Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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)