For the previous instalments on this response to Robert M. Bowman, see:
Bowman takes exception, among other things, with the following comment Bokovoy made:
The reality is that no scholar in the world believes that Elohim is related to the Hebrew word El. Such an association would leave the consonantal letter “h” unexplained—a major blooper when analyzing Semitic words.
Instead of El, Elohim is related to the Hebrew name Eloah. As Pardee explains, “there can be no doubt that the more common biblical and Jewish designation of ‘god’ as Elohim represents an expansion of Eloah, though there is debate both as to the ‘meaning’ of Eloah and as to the origin of the expanded form” (D. Pardee, “Eloah,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 285)
This is confirmed by אֱלֹהִים in vol. 1 p. 273 of the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren by Ringgren himself (ee the entire entry at pp. 267-84 [emphasis added]):
Etymology. ‘elohim also presents a difficult etymological problem. An exact cognate appears only in Aramaic (‘elah[ah]), and in Arabic (‘ilah). There are only late derivatives from Aram. ‘elah (as ‘elahotha; the same is true of Arab. Ilah (verb ta’allaha, “to devote oneself to godly practices,” etc.) Thus, we cannot assume a verbal root. On the other hand, ‘el is a common Semitic word (lacking only in Ethiopic and perhaps classical Arabic), and appears sometimes as a proper name and sometimes as an appellative (אֵל ‘el). It could be derived from the root ‘wl, and then it would denote either might or first in rank (cf. Arab. ‘awwal, “first”). These two meanings may have belonged together originally. It is usually assumed that ‘el and ‘elohim are related, viz., ‘elohim occurs elsewhere in Hebrew and Aramaic. Then ‘eloah would be a late singular form derived from ‘elohim. However, this hypothesis is not completely without difficulties. First, plural forms expanded with he are usually derived from originally biconsonantal roots, which would not agree with the derivation of ‘el from ‘wl. Second, the Arab. ‘ilah opposes the assumption of a special Hebrew-Aramaic development. Perhaps originally two different roots existed, which were later combined (because of the similarity of their sounds?). At the same time, nothing in the linguistic use of these words opposes the assumption of an original meaning “might, power.”
Zimmermann’s suggestion that these words are to be derived from the root ‘il is particularly improbable, because no form with the double lamedh occurs in any Semitic language.
