Joseph in Egypt. Then, nearly two centuries after Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt, Jacob’s young son Joseph was sold to a Midianite-Ishmaelite caravan and resold in Egypt to an official of Pharaoh’s court (1750 B.C.E.). (Ge 37:25-28, 36) As Joseph later explained to his brothers, this was permitted by God to prepare the way for the preservation of Jacob’s family during a period of extreme famine. (Ge 45:5-8) The report of the major events of Joseph’s life presents a picture of Egypt that is undeniably accurate. (See JOSEPH No. 1.) The titles of officials, customs, dress, use of magic, and many other details described can be corroborated by data obtained from Egyptian monuments, pictures, and writings. The investiture of Joseph as viceroy of Egypt (Ge 41:42), for example, follows the procedure depicted in Egyptian inscriptions and murals.​—Ge chaps 45-47.

The Egyptian distaste for eating with Hebrews, as at the meal Joseph provided for his brothers, may have been due to religious or racial pride and prejudice, or it may have been tied in with their detestation of shepherds. (Ge 43:31, 32; 46:31-34) This latter attitude, in turn, quite possibly was simply due to an Egyptian caste system, in which shepherds seem to have been near the bottom; or it could have been that since the land available for cultivation was limited, there was a strong dislike for those seeking pasture for flocks.

“Hyksos Period.” Many commentators place Joseph’s entry into Egypt and that of his father and family in what is popularly known as the Hyksos Period. However, as Merrill Unger comments (Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 134): “Unfortunately, [this period] is one of great obscurity in Egypt, and the Hyksos conquest is very imperfectly understood.”

Some scholars assign the Hyksos to the “Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Dynasties” with a 200-year rule; others confine them to the “Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties” during a century and a half or only one century. The name Hyksos has been interpreted by some as meaning “Shepherd Kings,” by others, “Rulers of Foreign Countries.” Conjectures as to their race or nationality have been even more varied, with Indo-Europeans from the Caucasus or even in Central Asia, Hittites, Syrian-Palestinian rulers (Canaanites or Amorites), and Arabian tribes all being suggested.

Since Joseph’s elevation to power and the benefits it brought Israel were by divine providence, there is no need to seek some other reason in the form of friendly “Shepherd Kings.” (Ge 45:7-9) But it is possible that Manetho’s account, actually the foundation of the “Hyksos” idea, simply represents a garbled tradition, one that developed from earlier Egyptian efforts to explain away what took place in their land during the Israelite sojourn in Egypt. The tremendous effect on the country produced by Joseph’s ascension to the position of acting ruler (Ge 41:39-46; 45:26); the profound change his administration brought, resulting in the Egyptians’ sale of their land and even of themselves to Pharaoh (Ge 47:13-20); the 20-percent tax they thereafter paid from their produce (Ge 47:21-26);

​—all these things certainly would require some attempted explanation by the Egyptian official element.