Basically here's how it goes: in the story of Joseph in the bible, there's a pharaoh who's called pharaoh and sometimes he's called the king of Egypt or the king and in the Quran he's just called the king. Muslim apologists say this is proof of divine inspiration because
This somehow reflects the Quran correcting the Bible and that it represents God communicating to Muhammad ancient knowledge of the title King used by the Hyksos. But there are several problems with this first the Hyksos iirc refer to their rulers as Shepherd Kings
The second problem is trying to date the Joseph story is highly problematic because it contains a hotch potch of discordant notions which make absolute chronology impossible. I find it hard to believe that Joseph would shave himself if he was going to meet a Hyksos king
Since they being semites would not have shaved their beards and the fact that there are many scholars who see Hellenistic references in the story. So trying to date the story of Joseph is by no means clear cut and the argument only works if one assumes a late date for The Exodus
Which while I will admit would better fit what we see archaeologically regarding the origins of Israel, I think that there are some chronological issues in the Hebrew Bible regarding when that exactly occurred because it seems to suggest an older date rather than a more recent 1
But back to the Quran, there is this argument that the use of the King as a means of distinguishing him from the later pharaoh of The Exodus story is a proof of divine inspiration. But as I said at the beginning of this there are several problems with this
The first problem is that there are other texts written before the Quran which clearly have Joseph's pharaoh referred to as the king, for example psalm 105, Philo of Alexandria's on Joseph and Artapanus whose works are preserved in eusebius's preparation for the gospel
Which itself is recording an earlier second hand telling of the story by Alexander Polyhistor. Each of these three texts refer to the ruler of Egypt in Joseph's day as king, Not Pharaoh. Then there's the ambiguity over the name of pharaoh in the Quran
The Arabic evidence is ambiguous regarding whether the Quran considers it to be a title, a name or both (I'm leaning toward the third option right now even though in a private conversation I had with MVP a couple days ago he thinks that the Quran is saying that it is a name)
With these considerations in mind, I tend to think that the reason that the Quran uses two different names is simply as a means of avoiding confusion between the two different Egyptian monarchs. To have both of them called pharaoh would be absolutely confusing
Plus the fact that Exodus 1 refers to a new king whom it refers to as pharaoh rising up in the place of the king in Joseph's time (the new king being referred to as a king who did not know Joseph) I think May provide a possible clue to the distinction of names.
Remember after all that in the Quran it is assumed that Pharaoh is the same guy in charge of Egypt before and after Moses returns from midian, whereas in Exodus pharaoh or the king who did not know Joseph died and a new Pharaoh took over.
And as I have observed already, we have an example of three texts which refer to Joseph's pharaoh as king only. However, I am now being challenged by apologists to produce a text like the Quran that contains a distinction between the names. If I do find it, I will provide it
But to me this seems like an apologetic goal post shifting because since I have weakened the apologetic argument for the use of this particular title, now a new hurdle is being erected since apparently the old one broke. I need to contact Kristian Heal who is an expert on
On the Syriac Christian Joseph material, which seems to have greatly influenced the quranic story of Joseph and see if he knows anything about possible parallels to this naming convention. But this is what the whole issue is with the Pharaoh versus King debate but there is more
I'm not saying that the Quran is or is not divinely inspired. That's not my job, and to be honest with you if anybody claims they can prove a text is divinely inspired, they're bluffing. But I think that if this was some kind of hidden Divine wisdom that was being
Saved up for modern generations to notice, there should be more impressive knowledge displayed. For example, why not give the ruler a name of an actual King of the Hyksos? or an elaborate Egyptian throne name? Or the name of a pharaoh nobody knew existed until now?
If the use of the title is somehow a proof of divine inspiration, I guess we would have to grant divine inspiration to Philo and Artapanus as well since they both referred to this ruler as a king (although In fairness Philo all called Pharaoh the same as well in his life of Moses
And I don't think there are many people, either jewish, Muslim or Christian who would say that either of those two guys were divinely inspired. One could argue that Psalm 105 was inspired since David was given the Psalms in the Quran, but then that gets into the whole issue of
The modern Muslim apologetic about the Bible being corrupted and not being trustworthy. How do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible are corrupt and which ones are trustworthy? The answer would be only the ones you theologically agree with
But that seems like a completely arbitrary choice in my opinion because you're just picking and choosing what you like as opposed to what you don't. You can only assume those parts are inspired because they conform with your religion, so it's mostly circular reasoning.
But that is the story. If I do find a text someday which does contrast two different titles, I'll gladly share it. But I think the use of the title King has been considerably weakened as an apologetic considering all that I've said above.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...