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”...
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....
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....
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.