Coins from the time of Yosef, bearing Yosef's name, found in Egypt

This also provides counter-evidence to archeologists' previous claim that they did not mint and use coins in Egypt in the era of Yosef, but instead relied on a barter system.

These coins have Yosef's name (both Yosef and Saba Sabani, perhaps a cognate of Tzofnas Paneach?) and image of a cow.

If true, it is amazing. But I am a bit skeptical of such findings which accord so well to details of the Biblical narrative. Or in this case, the motivation seems to be in justifying aspects of the Koranic narrative. While it is possible that such would have existed, such that it is findable, it also makes sense that some antiquities dealer might make a forgery and tie it in to the Biblical or Koranic account in order to better sell it.

From the Jerusalem Post:

Archeologists have discovered ancient Egyptian coins bearing the name and image of the biblical Joseph, Cairo's Al Ahram newspaper recently reported. Excerpts provided by MEMRI show that the coins were discovered among a multitude of unsorted artifacts stored at the Museum of Egypt.

According to the report, the significance of the find is that archeologists have found scientific evidence countering the claim held by some historians that coins were not used for trade in ancient Egypt, and that this was done through barter instead.

The period in which Joseph was regarded to have lived in Egypt matches the minting of the coins in the cache, researchers said.

"A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the report.

The discovery of the cache prompted research team head Dr. Sa'id Muhammad Thabet to seek Koranic verses that speak of coins used in ancient Egypt.

"Studies by Dr. Thabet's team have revealed that what most archeologists took for a kind of charm, and others took for an ornament or adornment, is actually a coin. Several [facts led them to this conclusion]: first, [the fact that] many such coins have been found at various [archeological sites], and also [the fact that] they are round or oval in shape, and have two faces: one with an inscription, called the inscribed face, and one with an image, called the engraved face - just like the coins we use today," the report added.

and from MEMRI, the following excerpt {they have a larger article than this}:

"The researcher identified coins from many different periods, including coins that bore special markings identifying them as being from the era of Joseph. Among these, there was one coin that had an inscription on it, and an image of a cow symbolizing Pharaoh's dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows, and the seven green stalks of grain and seven dry stalks of grain. It was found that the inscriptions of this early period were usually simple, since writing was still in its early stages, and consequently there was difficulty in deciphering the writing on these coins. But the research team [managed to] translate [the writing on the coin] by comparing it to the earliest known hieroglyphic texts…

"Joseph's name appears twice on this coin, written in hieroglyphs: once the original name, Joseph, and once his Egyptian name, Saba Sabani, which was given to him by Pharaoh when he became treasurer. There is also an image of Joseph, who was part of the Egyptian administration at the time.

See also PaleoJudaica who considers this junk archeology. Some of his criticisms seems a bit off, in that they appear rather circular. Thus:

Where does one start with this sort of thing? Coins weren't invented until something like the seventh-to-sixth century BCE in Asia Minor.

And how does he know that coins weren't invented before then? Because of existing archeological evidence! Which this would then contradict, as being earlier evidence! It reminds me of the claim that camels were not domesticated in ancient Mesopotamia in patriarchal times. Then, they discovered a figurine of a camel. But it couldn't be a camel, because camels had not been domesticated yet! So it was a horse with odd humps.

Similarly, he writes:

The Joseph story, if it has any historical basis at all, is perhaps a vague memory of events of the Hyksos era or perhaps even later.

This is called begging the question. This was the assumption, based on lack of other evidence. So dismiss the evidence because it contradicts the previous reconstruction? We can similarly dismiss any evidence of David's reign, because Biblical minimalists have determined that he did not exist, or if he did, he was a minor figure in some village somewhere.

Yes, it does not accord with existing notions, which makes it a rather important discovery. If true. Though he makes that point:

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Joseph as a real person and any such find would receive immediate, enthusiastic, international attention.

Of course, this might be the international attention. Of course, this might all be a hoax, or overblown. It seems somewhat likely to me. We'll have to see how it shapes up.