Is there any historical evidence corroborating the story of Joseph as told in the book of Genesis? A Hebrew sold into Egyptian slavery by his jealous brothers, who then rises to power as the Pharoah’s “second-in-command”?
Nope.
Like most things in the Bible . . . including the existence of Jesus . . . there is no historical evidence.
Of course, there’s historical evidence for very few people way back then; we just don’t have that much, and the vast majority of people lived and died unknown. Even quite important people have disappeared, and there isn’t much reason to expect extra-Biblical evidence for a lot of Biblical people and events.
The historical existence of Jesus is generally accepted, and there is certainly more evidence for his existence than there is for the great majority of his contemporaries. The claim that “there is no historical evidence” for the existence of Jesus is simply untrue. Simlarly the claim that there is no historical evidence for “most things in the bible” is misleading. There is extra-scriptural corroboration for large number of things in the bible, though there is also a large number of things for which there is no extra-scriptural corroboration.
The only evidence for the existence of Joseph is the text of Genesis itself. Although Genesis doesn’t purport to date Joseph, the text is certainly later, by many centuries, than Joseph would have been if he did exist. Plus, so far as I know there is no evidence - again, other than Genesis itself - for the larger story of which Joseph forms a part - the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, and the resulting Exodus. The existence of an individual might certainly go unnoticed, or noticed only once, in the historical record, but a migration like that might be expected to leave rather more traces in history, or indeed archaeology. All of which makes the case for the historical existence of Joseph very weak indeed.
Ok then . . . what’s the evidence?
There is also no evidence or mention anywhere at all (other than the Bible) of Moses and the release of the Israelite slaves from bondage in Egypt. Ramses is in the top ten list of Big Bad Pharaohs, yet for his kingdom to lose its slave population in such a spectacular way and not be mentioned in the historical record certainly gives one pause. Sure, the historical record of the time was 99% propaganda, so lack of evidence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or perhaps it happened on a much smaller, less dramatic scale. But nothing has been found to back it up AFAIK.
I’m sure this has been done on the Board before, but in outline . . .
We’ve got the synoptic gospels, which copy one another, but are generally reckoned to reflect two sources on Jesus.
We’ve got John, who is independent of the synoptics.
We’ve got Paul, who predates all the gospels. He doesn’t say much about Jesus, buit he is our earlliest source for the bare fact of his existence.
We’ve got Josephus.
We’ve got Pliny the Younger.
We’ve got Tacitus.
Now, none of these are actually contemporary with Jesus. Paul comes closes, but he’s probably writing at least twenty years after the crucifixion. But the demand is not for comtemporary evidence of Jesus, but historical evidence. If you are going to deny the existene of a historical figure on the basis that that no comtemporary evidence of his existence survives, then you’ll find yourself denying the existence of a very wide range of historical figures. As is often pointed out, the existence of Jesus is much better attested than the existence of Socrates, but nobody seriously questions the existence of Socrates. The “Jesus is a fiction” theory requires an elaborate, wide-ranging and easily debunked conspiracy makign controversial asserstions that nobody at the time ever bothered to debunk. Conspiracy theories are not generally convincing, and neither is this one.
Although there is no evidence at all of a historical Joseph, the Egyptians- especially the “foreign” dynasties, *apparently *did trust foreigners to positions of high authority. A suggested possibility is the Hyksos Dynasty, who are pictured in Egyptian art as wearing “cloaks of many colors” and may have been a related Semite tribe to the proto-Israelites.
So, the story is not improbable.
Note that Josephus also recounts stories of the Hyksos, which he claims he got from Manetho, a Egyptian historian who lived 300 years before Josephus. Note that the tales also recount a Hyksos “Exodus” very similar to the Biblical one.
As to the Historical evidence of Jesus, we actually have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Pilate. Most Roman records for that period were destroyed. They did find a inscription mentioning Pilate a little while ago.
I like Josephus the best, especially his “offhand” mention of Jesus when Josephus told the story of the execution of James, the brother of Jesus. Rings very true.
Thus, the evidence for a Historical Jesus is very strong, compared to any figure from that period who wasn’t a notable King or something.
Indeed, Cecil sez the same-
"Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of (heh-heh) whole cloth. (See below.) Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one “Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody. "
Cecil talked about it : Did Jesus really exist? And what’s with the Shroud of Turin?
EDIT : Bah, beaten to it!
What I find striking is that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is never mentioned by name. The Bible does mention other well-known historical figures of the Levant, such as Hammurabi and Cyrus The Great, and events such as the Babylonian Captivity are described in precise detail which can be corroborated by other sources. One would assume, if the Exodus were historical fact, the Pharaoh’s name surely would have been remembered – but no, he’s just “Pharaoh”. That fact alone, plus the lack of historical evidence outside the Bible, practically confirms that the Exodus story is merely an invented fable.
I don’t think you can logically draw that conclusion. There is no reason why there would be evidence outside the Bible. Archaeology isn’t a neat and tidy science that can always find evidence for any written account. Especially when it comes down to individuals, it’s often a complete fluke that any ‘hard’ evidence is actually found. They weren’t in a habit of writing their names on every pot and pan they owned.
There are many reasons why the Pharoah isn’t named. Firstly, the author(s) may have considered it irrelevant and/or common knowledge. Or, it may have been lost during the copyist/oral tradition process. The lack of name is certainly not conclusive proof that the entirety of the Exodus story is made up.
I heard about 15 or 20 years ago the coat of many colors (or colours) was in fact merely a mistranslation and it really should have been translated as “long-sleeved coat”. Is there any truth to this?
This is a pretty solid post. Note that the Hyksos were not a single dynasty, but a people that invaded and conquered (most of) Egypt after the 12th dynasty, beign defeated and taking their leave as the 18th dynasty started. Some early writers, presumably following Manetho, refer to them as the “Shepherd Kings” – which matches details in the Joseph and Exodus stories.
That the Jospeh and Exodus stories may have been founded on some sort of vague factual basis – a Joseph figure rising from servanthood to some minor position under Hyksos kings, and using his authority to succor his family – and, later, their descendants having suddenly remembered an important appointment in Asia as the resurgent native Egyptians overthrew the Hyksos under whom they had lived comfortably, for example – does not seem impossible.
The full story as set forth in Genesis and Exodus, though, probably has accretions, elevation of Joseph to a higher position than his historical analog (if any) held, etc. As Tolkien put it, “the tale grew in the telling.”
In any question about legendary figures, Biblical or otherwise – Arthur, Odysseus, Sargon, etc., it’s important to distinguish between the possible factual underpinning of the legend and the full-grown legendary story, replete with the supernatural and improbabilities. The same goes for the historical Jesus – one need not believe in the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc., tp accept the idea of a Galilean prophet named Yehoshua whose followers believed him to be the promised Messiah. (But see Albert Schweitzer for problems with trying to investigate the historical Jesus.)
Here’s the Wikipedia article on it. Possibly meaning long sleeved.
I remember a “modern English” Bible that came out in the 70s that used the term “coat of many folds” to denote that what was ostentatious about it was that it used a lot of fabric. But people liked the many-colors version so they later switched it back. This also avoided having to change the title of the musical.
But it would fit in syncretically with Buddha’s “Eight Fold Path”!
The tale of Joseph mentions a very protracted famine - is there no record of that?
Really? I thought it was a not-so-fringe hypothesis that Socrates was nothing more than a rhetorical device created by Plato, or at least that the real historical Socrates (if he existed) bore no particular resemblance to Plato’s portrayal of him.
The problem is that protracted famines in Egypt are like earthquakes in California. It’s not a lack of evidence, but a question of “Which one?”
This actually goes for another piece of evidence I’ve heard mentioned about Joseph: that is, that there was an ancient lake or aquifer named something like “Joseph’s lake.” Well, even if we’re not overreaching on the interpretation of the name, even evidence of someone named Joseph is not exactly a smoking gun for proving this Joseph.
(That said, I’m a believer that the the Biblical story is essentially true. I just don’t believe in shoring it up with shoddy evidence.)
What? Next you’ll say he made up that thing about Atlantis too! 