Al-ʿAzīz & Potiphar: A Confused Nomenclature?
© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.
First Composed: 24th July 1999
Last Modified: 17th October 2005
Assalamu ʿalaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
It has been claimed by the Christian missionaries that there is a "historical contradiction" in the Qur'an concerning the names Potiphar and ‘ʿAzīz’ in the story of Joseph. 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).
Yet another apologist argues that:
Potiphar vs. Aziz
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 historically accurate attribution, while the Qur'anic ‘ʿAzīz’ is a name erroneously attributed to the same historical character. Furthermore, it is argued that ‘ʿAzīz’ was not an Egyptian name, nor was it known to have been used by the Egyptians during Joseph's time. As far as the variations between the two narratives are concerned, the Qur'an supersedes the 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. The latter also has been claimed as a "historical contradiction" in the Qur'an. Let us now discuss the claim of "historical contradiction" concerning the names Potiphar and ‘ʿAzīz’ in the story of Joseph as narrated in the Bible and the Qur'an.
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 ʿAzīz 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]
(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 ʿAzīz'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 the historical character otherwise referred to as Potiphar in the Bible. The word used is al-ʿAzīz, not ‘ʿAzīz’ as incorrectly understood by the Christian missionaries. Even the translation reads "the ʿAzīz", and not simply ‘ʿAzīz’.
THE QUR'AN EXPLAINS ITSELF!
The issue of the al-ʿAzīz in the story of Joseph can be resolved by applying the most fundamental principle of Qur'anic exegesis: al-Qur'an yufassiru baʿduhu baʿdan, i.e., different parts of the Qur'an explain one another. When Joseph attains a high status in Egypt, his brothers visit him. Joseph is called by his own brothers as al-ʿAzīz in verse 12:88.
It is translated as:
Then, when they came (back) into (Joseph's) presence they said: "Al-ʿAzīz! [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-ʿAzīz (translated as "the exalted one") because he was at that time in charge of the storehouses of Egypt. They called him by the very phrase they would have used in conjunction with any powerful man in the Egyptian administration. This is confirmed by the fact that at that time they had not yet realized that they were speaking to their brother, the very one they once threw down to the bottom of a well and forgot about his fate. Al-Qurṭubī says in the tafsir of the verse:
Then, when they came (back) into (Joseph's) presence they said: al-ʿAzīz meaning al-Mumtaniʿ, i.e., invulnerable, unapproachable.
Hence al-ʿAzīz in the story of Joseph is used to denote the high rank of an official in Egypt. It also denotes a powerful highly-placed officer. Clearly, the presence of the definite article "al-" before ʿAzīz is a strong indication that it is not a name. Even in modern times, Christian and Jewish Arabs might call themselves ʿAzīz (e.g., Tariq ʿAzīz, the former Iraqi minister) but none calls himself al-ʿAzīz. In this scope, the claim that ‘ʿAzīz’ was the name of the historical individual in question results from a misreading of the text. Moreover, when we read Islamic literature (see below) on this matter, nowhere can one find that al-ʿAzīz was believed to be this individual's actual name.
The claim that ‘Aziz’ was the actual name of the Bible's ‘Potiphar’ is even more ridiculous, 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 the man who bought Joseph was Potiphar. They arrived at the real name of the man using circular arguments, i.e., since the Bible says Potiphar was the man who bought Joseph, it must be true. No effort has been made to present the historical evidence to show that the name Potiphar did exist during the time when Joseph was in Egypt. In this section, we would like to go through some of the evidence regarding the existence of 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 the master of Joseph) and the Hebrew Potiphera (the father-in-law of Joseph) is universally accepted as belonging to the formulation P3-di+the name of a god. While names of the P3-di- formulations are occasionally attested in the Egyptian records before the first millennium BCE, it is really from that time on that they were commonly used and are frequently found. But the exact Egyptian original P3-di-p3-Rʿ rendering both the Hebrew Potiphar and the Hebrew Potiphera is attested only once on a stela Cairo JE 65444, which at the earliest dates to the 21st Dynasty of the Third Intermediate Period (Figure 1).
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.
The hieroglyph representing Potiphar, P3-di-p3-Rʿ, is shown below.
Figure 2: Hieroglyph writing of "Potiphar".
The meaning of Potiphar or Potiphera in Egyptian is "the one whom god Reʿ has given", i.e., "the gift of god Reʿ".
The 21st Dynasty reigned in Egypt between c. 1069 - c. 945 BCE during the Third Intermediate Period (c. 1069 - c. 702 BCE). It must be added that before the discovery of the Potiphar stela the nearest sounding name to Potiphar was P3-di-Rʿ dating from the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom Period. Concerning the name Potiphera, Professor Kitchen says:
Finally, Potiphera and Potiphar. The first form is universally recognized as deriving from Egyptian P(a)-di-pareʿ, "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-Deity names 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-pareʿ could be of the thirteenth century or later. Potiphar is usually taken to be the same name with the loss of the final consonant, ʿayin. 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.
Elsewhere he adds:
The form Potiphar(a) is probably a thirteenth-century-onward modernization of Pa-didi-(p)re from an original Didi-re.
Kitchen's speculative and ingenious connection of P3-di-p3-Rʿ with Didi-Rʿ via P3-didi-(p)Rʿ 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 and tabulate it. Unless otherwise stated, specific dates for particular Dynasties and Kings that we quote within this paper are taken from Nicolas Grimal's book, A History of Ancient Egypt. Please note that the exact Egyptian chronologies are slightly uncertain, and all dates are approximate. The reader will find slightly different schemes used in different books. Table I shows the times when Joseph and Moses entered Egypt and the first attestation of Potiphar in ancient Egyptian history.
|Dynasties||Dates BCE (approx.)||Period||Rulers||People|
|3 - 6||c. 2700 - 2200||Old Kingdom|
|7 - 11||c. 2200 - 2040||First Intermediate|
|11 & 12||c. 2040 - 1674||Middle Kingdom|
|13 - 17||c. 1674 - 1553||Second Intermediate||
Sobekhotep II, Chendjer (13th Dynasty).
|18 - 20||c. 1552 - 1069||New Kingdom||Akhenaten (Amenophis IV), Ramesses, Merenptah||Moses|
|21 - 23||c. 1069 - 702||Third Intermediate||Smendes, Osorkon I - II, Shoshenq I - V||Potiphar|
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 of the name "Potiphar" in Egypt post-dates both Joseph and Moses. It is amply clear that the name Potiphar during the time of Joseph is an anachronism.
Apart from the clear circularity in the arguments of the Christian apologists, one can also see their framework, preconceived by the biblical account, consciously or unconsciously tends to fit its "facts" to this framework, rather than to build the framework out of the facts. This is best illustrated by Vargo's concluding statements:
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 his 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 the paradigm of ancient Egyptian history to prove the existence of "Potiphar" during the time 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 his A 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-Rʿ, "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.
Similarly, Alan Schulman, while dealing with various names in the biblical story of Joseph, criticizes scholars like Kitchen, Vergote and others for offering ingenious explanations even though the elements of the story date around 21st - 22nd century BCE. His thesis is supported by the facts that almost all the Egyptian names used in the biblical story of Joseph are late. The presence of late Egyptian names in the biblical story of Joseph is also admitted by Kitchen, Hoffmeier and others but they tend to explain away, often in ingenious ways, to recast the Joseph narrative in the Middle / Second Intermediate period of ancient Egyptian history. Given the fact that Egyptian names in the Joseph narrative are late, Schulman, on the other hand, says that the story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis should not be viewed as history but as a historical novel containing a core of history.
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 flavour.
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 which would have been most familiar to his audience as Egyptian, and these would have been names of the types most common at the time he wrote, not the rare and unusual types which would have been unfamiliar. He argues for the composition of the biblical 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 historical biblical chronology to the period of David and Solomon.
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.
Based on surviving evidence from ancient Egypt, it can be conclusively proven that the name Potiphar is an anachronism during the time of Joseph. Before the discovery of the Potiphar stela the nearest sounding name to Potiphar was P3-di-Rʿ dating from the 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 the Empire period, especially the 19th Dynasty (13th century BC)." Consequently, he offers an ingenious explanation to connect P3-di-p3-Rʿ with Didi-Rʿ via P3-didi-(p)Rʿ. The exact Egyptian original P3-di-p3-Rʿ rendering the name Potiphar or Potiphera appears only once in ancient Egyptian history and dates to the 21st Dynasty in the Third 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 are from the late ancient Egyptian period which suggests that the story of Joseph was written much later after the actual events had occurred. Needless to add that if the Christian apologists insist on using Rohl's revised chronology, the results would be even more devastating for their cause.
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-ʿAzīz and attributed it to Potiphar. They read it as ‘ʿAzīz’ whereas the Qur'an says al-ʿAzīz, which, in context, simply denotes a powerful person of high rank in the Egyptian administration. Had the apologists and missionaries been even vaguely familiar with the basic principles of reading classical Arabic, the issue would have perhaps resolved itself before further unnecessary exertion. There is no one named ‘ʿAzīz’ in Surah Yusuf; rather what is mentioned is al-ʿAzīz. The Arabic definite article "al-", which corresponds to "the" in English indicates that the text in question is not to be understood as a proper name. Taking into account a broad spectrum of early Islamic mufassirun (exegetes) we can understand that al-ʿAzīz was never understood to signify a name, rather, as has been suggested, it denotes a powerful official. As we have already mentioned elsewhere, here we can observe one of the classic missionary and apologist stratagems: that of advancing a preconceived theological understanding of history and then manufacturing supporting evidence to lend verisimilitude to their conclusions, irrespective of how much this contradicts all of the available and well-established historical evidence. ‘ʿSince the Bible says Potiphar, it must be historically true’. Is this type of argumentation indicative of serious 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 is historically accurate. Regardless, their argument is circular and no attempt has been made 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 based on faith; however, one would not expect this to occur at the expense of historical reality.
And Allah knows best!
I. Appendix: Al-ʿAzīz In The Islamic Exegesis
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
The translation of the above is as follows:
Ladies said in the City: "The wife of the ʿAzīz 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-ʿAzīz 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 of al-ʿAzīz which means the minister [al-Wazir] and disapproved her [behaviour] "The wife of the ʿAzīz 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 ḥubban] his love reached to the "shighaf" of her heart which is the envelope of the heart. Al-Daḥak reported from Ibn ʿAbbas: al-shaghaf means deadly love and al-shaghaf is [also] less than that and al-shaghaf is 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-ʿAzīz as al-Wazir often translated as the Vizier, which means the Minister. Consistently, Ibn Kathir drives the same interpretation from the word al-ʿAzīz when commenting on verse 12:51. Without the slightest confusion, Ibn Kathir understood the word al-ʿAzīz as a person of high rank and not a name.
The translation of which is:
Ladies said in the City [wa qalat niswatun fil madinati]
[niswah] is also pronounced nuswah [in Arabic] which is the reading of al-Aʿmash 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-aʿrabu or qala-l-aʿrabu since the story spread among the people of Egypt so much that the women spoke about it.
The wife of the ʿAzīz [imra'at ul-ʿazīzi].
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 [ḥajib], according to Ibn ʿAbbas and others.
In this quote, we notice that al-Qurṭubi does not even bother to comment on the word al-ʿAzīz 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 man possesses; he is believed to have had a baker, a herdsman, a jailer, a secretary, etc. It is obvious that al-ʿAzīz is a powerful man. This is the point conveyed by the Holy Qur'an.
The translation of which is:
Ladies said in the City: "The wife of the ʿAzīz 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 ʿAzīz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self" is that the women started speaking about Joseph and the wife of al-ʿAzīz in the City of Egypt and their news spread widely. And they [the women] said "The wife of the ʿAzīz is seeking to seduce fataha", fataha meaning her slave: [reference] 14650 - Ibn Ḥumayd told us that Salamah told us reporting from Ibn Isḥaq said: and the news spread widely in the town and the women spoke about their story and they said "The wife of the ʿAzīz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self" refering to her slave. As for al-ʿAzīz, it means the King [al-Malik] in the Arabic tongue. For instance, Abu Dawud said [in his poetry]:
durratun ghasa ʿalayha tajirun
jaliyat ‘inda ʿazīzin yawma tall
A pearl for which a merchant dived
sparkled at ʿazīzin when he came
meaning by al-ʿAzīz the King [whom he was praising], it is derived from ʿizzah meaning power and might.
In this quotation, al-Ṭabari understands the word al-ʿAzīz as the king, which gives the same impression of a mighty person, and not a personal name as claimed by the missionaries. He even reminds us that it is derived from the same root as ʿizzah which means might and power. Again, the whole point is that the al-ʿAzīz is a powerful man in Egypt, which is an important detail of Joseph's story. As a matter of fact, this will be the only reason for the imprisonment of Joseph, however innocent he was. Interestingly, in his commentary on verse 12:51, Ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari states a report that mentions the name of Joseph's owner:
[reference] 14843 - Ibn Humayd told us that Salamah told us reporting from Ibn Ishaq said: "Ra‘il 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-Ṭabari understand al-ʿAzīz as someone powerful and influential but also reported that his official's name was Iṭfir. In light of the fact that al-‘Aziz mentioned the Qur'an is but a phrase to denote a powerful person, this last report turns out 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 report mentioning Iṭfir and Ra‘il. As a matter of fact, this is believed to be part of either the isra'iliyyat or any other unconfirmed reports which is often conveyed by al-Ṭabari in his tafsir. For further details, please refer to the article about isra'iliyyat and tafsir. It is worth mentioning that neither Ibn Kathir, who is rather careful in authenticating the reports in his tafsir, nor al-Qurṭubi mention this report in their tafsir.
At this point, we could dismiss the missionaries' claim as void and rest the case.
References & Notes
 R. Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest Growing Religion, 1992, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), p. 140.
 Whilst discussing the claim that al-ʿAzīz is "an anachronistic title" given to Potiphar, the missionaries state: "with special gratitude to Islamic Awareness for making such a big deal about a minor point on a defunct web page, and forcing the issue into public attention." Perhaps unaware that the same issues discussed in "this minor point on a defunct webpage" were thrust into (published) Christian apologist and missionary material before the author's webpage had been created, one is not at loss to foresee the intended meaning of the above sentence, nor, as a result, its factual incoherence. 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 if Saifuallah & Co. hadn't brought it out of obscurity." The missionary website itself was established in 1995.
 L. Fatoohi & S. Al-Dargazelli, History Testifies To The Infallibility Of The Qur'an: Early History Of Children Of Israel, 1999, Adam Publishers & Distributors: Delhi (India), p. 79. For more discussion on al-ʿAzīz see 87-88. Fatoohi and al-Dargazelli also arrived at the conclusion that al-ʿAzīz means someone occupying a high position and that it is not a name.
 C. F. Mariottini, "Potiphera" in D. N. Freedman (Editor-in-Chief), The Anchor Bible 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" in J. 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 Égypt: Genèsis Chap. 37-50 À La Lumière Des Études Égyptologiques Récents, 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 in Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, 1961, Volume 47, p. 161. Kitchen says that Vergote retains "the universally admitted P3-dj(w)-p3-Rʿ for Potiphar/phera."; J. K. Hoffmeier, Israel In 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 his book. He only suggests "Potiphar: Possibly Egy. Padipare." See D. M. Rohl, A Test Of Time, 1995, Volume I: The Bible - From Myth To History, Random House UK Ltd.: London, p. 27.
Strangely enough Leah Bronner's Biblical 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 content with mentioning Potiphar's name.
 For the names of P3-di+the name of a god formulation see H. Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, 1935, Volume 1, Verlag Von J. J. Augustin In Glückstadt, pp. 121-126 and H. Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, 1952, Volume 2, Verlag Von J. J. Augustin: Glückstadt/Hamburg and J. J. Locust Publisher: Locust Valley (NY), pp. 284-285.
 A. Hamada, "Stela Of Putiphar", Annales Du Service Des Antiquités De L'Égypte, 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 Altägyptischen Kultur, 1975, Volume 2, p. 238, note 17.
There also exists an interesting amulet written in semitic characters mentioning the name Potiphar (no ʿayin!) dated to 6th century BCE. See J. Leibovitch, "Une Amulette Égyptienne Au Nom De Putiphar", Annales Du Service Des Antiquités De L'Égypte, 1943, Volume 43, pp. 87-90.
 A. Hamada, "Stela Of Putiphar", Annales Du Service Des Antiquités De L'Égypte, 1939, op. cit., Plate 39. For translation of stela see pp. 273-275. The relevant 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 thing 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.
 Sir E. A. W. Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 1920, John Murray: London, p. 256; A. Hamada, "Stela Of Putiphar", Annales Du Service Des Antiquités De L'Égypte, 1939, Volume 39, pp. 273-276; H. Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, 1935, Volume 1, op. cit., p. 123. Ranke, however, does not give any 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.
 A. Hamada, "Stela Of Putiphar", Annales Du Service Des Antiquités De L'Égypte, 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, The Gods And Symbols Of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary, 1986 (Reprint), Thames And Hudson: London, p. 100.
 N. Grimal (Trans. Ian Shaw), A History Of Ancient Egypt, 1988 (1992 print), Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, p. 393.
 J. M. A. Janssen, "Egyptological Remarks On The Story Of Joseph In Genesis", Jaarbericht Van Het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux, 1955-1956, Volume 5, No. 14, pp. 67-68.
 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 Themes From Genesis 12-50, 1994, The Paternoster Press: Carlisle (UK) and Baker Book House: 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).
Kitchen's view that P3-di-p3-Rʿ originated from Didi-Rʿ via P3-didi-(p)Rʿ is also repeated by James K. Hoffmeier in his Israel In Egypt: The Evidence For The Authenticity Of The Exodus Tradition, 1999, op. cit., p. 85.
 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. Redford says 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 of William 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.
 N. Grimal (Trans. Ian Shaw), A History Of Ancient Egypt, 1988 (1992 print), op. cit., pp. 389-395.
 D. B. Redford, A Study Of The Biblical Story Of Joseph (Genesis 37-50), 1970, E. J. Brill: Leiden, pp. 136-137.
 A. R. Schulman, "On The Egyptian Name Of Joseph: A New Approach", Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur, 1975, op. cit., p. 242. Also see his analysis of names in pp. 239-241.
 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 Of The Exodus Tradition, 1999, op. cit., pp. 84-87.
 A. R. Schulman, "On The Egyptian Name Of Joseph: A New Approach", Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur, 1975, op. cit., p. 242.
 ibid., p. 243. Compare this with view of Engelbach, writing some fifty years before Schulman, who without any pre-conceived notions, said:
The reconciliation of the names Pacaneah, Putiphrēc, and Aseneith with Joseph's probable date must therefore still be left to those who specialise on this subject.
See R. Engelbach, "The Egyptian Name Of Joseph", Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, 1924, Volume 10, p. 206.
 J. K. Hoffmeier, Israel In Egypt: The Evidence For The Authenticity Of The Exodus Tradition, 1999, op. cit., pp. 88.
 See ref. 12.
 D. M. Rohl, A Test Of Time, 1995, Volume I: The Bible - From Myth To History, op. cit., pp. 327-348 for a detailed discussion on Joseph in Egypt. We leave the readers to work this out themselves.
Back To Refutation Of External Contradictions In The Qur'an