Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

We can use linguistics, regarding the language used to describe Joseph’s 
movements in Egypt, to help confirm that Biblical “Goshen” in the Patriarchal 
narratives may be Egyptian nome 14:  Qis/Kis, in central Egypt.  We know 
from Genesis 45: 10 that Joseph lives near, but not in, the land of Goshen, 
so 
Goshen may logically adjoin the capital of Egypt.  But Joseph, who is in 
charge of grain distribution at all of Egypt’s cities [see e.g. Genesis 41: 
48], must be south of Goshen/Qis when his kin arrive in Goshen/Qis, or else 
Joseph would have met his kin before they arrived in Goshen/Qis.  Pharaoh for 
his part would almost certainly be at a city on the Nile River.  And if this 
is the Amarna Age, we know that Pharaoh Akhenaten never left Amarna.  Both 
Qis and Amarna are in nome 14 in central Egypt.  Because of a bend in the 
Nile River at that point, the city of Amarna, on the east bank of the Nile 
River, was north of Qis, which was on the west bank of the Nile River, south 
of 
Amarna.  [From ancient times until today, the logical route to take in 
walking south in Egypt was along the west bank of the Nile River, bypassing 
the 
city of Amarna.  Jacob would not have walked through the city of Amarna in 
any event, so Jacob has not yet had occasion to meet Pharaoh.  Judah has 
informed Joseph, and hence Pharaoh’s officials generally, in advance as to 
the 
family’s movements in Egypt, per Genesis 46: 28.  Joseph knows, per Judah, 
that his kin will arrive in Qis soon, but Joseph has been attending to 
business south of Qis.  Jacob is just south of Amarna, having just arrived at 
Qis, 
when Joseph comes up from the south to greet the family.]
 
As Professor Yigal Levin recently pointed out, correctly, on another 
thread, when the Hebrews were south or southwest of Canaan, the Bible uses 
the 
phrase “go up”/(LH to mean “to go toward beloved Canaan”.  In most parts of 
Egypt, that would mean to go north or northeast, though in the northern 
Delta, it would mean to go east.  
 
We see (LH at both Genesis 47: 29 and Genesis 47: 31.  Because Joseph has 
not seen Jacob yet, we know that Joseph is south of the land of Goshen at the 
beginning of this sequence.  So we can be quite sure Joseph “goes up”/(LH 
north at Genesis 47: 29 to see Jacob and Jacob’s family at Goshen/Qis.  Then 
Joseph, speaking Hebrew to his newly-arrived Hebrew kin, uses this same 
word (LH and says that he will “go up”/(LH to report to Pharaoh.  That must 
mean that Joseph is going farther north, in the general direction of Canaan, 
which works perfectly as Joseph “going up”/(LH farther north from Qis to see 
Pharaoh Akhenaten at Amarna.  Amarna is north by northeast of Goshen/Qis, 
across the Nile River.
 
By stark contrast, if Biblical Goshen were an unattested place in the 
eastern Delta (the traditional and scholarly view), then Joseph would go west 
or 
southwest, and would not “go up”/(LH north or northeast, to go to see 
Pharaoh on the Nile River.
 
Some scholars have tried to get around this by claiming that (LH has the 
opposite meaning at Genesis 47: 31.  “Egyptians refer to going south as ‘
going up the Nile’.”  Bruce Waltke, “Genesis” (2001), at p. 588, citing S. 
Shibayama, “Notes on Yarad and (Alah:  Hints on Translating”, JBR 34 (1966): 
358-62.  But Joseph is talking in Hebrew to his Hebrew kin who have just 
arrived from Canaan.  Certainly Joseph would use the word (LH the way the 
Hebrews did, meaning to a Hebrew who was in Egypt “to go toward beloved 
Canaan”.  
Moreover, if (LH means “to go south” at Genesis 47: 29, 31, then the story 
makes no sense, because Joseph cannot be north of the Hebrews, or else he 
would have already met his father.  Joseph must be south of the Hebrews, and 
he must be traveling north, in the general direction of Canaan, when he “
goes up”/(LH to meet his kin, and then on farther north to see Pharaoh.  Note 
that the scholarly view of the identity of Biblical Goshen relies on giving 
the Hebrew common word (LH the opposite meaning it normally has in this 
context, a meaning that the context will not bear. 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois