THE DIFFICULTY: Exodus 1:8 states, “Then a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph.” The difficulty centers on how an Egyptian monarch could possibly be ignorant of Joseph, the very man who had saved Egypt from ruin, administered its grain reserves, and served as second-in-command to Pharaoh himself (Genesis 41:37–45). Critics frequently argue that this wording is historically implausible. They suggest either a contradiction or a fabricated narrative because Joseph’s political influence was so extensive that no future Pharaoh could fail to recognize the history of his contributions. Others claim that Exodus 1:8 reflects a late, unhistorical tradition, asserting that Egyptian rulers maintained detailed records and therefore could not have forgotten such a significant figure.

These claims rest on faulty assumptions about ancient Egyptian dynastic changes, political upheavals, linguistic nuances, and the historical reality of shifting memories within monarchies. The issue is not whether Joseph existed or whether his accomplishments were significant but how the Biblical statement that a Pharaoh “did not know Joseph” is to be understood within the real political developments of ancient Egypt.

THE CONTEXT: The Israelites had lived in Egypt since Jacob and his family entered the land in 1876 B.C.E., during the powerful political influence of Joseph. Genesis records that Joseph served under a Pharaoh who entrusted him with near-total administrative authority, granting him responsibilities that affected the entire kingdom. Over time, however, the Israelites grew into a sizable population, fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:2; 46:3). The blessings Jehovah granted to Israel became a perceived threat to Egyptian interests.

Exodus begins after several centuries have passed since Joseph’s administration. The narrative moves rapidly into a period of political hostility, describing a Pharaoh who adopted policies of oppression, forced labor, and population control against the Israelites (Exodus 1:9–14). This Pharaoh’s attitude is the opposite of the goodwill shown during Joseph’s lifetime. The text indicates a dramatic break with past relations. The phrase “a new king… who did not know Joseph” signifies more than the absence of historical memory; it introduces a ruler whose policies were contrary to Joseph’s legacy of cooperation and mutual benefit.

Further, the context reveals rising fear within Egypt due to Israel’s growth. Pharaoh’s concern was not historical curiosity but national stability. His lack of regard for Joseph indicated a deliberate disregard for previous alliances. Thus, the phrase must be viewed through the lens of political intent, not mere historical ignorance.

THE CLARIFICATION: The Hebrew expression “who did not know Joseph” (אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַע אֶת־יוֹסֵף) does not require literal ignorance of Joseph’s historical existence. The verb yadaʿ (“know”) frequently conveys relational acknowledgment, political recognition, or covenantal loyalty rather than mere intellectual awareness. To “know” someone often means to recognize or honor his authority, status, or agreements (cf. Judges 2:10; Hosea 4:1, 6). Therefore, Exodus 1:8 indicates a Pharaoh who refused to acknowledge Joseph’s status, contributions, or established arrangements favoring Israel.

Additionally, ancient Egypt experienced dynastic shifts in which new rulers deliberately severed ties with previous administrations. The rise of a king “who did not know Joseph” aligns perfectly with what happens when a foreign dynasty is replaced by a native dynasty or when a ruler of a new political ideology ascends to the throne. In such situations, former alliances are nullified, and those once favored are treated with suspicion. The Israelites, who had been elevated under Joseph, were now viewed as potential threats.

Archaeological and historical evidence confirms that Egypt underwent significant political transitions, including the expulsion of the Hyksos rulers and the rise of a powerful native Egyptian dynasty. In such transitions, new kings intentionally distanced themselves from prior foreign administrators. If Joseph served during a period in which Asiatic or Semitic influence was welcomed in government, it would not be surprising that a later nationalistic Egyptian ruler would reject everything connected to that earlier era, including Joseph’s legacy.

Thus, “not knowing Joseph” communicates political hostility, ideological opposition, and the repudiation of previously beneficial relationships—not literal historical ignorance.

THE DEFENSE: The Biblical account is fully consistent with ancient Egyptian political realities, linguistic nuance, and the social dynamics of regime change. Several lines of defense demonstrate this accuracy.

The Expression “Did Not Know” Often Means “Did Not Recognize, Acknowledge, or Honor.”

Scripture regularly uses yadaʿ in political and relational contexts. To “know” a person implies acceptance of his authority or continuation of previous agreements. When Judges 2:10 says a new generation “did not know Jehovah,” it does not mean they were unaware of His existence but that they rejected His covenantal authority. Similarly, Pharaoh deliberately chose not to regard Joseph’s influence or the protections his administration had established for Israel.

Egyptian Dynastic Upheaval Easily Explains a New King Who Rejected Joseph’s Legacy.

Egypt’s history includes well-attested political transitions in which new kings erased the policies of earlier foreign-friendly regimes. The likely historical setting involves the rise of a native Egyptian dynasty following a period of foreign influence in government. In such hostile transitions, prior administrators—especially Semitic ones—would be regarded as enemies. A new Pharaoh would naturally “not know” Joseph in the sense of rejecting all that Joseph represented.

Foreign Officials in Egypt Were Often Erased From Memory After Regime Changes.

Egypt’s rulers frequently engaged in historical rewriting. Lists of kings were edited, monuments were destroyed, and officials associated with previous monarchs were intentionally forgotten. Even high-ranking officials could be systematically removed from the official record. Joseph’s Semitic identity, combined with later Egyptian nationalism, makes it historically accurate that later monarchs would refuse to acknowledge him.

Joseph’s High Status Does Not Guarantee Long-Term Political Memory.

History repeatedly shows that even prominent leaders can be forgotten when kingdoms change. New regimes often discard the heroes of earlier administrations, especially those who do not fit the current ideological framework. Joseph served centuries before the events of Exodus 1, and the intervening generations provided ample time for political attitudes to shift dramatically.

The Biblical Description of Egyptian Fear Aligns with Known Political Behavior.

Pharaoh’s fear of Israel’s growth (Exodus 1:9–10) mirrors the common reaction of ancient rulers toward large, ethnically distinct minorities within their borders. His rejection of Joseph’s legacy was not because he lacked information but because acknowledging Joseph would weaken his justification for suppressing Israel. Political expediency required distancing himself from Joseph’s era entirely.

The Narrative’s Simplicity Strengthens Its Historical Credibility.

Rather than constructing a dramatic excuse for Egyptian oppression, the text offers a straightforward explanation consistent with normal political turnover. No embellishment, mythological framing, or theological speculation is added. It states only that a new king arose with no recognition of Joseph—exactly what one would expect under a nationalist ruler seeking to consolidate power.

The Shift From Favor to Hostility Fits God’s Sovereign Purposes Without Contradiction.

God had foretold that Abraham’s descendants would be oppressed in a foreign land (Genesis 15:13–14). The rise of a Pharaoh who rejected Joseph’s administration served to move the narrative from peaceful coexistence to the conditions necessary for deliverance. This transition does not negate Joseph’s historical significance but demonstrates how divine purpose unfolds through changing political circumstances.

You May Also Enjoy

Inerrancy: Are There Scientific Errors?

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS