( Lies Rebuttal Series ) Al-‘Aziz & Potiphar- A Confused Nomenclature

8/14/2019 ( Lies Rebuttal Series ) Al-Aziz & Potiphar- A Confused Nomenclature

1/18

1

Al-Aziz & Potiphar: A Confused Nomenclature?

M S M Saifullah, Muhammad Ghoniem, Elias Karim & Abdullah David

Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 24th July 1999

Last Modified: 17th October 2005

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

It has been claimed by the Christian missionaries that there is a "historicalcontradiction" in the Qur'an concerning the names Potiphar and 'Aziz'in the story ofJoseph. According to Robert Morey:

The Qur'an makes the mistake of saying that the man who bought Joseph, Jacob's son, was

named Aziz (Sura 12:21ff.) when his name was really Potiphar (Genesis 37:36).[1]

Yet another apologist argues that:

Potiphar vs. Aziz


2/18

2

Mohammad relates the story of Joseph, whom Potiphar and the men of his city imprisoned out of

jealousy. In the Quranic version of the story, Mohammad gives the name of the master of the

house as "Aziz." Aside from the variations between the Biblical and Quranic versions, it is

important to note that the name Aziz is uniquely Arabic. In fact, the name Aziz was not

Egyptian, nor is it known to have been in use by any Egyptian during the period Joseph lived.

In a gist, the argument here is that the Biblical name of 'Potiphar' is a historicallyaccurate attribution, while the Qur'anic 'Aziz' is a name erroneously attributed to thesame historical character. Furthermore, it is argued that 'Aziz' was not an Egyptianname, nor was it known to have been used by the Egyptians during Joseph's time. Asfar as the variations between the two narratives are concerned, the Qur'an supersedesthe Bible in historical accuracy by correctly referring to Egypt's ruler as King, and not

Pharaoh and the mention of crucifixion during the time of Joseph and Moses. Thelatter has also been claimed as a "historical contradiction" in the Qur'an.

Let us now discuss the claim of "historical contradiction" concerning the namesPotiphar and 'Aziz' in the story of Joseph as narrated in the Bible and the Qur'an. [2]

2. What Does The Qur'an Actually Say?

A CASE OF MISTAKEN READING

Let us now analyse a selection of quotes from the Qur'an relevant to the topic in hand.

Ladies said in the City: "The wife of the Aziz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self:

Truly hath he inspired her with violent love: we see she is evidently going astray." [Qur'an

12:30]


3/18

3

(The king) said (to the ladies): "What was your affair when ye did seek to seduce Joseph from

his (true) self?" The ladies said: "Allah preserve us! no evil know we against him!" Said the

Aziz's wife: "Now is the truth manifest (to all): it was I who sought to seduce him from his

(true) self: He is indeed of those who are (ever) true (and virtuous). [Qur'an 12:51]

In the quotation above, we have underlined the Qur'anic word used to describe thehistorical character otherwise referred to as Potiphar in the Bible. The word used isal-Aziz, not Aziz as incorrectly understood by the Christian missionaries. Eventhe translation reads "the Aziz", and not simply Aziz.

THE QUR'AN EXPLAINS ITSELF!

The issue of the al-Aziz in the story of Joseph can be resolved by applying the mostfundamental principle of Qur'anic exegesis: al-Qur'an yufassiru baduhu badan, i.e.,different parts of the Qur'an explain one another. When Joseph attains a high status inEgypt, his brothers visit him. Joseph is called by his own brothers as al-Aziz inverse 12:88.

It is translated as:

Then, when they came (back) into (Joseph's) presence they said: "Al-Aziz! [translated as "the

exalted one"] distress has seized us and our family: we have (now) brought but scanty capital:

so pay us full measure, (we pray thee), and treat it as charity to us: for Allah doth reward the

charitable."

So, we see that Joseph's own brothers called him al-Aziz (translated as "the exaltedone") because he was at that time in charge of the storehouses of Egypt. They calledhim by the very phrase they would have used in conjunction with any powerful manin the Egyptian administration. This is confirmed by the fact that at that time they hadnot yet realized that they were speaking to their brother, the very one they once threwdown to the bottom of a well and forgot about his fate. Al-Qurtubi says in the tafsirofthe verse:


4/18

4

Then, when they came (back) into (Joseph's) presence they said: al-Aziz meaning al-Mumtani,

i.e., invulnerable, unapproachable.

Hence al-Aziz in the story of Joseph is used to denote the high rank of an official inEgypt. It also denotes a powerful highly-placed officer. [3] Clearly, the presence of thedefinite article "al" before Aziz is a strong indication that it is not a name. Even inmodern times, Christian and Jewish Arabs might call themselves Aziz (e.g., TariqAziz, the former Iraqi minister) but none calls himselfal-Aziz. In this scope, the

claim that Aziz was the name of the historical individual in question results from amisreading of the text. Moreover, when we read Islamic literature (see below) on thismatter, nowhere can one find that al-Aziz was believed to be this individual's actualname.

The claim that 'Aziz' was the actual name of the Bible's 'Potiphar' is even moreridiculous, let alone it being a historical contradiction as we shall soon see!

3. Potiphar: An Anachronism During The Time Of Joseph

It has been asserted by Morey and other Christian apologists that the real name of theman who bought Joseph was Potiphar. They arrived at the real name of the man usingcircular arguments, i.e., since the Bible says Potiphar was the man who boughtJoseph, it must be true. No effort has been made to present the historical evidence toshow that the name Potiphar did exist during the time when Joseph was in Egypt. Inthis section, we would like to go through some of the evidence regarding the existenceof the name Potiphar in ancient Egyptian history.

THE POTIPHAR STELA: FROM THE TIME OF JOSEPH?

The Egyptian name which is rendered by both the Hebrew Potiphar (the name of themaster of Joseph) and the Hebrew Potiphera (the father-in-law of Joseph) isuniversally accepted as belonging to the formulation P3-di+the name of a god.[4]While names of the P3-di- formulations are occasionally attested in the Egyptianrecords before the first millennium BCE, it is really from that time on that they werecommonly used and are frequently found.[5] But the exact Egyptian original P3-di-p3-

Rc rendering both the Hebrew Potiphar and the Hebrew Potiphera is attested only


5/18

5

once on a stela Cairo JE 65444, which at the earliest dates to the 21st Dynasty ofthe Third Intermediate Period (Figure 1). [6]

Figure 1: The Stela of Potiphar. This stela (Cairo JE 65444) at the earliest dates to the 21st

Dynasty. Potiphar is mentioned twice in this stela.[7]

The hieroglyph representing Potiphar, P3-di-p3-Rc, is shown below.

Figure 2: Hieroglyph writing of "Potiphar". [8]

The meaning of Potiphar or Potiphera in Egyptian is "the one whom god Rec hasgiven", i.e., "the gift of god Rec".[9]


6/18

6

The 21st Dynasty reigned in Egypt between c. 1069 - c. 945 BCE during the ThirdIntermediate Period (c. 1069 - c. 702 BCE).[10] It must be added that before the

discovery of the Potiphar stela the nearest sounding name to Potiphar was P3-di-Rcdating from the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom Period.[11] Concerning the namePotiphera, Professor Kitchen says:

Finally, Potiphera and Potiphar. The first form is universally recognized as deriving from

Egyptian P(a)-di-parec, "the gift of (the sun-god) Pre." In this form the name exhibits a form

(Pa-di-Deity) first attested in the Nineteenth Dynasty, in the thirteenth century, not earlier; and

an actual example of the Padipare occurs on a stela of circa 1070 or after. However, the Pa-di-X

type of name is a "modern" (i.e., New Kingdom) equivalent of the Didi-Deitynames of the early

second millennium. A Didi-Re would become Pa-didi-P(re), then Pa-di-pare. Didi- names are

very common in the Middle Kingdom; and the transitional form (early Eighteenth Dynasty) is

attested in the feminine, with suffix for a deity (Ta-didit-es) before we reach the final form. So,

the Pa-di-pare could be of the thirteenth century or later. Potiphar is usually taken to be the

same name with the loss of the final consonant, ayin. This would be unusual; but for the

present I also could do no better on this one! Of four names (possibly in fact three, one in two

forms), two are exact and of early date, one is exact and of later date as given, but easily

deriving from a early form. The supposed variant of the of the latter is either just that, or awaits

further resolution.[12]

Elsewhere he adds:

The form Potiphar(a) is probably a thirteenth-century-onward modernization of Pa-didi-(p)re

from an original Didi-re. [13]

Kitchen's speculative and ingenious connection ofP3-di-p3-Rc withDidi-Rc via P3-didi-(p)Rc is a little bit too far-fetched as more simpler and valid explanations exist,and this we will see in the next section.

A CASE OF BAD TIMING

Let us now gather the evidence that we have acquired concerning Potiphar andtabulate it. Unless otherwise stated, specific dates for particular Dynasties and Kingsthat we quote within this paper are taken from Nicolas Grimal's book, A History of

Ancient Egypt.[14] Please note that the exact Egyptian chronologies are slightlyuncertain, and all dates are approximate. The reader will find slightly differentschemes used in different books. Table I shows the times when Joseph and Mosesentered Egypt and the first attestation of Potiphar in ancient Egyptian history.


7/18

7

Dynasties

Dates BCE(approx.)

Period Rulers People

3 - 6c. 2700 -

2200Old

Kingdom

7 - 11c. 2200 -

2040First

Intermediate

11 & 12c. 2040 -

1674Middle

Kingdom

13 - 17c. 1674 -

1553Second

Intermediate

Sobekhotep II, Chendjer (13thDynasty).

Hyksos formed 15th and 16thDynasties

Joseph

18 - 20c. 1552 -

1069New

KingdomAkhenaten (Amenophis IV),

Ramesses, MerenptahMoses

21 - 23c. 1069 -

702Third

IntermediateSmendes, Osorkon I - II,

Shoshenq I - VPotiphar

Table I: This Table shows the times when Joseph and Moses entered Egypt and the first

attestation of the name Potiphar in Egypt.

According to the Christian apologists the real name of the officer of the Pharaoh was

Potiphar, who was also the master of Joseph. It is clear that the earliest attestation ofthe name "Potiphar" in Egypt post-dates both Joseph and Moses. It is amply clear thatthe name Potiphar during the time of Joseph is an anachronism.

Apart from the clear circularity in the arguments of the Christian apologists, one canalso see their framework, preconceived by the biblical account, consciously orunconsciously tends to fit its "facts" to this framework, rather than to build theframework out of the facts. This is best illustrated by Vargo's concluding statements:


8/18

8

The Qur'an could have avoided this problem if it had called Potiphar by his Egyptian name, or

title, or at least used an approximate Arabic equivalent of his title, rather than imposing a

generic Arabic title which neither he, nor the people of h is day, would have recognized.... In

most academic disciplines, the older, or "established" body of knowledge [or paradigm] is

challenged by a new paradigm which must conclusively demonstrate that it is a better

explanation than the old paradigm in order to be accepted. We do not judge an entire corpus of

knowledge by the newest hypothesis or theory put forth. The Bible, in this case, is the older

document and the Qur'an provides us with absolutely no proper evidence that the Bible is

incorrect.

Perhaps Vargo should now reconsider his own words and start to work within theparadigm of ancient Egyptian history to prove the existence of "Potiphar" during thetime of Joseph. To make his work light, in fact, such discrepancies in the biblical

story of Joseph have not gone unnoticed by the scholars of Egyptology and the Bible.Donald Redford in hisA Study Of The Biblical Story Of Joseph (Genesis 37-50)points out that:

The verses in which the name "Potiphar" occurs look for all the world like editorial patches with

which an earlier text was glossed. Vs. 37:36 ["Potiphar, the officer of the Pharaoh, the captain

of the guard"] certainly was added after the pristine unity of the Joseph Story had been

ruptured by the interpolation of chapter 38, in order to satisfy, at least provisionally, the

anxious curiosity of the reader. Vs. 39:1 in its present form cannot be treated as an integral

part of that chapter, coming from the same hand that embellished this common motif; otherwise

one would be hard put to it to explain why the personal name is missing from the remainder of

the chapter, coming from the same hand that embellished this common motif; ... What probably

happened in the case of the Joseph Story is this: after initial promulgation of the Joseph Story,

popular tradition, enthusiastic to involve itself with such stimulating art, begin to historify the

personalities and events, a process which ended with the fantastically detailed treatment of the

tale in Judaic folklore. Very early, before P wrote, the figure of Joseph became connected with

the Egyptian name P3-di-p3-Rc, "Potiphar"; but the connexion was never explicit. One tradition

ascribed the name to Joseph's father-in-law, another to Joseph's master. An editor, plagued by

a bent towards completeness, inserted them both.[15]

Similarly, Alan Schulman, while dealing with various names in the biblical story ofJoseph, criticizes scholars like Kitchen, Vergote and others for offering ingenious

explanations even though the elements of the story date around 21st - 22nd centuryBCE. His thesis is supported by the facts that almost all the Egyptian names usedin the biblical story of Joseph are late.[16] The presence of late Egyptian names in thebiblical story of Joseph is also admitted by Kitchen, Hoffmeier and others but theytend to explain away, often in ingenious ways, to recast the Joseph narrative in theMiddle / Second Intermediate period of ancient Egyptian history. [17] Given the fact thatEgyptian names in the Joseph narrative are late, Schulman, on the other hand, saysthat the story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis should not be viewed as history but asa historical novel containing a core of history.


9/18

9

Every scholar who has dealt with the problem of the date of the Joseph stories has noted that

many of the Egyptian elements could very well indicate Twenty-first to Twenty-second Dynasty

date, i.e., at the beginning of the first millenium, but considering, a priori, that these stories as

well as the other Patriarchal narratives should be dated earlier, to the second millenium, has

either ignored them, or else has explained them, often ingeniously, away. We must remember,

however, that the Joseph cycle should not be viewed as a history, but rather as an historical

novel containing a core of historical memory which may have been, and probably had been,

distorted historical memory usually is. Although we possibly might be able to explain some of

the later elements as anachronisms, resulting from faulty editing, we cannot do this in the case

of personal names. The number and details of the Egyptian elements in these narratives show,

clearly, that their author had an intimate knowledge of Egypt which he incorporated into this

work to give it an authentic background and f lavour.[18]

Schulman opines that the biblical story of Joseph was written way after the actual

event; the author(s) who composed the narrative used the name-formulations whichwould have been most familiar to his audience as Egyptian, and these would havebeen names of the types most common at the time he wrote, not the rare and unusualtypes which would have been unfamiliar. He argues for the composition of thebiblical story of Joseph to be dated to a time when these names were in current usage,i.e., to the time of the late 21st to 22nd Dynasties, which corresponds to the historicalbiblical chronology to the period of David and Solomon.[19]

Another clue of late composition of the Book of Genesis comes from the use of the

word "Pharaoh" during the times of Abraham, Joseph and Moses in ancient Egypt.The word "Pharaoh" for an Egyptian ruler was used in the New Kingdom period.Hoffmeier says that the use of "Pharaoh" in the books of Genesis and Exodus"accords well" with the Egyptian practice and hastens to add that:

The appearance of "pharaoh" in the Joseph story could reflect the New Kingdom setting of the

story, or, if its provenance is earlier (i.e., the late Middle Kingdom through Second Intermediate

Period), its occurance in Genesis is suggestive of the period of composition.[20]

4. Conclusions

Based on surviving evidence from ancient Egypt, it can be conclusively proven thatthe name Potiphar is an anachronism during the time of Joseph. Before the discoveryof the Potiphar stela the nearest sounding name to Potiphar was P3-di-Rc dating fromthe 18th Dynasty in the New Kingdom Period. Concerning the name Potiphera,Kitchen says that this name is "inscriptionally attested only late (c. 1000 - 300 BC),but is merely a full Late-Egyptian form of this name-type which is known from theEmpire period, especially the 19th Dynasty (13th century BC)."[21] Consequently, heoffers an ingenious explanation to connect P3-di-p3-Rc withDidi-Rc via P3-didi-(p)Rc.The exact Egyptian original P3-di-p3-Rc rendering the name Potiphar or Potiphera


10/18

10

appears only once in ancient Egyptian history and dates to the 21st Dynasty in theThird Intermediate Period. In fact, as scholars of Egyptology and the Bible have

shown, almost all the Egyptian names that appear in the biblical story of Joseph arefrom the late ancient Egyptian period which suggests that the story of Joseph waswritten much later after the actual events had occurred. Needless to add that if theChristian apologists insist on using Rohl's revised chronology, the results would beeven more devastating for their cause. [22]

It is clear from our discussion that the Christian apologists, in their zeal to show a"historical contradiction" in the Qur'an, simply misread, knowingly or unknowingly,the word al-Aziz and attributed it to Potiphar. They read it as 'Aziz' whereas the

Qur'an says al-Aziz, which, in context, simply denotes a powerful person of high rankin the Egyptian administration. Had the apologists and missionaries been evenvaguely familiar with the basic principles of reading classical Arabic, the issue wouldhave perhaps resolved itself before further unnecessary exertion. There is no onenamed 'Aziz' in surah Yusuf; rather what is mentioned is al-Aziz. The Arabic definitearticle "al" which corresponds to "the" in English indicates that the text inquestion is not to be understood as a proper name. Taking into account a broadspectrum of early Islamic mufassirun (exegetes) we can understand that al-Aziz wasnever understood to signify a name, rather, as has been suggested, it denotes apowerful official. As we have already mentioned elsewhere, here we can observe one

of the classic missionary and apologist stratagems: that of advancing a preconceivedtheological understanding of history and then manufacturing supporting evidence tolend verisimilitude to their conclusions, irrespective of how much this contradicts allof the available and well-established historical evidence. 'Since the Bible saysPotiphar, it must be historically true'. Is this type of argumentation indicative ofserious scholarship? It is also important to establish missionary logic in this case,which entails the assertion that if the Bible cites the name Potiphar, then the name ishistorically accurate. Regardless, their argument is circular and no attempt has beenmade by the Christian missionaries to verify the historicity of a person called Potiphar

before claiming a contradiction. No one would dispute that a person's religion is basedon faith; however, one would not expect this to occur at the expense of historicalreality.

And Allah knows best!

I. Appendix: Al-Aziz In The Islamic Exegesis

Tafsir Ibn Kathir


11/18

11

The translation of the above is as follows:

Ladies said in the City: "The wife of the Aziz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self:

Truly hath he inspired her with violent love: we see she is evidently going astray."

Almighty tells that the story of Joseph and the wife of al-Aziz spread in the city which refers to

Egypt so that the people spoke about it. "Ladies said in the City" such as the wives of the labour

and [the wives] of the Princes blamed the wife ofal-Azizwhich means the minister [al-Wazir]

and disapproved her [behaviour] "The wife of the Aziz is seeking to seduce her slave from his

(true) self" meaning that she tries to seduce him and draw him to herself "Truly hath he

inspired her with violent love" [qad shaghafaha hubban] his love reached to the "Shighaf" of her

heart which is the envelope of the heart. Al-Dahak reported from Ibn Abbas: al-Shaghafmeans

deadly love and al-Shaghafis [also] less than that and al-Shaghafis the veil of the heart "we

see she is evidently going astray" i.e., concerning her love for her slave and her seeking to

seduce him.

In the above quote, we notice that in verse 12:30 Ibn Kathir interprets al-Aziz as al-Waziroften translated as the Vizier, which means the Minister. Consistently, IbnKathir drives the same interpretation from the word al-Aziz when commenting onverse 12:51. Without the slightest confusion, Ibn Kathir understood the word al-Azizas a person of high rank and not a name.

Tafsir al-Qurtubi

The translation of which is:

Ladies said in the City [wa qalat niswatun fil madinati]


12/18

12

[niswah] is also pronounced nuswah[in Arabic] which is the reading of al-Amash and al-

Mufaddal and as-Sulami, and Nisa' is used for great numbers. It is acceptable to say: wa qalat

niswatun or wa qala niswatun, either way like qalati-l-arabu or qala-l-arabu since the story

spread among the people of Egypt so much that the women spoke about it.

The wife of the Aziz [imra'at ul-azizi].

It was said: the wife of his saqi[his servant responsible of pouring drinks], the wife of his

baker, the wife of his herdsman, the wife of his jailer. It was also said: the wife of his secretary

[hajib], according to Ibn Abbas and others.

In this quote, we notice that al-Qurtubi does not even bother to comment on the wordal-Aziz as it is obvious for any Arabic speaker that it is a not a name but some high

official. This idea is enhanced by examining the number of servants the manpossesses; he is believed to have had a baker, a herdsman, a jailer, a secretary, etc. Itis obvious that al-Aziz is a powerful man. This is the point conveyed by Holy Qur'an.

Tafsir al-Tabari

The translation of which is:

Ladies said in the City: "The wife of the Aziz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self.

The interpretation of Almighty's words "Ladies said in the City: "The wife of the Aziz is seeking

to seduce her slave from his (true) self" is that the women started speaking about Joseph and

the wife ofal-Azizin the City of Egypt and their news spread widely. And they [the women] said

"The wife of the Aziz is seeking to seduce fataha", fataha meaning her slave: [reference] 14650

- Ibn Humayd told us that Salamah told us reporting from Ibn Ishaq said: and the news spread

widely in the town and the women spoke about their story and they said "The wife of the Aziz is

seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self" refering to her slave. As for al-Aziz, it means

the King [al-Malik] in the Arabic tongue. For instance, Abu Dawuud said [in his poetry]:

durratun ghasa alayha tajirun

jaliyat inda azizin yawma tall


13/18

13

A pearl for which a merchant dived

sparkled at azizin when he came

meaning by al-Azizthe King [whom he was praising], it is derived from izzah meaning power

and might.

In this quotation, al-Tabari understands the word al-Aziz as the king, which gives thesame impression of a mighty person, and not a personal name as claimed by themissionaries. He even reminds us that it is derived from the same root as izzah whichmeans might and power. Again, the whole point is that the Aziz is a powerful man inEgypt, which is an important detail of Joseph's story. As a matter of fact, this will bethe only reason for the imprisonment of Joseph, however innocent he was.

Interestingly, in his commentary on verse 12:51, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari states a report thatmentions the name of Joseph's owner:

[reference] 14843 - Ibn Humayd told us that Salamah told us reporting from Ibn Ishaq said:

"Rail the wife of the al-Aziz, Itfir said "Now is the truth manifest (to all) it was I who sought to

seduce him from his (true) self: He is indeed of those who are true" in what he said about his

innocence.

So, not only did al-Tabari understand al-Aziz as someone powerful and influentialbut also reported that his official's name was Itfir. In light of the fact that al-Azizmentioned the Qur'an is but a phrase to denote a powerful person, this last report turnsout to be the final nail in the coffin of the missionaries' claim.

Another side issue that Muslims have to consider is the authenticity of this last reportmentioning Itfir and Rail. As a matter of fact, this is believed to be part of either theisra'iliyyator any other unconfirmed reports which is often conveyed by al-Tabari in

his tafsir. For further details, please refer to the article about isra'iliyyat and tafsir. It isworth mentioning that neither Ibn Kathir, who is rather careful in authenticating thereports in his tafsir, nor al-Qurtubi mention this report in their tafsir.

At this point, we could dismiss the missionaries' claim as void and rest the case.

References & Notes


14/18

14

[1] R. Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest GrowingReligion, 1992, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), p. 140.

[2] Whilst discussing the claim that al-Aziz is "an anachronistic title" given toPotiphar, the missionaries state: "with special gratitude to Islamic Awareness formaking such a big deal about a minor point on a defunct web page, and forcing theissue into public attention." Perhaps unaware that the same issues discussed in "thisminor point on a defunct webpage" were thrust into (published) Christian apologistand missionary material before the author's webpage had been created, one is not atloss to foresee the intended meaning of the above sentence, nor, as a result, its factualincoherence. Similarly, we are informed on January 26th 2000 in an update that "...

this time in regard to an issue hardly anyone would ever have known about ifSaifuallah & Co. hadn't brought it out of obscurity." The missionary website itselfwas established in 1995.

[3] L. Fatoohi & S. Al-Dargazelli,History Testifies To The Infallibility Of TheQur'an: Early History Of Children Of Israel, 1999, Adam Publishers &Distributors: Delhi (India), p. 79. For more discussion on al-Aziz see 87-88. Fatoohiand al-Dargazelli also arrived at the conclusion that al-Aziz means someoneoccupying a high position and that it is not a name.

[4] C. F. Mariottini, "Potiphera" in D. N. Freedman (Editor-in-Chief), The AnchorBible Dictionary , 1992, Volume 5, Doubleday: New York, p. 427. Also see D. B.Redford, "Potiphar", ibid., pp, 426-427; K. A. Kitchen, "Potiphar" and "Potiphera" inJ. D. Douglas (Organizing Editor),New Bible Dictionary, 1982, Second Edition,Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester (UK) and Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.: Wheaton(IL). p. 951; J. Vergote,Joseph En gypt: Gensis Chap. 37-50 La Lumire Destudes gyptologiques Rcents, 1959, Orientalia Et Biblica Lovaniensia III,Publications Universitaires: Louvain and Instituut Voor Orientalisme: Leuven, pp.147-148. Also see a critical review of Vergote's book by K. A. Kitchen inJournal Of

Egyptian Archaeology, 1961, Volume 47, p. 161. Kitchen says that Vergote retains"the universally admitted P3-dj(w)-p3-Rc for Potiphar/phera."; J. K. Hoffmeier,IsraelIn Egypt: The Evidence For The Authenticity Of The Exodus Tradition, 1999,Oxford University Press: Oxford (UK), p. 84.

David Rohl, on the other hand, has very little discussion for the word Potiphar in hisbook. He only suggests "Potiphar: Possibly Egy. Padipare." See D. M. Rohl,A TestOf Time, 1995, Volume I: The Bible - From Myth To History, Random House UKLtd.: London, p. 27.


15/18

15

Strangely enough Leah Bronner'sBiblical Personalities And Archaeology, 1974,Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd.: Jerusalem, p. 38, did not even discuss the

connection between biblical personality Potiphar and archaeology! Bronner is contentwith mentioning Potiphar's name.

[5] For the names ofP3-di+the name of a godformulation see H. Ranke,Diegyptischen Personennamen , 1935, Volume 1, Verlag Von J. J. Augustin InGlckstadt, pp. 121-126 and H. Ranke,Die gyptischen Personennamen, 1952,Volume 2, Verlag Von J. J. Augustin: Glckstadt/Hamburg and J. J. Locust Publisher:Locust Valley (NY), pp. 284-285.

[6] A. Hamada, "Stela Of Putiphar",Annales Du Service Des Antiquits DeL'gypte, 1939, Volume 39, pp. 273-276; For the dating of this stela also see A. R.Schulman, "On The Egyptian Name Of Joseph: A New Approach", Studien Zur

Altgyptischen Kultur, 1975, Volume 2, p. 238, note 17.

There also exists an interesting amulet written in semitic characters mentioning thename Potiphar (no ayin!) dated to 6th century BCE. See J. Leibovitch, "UneAmulette gyptienne Au Nom De Putiphar",Annales Du Service Des Antiquits

De L'gypte , 1943, Volume 43, pp. 87-90.

[7] A. Hamada, "Stela Of Putiphar",Annales Du Service Des Antiquits DeL'gypte, 1939, op. cit., Plate 39. For translation of stela see pp. 273-275. Therelevant lines are translated as:

Over the head of the deceased (the tall man, fifth from right):

The superintendent of the Chamber of Ptah who is under his olive tree Putiphar son of Ankh-

Hor.

Four lines of large hieroglyphs written from right to left.

A boon which the King gives Osiris, the Spirit of his Olive-tree, that he may give offerings

consisting of bread, beer, oxen, fowls and every good and pure th ing on which the god lives to

the Ka of the revered, the guardian of the chamber of Ptah who is under his olive-tree, Putiphar

son of Ankh-Hor [born of....] mistress of reverence for ever.

[8] Sir E. A. W. Budge,An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 1920, John Murray:London, p. 256; A. Hamada, "Stela Of Putiphar",Annales Du Service Des

Antiquits De L'gypte, 1939, Volume 39, pp. 273-276; H. Ranke,Die gyptischenPersonennamen, 1935, Volume 1, op. cit., p. 123. Ranke, however, does not give any


16/18

16

hieroglyph for Potiphar or Potiphera; Also see C. Lagier, "Putiphar", in F. Vigouroux,Dictionnaire De La Bible, 1912, Volume 5, col. 883-894. Although the reference is

slightly out-of-date, Lagier's treatment is quite comprehensive.

[9] A. Hamada, "Stela Of Putiphar",Annales Du Service Des Antiquits DeL'gypte, 1939, op. cit., p. 275; K. A. Kitchen, "Potiphera" in J. D. Douglas(Organizing Editor),New Bible Dictionary, 1982, Second Edition, op. cit., p. 951.

Rec was the sun-god of ancient Egypt. For more details see "Re" in M. Lurker, TheGods And Symbols Of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary, 1986 (Reprint),Thames And Hudson: London, p. 100.

[10] N. Grimal (Trans. Ian Shaw),A History Of Ancient Egypt, 1988 (1992 print),Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, p. 393.

[11] J. M. A. Janssen, "Egyptological Remarks On The Story Of Joseph InGenesis",Jaarbericht Van Het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente

Lux, 1955-1956, Volume 5, No. 14, pp. 67-68.

[12] K. A. Kitchen, On The Reliability Of The Old Testament, 2003, Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Company: Michigan, pp. 346-347; Nearly a similar argument is

made by K. A. Kitchen, "Genesis 12-50 In The Near Eastern World", in R. S. Hess,G. J. Wenham & P. E. Satterthwaite (Eds.),He Swore An Oath: Biblical ThemesFrom Genesis 12-50, 1994, The Paternoster Press: Carlisle (UK) and Baker BookHouse: Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 85-86. Kitchen says on p. 86:

Potiphera is of a form that began in the New Kingdom, going on through the Late Period; it is

simply the modernised form of an older type of name with the same meaning (going back

massively to the Middle Kingdom).

Also see K. A. Kitchen, "Potiphera" in J. D. Douglas (Organizing Editor),New Bible

Dictionary, 1982, Second Edition, op. cit., p. 951. Kitchen says:

inscriptionally attested only late (c. 1000-300 BC), but is merely a full Late-Egyptian form of

this name-type which is known from the Empire period, especially the 19th Dynasty (13th

century BC), the age of Moses. Potiphera / P'-di-P'-R may be simply a modernization in Moses'

time of the older form Didi-R, with the same meaning, of the name-pattern (DiDi-X) which is

particularly common in the Middle Kingdom and Hyksos periods, i.e., the patriarchal and

Joseph's age (c. 2100-1600 BC).[12]


17/18

17

Kitchen's view that P3-di-p3-Rc originated fromDidi-Rc via P3-didi-(p)Rc is alsorepeated by James K. Hoffmeier in hisIsrael In Egypt: The Evidence For The

Authenticity Of The Exodus Tradition , 1999, op. cit., p. 85.

[13] K. A. Kitchen, On The Reliability Of The Old Testament, 2003, op. cit., p. 359.A similar statement is made by Donald B. Redford in his Egypt, Canaan, And Egypt

In Ancient Times, 1992, Princeton University Press: Princeton (NJ), p. 424. Redfordsays concerning the formulation P3-di+the name of a god:

These begin at the close of the New Kingdom, increase in frequency in the 21st and 22nd

Dynasties, and became very common from the Kushote 25th Dynasty to Greco-Roman times.

Compare Kitchen and Redford's treatment with uncritical blanket statements ofWilliam Ward where he claims that the story of Joseph in Genesis has been "proven"to be a historical narrative. See W. A. Ward, "Egyptian Titles In Genesis 39-50",

Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 14, 1957, pp. 40-59. For a treatment on Potiphar see pp.41-42.

[14] N. Grimal (Trans. Ian Shaw),A History Of Ancient Egypt, 1988 (1992 print),op. cit., pp. 389-395.

[15] D. B. Redford,A Study Of The Biblical Story Of Joseph (Genesis 37-50),1970, E. J. Brill: Leiden, pp. 136-137.

[16] A. R. Schulman, "On The Egyptian Name Of Joseph: A New Approach",Studien Zur Altgyptischen Kultur, 1975, op. cit., p. 242. Also see his analysis ofnames in pp. 239-241.

[17] K. A. Kitchen, On The Reliability Of The Old Testament, 2003, op. cit., pp.345-347; J. K. Hoffmeier,Israel In Egypt: The Evidence For The Authenticity OfThe Exodus Tradition, 1999, op. cit., pp. 84-87.

[18] A. R. Schulman, "On The Egyptian Name Of Joseph: A New Approach",Studien Zur Altgyptischen Kultur, 1975, op. cit., p. 242.

[19] ibid., p. 243. Compare this with view of Engelbach, writing some fifty yearsbefore Schulman, who without any pre-conceived notions, said:

The reconciliation of the names Pacaneah, Putiphrc, and Aseneith with Joseph's probable date

must therefore still be left to those who specialise on this subject.


18/18

18

See R. Engelbach, "The Egyptian Name Of Joseph",Journal Of EgyptianArchaeology, 1924, Volume 10, p. 206.

[20] J. K. Hoffmeier,Israel In Egypt: The Evidence For The Authenticity Of TheExodus Tradition, 1999, op. cit., pp. 88.

[21] See ref. 12.

[22] D. M. Rohl,A Test Of Time, 1995, Volume I: The Bible - From Myth ToHistory, op. cit., pp. 327-348 for a detailed discussion on Joseph in Egypt. We leavethe readers to work this out themselves.

Collected And Organized By Abu Ali Al-Maghribicom.gmail@allah2Submitter

Skype:Abuali-almaghribi

Documents

( Lies Rebuttal Series ) Al-‘Aziz & Potiphar- A Confused Nomenclature