Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Reconnoiter]

How much historical proof is there of the Joseph story? What pharaoh did he serve under? Where do current scholar's findings place this event in the time line?

[jimwalton]

Many scholars don't consider the Joseph story to be historical, but I do. There is no specific historical evidence of Joseph.

It is the practice of the author of the books of Genesis and Exodus not to mention any pharaoh by name. This may have been intentional, since the pharaoh was considered by his people to be a god and the Israelites did not wish to invoke that name.

Kenneth Kitchen argues that Joseph would have entered Egypt between 1720-1700 BC. The Egyptian 13th Dynasty already included rulers with Semitic names who reigned briefly between 1795-1640. Based on these dates Joseph would have entered Egypt around the time that the Hyksos were seizing control of Avaris in the NW Nile delta. By a 19th Dynasty model, Joseph would have served one of the Hyksos kings, which is also what Josephus claimed, but we don't know which one.

Part of the problem is that after Ahmose I drove the Hyksos from Egypt, the 18th Dynasty destroyed almost all evidence of the Hyksos presence. Nearly the only surviving evidence for the Hyksos are the king lists, many scarabs, a brief note by Hatshepsut, the 400-year stela, a Late Egyptian story, and archaeological evidence from Avaris. Only a limited amount of history can be reconstructed from that data.

Other scholars claim that the Joseph story could fit the Amarna Age (14th c. BC), when large numbers of Semites were either settled in Egypt or mentioned in Egyptian sources as serving in government positions.

Even if either of these dates are accepted, Egyptian chronology cannot be resolved finely enough to determine the identity of Joseph’s pharaoh. Egyptian chronology during the Middle Kingdom has been based on a Sothic text that was found at the temple of Pharaoh Sesostris II at Illahun, a text that has been challenged by other discoveries.

If Merrill’s chronology is correct, Joseph would have been released from prison in 1876 BC, and the 7 years of abundance would have been roughly 1886-1871 BC, in which case he would have served Sesostris I and Amenemhat II (by low chronology), or Amenemhat II and Sesostris II (by high dates).

That's about as close as we can get, which isn't much. But what can you do when the records were destroyed?

Just as a post script, Doug Petrovich claims to have found evidence of the name Asenath (the name of Joseph's wife, Gn. 41.45) among the proto-consonantal inscriptions of Sinai 375a. It dates to the 15th century BC. This will be very interesting if it stands scrutiny and more scholarly study.

[Reconnoiter]

Thanks for your response! Very interesting. Makes you wonder just how much of our history is truly lost to us.

So, is locating a section in Egyptian history (around that time) of 7 years of prosperity followed by 7 years of famine difficult?

[jimwalton]

Tons of history is lost to us, even in well-known places like Egypt.

In another answer to another question ("Hey, why don't we have other contemporary 1st-c. authors writing about Jesus? How come the Gospels are the only accounts? That sounds fishy to me!"), there are just too many lost documents. Mike Licona writes, "The majority of writings have been lost. We have only half of Tacitus's work. All but a fragment of Thallus's Mediterranean History is gone. The writings of Asclepiades of Mendes are gone. Nicholas of Damascus (the secretary of Herod the Great) wrote his Universal History in 144 books: none have survived. Papias's work is lost. Josephus's originals are gone (except for what we have through Eusebius). Quadratus wrote to Emperor Hadrian—all lost."

And this is first century stuff. Push that envelope back 1500 years, and the quantity of documentation still in existence drops calamitously. There just isn't THAT much to find from 3500 years ago.

I heard an archaeologist once say that even in the best of situations where we have to most information, we probably only know about 3% of what went on. And yet Christians get DRILLED for lack of corroborating documentation, to the point where the Bible isn't believed. But it's just not realistic to demand corroboration at every turn "or I won't believe it".

> So, is locating a section in Egyptian history (around that time) of 7 years of prosperity followed by 7 years of famine difficult?

Yes, sequences of plenty and famine were frequent. It's part of the ecosystem of the region. Finding this particular 14-year chunk is close to impossible. The other thing, of course, is that we don't even necessarily have records of most of them, and they don't exactly leave a lot behind for future scientists to find. In other words, we're lucky when we have ANY mention of them.

[Reconnoiter]

Thanks for the information. Really appreciate it.

I'd like to stay on the topic of Joseph, but switch gears a little bit. It's been brought to my attention, through a conversation with my Bible study group, that Joseph was plagued with pride in his early years. I never really bought that argument. I understand that telling his brothers the extent his dreams was regrettable. However, at the age of 17, I don't necessarily consider that pride as much as a lack of self awareness. Your thoughts?

I also want to focus on Genesis chapter 40. When the butler and baker asked Joseph about his dreams in verse 8 Joseph says, "Interpreting dreams is God's business," but then replies, "Go ahead and tell me your dreams." Is this an act a pride or cockiness? Referencing that only God can interpret dreams but then saying go ahead and tell me anyway?

Then in verses 14-15, Joseph asks the butler to remember him. In those (2) verses Joseph references himself 8 times (me, I, I'm, my). Does this show he is still too focused on himself and that he is still learning humility? Does this show he's not ready yet to be God's messenger? He's not ready yet?

Finally, in chapter 41, Joseph finally gets in front of Pharaoh and gets his shot. When Pharaoh asks him to interpret his dreams, he gives God all the credit and nothing directed back to himself, saying, "It is beyond my power to do this, but God can tell you what your dreams mean and set you as ease." Does this mean Joseph is finally humbling himself? One could think so, because this is where he catches his big break. Or maybe, Joseph didn't want to take the full responsibility of interpreting these dreams because he if he was wrong, he could have been put to death. So was he using God as a buffer? There was no pressure interpreting the dreams of two prisoners, but for Pharaoh the stakes would be high.

Your thoughts?

What do you think of all this?

[jimwalton]

It's a matter of interpretation what we think of Joseph. I was shocked about 10 years ago, as I was in conversation with a rabbi, that the Jews regard Joseph as one of the most despicable characters in all of Scripture. They hate him. "He is the one who sold our people into slavery for 400 years." That's interesting, because we Christians look at him as a hero, and very much a Christ-like figure. I learned a lot from that conversation.

I can at the very least tell you that if nothing else, Joseph has to tell the dreams when he was 17 for literary purposes and for the purpose of the narrative. If he doesn't tell his dreams, we don't know the prophecies, and we wouldn't recognize God's hand in bringing Joseph to power. So somehow we have to find out about the dreams for the story to make sense. But that's just from a literary vantage point.

So it comes down to trying to assess Joseph's spirit while going through this.

The narrative is told rather concisely. We're really not given verbal or literary clues about Joseph's attitude about it. The very first thing we hear about Joseph is that he gives a bad report. How are we to interpret this opening salvo? First and foremost (the biggest reason the author put it in) is that it is setting up the antagonism in the family. We have to know why the brothers hate him. As far as analyzing Joseph, we have to try to determine if this is evidence of moral sensitivity (he won't close a blind eye to wrong) or of a stuck-up tattle-tale brat? The text doesn't give us any clues.

Then we find out Joe is a favorite of Daddy's. That's not his own fault, or any reflection on his character. It's again in the story to set up more antagonism with the brothers.

Stage 3: the dreams—setting up more antagonism (37.5). See, these factors are put in to escalate the antagonism, not really to tell us anything about Joe. But do they tell us about Joe anyway? Joseph doesn't seem to know it's a theophany. The question is: Is he communicating it because he recognizes its prophetic nature, or is he being a pompous punk? We aren't given a clue. We are told the brothers' attitude (hate, 37.8), but not Joseph's. The point is really prophecy (as mentioned before) and antagonism. We need to know these things to understanding the story and what God is doing. It seems to me he's aware of his role as prophet and won't back down from it, but that's just my take, and it comes from the next 2 verses.

Then his father, Jacob, rebukes him (37.10). Joseph doesn't back down, as would have been not only typical but expected in a culture where dishonor one's father was regarded as shaming the family. But Joseph doesn't apologize, or bow in respect, or anything, which makes me think he knows it's prophetic and it takes precedence over family relationships. Jacob seems to be aware of that as well, and "ponders it in his heart" (37.11). To me this is more informative than anything else, and I tend to interpret Joseph as noble and godly rather than proud and nasty.

> I also want to focus on Genesis chapter 40. When the butler and baker asked Joseph about his dreams in verse 8 Joseph says, "Interpreting dreams is God's business," but then replies, "Go ahead and tell me your dreams." Is this an act a pride or cockiness? Referencing that only God can interpret dreams but then saying go ahead and tell me anyway?

If we pop up to chapter 40, it wouldn't make sense for Joe to say, "Interpreting dreams is God's business. Tell them to God." The butler and baker would have spoken to their Egyptian gods, not to YHWH. Joseph perceives himself, and I think rightly so, to be God's mediator and mouthpiece. Joseph was aware of this (cf. Gn. 41.16, 28). I interpret him as being aware how God speaks to him. There is no "Look at how cool I am" in it.

> Or maybe, Joseph didn't want to take the full responsibility of interpreting these dreams because he if he was wrong, he could have been put to death.

I think it's better to see Joseph as confident in his God, similar to Daniel. He knows how God acts, and how God speaks to him, and how God has been using him, so he speaks with full confidence and faith. I don't see him as passing the buck to cover his own butt. He's giving credit where credit is due.

That's just my take on it. You wanted my thoughts, and those are it. But others obviously disagree, and that's OK. We really aren't told too much about Joseph's heart. I see it as pure and prophetic, full of faith and confidence.

[Reconnoiter]

Thanks, Jim!

I appreciate your perspective.