That is correct.
I’m not sure if “pun” is correct. Rather, names have direct meaning, they are nouns or adjectives. In English we have names such as “Summer” or “Joy”, which are just English words, and they mean what they say. Many other English names are nouns or adjectives in other, possibly ancient, languages. An example is “Peter” which derives from the Latin word for rock. If you hear of an ancient person named “tree” or “brave” or “leader” it’s likely just a normal name for the period and place.
“She named her daughter Rose, because Roses were her favorite flower”
Except that’s not what you see in the Old Testament. The two blanks that get filled in there are two different words, and the first one has some relevant meaning, but the second one has a different relevant meaning.
Well, I’ve got to admit that I’m not an expert on the Bible. I’ve not read about 80% of it. Could you cite a few examples for me please.
More like, “I named my daughter Rose, because she rises early in the day”.
Genesis 16:11
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהֹוָ֔ה הִנָּ֥ךְ הָרָ֖ה וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֑ן וְקָרָ֤את שְׁמוֹ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֥ע יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־עׇנְיֵֽךְ׃
Ishmael יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל
God heeds (kayishma adonai/el) כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֥ע יְהֹוָ֖ה
~Max
Isn’t the passover also an internal issue with this account? They were slaves, but also had their own sheep and homes?
Or, as the most likely scenario has it, a number of tribes in Canaan finally joined together and formed a couple of kingdoms ruling over the area.
What examples are you thinking of?
The one that’s a bit confusing is why the Pharaoh’s daughter would name Moshe “Moshe” because she pulled him out of the river and that’s what his name means in Hebrew, but why would an Egyptian princess name her adopted kid a Hebrew name?
Not all slaves were chattel.
Didn’t ancient Egypt have a corvée system too? In addition to the house servants.
~Max
Royal names in Egypt often ended with -mses, which means “came from”. An example is Ramses, which means “came from Ra”. So a baby pulled out of the water might very well be named “came from water” which would end in -mses.
I didn’t say they were, but all of them had their own homes? And not in a separate camp or anything, but mixed among the homes of the Egyptians? And not locked down (to prevent them escaping or harming their neighbours) but instead free to go slaughter lambs? It does seem another reason to find it implausible.
A book about the Documentary Hypothesis that I read recently proposes that the Hebrews were slaves in the Jahwist and Priestly sources, but not the Elohist source. A lot of the contradictions and convoluted scenarios in the Torah can be attributed to the fact that it’s more or less three books in a trenchcoat (plus Deuteronomy, which was written by a different author altogether and was probably the first part of the Torah to come together in its current form).
You also have to consider that the authors were likely back-projecting contemporary religious practices onto their ancestors. Exodus and Leviticus, for example, have God laying out the schedule for the holidays based on a calendar that didn’t exist at the time, as the Jewish calendar is adapted from the Babylonian calendar and wouldn’t have come into use until the exile. Genesis has Noah sorting clean and unclean animals when the kosher laws hadn’t even been established yet. The importance of the Tabernacle likely reflects the centralization of worship in Jerusalem that happened much later, when at that early state every town would have had its own place set aside on a hilltop for sacrifices.
I don’t know enough about Egyptian society of that time to guess whether it’s plausible or not. My point was that slavery systems varied widely across time and place.
Indeed, and many scholars believe Yahweh and Ashera were worshiped side by side, based on the references I mentioned of Yahweh and his Asherah, particularly one that also has a depiction of them. The Bible does also condemn Asherah, but in places where it seems like she wasn’t originally mentioned.
I will note that the Documentary hypothesis is no longer the preferred view, primarily because there does not seem to be a full E (El) and J (Yahweh) source. Increasingly the idea is that there were multiple fragments pieced together, with an additional priestly (P) and Deuteronomist (D) source added on top.
Not that this changes your point much. There still seem to be sources where they were slaves and sources where they weren’t. Just that the Documentary Hypothesis is thought to be overly simplified.
I also note that the legal stuff in those books was probably never enacted, but more stuff projected into the past as a law code. This was not uncommon. And yeah, Josiah and his “found book of the law” was probably about consolidating worship in Jerusalem.
And the fact we have reference to other temples and priests of Yahweh at all is intriguing. All these little bits that didn’t get papered over and forced to conform. Stuff like El Elyon giving Yahweh Israel as his inheritance.
Right. The book I was referencing is largely an attempt to reconstruct the E source, and the author notes that it’s a pretty fragmentary tale - it starts with Abraham, leaves out most of Isaac (the author speculates that in the Elohist tradition, Abraham actually sacrifices him) and makes Jacob Abraham’s nephew instead, and there are only seven tribes, seven plagues, and seven commandments.
IIRC, Friedman believes the “found book of the law” was an early version of Deuteronomy. It’s also believed that Deuteronomy and Kings are the work of the same author as part of a “deuteronomistic history” which also includes Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, so it’s a little bit of the writer tooting his own horn.
You need to realize that, as cited above, the “writing” of Exodus was a codification of previously existing oral and written traditions. They weren’t creating a new story, they were creating an authoritative version of stories everyone already knew. Certainly the people writing it down got to put their ideological thumbs on the scale, and there are places in the text where the priestly agenda is pretty obvious, but the basic plot of the Exodus narrative is folklore that existed long before the Babylonian Captivity.
A comparison I saw is that it’s as if you were trying to create a single authoritative narrative about Batman that had to incorporate all the works about him that have been created by various writers in various mediums over the last century. So the Golden Age detective who fights mob bosses and crooked politicians, the brooding Miller-esque antihero with a rogue’s gallery of psychos and ancient wizards and alien gods, and the goofy ‘60s TV version who competes against the Joker in a surfing contest and hangs out with a teenage boy in bikini shorts would all have to get compressed into a single character, and the mood whiplash would be palpable.
Everybody who reads the Bible knows that the Kirby Moses is the only true Moses.