Does Joseph = Imhotep?
- Thread starter GodisONE
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
that is a definite clue they cannot find the remains of such a high ranking, wealthy man like Imhotep. and knowing that Joseph had his bones sent to the Promised Land makes this bit of information even more intriguing, concerning not being able to locate Imhotep.
it is all very interesting indeed!!
with all of your research you have applied to this thought of Joseph and Imhotep being one and the same person, do you believe it is possible they are the same person?
Yes I believe it's possible. Reason demands that there has to be independent historical records in Egypt confirming the existence of such an influential man as Joseph (but obviously not with the name we know him by), just like there are independent historical records from Rome confirming the existence of Christ.
More than anything, if it's proven to be true it would further provide yet another witness to the world that the scriptural accounts are true.
More than anything, if it's proven to be true it would further provide yet another witness to the world that the scriptural accounts are true.
-
2
- Show all
The Bible, curiously enough, actually records Joseph's Egyptian name - during the time he lived, the Asiatics (mainly Hebrews) in Egypt would have spoken Egyptian in varying degrees of fluency, so Joseph’s name would not have been an issue. Later on in time though (after the Exodus), having been passed on only in oral tradition, by the time it came to be written, the original Egyptian got a bit scrambled up.
The Bible gives the Egyptian, but via Hebrew “pronunciation” if you will – a lot like a news reporter pronouncing say a Chinese diplomat’s name, it’s going to be very Anglicized. Same thing here.
So, the Bible gives it (in Hebrew spelling) as: Sâfenath Pa’nêah (there’s actually a dot beneath the initial ‘S’), or as we have it in English “Zaphenath paaneah”.
The first part of his name isn’t actually the name at all; it’s a common Egyptian formula for naming a foreigner.
In Egyptian it’s: Djed-en-ef.
This is, as archaeologists call it, “Egypto-speech”. Egyptians, like their neighbors, didn’t write vowels, so modern day Linguists and Egyptologists insert an ‘e’ between the consonants to make the words pronounceable.
Djed-en-ef means “he who is called”.
Pa ‘neah is “pa ankh” – “the living (one)”. There’s another rendering of ‘ankh’ we’ll get to in a minute.
A fitting name, and perhaps a bit of Egyptian humor on pharaoh’s part, since his relatives thought him dead, he calls him “The Living”.
But there’s also another possibility – ‘pa’ as a separate definite article comes rather late in Egyptian; likely an influence from Greek.
It’s quite possible that “pa” is actually “pi” which is a corrupted form of “Ipi”. “Ipi, is how the Egyptians would have rendered the Hebrew name “Joseph”.
The ‘ankh’, could also be ‘ankhu’ meaning “is alive”.
Thus, if we go with the second rendering of pa’aneah as “Ipi Ankhu”, Joseph’s Egyptian name is actually his own: “Joseph Is Living”.
Imhotep (Egy.: ii-m-htp) is not the same person. I don't think they would have even been contemporaries.
The Bible gives the Egyptian, but via Hebrew “pronunciation” if you will – a lot like a news reporter pronouncing say a Chinese diplomat’s name, it’s going to be very Anglicized. Same thing here.
So, the Bible gives it (in Hebrew spelling) as: Sâfenath Pa’nêah (there’s actually a dot beneath the initial ‘S’), or as we have it in English “Zaphenath paaneah”.
The first part of his name isn’t actually the name at all; it’s a common Egyptian formula for naming a foreigner.
In Egyptian it’s: Djed-en-ef.
This is, as archaeologists call it, “Egypto-speech”. Egyptians, like their neighbors, didn’t write vowels, so modern day Linguists and Egyptologists insert an ‘e’ between the consonants to make the words pronounceable.
Djed-en-ef means “he who is called”.
Pa ‘neah is “pa ankh” – “the living (one)”. There’s another rendering of ‘ankh’ we’ll get to in a minute.
A fitting name, and perhaps a bit of Egyptian humor on pharaoh’s part, since his relatives thought him dead, he calls him “The Living”.
But there’s also another possibility – ‘pa’ as a separate definite article comes rather late in Egyptian; likely an influence from Greek.
It’s quite possible that “pa” is actually “pi” which is a corrupted form of “Ipi”. “Ipi, is how the Egyptians would have rendered the Hebrew name “Joseph”.
The ‘ankh’, could also be ‘ankhu’ meaning “is alive”.
Thus, if we go with the second rendering of pa’aneah as “Ipi Ankhu”, Joseph’s Egyptian name is actually his own: “Joseph Is Living”.
Imhotep (Egy.: ii-m-htp) is not the same person. I don't think they would have even been contemporaries.
-
1
- Show all
I definitely thank you for responding!!
I just find it amazing how both Joseph and Imhotep are credited for helping a 7 year famine, being second in command to the Pharoah, both had same titles, both credited for building the step pyramid, both called the vizer or advisor in spiritual things, medicine, music to the people of Egypt.
it would be a great connection for scripture to those who don't believe scripture connects to history!!
U
Yes and Jesus also said to remove the beam from your own eye and then you can remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Jesus understood human nature very well, because it is nearly impossible to remove the beam from one's own eye since most people do not even know it is there, they are always focused on the speck in the other person's eye.
Your attack was personal and offensive and served no purpose.
Not everyone agrees here, you need to be able to let it go when people disagree and not make it personal.
Jesus understood human nature very well, because it is nearly impossible to remove the beam from one's own eye since most people do not even know it is there, they are always focused on the speck in the other person's eye.
Your attack was personal and offensive and served no purpose.
Not everyone agrees here, you need to be able to let it go when people disagree and not make it personal.
-
1
- Show all
I agree, but in this case here it would be a bit of a false connection - Imhotep predates Joseph by something like almost 1.000 years.
Not to change the subject, but as far as a historical connection with Biblical narrative, a great example is the Tower of Babel narrative with respect to a common language diverging off into many. Once the religious allegory is removed, it's is a pretty remarkable account of what actually happened historically with Proto-Semitic (the one 'common language' referenced in the narrative) breaking of and developing into several related languages. See https://christianchat.com/blogs/the-babel-narrative-and-a-common-language-1-of-2.176686/ and christianchat.com/blogs/the-babel-narrative-and-a-common-language-2-of-2.176687/
Not to change the subject, but as far as a historical connection with Biblical narrative, a great example is the Tower of Babel narrative with respect to a common language diverging off into many. Once the religious allegory is removed, it's is a pretty remarkable account of what actually happened historically with Proto-Semitic (the one 'common language' referenced in the narrative) breaking of and developing into several related languages. See https://christianchat.com/blogs/the-babel-narrative-and-a-common-language-1-of-2.176686/ and christianchat.com/blogs/the-babel-narrative-and-a-common-language-2-of-2.176687/