ial circumstances).10 In the later second millennium BC, the basic price of slaves crept upwards, to 30 shekels (and more) as at later 15th-Century Nu

in a Name?On his appointment to office as the pharaoh’s chief minister, Joseph was given an Egyptian name, Zaphenath-pa’aneah (in English form) and an Egyptian wife Asenath, daughter of a Potiphera, (high) priest of On (i.e., Heliopolis)—Genesis 41:45—the latter’s name being reminiscent of his former employer’s (Potiphar, Gn 39:1). Naturally, these outlandish names have attracted much comment. Regarding Zaphenath-pa’aneah, the suggestion of C. Steindorff, a century ago, has enjoyed wide, not to say dogmatic acceptance (1889:41–42; 1892:50–52). He understood it as Egyptian Dje(d)pa Nute(r) (e)f-’ankh, to be translated “The God has said: ‘he will live’!”15 This particular type of name (Djed DEITY ef-’ankh) is very well attested from the late 20th Dynasty down to the 26th Dynasty and after, say ca. 1100–500 BC.16 But this particular form of the name, with “God” instead of a named deity, is still purely theoretical,17 and may be purely imaginary.18 Its theoretical status is not the only problem. It is, by meaning, a birth-name, the kind given to a child at birth (as various scholars have pointed out) and hence eminently unsuitable for Joseph at 30 years old.19 Thus, we are fully entitled to present a better solution to Zaphenath-pa’aneah if it exists.20 Quite some time ago, this writer presented precisely such a solution, but only in brief (1962; 1980); hence, a slightly fuller treatment is in order here. The Hebrew “name” is rather long and falls into two parts. The second half clearly contains the Egyptian word ‘ankh, “life/to live,” as is almost universally conceded; before it is some element containing p or f. The first half, conversely, seems much more “Semitic” at first sight: Zaphenath is directly reminiscent of the common Semitic root zaphan,21 and of very little in Egyptian.22 However, if a simple metathesis of the p and t be conceded, giving Zat(h)nap(h) for Zap(h)nat(h), then the situation is radically different. Zatnap corresponds precisely to Egyptian djad(u)-naf, “who is called...,” introducing a second name after the first-for example, “Ankhu djad(u)-naf Hedjeri” means “Ankhu called Hedjeri.” In its masculine and feminine forms, this construction appears in the Middle Kingdom (from ca. 2000 BC), and stayed in use into the New Kingdom to at least the 18th Dynasty.23 The verbal variant of this construction, djad tu-naf (and feminine equivalent) was current mainly from the 18th Dynasty (ca. 1550–1300 BC) onwards, into the Later Period.24 Thus the construction is superabundantly attested in Egyptian, in two closely-similar forms, covering between them the period of ca. 2000–600 BC.25 But is the assumption of metathesis justified? The answer is “yes.” It is a common feature when names and words transfer from one language into another. Compare the k/s and s/k sounds in Greek (Al)eksandros and Arabic Iskander; or the Hurro-Hittite Ini-Tesub becoming in Egyptian Ini-Tebus. Or in the Bible itself,



Egyptian Taharqa becoming in Hebrew Tirhaqah.
And not least with our name itself Hebrew Zapnat becomes in the Greek of the LXX Psonth... The reason in our case (Djat-naf to Zapnat) is very simple. The consonantal succession was totally foreign to a Semitic speaker and writer, so it was switched to a sequence that was very familiar, z-p-n(-t). Hence, there is no problem in accepting Zapnat from Egyptian Djad(u)-naf.26The second half of the name (“pa’aneah”) is very straightforward. As Engelbach long ago foresaw, names of the type Pa(i)ankh are very rare and unsatisfactory. But at least two other better solutions exist. One is to understand (E)fankh, as in the birth-name solution, but as an independent name. Such a name is attested from Middle-Kingdom times to the Greek period (Ranke 1935:14:5). The other, far better-based solution is to understand Pa’aneah as Egyptian (I)p-ankh or (I)pi-ankh or (I)pu-ankh, closely-related variants of each other (Ranke 1935:21:30; 22:16; 23:18). These are very common in the Middle Kingdom, but not any later. So, at court, the pharaoh is to be envisaged as calling his new minister Yosep djad-naf (I)pi-ankh, “Joseph called (I)pi-ankh.” In Hebrew the link-word djad-naf and name proper (I)p-’ankh were simply taken over as one epithet of Joseph. The case of a foreigner in Egypt being given an Egyptian name introduced by djad-naf now known to be a very common one, from the Middle Kingdom, as Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 of the 18th century BC makes very clear (Hayes 1955:99–102).Joseph’s wife Asenath also bears an Egyptian name. But which? The classic explanation owed to Sethe (1899: §223,l)was to derive it from Egyptian Nes-neit (“she belongs to [the goddess] Neit,”), with elision of initial n, giving Es-neit. For this, we have cuneiform and Greek transcriptional evidence during the first millennium BC. However, this name is not attested, it is theoretical, although there are plenty of other such names compounded with those of other deities—(N)es-Amun, (N)es-Hor, etc. (Ranke 1935:173–80, passim). And, as Spiegelberg objected (1904:18–19), the a-vowel in Hebrew Asenath and LXX Greek Asen(n)eth did not agree with the e-vocalization of the (N)es-names. He therefore suggested a name Iu.s-en-Neit (pronounced As-en-Neit) instead. This, too, is unattested; it has a parallel with one other deity—Mut is attested.27 The iu.es-, pronounced As-en-, is certainly preferable to Sethe’s (N)es. But the ancient goddess Neith is rather rare in personal names—she belonged mainly in Sais in the West Delta, whence we have almost no data on personal names. In the East Delta, at Heliopolis, she would not be expected to occur in names. Is there an alternative? Again, yes. We have men called Iuf-ni, “he belongs to me” (spoken by a parent), and commonly women called Ius-ni, “she belongs to me” (ditto), well-attested in the Middle Kingdom (Ranke 1935:14:7 and 15:4, respectively). We have women called Ius-n-ites and Ius-en-mutes, meaning “she belongs to her father” and “she belongs to her mother” (Ranke 1935:15:1, 7, respectively; of Middle Kingdom date). We have a man called Iuf-en-at, probably “he belongs to you” (fem.), i.e. to his mother (Ranke 1935:14:12, of the First Intermediate Period/early Middle Kingdom). From this, it is a very short step indeed to suggest that our Asenat(h) is simply Ius-en-at, “she belongs to you” (fem.), in exactly the same way, and pronounced As-en-at. This explanation for Asenath eliminates the unrealistic link with Neith, fits the vocalic pattern in Hebrew and Egyptian, and derives from an attested name (even if in the masculine only at present).Mummy of Ramesses II, Pharaoh of Egypt 1279–1213 BC. Egyptian Museum, Cairo.There remain Potiphar and Potiphera. The universally acceptable interpretation of Potiphera is that it is from the Egyptian Pa-di-Pre, “the gift of the (god) Re,” a well-known type of name (Pa-di-DEITY), and in fact attested just learn french

te of its orchards and crops.”[62]Even Kadesh, the fierce enemy of Thutmose III that led a rebellion against Egypt at the outset of his reign as

ired innumerable supplies. A central part of the Egyptian campaigning policy in Palestine was to provide food for the troops and horses.[67]b. Evidence related to the reign of Amenhotep II. Even stronger evidence demonstrating that Thutmose III did not burn the city to the ground is that Hazor was a functioning city during Amenhotep II’s reign, and that Amenhotep II himself could not have burned the city to the ground either, despite his own claim to have destroyed Hazor. This conclusion is based on both archaeological and epigraphical evidence. Archaeologically, Hazor’s stratigraphy reveals a notably long period of non-habitation that occurred between the city’s Late Bronze I and Late Bronze II occupations, thus demonstrating that Hazor sat deserted for a considerable time after its conflagration at the close of Late Bronze I. Yadin writes in reference to the findings in the lower city, “In view of a considerable accumulation between Stratum 2 and Stratum 1B above it, it may be assumed perhaps that there was a gap in the history of Hazor, some time in the middle of the fifteenth century” BC.[68]This “considerable accumulation” attests to a period of multiple decades in which the once-glorious Hazor sat abandoned, unused, and uninhabited. Since Amenhotep II mentions Hazor on the conquest list of his Year-3 campaign, the city cannot have been destroyed by his father and then abandoned throughout the entirety of his own reign. If Amenhotep II’s claim to have destroyed Hazor is accepted as trustworthy,[69] this renders a conflagration under Thutmose III and a subsequent invasion/conquest under Amenhotep II mutually exclusive, an impossible chain of events. There had to be an occupied city of Hazor for Amenhotep II to conquer!Important archaeological evidence exists in the form of a royal scarab from the reign of Thutmose IV (ca. 1418–1408 BC).[70] This son and successor of Amenhotep II reigned for a modest “eight-plus years,” though most scholars assign ten years to his reign.[71] During Yadin’s second year of excavations, he began work in what became Area F, which is located in the lower city between Area C and Area D.[72] While digging in Stratum 1B (Late Bronze IIA, = 1400–1300 BC), his team found a burial cave, designated 8144, which yielded the critical scarab. The cave was buried under Stratum 1A (Late Bronze IIB, = 1300–1200 BC), so the stratified scarab was placed there at the end of the 15th century BC, indicating roughly when this cave was first used for burials.[73]The final period of the cave’s use, which further defines the chronology of the cave and the stratum, is indicated by an unusually great yield of imported Mycenaean pottery, along with datable imported Cypriotic ware (Milk Bowls, a Base-ring, and Bucchero Ware) and local pottery, none of which dates beyond the 14th century BC.[74] Yadin draws special attention to “a large group of imported Mycenaean vessels of the late stage of III A: 2,”[75] noting also that this abundance of IIIA:2 pottery was complemented “with [a] few A: 1” vessels.[76] According to the pottery specialist whom Yadin consulted, Mycenaean IIIA:2 pottery dates to ca. 1400–1375 BC in its early forms and dates to ca. 1375–1300 BC in its late forms, while Mycenaean IIIA:1 ware dates to ca. 1425–1400 BC.[77] In Yadin’s discussion of LB-I-Age pottery found in Hazor’s caves during his expeditions, he describes numerous types of late Mycenaean IIIA:2 wares, but he makes no mention of any early Mycenaean IIIA:2 pottery that would date to the short period from ca. 1400–1375 BC.[78] This dearth of early Mycenaean IIIA:2 pottery matches well with the period of non-habitation—as revealed by the noted occupational gap—that occurred after the city was destroyed on Joshua’s northern campaign in ca. 1400 BC. Thus the cave was in use during the years shortly before ca. 1400 BC, and throughout the years from ca. 1375–1300 BC.The stratified, royal scarab of Thutmose IV cannot be considered a later reproduction or a mere family heirloom that was passed down from one generation to the next. As Yadin carefully explains, “All Thutmose IV scarabs are rare and a boon to archaeologists in this country because we know that they were made exclusively during his reign (the names of some Pharaohs continued to be inscribed on scarabs after their death, but the popularity of Thutmose IV was buried along with him). We can therefore conclude that the cave was first used sometime during his eight-year reign, from 1410 to 1402 BC, or immediately thereafter.”[79] The significance of this royal scarab to the present debate is that it confirms the existence of Hazor as an occupied and functioning city in the last quarter of the 15th century BC, immediately after the reign of Amenhotep II. Due to the subsequent occupational gap after the destruction of Late-Bronze-I Hazor, which was discussed above, the city could not have been occupied during the modest reign of Thutmose IV if Amenhotep II truly had destroyed the city. Therefore, Amenhotep II’s “destruction” of the city was immediately followed by continuous occupation.Epigraphically, one piece of evidence that argues conclusively against the destruction of Hazor under Amenhotep II is Papyrus Hermitage 1116A, which contains a list recording the allocation of beer and corn to messengers from Djahy, who are envoys to cities such as Megiddo, Chinnereth, Achshaph, Shimron, Taanach, Ashkelon, and Hazor. This list, which demonstrates the trading relations between these southern Canaanite towns and the Egyptian government, is variously dated to the reign of Thutmose III, to the coregency he shared with his son, and to the sole reign of Amenhotep II.[80] However, dating the papyrus to the reign of Thutmose III can be eliminated from the realm of possibility,[81] given that the manuscript is attributed to a regnal Year 18 and bears the praenomen of Amenhotep II—the sign that provides the pharaonic throne-name, and is given to the Egyptian monarch upon his ascension to the throne—enclosed in a royal cartouche.



As Redford concludes,A date for the two Leningrad
papyri shortly after eighteenth year would satisfy all the evidence. But there is no reason to believe that Thutmose III was still alive and reigning at the time.”[82] Given that Hazor was one of the thriving cities involved in the trading of commodities at this time, it had remained unharmed at least into the 18th year of Amenhotep's reign, coinciding to 9 years after the Israelite exodus.Because Amenhotep II’s Year 18 (ca. 1438/1437 BC) was a time when Hazor thrived, it must be emphasized that he launched only two campaigns into Asia: the first in Year 3, and the second in Year 9.[83] This grossly diminished number of Asiatic campaigns is especially startling given that the Egyptian empire was at its height during the reigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II.[84] Immediately after these were waged, a sharp decline in the Asiatic campaigning of the pharaohs transpired. Aharoni attributes this to an underlying diminishment of Egyptian power: “Already in the days of Amenhotep II, the son of ThRosetta Stone