“Asenath” as the Name of Joseph’s Egyptian Wife

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: “Asenath” as the Name of Joseph’s Egyptian Wife

Post by Jim Stinehart »

George Athas:

You wrote: “Your previous post does not engender any discussion....”

Here are the two Biblical Hebrew language issues as to which my prior post was intended to engender discussion.

(1) Why do the prisoners seem to move seamlessly between the prison and Potiphar’s “house” at Genesis 40: 7? I noted my disagreement with the scholarly claim that allegedly there are two different authors at work here, who don’t know what each other is doing, plus an incompetent editor.

As opposed to that scholarly view, I suggest that Joseph’s initial Egyptian master, Biblical Potiphar, is historical General Ramose at Amarna in Year 13, who had a house within the huge police/military complex where pharaoh Akhenaten’s high-profile prisoners would have been held.

Rather than being an “unsubstantiated claim” as you assert, I back up this historical interpretation of Genesis 40: 7 by solid evidence of there being “a richly decorated house” within the huge military/police complex at Amarna where General Ramose [Biblical “Potiphar”] would have interrogated high-profile prisoners [such as the high official Chief Baker, who gets impaled at Genesis 40: 22]:

“The Police Barracks of El-Armana are located at the eastern edge of the city. …Due to its massive size, the barracks seems ideal for lodging troops and units. In addition, a richly decorated house was uncovered within the barracks indicating the presence of a Sirdariya (prestigious war officer) -- quite possibly General Ramose or Mahu himself.” http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/barrack ... erview.htm

(2) Why isn’t the Egyptian prison where Joseph operates referred to by the regular Hebrew expression for “prison”? Does that mean that this isn’t a run-of-the-mill freestanding Egyptian prison? Why, uniquely in the Bible, does this section of Genesis refer to BYT H-SHR? [See for example Genesis 39: 20.]

If Gesenius is right that SHR means “tower”, then BYT H-SHR is a very apt description of the huge military/police complex at Amarna where high-profile prisoners would have been held. Once again, instead of being an “unsubstantiated claim” as you assert, I set forth the objective evidence for my interpretation of this Biblical phrase in the context of Amarna. This military/police structure featured “two heavy towers at the entrance”. Where, per Gesenius, SHR means “tower”, note that visually, this huge military/police complex at Akhetaten/Amarna was dominated by the two heavy “towers”/SHR at the entrance. http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/barrack ... erview.htm
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/barrack ... rtyard.htm

* * *

The above claims are not “unsubstantiated”. And I certainly would like to “engender discussion” as to the following two issues relating to Biblical Hebrew wording: (1) why Potiphar’s house is the site of the prisoners’ interrogation at Genesis 40: 7, though the prisoners are in prison; and (2) why, in describing this prison, the peculiar phrase BYT H-SHR appears only in this section of Genesis [including at Genesis 39: 20], and nowhere else in the Bible.

In my opinion, we should not let go unchallenged the majority scholarly view that this Joseph-in-Egypt material is all mid-1st millennium BCE fiction. That scholarly consensus view is, in my considered opinion, refuted by the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy that I am showing for the Patriarchal narratives in a Year 13 context. I see Hebrew language issues such as the above as being a key to restoring the historical integrity of the Patriarchal narratives. I would certainly like to “engender discussion” regarding those Biblical Hebrew language issues, and my posts, though controversial and contesting the scholarly views of these matters, are not based on “unsubstantiated claims”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
User avatar
George Athas
Moderator
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: “Asenath” as the Name of Joseph’s Egyptian Wife

Post by George Athas »

As far as I know, no scholar has been 'mystified' in the way you describe. You've created a fictional situation and proceeded to unravel it with tortuous 'logic'. It is not an invitation to scholarly conversation.

So I repeat, B-Hebrew is not your personal blog. Please desist from using it as though it is.
GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (http://moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: “Asenath” as the Name of Joseph’s Egyptian Wife

Post by Jim Stinehart »

George Athas:

You wrote: “As far as I know, no scholar has been 'mystified' in the way you describe. You've created a fictional situation and proceeded to unravel it with tortuous 'logic'. It is not an invitation to scholarly conversation.”

In fact, university scholars are indeed mystified, as I asserted was the case, as to why prisoners seem to move seamlessly between the prison and Potiphar’s “house” at Genesis 40: 7. For example, E.A. Speiser in The Anchor Bible Genesis says this at p. 306 regarding the word “house” at Genesis 40: 3: “There is no indication whether the building was private or public.” He also states at p. 308 the standard scholarly view that the author of chapter 39 of Genesis [when Joseph is first put into prison] is allegedly a completely different person than the author of chapter 40 of Genesis: “Since chs xxxix and xl thus had different authors, it is not surprising that their accounts of Joseph as prisoner are at variance.” Gerhard von Rad makes the same comment at p. 369 of “Genesis”: “The transition from the text of ch. 39 to that of ch. 40 is one of the few places where the combination of two documents J and E has resulted in obvious rough spots.” Robert Alter does not necessarily agree with that mainstream view, but he readily acknowledges it, by commenting on Genesis 40: 4 as follows at p. 229 of “Genesis”: “The source critics take this as a flat contradiction of the end of chapter 39….”

Finally, as to a specific issue that I have been focusing on in this thread, Bruce Waltke at p. 525 of “Genesis” says regarding Genesis 40: 3: “ ‘house of the captain of the guard’. The prison house under the warden is situated on the estate of the captain of the guard or is a portion of it.” But does that make logical sense? Are Joseph and the high official prisoners at Potiphar’s private home, or are they in a conventional prison?

Let’s take a close look at what the text actually says. Genesis 39: 20-23 says [KJV] that Joseph was taken o-u-t of Potiphar’s private home and put into PRISON [literally, “tower house”: BYT SHR]:

20 And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the PRISON, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the PRISON. 21 But the LORD was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the PRISON. 22 And the keeper of the PRISON committed to Joseph's hand all the prisoners that were in the PRISON; and whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it. 23 The keeper of the PRISON looked not to any thing that was under his hand; because the LORD was with him, and that which he did, the LORD made it to prosper.” Genesis 39: 20-23

Yet almost immediately thereafter, Genesis 40: 3 [which scholars often claim was composed by a different author than the author of chapter 39 of Genesis] talks confusingly about both “the HOUSE of the captain of the guard” [BYT %R H-+BXYM], which sounds like a private home, and “the PRISON” [BYT H-SHR], which sounds like a conventional prison. But are they one and the same place? Genesis 40: 5 refers solely to Pharaoh’s top officers as being in PRISON. That sounds like a conventional prison. However, Genesis 40: 7 [my original reference] refers solely to “his lord’s HOUSE”; that sounds like Potiphar’s private home, rather than a conventional prison, doesn’t it? Genesis 14: 14 also talks solely about Joseph being in this “HOUSE”. But then Genesis 40: 15 closes such references by referring to Joseph solely as unfortunately being retained in “the DUNGEON” [BWR] [Joseph obviously is no longer in Potiphar’s private home as previously]:

“40 And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker had offended their lord the king of Egypt. 2 And Pharaoh was wroth against two of his officers, against the chief of the butlers, and against the chief of the bakers. 3 And he put them in ward in the HOUSE of the captain of the guard [BYT %R H-+BXYM], into the PRISON [BYT H-SHR], the place where Joseph was bound. 4 And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them: and they continued a season in ward. 5 And they dreamed a dream both of them, each man his dream in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, which were bound in the PRISON. 6 And Joseph came in unto them in the morning, and looked upon them, and, behold, they were sad. 7 And he asked Pharaoh's officers that were with him in the ward of his lord's HOUSE, saying, Wherefore look ye so sadly to day?...12 And Joseph said unto him, This is the interpretation of it: The three branches are three days: 13 Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thine head, and restore thee unto thy place: and thou shalt deliver Pharaoh's cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast his butler. 14 But think on me when it shall be well with thee, and shew kindness, I pray thee, unto me, and make mention of me unto Pharaoh, and bring me out of this HOUSE: 15 For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews: and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the DUNGEON.” Genesis 40: 1-3, 6-7, 12-15

Are Joseph and these two high-profile prisoners (i) in Potiphar’s house/private home, or (ii) in prison? Which is it? Genesis 40: 7 refers to “Pharaoh's officers that were with him in the ward of his lord's HOUSE”, which sounds like Potiphar’s house/private home, as does Genesis 40: 14, when Joseph asks to be taken out of this HOUSE. But Genesis 14: 15 then refers to Joseph being in the DUNGEON, while Genesis 40: 3 speaks confusingly about both HOUSE and PRISON: “And he put them in ward in the HOUSE of the captain of the guard, into the PRISON, the place where Joseph was bound.”

Meanwhile, Genesis 39: 20-23 says that Joseph was taken o-u-t of Potiphar’s private home, and was put into PRISON, where the wording for “prison” there sounds nothing at all like a private home.

Aren’t you “mystified” as to those confusing references? Are Joseph and the prisoners in Potiphar’s HOUSE, being a private home, or are they in PRISON [which uniquely in this section of the Patriarchal narratives is referred to as “tower house” : BYT SHR]? One mainstream scholarly view in this regard is that there were two different authors reporting two different traditions, which an incompetent editor failed to reconcile. Author #1 [who composed chapter 39 of Genesis] allegedly viewed Joseph and the prisoners as being in a conventional PRISON, whereas author #2 [who composed chapter 40 of Genesis] allegedly viewed them as being in Potiphar’s HOUSE, not in a conventional prison at all.

By contrast to that mainstream scholarly view of multiple authors and an incompetent editor, I myself see a single author, a contemporary of the events being described, who accurately reports the peculiar prison arrangement at Amarna in Year 13. As I stated in my previous post, there was “a richly decorated house” within the huge military/police complex at Amarna where General Ramose [Biblical “Potiphar”] would have interrogated high-profile prisoners. Thus being in a private home of Biblical Potiphar [historical General Ramose] and being in prison are not self-contradictory under those peculiar historical facts, because General Ramose had ready access to a fine private home right there within the huge military/police complex at Amarna in Year 13. Though the prisoners would ordinarily have been held in more spartan quarters [as to which Joseph had been put in charge per Genesis 39: 22-23, which is clearly not referring to Potiphar’s private home!], an interrogation of the prisoners of sorts, in the form of Joseph interpreting their dreams, might naturally have taken place in the private home within the prison grounds that Potiphar/General Ramose often used when he was at work in the huge military/police complex in the city of Akhetaten at Amarna.

I don’t know why you refer to that hitherto mystifying textual ambiguity as being “a fictional situation” that I have allegedly “created”, nor do I understand why you assert that “As far as I know, no scholar has been 'mystified' in the way you describe.” Based on the scholarly quotations above, please note that mainstream university scholars have indeed been mystified as to whether Joseph and the high-profile prisoners were in a conventional prison or in Potiphar’s private home. Some scholars have reacted to that mystifying situation by positing two different authors, and an incompetent editor who failed to reconcile the tradition of them being in Potiphar’s private home with the tradition of them being in a conventional prison.

To me, the answer to this longstanding Biblical mystery is historical: Biblical Potiphar is historical General Ramose at Amarna in Year 13, who had ready access to “a richly decorated house” within the huge military/police complex at Amarna where high-profile prisoners were interrogated.

I would greatly appreciate hearing your own opinion as to whether Joseph and the high-profile prisoners were in a conventional prison or in Potiphar’s private home. If you yourself don’t find Genesis 39: 20-23; 40: 1-3, 6-7, 12-15 to be “mystifying” as to that issue, then how do you reconcile the apparent ambiguity in such Biblical Hebrew nomenclature when you are teaching these verses to your students? I would dearly love to learn from you [and/or anyone else on the b-hebrew list] as to this matter.

Isn’t the purpose of the b-hebrew list to explore apparent ambiguities in Biblical Hebrew nomenclature, such as BYT %R H-+BXYM vs. BYT H-SHR at Genesis 40: 3?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: “Asenath” as the Name of Joseph’s Egyptian Wife

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Is the Biblical Egyptian name “Potiphar” a mid-1st millennium BCE name? If so, that would mean that the Joseph-in-Egypt segment of the Patriarchal narratives is incredibly late and hence thoroughly non-historical. That is the majority view of university scholars, but is it defensible?

The Biblical Egyptian name “Potiphar” is spelled as follows: פוטיפר : P-W+ -Y- P-R : peh vav-teth -yod- peh resh. If the second letter in that name, which is Hebrew vav/W, is a consonantal vav/W, representing Egyptian W as a consonant, then the name is pA wA.ti -- pA ra, and its implied meaning is: “[Devoted to] The Distant [God] Ra”. That name would fit the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age perfectly [where all of these words appear in Akhenaten’s Great Hymn, which repeatedly refers to Ra/Aten as being a “distant”/wA.ti god].

But university scholars, on a unanimous basis [as far as I have been able to determine], ignore completely the second letter in that name [which is a Hebrew vav/W], without any explicit explanation whatsoever for that odd decision. Scholars then proceed, on that dubious basis, to inform us that the Biblical Egyptian names “Asenath”, “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” allegedly are post-exilic:

“Potiphar and its variant [Potipherah]…[t]he last two being variants of one name [with Joseph’s initial Egyptian master being a military man who is Captain of the Palace Guards in charge of Pharaoh’s personal security, and Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law who is a high-priest of Ra from On, being viewed by university scholars, believe it or not, as having the s-a-m-e name]…are modeled on a very common type of name, namely P3-di [pA di] + God's name [pA di pA ra], meaning "He-whom-God-N-gives". …[T]he mean period when all three name-types [including “Asenath” and also Joseph’s Egyptian name] had achieved a maximum popularity vis-à-vis the others can be said to be the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.” Donald B. Redford, “Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times” (1992), p. 424.

In fact, there is an Egyptian word pw, which means “it is”, but as one can see from the above quotation, scholars see the Hebrew letters PW/peh-vav as allegedly rendering pA, Egyptian P-Egyptian aleph, not the Egyptian word pw. pA means either “the” or “who” or “whom”, and here is viewed by scholars as meaning “whom”. The name “Potiphar” is viewed as pA di pA ra, literally meaning pA/Whom di/has given pA/the ra/Ra; that is sometimes loosely paraphrased in English [putting the verb “has given” at the end to make the name read more smoothly in English] as: “[He] Whom/pA the/pA [god] Ra/ra Has Given/di”. But there is no known basis, as far as I can determine, for viewing Hebrew vav/W as rendering an Egyptian aleph in the Egyptian word pA. Accordingly, it seems highly doubtful that Hebrew PW/peh-vav could be rendering the Egyptian word pA. In fact, based on the second Hebrew peh/P in this very name, we know that Hebrew peh/P alone, with no vowel indicator whatsoever, renders the Egyptian word pA, just as one would expect in Biblical Hebrew defective spelling.

Strange as it may seem, scholars unanimously (i) view the first two Egyptian components of the name “Potiphar” as allegedly using plene spelling [although plene spelling in fact never applies to non-west Semitic proper names in the Patriarchal narratives], while (ii) simultaneously viewing the last two Egyptian components of this Biblical name as using defective spelling. Accordingly, the two Hebrew letters PW at the beginning of this name are viewed as allegedly rendering Egyptian pA, whereas the second Hebrew P, standing alone, that appears later in this same name, is also viewed as rendering Egyptian pA! That hardly seems possible. Yet such convoluted, contrived analysis of the name “Potiphar” is, to the best of my knowledge, u-n-a-n-i-m-o-u-s within the university scholarly community. And it is on t-h-a-t basis that the Biblical Egyptian names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” are alleged to be 1st millennium BCE names.

Notwithstanding the claimed post-exilic dating of these Biblical Egyptian names [which, if true, would be devastating to the historical integrity of the Joseph-in-Egypt segment of the Patriarchal narratives], Biblical scholars nevertheless tell us that the stories involving Asenath, Potiphar and Potipherah allegedly date to somewhere between the 10th century BCE and the late 8th century BCE, long b-e-f-o-r-e exilic times [though also being long after the Bronze Age/Patriarchal Age]. Richard Elliott Friedman, “The Bible with Sources Revealed” (2003), pp. 3- 4; 101 [re Genesis 41: 45]; 109 [re Genesis 46: 20].

Those two scholarly views obviously directly contradict each other. Moreover, b-o-t-h such views would be definitively proved false if any published scholar, in print, would ever ask whether the second letter in the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah”, which is a Hebrew vav/W, may possibly be a consonantal vav/W, that is, Egyptian W as a consonant, rather than being a letter that allegedly should rightly [though without any explanation whatsoever for this] be ignored for all purposes.

Doesn’t it seem inherently suspicious that no scholar, in print, has ever a-s-k-e-d if the second letter in the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” may possibly be a consonantal vav/W?

If the second letter in the Biblical Egyptian names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” is a consonantal vav/W, then it turns out that “Potiphar” [Joseph’s initial Egyptian master], who Biblically is Captain of the Palace Guards, is simply the Biblical Hebrew rendering of the historical Egyptian name “Ramose”, who held that same position in Year 13 at Amarna. The implied meaning of both such names is the same: “Devoted to the [distant] God Ra”. Of great importance, the historical time period is Year 13 in the mid-14th century BCE, being centuries before Prof. Redford sees the name “Potiphar” as coming into existence.

With so much being on the line here [namely, the historical integrity of the Joseph-in-Egypt segment of the Patriarchal narratives], and in particular with the scholarly community insisting that the Joseph-in-Egypt storyline in the Patriarchal narratives is late and non-historical, isn’t it terribly s-u-s-p-i-c-i-o-u-s that no university scholar has ever a-s-k-e-d , in print, whether the second letter in the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah”, which is a Hebrew vav/W, may possibly be a consonantal vav/W, that is, Egyptian W as a consonant?

If George Athas or anyone else on the b-hebrew list thinks that I am misrepresenting what the scholarly view of the name “Potiphar” is, and/or if anyone on the b-hebrew list teaches their students an analysis of the name “Potiphar” that differs from what I have set forth above as being the unanimous scholarly view, then please let us all know how it is that I may have missed the boat on this matter.

It’s odd that no one on the b-hebrew list ever seems willing to mount any coherent defense of the scholarly views of the Biblical Egyptian names “Asenath”, “Potiphar” and “Potipherah”. Remember, one primary basis for university scholars’ insistence that the Joseph-in-Egypt portion of the Patriarchal narratives is late and non-historical is precisely the scholarly claim that, ignoring entirely the second Hebrew letter in the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah”, these Biblical Egyptian names can be viewed as dating to the mid-1st millennium BCE, umpteen centuries after any historical Patriarchal Age. Yet no one on the b-hebrew list seems prepared to defend these well-defined scholarly views on the merits. Why is that? In fact, it seems that most people on the b-hebrew list simply ignore entirely the scholarly views of these Biblical Egyptian names. But why give university scholars a free pass as to their dubious claim that the Joseph-in-Egypt portion of the Patriarchal narratives is late and non-historical? My guess is that few people on the b-hebrew list actually agree with that scholarly assessment [which would be utterly devastating to an historical Patriarchal Age], yet no one but me [on the b-hebrew list or otherwise] seems to put any effort into refuting that scholarly view on the merits. I would dearly love to hear other people’s thoughts on this.

Hey, guys, it’s o-u-r sacred scripture. University scholars have a monopoly on nothing, particularly their bizarre, unanimous agreement to always ignore for all purposes the second Hebrew letter in the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
User avatar
George Athas
Moderator
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: “Asenath” as the Name of Joseph’s Egyptian Wife

Post by George Athas »

Jim,

I remind you again: B-Hebrew is not your blog.

Also, it is a forum for all people, whether they consider the Hebrew Bible to be their scriptures or not. Certain comments in your previous post were inappropriate.

You've been asked a number of times now, Jim. Please comply.
GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (http://moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: “Asenath” as the Name of Joseph’s Egyptian Wife

Post by Jim Stinehart »

George Athas:

You wrote: “B-Hebrew is not your blog. Also, it is a forum for all people, whether they consider the Hebrew Bible to be their scriptures or not. …Please comply.”

I will try to comply. Thank you very much for your patience.

Based on the posts on this thread to date, and also based on your own independent knowledge [which may, for all I know, go far beyond what’s been posted so far on this thread], would you agree or disagree with the following statements?

The majority scholarly view of the Biblical Egyptian names “Asenath”, “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” is either right, or more or less right. In particular, the two following apparently unanimous scholarly views are either right, or at least are on sound footing:

1. The names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” are the s-a-m-e name, differing only in their Hebrew spellings, even though (a) Potiphar [Joseph’s initial Egyptian master] is a military man who is Captain of the Palace Guards in charge of Pharaoh’s personal security, whereas Potipherah [Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law] is, by sharp contrast, a high-priest of Ra from On. Although these are two different characters, with different roles in the narrative, and completely different positions in society, nevertheless university scholars are correct in their unanimous published judgment that these two very different people have the s-a-m-e name [which differs only as to its Hebrew spelling].

2. In evaluating the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah”, especially in asking whether these Biblical Egyptian names originate in post-exilic times [which, if so, would be devastating to the historicity of the Joseph-in-Egypt segment of the Patriarchal narratives], scholars are right to unanimously ignore the second Hebrew letter in each of these two names [which is a Hebrew vav/W], while never providing any explicit explanation whatsoever for that seemingly strange gambit, and in particular being careful n-e-v-e-r to ask in print whether that Hebrew vav/W may be a consonantal vav/W, representing W as a consonant in Egyptian.

As everyone knows by now, I myself find the scholarly view of these Biblical Egyptian names to be utterly indefensible. But what is your view? And on what do you base your view? People have heard enough already regarding my views of these matters. But we would all learn a lot, and be eternally grateful, if you would set forth your own detailed substantive view of these Biblical Egyptian names, especially focusing on your basis for agreeing or disagreeing with the above statements. If the scholarly view of these Biblical Egyptian names is correct, or at least is more or less correct, then my withering attack in this thread on such scholarly view should not go unrefuted, should it? If my negative critique of the scholarly view is wrong [in that either I have mis-characterized what the scholarly view actually is, and/or my attacks on the scholarly view are off the mark], then please discuss in what specific ways I have erred.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Post Reply