# Maria, Mary, Marie, Miriam



## Eva Maria

I'm looking for the etimological origin of the`name Maria or Mary, Marie, Miriam...

I know it comes from the ancient Hebrew language, but what is its meaning?

And how do you write it in Hebrew characters?

Eva Maria


----------



## übermönch

Ah, yes, my dear aunt bears that name ... The writing is certainly mem-resh-yud-final mem - מרים, M(i)ry(a)m - Maria is the Greek translation. As for the meaning, I heared it means 'the one who disagrees'.


----------



## Elowen

The origins of the name Miriam aren't entirely clear, but it's possible that it originally derives from Egyptian rather than Hebrew. There's is no one totally convincing etymology or meaning.


----------



## Eva Maria

übermönch said:


> Ah, yes, my dear aunt bears that name ... The writing is certainly mem-resh-yud-final mem - מרים, M(i)ry(a)m - Maria is the Greek translation. As for the meaning, I heared it means 'the one who disagrees'.


 

Oh, danke sehr, Übermönch

I didn't know that the form "Maria" came from Greek. And I would have never imagined that "Miriam" could mean "the one who disagrees"! Now I understand why so many interesting and brave women are called "Maria", "Mary", "Marie"!

EM


----------



## Eva Maria

Elowen said:


> The origins of the name Miriam aren't entirely clear, but it's possible that it originally derives from Egyptian rather than Hebrew. There's is no one totally convincing etymology or meaning.


 

Elowen,

Your new information about the other possible origins of the name has surprised me! 

Though "Miriam" really sounds more Hebrew than Egyptian, it could have been transformed throughout the centuries to a more Hebraic form.

Thanks,

EM


----------



## Gadyc

übermönch said:


> . As for the meaning, I heared it means 'the one who disagrees'.


 
Eva Maria, your threads about theese biblical names touch to the twilight, rather say illumination, between language and the culture it grew on or with.

The ethimology of Miriam is not known, it's right. But  since it is a biblic name, you have to search its root in the largest usage of hebrew languistic.

I never tough about it, but the root of Miriam can be מרי (the leters MRI) that says "revolt". If it is so, it meets the midrashs that describe how Miram, The older sister Of Moses, don't let her parents to despair whel Egypt's Pharaon commanded to kill all boys to prevent the birth of Hebrew's liberator. She, as a little girl knew to explain her logic and make them to have a new baby, at this dangerous period: "maybe it will be a girl" she said "and she can live". 

I supose there is a symbol with the name of Maria mother of Jesus. But it is not my territory. 


Blessings

Gadyc


----------



## Eva Maria

Gadyc said:


> Eva Maria, your threads about theese biblical names touch to the twilight, rather say illumination, between language and the culture it grew on or with.
> 
> The ethimology of Miriam is not known, it's right. But since it is a biblic name, you have to search its root in the largest usage of hebrew languistic.
> 
> I never tough about it, but the root of Miriam can be מרי (the leters MRI) that says "revolt". If it is so, it meets the midrashs that describe how Miram, The older sister Of Moses, don't let her parents to despair whel Egypt's Pharaon commanded to kill all boys to prevent the birth of Hebrew's liberator. She, as a little girl knew to explain her logic and make them to have a new baby, at this dangerous period: "maybe it will be a girl" she said "and she can live".
> 
> I supose there is a symbol with the name of Maria mother of Jesus. But it is not my territory.
> 
> 
> Blessings
> 
> Gadyc


 
Gadyc,

Miriam = "revolt / the one who disagrees". It makes sense.

Your almost unknown biblical stories are most interesting!

EM


----------



## Ander

In the Bible the eldest sister of Moses is named Miryam. 

The name Moses is considered by many scholars to be Egyptian.

That could be the main reason why it is supposed that Miryam is an Egyptian name too.

So Moses would be "Born (of God)" and Miryam "Beloved (of God)" as you have in Hebrew "God given" or "God saves", etc.

That category of names is called in French "noms théophores" (names that carry a name of God) although in the instance of Miryam and Moses the part with the divine name has been elided as it would be an Egyptian god's name like Ra or Amun.


----------



## Gadyc

Hi Ander,

Do you know about the Antique Egyptian meaning or it's a presuption?

I dodn't want do lead this thread to a theological discussion but since language is matter of culture the tradition of language users has a big importance to understand context.
So,

According to the Midrash, the Hebrews could be saved from Egypt because during the long years they were slaves in Egypt, they didn't change their language, their names and their dressing habits. In other words they kept their singularity and their unity as a distinct nation.
The Bible language is Hebrew and Antique Jewish tradition remembers that 
Hebrews in Egypt used their former language - some kind of Mesopotamian/Canaanian dialect. 
According to this, my opinion is that Moshe and Myriam are hebrew names, as you can recognize their root consoles as hebrew words. since the complexity of Mese status in Pharaon palace, it is quite logic that it has one more name or his name had an Egyptian consonance.

Please, forgive the lenght.

Gadyc


----------



## Ander

Gadyc

It is not my opinion that I gave but that of scholars. I have always heard that Moses is most probably an Egyptian name, and the Egyptian origin of Mary is a possibility among others.
See Elowen's post too.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:
Gadyc, I'm a Jew, but I like the theory of an Egyptian origin of the name. I can't read Hebrew, but I can read hyerogliphs.
And here is the Egyptian etymology.
Myriam may be derivated from Merit (Meryet) Amum (Egyptians many times did not write vowels, so the rendering of the vowel sounds is conventional)
The Egyptian meaning is "the beloved of Amum", thus "the beloved of God".
Of course, it is only a theory.
Amum Re was the principal God for most Egyptians.

I like this meaning quite more than "the one who disagrees".


----------



## Ali Smith

Could it be related to the Hebrew-Aramaic root רום, which means 'to rise' in the G-binyan?


----------



## Abaye

Ali Smith said:


> Could it be related to the Hebrew-Aramaic root רום, which means 'to rise' in the G-binyan?


We can speculate any root that contains מ, ר like מ-ר-ר, מ-ר-ה, מ-ו-ר, ר-ו-מ, ר-מ-ה, but such a speculation is not helpful without any substantial reasoning. And of course, we can try Egyptian origin, which is again a speculation.

מרים - Wiktionary


> Etymology: Uncertain. Proposals include derivation from the root _מ־ר־ר_‎ (m-r-r, “to be bitter”), or from the root _מ־ר־י_‎ (m-r-y, “to mutiny, rebellion, disobedience”), or from Egyptian _mry_ (“beloved”).



מרים הנביאה – ויקיפדיה


> במצרית קדומה פירוש השם הוא "אהובה"[1], ובמחקר המקראי משערים שזה המקור לשמה[2].


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

How did it become a male name?


----------



## Roxxxannne

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> How did it become a male name?


Which name are you referring to?


----------



## Penyafort

alexacohen said:


> Myriam may be derivated from Merit (Meryet) Amum (Egyptians many times did not write vowels, so the rendering of the vowel sounds is conventional)
> The Egyptian meaning is "the beloved of Amum", thus "the beloved of God".
> Of course, it is only a theory.



The reconstructed for _mrj_ is /mirji(t)/ and for _jmn_ "Amun" is actually /jaˈmaːnuw/. So I don't know how well the compound would work. I'd rather think of a shorter word or a suffix for the second component.


----------



## Apollodorus

The Egyptian derivation of the name Mary is speculative, but considering that Ancient Canaan was under Egyptian control and influence for many centuries, it isn’t entirely baseless. The Hebrew Bible itself associates the name _Mīryām_ (Moses’ sister) with Egypt (Shemot/Exodus 15:20ff.).

According to Wikipedia, the name Mary (_Mariam_),

“is likely derivative of the [Egyptian] root _mr_, meaning "love; beloved" (compare _mry.t-ymn_, "Merit-Amun", i.e. "beloved of Amun")”. – Mary (name) - Wikipedia

And

“Since many Levite names are of Egyptian origin, the name could come from the Egyptian _mr_ "love", as in the Egyptian names _mry.t-jmn_ (Merit-Amun) "beloved of Amun" and _mry.t-rꜥ_ (Merytre) "beloved of Ra"”. – Miriam (given name) - Wikipedia


----------



## Abaye

Apollodorus said:


> The Hebrew Bible itself associates the name _Mīryām_ (Moses’ sister) with Egypt (Shemot/Exodus 15:20ff.).


Exodus 15 doesn't specifically associate the name (or the person) Miriam with Egypt more than it associates to Egypt any of the myriads of Israelites who lived there when the Exodus commenced. And the vast majority of them seem to have had early Hebrew names.


----------



## Hulalessar

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> How did it become a male name?


It not unusual in countries with a Roman Catholic tradition for the name to be given to boys as a second name or second part of a compound name, e.g. José María. I have never seen any other female name used in this way. José may appear as the second element in a girl's name.


----------



## berndf

Hulalessar said:


> It not unusual in countries with a Roman Catholic tradition for the name to be given to boys as a second name or second part of a compound name, e.g. José María. I have never seen any other female name used in this way. José may appear as the second element in a girl's name.


Exactly. Only als a second given name but never as the first given name and is never used as the name a boy or man would go by. In this respect, it is probably not correct to say it has ever "become a male name".


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

berndf said:


> Exactly. Only als a second given name but never as the first given name and is never used as the name a boy or man would go by. In this respect, it is probably not correct to say it has ever "become a male name".



I know of these cases from German as a second name.


----------



## Apollodorus

Abaye said:


> Exodus 15 doesn't specifically associate the name (or the person) Miriam with Egypt more than it associates to Egypt any of the myriads of Israelites who lived there when the Exodus commenced. And the vast majority of them seem to have had early Hebrew names.


1. I for one haven’t seen any evidence for “myriads of Israelites” in Egypt. And even if there were such evidence, the Israelites' presence in Egypt associates or connects them with Egypt. 

2. It wouldn’t be at all implausible for a Canaanite girl to be named after an Egyptian princess called “Beloved of Amun” (Meryt-Amun) or “Beloved of Ra” (Meryt-Ra).

3. The Wikipedia article hypothesises an Egyptian derivation for the name “Miriam” _in conjunction with Levite names_, including the names of Miriam’s brothers Moses and Aaron, which are also believed by some to be of Egyptian origin:

Moses < _msy_, “child of”,

Aaron < _aha rw_, "warrior lion", or _jꜣrw_, “heaven” (in Egyptian religion) – Aaron (given name) - Wikipedia


----------



## Roxxxannne

It would be interesting to know whether the person who wrote the Wikipedia article has any evidence (or scholarly background) for their theory about the name 'Miriam'.  You might be able to figure it out by finding the author of the earliest version of the article to mention an Egyptian origin for the name and then looking to see what other articles that person wrote or edited.


----------



## Apollodorus

The source is “The Name of Mary”, _Catholic Encyclopedia_, where the argument for an Egyptian origin is as follows:

“Moses, Aaron, and their sister were born in Egypt; the name _Aaron_ cannot be explained from the Hebrew; the daughter of Pharaoh imposed the name _Moses_ on the child she had saved from the waters of the Nile; hence it is possible that their sister's name Mary was also of Egyptian origin. This seems to become even probable if we consider the fact that the name Mary was not borne by any woman in the Old Testament excepting the sister of Moses”.


----------



## Hulalessar

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> I know of these cases from German as a second name.


A former prime minister of Spain has the name *José María Alfredo Aznar López.*


----------



## Apollodorus

Hulalessar said:


> A former prime minister of Spain has the name *José María Alfredo Aznar López.*


True. But "José María" is treated as _one _name. I don't think anyone would call your former prime minister "Maria". So, it can't really be said that "Maria has become a men's name". 🙂


----------



## Hulalessar

Apollodorus said:


> True. But "José María" is treated as _one _name. I don't think anyone would call your former prime minister "Maria". So, it can't really be said that "Maria has become a men's name". 🙂


Agreed that "José Maria" is one name in the sense that the intention is that both names are supposed to be used, but it is still two names. We cannot really say that Maria is not a boy's name as it is a name given to boys. However, what can be said is that "Maria" never comes first when given to a boy.


----------



## Apollodorus

Well, if "Maria" isn't used on its own as a boy's name, then we're not talking about "Maria" but about "Joseph Maria". Anyway, this seems to be unrelated to the etymology of "Maria" ....


----------



## Hulalessar

Apollodorus said:


> Well, if "Maria" isn't used on its own as a boy's name, then we're not talking about "Maria" but about "Joseph Maria". Anyway, this seems to be unrelated to the etymology of "Maria" ....


It depends how you look at it. Whilst it may not be used on its own it is still used.


----------



## Abaye

Apollodorus said:


> 1. I for one haven’t seen any evidence for “myriads of Israelites” in Egypt. And even if there were such evidence, the Israelites' presence in Egypt associates or connects them with Egypt.


I made a (naive) assumption that whoever opinionates about etymology of the name Miriam, knows well the biblical narrative of Exodus, where the person Miriam is mentioned as well as the presence of dozens of thousands of Israelites who fled from slavery in Egypt to freedom in Canaan. Cherry picking verses that portray Miriam while ignoring the rest of the narrative is unhelpful. True, Egyptian etymology for the name is not implausible and was mentioned several times up in this thread, as well as Semite etymology. Cherry picking, again, Wikipedia fragments that promote the Egyptian hypothesis is unhelpful. AFAIK there's no scholar agreement about the name's origin, as well as for many other names mentioned in the bible for the creation of the Hebrew people, names that were later incorporated in the Hebrew names inventory.


----------



## apmoy70

Just wanted to add that in Greek, in both the Septuagint Hebrew Scripture and the Christian Gospels, the name of,
(1)the sister of Moses and Aaron, is *«Μαριὰμ» Mărĭằm*:
«τὸ δέ ὄνομα τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰωχαβέδ, θυγάτηρ Λευί, ἣ ἔτεκε τούτους τῷ Λευΐ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ· καὶ ἔτεκε τῷ Ἀμρὰμ τὸν Ἀαρὼν καὶ Μωυσῆν καὶ _Μαριὰμ_ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῶν.» - "The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister _Miriam_." (NKJV - Numbers 26:59)

(2)the Virgin Mary is also *«Μαριὰμ» Mărĭằm*:
«πρὸς παρθένον μεμνηστευμένην ἀνδρί, ᾧ ὄνομα 'Iωσήφ, ἐξ οἴκου Δαυΐδ, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παρθένου _Μαριὰμ_.» - "to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was _Mary_." (NKJV - Luke 1:27).


----------



## Apollodorus

Hulalessar said:


> It depends how you look at it. Whilst it may not be used on its own it is still used.


There is no doubt that “Maria” is a girl’s name and “Joseph” is a boy’s name. However, when combined, the two form a _single compound_ name that is _different_ from both.

When “Joseph” precedes “Maria” as in Spanish “José María”, it is a boy’s name. When “Maria” precedes “Joseph” as in French “Marie-Josèphe”, it is a girl’s name.

But I agree that it depends on how you look at it …. 🙂


----------



## Apollodorus

Abaye said:


> I made a (naive) assumption that whoever opinionates about etymology of the name Miriam, knows well the biblical narrative of Exodus, where the person Miriam is mentioned as well as the presence of dozens of thousands of Israelites who fled from slavery in Egypt to freedom in Canaan. Cherry picking verses that portray Miriam while ignoring the rest of the narrative is unhelpful. True, Egyptian etymology for the name is not implausible and was mentioned several times up in this thread, as well as Semite etymology. Cherry picking, again, Wikipedia fragments that promote the Egyptian hypothesis is unhelpful. AFAIK there's no scholar agreement about the name's origin, as well as for many other names mentioned in the bible for the creation of the Hebrew people, names that were later incorporated in the Hebrew names inventory.


Well, what you seem to be suggesting is that we must take every single Bible word literally. What I am suggesting is that any text has got to be read in light of external evidence. That Moses, Aaron and Miriam were born in Egypt may be taken to be plausible. That there were “myriads of Israelites” in Egypt is _less plausible_ in the absence of supporting external evidence.

Even taking the Bible narrative at face value, if “myriads of Israelites” lived in Egypt without assuming Egyptian names, it doesn’t logically follow that this is true of all of them. On the contrary, if the Israelites (or Hebrews) lived in Egypt for generations, it would be perfectly natural for at least some of them to have acquired local Egyptian names, especially names of some prestige in the local culture, associated with royalty, religion, etc. Moses' name for one was _given to him by an Egyptian princess_, as pointed out in the _Catholic Encyclopedia _article referenced by Wikipedia.

In any case, the Wikipedia article says “the names of Moses and others in the biblical narratives are Egyptian and contain genuine Egyptian elements”. I don’t think this is “cherry picking”. It is simply pointing out that the Hebrew theory (and it is no more than a theory) isn’t the only one on the table.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> Well, what you seem to be suggesting is that we must take every single Bible word literally.


Now that is getting very strange. There is absolutely nothing except the biblical narrative that connects Miriam, Aharon or Moshe to Egypt in any way. They are just normal Jewish names. You gladly take use this narrative to make the connection but once you have done so, you discard it and take one of many speculations for fact. @Abaye is absolutely right. Your style of argument here is the epitome of cherry picking.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> There is absolutely nothing except the biblical narrative that connects Miriam, Aharon or Moshe to Egypt in any way.


So, according to you, that means that the biblical narrative doesn't connect Moses, Aaron and Miriam with Egypt? If so, then I agree that this getting very strange, indeed. 😀


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> So, according to you, that means that the biblical narrative doesn't connect Moses, Aaron and Miriam with Egypt? If so, then I agree that this getting very strange, indeed. 😀


Read the sentence you quoted again and more carefully.


----------



## Apollodorus

You mean the biblical narrative _does _connect Moses, Aaron and Miriam with Egypt? If so, thank you for confirming. That's part of the reason an Egyptian etymology has been suggested. The suggestion isn't baseless speculation.

Moreover, it is incorrect to say that I "take one of many speculations for fact" as at no point have I done so!


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> You mean the biblical narrative _does _connect Moses, Aaron and Miriam with Egypt? If so, thank you for confirming. That's part of the reason an Egyptian etymology has been suggested. The suggestion isn't baseless speculation.
> 
> Moreover, it is incorrect to say that I "take one of many speculations for fact" as at no point have I done so!


When it suits you you present the biblical narrative as prove. Where it doesn't suit you suggest it should not be taken literally. That is cherry picking in its purest form. In the end, an Egyptian origin is only one of several speculative theories without any serious evidence to prefer it over other speculative theories.


----------



## Apollodorus

The Wiktionary entry for “Mary” says:

“From Middle English _Marie_, from Old French _Marie_, from Latin _Maria_, from Ancient Greek Μαρία (_María_), Μαριάμ (_Mariám_), from Aramaic מַרְיָם‎ (_maryām_) or Hebrew מִרְיָם‎ (_miryām_), of uncertain meaning. *Most likely originally an Egyptian name, perhaps derived in part from mry "beloved" or mr "love"”.*

So, where exactly is the “cherry picking”? Are you suggesting we shouldn't use Wiktionary as a source? If so, then perhaps this should be stated in the Forum rules .... 🙂


----------



## berndf

Look at another place, also in Wiktionary (here) and you find this:


> Zum Ursprung des Namens _Maria_ gibt es mehrere Ansätze:
> *1.* _Maria_ könnte vom hebräischen Namen מִרְיָם (Mirjam) → he mit der Bedeutung _geliebt_ abgeleitet sein. Daraus bildete sich im Griechischen die Form _Μαριάμ (Mariam☆) → grc._ Deren lateinische Abwandlung lautet _Maria._[1]
> *2.* Bei _Maria_ könnte es sich um eine weibliche Form von Marius handeln.
> *3.* Möglich ist auch eine Herleitung über den hebräischen Stamm _מרא (mästen)_. Die Bedeutung von Maria wäre dementsprechend _die Wohlgenährte_.[2]
> *4.* Auch denkbar ist, dass _Maria_ vom lateinischen Wort mare → la „Meer“ abstammt. Die Bedeutung des Namens wäre dann _die dem Meer Entsprossene_.


Another one is here:


> The meaning of this name which is the Old Testament equivalent of _Mary_ has been debated for centuries. Some other explanations are mutiny / rebellion / disobedience from a root *מרי* (_m-r-y_).


This "Most likely..." in your Wiktionary section is an unsourced opinion of someone with a computer and access to the internet. The only thing everybody seems to be able to agree is "a word of unknown origin".


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> Look at another place, also in Wiktionary (here) and you find this ....


German "könnte", "möglich", "denkbar" isn't any better than English "most likely". Also, the German version inexplicably leaves out the Egyptian possibility. Should we call this "cherry picking"?



berndf said:


> The only thing everybody seems to be able to agree is "a word of unknown origin".


However, it doesn't follow that it is "verboten" or "haram" (_حَرَام_‎) to make reasonable suggestions regarding the name's etymology other than the one offered in the Hebrew Bible. Unless we're arguing that every word in the Bible is "absolute truth" .... 😗


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> German "könnte", "möglich", "denkbar" isn't any better than English "most likely". Also, the German version inexplicably leaves out the Egyptian possibility. Should we call this "cherry picking"?
> 
> 
> However, it doesn't follow that it is "verboten" or "haram" (_حَرَام_‎) to make reasonable suggestions regarding the name's etymology other than the one offered in the Hebrew Bible. Unless we're arguing that every word in the Bible is "absolute truth" .... 😗


_Unknown origin_ just means _unknown origin_. I am afraid that is all we know and everything else is fantasy and imagination.


----------



## matakoweg

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> I know of these cases from German as a second name.


I as male have Maria as my third name, but I was never called so, and only my parents who give me this name knew this third name. It was a custom to give boys as last name Maria when they were baptized as Roman Catholic.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> _Unknown origin_ just means _unknown origin_. I am afraid that is all we know and everything else is fantasy and imagination.


IMO statements to the effect that I “take speculation for fact” and that I “cherry pick” are incorrect and contrary to fact and ought to be retracted. In addition, you are contradicting yourself.

1. Either (a) the whole of the Hebrew Bible is absolute truth or (b) it isn’t. If (a), then it is incorrect to say that that the etymology of “Mary” is “unknown”. If (b), it stands to reason to accept some biblical statements and reject others.

2. A narrative may contain elements that are plausible and elements that are implausible. Accepting the former and dismissing the latter is standard procedure. It is common sense and common practice, not “cherry picking”.

3. If you call the logical acceptance of some biblical passages and the rejection of others “cherry picking”, the implication is that according to you the whole of the Hebrew Bible should be accepted as truth.

4. If the Wiktionary entry for “Mary” doesn’t give any sources, why bother to quote it as a source? Besides, the Hebrew Bible doesn’t give any reliable sources either. Isn’t rejecting Wiktionary and accepting the Hebrew Bible cherry picking?

5. If "everything else is fantasy and imagination", then the supposed Hebrew etymology of "Mary" is no less fantasy and imagination than the Egyptian one.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> 3. If you call the logical acceptance of some biblical passages and the rejection of others “cherry picking”, the implication is that according to you the whole of the Hebrew Bible should be accepted as truth.


The only "logic" in your choice is that whatever supports your pet theory is _plausible_ and what doesn't is_ implausible_. And that is indeed cherry picking.

I am surprised how difficult the concept of _unknown_ seems to be for you. We have a Hebrew name that _may _be native or that _may_ be a loan and if it is a loan it _may _come from many sources and one of these sources _may _be Egyptian. That is really all we can say with any level of confidence.

Your strategy is to accumulate as many _may_s as possible and then construct an argument out of it, with the basic logic that if we find sufficiently many _may_s then they turn into a _probable_. Trouble is, if we know so little as we do here, there are so many _may_s that we can construct arguments for almost anything and its opposite.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Gadyc said:


> Eva Maria, your threads about theese biblical names touch to the twilight, rather say illumination, between language and the culture it grew on or with.
> 
> The ethimology of Miriam is not known, it's right. But  since it is a biblic name, you have to search its root in the largest usage of hebrew languistic.
> 
> I never tough about it, but the root of Miriam can be מרי (the leters MRI) that says "revolt". If it is so, it meets the midrashs that describe how Miram, The older sister Of Moses, don't let her parents to despair whel Egypt's Pharaon commanded to kill all boys to prevent the birth of Hebrew's liberator. She, as a little girl knew to explain her logic and make them to have a new baby, at this dangerous period: "maybe it will be a girl" she said "and she can live".
> 
> I supose there is a symbol with the name of Maria mother of Jesus. But it is not my territory.
> 
> 
> Blessings
> 
> Gadyc


Do you really believe that ancient Hebrews would call a girl "revolt"? Give me a break. I found once a list of possible meanings of the name, one more absurd than the other. The one that made my brain twist was "full of bitterness". Hello! Let's think first what kind of names people used to give their children in the past. It was something that should protect or embellish the child, or give it good relations with other people. Most popular was relating to gods or one god for protection. Sometimes the names were anecdotical, related to something that happened, or humoristic, but never branding a child by giving a negative sounding name.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> Your strategy is to accumulate as many _may_s as possible and then construct an argument out of it, with the basic logic that if we find sufficiently many _may_s then they turn into a _probable_.


More false allegations, I'm afraid. 

What I'm saying is that the claim that Moses, Aaron and Miriam were born in Egypt is plausible, whereas the claim that there were "myriads of Israelites in Egypt" is NOT plausible. The rest is your "fantasy and imagination", as you said .... 😉


----------



## Apollodorus

Ben Jamin said:


> Do you really believe that ancient Hebrews would call a girl "revolt"? Give me a break.


Apparently, religious fundamentalists believe so.

The rest of us tend to doubt it, the same way we doubt that an Egyptian princess would have given a "Hebrew" name to Moses ....

BTW, according to Wikipedia, in antiquity, Miriam/Mary's name was variously etymologized as "rebellion", "bitter sea", "strong waters", "exalted one", "ruling one", "wished for child", or "beautiful".

IMO the very fact that there are so many etymologies suggests that they are all made up. It seems much more plausible that the original name was Egyptian. Egyptian culture was influential in Ancient Canaan and it must have had some influence on "Israelites" living in Egypt. In any case, I for one can't see anything wrong with Egyptian names.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> What I'm saying is that the claim that Moses, Aaron and Miriam were born in Egypt is plausible, whereas the claim that there were "myriads of Israelites in Egypt" is NOT plausible.


For no other reason that the former suits your theory and the latter not.

You could equally well make the opposite case: Legends often incorporate true historical events but recombine them freely. The early Hebrews are portrayed as a nomadic people, which is very plausible. And as such there may be episodes in their history where they lived in Egypt. But if Mose, Aharon and Miriam were true historical figures and if they really relate to this period can be drawn into question.

Or you could argue that the Israelites dwelling in Egypt should not be taken literally but the story really refers to a (historically attested) period when Canaan was ruled by Egypt and that Mose, Aharon and Miriam _being born in Egypt_ should be understood to mean _being born under Egyptian rule_.

I am not serious proposing any of these theories but I present them just alternatives that are just as plausible or implausible as your theories given the scarcity of independent sources of the early history of the Israelites. Imagine what we would think about Germanic history during the migration period if the only record we had was the _Nibelungenlied_, which relocates the Frankish queen Brunichilda (_Brünhilde_ in the epic) to Iceland and portrays Attila (_Etzel_ in the epic) and Theodoric (_Dietrich von Bern_ in the epic) as contemporaries.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> For no other reason that the former suits your theory and the latter not.



1. There is a difference between what you claim that I said and what I _actually_ said. The two should not be confused.

2. Basing an argument on cumulative evidence is standard practice in law and other fields:

“*Cumulative evidence: evidence of which the parts reinforce one another, producing an effect stronger than any part by itself”* – dictionary.com

3. I merely quoted the Wikipedia article and the Catholic Encyclopedia referenced in it by way of showing that the Egyptian etymology is not baseless speculation but is based on cumulative evidence as defined above:

“Since many Levite names are of Egyptian origin, the name could come from the Egyptian _mr_ "love", as in the Egyptian names _mry.t-jmn_ (Merit-Amun) "beloved of Amun" and _mry.t-rꜥ_ (Merytre) "beloved of Ra"” – Miriam (given name) - Wikipedia

“Moses, Aaron, and their sister were born in Egypt; the name _Aaron_ cannot be explained from the Hebrew; the daughter of Pharaoh imposed the name _Moses_ on the child she had saved from the waters of the Nile; hence it is possible that their sister's name Mary was also of Egyptian origin. This seems to become even probable if we consider the fact that the name Mary was not borne by any woman in the Old Testament excepting the sister of Moses” – “The Name of Mary”, _Catholic Encyclopedia_

4. If the etymology of the name “Mary” is “unknown”, why are you saying this to me but not to @Abaye?

5. If the etymology of the name “Mary” is “unknown”, why does @Abaye insist that it must be Hebrew?

6. If the etymology of the name “Mary” is “unknown”, how can you say that it can’t be Egyptian?

7. If the etymology of the name “Mary” is “unknown”, this is all the more reason to discuss possible etymologies including an Egyptian one, not to suppress discussion.

8. It isn’t written anywhere that discussing the etymology of names is “VERBOTEN!” or “HARAM! (حَرَام!)”.



berndf said:


> You could equally well make the opposite case: Legends often incorporate true historical events but recombine them freely.


Exactly. And sometimes they distort historical events to suit the narrator's political or religious agenda.

Israel's leading archaeologist Israel Finkelstein doesn't believe that the Exodus is a historical fact (see _The Bible Unearthed_, 2002). Doubting the historicity of "myriads of Israelites in Egypt" is therefore justified. It isn't my fault that some people don't read any other books apart from the Hebrew Bible.

IMO, given that the geographical and cultural setting is Egyptian, “Mary/Miriam” was probably an Egyptian name at origin. Egyptian “Beloved of God” makes much more sense that “Bitter” or “Rebellion”.

In any case, there is no doubt to my mind that the “bitter/rebellion” narrative is simply an etiological device designed to cover up the Egyptian origin (or ignorance of its true origin).

However, this wasn't my "theory". My point was simply that the Egyptian etymology isn't baseless speculation. *See my original post above, at #17*.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> 4. If the etymology of the name “Mary” is “unknown”, why are you saying this to me but not to @Abaye?
> 
> 5. If the etymology of the name “Mary” is “unknown”, why does @Abaye insist that it must be Hebrew?


We only ever said there was no sufficient reason to prefer the theory of an Egyptian etymology over alternative etymologies; nor the other way round, for that matter.


Abaye said:


> Cherry picking, again, Wikipedia fragments that promote the Egyptian hypothesis is unhelpful. *AFAIK there's no scholar agreement about the name's origin*, as well as for many other names mentioned in the bible for the creation of the Hebrew people, names that were later incorporated in the Hebrew names inventory.


----------



## Apollodorus

And what I said was that the alleged presence of “myriads of Israelites in Egypt” is insufficient basis for the belief that “Mary/Miriam” is more likely to have been Hebrew than Egyptian.

As Finkelstein explains:

“The Israelites emerged only gradually as a distinct group in Canaan, beginning at the end of the thirteenth century BCE. There is no recognizable archaeological evidence of Israelite presence in Egypt immediately before this time … The possibility of a large group of people wandering in the Sinai peninsula is also contradicted by archaeology … The conclusion – that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable …” (pp. 57, 61).

In fact, Finkelstein argues that the Exodus narrative was composed in the 600s BC _for political ends_ (p. 70).

It follows that it is perfectly reasonable and justified to treat the Exodus narrative as an implausible story. In contrast, it seems rather more plausible for three Canaanite migrants (or slaves) to have been born in Egypt and to have been given Egyptian names.

However, if the Taliban choose to believe that every word in the Hebrew Bible is absolute truth, they’re free to do so. At the end of the day, it makes ZERO difference to me whether “Mary/Miriam” is Hebrew or Egyptian. Schönen Tag noch (or _maʿa s-salāma_ مع السلامة)! 🙂


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> It follows that it is perfectly reasonable and justified to treat the Exodus narrative as an implausible story. In contrast, it seems rather more plausible for three Canaanite migrants (or slaves) to have been born in Egypt and to have been given Egyptian names.


If the Exodus story is implausible than it is implausible. You cannot simply take one small part of it and, for no other reason than because it suits your pet theory, say this and only this bit is plausible.

If you regard the entire story for a politically motivated fabrication (which might well be the case... or not), then you have to doubt as well that there really were those historical figures and that where really called Moshe, Aharon an Miriam and that they were really born in Egypt.


----------



## Platytude

Creators of the story considered Moses, Aaron and Mary connected to Egypt. Therefore, they might have chosen what they had believed to be Egyptian names, because they had *some idea* about Egyptian names of their own time.
Creators of the story considered there were myriads of Israelites in Egypt. They might have been utterly wrong because they had *no idea* about the events of earlier times. 

There is no cherry picking in supporting the Egyptian etymology while dismissing mass Israelite presence in Egypt.


----------



## berndf

Platytude said:


> Creators of the story considered Moses, Aaron and Mary connected to Egypt. Therefore, they might have chosen what they had believed to be Egyptian names, because they had *some idea* about Egyptian names of their own time.
> Creators of the story considered there were myriads of Israelites in Egypt. They might have been utterly wrong because they had *no idea* about the events of earlier times


What evidence other than your Imagination do you have for this judgement?


----------



## Platytude

berndf said:


> What evidence other than your Imagination do you have for this judgement?


Do you mean what imagination I had other than the evidence? 

_- Creators of the story considered Moses, Aaron and Mary connected to Egypt_. 
Fact: they literally said it. 
_- Therefore, they *might *have chosen what they had believed to be Egyptian names_: 
Fact: they had only *two *plausible choices for namesakes for Hebrew characters in Egypt (Semitic or Egyptian). So, a raw 50-50% chance is pretty much the definition of "might". 
_- because they had *some idea* about Egyptian names of their own time_: 
Fact: they were neighbours with Egypt and trading with them (and being invaded by them). So they had some familiarity with the culture and people, which includes names (some of which are reflected in the bible).
_- Creators of the story considered there were myriads of Israelites in Egypt_. 
Fact: again, they literally said it.
- _They might have been utterly wrong because they had *no idea* about the events of earlier times._
Fact: it's well established in the field of history that this is how oral transmission of stories and history works in many cases.


----------



## berndf

Again only "might"s without a shred of evidence in either direction. An accumulation of "might"s says nothing. There is no evidence of an Egyptian etymology and there is no evidence for a Semitic etymology.


----------



## Roxxxannne

berndf said:


> Look at another place, also in Wiktionary (here) and you find this:
> 
> Another one is here:
> 
> This "Most likely..." in your Wiktionary section is an unsourced opinion of someone with a computer and access to the internet. The only thing everybody seems to be able to agree is "a word of unknown origin".


You might be able to figure out whether the Wiktionary source is someone who knows what they're talking about.  Go through the history of the entry until you find the version where the sentence you're wondering about first occurs.  Then check what other edits that person made in other entries.  You can at least tell from what their other entries have been whether they are particularly interested in the topic or not. And if they include footnotes you can see what kinds of sources they read.


----------



## Platytude

berndf said:


> Again only "might"s without a shred of evidence in either direction. An accumulation of "might"s says nothing. There is no evidence of an Egyptian etymology and there is no evidence for a Semitic etymology.


I'm not discussing evidence for/against Egyptian root of Miryam. I was writing about the evidence for/against Apollodorus' "cherry picking". Cherry picking involves arbitrary selection of similarly weighed data. I was pointing out that the weight of the two statements is not similar, not even closely. One makes sense in the context and one doesn't. The Egyptian root for Miryam is _probable_, or a "might", because it can be assumed in the narrative, chronological and geographical context. The mass presence of Israelite in Egypt is _unlikely _in the alleged timeframe.


----------



## berndf

Platytude said:


> I was pointing out that the weight of the two statements is not similar


I asked you for evidence for exactly that judgement beyond imagination and more "might"s.


----------



## Platytude

Because one statement is against almost everything we know of the history of Egypt and Levant after 1200s BC, and one is not against any of our knowledge. It's like we don't have any evidence about who built Gobekli Tepe. But it is absurd to consider suggesting A and rejecting B is cherry picking: 
A. Hunter gatherer.
B. Aliens.


----------



## berndf

Platytude said:


> Because one statement is against almost everything we know of the history of Egypt and Levant after 1200s BC, and one is not against any of our knowledge. It's like we don't have any evidence about who built Gobekli Tepe. But it is absurd to consider suggesting A and rejecting B is cherry picking:
> A. Hunter gatherer.
> B. Aliens.


That is an absurd comparison. You made assumptions about what "ideas" the "creators of the story"


Platytude said:


> Creators of the story considered Moses, Aaron and Mary connected to Egypt. Therefore, they might have chosen what they had believed to be Egyptian names, because they had *some idea* about Egyptian names of their own time.
> Creators of the story considered there were myriads of Israelites in Egypt. They might have been utterly wrong because they had *no idea* about the events of earlier times


without the slightest bit of evidence who these people were, when they lived and what ideas they had.


----------



## Ballenero

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> How did it become a male name?





Roxxxannne said:


> Which name are you referring to?





berndf said:


> it is probably not correct to say it has ever "become a male name".





Apollodorus said:


> So, it can't really be said that "Maria has become a men's name".


*Mario* is a well-known boy’s name.


----------



## Platytude

berndf said:


> You made assumptions about what "ideas" the "creators of the story" ... without the slightest bit of evidence who these people were, when they lived and what ideas they had.


I repeat: _One statement is against almost everything we know of the history of Egypt and Levant after 1200s BC, and one is not against any of our knowledge._

Not having _the slightest bit of evidence who these people were, when they lived and what ideas they had _*does not* make the suggestion of an Egyptian etymology improbable. But having some evidence that the Israelites did not live en masse in Egypt during the Exodus' alleged time (mid New Kingdom) *does *make_ myriads of Israelites in Egypt_ improbable. Not-improbable and improbable statements are not equal in weight.

You are also conflating the creators of the story with the originators of the names, ideas and themes. The creators are those who created a story with people named Moses, Aaron and Mary, among numerous other Israelites, in Egypt and then out of it. So, they knowingly connected those three and all other Israelites to Egypt. The question is where they got the names from. Did 1) they come up with the names, or 2) their successors pick, or 3) they use an existing relevant/historic names or 4) irrelevant name? 

In the first 3 cases, the names were created or picked in connection with the story's Egypt/Jewish theme. In these cases, the etymology is not unknown, but undetermined, because we don't have enough data to decide between Semitic and Egyptian origins. Only in the 4th case, we would call the etymology truly unknown because it could have been completely out of context, from any language (like the possible Akkadian root of Esther and Mordecai in Jewish/Persian context). The 4th case is rare and only found, AFAIK, in that controversial book. No Biblical scholar has suggested that these three characters were external and entered Exodus out of nowhere. However, by repeatedly emphasising the lack of evidence for either Semitic or Egyptian origin, you are unduly giving weight to this fringe idea.


----------



## berndf

Of course, either Semitic or Egyptian origin stay top of the suspect list. This has never been drawn into question. But this does not change the verdict that the etymology remains unknown. There are sufficiently many possibilities to derive either Egyptian or Semitic etymologies.


----------



## WadiH

Ben Jamin said:


> Hello! Let's think first what kind of names people used to give their children in the past. It was something that should protect or embellish the child, or give it good relations with other people. Most popular was relating to gods or one god for protection. Sometimes the names were anecdotical, related to something that happened, or humoristic, but never branding a child by giving a negative sounding name.



This does occur in some cultures actually (Arabs used to do it to ward off the angel of death -- "Undesired" was a popular one), but why would "rebel" be negative in the context of the Exodus story?  The Israelites were rebelling against Pharaoh, weren't they?


----------



## Ben Jamin

WadiH said:


> This does occur in some cultures actually (Arabs used to do it to ward off the angel of death -- "Undesired" was a popular one), but why would "rebel" be negative in the context of the Exodus story?  The Israelites were rebelling against Pharaoh, weren't they?


Sorry, I am not convinced. If it were so, there would be a comment about it in the story about Moses, but women were hardly considered as combattants in those times. Moses himself had an Egyptian name.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Ballenero said:


> *Mario* is a well-known boy’s name.


Maria has been given as second given name for males in many catholic countries, especially Spain and Poland, for example politicians Jose Maria Aznar and Jan Maria Rokita.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> If you regard the entire story for a politically motivated fabrication (which might well be the case... or not), then you have to doubt as well that there really were those historical figures and that where really called Moshe, Aharon an Miriam and that they were really born in Egypt.


You don't get it do you? 😀

_Of course_, I have my doubts regarding the whole narrative (though it may contain elements of truth)! In fact, strict believers aside, the scholarly consensus seems to be that the Biblical Moses is “largely mythical” (Moses – Wikipedia) and the belief that Moses was modelled on an Egyptian prototype, for example, King Ahmose/Amosis who liberated Egypt from foreign invaders (Hyksos) goes back to the Hellenistic and Roman periods. See Menachem Stern, _Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism_, Vol. 1, no.157a/b, 380f.

If the Moses narrative itself is based on an Egyptian model, then it makes sense to look for an Egyptian etymology for the name. And the same holds for his sister’s name.

Some of the arguments put forward are indeed based _on the hypothetical assumption _that Moses, Aaron and Miriam were historical persons living in Egypt. They may have been Egyptian royalty or Canaanite slaves. We have no means of knowing that, though we do know that the Hebrew Bible sometimes distorts historical and other data. 

However, for the purposes of this discussion what is at issue is not the historicity of the aforementioned three biblical personages, but the etymology of their names. In light of the evidence, an Egyptian etymology seems more probable (given attested Egyptian names ending in _-mose _or starting in _meryt_-) than the presence of "myriads of Israelites in Egypt" (which is positively contradicted by the archaeological evidence).

The concept of different degrees of probability shouldn't be difficult to understand.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> In light of the evidence, an Egyptian etymology seems more probable (given attested Egyptian names ending in _-mose _or starting in _meryt_-)


In light of what evidence? There is none.



Apollodorus said:


> than the presence of "myriads of Israelites in Egypt" (which is positively contradicted by the archaeological evidence).


That is not such a big number. Nomadic tribes of 10,000 or 20,000 people from Canaan dwelling in Egypt for 20 few Generations would not necessarily leave archaeological evidence. There is absolutely nothing that contradicts this.

But that doesn't matter. Even if this part of the story was wrong, it is not evidence of a Egyptian etymology.


----------



## Apollodorus

WadiH said:


> why would "rebel" be negative in the context of the Exodus story?  The Israelites were rebelling against Pharaoh, weren't they?


They were rebelling in the biblical narrative, not necessarily in historical fact. And if the rebellion was general, this raises the question of why Miriam was the only Israelite to be given this name.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> In light of what evidence? There is none.


Egyptian names containing the element “_meryt_" (Meryt-Aten, Meryt-Ra, “Beloved of God”) are attested in 15th-century BC inscriptions, i.e., long before the emergence of "Israelites". See Queen Merytre-Hatshepsut, wife of Thutmose III, etc.


----------



## WadiH

Apollodorus said:


> They were rebelling in the biblical narrative, not necessarily in historical fact. And if the rebellion was general, this raises the question of why Miriam was the only Israelite to be given this name.



I don't think the historicity of the Exodus narrative is relevant either way.  The name could be Canaanite/Hebrew because that's the language in which it was written and the culture from which it emerged, and it could be Egyptian because that's where the story is set ('verisimilitude').  I don't have a view on which one is more likely because I don't know enough about the subject.  I was just questioning that the 'rebellion' etymology should be discounted solely on account that it was 'negative' because in the context of the story it wouldn't have been negative necessarily.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> Nomadic tribes of 10,000 or 20,000 people from Canaan dwelling in Egypt for 20 few Generations would not necessarily leave archaeological evidence. There is absolutely nothing that contradicts this.


There may have been some Canaanites in Egypt. But as Finkelstein points out, there is no evidence of _Israelites _in Egypt and even less of Israelites rebelling against the Egyptian pharaoh or fleeing Egypt in a mass exodus.

Finkelstein writes:

"Repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees" (_The Bible Unearthed_, p.63).

Absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence for Israelite presence.


----------



## Apollodorus

WadiH said:


> I was just questioning that the 'rebellion' etymology should be discounted solely on account that it was 'negative' because in the context of the story it wouldn't have been negative necessarily.


Correct. It shouldn't be discounted outright, though it may be doubted, given that etiological legends are often used in ancient narratives either due to ignorance of the original etymology or for some other reason(s).


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> Absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence for Israelite presence.


I never said there was any evidence. That is my whole point, there is no evidence of any consequence for *any* etymology.


----------



## Apollodorus

Well, you did seem to suggest that there could have been "nomadic tribes of 10,000 or 20,000 people from Canaan dwelling in Egypt for 20 generations without leaving archaeological evidence". You seem to use absence of evidence in support of Israelite presence in Egypt.

As regards the Egyptian derivation of "Mary/Miriam" it is true that there is no _hard evidence_. But there is _circumstantial evidence _in the form of Egyptian names containing the element _mery- _or _meryt-._ In contrast, there is no evidence for this (or similar names) in a Canaanite context. 

Ultimately, though, each person will have to decide for themselves ....


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> You seem to use absence of evidence in support of Israelite presence in Egypt.


No, I don't. I absolutely nowhere said anything even remotely like that. I consistently said there is insufficient evidence for *any* theory.

But you said the absence of evidence rendered the narrative implausible. My answer to this was that even that is too strong a claim.

Don't get me wrong, if I would be forced to bet money on a if the the name had an Egyptian or a Semitic etymology, I might decide that "Egyptian" would be the slighter less risky bet. But this is far to little for a scientific guess.


----------



## Apollodorus

My point was that epigraphic evidence for the Egyptian name “Mery/Meryt” is evidence. Absence of evidence for Israelite presence in Egypt is … absence of evidence. Evidence and absence thereof are NOT the same.

Briefly stated, the arguments are as follows:

*1. Egyptian etymology*

(A). Mery-/Meryt was an Egyptian name.

(B). The biblical person called “Mary/Miriam” came from Egypt.

(C). Therefore, her name was probably Egyptian.

*2. Hebrew etymology*

(A). There were Hebrews in Egypt.

(B). The Hebrews rebelled against Egypt.

(C). The Hebrew word for “rebellion” is “Mary/Myriam”.

(D). Therefore, Mary/Miriam was called “Rebellion” (“Mary/Myriam”).

(E). Therefore, the name “Mary/Myriam” is Hebrew.

What becomes clear is that whilst the Hebrew argument seems plausible in the context of the biblical narrative, it becomes doubtful immediately we examine it in light of the evidence (or absence thereof): there is no evidence for statements (A), (B), (D). In other words, the argument boils down to a conclusion (E) that lacks evidence for the premises or propositions purportedly leading to it.

In addition, the question of why of all Hebrews Mary/Myriam alone was named “Rebellion” remains unanswered. These problems do not arise in the Egyptian argument the premises of which, moreover, are corroborated by the evidence.

It follows that the two arguments aren’t equally plausible.


----------



## berndf

If you discount the Biblical narrative as doubtful, 1.A is the only piece of evidence independent of the Bible and the similarly is rather vage. If the four letters of _mrym_, only two (_mr_) are found in the Egyptian name. That is simply not enough.

Besides, what makes you think, 2. would be the only alternative etymology? Many more have been proposed in the previous millennia and all, including 1., are little more than poking in the dark.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> Besides, what makes you think, 2. would be the only alternative etymology? Many more have been proposed in the previous millennia and all, including 1., are little more than poking in the dark.


What makes you think that I think "2. would be the only alternative etymology"??? Of course, I don't and, of course, other etymologies have been proposed. However, IMO it makes sense to take one proposal at a time. Right now, the discussion was about an Egyptian versus a Hebrew etymology.

1. If the etymology of a word is unknown, it doesn’t logically follow that all the proposed etymologies are equally plausible.

2. To rely solely on the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud is too selective to be acceptable procedure.

3. When assessing the plausibility or otherwise of a proposed etymology, _all _available evidence must be considered.

4. The non-biblical evidence includes Ancient Egyptian inscriptions and later writings.

4.1. First, we have inscriptions with the name _mery-merit_ as in Meryt-Ra, “Beloved of God”.

4.2. Second, we have the writings of the Egyptian historian Manetho (c. 285-280 BC) who relates the story of an alien people referred to as “shepherds” (possibly Canaanites) who invaded Egypt and were expelled by the pharaoh. This is consistent with historical evidence showing that Lower (North) Egypt was invaded and occupied by foreign rulers in c. 1650–1550 BC – Hyksos, Wikipedia.

4.3. Third, we have the evidence of Artapanus of Alexandria (3rd/2nd C BC), who in his now lost work _On the Jews_ (partly preserved in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea), describes Moses as a follower of Egyptian religion.

Artapanus of Alexandria – Wikipedia

It follows that the Hebrews could have appropriated several Egyptian traditions and modified them for their own purposes. Mary/Miriam herself could have been Egyptian. See also Jan Assmann, _Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism_.

5. In this connection, it is necessary to consider the date when the various narratives of the Hebrew Bible were composed, compiled, or redacted. According to Israel Finkelstein, the Exodus narrative was composed in the 600s BC (_The Bible Unearthed_, 2002). Others, e.g., Russell Gmirkin, argue for a much later composition in the Early Hellenistic period (_Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible_, 2016).

In addition, the earliest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are from the Hellenistic period, i.e., more than a millennium after Egyptian inscriptions bearing the name “Meryt-Ra” and many centuries after the suggested date of the “Exodus”, which means that the biblical narrative could have undergone many changes.

As for the notion that Mary/Miriam was named after the Hebrew word for “rebellion”, it is even later which makes the connection of the person with rebellion rather tenuous and highly problematic. If the Talmud or other sources connect Mary/Miriam with rebellion, it doesn’t follow that this was the original etymology of the name.

In sum, although the evidence is largely circumstantial, it is nevertheless evidence and, as per your own admission, it tends to favour the Egyptian etymology .... 🙂


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> Right now, the discussion was about an Egyptian versus a Hebrew etymology.


No, it is about _any_ Egyptian vs. _any _Semitic etymology. Narrowing the comparison as you are doing is a again cherry picking.



Apollodorus said:


> 4.1. First, we have inscriptions with the name _mery-merit_ as in Meryt-Ra, “Beloved of God”.


This is only two letters overlay with _mrym_ (_mr.t rꜥ ḥꜣ.t šps.(w)t_; see your Wikipedia link). I find that a bit underwhelming as evidence that it should be essentially the same name.



Apollodorus said:


> Second, we have the writings of the Egyptian historian Manetho (c. 285-280 BC) who relates the story of an alien people referred to as “shepherds” (possibly Canaanites)


"Possibly Canaanites" is again little more than pure imagination.



Apollodorus said:


> 4.3. Third, we have the evidence of Artapanus of Alexandria (3rd/2nd C BC), who in his now lost work _On the Jews_ (partly preserved in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea), describes Moses as a follower of Egyptian religion.


Canaan and Syria were under Egyptian supremacy for centuries during the New Kingdom. Canaanite scripts is ultimately derived from Egyptian writing systems. Of course there is ample Egyptian influence on Canaanite culture. Yet only little Egyptian influence on Semitic languages of the region can be demonstrated. Even if the little we know about Artapanus allowed such an asessment ("Moses as a follower of Egyptian religion"), which I doubt (it can in my understanding, at only be understood to means that he believed that Egyptian cults _influenced _practices established by Moses), it says very little about the etymology of _mrjm_.



Apollodorus said:


> In sum, although the evidence is largely circumstantial, it is nevertheless evidence and, as per your own admission, it tends to favour the Egyptian etymology .... 🙂


If "in favour" means something like a 51:49 chance, I won't argue. But that means very little.


----------



## Abaye

Apollodorus said:


> In sum, although the evidence is largely circumstantial, it is nevertheless evidence and, as per your own admission, it tends to favour the Egyptian etymology .... 🙂


I don't see here any robust argument beyond the initial posts in this thread.
You're trying to demonstrate that the bible is unreliable, yet you take the existence of Miriam in Egypt as a fact.
You're trying to prove that the Israelites spent centuries in Egypt - this is apparently right, this is the discussion's square one.
You take the words of Manetho (who's regarded as the 1st antisemite) and Artapanus, both lived 1000 years after the events.
You regard _Merit_ and _Miriam_ as similar enough, yet for an unclear reason reject Hebrew words as similar.
Levites are originally non-Israelites: an interesting theory mentioned occasionally but not an established one.

See below where the discussion has started, for now we're in the same place, various competing alternatives.

מרים - Wiktionary


> Etymology: Uncertain. Proposals include derivation from the root _מ־ר־ר_‎ (m-r-r, “to be bitter”), or from the root _מ־ר־י_‎ (m-r-y, “to mutiny, rebellion, disobedience”), or from Egyptian _mry_ (“beloved”).


מרים הנביאה – ויקיפדיה


> במצרית קדומה פירוש השם הוא "אהובה"[1], ובמחקר המקראי משערים שזה המקור לשמה[2].


----------



## berndf

Abaye said:


> You regard _Merit_ and _Miriam_ as similar enough, yet for an unclear reason reject Hebrew words as similar.


As far as I know the forms attested in the new kingdom or later (the relevant period in time), hieroglyphic or demotic was _mrt_, i.e. without a jod. So, the similarity is even less than these transcriptions suggest: _mrt_ vs. _mrym_.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> "Possibly Canaanites" is again little more than pure imagination.


Their precise geographical origin is irrelevant. Plus, according to you, "everything else is fantasy and imagination", anyway. 


berndf said:


> If "in favour" means something like a 51:49 chance, I won't argue. But that means very little.


It does mean that the Egyptian etymology is more plausible than the Hebrew one.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> It does mean that the Egyptian etymology is more plausible than the Hebrew one.


Any you conveniently forget to say that by that definition, "more plausible" means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Apollodorus

Abaye said:


> You're trying to demonstrate that the bible is unreliable, yet you take the existence of Miriam in Egypt as a fact.


Wrong. I don't take the existence of Miriam in Egypt as a fact at all. Only as a _possibility_.


Abaye said:


> You're trying to prove that the Israelites spent centuries in Egypt.


No, I'm not.


Abaye said:


> You take the words of Manetho (who's regarded as the 1st antisemite) and Artapanus, both lived 1000 years after the events.


You take the words of the Hebrew Bible, written many centuries after the events.


Abaye said:


> You regard _Merit_ and _Miriam_ as similar enough, yet for an unclear reason reject Hebrew words as similar.


Wrong. I don't "reject Hebrew words as similar". I reject the claim that there is any reliable evidence for the Hebrew etymology.


Abaye said:


> Levites are originally non-Israelites: an interesting theory mentioned occasionally but not an established one.


The Exodus narrative is an interesting but not an established one.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> I reject the claim that there is any reliable evidence for the Hebrew etymology.


The elephant in the room is that it is a Hebrew name. Any to remove this elephant and to make a foreign etymology "more plausible" one would need a something a bit more tangible than an extremely vage similarity with an attested Egyptian name.


----------



## Apollodorus

Roxxxannne said:


> It would be interesting to know whether the person who wrote the Wikipedia article has any evidence (or scholarly background) for their theory about the name 'Miriam'.  You might be able to figure it out by finding the author of the earliest version of the article to mention an Egyptian origin for the name and then looking to see what other articles that person wrote or edited.


The ultimate decision doesn't lie with the individual editor but with the moderators and administrators responsible for the Wikipedia article in question.

Another online source, Abarim Publications, states:

"Unclear but possibly from Egyptian, or from the verb מרה (_mara_), to be rebellious, or from the word מר (_mor_), myrrh, or perhaps the noun ים (_yam_), sea, west or future".

See also “Miriam”, Ask the Rabbi at www.ohr.edu:

“There are several meanings behind the name Miriam, spelled _‘mem’_,_ ‘reish’_,_ ‘yud’_,_ ‘mem’_ in Hebrew, which various Jewish sources relate to either “bitter”, “water”, “rebellion” or “elevation” … A last meaning is based on all of the letters of the name Miriam, _‘mem’_, _‘reish’_, _‘yud’_, _‘mem’_, spelling the word _“merim”_ … This might be consistent with an idea which, although not found in Jewish sources, is based on the suggestion that _“mri”_ in ancient Egyptian means “beloved””.

Obviously, these are too many different etymologies for all of them to be correct. But from what I see, most sources give the Egyptian one as a possibility.


----------



## OBrasilo

The Egyptian name prefix begins with _mr-_, and ancient Canaanites had a god named Yam, written _ym_. Could _Miryam_ (_mrym_) comes from _Meri(t)-Yam_ (_Beloved by Yam_), an Egyptian translation of perhaps some period Canaanite name with the same meaning? Granted, this would put the origins of the name before the emergence of monotheism in Canaan.


----------



## Apollodorus

Good point. I don't know about _Meri(t)-Yam_, but according to Artapanus of Alexandria who is quoted by Eusebius in _Preparatio Evangelica_ (_Euaggelike Proparaskeue_), King Palmanothes of Egypt “begat a daughter called Merris (= Egyptian _meri _+ Greek suffix _-s_)” who adopted Moses. According to this version of the narrative, Merris was an Egyptian princess and the river Meroes was named after her. This would connect “Mary/Miriam” with water. Presumably, in the original narrative, "Moses" (from Egyptian for "child") was himself Egyptian. 

As Merris is said to have been married to King Khenephres (Khanephere, c. 1740 - 1730 BC), it is obvious that she lived centuries before the Exodus and that her story must have served as a model for the much later biblical narrative which is therefore a modification of the Egyptian original.


----------



## WadiH

How are you all accounting for the loss of the 't' in _mrt_?


----------



## berndf

OBrasilo said:


> The Egyptian name prefix begins with _mr-_, and ancient Canaanites had a god named Yam, written _ym_. Could _Miryam_ (_mrym_) comes from _Meri(t)-Yam_ (_Beloved by Yam_), an Egyptian translation of perhaps some period Canaanite name with the same meaning? Granted, this would put the origins of the name before the emergence of monotheism in Canaan.


Yes, there have been several attempts to analyse the name by decomposing it into _mr_- and _-jm_. The second part, _-jm_, would then clearly mean _sea _(at least I am not aware of any other interpretation that has been put forward) and mr- would then either be related to the Egyptian root _mry_ (love) or to the Hebrew root_ mrr_ (to be bitter). Within the logic of the Biblical narrative it would make sense to associate her with the _sea_ (of the_ god of the sea_, for that matter), due to her role in the crossing of the sea and the destruction of the Egyptian army.


----------



## berndf

WadiH said:


> How are you all accounting for the loss of the 't' in _mrt_?


If the derivation was from the passive participle, then the feminine ending _-t_ would indeed be expected in Hebrew as well (status constructus preserves the feminine _-t_, much like in Arabic). But as far as I know, attempts to relate the name to the Egyptian root _mry_ don't specify precise relationship.


----------



## Platytude

Apollodorus said:


> 4.3. Third, we have the evidence of Artapanus of Alexandria (3rd/2nd C BC), who in his now lost work


This is not an acceptable evidence because it could have easily been based on a version of the Jewish narrative.


Apollodorus said:


> *2. Hebrew etymology*
> 
> (A). There were Hebrews in Egypt.
> (B). The Hebrews rebelled against Egypt.
> (C). The Hebrew word for “rebellion” is “Mary/Myriam”.
> (D). Therefore, Mary/Miriam was called “Rebellion” (“Mary/Myriam”).
> (E). Therefore, the name “Mary/Myriam” is Hebrew.


Your usage of A is not right. It should be as follows with A and B being 100% factual:
A. There is a *story *about Hebrews' presence in Egypt.
B. In that *story *they rebel against Egypt
C. This theme becomes a character's namesake.
This type of character naming is common in literature, old and new.

The historicity of Israelite presence in Egypt doesn't much influence the likelihood of a Semitic etymology or lack thereof an Egyptian one. Here, we first and foremost are dealing with literature not history. The point is that when people created or expanded the story, especially when they named the characters, there is a high chance that they adopted or made either Semitic or Egyptian(-*sounding*) names for the contextual believability of the story. The Egyptian etymology doesn't also mean an actual Egyptian name being butchered by Hebrew phonology, but also any word that sounded Egyptian enough for the storytellers (again something not uncommon in literature). Basically, trying to find an exact etymology by a methodical analysis of sounds may not be the right approach to begin with.

It was also possible, but much less likely (or less precedented in the Bible), that they adopted a completely foreign legend with character names included, but gave them new ethnic identity and geography (who knows, it could have been a Philistine exodus story from Greece which Jews changed it to Hebrew exodus from Egypt under the influence of the collective memory of the Hyksos demise a few centuries earlier 😁 ). That also happens in literature.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> Of course there is ample Egyptian influence on Canaanite culture. Yet only little Egyptian influence on Semitic languages of the region can be demonstrated.


There is no need for Egyptian influence to have been vast in order for a name to enter Hebrew. And Egyptian influence on Hebrew is not non-existent. See:

_hrdb_, “learned man/magician/priest of the Egyptian court” > _hartummim

htm_, “seal, signet ring” > _hotam

gbt_, “a seal” > _tabbaat

dn_ “basket” > _tanaka

rw_ “the Nile, a river” > _yeor

nshm_, “a precious stone” > _leshem

mrh_, “ointment” > _marah

prꜥꜣ_, “pharaoh” > _paroh

sshn_, “a flower” > _shushan_ (> Susannah)

Thomas O. Lambdin, “Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament”, _Journal of the American Oriental Society_ Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1953), pp. 145-155


berndf said:


> Even if the little we know about Artapanus allowed such an asessment ("Moses as a follower of Egyptian religion"), which I doubt (it can in my understanding, at only be understood to means that he believed that Egyptian cults _influenced _practices established by Moses), it says very little about the etymology of _mrjm_.


The adoption of Egyptian customs by the Hebrews is a separate issue. Moreover, according to Artapanus, it was Moses himself who introduced religious cults, including animal worship, to Egypt. See Eusebius, _Preparatio Evangelica_ (Εὐαγγελικὴ προπαρασκευή):

“And this Moses, they said, was the teacher of Orpheus; and when grown up he taught mankind many useful things. For he was the inventor of ships, and machines for laying stones, and Egyptian arms, and engines for drawing water and for war, and invented philosophy. Further he divided the State into thirty-six Nomes, and appointed the god to be worshipped by each Nome, and the sacred writing for the priests, and their gods were cats, and dogs, and ibises: he also apportioned an especial district for the priests” (9.27).

As for the connection with the name “Mary/Miriam”, Artapanus states that King Palmanothes of Egypt “begat a daughter called Merris” who adopted Moses. According to this version of the narrative, Merris was an Egyptian princess and the adoptive mother of Moses.

I for one see no reason to regard the Exodus narrative as the only “approved” or “_ḥalāl _(حَلَال)” version.


----------



## Apollodorus

Platytude said:


> This is not an acceptable evidence because it could have easily been based on a version of the Jewish narrative.


"Could have" is not the same as "was". It is equally possible for the biblical version to be based on an earlier Egyptian one.



Platytude said:


> Your usage of A is not right. It should be as follows with A and B being 100% factual:


I think it is right because it expresses the reasoning of those who argue for the historicity of the Exodus narrative (see @Abaye, above).


Platytude said:


> Here, we first and foremost are dealing with literature not history. The point is that when people created or expanded the story, especially when they named the characters, there is a high chance that they adopted or made either Semitic or Egyptian(-*sounding*) names for the contextual believability of the story.


This is exactly how I see it. The Hebrew Bible is a _literary _work that contains (1) some historical fact, (2) historical fact that has been distorted or modified and (3) fantasy, imagination and propaganda.

This is why biblical statements should not be accepted uncritically ....


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> There is no need for Egyptian influence to have been vast in order for a name to enter Hebrew.


Sure, but again just more maybes and perhapses without any evidence. It has never been denied that there are Egyptian loan words in Hebrew, which is indeed not surprising. But it says nothing about the etymology of _mrjm_.



Apollodorus said:


> The adoption of Egyptian customs by the Hebrews is a separate issue. Moreover, according to Artapanus, it was Moses himself who introduced religious cults, including animal worship, to Egypt. See Eusebius, _Preparatio Evangelica_ (Εὐαγγελικὴ προπαρασκευή):
> 
> “And this Moses, they said, was the teacher of Orpheus; and when grown up he taught mankind many useful things. For he was the inventor of ships, and machines for laying stones, and Egyptian arms, and engines for drawing water and for war, and invented philosophy. Further he divided the State into thirty-six Nomes, and appointed the god to be worshipped by each Nome, and the sacred writing for the priests, and their gods were cats, and dogs, and ibises: he also apportioned an especial district for the priests” (9.27).
> 
> As for the connection with the name “Mary/Miriam”, Artapanus states that King Palmanothes of Egypt “begat a daughter called Merris” who adopted Moses. According to this version of the narrative, Merris was an Egyptian princess and the adoptive mother of Moses.
> 
> I for one see no reason to regard the Exodus narrative as the only “approved” or “_ḥalāl _(حَلَال)” version.


Hearsay about an mystict who mixed different narratives. It again says nothing about the etymology of _mrjm_. We can't even be sure if there is an etymology at all, namely if it was an invented name by the authors of the Biblical narrative.


----------



## Platytude

Apollodorus said:


> "Could have" is not the same as "was". It is equally possible for the biblical version to be based on an earlier Egyptian one.


"could have" is enough to dismiss it as evidence. Because if we are not reasonably certain that this Jewish source is independent of the Exodus (which was compiled at least 300 years earlier), then we cannot use it as new evidence. That is also true for Manetho's which was also written at least 250 years after Exodus (the Exodus narrative is considered to be formed sometime within or right after the Exile).


Apollodorus said:


> I think it is right because it expresses the reasoning of those who argue for the historicity of the Exodus narrative (see @Abaye, above).


Abaye didn't argue for the historicity of Exodus narrative (you did), and never presented the argument as you laid out. The only other person discussing _rebellion_ was WadiH who made it clear the historicity of the narrative was irrelevant. It is apparently only you here who is obsessed with connecting the historicity of Exodus with the arguments of a Semitic etymology.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> We can't even be sure if there is an etymology at all, namely if it was an invented name by the authors of the Biblical narrative.


That's exactly what I'm saying. Essentially, there are two pieces of evidence, (1) the Egyptian name which is not disputed and (2) the Hebrew name which has no known etymology and which may be a later invention.

Plus, it seems that we both reached the same conclusion, namely that the Egyptian etymology is more likely than the Hebrew one .... 🙂


----------



## Apollodorus

Platytude said:


> "could have" is enough to dismiss it as evidence.


If “could have” is “enough to dismiss Artapanus as evidence”, then it is also enough to dismiss the Exodus narrative as evidence. The supposition that the Exodus may have been written earlier than Artapanus’ account does in no way rule out its being based on an even earlier Egyptian version.


Platytude said:


> Abaye didn't argue for the historicity of Exodus narrative


The way I see it, stating that “there were myriads of Israelites in Egypt” (#18) seems to imply that he takes at least parts of the Exodus as fact. If he doesn’t, I’m sure he is perfectly capable to say so himself.

Moreover, if no one here argues for the historicity of Exodus, why would anyone even consider Exodus-based etymologies??? IMO it makes no sense.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> the Egyptian name which is not disputed


So _John_ has to from German because it is undisputed that German has the name *H*_ei*n*rich_ which also has two consonant letters of overlap with _Jo*hn*_?



Apollodorus said:


> Moreover, if no one here argues for the historicity of Exodus, why would anyone even consider Exodus-based etymologies??? IMO it makes no sense.


Suppose a the story was entirely invented: Why shouldn't a Jewish author invent a name of Jewish etymology for an invented character who is supposed to be an Israelite women. Makes total sense to me.

The question of the etymology of the name is independent of the question of the historicalness of the story unless we have evidence, which we don't.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> So _John_ has to from German because it is undisputed that German has the name *H*_ei*n*rich_ which also has two consonant letters of overlap with _Jo*hn*_?


???!!!  No idea where you got "overlap" from. I said "the Egyptian name is not disputed".


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> ???!!!  No idea where you got "overlap" from. I said "the Egyptian name is not disputed".


There is an attested Egyptian name that shares two letters with _mrjm_, for which there is an almost 100% chance of coincidence. So, it isn't much of a proof for anything. Evidence is only evidence if it is unlikely to occur by coincidence.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> The question of the etymology of the name is independent of the question of the historicalness of the story


That depends. If the etymology of the name is explained on the basis of events in the story and the story turns out to be invention, then it is an etymology based on an invention not on actual fact. Plus, the question of why the inventor chose that particular name, its original meaning, etc., remains unresolved. In the final analysis, it isn't much of an etymology.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> That depends. If the etymology of the name is explained on the basis of events in the story and the story turns out to be invention, then it is an etymology based on an invention not on actual fact. Plus, the question of why the inventor chose that particular name, its original meaning, etc., remains unresolved. In the final analysis, it isn't much of an etymology.


Well, that boils down what I and others said: We have few guesses what it might be. But those are just guesses and we have simply no idea where it really comes from, or for that matter, if there is a real historical figure behind this name at all.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> There is an attested Egyptian name that shares two letters with _mrjm_, for which there is an almost 100% chance of coincidence.


If that is the case, why don't Wiktionary and other sources say so? Their statements seem to imply that the Egyptian etymology is a reasonable one. Some even say "likely". And where did you get "almost 100% chance of coincidence" from?


----------



## berndf

It is still an interesting hypothesis that could be investigated further. But the similarly is nor significant enough to count as evidence in its own right.


----------



## Platytude

Apollodorus said:


> If “could have” is “enough to dismiss Artapanus as evidence”, then it is also enough to dismiss the Exodus narrative as evidence. The supposition that the Exodus may have been written earlier than Artapanus’ account does in no way rule out its being based on an even earlier Egyptian version.


When you claim something as evidence, it is on you to show its validity (in this case its independence from an older source). We don't need to do it for the Exodus because it is the oldest available source both linguistically and historically. The "could've been" of Exodus is irrelevant. You had the audacity to present a classical Jewish source as independent from the Bible without any support, and then expect its validity to be taken seriously?


Apollodorus said:


> The way I see it, stating that “there were myriads of Israelites in Egypt” (#18) seems to imply that he takes at least parts of the Exodus as fact. If he doesn’t, I’m sure he is perfectly capable to say so himself.


They were not acknowledging the veracity of the narrative in that post but criticising your logic (the cherry picking issue). Considering how much they argued for the uncertainty of the etymology (#83), it doesn't remotely make sense that you associate those sequence of arguments to them.


----------



## Apollodorus

berndf said:


> But the similarly is nor significant enough to count as evidence in its own right.


I only asked because I thought the “almost 100% chance of coincidence” was based on your statistics or you had some source for it.

Anyway, if the similarly is not significant enough to count as evidence in its own right does it count as evidence when considered in conjunction with other factors?


----------



## Apollodorus

Platytude said:


> You had the audacity to present a classical Jewish source as independent from the Bible


I had indeed. Better to be "audacious" than submissively follow the PC/Taliban line. Besides, if Artapanus contains materials that are not in the Hebrew Bible, then it stands to reason to assume that they aren’t from the Hebrew Bible …. 🙂


Platytude said:


> They were not acknowledging the veracity of the narrative in that post but criticising your logic


Hilarious. 🤣 If @Abaye wishes to explain his position regarding Exodus, he/she is welcome to do so. Meanwhile, if you imagine I’m going to discuss _your _interpretation of other members’ comments, you may rest assured that it isn’t going to happen.


----------



## Abaye

WadiH said:


> I don't have a view on which one is more likely because I don't know enough about the subject.


Seems that we all don't know enough, instead we rush to Wikipedia where scholar opinion is listed in short with or without references, and accordingly we're trying to figure out what the answer may be. In such event, the knowledge we obtain cannot exceed the sporadic material we happened to find, and as there's no agreement among scholars about the specific issue we're discussing, it would be unjustified to stick with one view or the other.

In my humble opinion this debate goes nowhere unless an authority may join it.


----------



## Platytude

Apollodorus said:


> Besides, if Artapanus contains materials that are not in the Hebrew Bible, then it stands to reason to assume that they aren’t from the Hebrew Bible …. 🙂


To be independent of one source, an evidence or claim needs to be wholly or substantially present in another. Merely drawing parallels doesn't fulfill this criterion. For Artapanus's claims to be independent, we need to be certain that he was not drawing a parallel between his* Bible-dependent portrayal of Moses* and some Egyptian narratives, as is generally and commonly done in past and present. Same goes for Manetho's claims about Hebrews and Moses (but in the reverse direction, because he was culturally Egyptian).


----------



## Apollodorus

Platytude said:


> To be independent of one source, an evidence or claim needs to be wholly or substantially present in another. Merely drawing parallels doesn't fulfill this criterion.


The relevant statement in Artapanus is that an Egyptian princess of the name Merri(s) was married to King Khenephres and was the adoptive mother of Moses.

As Khenephres (Khanephere) (a) is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and (b) lived centuries before the composition of Exodus, this demonstrates at least partial dependence on sources older than the HB and, to that extent, independence of it.

The way I see it, the whole point of etymology in general and of onomastics in particular, is to make sense of words/names. The Hebrew Bible gives no etymology for the name “Mary/Miriam”. Etymologies linking the name with elements of the Exodus narrative are later inventions.

On the other hand, a similar-sounding Egyptian name meaning “Beloved of God” (_Meri(t)-Re_) is well-attested and I’m unconvinced that two words sharing only two phonemes must be “almost 100% unconnected”.

Incidentally, another famous person bearing the name “Mary” that occurs in the religious literature of the region is the mother of Jesus for whom a name meaning “Beloved (of God)” seems more appropriate than “Rebellion”.

Essentially, we’ve got three key elements from three main narratives relating to “Mary/Miriam”:

1. An Egyptian princess called Merri(s), adoptive mother of Moses (Artapanus).

2. A Hebrew woman “Mary/Miriam” born in Egypt and adoptive mother of Moses (Hebrew Bible).

3. A Jewish woman of royal descent called “Mary”, mother of Jesus, who travelled to Egypt (New Testament).

What they all have in common in addition to the name is (a) that they are mothers of religious founders and (b) that they are connected with Egypt.

Finally, what might have been Artapanus’ motivation in changing Mary/Miriam from Moses’ sister to Moses’ mother? IMO, more likely, in the original narrative, Mary/Miriam was Moses’ Egyptian mother and this was later modified by the authors or redactors of the Hebrew Bible who attempted to cover up Moses’ Egyptian identity – not very successfully, though.


----------



## berndf

Artapanus was  Jewish author who lived in Ptolemaic Egypt who tried to make sense of the Biblical narrative centuries after the story was first written down and a millennium after the time when the story was set, who's aim it was to portray Judaism as the core of all religion in the world by relating all other cultures (especially Egyptian and Greek) to Jewdaism and whose work is only known through references by other authors who lived again centuries later.

There is hardly anything imaginable to be further away from _independent historical evidence_. His accounts can at best be described as the oldest known attempt to portray Miriam as an Egyptian princess.


----------



## Platytude

Apollodorus said:


> The relevant statement in Artapanus is that an Egyptian princess of the name Merri(s) was married to King Khenephres and was the adoptive mother of Moses.


or ... an Egyptian princess of the name Merri(s) was married to King Khenephres and was the adoptive mother of *a son whom Artapanus thought was Biblical* Moses.

As long as you don't show that he used an *old *Egyptian source which contained a Moses with *some similarity with Biblical narrative**, it is safe to assume he was just speculating that son was Moses, because this type of parallel seeking is very common in classical and even modern (pseudo-)historical writing.

* This similarity is important because the final cluster _ms(y) _("born") is common in Egyptian names, so a mere name similarity can be easily explained by coincidence.


----------



## Apollodorus

I don’t think any of that solves anything.

1. WHICH Exodus narrative was Artapanus trying to make sense of?

2. How exactly was this achieved by making Mary/Miriam "mother" instead of "sister" to Moses?

3. If, as suggested by leading archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein, the Exodus never took place, why would the authors of the Hebrew Bible have invented it?

IMO the most plausible answer seems to be that the biblical narrative was based on an oral tradition about a religious founder from Egypt. A princess bearing the name “Merri(t)-” (“Beloved”) and her son called “-Msy” (“Child of”) are obviously consistent with an Egyptian context.

Incidentally, references to Moses and the cult he introduced as “Egyptian” are also found in Strabo (_Geography_), Pompeius Trogus (_Historiae Philippicae_) and Apion (_Aegyptiaca_).

When the need arose to provide a foundation story for the national religion of the Judean state, the Egyptian narrative was adopted and modified for the purpose. And this must have happened when contact between members of the Judean ruling/priestly class and Egypt (and the Jewish diaspora established there) was particularly strong, probably in the late fourth to early third century BC.

This is consistent with the appearance of Hebrew Bible manuscripts in the third century BC. The earliest of these – the Qumran texts (c. 250 BC or later) – contain about 20% of the HB and only small fragments of Exodus. From what I can see, Ex 15 which mentions Miriam is not among them. Ex 4 which mentions Moses only occurs in verse 31 which has nothing to do with Miriam, etc.

*In fact, Miriam doesn’t seem to occur in any of the early Qumran texts. So, we practically have no Hebrew evidence for “Mary/Miriam” from the period prior to Artapanus.* *Moreover, the whole of the Hebrew Bible continued to circulate in several versions to the very end of the Second Temple period.*

See Mark Zvi Brettler, ‘“All of Jacob’s Descendants Numbered Seventy-Five” – The Opening of Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls’ at TheTorah.com.

*What works such as Artapanus’ On the Jews (Peri Ioudaion, Περὶ ʾΙουδαίων) clearly demonstrate is the existence, as late as the third century BC, of Jewish traditions that are widely divergent from the “official” text (if such a text ever existed at the time).*

According to the _Oxford Companion to Archaeology_,

“Some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100”.

In any case, it is clear that due to the paucity of linguistic evidence, the investigation into the etymology of the name “Mary/Miriam” must be a multidisciplinary one involving experts from a variety of fields. So, I for one agree with @Abaye on this one point.


----------



## berndf

Apollodorus said:


> I don’t think any of that solves anything.


That is precisely correct. Unless we make any specteclar finds of completely new primary sources, the question will always remain an ancient mystery. Something I can very well live with. There are many names in the world, the etymology of which cannot be determined.


----------

