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

[Jim Stinehart]

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

The name of Joseph’s Egyptian wife in the received alphabetical text of the Patriarchal narratives is: Asenath : אסנת : ’SNT.

There are only two leading scholarly views of the name “Asenath”: the longstanding traditional view [well over 100 years old now], and a relatively new proposal by Kenneth Kitchen.

1. Traditional Scholarly View of the Name “Asenath”

The traditional scholarly view of the name “Asenath”, formulated in 1899, modified in 1904, and still the overwhelming majority view to this very day, holds that the Biblical Egyptian name “Asenath” means: “Belonging to [the goddess] Neith”.

Here is Kitchen’s pungent critique of that longstanding majority view:

“[N]ames compounded with Neit are not to be expected at Heliopolis or Iunu (Hebrew On [in the southeast Delta] in Gen. 41:45), as Neit was based far away at Sais up in the northwest Delta.” K.A. Kitchen, “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” (2003), p. 346.

There’s no way that the daughter of a high-priest of Ra from On would have a name that honors the goddess Neith. Not.

2. Kitchen’s View of the Name “Asenath”

It would seem impossible for Kitchen to come up with an even worse proposal than that as to the meaning of the name “Asenath”. Here is his view:

“[W]e have the male name iwf-n.t, ’Af-en-et, ‘he belongs (“is”) to you’ (fem.), spoken to the mother. Thus, in turn, our biblical name iws-n.t, ’As-en-et, ‘she belongs (“is”) to you’ (fem.), is its perfect feminine equivalent.” Kitchen, p. 346.

Thus Kitchen interprets the name “Asenath” as meaning: “She Belongs to You[, Mother]”.

But Asenath’s entire status depends on her being the daughter of her f-a-t-h-e-r , the high-priest of Ra from On. How could Asenath possibly be thought to have a name that appears on its face to shun her father, and which states that Asenath “Belongs to You, Mother”? Not.

* * *

The scholarly views of the name “Asenath” are entirely unacceptable on all levels. In particular, both of the leading scholarly views propose an etymology that is totally incompatible with Asenath’s role in the text. The name “Asenath” cannot possibly, under any circumstances, either (i) honor a goddess [since her father is the high-priest of Ra from On, not the high-priest of some goddess], or (ii) honor only the daughter’s mother, leaving the daughter’s father out in the cold [since it is her father, as the high-priest of Ra from On, on whom Asenath’s high status depends].

Something seems to have gone terribly wrong here. Should we on the b-hebrew list look into this? Wouldn’t all of us on the b-hebrew list agree that the names of all three Patriarchs, and of all 12 of Jacob’s sons [who will become the 12 tribes of Israel], are handled brilliantly in the text, and in each case are very meaningful? Why then would the name of Joseph’s Egyptian wife Asenath be thought to directly contradict her essential function in the narrative? Can that possibly be right? Can’t we on the b-hebrew list come up with an incomparably better explanation of the name “Asenath” than the foregoing standard views?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[George Athas]

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

There’s no way that the daughter of a high-priest of Ra from On would have a name that honors the goddess Neith. Not.

[...]

Something seems to have gone terribly wrong here. Should we on the b-hebrew list look into this? Wouldn’t all of us on the b-hebrew list agree that the names of all three Patriarchs, and of all 12 of Jacob’s sons [who will become the 12 tribes of Israel], are handled brilliantly in the text, and in each case are very meaningful? Why then would the name of Joseph’s Egyptian wife Asenath be thought to directly contradict her essential function in the narrative? Can that possibly be right? Can’t we on the b-hebrew list come up with an incomparably better explanation of the name “Asenath” than the foregoing standard views?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

Perhaps if you were the high priest of Ra at On, you might not name your daughter after the goddess Neith, but that's not reason to impose your own expectations on what someone else might have done or not done. Perhaps Potiphera was a little more quirky than you are? Perhaps he was a way-out alternative priest who thought Neith was the bee's knees and found ways to incorporate Neith into just about everything he said and did, regardless of what anyone else said to him?

[Isaac Fried]

If ASNAT (not ASENAT, there is a schwa under the S) is a theophoric name, then it may well be of Hebrew (or "Semitic") origin. Possibly, ASNAT=ASN-AT, with the personal pronoun ending את AT, and ASN that is like ADAN, of which we have the names DAN and DIYNAH.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

George Athas:

You wrote: “Perhaps Potiphera was a little more quirky than you are? Perhaps he was a way-out alternative priest who thought Neith was the bee's knees and found ways to incorporate Neith into just about everything he said and did, regardless of what anyone else said to him?”

That type of post-modernist absurdism may play well at Western universities today. But there’s nothing of that ilk in the Patriarchal narratives. I presume you were primarily being humorous. The sad thing about that is that I myself have never seen a scholarly explanation of the name “Asenath” that is significantly better than your absurdist gambit.

Why don’t we instead consider a rational approach to analyzing the name “Asenath”?

In Egyptian, the name “Asenath” can be viewed as being aSA nTr. As a birth name, for reasons discussed below, this name implied “aSA [iwnw] nTr [Ra]”. This name was recorded in cuneiform in the mid-14th century BCE as A-$A NA-TE. We can tell that the Patriarchal narratives were originally recorded in cuneiform, because non-west Semitic proper names [such as “Asenath”, and also “Hobah” at Genesis 14: 15, etc.] frequently reflect the “confusion of gutturals and certain sibilants” that was inherent in cuneiform writing, but that never applies absent cuneiform writing. At the time the Patriarchal narratives were recorded in writing using cuneiform, we know from the Amarna Letters that the cuneiform sign for the Akkadian true vowel A was 50/50 as to whether it rendered aleph or ayin. By contrast, most other cuneiform writing systems [including 7th century BCE cuneiform] used the Akkadian true vowel A to render aleph, and used some ad hoc method of indicating ayin. When the cuneiform clay tablets that contained the Patriarchal narratives were re-discovered by King Josiah in the Temple in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem, he had his scribe [who could read cuneiform at sight, per II Kings 22: 8, 10] transform those cuneiform clay tablets into alphabetical Hebrew. Unfortunately, it is utterly predictable that the cuneiform first letter, which was intended to be ayin, was misunderstood as being aleph. Modern scholars have compounded this problem by not realizing that this name originated in cuneiform; as modern scholars know, samekh relates to Egyptian shin, not to Egyptian sin, when cuneiform is involved. So in addition to the ancient error of aleph instead of ayin, we now have the modern error of the samekh being seen as rendering sin instead of shin. The received alphabetical text has ’SNT, which is always interpreted by scholars today as in effect being ’%NT, where the first two letters are (i) aleph, and (ii) samekh allegedly rendering Egyptian sin/%. But the original intent was ‘$NT: the first letter was ayin, and the Hebrew samekh represents Egyptian shin, not Egyptian sin. ‘$ in Hebrew is a-SA in Egyptian: Egyptian ayin, plus Egyptian shin [followed by Egyptian aleph as a generic vowel]. As to the NT/nun-tav, we know from the Egyptian name pa-xa-na-te at Amarna Letter EA 60: 10 that na-te was how nTr was spelled in cuneiform in the Amarna Letters. [The final R was no longer pronounced. The NT is not “Neith”! No, it’s nTr, with the final R being silent.] nTr means the divine or god/God in a generic sense.

aSA nTr is p-e-r-f-e-c-t both (i) as the birth name of a daughter of a high-priest of Ra from On, and (ii) as also having an additional meaning that is exactly right for Joseph’s Egyptian wife.

aSA iwnw is one of the epithets of Ra. Regarding the name of a daughter of a high-priest of Ra from On, (a) aSA could imply aSA iwnw, with the latter phrase being an epithet of Ra, and (b) nTr could imply nTr Ra, that is, “[the] god Ra”, since the infant girl was the daughter of a high-priest of Ra from On. The epithet aSA iwnw is a great pun in Egyptian, as iwnw is both the word “manifestations” in the plural, and the city name “On” : Iunu : iwnw [which per Genesis 41: 45 is ’WN in Hebrew]. As an Egyptian common word, aSA means either “many” [as per the birth name], or “bounteous abundance” [as per the primary meaning of Asenath once she marries Joseph]. As a birth name of a daughter of a high-priest of Ra from On, aSA [iwnw] nTr [Ra] means: “[the] many [wondrous manifestations honored at On] [of the] god [Ra]”.

The name “Asenath” has nothing to do with the goddess Neith or with “Mother”, as the university scholarly community would have it. Rather, as a birth name “Asenath” honors Ra at On, in particular: the “many”/aSA wondrous manifestations/iwnw of the “god”/nTr Ra honored at On/iwnw [where aSA can imply aSA iwnw as an epithet of Ra at On, especially since Genesis 41: 45 references On in setting forth the name “Asenath”].

The Biblical Egyptian name “Asenath” is perfect in every way. We have just seen that it is the ideal name for the daughter of a high-priest of Ra from On. But it also has the perfect meaning for Joseph’s wife, who is “bounteously abundant, fertile, fruitful”/aSA, thanks to “God”/nTr, in bearing sons to Joseph, including Joseph’s leading son Ephraim. The meaning of the name “Ephraim”, per Genesis 41: 52, in Hebrew is essentially the same as the primary meaning of the name “Asenath” in Egyptian as Joseph’s wife: “Fruitful [thanks to] God”.

In a word, the name “Asenath” is p-e-r-f-e-c-t . Joseph’s Egyptian father-in-law, a high-priest of Ra from On, was not “a way-out alternative priest who thought Neith was the bee's knees and found ways to incorporate Neith into just about everything he said and did, regardless of what anyone else said to him”. Not.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[George Athas]

Oh the irony is so delicious!

[Jim Stinehart]

George Athas:

You wrote: “Oh the irony is so delicious!”

The irony is that Biblical scholars have been unable to make sense out of any of the Biblical Egyptian names in the Patriarchal narratives, because they have not asked what those names would be if they had been originally recorded in cuneiform writing in the mid-14th century BCE. No matter how silly your own proposed meaning of “Asenath” may be, on a humorous, ironic basis, nevertheless it’s no worse, very sadly, than the views of that name that have been published by the leading Genesis scholars in the world.

Here’s another key illustration of that very sad phenomenon. Are you aware that the essentially unanimous view of Biblical scholars is that Joseph’s initial master, who is Captain of the Guard in charge of Pharaoh’s personal security, allegedly has the s-a-m-e name as Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law, who is a high-priest of Ra? Does that make any sense? No. Can it possibly be right? No. Yet it is the essentially unanimous view of the scholarly community, as can be seen from the following comment by Kenneth Kitchen:

“Potiphar is usually taken to be the same name [as the name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law Potipherah] with loss of the final consonant, ‘ayin. This would be unusual; but for the present I can do no better on this one!” K.A. Kitchen, “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” (2003), p. 347.

One can readily sense the exasperation of Kenneth Kitchen in being unable to distinguish these two names of two very different people from each other. The one and only way to interpret these two names in a manner that makes rational sense is on the basis of a cuneiform analysis. The ayin/‘ as the last Hebrew letter in the name “Potipherah”, if it derives from a cuneiform sign, namely the cuneiform sign for Akkadian heth, could easily be a mistake by a Jewish scribe in late 7th century BCE Jerusalem. If pursuant to the classic “confusion of gutturals” in cuneiform writing [that is evidenced in the Amarna Letters] the intended letter here was not Hebrew ayin/‘, but rather Hebrew heth/X, than the last element in that Biblical Egyptian name is not “Ra”, as is the case for the last element in the name “Potiphar”. Rather, for the priestly name “Potipherah” the last Egyptian element is rx, a well-known common word in Egyptian (that appears in both the Middle Kingdom’s Tale of Sinuhe and Akhenaten’s Great Hymn in the New Kingdom), which means “to know”. Thus the two names turn out, on this cuneiform analysis, not to be the same names at all.

The other key to analyzing the names “Potiphar” : פוטיפר : PW+YPR/peh-vav-teth-yod-peh-resh, and “Potipherah” : פוטיפרע : PW+YPR‘, is to ask if the second Hebrew letter, vav/W, is a consonantal vav/W. That approach contrasts with the ubiquitous assumption that the first two letters, peh-vav/PW, combined, somehow are an unattested, unexpected, and essentially impossible Hebrew spelling of the Egyptian word pA (meaning “the” or “who”). In fact, we know from the second half of these very two names that the Egyptian word pA is rendered in Hebrew by peh/P alone, not by peh-vav/PW. The vav-teth in both names is the Egyptian word wA.ti, referring to “the distant [god]”, with Ra being the classic “distant god” (as explicitly asserted on several occasions in Akhenaten’s Great Hymn). (The interior yod/Y is the xireq compaginis.) On that basis, the priestly name “Potipherah” can be viewed as referencing “the distant god -- the one who knows”, that is, “the one who knows the distant god [Ra]”, whereas the name of the Captain of the Guard, by contrast, is simply “the distant god -- the Ra”.

* * *

The reason why Biblical scholars have been unable to make sense out of the Biblical Egyptian names “Asenath”, “Potiphar”, and “Potipherah” is because they have failed to ask what these names would mean if they were originally recorded in cuneiform on clay tablets in south-central Canaan during the Amarna Age, and were not transformed into alphabetical Hebrew until late 7th century BCE Jerusalem.

Do you teach the freshmen every fall the scholarly views of the names “Asenath”, “Potiphar”, and “Potipherah”? Has any student of yours ever asked why it is that, on the scholarly view, none of these Biblical Egyptian names makes good sense?

There’s no way that the name “Asenath” honors the goddess Neith. Not. That cannot be, since she’s the daughter of a high-priest of Ra from On. And there’s no way that the names “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” are the s-a-m-e name, differing only in how their final Egyptian element is spelled. Not. That cannot be, because the former person is the Captain of the Guard in charge of Pharaoh’s personal security, whereas the latter person is a high-priest of Ra from On.

The answer in all three cases to this longstanding scholarly conundrum is to ask what these names would be signifying if they were originally recorded in cuneiform writing during the mid-14th century BCE. Then all three names make perfect sense on all levels.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[George Athas]

No, that's not the irony, Jim.

[Jim Stinehart]

George Athas:

You wrote: “No, that's not the irony, Jim.”

Well then consider the irony that (i) the scholarly community tells us that the names “Asenath”, “Potiphar” and “Potipherah” allegedly date to the mid-1st millennium BCE [Donald B. Redford, “Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times” (1992), p. 424], yet (ii) the scholarly community has never asked why Genesis 14: 4 expressly references “Year 13”, and (iii) the scholarly community has no idea why Joseph’s initial Egyptian master, the Captain of the Guard in charge of Pharaoh’s security, has a name that honors Ra [especially since Ra was not a popular Egyptian god during the time period when Redford and other mainstream scholars see the above Biblical Egyptian names as having originated].

“Potiphar” is the standard grotesque mistransliteration of the name of Joseph’s initial Egyptian master: פוטיפר : P W+ -Y- P R : peh vav-teth -yod- peh resh : Pa-wati -- Pa-RA. Note that the final element of this name honors the Egyptian god Ra [which I will show in capital letters as RA, in order to emphasize that important fact]. Each peh/P is the Egyptian word pA, meaning “the”. Vav-teth/W+ is the Egyptian word wA.ti, meaning “distant”. The interior yod/Y is the xireq compaginis, which functions as a dash. And as just noted, the final resh/R is the Egyptian god Ra. Note that if the reference to “Year 13” at Genesis 14: 4 means the real, historical Year 13, then Ra/Aten was the only god officially worshipped in Egypt at that time, by Akhenaten at Amarna. So the name of the Captain of the Guard, who was in charge of Pharaoh’s personal security, means: “the distant god -- the Ra”. Akhenaten’s Great Hymn frequently refers to Ra/Aten as being “the distant god” [in addition to being “the one and only God”], so this name fits perfectly into the timeframework of Year 13 and Amarna [while not fitting well into a mid-1st millennium BCE scholarly timeframe].

But why would a military man who was Captain of the Guard, in charge of Pharaoh’s security, have a name that means “the distant god -- the Ra”?

We can start by confirming that Year 13 is still the relevant year, when Joseph is in Egypt. Genesis 47: 9 tells us that when Jacob led the Hebrews into Egypt, Jacob/“Israel” was age 13 tenfold shanah, with the accent on 13. That suggests Year 13. Then the rest of chapter 47 of Genesis proceeds to describe an historical event that only happened once in 5,000 years of human history: Pharaoh had his vizier confiscate a large amount of valuable land along the Nile River for the royal household at fire sale prices. Historically that happened in Year 13 of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign. So we’ve got the exact year: Year 13. [Year 13 was the “Year of Living Dangerously” for the first Hebrews. They were almost run off their land that year by evil Yapaxu, a favored firstborn son [per Amarna Letter EA 298]; yet on a semi-miraculous basis, the first Hebrews survived and even thrived, with the historical birth of Judaism thus being datable to Year 13. The entirety of the Patriarchal narratives consists primarily of setting forth different perspectives on Year 13, the “Year of Living Dangerously”, that somehow, some way ended up turning out so divinely well for the tent-dwelling first Hebrews.]

Now consider how Pa-wati -- pa-RA is described in the Patriarchal narratives. We know from Genesis 39: 1 that Pa-wati -- pa-RA, the military man who was in charge of Pharaoh’s security, was very close to Pharaoh, being “an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard”, and we know from Genesis 39: 5 that he was very rich: “the LORD blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field.” Note also that since Pharaoh later confirms Joseph’s new status as vizier of all Egypt by having Joseph marry the daughter of the high priest of Ra from On, that implies that Joseph’s priestly father-in-law, Potipherah, likewise was very close to Pharaoh and was very rich [as was Pa-wati -- pa-RA], while also showing that Pharaoh was devoted to Ra. What the name “Pa-wati -- pa-RA” adds to this is that the Captain of the Guard in charge of Pharaoh’s security, who per Egyptian tradition was a general or other military man, likely changed his name to openly honor Ra. He even went so far in this connection as to adopt as his new name a name that is suspiciously similar to the name of the high priest of Ra from On, who truly was devoted to Ra: “Pa-wati -- pa-rx”. It is the importance of making that very point that explains the otherwise mysterious fact that the two names look so similar, differing only in that the priestly name “Pa-wati -- pa-rx” has an additional letter [a misunderstood guttural] at the end. That in turn indicates that Pharaoh was unduly devoted to Ra, to the point that non-religious officials, such as the military man who was Captain of the Guard in charge of Pharaoh’s security, felt the need to change their names to profess their own devotion to Ra. Accordingly, the period of time when Joseph was in Egypt was the Amarna Age, which was devoted to Ra/Aten.

The high priest of Ra from On in the Amarna Age was Pawah; the name “Pawah” sounds like pA wA-, being the first half of the Biblical Egyptian name pA wA.ti -- pA rx : “Potipherah”, who was the high-priest of Ra from On who was Joseph’s father-in-law. As to who was in charge of security in Year 13, that likely was general Ramose : RA-mose. Note that the name “RA-mose” begins with and openly honors Ra, like the name “Potiphar”/pA wA.ti -- pA RA, which ends with and openly honors Ra. Ramose was the most prominent general at Amarna. It is of critical importance to note that the situations of these two particular high officials under Pharaoh Akhenaten at Amarna are exactly what is implied by these two Biblical names:

“[T]he South Suburb [of the city of Akhetaten/Amarna] was essentially a residential quarter…. The occasionally higher social status of the South’s inhabitants is apparent not only from the larger floor area of the villas and the frequency of walled gardens but from the increased evidence of stone jambs and lintels carrying the name and principal titles of the house owners, many of whom are well known -- the priest…Pawah,…and the general Ramose.” Nicholas Reeves, “Akhenaten: Egypt’s False Prophet” (2001), p. 126.

“[T]he southern part of Akhetaten [was] a district occupied by the mansions of high officials, such as…the residence of General Ramose,…who was found to have changed his name from Ptahmose in deference to the prevailing fervour for sun-worship at Amarna.” Cyril Aldred, “Akhenaten: King of Egypt” (1988), p. 59.

What’s in a name? We see that the name “Pa-wati -- pa-RA”, as the name of Pharaoh’s wealthy Captain of the Guard that overtly honors the god Ra as the “distant”/wA.ti/W+ god [being the Egyptian god to whom Pharaoh was unduly devoted], tells us a lot. That name deftly lets us know that Joseph’s Egypt was the Amarna Age, as the Biblical Egyptian names Pa-wati -- pa-RA and Pa-wati -- pa-rx are redolent of the names of the historical security chief and of the high priest of Ra from On at Amarna, respectively, both as to the sounds of both sets of names, and as to what the underlying meanings of these two Biblical Egyptian names imply. The scholarly view that this is all mid-1st millennium BCE fiction is patently false. Rather, the Biblical Egyptian name “Pa-wati -- pa-RA” contains a treasure trove of accurate, specific historical information about the Egypt of Joseph’s time, including the implication that Joseph’s Egyptian master changed his name to a Ra-based name to curry favor with Pharaoh Akhenaten. Biblical Pa-wati -- pa-RA is historical Ramose: the rich military man in charge of Pharaoh Akhenaten’s security at Amarna in Year 13, who had changed his name to a Ra-based name to curry favor with Pharaoh Akhenaten.

The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in a Year 13 historical context is truly stunning.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

Scholars have been mystified by the following two Hebrew language issues concerning Joseph’s initial Egyptian master, “Potiphar”:

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

(2) Why isn’t the prison referred to by the regular Hebrew expression for “prison”? Isn’t this a run-of-the-hill freestanding Egyptian prison? Why, uniquely in the Bible, does this section of Genesis refer to BYT H-SHR? Genesis 39: 20

This post will solve both of those two longstanding Biblical mysteries.

A. The House of “Potiphar”/General Ramose

If you want to see a picture of the house of Joseph’s initial Egyptian master, “Potiphar” : pa wA.ti -- pA ra, which is an apt Patriarchal nickname for historical General Ramose at Amarna, here it is:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/ramose/homepage.html

See also here: http://www.perankhgroup.com/estates%20houses.htm

That latter site mentions the following two key facts that confirm how rich “Potiphar”/General Ramose was [per Genesis 39: 5]: (i) “Another building material that would have been restricted to very wealthy people was stone. The significance of stone being used in the construction of the house of General Ramose….Besides being a sign of wealth, the stone in Ramose's house was the way…to identify this house as belonging to the Vizier Ramose.” (ii) “The area of the house is a particular point of interest because having an internal staircase in a house meant that there was a second story.” [One suspects that young Joseph, the first three years he was in Egypt, would normally have been upstairs, keeping the books and records of this large estate in the city of Akhetaten, which included a garden with trees.]

General Ramose, who had changed his name to a Ra-based name [like “Potiphar”/Pa-wati -- pa-RA], was sycophantic to a fault. His sumptuous home featured the following sanctimonious inscription in praise of Pharaoh Akhenaten: “ ‘Akhenaten was the god of fate (Shai), who grants every lifetime and a burial (after) old age in his favor’, as stated by the general Ramose in an inscription from his home at Akhetaten.” Erik Hornung, “Akhenaten and the Religion of Light” (2001), p. 102.

That magnificent house is where Joseph alighted in Egypt.

Here’s another pertinent comment about General Ramose’s house at Amarna: “The houses in Amarna had different sizes. The size of the buildings was extremely dependent on the social function of the builder and the prosperity of the owner. Akhenaten’s chief officials, such as general Ramose, the first prophet Pawah and vizier Nakht were allowed to build large houses with many rooms and with walls of one and a half bricks or even more. This thickness was…very important in creating an agreeable climate inside the house.” http://www.egyptological.com/2012/08/pl ... rna-3-9926

“[T]he house of the general Ramose at Amarna [which had more than 8 rooms]…is one of the largest private houses in the city….” Rolf Gundlach, John H. Taylor, “Egyptian Royal Residences” (2009), p. 177.

Since security for the very unpopular Pharaoh Akhenaten was of paramount importance, it stands to reason that “one of the largest private houses in the city” of Akhetaten/Amarna would have been owned by a military man, a general, whose all-important duty was to protect Pharaoh Akhenaten against assassination attempts. Two of the other largest and finest houses in this neighborhood were owned by Pawah, a high-priest of Ra from On [Biblical “Potipherah”/Pa-wati -- pa-rx, where historical “Pawah” sounds like Biblical Pa-wa…], and Panhesy, a high-priest of Aten [who was not from On].

2. The Prison of “Potiphar”/General Ramose

Akhetaten/Amarna did not have a normal prison, nor is the normal Hebrew phrase for “prison” used in describing where Pharaoh’s high-profile prisoners were kept. Genesis 39: 20 instead uses the phrase BYT H-SHR where, per Gesenius below, SHR means “tower”. Instead of a normal free-standing prison that was used solely as a prison, what Akhetaten/Amarna had was a huge military/police complex. Two key features of that huge military/police complex are directly relevant to the Biblical description of this place. First, there was “a lavishly decorated home” within the complex; that is the “house” at which Joseph’s initial Egyptian master interrogates Pharaoh’s prisoners [Genesis 40: 7]. This was not the main private residence of “Potiphar”/General Ramose, but rather was a house that he could use for official activities at the military/police complex, such as interrogating important prisoners who were high officials of Pharaoh. Secondly, this military/police structure featured “two heavy towers at the entrance”. As noted above, Gesenius says that SHR means “tower”. 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 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
Note that the “Sir” element of the Egyptian word “Sirdariya” matches the %R element of the phrase “Captain of the Guard” : %R H-+BXYM [Genesis 39: 1].

* * *

As I was saying, the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in a Year 13 context is simply stunning. The scholarly view that this is all mid-1st millennium BCE fiction cannot stand the light of day. No one in the mid-1st millennium BCE knew beans about Year 13!

Finally, if you’re wondering about the wife of Joseph’s Egyptian master, who plays an infamous role in the Patriarchal narratives, well at least we know her historical name. The name of General Ramose’s wife was “Nebetinet” [per Joan Goodnick Westenholz, “Capital Cities” (1998), p. 123].

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[George Athas]

Jim,

B-Hebrew is not your journal or blog. Please stop treating it like it is. Your previous post does not engender any discussion, but is, rather filled with unsubstantiated claims and premises. If you continue to use the forum as your own journal/blog, the moderators will take action.