1. Joseph’s brothers come to Egypt to buy food. (Gen 42:1-45:15)
1. The Habiru/Hapiru/Apiru people had recently invaded Schechem in Palestine and were causing problems there for Egypt’s vassal kings. Could they be Joseph’s family?:
1. [See the Abiru/Abraham speculation above in Abrek.]
2. Redford describes the Apiru as "a class of gypsy like renegades who hovered on the fringes of the urban society of the Canaanites." He cites M. Greenberg’s The Hab/piru and two JNES articles in his footnote. (200)
3. Desroches-Noblecourt calls the Asian situation "serious" in the later years of Amenhotep III. She says, "The court seemed indifferent to the Hapiru invasion in Palestine encouraged by Labaya…". (151)
4. The Cambridge Ancient History quotes an Amarna letter from Abdi-Kheba which asks "…or shall we do like Labaya and [his sons who] have given the land of Schechem to the ‘Apiru men…?" The Cambridge Ancient History goes on to say, "It has not infrequently been suggested that the episode… may also be reflected in… Genesis XXXIV." (116)
5. Aldred refers to Labaya of Schechem as an Apiru himself. (283)
6. [Could Labaya be related to Laban in the story of Jacob?]
7. Redford quotes a letter from Akhenaten to Aziru as saying "you (Aziru) know that the king does not wish to be hard with the land of Canaan." (201) [If Akhenaten had been raised in Canaan, would this explain his treatment of that land?]
2. "Now Joseph was the governor of the land…." It was also said that he was: equal to Pharaoh; father to Pharaoh; lord of all of Pharaoh’s house; ruler over the whole land of Egypt; and, lord of all Egypt. (Gen 42:6, 44:18, 45:8-9)
1. These titles seem to show a change from in Joseph’s original status in Gen 41:41 where it says only that he was put in charge of the whole land. I think it would be easy to argue that Akhenaten also went through a similar change in status when he received his own name and his pharaonic district. [See the speculation that this was related to having succeeded at his mission in Beyond Measure above.]
2. Akhenaten was not called a "father to Pharaoh". On the contrary, he called the ruling Pharaoh, "father", which is exactly opposite. Is it possible that the object and the subject of the biblical text have become reversed? Not being a linguist, I will not speculate on whether or not this is a likely type of translation error. So, even though there is an obvious correlation here, I will count it as one of the significant differences between the two stories.
3. Pharaoh had Joseph bring his family and all of their belongings from Canaan. (Gen 45:16-46:27)
1. Akhenaten had the ‘Apiru deported from of Canaan:
1. Redford says that "…Akhenaten deported numbers of the ‘Apiru to Nubia". (200) [I would really like to trace down his source for this.]
2. If Akhenaten had really moved his family out of Canaan, would he have said they were being deported? It seems to me that if he wanted to avoid having the Canaanites claim that the Apiru were being rewarded for their (perceived) bad behavior, then he probably would have tried to avoid implying that they were going to be whisked off to live a life of luxury in Egypt. If, instead, Akhenaten had presented the Apiru’s fate as something unpleasant that was being done at the Canaanite’s request, wouldn’t this have worked to his political advantage in the region?
3. Could Akhenaten’s supposed deportation of the Apiru to Nubia help explain why it was necessary for Joseph to later ask Pharaoh for permission to settle them in Egypt [See below], when it had been Pharaoh’s idea to bring them in the first place?
4. Joseph rides out in his chariot to greet his father in Goshen. (Gen 46:28-29)
1. Akhenaten’s use of the chariot is noteworthy, as is the chariot-way at Akhetaten. [See Above – Chariots and Asiatics]
5. Joseph asks for permission to settle his family in Goshen, as shepherds are an abomination to the Egyptians. (Gen 46:30-47:10)
1. I have read that this has been cited as a reason to believe that Joseph’s story occurred after the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, had been driven out of Egypt:
1. Aldred says that it was the founder of this dynasty, the 18th, that drove the Hyksos out of Egypt. (119)
6. His family settles in Goshen, which is in the district of Ramses. (Gen 47:11-12)
1. Akhetaten was home to Asiatics. Their influence can be seen in the advances in faience production:
1. Aldred says that Akhetaten’s growing population included foreigners from Asia and their families. (277)
2. Aldred says, "The decoration of public buildings at Amarna made great use of inlays of polychrome faience, the first appearance of the characteristic Near Eastern contribution to architectural ceramics." [See Plate 9,10 caption] He says this technique "was greatly exploited in the reign of Akhenaten" where "it vied with painting in architectural decoration." (56) He says "the whole effect [was] similar to cloisonné jewelry on a huge scale". (53)
2. [See other similarities between Akhetaten and Goshen below.]
3. Akhetaten was not in the district of Ramses. It also seems clear that no other kings ever had a claim on Akhetaten’s site. But, assuming that Akhetaten was indeed the one place where Akhenaten’s reign was supreme, then could the original text have used a phrase that meant something like "pharaonic district"? Nevertheless, even though an alternate translation can be suggested, I’ll still consider this to be one of the differences between the two stories.
