Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 02-17-2004, 10:08 PM

spin:

When a person show up for the duel dressed in a tutu and armed with a toothbrush, while it is conceivable that he will defeat the raving Scotsman armed with a Claighmore and wearing a particularly itch kilt, it remains unlikely.

Indy:

Welcome to the forums!

According to The Bible Unearthed, "He was given the name Moses (from the Hebrew root 'to draw out' of the water) and raised in a royal court."

Playing with an On-Line LXX, we have, in their font, "mwushs" for the name which works out to "mouses" or μωυσηs

Oddly enough, my on-line Liddel and Scott Greek Lexicon cannot find it.

Looking at the Hebrew--which does not show up on my browser--and I defer to the spins who can read the stuff to fix it--we have reading RIGHT to LEFT:

He-Shin-Mem

ה$מ

since I cannot see how the "Shin" looks, it may be:

השמ

Basically, you have from LEFT to RIGHT: "M-Sh-H"

my Judaism 101 page states:

Quote:

The name "Moses" comes from a root meaning "take out," because Moses was taken out of the river (Ex. 2:10). Some modern scholars point out that the root M-S-S in Egyptian means "son of" as in the name Ramases (son of Ra), but it is worth noting that Moses's name in Hebrew is M-Sh-H, not M-S-S. According to one Jewish source, Pharaoh's daughter actually named him Minios, which means "drawn out" in Egyptian, and the name Moshe (Moses) was a Hebrew translation of that name, just as a Russian immigrant named Ivan might change his name to the English equivalent, John.

the page is apologetic in that it assumes the OT is historical.

This explanation comes from the New American Bible:

Quote:

When the child grew: probably when he was weaned or a little later. Moses: in Hebrew, Mosheh; the Hebrew word for "draw out" is mashah. This explanation of the name is not intended as a scientific etymology but as a play on words. The name is probably derived from an Egyptian word for "has been born," referring the birth to a god thought to be its sponsor.

I will quote this from a Bible Sucks! Qu'ran Good! page because it gives one of the problems which explains some of the other explanations:

Quote:

The Bible claims that the name "Moses" that Pharaoh?s daughter gave to the baby means in Hebrew "I drew him out of the water." First, this claim suggests that the Egyptian Princess knew Hebrew, which is stretching the truth. Second, the explanation given for the name depends upon similarity in sound rather than scientific etymology, for the name "Moses" (Hebrew: Moseh) could be an active principle of the Hebrew verb "masah", which means to draw out, whereas the Biblical explanation of the name requires a passive principle. In other words, one would expect the baby to have been called "he who is being drawn out" rather than "he who arises out of." This clearly shows the misunderstanding and confusion on the part of Biblical writers of the Egyptian root from which the name is derived.

From a "list serve"--ANE the Naming of Moses

Quote:

And that is a very good example of the problems with arguments concerning the Moses etymology and etiology

It's not something specific to this theory - all theories have to try and make the best out of a very poor evidentiary situation.

Assume that there was no etiological explanation for the name. No Ex 2:10, and 2:11 saying that the boy grew up and his name was Moses. In this case, since his Hebrew origins are specified in the story, the simplest etymological approach would be to search for Hebrew roots.

And being the "simplest" approach is important, because, without further evidence, it's what gives more "validity" to one theory over another. For example, it is very reasonable to assume that Hebrew was influenced by Egyptian, during several hundreds of years of living in Egypt (if that part of the story is not rejected), and maybe vice versa, but it adds complexity, so it requires more supporting evidence.

But Ex 2:10 is evidence concerning the Moses etiology which we can't abracadabra away - and it has two internal problems. On a semantical/semantical level we have a Egyptian lady vs. a Hebrew etiology. On a semantical/syntactical level we have an apparent semantical content which is not supported by the syntax.

We have "too much" evidence, and the evidence is not consistent. The parallel in the legal field would be witnesses giving two different same-time alibis for a suspect.

The way to deal with such evidence is to ignore part of it, or all of it. Of course we can't simply throw away part of the evidence - we must have a reason for doing so, a reason which is independent of the inferences we make from the part of the evidence that is accepted (if it's not independentyou end up with a vacuous circular argument).

The example you give throws away the etiology and concentrates on the story (which validates the search for an Egyptian etymology). If I understood correctly, the reason for ignoring that part of the evidence is to assign it to a later, folkloric, development.

An example of an approach which rejects another part of the evidence, if I recall it correctly (and I don't recall where I saw it), analyses the sentence into parallel parts, and claims that the "she" that named Moses is his mother. That also explains why it's M$YTHW (you pulled) instead of the more regular M$YTYHW (I pulled). I don't recall how this theory explains the semantical "pullee" vs. the syntactical "puller", if it does. In this case the etiology is accepted, and the prima facie reading of the story is thrown away - the story is "changed" to have the mother name Moses.

But the one I like best (without making any claims concerning its likelihood) interprets Ex 2:10 as telling about the Pharaoh's daughter trying to speak pidgin Hebrew and getting it wrong (and I don't recall where I saw this one either). Her mistake ends up in foretelling the future ("puller") instead of describing the past ("pullee"). Assuming that the target audience knew beforehand how the story ends by the time it crystallized into its present form, this would be a very nice bit of ironical humor. Irony and double entendre are well attested in other biblical stories and in other ANE literature (so assuming them is valid [and valid doesn't necessarily imply that it's likely]).

Hope this helps.

--J.D.

spin · 02-17-2004, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
When a person show up for the duel dressed in a tutu and armed with a toothbrush, while it is conceivable that he will defeat the raving Scotsman armed with a Claighmore and wearing a particularly itch kilt, it remains unlikely.

Bwahahaha. Natasha, is simple. Ravink scottishman is not playink by my rules, therefore I haf moral victory.

(spin)

Cleopatra · 02-17-2004, 11:22 PM

The majority of the links Doctor X posted do not work. Can we fix them?

Thanks.

Postcard73 · 02-17-2004, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The majority of the links Doctor X posted do not work. Can we fix them?

Noticed that also. Doctor X- if you would like me to fix your post, then drop me a PM with the valid links. I'm going to bed soon, but I'll take care of it when I get up tomorrow if you want.

P73- BC&H Mod

Toto · 02-18-2004, 12:33 AM

Dr X is using a Netscape search engine that doesn't give him the URL.

Online Septuagint
http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

New American Bible quote is here
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus2.htm

Bible Sucks, Qu'ran Good
http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Bible...nsupported.htm

ANE on the naming of Moses
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ry/000715.html

GOOGLE RULES!

Doctor X · 02-18-2004, 03:07 AM

Ooops!

Feel free to "fix" the original posts with the links Toto provided.

--J.D.

Sarpedon · 02-18-2004, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by leonarde
_________________________________________________
among other things a demand for "mass graves" followed by signs of a 'hastily arranged burial' (this from the Egyptians who were obsessed with death/burial and were never unprepared for it in any normal modern sense!).
______________________________________________

Ignoring the fact that the deaths of all first-born sons in a single night CAN NOT be considered NORMAL!

The trouble with biblical people and their lack of evidence for things that should have evidence is that they make up these absurd and fantastic stories with these amazing occurrences....and then have no evidence for them.

IF THAT HAD HAPPENED EVERYONE IN THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY OF EGYPT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED! (I usually hate shouting, but this is getting ridiculous) Everyone who could write would have written about it, people would have travelled from town to town saying "Every first born son in my village died, did that happen here too?" people in the more remote parts of the country would not have known the cause of these plagues, and probably would have written to the capital to report these exceedingly strange occurences. And so on and so on. If my house were suddenly covered with beetles, guess what? I would probably post it in the Lounge (thread title: Fucking Beetles all over my Goddamn house!) They didn't have chattrooms, but they had walls and pieces of pottery to write on. Egypt did have a postal service (for official documents) and so forth. The idea that we haven't found the evidence YET is absurd. We have been digging in egypt for more than 100 years. We have found artifacts from the reign of every pharaoh since NARMER!

I second the call, tell us what you think, and why you think so, or shut up!

leonarde · 02-18-2004, 06:22 AM

{Insult deleted}

Doctor X · 02-18-2004, 06:23 AM

I gather I was correct.

He cannot actually answer the questions.

--J.D.

leonarde · 02-18-2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
_________________________________________________
among other things a demand for "mass graves" followed by signs of a 'hastily arranged burial' (this from the Egyptians who were obsessed with death/burial and were never unprepared for it in any normal modern sense!).
______________________________________________

Ignoring the fact that the deaths of all first-born sons in a single night CAN NOT be considered NORMAL!

Nevertheless, if that (putative) event took place (putative, putative, putative), it would leave the victims dead in their homes, in fields, at the marketplace, whereever they happened to be at the time. They would be spread out all over Egypt. They would NOT be buried together. They would NOT (necessarily) be buried in any "mass grave"....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2004, 11:22 PM	#233
Cleopatra Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Europe. Posts: 48	The majority of the links Doctor X posted do not work. Can we fix them? Thanks.

02-18-2004, 12:33 AM	#235
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Dr X is using a Netscape search engine that doesn't give him the URL. Online Septuagint http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/ New American Bible quote is here http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus2.htm Bible Sucks, Qu'ran Good http://www.geocities.com/sbwus/Bible...nsupported.htm ANE on the naming of Moses https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ry/000715.html GOOGLE RULES!

02-18-2004, 03:07 AM	#236
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Ooops! Feel free to "fix" the original posts with the links Toto provided. --J.D.

02-18-2004, 05:28 AM	#237
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	Originally posted by leonarde _________________________________________________ among other things a demand for "mass graves" followed by signs of a 'hastily arranged burial' (this from the Egyptians who were obsessed with death/burial and were never unprepared for it in any normal modern sense!). ______________________________________________ Ignoring the fact that the deaths of all first-born sons in a single night CAN NOT be considered NORMAL! The trouble with biblical people and their lack of evidence for things that should have evidence is that they make up these absurd and fantastic stories with these amazing occurrences....and then have no evidence for them. IF THAT HAD HAPPENED EVERYONE IN THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY OF EGYPT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED! (I usually hate shouting, but this is getting ridiculous) Everyone who could write would have written about it, people would have travelled from town to town saying "Every first born son in my village died, did that happen here too?" people in the more remote parts of the country would not have known the cause of these plagues, and probably would have written to the capital to report these exceedingly strange occurences. And so on and so on. If my house were suddenly covered with beetles, guess what? I would probably post it in the Lounge (thread title: Fucking Beetles all over my Goddamn house!) They didn't have chattrooms, but they had walls and pieces of pottery to write on. Egypt did have a postal service (for official documents) and so forth. The idea that we haven't found the evidence YET is absurd. We have been digging in egypt for more than 100 years. We have found artifacts from the reign of every pharaoh since NARMER! I second the call, tell us what you think, and why you think so, or shut up!

02-18-2004, 06:22 AM	#238
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	{Insult deleted}

02-18-2004, 06:23 AM	#239
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	I gather I was correct. He cannot actually answer the questions. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.