You wrote:“Interpreters
of the Hebrew bible fancied to discern in CAPNAT of Gen.41:45 the root צפן CPN, a variant of ספן and שפן
SPN, 'covered, hidden', as in Hag. 1:4 and Deut. 33:19. Consequently they saw פענח
PANEAX as 'reveal', namely, 'the exposer of the things concealed'.”
That is truly fascinating.Although that traditional Hebrew interpretation long post-dates the
composition of the Patriarchal narratives, nevertheless it lends some support
to my view that the ssade/C at the beginning of Joseph’s Egyptian name had long
been viewed in ancient times as similar to a sin/% in sound.As such, it suggests that such ssade is rendering the Egyptian word sA,
meaning “son”, rather than the current scholarly view that such ssade should be
interpreted, impossibly, as allegedly representing both D and d in Egyptian,
with De-de/djed in Egyptian meaning “he said”.Moreover, since in chapter 41 of Genesis Pharaoh seems to treat Joseph as
being the “son” that Pharaoh himself never had, it makes much more sense for
that ssade to mean sA/“son” in Egyptian.We should properly suspect that the Pharaoh of the Patriarchal
narratives desperately wanted a “son” of his own, but unlike Abraham Pharaoh
never was successful in siring a son as his proper male heir.And since Jacob is said to be age 13 tenfold
when he meets with Pharaoh at Genesis 47: 9, that suggests Year 13 as the exact
year in question.A pharaoh who never
had his own son to be his proper heir, and who had terrible troubles in unlucky
Year 13, is what the Patriarchal narratives are talking about, with pinpoint historical
accuracy, as recorded in writing by a contemporary Hebrew.
Thank you very much for that insight as to the traditional
Hebrew-based interpretation of Joseph’s Egyptian name.Fascinating, and much appreciated.