Notwithstanding the two etymologies of the name of Joseph which are given (Gen. xxx. 23, 24), “He (God) hath taken away,” and “He (God) hath added,” there is but little doubt that the latter rendering is the correct one, agreeing, as it does, better with the root _yāsaph_, from which it is derived, the other rendering, from the root _āsaph_, “to take away,” being due to a kind of pun. (The former rendering is explained as being from the Elohist narrative, the other from that of the Jehovist, but it seems not at all improbable that a woman, even a Canaanitess of those primitive ages, should have made a joke sometimes—they seem always to have been given to making strange comparisons with regard to words, and even the ancient Babylonians were not free from that failing, as at least one of the bilingual tablets shows.) The meaning of the name Joseph is therefore “He (God) hath added,” corresponding with that of the Yašup-îlu, “God hath added,” of the tablets of the time of the dynasty of Babylon. The use of _š_ for _s_ must be due to the fact that _Yašup-îlu_ was, for the Babylonians, a foreign name, and that, in Assyro-Babylonian, _šin_ was pronounced like _samech_ and _samech_ like _šin_, as a general rule. Besides the names of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, the name Sar-îli, “prince of God,” suggests a comparison with Israel, which is written Sir´ilâa, “Israelites,” in the time of Shalmaneser II. The meaning attributed to this name would seem to be somewhat strained, as it would signify rather “God hath striven,” than “he hath striven with God.” That word-play exists also here, and that the name was a changed form of Sar-îli, “prince of God,” is possible, and is at least justified as a suggestion by the form recorded by Shalmaneser II. already referred to.