Pharaoh Merenptah Making an Offering to the Goddess Anat,
on a Column from Heliopolis
THE NAME ZAPHNATH
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 (I am not that interested in Paneah, for a reason I will discuss below) can be found here:
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 makign 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 discussed Zaphnath's linguistic origin is this one:
https://theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4668/josephus-antiquities-books-samson-solved?page=2
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.
Most Egyptologists do not want to tackle this problem - not with the proverbail 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 mystering in a different way. I wish to begin with Joseph's Egyptian wife, Asenath. It has often been remarked that it is curious that last element of both her and her husband's names seem to be identical. So I decided to start with that.
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
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. According to Wilkinson in THE COMPLETE GODS AND 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 was established 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 wellinfonned 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; BOWMAN 1978:225-234). Ramesses regularly calls her the Mistress or Lady of (the) Heaven(s) in the context of claiming Anal's support in battle and legitimation of his right to 'universal' rule. It is in this context that he claims a mother/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. REg 24 [1972] 154-159) Anal's name was read into the lacuna that named -Seth's sexual partner. The Turin papyrus demonstrates that it is The Seed. not Anal. who copulates with Seth. Two other texts (Chester Beany I=The COlllendings ofHorus and Seth and Harris Magical Papyrus 111) which are typically cited as evidence of Anal'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 Anal'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 arc 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 arc invoked as protection against wild animals and to ward off demons. 'logical' 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 QudshuAstarte-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 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 DNs at Elephantine, 'NTYHW AND 'NTBYT'L."
While some doubt was once cast on whether Heliopolis was controlled by the Hyksos, it is now generally accepted that such was the case. Indeed, we have literally evidence supporting the contention:
There are many good resources available online concerning the Hyksos. One such is the following:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43074367
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43074367
So if Asenath is an Anat name, might the same be true of Zaphnath? 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:
I would offer for consideration SPN'NT, 'Anat Protects'.
We have a Punic precedent in the priestess name SPNB'L, 'Baal Protects' (see https://theswissbay.ch/pdf/Books/Linguistics/Mega%20linguistics%20pack/Afro-Asiatic/Semitic/Phoenician-Punic%20Grammar%20%28Krahmalkov%29.pdf, p. 35, and https://books.google.com/books?id=M1PUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22SPNB%27L%22&source=bl&ots=wYPOs7vvKH&sig=ACfU3U2YXZBKfGD7XsSCdymqddO7itgT_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM8MOmsd32AhXHIDQIHc6KCUsQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=%22SPNB'L%22&f=false, p. 116), derived from a Semitic word identical with Hebrew tsaphan:
tsaw-fan' a primitive root; to hide (by covering over); by implication, to hoard or reserve; figuratively to deny; specifically (favorably) to protect, (unfavorably) to lurk:--esteem, hide(-den one, self), lay up, lurk (be set) privily, (keep) secret(-ly, place).
As I mentioned above, Paneah need not detain us. It may be Egyptian or it may be Hebrew. In either case it does not help us with identifying Joseph or placing him in time.
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
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
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 equally 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 exhange 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 in England. 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.
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.
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 a reverse manner, Moses as a name intentionally omits the Egyptian theophoric element Ra (see my book THE REAL MOSES AND HIS GOD, where I identify Moses with 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
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.