ask what
“’Eylam”
means at Genesis 14: 1?

If we will take chapter 14 of Genesis seriously, we will see that no
attacking ruler is “Mesopotamia-based”, and that Genesis 14: 1-12 closely
tracks a
very important actual military conflict that occurred in Year 14 of
Akhenaten’s
reign. In secular history, as reported with pinpoint historical accuracy in
chapter 14 of Genesis, (i) this military conflict happened “in the fourteenth
year” (that is, Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign), (ii) there were four attacking
rulers, (iii) there was a league/bereit of five rebellious princelings, (iv)
after the rebellious princelings had enjoyed a year of success at the expense
of the princeling ruler of Ugarit, prior to the Hittites becoming involved in
the matter, the four attacking rulers, now including a Hittite king, then
absolutely smashed the five princelings in a completely one-sided mismatch,
in “the
four kings against the five”, and (v) the peculiar ethnic identities of each
of the four attacking rulers are beautifully represented in the nicknames of
the rulers and of their kingdoms in the text. “Chedorlaomer” is made up of
three Ugaritic words, and “’Eylam” is based on a Ugaritic verbal root, which
make sense as appropriate Hebrew pejorative nicknames for historical Niqmaddu
II
of Ugarit. In Hebrew and Ugaritic, “Chedorlaomer” means “tumult of war, or
a conqueror swooping down like a bird of prey or vulture [KDR], leading to
[L]
(the land of Canaan becoming) a wasted heap, a heap of ruins, or ashes”
[AoMR]. In Hebrew and Ugaritic, “’Eylam” is a west Semitic word meaning “
Dissembler” (based on the Hebrew/Ugaritic west Semitic root verb ’elam, which
means “
to be hidden or to dissemble”, and having nothing to do with any exotic
non-west Semitic word, from any era, for the predecessor of Persia). These
nicknames perfectly reflect the early Hebrews’ terribly negative view of
historical
Niqmaddu II of Ugarit, the Amorite ruler who iniquitously invited the dreaded
Hittites into northern greater Canaan and thereby threatened the future
existence of the early Hebrews in Canaan proper. “Amrapel” is the name of
historical Aziru’s most prominent brother, with AMR (aleph-mem-resh) meaning
both “
Amurru” and “Amorite” in Hebrew (and in Ugaritic, for that matter). “Shinar”
has the same true consonants as “Shenir” at Deuteronomy 3: 8-9, meaning Mt.
Hermon/Mt. Lebanon. These are perfect Hebrew nicknames for historical Aziru,
the iniquitous Amorite of Amurru, in northern Lebanon near Mt. Hermon/Mt.
Lebanon. “Arioch” is a Hurrian princeling name, which fits historical
Etakama, who
was the Hurrian princeling ruler of Qadesh in northern Lebanon. Note that
Arioch’s name is always paired with the name Amrapel at Genesis 14: 1-12,
reflecting the historical fact that Etakama (Biblical “Arioch”) and Aziru
(Biblical
“Amrapel”) often joined together when looting opportunities presented
themselves, usually with the unofficial blessing of the mighty Hittites.
Etakama/“
Arioch” was a vassal of the Hittites who had been re-educated by the Hittites
in the Hittite heartland at or near Alisar/Elassar, so “Elassar” is a fitting
description of where this Hurrian attacking ruler is from. “Tidal” is the
Hebrew version of the Hittite kingly name “Tudhaliya”, which is certainly a
fitting Hebrew nickname for mighty Hittite King Suppililiuma I, who had
seized
the Hittite throne by the dastardly expedient of murdering his own older
brother
named Tudhaliya/Tidal. Having conquered the Hurrians of Syria and the peo
ples of Anatolia, mighty Hittite King Suppililiuma I certainly was a “king of
nations”, as he is aptly described in chapter 14 of Genesis.

How could any section of the Bible match any closer to actual secular history
than that? We are even told the exact year when this military conflict took
place (Year 14). Every one of the many details noted above matches secular
history perfectly. The match is indeed stunning. And note that the first
Hebrews (or pre-Hebrews) were vitally interested in this conflict in northern
greater Canaan, because if all of northern greater Canaan fell to the dreaded
Hittites, then the Hebrews in Canaan proper might well be among the next
Hittite
victims. The likely secular historical time period for the very first
Hebrews
is approximately the mid-14th century BCE, because that would give the
fledgling new Hebrews just enough time to grow into an important (albeit
still
landless) tribe by 1207 BCE, as we know from the Merneptah (Israel) Stela.
In short,
everything fits perfectly on this scenario: historically, linguistically,
and textually. Why then should today’s secular scholars continue to insist,
against all the objective evidence, on a Biblical Inerrantist view of chapter
14
of Genesis that in particular sees “Chedorlaomer king of ’Eylam” as being a
king of the predecessor of Persia, and that in general renders “the four
kings
against the five” both nonsensical and non-historical?

Hebrew linguistics is the key to this matter, which is the b-Hebrew list’s
strong point. Everything works perfectly if we simply apply a west Semitic
etymology to the run-of-the-mill virgin pure west Semitic Hebrew word ’Eylam.
At
Genesis 14: 1, ’Eylam is a west Semitic word that is a pejorative Hebrew
nickname for Ugarit.

The Patriarchal narratives document the mid-14th century BCE historical
foundation of Judaism, rather than being mid-1st millennium BCE fiction
dreamed up
by J, E, P or D. No southern Hebrew in the mid-1st millennium BCE could
possibly, under any circumstances, dream up or know the manifold historical
facts
from the mid-14th century BCE concerning how the Hittites, with 3 local
allies
(the 4 attacking rulers), smashed a league of 5 rebellious princelings in
“the
fourteenth year”, that is, in Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign. Such vintage
mid-2nd millennium BCE well-documented facts are, with pinpoint historical
accuracy, on prominent, eternal display at Genesis 14: 1-12.

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] The Word "'Eylam" in Ugaritic, JimStinehart, 02/07/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page