When
treating of Joseph's Egyptian name, it is important, first and foremost, to
remember two things:
1) Foreign
names, when brought into the Hebrew, often take corrupt form. Professor
John Day has cited as a clear example "in Ezra 4:2 the Assyrian king’s
name Ashurbanipal becomes Osnappar."
2) That
any non-Yahweh theophoric element would have been stripped from an Egyptian
name, as is evinced by that of Moses.
There
have been many proposed etymology for the Egyptian name of the Biblical Joseph.
None have been particularly attractive. Nor have any of them allowed us
to either identify Joseph with a known historical entity or, at the very least,
find his proper place in history (as opposed to the role he plays in religious
tradition). A good discussion of the primary attempts to find a solid
derivation for Zaphnath can be found here:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j27_3/j27_3_58-63.pdf
The
author, an Egyptologist who applies chronological revisionism to Egyptian history,
dispenses with the old ideas for Zaphnath and then offers his own alternative
etymology. Unfortunately, as the author himself notes, his making
Zaphnath out to be Egyptian ḏf3wn‘ty presents us with a unique
title for a rank that is otherwise very well known by formulaic titles of
long-standing. This fact sets off alarm bells for me.
Another
site which discusses Zaphnath's linguistic origin is this one:
https://theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4668/josephus-antiquities-books-samson-solved?page=2
There
we learn of Julia Blum's theory that the name is wholly to be derived from the Hebrew.
Alas, the words she chooses to represent Zaphnath do not make a coherent name.
A
good summary of recent research on the name can be found in Israel in Egypt:
The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition by James K. Hoffmeier,
Oxford University Press, 1999.
Most
Egyptologists do not want to tackle this problem - not with the proverbial
ten-foot pole. And this is because the question is weighted with the bias
of the faithful. Many also admit that there may be several possible
solutions to the name Zaphnath, and they are reluctant, therefore, to hazard
even an educational guess.
I
would like to go about solving the mystery in a different way. As we will
see below, there is good reason for holding to the oft expressed view that
Joseph and his brothers represent the Hyksos. If, for the sake of argument, we
begin with this possibility, a decent solution to the problem of the etymology
of Joseph's Egyptian name presents itself.
A
clue to a proper derivation may exist in the name of Joseph's Egyptian wife, Asenath.
It has often been remarked that it is curious the last element of both her and
her husband's names seem to be identical. Current thinking on
the meaning of the name Asenath is well-presented on pp. 85-6 of this
source:
https://books.google.com/books?id=hTZKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=egyptian+nes+she+belongs&source=bl&ots=PAV-_IHicB&sig=ACfU3U0tKf87YI8Jg_Oyh1UGby1MkSzu5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDtqKapOT2AhWqJTQIHUBwDeYQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=egyptian%20nes%20she%20belongs&f=false
The
author there gives the forms New-neit, 'she belongs to (the goddess) Neit', with
elision of initial n, giving Es-neit. He also lists Ius-en-Neit.
Both ideas are justifiably discounted. He settles for Ius-n-ites, 'she
belongs to her father', because Neit names would not be expected to occur at
Heliopolis, which is where Asenath belonged.
The
theory that Neit may be present in both the names Zaph[e]nath and Asenath may
instead point to another deity - a purely Semitic one. We are talking, of
course, about Anat. Strictly from the standpoint of linguistics, because
the ayin [https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancient-alphabet/ayin.htm] is absent
in Asenath and Zaphenath, we cannot allow for these two names to contain Anat.
However, as I have already pointed out above, corruption may have occurred or,
more likely, the ayin was intentionally stripped so as to remove a non-Yahweh
theophoric element from the names.
For
a good description of the goddess Anat, we may consult Wilkinson in THE COMPLETE
GODSAND GODDESSES OF ANCIENT EGYPT:
"Anat
is first attested in Egypt towards the end of the Middle Kingdom, but she seems
to have been favoured by the Hyksos during their period of rulership in Egypt (one
of whose kings took the name Anat-her), and by Ramessid times Anat wasestablished
as a fairly important goddess in the Delta region."
It
is rather amazing that the author of that study did not think of the goddess Anat,
a Canaanite deity, who was worshipped in Heliopolis. Why, I wondered,
could we not have Ius-n-'nt, 'she belongs to Anat', for Asenath?
For
more on Anat in Egypt, I here quote liberally from THE DICTIONARY OF DEITIES AND
DEMONS IN THE BIBLE:
"Evidence
for Anat in Egypt has been collected by J. LECLANT (1973:253-258; add the Memphite
bowl published by D. B. REDFORD in the same year [1973:36-49]), whose article
is a necessary corrective to BOWMAN'S (1978:223-259) generally well informed discussion.
The available evidence indicates that Anat made her debut in Egypt in conjunction
with the Hyksos (for Sinai. see M. DUKSTRA & I. BRIGGS,Proto-Sinaitic Sinai
527- A Rejoinder, BN 40 [1987] 7-10) and she continued to be worshipped in
Egypt into the Greek and Roman eras. What follows is a selective rather than
comprehensive presentation of the Egyptian evidence. The inscriptions, stelae
and statuary of Ramesses II provide the earliest sustained body of evidence for
Anat in Egypt (LECLANT 1973:253-254 and nn. 5- 15; BOWMAN1978:225-234).
Ramesses regularly calls her the Mistress or Lady of (the) Heaven(s) in the
context of claiming Anat's support in battle and legitimation of his right to
'universal' rule. It is in this context that he claims another/son relationship
with her (cf. the royal ideology of Pss 2:7-9;89:10-11.21-28; 110:3). Also in
the context of an assertion of Ramesses' prowess in battle he is called mhr of
Anat, most likely to be translated "suckling" on the basis of
an Egyptian etymology rather than "soldier" on the basis of an
Ugaritic etymology. He had a hunting dog named "Anat is Protection"
and a sword inscribed "Anat is Victorious". In short. the picture
that emerges is remarkably consistent with what we know of Anat from the
Ugaritic texts. With regard to Anat's alleged sexual activity and procreativity,
papyrus Chester Beany VII can no longer be rallied as evidence. Prior to its
collation with an unnumbered Turin papyrus (A. ROCCATI. Une legende egyptienne
d'Anat. REg24 [1972] 154-159) Anat’s name was read into the lacuna that named Seth's
sexual partner. The Turin papyrus demonstrates that it is The Seed. not Anat, who
copulates with Seth. Two other texts (Chester Beany I=The Cpntendings of Horus
and Seth and Harris Magical Papyrus 111) which are typically cited as evidence of
Anat's sexual activity and procreativity are amenable to other interpretations
(\VALLS 1992:145-146. 149-152). Even if it should be undoubtedly established,
however, that Anat is portrayed as sexually active/reproductive in Egyptian
mythology, the Egyptian evidence should not automatically be used as a basis
for reconstructing Anat's persona in northwest Semitic mythology (WALLS 1992:
144-145). With regard to the contention that Anat and Astarte are not always
distinguished from one another, Anat and Astarte are indeed sometimes paired in
Egyptian sources but perhaps this is because both were originally foreign
goddesses from an Egyptian point of view, and so they could both, under certain
circumstances, signify similar things. For example, in magical texts both are
invoked as protection against wild animals and to ward off demons, ‘mythological'
functions for goddesses who are at the same time both familiar/assimilated into
Egyptian mythology and strange/of foreign origin. This is not to say, however.
that their identities had been completely merged. To my knowledge, for
pre-Hellenistic times, only the Winchester relief, which depicts a single
goddess but names three (Qudshu, Astarte and Anat) provides possible evidence
for the actual merging of northwest Semitic goddesses in Egypt. According
to I. E. S. EDWARDS (A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College
Collection, JNES 14 [1955] 49-51 and pUll), who originally published the
relief, it is of unknown provenance and peculiar in a number of ways. His
overall evaluation is that the piece departs from strict convention both representationally
and textually, which he interprets as an indication that "the piece was
the work of an artist who did not belong to the orthodox school and who was not
completely familiar with the Egyptian script"(ibid., 51). The present
whereabouts of the relief is, according to the collection's curator, apparently
unknown (5. WIGGINS, The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess, UF 23
[1991] 387). Finally, mention should be made of evidence from Aramaic texts in
Egypt. The DN Anat may be a component in two DNsat Elephantine, 'NTYHW AND
'NTBYT'L."
The
best recent and comprehensive study on Anat in Egypt is “The goddess
Anat: an examination of the textual and iconographic evidence from the second
millennium B.C.”, by Jeffrey Brian Lloyd, 1994.
This work is available at
https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/30395
While
some doubt was once cast on whether Heliopolis was controlled by the Hyksos,
itis now generally accepted that such was the case. Indeed, we have
literally evidence supporting the contention:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/we-were-slaves-to-the-hyksos-in-egypt
https://egyptsites.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/tell-el-yahudiya/
There
are many good resources available online concerning the Hyksos. One such
is the following:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43074367
So
if Asenath is an Anat name, perhaps "she belongs to Anat", what might
Zaphenath be? After all, we have male names known from Egypt or nearby
that contain the element Anat. Kim Ryholt discusses these (a Hyksos
pharaoh and a Hyksos nomarch) and attempts to fix their approximate floruits in
his The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, C.
1800-1550 B.C:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ANRi7cM5ZwsC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=%27pr+aper+egyptian+definition&source=bl&ots=dXc2klAj-p&sig=ACfU3U2rfczy0lMfDlSkNMQxf9IiniECdA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjypuHrhtj2AhWwHjQIHbnNBE0Q6AF6BAg6EAM#v=onepage&q=aper&f=false
I
would offer for consideration Djefa-Anat, 'Abundance/Nourishment of Anat.'
Djefa is found fronting divine names in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and the
Hyksos ruled in the later Middle Kingdom. I have confirmed this
with José Rafael Saade, M.Eng., M.A., Ph.D. Candidate, Egyptology, Department
of Egyptology and Assyriology, Brown University:
"ḏfꜣ(=j)
belongs to a name structure that is only attested in the Old and Middle
Kingdoms."
Saade
was also helpful with Joseph’s second Egyptian name, Paneah:
“Note
that the second p in ṣāp̄ᵉnat paʿnēaḥ
is written in Hebrew with פּ and not with פ,
which suggests that there was no vocalic sound before it. If so, jp would not
be possible in this position; instead, we should look for a word starting with
p, such as the article pꜣ.
is written in Hebrew with פּ and not with פ,
which suggests that there was no vocalic sound before it. If so, jp would not
be possible in this position; instead, we should look for a word starting with
p, such as the article pꜣ.
Paʿnēaḥ
could mean ‘life,’ but also ‘the living one’ (masculine) as a participle. As a noun of action, it could also be ‘the
act of living.’”
The
Stolen Cup and Joseph’s Brothers
If
I am right and Joseph bears a theophorous name containing the element Anat ('nt),
can we at last properly place him chronologically? I believe so - and
quite precisely, in fact.
It
has long been suspected that the sons of Jacob, named for Hebrew tribes, were
Shasu. The designation Shasu has been drawn from either Egyptian or from Hebrew:
https://live.jewishexpert.com/shasu
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8154.htm
What
is important for us, of course, is what the Hebrews thought the word meant -and
by that I mean the writers of the traditions set down in the Pentateuch.
They would certainly has associated the term with their own word meaning 'to
plunder.'
It
is at this point that we must bring in the Joseph story episode of the stolen cup.
As presented to us, this is a character or morality test administered by Joseph
to his brothers. But other elements of the story are just as
fascinating.
When
Joseph's brothers first come to Egypt for grain, they leave for home with not only
grain in their sacks, but the money they had brought to pay for it. In
addition, one of the brothers is left as a hostage, and they are told to bring
the youngest brother back with them as an exchange hostage before they can stay
and trade. In their second trip to Egypt, they bring back the money
that had been returned to them, but double it so that they can pay for more
grain.
Once
again, Joseph has their money returned to them in their grain sacks. He
also inserts the silver cup into the sack of the youngest brother.
Revelations ensue, then negotiations, all culminating in Joseph inviting his
father and his brothers to come live with him in Egypt. What all
this is really telling us is simple: Shasu who are threatening Egypt on its borders
are being paid off in grain and money in return for them refraining from
raiding or taking territory.
We
may liken the situation to the Danegeld paid to Vikings by the English in Britain.
The stolen cup is a folk memory of precious items being stolen from temple
complexes (like those of Heliopolis) by "plundering" Shasu.
Truth is, it is the "theft" of the cup that labels Jacob's sons as
Shasu.
And
what does the invitation of Jacob's sons to Egypt stand for? Obviously,
the invasion of the Hyksos and their conquest of northern Egypt. It is probable
that the Hyksos pharaoh Yaqub-Har is Joseph's traditional father, Jacob.
The
Joseph story may also conflate with the conquest the eventual expulsion of the
Hyksos, when the Egyptians drove the Foreign Rulers back to their points of
origin.
Joseph’s
Pharaoh
With
Joseph presiding as vizier for the pharaoh during the Hyksos invasion, and in league
with his brethren, the name of his pharaoh is not difficult to determine:
Djedhotepre Dedumose. There were actually two pharaohs of this name.
Both belonged to the Second Intermediate Period - the time of the
Hyksos. Dedumose is named as the pharaoh of the invasion by Manetho:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedumose_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedumose_II
https://pharaoh.se/pharaoh/Dedumose-I
https://pharaoh.se/pharaoh/Dedumose-II
Joseph
and Osarseph
Manetho
identifies Moses with Osarseph, but the Pentateuch is surely correct in linking
the latter to Joseph. According to Russell Gmirkin (p.
211, https://books.google.com/books?id=CKuoAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=manetho+osarseph&source=bl&ots=QzURKLlQe1&sig=ACfU3U0QjQ2Od9L6k4nuS6o6SJebGuZMiQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU2L-Vu-f2AhUNGzQIHVX5CE8Q6AF6BAg6EAM#v=onepage&q=manetho%20osarseph&f=false),
"Osarseph substitutes the Egyptian theophoric element Osar (from Osiris)
for the Jewish theophoric element Yah."
In
Chaeremon, we have a rebel named Tisathen (the second element of which is
probably itn/'aten', indicating a connection with the aten cult of Akhenaten)
who is paired with a co-conspirator named Peteseph. This last looks like
another attempt at transforming Joseph into an Egyptian theophoric name. 'The
gift of Seth' has been suggested (see https://history.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/u184/boustan/my_articles/typhonians.pdf).
In
a reverse fashion, Moses as a name intentionally omits the Egyptian theophoric
element Ra. I have elsewhere identified Moses with a royal butler of Asiatic
descent named Ramessemperre.
The
account of Osarseph as we have it is confused, and conflates different events
and personages in Egyptian history. The pharaoh is identified with
Akhenaten (Amenhotep, Greek Amenophis) and the Hyksos occupation of Egypt is
clumsily linked with the religious revolution instituted by Akhenaten and the
rebellion that followed. Osarseph as Moses is said to driven from Egypt
and this led to the misconception that the Hyksos Expulsion should be equated
with the Biblical Exodus. For more on this, I would kindly refer my
readers to From Akhenaten to Moses: Ancient Egypt and Religious Change by
Jan Assmann (https://books.google.com/books/about/From_Akhenaten_to_Moses.html?id=VsjmCwAAQBAJ).
No comments:
Post a Comment