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