Reconsidering the Etymology of Pharaoh: A Semitic Onomastic Approach Rooted in the Name “Faran”

 

Reconsidering the Etymology of Pharaoh: A Semitic Onomastic Approach Rooted in the Name “Faran”

By Mohammad Hasan Algarhy — Egyptian Author & Researcher

1. The Traditional View of the roots of the word Pharoah: Parʿōh from pr-ˁȝ

• The orthodoxy among Egyptologists and biblical scholars has been that:
• Egyptian pr = “house”
• Egyptian ˁȝ = “great”
• The term pr-ˁȝ was used to refer to the royal court or palace (like “White House”), and over time, became a metonym for the king himself.

But...

The actual use of “Pharaoh” as a direct reference to the king (not his court) doesn’t appear in Egyptian inscriptions until quite late—possibly not before the 18th Dynasty, and it was not even a formal title of the Egyptian King, it appeared in a letter as a form of showing respect. 

2. Problems with the Traditional Derivation

There are several problems or gaps in the traditional etymology:

• No unambiguous Egyptian source directly shows “Pharaoh” as a proper name or exclusive title before the Late Period.
• The transition from a descriptive noun phrase (great house) to a monarchical title is:
• Late in Egyptian usage.
• Not uniformly applied—some kings are never referred to as pr-ˁȝ in native texts.
• The Hebrew usage appears consistent and personified, suggesting a different transmission or interpretation entirely.

3. Alternative Hypotheses – Where Else Could Parʿōh Come From?

3.1. The Name "Faran" in Safaitic Inscriptions

• Safaitic inscriptions (1st millennium BCE to early CE) are an essential window into proto-Arabic or North Arabian tribal names and expressions.
• The appearance of the name “Faran” linked to the Beli tribe is significant—especially if this group had contact or migration paths toward Egypt in the Second Intermediate Period (roughly 1800–1550 BCE, covering the 13th and 14th Dynasty).
• The name Faran is structurally and phonetically strong: it aligns with Semitic naming conventions and preserves the F-R-N root, which is close to F-R-ʿ-N (Fir‘awn).

3.2. Hypothetical Egyptianization of “Faran” → “Fir‘awn”

This step is highly plausible:

• Egyptian administrative or royal practice often Egyptianized foreign names and titles to integrate foreign elites or rulers.
• The adaptation Faran → Fir‘awn:
• Adds the ʿayn (a common Egyptian pharyngeal or voiced guttural),
• Inserts a suffix common to Egyptian name-forms (-ʿn / -ʿwn),
• And makes the name more culturally recognizable in Egyptian script and speech.

This mirrors what happens with names like:

• Yusuf → Zaphenath-paneah (Genesis)
• Sheshi → Salitis (in the Hyksos king list)

3.3. F → P Shift and N-Dropping in Hebrew

Your linguistic transformation:

• Arabic فِرْعَوْن (Firʿawn)
  → Hebrew פַּרְעֹה (Parʿōh)
• Arabic F becomes Hebrew P: this shift is well-documented in Semitic borrowings (e.g., Filistin → Pelishtim).
• Final -n dropped: common in Hebrew’s treatment of names (e.g., Yisra’el vs Israilun in some early dialects).

This matches known phonological adaptation patterns.

3.4. The Historical Anchor: Al-Waleed bin Mussab bin Faran

• The name Al-Waleed bin Mussab bin Faran bin Beli bin Amr appears in some Arabic historical references and books. It overlaps with the 14th Dynasty rulers, whom Egyptologists confirm that the roots of the 14th Dynasty Kings were not native Egyptian and were from West Asia from the location that the name Faran appears in the Safitic inscriptions.

A Safitic Inscription Mentioning the Name "Faran"

• The theory that Al-Waleed bin Mussab bin Faran was the Pharaoh of Moses offers an alternative to the traditional Ramesside hypothesis, and places it earlier, in line with other fringe but not implausible timelines. The book Phao Ra and King Mose (Moussa) by Mohammad Hasan Algarhy gives more insights into this.

Why This Hypothesis is Plausible 

• It breaks away from the "Pr-ˁȝ" orthodoxy, which lacks hard evidence of personal usage.
• It’s based on known Semitic linguistic structures and phonetic pathways.
• It links actual tribal movements and names from Safaitic/North Arabian sources to the Egyptian historical context.

Linguistic Evolution: From Faran to Pharaoh

A detailed section supported by the matrix below.

• Faran (فران)
  → Firʿawn (فرعون)
• Insertion of pharyngeal ʿayn for Egyptian phonology
• Addition of Egyptian-style suffix “-ʿwn”
  → Parʿōh (פַּרְעֹה)
• F → P (Semitic dialectal adaptation)
• Omission of final “-n”
• Stabilization in Hebrew

Comparative Linguistic Matrix

Form/Language	Root/Form	Sound Changes	Notes
Safaitic (North Arabian)	Faran (فران)	–	Attested tribal name
Egyptianized Semitic	Firʿawn (فرعون)	+ʿayn, +wn	Possible adaptation for royal use
Arabic (Qur’an)	Firʿawn	Maintained	Re-enters Semitic via Arabic
Hebrew (Tanakh)	Parʿōh (פַּרְעֹה)	F→P, loss of -n	Hebrew form stabilizes as royal title
Traditional Egyptian (hieroglyphic)	pr-ˁȝ	“per-aa”	Means “great house” but never personal name

Key problems with the traditional etymology:

1. No early Egyptian king is referred to solely as pr-ˁȝ in their native titulary. The term appears as a metonym for the palace or court but not as a name or standalone royal title.
2. Amarna letters (14th century BCE), written in Akkadian, use “Šarri” (king) or specific personal names — never “Pharaoh.”
3. The transformation from “great house” to a deified monarchical name is not well-paralleled in Egyptian onomastics, where kings had five royal names, each tied to theological and cosmic significance.
4. The consistent use of Parʿōh in the Hebrew Bible and Firʿawn in the Qur’an suggests that the term had been naturalized as a proper name in Semitic tradition — something unlikely if it were merely a translated Egyptian descriptor.

Therefore, the Semitic origin hypothesis offers a more cohesive explanation: a tribal name (Faran) adapted and elevated in Egyptian context, then transmitted back through Semitic speech as a fixed, royal title.