Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

This intriguing passage from the bible spoke of Egypt after Joseph , at first one may balk at the notion of using the bible a religious work as a history book and I certainly don't recommend it, however it does leave clues to real history, in the bible story Joseph was a son of simple shephard folks with very naughty siblings who were so jealous of the showy little brat and his new cloak that they promptly sold him into slavery the first chance they got, they ripped up his new colorful new cloak for good measure and told dad an awful lie , he ended up in Kemet did well after a couple of run ins and ended up becoming a governor with distinction, from there years later there was a happy reunion after playing a You Got Punked game with dad and brothers and lots of goat or sheep with even more sheepherders, all in all life was good.

Some centuries later there was a massive population growth among the anchor babies, to the tune of 600,000 families enough to raise alarm by some politicians and even common folks to get rid of them, back to Canaan with you; Kemet is for Kemetians, Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. from there everyone knew what happened.
But was there an historical Joseph?? the answer is yes, according to the Kemetian King's list of the Hyksos era a King not some mere Shepherd boy or Governor ruled kemet,well the lower part of it anyways he was one of many Kings of that era with distinctly Semitic names

Scarab with the cartouche of Yaqub-Har
in the British Museum

The dynasty to which Yaqub-Har belongs is debated, with Yaqub-Har being seen either as a 14th dynasty king, an early Hyksos ruler of the 15th dynasty or a vassal of the Hyksos kings. Yaqub-Har is attested by a no less than 27 scarab-seals. Three are from Canaan, four from Egypt, one from Nubia and the remaining 19 are of unknown provenance.The wide geographic repartition of these scarab indicate the existence of trade relations between the Nile Delta, Canaan and Nubia during the second intermediate period
en.wikipedia.org...

This was a period of strife after the collapse of the Middle kingdom, Kush broke away and started flexing their muscles taking chunks out of upper Kemet , Canaanites moving in from the Levant taking control of the delta even Hurrians an indo-European people got in on the act as it is believed that it was they who introduced the Chariot to the region.
Thus if there was a Joseph it would have been Yaqub Har for Joseph is Yaqub in the Semitic languages, if this was the case then the supposed reasons behind any oppression by kemetians was the result of war because the Kemetians were entrenched in upper Kemet where they strived to fight off both Kush-ites and Hyksos, they were mostly friendless the only help they had was from one of the Ta-Nahasi ethnic group called the Medjay .

Medjay bowmen they will be repaid later by the Pharaohs by becoming the police force and guards for centuries to come, some have speculated that the 17th dynasty were partially from this background
As a matter of fact Kush's power extended way passed Upper Kemet for there was a King of the delta named Nahasi so tight were the relations between them that Apophis called on a newly crowned King to come north and divide up the land between them.

“I intercepted your message south of the (Dakhla?) oasis as it was going south to Kush in a written letter; I found in it the following, written by the hand of the ruler of Avaris: “Aa-User-Re, the son of Re Apophis greets the son of the ruler of Kush. Why have you arisen as ruler without letting me know? Do you understand what Egypt has done to me? The ruler which is in her midst, Kamose the mighty, given life, is attacking me on my own land, without me having attacked him, in the same way of all he has done against you. He will choose one of the two lands to destroy it, mine or yours! Destroy it for him! Come, sail north, do not be weak! See, he is here with me! Nothing is for you who stands up for this part of Egypt! See, I will not let him run away until you arrive! Then we shall divide the towns of this Egypt and Henet-hen-nefer shall rejoice.” (ll. 19-
www.academia.edu...

So this was a war of liberation the 17th dynasty was the restoration dynasty the King who knew not Joseph was none other than Ahmose for while his brother Kamose took the fight to their enemies it was Ahmose that completed the job his father and brother died in combat.

Seqenre Taa father of Kamose and Ahmose died in combat .
Ahmose would not have been too keen on Levantine population that may have stayed behind.

just locking this in so i can track it easier.

originally posted by: [post=19862316]Spider879
Thus if there was a Joseph it would have been Yaqub Har for Joseph is Yaqub in the Semitic languages,

no, Yaqub is Arabic for Jacob, not Joseph, so I don't think this works, Jacob is a very common name.
A great man once said,

at first one may balk at the notion of using the bible a religious work as a history book and I certainly don't recommend it

neither do I

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: [post=19862316]Spider879
Thus if there was a Joseph it would have been Yaqub Har for Joseph is Yaqub in the Semitic languages,

no, Yaqub is Arabic for Jacob, not Joseph, so I don't think this works, Jacob is a very common name.
A great man once said,

at first one may balk at the notion of using the bible a religious work as a history book and I certainly don't recommend it

neither do I

i agree with you Yaqub (arabic) = Jacob , Yousuf (arabic) = Joseph

and spider, you should be told, that the story of Joseph is regarded as a Wisdom novella. i.e. its fiction

In the early 20th century Hermann Gunkel suggested that, unlike the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob stories, the Joseph story formed a single unitary story with literary rather than oral origins. In 1953 Gerhard von Rad made a detailed assessment of its literary artistry and drew attention to its identity as a Wisdom novella, and in 1968 R.N. Whybray argued that unity and artistry implied a single author. All three insights are now widely accepted

Joseph is fiction

Also, it was written much later than the time its set in

and the majority of modern biblical scholars date the Joseph story in its current form to the 5th century BCE Persian era at the earliest

a reply to: Marduk

Much thanks for the correction, and yes I knew the story was largely fiction I was just wondering if there was anything like a Joseph it would be in the Hyksos era given the names of the Semitic kings, but like you said my connection with the name wouldn't work in any case.

a reply to: Marduk

I believe this is correct.

I had an Ethiopan Jew that worked for me once named Yaqob, and bristled at "Jacob".

I believe Joseph would be "Yosep"?

a reply to: Spider879

I believe Joseph was Imhotep.

This second part may also be connected. Imhotep built a pyramid for Djoser possibly (Joseph) and the bones were robbed which would have fulfilled Joseph's oath with Isreal.

Exodus 13:19
Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the Israelites swear an oath. He had said, "God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place."

Here is a website that compares the biblical story of Joseph to the Egyptian story of Imhotep. Nearly identical stories.
www.s8int.com...

SnF

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Spider879

I believe Joseph was Imhotep.

So you're saying that someone who is known to be completely Egyptian, was actually a Jew, who lived about 1600 years before Judaism existed

Here is a website that compares the biblical story of Joseph to the Egyptian story of Imhotep. Nearly identical stories.
www.s8int.com...

The website is a creationist Christian resource, for example the claim that he died aged 110 is fabricated, pretty much the rest of the claims have no credible support either

a reply to: Spider879

Genesis 41:45 Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt.

Was not the custom to give them Egyptian names?

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
Was not the custom to give them Egyptian names?

Totally

Like other foreigners, Joseph assumes an Egyptian name so that he would better fit in Pharaoh’s court and be better accepted by the Egyptian people

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Spider879

Genesis 41:45 Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt.

Was not the custom to give them Egyptian names?

Except when they came in as conquerors, then they might just forego a name change, in any case the Levantines were already pretty Egyptianized so a Kemetic name may not be out of the question

Levantine soldier in Kemet 18th dyn with Kemite? wife and son the hookah pipe (no snickering) seemed very old. if anyone can gleen a name from the hieroglyphics pls do.

originally posted by: Spider879
[Except when they came in as conquerors, then they might just forego a name change,.

Nope, They always adopted at a minimum a throne name, it prevented unrest.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Spider879
[Except when they came in as conquerors, then they might just forego a name change,.

Nope, They always adopted at a minimum a throne name, it prevented unrest.
en.wikipedia.org...

True a throne name if they wanted to rule as Pharaoh would be pertinent, their personal names however may remained unchanged.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Spider879
[Except when they came in as conquerors, then they might just forego a name change,.

Nope, They always adopted at a minimum a throne name, it prevented unrest.
en.wikipedia.org...

True a throne name if they wanted to rule as Pharaoh would be pertinent, their personal names however may remained unchanged.

evidence ?


I've posted this question in an academic egyptological group, I'll let you know if they come up with anything

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Spider879
[Except when they came in as conquerors, then they might just forego a name change,.

Nope, They always adopted at a minimum a throne name, it prevented unrest.
en.wikipedia.org...

True a throne name if they wanted to rule as Pharaoh would be pertinent, their personal names however may remained unchanged.

evidence ?

Yakbim Sekhaenre
Ya'ammu Nubwoserre
Qareh Khawoserre
'Ammu Ahotepre
Wazad
Yakareb
Yaqub-Har
Khyan
Khamudi
en.wikipedia.org...
All Non Kemetian names
One may throw in some of the Greek dynast as well, most favorite of which was one Cleopatra.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Yep completely agree.

I believe the story of Joseph and his brothers is a back story created to link the tribes together. The tribes are not literal sons of Jacob, but a conglomerate of peoples that came together. Joseph represents the Egypt. Judah is likely an eastern tribe, mesopotamian. The influences of the peoples come together to create Israel.