he Neo-Babylonian period see also Meissner 1920: 365-66 and the references there; also 1936: 35-36.14. Meissner 1920: 366; 1936: 36; Mendelsohn 1949:

idered it a Hebrew construct of Egyptian type, not origin (1975: 241).19. For a list of some objectors, see Schulman 1975: 240, n. 26. Schulman’s suggestion (241) that Joseph’s appointment marked "the beginning of a new life for him," and that hence a birth-name would not come amiss, seems implausible. A Hebrew narrator looking for an Egyptian name had plenty to choose from other than this kind.20. We may safely lay aside both the philologically brilliant but onomatologically improbable solution offered by J. Vergote (1959: 142-46) based on a conflation of the LXX and Masoretic forms, and the weird and wonderful equivalents produced by some early investigators (for a sampling, see Vergote 1959: 151-52).21. For Hebrew, see Brown, Driver and Briggs 1963: 860-61; for Aramaic and Phoenician, see Jean and Hoftijzer 1965: 246; for Amarna Canaanite, see Gelb, Landsberger and Oppenheim 1962: 96b; for Ugaritic, see Gordon 1965: 475:2185. Here and in what follows, I use a simplified transcription of Egyptian and Semitic names, for technical reasons.22. In Erman and Grapow (1931: 568, 571-72), there is no root dj-p-n, and only four items under di-f-n (three of Graeco-Roman date).23. See the references given by Erman and Grapow (1931); Erman and Grapow 1953: 92, to p. 623:1.24. Erman and Grapow (1931: 568, 571-72; 1953: 92, to p. 623:1). In Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, a variant iw djad.tu-naf occurs, taking this construction back to ca.1800 BC; see Hayes 1955: 1:5, 6, 10, etc.25. This solution was partly foreseen by Engelbach (1924: 204-206), but he did not work out the philological details, nor provide a solution to the pa‘aneah segment.26. In Djad, "say/call," the d would normally become a t, and by the Late Period (1100 BC onwards) dropped away completely; but in this construction, the d > t would be protected by the following na.f in status pronominalis, as in feminine nouns with suffixes (cf. Gardiner 1957: §78, obs., and p. 432 end). The verbal suffix .t(u) would coalesce with (or even replace) the d > t of the djad to which it was affixed. Either way, the result is a djad/t-naf, from the Middle Kingdom to at least the New Kingdom and probably later. For another metathesis from Egyptian into Semitic (r and n), cf. Eg. Bakenranef (as *Bukun-rinip) appearing in Assyrian as Bukur-ninip in Ranke 1910: 27.27. Ranke 1935: 15:3, of New-Kingdom date. Slightly modified, this is accepted by Vergote (1959: 149-50).28. The name Potiphar (no ’ayin) is incised in Hebrew or Aramaic script (mid-first millennium BC?) on an Egyptian sacred-eye amulet (Michailides Collection); see Leibovitch 1943: 87-90, fig. 25. The amulet may be genuine; but has the Semitic epigraph been scratched on in more recent times?29. References in Ranke 1935: 124:16 (after Daressy) for Pa-di-Re; 125:21 for Pa-di-Khons.30. For these names, which abound in the Middle Kingdom, cf. Ranke 1935: 401-404, passim.31. In tombs of Paheri and Qenamun (Ranke 1935: 375:3, 4).32. Full publication, Kitchen and Beltrão 1991, 1: 64/65-66/67; 2: pl. 45; on the foreigners, cf. Kitchen 1990: 635-38; and 1991: 88-89 with fig., p. 90.33. The family of Didia, especially on Louvre C.50; see Lowle 1976: 91-106, figs. 1-2, pls. I-II; also Kitchen 1993: 265-69, and Forthcoming a: 19-21; for notes, Kitchen 1993/4: 222-26, and Forthcoming b.34. There are many examples in Martin 1971: 78-85:984-1088a, pls. 28-42A, passim. For the name, cf. Hebrew Hur (Brown, Driver and Briggs 1963: 301a).35. For the former, see Davies and Gardiner 1926: 10f, pls. V, VI, left (before the king, pl. IV); for the latter, Kitchen 1983: 47.36. Examples, Middle Kingdom, Ward 1982: 170:1472; Fischer 1985: 86:1472.37. As (e.g.) at Jericho, cf. Kenyon 1960 and 1965, passim.38. In brief, cf. (e.g.) Gonen 1992: 240-41, when single-pit burial also came into use.39. Cf. Daressy 1906: 118-19 and pl. (dagger); Lacau 1906: 86-87 [28108], pl. 19:1, 2 (typical Middle-Kingdom box-coffin).BibliographyAlbright, W.F.1952 The Biblical Period. Oxford, England: Blackwell.1954 Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C. Journal of the American Oriental Society 74:222–33.1955



New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 140:27–33.1963 The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper & Row.Atenmüller, H, and Moussa, A.M.1991 Die Inschrift Amenemhets II. Aus dem Ptah-Tempel von Memphis. ein Vorbericht. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 18:1–48 + Tafel 1.Bietak, M.1986 Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. London: The British Academy.1991 Der Friedhof in einem Palastgarten aus der Zeit de späten Mittleren Reiches und andere Forschung sergebnisse aus dem östlichen Nildelta (Tell el-Dab’a 1984–1987). Egypt and the Levant 2:47–75.Bloch-Smith, E.1992 Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTS 123. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press.Boardman, J.1980 The Greeks Overseas, third ed. London: Thames & Hudson.Boyer, G.1958 Archives Royalses de Mari 8. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Brown, F., Driver, S.R., and Briggs, C.A.1963 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, reprint of 1907 ed. with corrections. Oxford, England: Clarendon.Daressy, G.1906 Un poignard du temps des rois Pasteurs (avec 1 planche). Annales du Service de l’Antiquités de l’Egypte 7:115–20, +Figs. 1–3.Davies, N. de Garis, and Gardiner, A.H.1926 The Tomb of Huy (No. 40). London: Egypt Exploration Society.Edzard, D.O.1968 Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends. Munich: Beck.Eichler, B.L.1973 Indenture at Nuzi. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Engelbach, R.1924 The Egyptian Name of Joseph. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 10:204–206.Erman, A., and Grapow, H.1931 Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache 5. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.1953 Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache, die Belegstellen 5. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.Falkenstein, A.1956 Die neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden 1. Munich: Beck.Fischer, H.G.1985 Egyptian Titles. A Supplement. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.Gardiner, A.H.1957 Egyptian Grammar. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Gelb, I.; Landsberger, B.; and Oppenheim, A.L., eds.1962 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 16/S. Chicago: Oriental Institute.Gonen, R.1992 The Late Bronze Age. Pp. 211–57 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Ben-Tor, trans. R. Greenberg. New Haven: Yale University Press.Gordon, C.H.1965 Ugaritic Textbook 3. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.Hamada, A.1939 Stela of Putiphar. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 39:273–77.Hayes, W.C.1955 A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom. New York: The Brooklyn Museum.Jean, C.-F., and Hoftijzer, J.1965 Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l’ouest. Leiden: Brill.Johns, C.H.W.1924 Assyrian Deeds and Documents 3. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Kenyon, K.M.1960 Jericho 1. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.1965 Jericho 2. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.Kitchen, K.A.1957 A Recently Published Egyptian Papyrus and learn french

uo;s final Asiatic campaign, along with the archaeological evidence both of a large gap in time between the destruction of Hazor at the end of Late Br

e that relates both to Late Bronze I and the transition into Late Bronze II. The Israelites were the first occupants of the city after the close of the Late Bronze Age, so the destruction of the final Late Bronze Age city cannot be associated with the destruction of Joshua 11, as another Canaanite occupation and destruction followed that of Joshua’s day, which is made abundantly clear by the narrative in Judges 4. As Wood put it, “The simple (and biblical) solution is that Joshua destroyed an earlier city at Hazor in ca. 1400 BC, while Deborah and Barak administered the coup de grâce in ca. 1230 BC.”[95]This conclusion, borne out by the evidence presented in the preceding discussion, strongly supports the chronological framework of the early-Exodus position, and thus the literal interpretation of numbers such as “480th” in 1 Kgs 6:1. Biblical scholars and teachers would do well to give the biblical text its full day in court before acquiescing to the interpretations of archaeologists or other scholars who use arguments from silence (e.g. the complete lack of material evidence for the Israelite inhabitation of Canaan from 1400–1200 BC) to make claims such as the Israelites’ inability to have occupied the Promised Land before the 13th century BC, especially since such conclusions fan the flames of non-inerrantist, liberal scholars determined to undermine the historicity of the Bible. As Aharoni warned, “Don’t reject the historicity of the Biblical text so easily.”[96] The Bible should be interpreted literally, whenever possible, even though popular scholarship may tempt biblical scholars to take the easy road by reverting to allegorism when interpretive difficulties are encountered or when the pressure to fall in line with the consensus of the scholarly world seems too daunting to overcome.No cuneiform tablet has yet emerged at Hazor—nor may one ever surface, even if an archive is found—that reads, “Joshua has arrived!” But realistically, none should be expected, as the Israelites’ blitzkrieg may not have given Hazor’s residents time to write memorials for posterity or compose many words of outrage, even if they did know their attackers by name. The lack of immediate Israelite inhabitation of Hazor after the destruction under Joshua, implied in the biblical text and confirmed with the spade, also prohibits the expectation that Israelite artifacts will be extracted from the stratum associated with the destruction under Joshua. Finding the archive of Late Bronze I Hazor certainly may reveal more about the city’s demise in ca. 1400 BC, but much also could be learned from the excavation of larger portions of the lower city, since the destruction under Joshua undoubtedly is preserved far more extensively there than atop the tel, where rebuilding ventures invariably included the destruction of earlier levels.Footnotes:1.For example, see the debate between James Hoffmeier and Bryant Wood in JETS (James K. Hoffmeier, “What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood,” JETS 50:2 [Jun 2007], 225–47; Bryant G. Wood, “The Biblical Date for the Exodus Is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier,” JETS 50:2 [Jun 2007], 249–58), as well as an attempt by Ralph Hawkins to support the late-exodus theory by means of datable scarabs from Samaria (Ralph K. Hawkins, “Propositions for Evangelical Acceptance of a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest: Biblical Data and the Royal Scarabs from Mt. Ebal,” JETS 50:1 [Mar 2007], 31–46).2. James K. Hoffmeier, “Out of Egypt,” BAR 33:1 (Jan/Feb 2007), 36.3.BryantG. Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” JETS 48:3 (Sep 2005), 489.4. Manfred Bietak, “The Volcano Explains Everything—Or Does It?,” BAR 32:6 (Nov/Dec 2006), 61. Late-exodus proponents should remember that there was also an “invisibility of the Israelites in the archaeology of Canaan between ca. 1200 and 1000” BC (Alan Millard, “Amorites and Israelites: Invisible Invaders—Modern Expectation and Ancient Reality,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 152–53). In light of this later invisibility, an earlier invisibility for the two centuries before this period should not be precluded as a possibility, either. While Bietak is on track when noting the significance of the Merneptah Stele to the presence of the Israelites in Canaan, even this critical Egyptian landmark does not remove the Israelites’ occupational invisibility. In fact, the Merneptah Stele even pronounces the existence of the occupational invisibility of the Israelites, an indisputable point, because the stele dates to a time that is 25 years or more before the archaeologically demonstrable presence of settlements in the Judean hill country.5. Hoffmeier, “What Is the Biblical Date?,” 255.6. For the best and most thorough treatment of Ai’s disputed location, see Bryant G. Wood, “The Search for Joshua’s Ai,” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, ed. Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 205–240. References to valuable resources on Jericho can be found in a subsequent footnote.7. Yigael Yadin and Amnon Ben-Tor, “Hazor,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2, ed. Ephraim Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 595. The upper city was established first, during the Early Bronze Age of the middle of the second millennium BC, while the lower city was founded in the middle of the 18th century BC (Middle Bronze IIB Age), but forever abandoned during the middle third of the 13th century BC (Late Bronze IIB Age), when the final Canaanite city was destroyed (Ibid. 595, 599, 603). The existence of the lower city during the Late Bronze Age, in addition to the expected city on the tel, was unusual for this period, as southern



Levantine sites with more than 12 acres in area
are the exception to the rule (Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge [Jerusalem: Carta, 2006], 63).8. The final city of the Late Bronze (IIB/III) Age (ca. 1300–1200 BC) is designated Stratum 1A in the lower city, and Stratum XIII on the tel. Yadin progressed slightly in his thought as to the dating of this destruction, but he seems to have settled on the second third of the 13th century BC. For example, he stated in a 1972 publication that “it seems most probable that 1A was destroyed during the second third of the thirteenth century” BC (Yigael Yadin, Hazor: The Head of all those Kingdoms, The 1970 Schweich Lectures of the British Academy [London: Oxford University Press, 1972], 108). In a 1993 publication, this statement is virtually repeated, with the addition that this destruction and dating applies both to the upper and lower city, and that conflagration was the cause (Yadin, “Hazor,” in New Encyclopedia, 603). Kitchen prefers lowering the date to at least Rosetta Stone French