"A Shepherd They Withheld"
(New Kingdom Egypt is Centralized under Amenhotep II and his sons Thutmose IV and Yuya)
After the succession of Isaac (Thutmose III), the emphasis in the Biblical narrative changes from one of covenant and promises to that of birthright and favor. With each new generation, favor is extended to a younger brother over the rights of one or more elder brothers. First Jacob is chosen over Esau, followed by Judah over his three elder brother, then the sons of Joseph over those of Judah, and finally a younger son of Joseph, Ephraim, over an elder one, Manasseh. Birthright and favor held paramount importance. It symbolized kingly succession. Had Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph been merely migratory herdsmen without an established kingdom, then a birthright would have been of little significance.
The protocol of succession in New Kingdom Egypt is not well understood. It was once thought that it passed exclusively through the female line, and that any break from mother to daughter represented the end of a dynasty. Although this view is no longer popular among Egyptologists, an acceptable replacement has not been proffered. The Biblical accounts of the Patriarchs reveal both that the selection process was highly subjective, and that it was a break in paternal line that constituted the nominal end of a dynasty. In the case of Jacob and Esau, there was not agreement between their parents Isaac and Rebekah regarding which son should be chosen. The succession of Jacob over Esau is attributed largely to the influence of Rebekah and the trickery of Jacob.
Rebekah's will ultimately prevailed over Isaac's wishes. Esau and his first two wives were said to have been "a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah all their lives." Despite this, Isaac still loved Esau most. Thutmose III was "a man of war" and spent most of his life in the field. He is credited with as many as 17 military campaigns. Esau (Edom) was in this respect a man after his father's own heart. Conversely, Jacob was portrayed as a quiet man, who preferred to stay close to home. In Jacob's "favor," Thutmose III is said to have had a penchant for hieroglyphic writing and poetry. This indicates that the "Psalms of David" should be primarily attributed to Thutmose III, as opposed to Thutmose I.
Thutmose III was ultimately succeeded by his son Amenhotep II, the Biblical Patriarch Jacob. The historical identity of Esau is found in Amenhotep II's main rival, the Mitanni Chief "Saussatar son of Parsatatar." E-sau is patently a play on the name Saussatar. Moreover, Par-sat derives from the final part of the praenomen of Thutmose III, Men-kheper-re ("Lasting is the Manifestation of Re"). A trend has been established linking popular names of kings with adaptations of the final portion of their praenumina. The form -per(x)re is a common ending of 18th Dynasty praenumina. The first part of name Par-sat-atar is equivalent to Per-re. The Mitanni name for the sun god Sat (Saturn) is equivalent to the Egyptian sun god Re, especially in its rising form Khephre,a which forms the middle component of Thutmose III's praenomen. "Atar" and "Ar" are generic suffixes signifying ruler or lord. Saussatar was actually claiming to be the son of "Lord Per-re," i.e., Pharaoh Thutmose III, and therefore the brother of Amenhotep II (Jacob).
In Chapter 12, it was shown that Rebekah, the mother of Jacob and Esau, had been brought to Egypt from Padam Aram (Mitanni) in NW Mesopotamia to become the wife of Isaac. Rebekah was the daughter of Bethuel, a son of Abraham's brother Nahor. After the infamous battle of four kings against five, Nahor became a chief among the Mitanni in Padam Aram (a.k.a. Aram Naharaim). It is not clear which side Nahor had taken in the conflict. It is also not clear whether he was the ruler of all the Mitanni or only a portion of these foreign peoples. Regardless, the long Biblical passages devoted to Rebekah (Beketre) wife of Isaac, and then to the wives of Jacob, Leah (Tia) and Rachel (Merit-Amon), reflect the importance of Nahor's branch of the greater royal family of Terah (Senakhtenre Tao I). Rebekah is said to have been a granddaughter of Nahor. Leah and Rachel were his great-granddaughters by Nahor's grandson Laban. When Esau was rejected in Egypt, he became a chief among Nahor's clan, the clan of his mother Rebekah.
|Biblical Name(s)||Egyptian Name(s)|
|Terah||Shua||Senakhtenre, Tao I, Apophis|
|Abram||Abraham, Abdon||Djehuty, Teti, Ibrim|
|Nahor||Judah, Zur||King of Nahrin/Mitanni|
|Gideon||Baal, Jerub-baal, Mamre||Sequenenre, Tao II|
|Thahash||Shelah, Nahash||Ahmose I|
|Sarah||Sarai||Isis, mother of Thutmose III|
|Pharez||Perez, Ephron, Jotham||Thutmose II|
|Isaac||"Levi"||Thutmose III, Yii, Parsatatar|
|Rebekah||Hatshepsut-Meryetre, Beketre, wife of Thutmose III|
|Reumah||Bathshua||Queen Ahhotep I|
|Tamar I||Maaca||Queen Mutnofret, Hatnofer|
|Tamar II||Nefrure, daughter of Hatshepsut|
|Esau||Edom, Gershon||Saussatar son of Parsatatar, King of Mitanni|
|Jacob||Israel, Kohath||Amenhotep II, Yey|
|Leah||Tia, wife of Amenhotep II|
|Rachel||Merit-Amon, wife of Amenhotep II|
|Judah||Thutmose IV, son of Amenhotep II & Tia|
Amenhotep II, a Shepherd
The inscriptions of Thutmose III (Isaac) record military campaigns against the "vile Nahrin" and "fallen one of Nahrin." However, the Bible informs us that he sent his younger son Amenhotep (Jacob) to live with one of the grandsons of Nahor in Mitanni (Padam Aram/Naharaim). Evidently, Nahor had produced a "heretic king" of his own, with whom Thutmose was compelled to do battle. Quite possibly, the usurper was responsible for the earlier exodus of Senenmut from Mitanni to Egypt. The "vile" and "fallen" relation that Thutmose III referred to would not have been of the same collateral line from which Rebekah, Rachel and Leah descended. Rebekah's father Bethuel was the eighth son of Nahor, therefore this was likely not the foremost royal line in Naharaim. However, it is a telling commentary on the treachery of this time that Jacob was actually more secure living among relations in the land of the Mitanni than he was in Egypt. Nevertheless, this particular royal family was very typical in that they were warring one year and adoring the next. Despite the death struggle of Esau and Jacob, they would later come to terms and offer their own children to each other in marriage!
As sons born to Thutmose III in his youth, Esau and Jacob would have both been grown men with grown children of their own by the end of their father's 54-year reign. Genesis 22 indicates that the twins (Rehoboth, "double widening") were born prior to the demise of Hatshepsut in Thutmose's Year 22. Thutmose I had put an end to the sharing of power among rival princes that was common during Senakhtenre's time. He also rejected the double-dynasty model of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. In the end there would only be one successor to Thutmose III, and Amenhotep II was to be that one. Thutmose III had restored an empire. It was Amenhotep's role to secure it. One type of leader was required to regain the family honor, another was now needed to establish an effective family run bureaucracy. A different kind of challenge faced the new king. Nurturing skills and restraint were far more important than unsheathed physical aggression. Amenhotep's name means "Amen is Satisfied." A Yiddish interpretation might be "Enough Already!" The borders of Egypt were now adequate to please the family's enormous appetite for power. It was time for a leader with negotiation skills, civil wisdom, patience for administration, and appreciation for science and culture. In short, Amenhotep II was the political animal that now protected the interests of the "animal kingdom" of Egypt the best.
The name David means "beloved" in Hebrew, and connects to the founders of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom Inyotef A (Sargon) and Inyotef II (Gudea). Inyotef A was called Dudu (a form of David) in the Sumerian king-list. As Ahmed Osman has evinced, David (dvd) is also a transliteration of the Egyptian Thoth/Thut (twt). The story of King David is a composite account, which assimilates the important traits and accomplishments of the warrior kings Thutmose I and Thutmose III. They are the founders of Egyptian New Kingdom according to the Kings/Chronicles narrative of the Bible. The princes of the late Hyksos Period are referred to in the Bible as the "sons of Heth" or literally translated, the "sons of Terror." They were, as was said of Biblical David (Thutmose I & III) and his cohorts, "mighty men of valor" and "men of bloodshed" in the tradition of Sargon. Conversely, kings of the 18th Dynasty named Amenhotep (I through IV) were in general much more urbane. Amenhotep I was called "Amenhotep of the Town," "Amenhotep, the Darling of Amen," and "Amenhotep of the Forecourt." Amenhotep was also the patron of the astronomer Amenemhe for twenty-one years.b
Unlike the archetypal Jacob (Inyotef A/Sargon), Amenhotep II (Jacob of the New Kingdom) did not look for trouble. On the contrary, he did everything possible to avoid it. The Bible portrays Jacob as fearful and quick to pacify a physical threat. Like Inyotef II (Gudea), he overcame his rival with brains not brawn. The Amenhotep's were stereotyped as philosophers and lovers, not fighters. During the reign of Amenhotep II, indeed there was again a nursery bursting with cherished royal children. The painting arts were never as refined as in the time of Amenhotep II. His successor Amenhotep III dedicated himself to rediscovering the wisdom, mysteries and traditions of earlier Egyptian Dynasties. As discussed in Chapter 9, Amenhotep II and his grandson Amenhotep III were composited in the Kings/Chronicles narrative as the legendary King Solomon, the wisest of all ancient rulers.
According to the Biblical stylizing, Jacob is tending sheep in Aram when he is called to Palestine by his father Isaac (Thutmose III) to be named successor. Subsequently, he takes his father's place as a living god who ascends and descends the exalted steps of one of the ancient world's most holy sites, the Biblical Beth-el. When his days are done, the family not only lays claim to all the territories of Egypt and Canaan, but boasts of tribute gratefully paid by all of its peoples. Amenhotep II was not only seen as a repetition of the two famous grabbers of the Middle Kingdom (Inyotef A-Sargon and Inyotef II-Gudea), but was also the Egyptian New Kingdom analog of Etana. In the Sumerian king-list, the name of Etana is followed by the epithet: 'A shepherd; he who ascended to heaven, who consolidated all the lands.' "
Amenhotep II was the first Pharaoh of the Egyptian New Kingdom to append the epithet "heqaiunu" to his name in his cartouche.c Egyptologists translate this epithet rather innocuously as "Ruler of Heliopolis." However, the shepherd's crook hieroglyph (heq) could also be translated as "Shepherd King."d Therefore, Amenhotep II parallels Etana in this respect also. Amenhotep III followed his name with the epithet, "heqawaset," which would mean "Shepherd King of Thebes."e Amenhotep II had moved the capital of Egypt from Thebes to Heliopolis (On/Memphis) in Lower Egypt. His grandson and successor Amenhotep III moved it back to Thebes. However, both preferred to be thought of as shepherds of the people. In fact, these pharaohs become as one in the Biblical Solomon.
Amenhotep II, as Biblical Jacob, is portrayed as the timid shepherd who ascended to heaven and consolidated the lands of Canaan and Egypt. Etana was able to consolidate the lands through his legal son and heir Bilah, the mighty hunter Nimrod (see Chapter 4). Amenhotep also would select a strong champion from among his sons, and bestow upon him the names of Thutmose and Nimrod. As a Thutmose, he would be expected to uphold the standard set by the warrior pharaohs Thutmose I and Thutmose III, who had preceded him. As the heir of the New Kingdom Etana, it was hoped that this son would be the one to reassert dominance over Mesopotamia. However, Thutmose IV was not able to fulfill this calling. He either died young or was assassinated, and was survived by his father Amenhotep II.
Called from His Flocks
In ancient times, the ideal king was one who was called from tending his flocks to lead the people. The Bible goes to great lengths to portray Jacob as a man who was a master shepherd. Not only did he care for the animals, but he also knew how to breed them to be strong and numerous. The author of the book of Samuel could also not resist applying this stereotype to the composite figure of King David. The kings understood breeding. They not only actively bred animals, but also considered themselves to be bred for kingship. The practice of royal incest guaranteed that each new generation of rulers could prove that their lineage "from the gods" was pure. However, the obsession with inbreeding was likely about more than the exclusive right to rule. They evidently also believed it would ultimately improve their ability to rule. Inbreeding does not lead immediately to gross abnormalities. However, it does dramatically increase the probability that recessive traits (both advantageous and deleterious) will reoccur in any given generation. The family was prepared to cull and even kill royal offspring with negative or dangerous traits.
After many generations of inbreeding, multiple recessive traits in rival royal sons (and daughters) would have made it difficult to judge their relative fitness to rule. Some recessive traits do not manifest themselves until adulthood and could not always be factored into the succession equation. Within a few generations of a new dynasty, sterility would also have become a problem resulting in fewer royal candidates to choose from. Increased sterility between royal couples made it necessary for a brother, uncle or even the father of the king to produce one or more heirs on the king's behalf in almost every new generation. The king and queen were not individually sterile. Kings created veritable nations through countless concubines, yet so often could not have children by their closely related royal wives. Younger brothers, half-brothers, and cousins who had ambitions of their own to rule would just as often be "evil," that is uncooperative in siring children on the behalf of their rival. Intrigue and betrayal must by definition have abounded as a result of this succession protocol.
Jacob and Esau were already middle-aged men at the time of Isaac's imminent death. No doubt each had one or more undesirable traits that had plainly surfaced by that time. Examination of the royal mummies of the Egyptian New Kingdom reveals that the pharaohs were not model physical specimen. They were predisposed to skin and other diseases, arthritis, scoliosis and other bone disorders, male and female baldness, dental abscesses and buck teeth/overbites, etc. This does not include mental and nervous system disorders that cannot be discerned by visual inspection or X-rays of the mummies. The genes of these Pharaohs proliferated to the general population as a result of their numerous wives and concubines.
The parents of Esau and Jacob deliberated for decades, and still could not decide which was the most fit to rule Egypt. The twin sons would have made ideal candidates for a double co-regency, as had been established between Amenemhet II and Sekemkare in the Middle Kingdom. However, Isaac (Thutmose III) not only rejected the idea of dual co-regency, but also the idea of co-regency itself. It must be suspected that there was some other issue other than the mental and physical stability of Jacob and Esau. Possibly, he had designated his son by Nefrure the daughter of Hatshepsut as his first successor, but there is no evidence that this son Amenemhat held the pharaonic titles of a crown prince. Likewise, the son of Thutmose III (David the younger) by the granddaughter of Senenmut (Bathsheba) is also thus far unattested. It was well into the sixth decade of rule before Amenhotep II was finally appointed. For over twenty years Thutmose III had shared power with Hatshepsut. This experience must have been so traumatic that it made him unwilling to share power with any of his three capable sons. Implementation of the multiple-dynasty model would have to wait until the reign of the shepherd-king Amenhotep II.
Egyptologists do not quite know what to think about the boasting of Amenhotep II over his own physical prowess. Barbara Mertz writes:
"Thutmose III had driven an arrow nine inches out of the back of a copper target two inches thick; Amenhotep II drove his arrow clean through a target three inches thick. He trained his horses so ably that they did not sweat, even when galloping. He rowed a boat (with a 34-foot oar) four miles without stopping, and then landed it alone; his 200-man crew had collapsed long before. He could outrun anyone in Egypt, and no man could draw his bow."f
Betsy M. Bryan writes:
"Amenhotep's claims of excellence in equestrianism and boating are most unusual and therefore suggest a degree of historical accuracy - albeit with perhaps some exaggeration.g On the Sphinx stela Amenhotep II boasted of his boating, running, horsemanship, and archery. Decker's studyh of Amenhotep II's Sphinx stela argued that the use of athletic topoi was largely due to the importance of a ritualized youthful virility for a ruler at his coronation."i
Cyril Aldred writes:
"As a prince, Yey [Jacob ] held the appointment of Commander of the Chariotry (Master of the Horse) as did his father Yii [Isaac ]."j
Alan Gardiner writes:
"When he [Amenhotep II ] was eighteen years of age he was already an expert in all the art of Mont, the god of War."k
If Amenhotep II's mummy has been correctly identified (and that is a big if), then he was the tallest of all the New Kingdom Pharaohs. However, the Bible indicates that he was by no means the most manly. If fact, the Bible reveals that the overdone inscriptions of Amenhotep II made after his much belated election as crown prince were indeed propaganda to overcome his perceived inferiority relative to his elder brother in this succession criterion.
Late in his 54-year reign, Thutmose III was finally ready to announce his decision regarding succession. The Bible implies that Jacob and Esau were summoned to appear before their father in Palestine. Jacob's psychological odyssey resumes even before he leaves Aram. Instead of risking a fight with his uncle Laban, the Bible records that Jacob chose to fly by night with his flocks, children and four wives. Jacob is once again in character. Nevertheless, Laban pursues after him and a confrontation is unavoidable. Laban said to Jacob, "The god of your father said to me, 'Be careful not to say anything good or bad.' " Laban felt that he owned Jacob, but he feared Egypt and more specifically Isaac (Thutmose III). Therefore, he did not harm Jacob. The gods of their respective fathers Abraham and Nahor were invoked to enforce a covenant between them. An oath is further taken in the "name of the Fear of Isaac." This is an indication that Isaac was a very powerful ruler (and still living at the time), and not just a passive well digger. The "Fear of Isaac" is mentioned twice, once in verse 42 and again in verse 53. Speaking of Thutmose III, the Poetic Stela states, "the lands of Mitanni tremble for fear of you."l
Jacob no sooner "crossed the River" Euphrates and out of Laban's land when his worried mind turned to appeasing his wrathful brother Esau. He decided to send messengers "ahead" to Esau in the land of Seir, the country of Edom. Shamash-Edom was on the north side of the Euphrates, and Seir is also considered to be in NW Mesopotamia. Therefore, the location of the Seir mentioned here may be the Edom ("Red Land") of Lower Egypt. After the "summit meeting" with Thutmose III, Esau went "back" to Seir (Genesis 33). Only after Jacob became Pharaoh did Esau "separate" from him and go to the Seir in Mesopotamia (see Genesis 36). However, it must be said that the Bible's sense of direction in this passage is confusing. Possibly, Jacob and Esau were both biding their time in Aram prior to being summoned to Palestine, and Esau subsequently returned to NW Mesopotamia to take a lesser throne.
Amenhotep may have had little or no contact with his father in the twenty years he spent among his royal relatives in Aram. It appears that Thutmose III had genuine doubts that Amenhotep was physically fit to rule at the time the decision was to be made. Even if Jacob as a youth had possessed the physical prowess to match a 6-foot frame, he was still dwarfed by the raw aggressiveness of Esau. However, after a long night of intense testing, Amenhotep was declared successor, and given the kingly title of "Israel."m There are many ways to look at the name Israel, and the name likely captured more than one level of meaning. The interpretation that fits this particular passage best is "He Rules as God."n Thutmose III had restored an empire to the line of Senakhtenre (Terah). Amenhotep II would rule it as Divine King, and would honor his father Thutmose III who appointed him as El Elohe Israel (God, the God of Israel).
Jacob calls his place of destiny by the name "Peniel/Penuel." Peniel means "face of God," and is symbolic of the tet-a-tet examination he received there from his deified father Isaac. It may have been a pun on the original name of the location, which was not preserved.o It was at Shechem that Abimelech (Thutmose I) was crowned as king of Israel. It is logical that Thutmose III would choose Shechem or a site nearby as the location to formally appoint his own successor. Genesis 33:18 (NIV) states: "After Jacob came from Padan Aram, he arrived safely at Shechem in Canaan and camped within sight of the city. Both Jacob and Esau were called to Shechem, but only one was to be chosen.
Prior to the Egyptian 18th Dynasty, there had been seven pharaohs named Inyotef (Ya-chob). There had also been a Yakub-her of the 15th Dynasty and a Yakob-a-am of the 16th Dynasty. Therefore, it is not surprising that an 18th Dynasty pharaoh would also assume this name or identity. However, in the Bible, Amenhotep II was not called Yakub/Yachub, meaning "beloved of Ya," but Ya'aqob, "the grabber." If Esau had become pharaoh of Egypt, how would Jacob now be portrayed? Would he not have been vilified as the power "grabbing" Seth who attempted to seize the throne from the eldest son and true Horus, Esau, God's anointed?
Amenhotep II had been called from Padam Aram and appointed co-regent. However, it was still not considered wise for him to take up residence in Egypt. Esau had gone "back" to the Edom/Seir in Egypt. As the Bible indicates, Esau possibly would not be required (or not choose) to leave Egypt for Seir in Mesopotamia until the death and burial of Thutmose III. "God," namely Thutmose III in this context, was not prepared to "fly to heaven" quite yet, therefore he commanded Jacob to "go up to Bethel and settle there." Upon Jacob's arrival in Beth-el, the Bible attributes a further confirmation by Thutmose III that Amenhotep II is to be the successor.p A blessing and "prophesy" is pronounced that Jacob will be the progenitor of a line of kings, and a community of nations. Amenhotep II did produce a large number of princes, and is the forefather of the following seven kings of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. It will be shown in Part II of this book that he is also the great ancestor of the collateral line that became the 19th Dynasty Pharaohs.
Over twenty years earlier at Bethel, Jacob "saw a stairway (or ladder) resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the "Lord."q This was no dream, but a scene of his father Thutmose III officiating atop a stair stepped-temple. Thutmose III, in his divine role, had appeared to Jacob there and "spoke to him." Thutmose III was now directing him to go back to Bethel and build an altar at the site. It was Amenhotep II's (Jacob's) turn to play the divine role. Likewise, Etana (archetypal Shem) had been asked to "build the 'House' [ziggurat-temple ] that shall be the mountainhead for all the lands." By climbing the steps of this temple, Etana "ascended into heaven."r Gudea (Inyotef II), another role model of Amenhotep II, rebuilt the grand temple in Lagash of Mesopotamias and was a contributor to the rapid growth of the Amun temple at Karnak in Egypt. During the reign of Amenhotep II, plans for a new temple of Amun in Western Thebes (Malkatta) were initiated. This project was completed in the reign of his successor Amenhotep III.
"Bethel" literally means the "House of El." There is not enough detail in the Biblical account to establish whether this holy place was at the traditional site of Bethel, in the environs of Shechem, or standing upon Mt. Moriah. In Genesis 33:18, some manuscripts read "Shalem, a city of Shechem in Canaan," rather than simply "Shechem in Canaan." However, it may not be appropriate to speak of Jerusalem as a city proper during the reign of Amenhotep II. Recent scholarship indicates that there was little more than a fortified shrine at the site during that time period.t However, archaeology of the Millo of Jerusalem does date its construction to the Egyptian 18th Dynasty due to pottery finds in the fill. The Bible credits Solomon (Amenhotep III or his predecessor Amenhotep II) for construction of the Millo and the Jerusalem Temple. Nevertheless, as Ahmed Osman points out, the Bible is probably referring to construction in Thebes/Luxor, the Jerusalem of Egypt.
After his election, Jacob tries to reconcile with the Canaanite king Hamor. The conflict of a previous generation between Abimelech (Thutmose I) and another (or far younger) Hamor is found in Judges 9:28. Jacob purchases land from Hamor, and agrees to give his daughter Dinah in marriage to Hamor's son Shechem. The always-wary Jacob is concerned about the "Canaanites and Perizites of this land," and once again he pursues a political rather than military solution. Nevertheless, his attempt at peacemaking is frustrated by his own sons Simeon and Levi. The name Simeon means, "hearing intelligently, discerning." It is an adaptation of his Egyptian name Siamun, a known son of Amenhotep II. Siamun means "Son of Amun." However, the Egyptian god of "divine knowledge" was Sia. This same god was also the protector of male genitalia! It was Simeon who demanded that the Shechemites be circumcised.
The archaeological record alone indicates that Amenhotep II was a cruel man. In his Year 3 he executed a number of Syrian chiefs. He then paraded and publicly hanged their dead bodies in Egypt. The Bible suggests that Jacob could be severe, as in the discipline of his son Simeon (see below). However, these acts probably were not for sadistic pleasure, but for effect. Barbarism against the Syrian chiefs was used by Amenhotep as a psychological deterrent, and ensured that he would not need to campaign perennially as his father had. Amenhotep II tried to overcome doubts about his physical prowess with planning, perseverance, a liberal dose of propaganda, and the sparing use of capital punishment.
Waiting to Exhale
Renewed trouble with the Mitanni began early in the reign of Amenhotep II, and possibly even in the last years of Thutmose III's reign. This is a synchronism with Thutmose III's decision to name Amenhotep his successor very late in his long reign. At their awkward encounter in Palestine, Esau and Jacob embrace and "weep together," however Jacob as always remains completely on edge. No covenant is mentioned between the brothers. The Bible makes it explicit that Esau was bent on destruction and revenge after losing the birthright (i.e., the throne of Egypt) to his younger twin brother. Mitanni, rather than Egypt, was quickly becoming the family rump kingdom, and it became the consolation prize for Esau. Consistent with the Biblical report, archaeology indicates that Saussatar led the Mitanni on a rampage during the first nine years of Amenhotep's reign, and possibly beginning late in the reign of Thutmose III.u
Syria and Lebanon, and especially the cities of Tyre, Byblos, Damascus and Beth Shemesh (Baalbek) were undoubtedly a very important part of the family heritage. Senakhtenre Tao I was remembered as "Lord of the West" in the Egyptian necropolis. It is not surprising that his sons in Canaan/Egypt would compete for Syria and Lebanon with their "brothers" in Aram Naharaim of NW Mesopotamia. Serious bragging rights were at stake. Thutmose III had gained the upper hand. Amenhotep II fully understood that it was his duty to maintain the advantage. Thutmose III had little need for propaganda. His accomplishments stood for themselves and were for the most part soberly documented. The small man left behind very large sandals to fill. Amenhotep II must have felt intimated by such expectations.
A treaty between Amenhotep II (Jacob) and Saussatar (Esau) did not occur until Year 9 or later of Amenhotep II's reign. Prior to this, Amenhotep led one or more campaigns across the Euphrates into a region referred to as "Shamash-Edom." Despite the well-oiled war machine bequeathed to him in Egypt by Thutmose III, Amenhotep was achieving only qualified success as a military leader. Indications are that he was actually losing territory to Saussatar. While encamped during his final campaign, Amenhotep was his ever-apprehensive self. A stela found at Memphis records that the anxious Amenhotep was visited in a dream at night by the god Amun and promised victory.v Saussatar did not have the resources to carry on a fight with Egypt, and also deal with a growing threat from the Hittites who were much closer to home. Donald Redford speculates that Saussatar wisely chose to eliminate one front through diplomacy. Esau chose to make peace with his brother Jacob rather than with a more distant relation ruling over the Hittites.
Amenhotep fought against the Mitanni out of duty, and not for the love of warfare. When Saussatar called for a truce and renewed "brotherhood," Amenhotep was quick to accept. Amenhotep's inscription recording the sudden turn of events does not conceal his consummate elation at the cessation of hostilities. Kohath, a pseudonym of Jacob meaning "alliance," reflects Amenhotep's preferred method of progress. Perhaps, in his youth Amenhotep held his own as an athlete, but he certainly did not have the heart of a warrior. Amenhotep had "struggled with God and men," not because he wanted to, but because he was forced to. He had first earned the respect of his father. Now he had the respect of his belligerent brother. Moreover, Amenhotep II boasts that when other great sovereigns of the Near East heard of his treaty with Saussatar, they also sent their emissaries to "beg for the breath of life." Thutmose III had been relentless. When other Near Eastern monarchs learned how easily the new king of Egypt could be placated by entreaty, they were no doubt quick to follow Saussatar's suit. The impoverished rump kingdom of Senakhtenre had become one of the "Big Five" powers in the fractured Patriarchal family, the others being Babylon, Assyria, the Hittites (Hatti), and the Mitanni. Amenhotep's breathing was going to be a good bit easier for a while.
The Old Lion and the Young Lion
The inscription boasting of Mitanni's proposal for peace is dated to Amenhotep's 9th Year. The presentation of rich gifts to Amenhotep II followed, as well as the marriage of Saussatar's own granddaughter to Amenhotep's son Thutmose IV. This marriage suggests that Thutmose IV had already been designated as heir and probably appointed co-regent by Amenhotep's Year 9. While still a young prince in Memphis, Thutmose IV was out riding in his chariot and stopped to rest beside the Sphinx. In the shadow of the ancient monument, Thutmose had a "vision" of its patron god Re-Herakhty. He was instructed to clear the sand from the base of the Sphinx. By this act he would ensure his succession as the next pharaoh of Egypt, although he was not the eldest son of his father. Thutmose later placed a stela between the cleared paws of the Sphinx to document his moment of destiny. An excerpt reads:
"I am your father Horemmakhet-Khepri-Ra-Atum. I shall give to you the kingship [on the land before the living ]. You shall wear its white crown and its red crown on the throne of Geb, the heir."w
The Biblical interpretation proposed here is that a "vision" of God was an appearance of the ruling Patriarch or other high-ranking royal person in their appointed role as God's earthly representative. The inscription of Thutmose IV is an example of this tradition from the world of archaeology. Thutmose IV claims that he was promised kingship by no less than his father Re-Herakhty. However, in a practical sense, matters of succession would have been the prerogative of his earthly father Amenhotep II. Egyptologists are perplexed that Merit-Amon (Rachel) was the Chief Royal Wife of Amenhotep II, however his successor Thutmose IV (Judah) was the son of his second wife Tia (Leah). This mystery is resolved by the Biblical narrative! Joseph was the favored son of the favored wife, however a son by the elder wife Leah (Tia) was given priority with regard to succession.
According to the Bible, Judah's three elder brothers had already disgraced themselves prior to the death of Isaac and succession of Jacob. This made Judah (Thutmose IV) the new heir apparent. At the Sphinx, Amenhotep II had placed the plaque boasting of his own strength and worthiness of kingship. He chose this location to appoint the strongest of his own sons as his successor. And with it came a formidable challenge - the mighty "Young Lion" was to free the "Old Lion." Through this accomplishment, Thutmose would justify his father's decision to make him co-regent. Jacob's protracted struggle with Esau must have motivated him to name Judah as co-regent early in his reign in order to prevent the recurring royal nightmare from devastating his own house. The event at the Sphinx and the stela that commemorated it no doubt earned Thutmose the nickname of "Lion of Judah." It is also a title that later became assimilated into messianic tradition.x
A Tale of Two Brothers
Judah was designated as successor. Nevertheless, Joseph, as the eldest son of Jacob's favored wife remained an object of considerable contempt to his brothers.y After an attempt was made on Joseph's life, he was rescued by Judah and brought to the royal court of Judah in Lower Egypt. Rather than buying Joseph, "Ishmaelite traders" would have been paid to transport him. Alternatively, the involvement of Ishmaelites (Babylonians) may represent compositing of material associated with the life of archetypal Joseph (Yousef/Inyotef IV) in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. In the New Kingdom, Joseph was appointed by the dreaming pharaoh Thutmose IV. In the Middle Kingdom, Joseph was likely rescued by Amenemhet II (Mahalalel-Judah), but he was appointed Vizier by a later pharaoh, Amenemhet III (see Chapter 9). Amenemhet III is given the name Helem ("a dream") in 1 Chronicles 7:35. Joseph would later say, "God sent me here (to Egypt) to save lives."z However, he was himself rescued in order to produce an heir for his brother. Jacob's final blessing of Joseph states that Joseph was spared "because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel." "Divine intervention" rescued Joseph from his murderously jealous brothers and brought him to the house of "Potiphar" in Lower Egypt.aa
The Biblical title Potiphar (Pot-i-Phar) is equivalent to that of the earlier Abimelech (Ab-i-Melech), and signifies "Father of the Pharaoh" rather than "Father of the King." The birthright had been transferred to Judah (Thutmose IV) over his three elder brothers. The pleasure of fathering the next king of Egypt was now all his. Often, the heir was not officially appointed as co-regent until they had first produced an heir of their own. This avoided succession problems, at least partly. At the time of Joseph's arrival in the Delta, Thutmose had as yet not produced that heir. At question is whether Thutmose was ready to give up and defer to Joseph at this time. The wife of Judah (Potiphara) was certainly eager for another brother to perform the duty. As noted in Chapter 14, the designated heiress was also under intense pressure to have children.
The confusion can be sorted out by recognizing the typecasting of Yuya as Joseph. The first major event in the life of Joseph was his rescued from the well by Judah. As in the story of Etana, this is a clear indication that Judah needed by him to produce an heir. The selfish thing for Joseph to have done was not give his brother an heir for his kindness. The obedience of Joseph was demonstrated in his willingness to yield both to Judah and to his desperate wife. It was also the prudent thing to do considering that princes were sometimes killed for not cooperating with this process. Secondly, we must understand the life story of the archetypal Joseph, Inyotef IV of the Middle Kingdom. The earlier Joseph produced a common heir for both Judah (Amenemhet II) and for Jacob (Senusret II). This heir, Auibre Hor, was later disgraced, which led to troubles for Inyotef IV as well. The imprisonment of Inyotef IV was in a sense a consequence of having been the father of that fallen heir. However, Inyotef was later pardoned by Amenemhet III and made vizier.
Yuya, the New Kingdom Joseph, was both obedient and successful in siring an heir on behalf of his brother Judah (Thutmose IV). Nevertheless, it was still necessary for him to endure a symbolic imprisonment before being named vizier. Otherwise, the repetition would not be fulfilled. In the story of the birth of Isaac (Thutmose IV) in Genesis 20, Abimelech (Thutmose I) also was subjected to a mock punishment, even though he was successful in siring an heir for Abraham (Djehuty) through Sarah (Isis). However, in the case of Yuya, his punishment was more specific, and served to complete his identification with the archetypal Joseph. After "arousing" suspicions, Joseph was assigned creative if not procreative work as an "intelligence officer" in the state prison. The imprisonment of the earlier Joseph was likely not feigned. Not even the cupbearer, who was no doubt a close relation, dared to drop his name back at the royal court! The cupbearer was typically a royal person. For example, Parennefer, the cupbearer of Akhenaten was afforded his own tomb.
Just prior to the account of Joseph and Potiphera, an earlier example of "divine adultery" is inserted into the narrative. The story of Judah and Tamar provides a tutorial on the protocol of the royal court regarding the production of heirs, and how that protocol was sometimes pre-empted. The wife of this earlier Judah is named as a daughter of Shua, that is Terah. This serves to identify the "Judah" of this Genesis interlude as Nahor son of Terah/Shua. Nahor was more physically aggressive and also more successful in fatherhood than his elder brother Abraham. For these reasons, Nahor was more greatly "praised," i.e., favored, by Terah. However, the three sons of Nahor by his wife Bathshua ("daughter of Shua") were having difficulty in producing heirs of their own. These sons of Nahor (Judah the elder) are listed in 1 Chronicles 2:3 as Er, Onan, and Shelah. In Gen. 22:24, Bathshua is called Reumah, and her sons are given the symbolic names of Tebah ("something slaughtered"), Gaham ("to burn") and Thahash.
Note that Milcah is considered the primary wife of Nahor in Genesis, and Reumah is called a "concubine." However, in Chronicles, it is the three sons of Reumah that are featured. Milcah and her eight sons are not even mentioned. However, in each genealogy, the first two sons of Nahor and Bathshua/Reumah were put to death. The "wickedness" of these sons was in their selfish refusal to provide the heiress Tamar with children. Nahor then decided to withhold Tamar from his youngest son Shelah/Thahash (the historical pharaoh Ahmose, see Chapter 12, Notes 5 & 6). Instead, he produced the heirs Perez (Thutmose II) and Zerah (Senenmut) through Tamar (Mutnofret/Hatnofer) himself. Another of Nahor's monikers was Zur,ab which may have led to a play on words with zuwr (2114), connoting "adulterer." It was Nahor's "adultery" with Tamar that is preserved in the Biblical story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 39.
As demonstrated in Chapters 7 & 8, there were earlier prominent Judah figures. In the 11th Dynasty, Rimush, the son and successor of Sargon, was called Judah. In the 12th Dynasty, pharaoh Amenemhet II (Patriarch Mahalalel) plays the role of Judah. The tradition of Tamar and Judah (the "praised") son of Shua/Terah was inserted into the narrative of Judah son of Jacob in Genesis 38 for the sole purpose of interpreting the "temptation of Joseph" that follows in Genesis 39. Difficulty in producing an heir is a recurring theme with the Patriarchs. As we have seen, royal sons were typically married to their half-sisters. Isaac and Jacob were married to cousins from Naharaim, only because sisters were not available. The Royal Wife of Thutmose IV was also either a sister or cousin. Thutmose IV fully understood that if he was not capable of producing male and female heirs, then the right would later, if not sooner, be transferred to one of his brothers, especially Yuya (Joseph).
After Joseph had languished for two years in the prison system, Thutmose IV was named co-regent. It is possible that Thutmose was appointed after producing a qualified royal son through a minor wife (other than Potiphera). However, his father Amenhotep II may have chosen to confer the status of co-regent for diplomatic reasons. In about Year 9, Amenhotep II (Jacob) and Saussator (Esau) renewed their brotherhood. The granddaughter of Saussatar was given to Thutmose IV in marriage. It may have been necessary to give Thutmose IV pharaonic titles at this time in order to avoid the risk of incurring Saussatar's indignation once more. With the crowning of Thutmose, Yuya was released from prison duty and summarily appointed by Thutmose IV as his Vizier. Again, in fulfillment of the Joseph typecasting, Yuya administered the vastness of the Egyptian Delta and began preparations for an expected famine. He was also at this time given Asenath (Tuya) to be his wife. Asenath, we are told was the daughter (or junior "sister") of Potiphera, the former temptress of Joseph!ac
Paybacks are Hell
Joseph learned a lesson in humility and was thereafter exalted at the right hand of his brother the pharaoh. Yet, he could not resist using his newfound authority to settle an old account. He soon came up with a plan to pay back Simeon (Siamun) for his treachery. Three entire chapters of the Bible are devoted to it (Gen. 42-45). Archetypal Joseph, Inyotef IV, would have had opportunity for revenge before the death of his father Senusret II and the exile of his son Au-ibre. However, this Biblical episode has a distinctly New Kingdom flavor and may have been more than a variation on a theme in the life of archetypal Joseph. The grieving of the second Jacob, Amenhotep II, for Yuya was likely not staged. Perhaps Amenhotep II did not know initially that Yuya was not dead, but had been taken to Egypt by Thutmose IV (Judah). However, secrets don't stay secrets long in a large family. At some point Amenhotep II must have been informed of what had really happened far away from the royal court at Dotham, and agreed to go along with Yuya's idea of revenge. Judging from the passion with which Jacob "protagonized," Amenhotep II may have even come up with the idea himself.
Reuben and Judah, who first acted to save Joseph from Simeon, volunteered to play leading roles again in the sequel. Possibly, Simeon was the only one who was not in on this practical joke with a bite, and was the sole object of the vendetta. In the narrative, Reuben and Judah do all the talking for the brothers. This is part of the "set up." After his sons had made two trips to the Delta, Jacob was still not satisfied that Simeon had been sufficiently punished. Joseph also seemed committed to making him suffer in prison awhile longer. However emotion finally overwhelmed Joseph and he called an end to the game of revenge.
Reduced to Servitude
The latter years of Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV were uneventful from an archaeological standpoint. However, they certainly were not from a Biblical and historical perspective. For Amenhotep, there was one more bitter struggle to endure. A devastating famine shifted the emphasis from the niceties of foreign diplomacy to one of death defying resolve. At the end of his life, Jacob is portrayed in the Bible as in poor health and poor spirits. The famine of the time forced noble and ignoble alike to go on the move. According to Egyptian records, Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV deported over 80,000 Canaanites. (Donald Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, pp 165, 208.) This interpretation of the Biblical and archaeological record reveals that the mass deportations of Amenhotep II's reign were compelled more by starvation than military campaigning. The people came to Lower Egypt to buy food. When their money and land was gone, they sold themselves into slavery in order to survive.
Amenhotep II is known to have maintained several residences in Lower Egypt. However, the famine described in the Bible may have motivated him to shift the primary residence of the royal court from Thebes in Upper Egypt to Memphis and the Delta.
In Gen. 46:28, Jacob sends Judah ahead of the convoy to get "directions." However, we now know that Thutmose IV was the last of the brothers who needed directions in Lower Egypt! The Israelites are given the "the best part of the land" of Lower Egypt, the "district of Rameses, as Pharaoh directed." The extended family of Jacob were the nobles of the land, therefore it is only to be expected that they would be apportioned the choicest property. Upon their arrival in the Delta, Jacob blesses Pharaoh, which is also appropriate, because the Pharaoh is his own son and co-regent Thutmose IV.
In Genesis 46:3 (NIV), Thutmose IV speaks to his father in the prophetical tense, and in a divine sense: " 'I am God, the God of your father,' he said. 'Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt for I will make you into a great nation there. I will surely bring you back again. And Joseph's own hand will close your eyes.' " As a young man, Thutmose IV was blessed with a "vision" from his father at the Sphinx. Thutmose IV now returns the favor. As the "incarnation" of Jacob's own father Thutmose III, and whose name he also shares, he makes reassurances to Amenhotep II. Jacob will be brought back to Thebes and buried with Abraham, Isaac, and Leah in the Valley of the Kings. However, it is Joseph who is to "shut his eyes." This is another indication that Thutmose IV predeceased his father Amenhotep II.
Because of Joseph (Yuya) and Judah (Thutmose IV), Amenhotep II is credited with "consolidating the lands" of Egypt. The people were forced to sell not only their fields, but also their souls to Pharaoh. The Bible actually boasts that the people were "reduced to servitude."ad They had been saved only to be enslaved. Little did the Patriarchs realize the price that they would pay for this fast fortune and the totalitarian control that they had so cleverly acquired. All the wealth of Egypt and that of surrounding regions was transferred to the coffers of the crown. When the draught ended, Egypt possessed a prodigious work force and a perennial tax base. This tribute began pouring in at the beginning of the reign of the child king Amenhotep III, and was used to finance his ubiquitous palaces and iniquitous pleasures.
The Birthright Belonged to Joseph
If Thutmose IV was appointed co-regent between Year 9 and Year 12 of Amenhotep's twenty-six year reign, then the death of Thutmose would have occurred between Year 18 and Year 21 of his father. The birth of Amenhotep III must have coincided very closely with the passing of Thutmose, because Amenhotep III was only a child of about five years of age upon his succession. We do know that Yuya and Tuya were the parents of the heiress Tiye, the Royal Wife of Amenhotep III. At issue is the parentage of Amenhotep III. Genesis 49:10 (KJV) states: "The sceptre shall not pass from Judah (Thutmose IV) until Shiloh (Amenhotep III) comes (reigns)." This seems to indicate that Amenhotep rejected the idea of naming Yuya co-regent upon the death of Thutmose IV. Instead, the decision of Amenhotep II was to declare his grandson Amenhotep III to be his next successor.
Egyptologists are not certain which of several princesses was the Chief Royal Wife of Thutmose IV and the designated heiress, however Mutemwiya is the most popular choice. Mutemwiya became the mother of Amenhotep III. It was once thought that she had been of Mitanni origin. If she had also been the granddaughter of Saussatar, this would not have been exceptional. Rebekah (Hatshepsut-Meryetre/Beketre), Rachel (Merit-Amon), and Leah (Tia) had also been brought from Aram Naharaim in previous generations. The granddaughter of Saussatar would have been the daughter of his son Aratama. Aratama was in turn the cousin of Thutmose, and therefore still very closely related to him. However, Egyptologists now believe that Mutemwiya was not the Mitanni bride of Thutmose IV.
1 Chronicles 5:2 (NIV) states: "Though Judah was the strongest of his brothers and a ruler came from him, the rights of the firstborn belonged to Joseph." Jacob's final words regarding Joseph included "blessings of breast and womb."ae It appears that this extended to Mutemwiya, and that Joseph was the biological father of Amenhotep III. Yuya held the Egyptian title of "Father of the God." In other words, the title of Potiphar was transferred from Judah to Joseph. As with Abimelech (Thutmose I), the son that Yuya fathered was not any ordinary pharaoh, but THE pharaoh Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III who was known as "The King of Kings" in ancient times. Therefore, the title of Potiphar would be, in retrospect, more than appropriate for the man who sired him, and reflects the Biblical statement that Joseph was made "father to Pharaoh."af Thutmose IV was considered the legal father of Amenhotep III by virtue of his status as pharaoh and husband of the heiress. In the following chapter, it will be demonstrated that Thutmose IV sired a son named Aye through Asenath (Tuya). While this son and future ruler was the natural son of Thutmose, he was considered the legal son of Yuya. This relationship will be analyzed further in the next chapter.
The Acid Test
This is one bold Biblical theory that will be scientifically supported! DNA testing will prove that Thutmose I is the father of Thutmose III. Yuya will be identified as the son of Amenhotep II and Merit-Amon, and the half-brother of Thutmose IV. Yuya likely will also be identified as the father of the mummy labeled Amenhotep III. It should be noted that experts believe that this mummy may not be that of Amenhotep III, but could actually be that of Akhenaten or even Amenhotep II. If the mummies of the 18th Dynasty Pharaohs were mislabeled in antiquity, then the associations presented here along with DNA testing will help us to correctly re-identify them.
Bones of Contention
The Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph were all buried in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt. Their identities as Egyptian 18th Dynasty royalty has been demonstrated. With the possible exception of Abraham, we have what remains of their "bones." However, it was discussed in Chapter 8 that the bones of the archetypal Joseph (Yousef/Inyotef IV) could very well have been buried in Shechem of Palestine as the Book of Joshua records. It should now be possible to finally put this issue to rest!
Four generations after Abraham is the time of the second Moses and his Exodus! The birth of Yuya's son Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) marks the fourth generation from the time of Abraham. From the Biblical perspective the five generations are Abraham-Levi-Kohath-Amram-Moses, or alternatively, Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-Joseph-Moses. From the standpoint of Egyptian history they represent Djehuty-Thutmose III-Amenhotep II-Yuya-Akhenaten. With Akhenaten, we are entering the madness that was the Amarna Period. A proof linking Akhenaten to Biblical Moses is presented in the following essay.
To borrow a quote from Thomas Thompson's commentary on the story of Joshua in The Bible in History, "We simply cannot escape the discomfort of this glimpse of the author laughing at us." Yes, the joke is on us as well. And I suspect that if the Patriarchs knew of our suffering, they like Joseph would also cry with us. The authors of the original Biblical narratives achieved their purposes. They preserved extremely intimate and controversial family history for those privileged to know. They disguised this same history as children's stories for those who were not entitled to understand the deeper meaning. However, not in their wildest imaginations could they have anticipated that the naïve reading of these accounts would become the foundation of Western culture! We have been terribly fooled, but how can we feel betrayed by the Biblical authors? We have been led astray by our own lust for greatness and immortality. The Bible in its final form was adopted by all manner of persons with manifold purposes. Tragically, without those misplaced interpretive keys, the Bible was reduced to the realm of literary fantasy and cruel theology. And yet, now that it has become academically acceptable to think of the Bible in such terms,ag we learn that the Bible is a highly accurate source of history after all.
Perhaps some good has come of all the religious folly of the past centuries. It has been possible for Egyptology to progress somewhat independently of the fanaticism that has engulfed the field of Biblical Archaeology in Israel. Egyptian history has largely not been viewed as Biblical history. We have been searching for the Patriarchs within ancient Egypt, and have not found them. No one suspected that the Biblical line of Adam ruled Mesopotamia and Egypt from time immemorial. And certainly no one could ever have guessed that from the 11th Dynasty, Biblical Israel WAS historical Egypt. So, Egypt has been spared some trampling by tourists and adventurers, which otherwise would have resulted in far greater destruction of artifacts and inscriptions. Moreover, a much more objective synthesis of the archaeological record and Biblical accounts is now possible.
The true victims of the Bible's approach to preserving history have been the Jews themselves. Their forebears who carefully encrypted and jealously guarded the family traditions could not have pictured the suffering that would arise when the ability to interpret the symbolism was lost. Whatever sins the Patriarchal family committed have plagued their descendants, as well as Gentile proselytes, beyond a hundred generations. The Jews have carried the burden of being a "chosen people," but denied the knowledge of who it was that chose them and why. And when the Patriarchs finally did return through archaeology, they were unwelcome to reclaim their place as ancestors or spiritual role models. Their monumental facts and mummified faces have been known for over a century. However the Biblical makeover was so sweet and our acceptance of it so complete that they remained unrecognizable. Any comparison to their Biblical representations was found repulsive and repressed anew.
- Cornelius, The Secret Language of the Stars and Planets, p 57.
- Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p 175; Bull. Inst. F. xxvii. 159 ff.; L. Borchardt, Geschichte der Zeitmessung, Berlin, 1920 Pl. 18.
- Peter Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, p 112.
- Ralph Ellis (Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs, pp 105-108.
- Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphs, p 202.
- P. der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II, 1987, pp 191-214, Hildesheimer Agyptologische Beitrage 26, Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.
- W. Decker, "Sportliche Elemente im altagyptischen Kronungsritual - Uberlegungen zur Sphinx-Stelle Amenophis II," 1977, Studien zur Altagyptischen Kultur 5:1-20.
- "Amenhotep II: The Athlete and Soldier Makes Peace," in Amenhotep III, Perspectives on His Reign, pp 32-39.
- Akhenaten King of Egypt, p 140. Parentheticals  mine. Yuya (Joseph) would receive the title in the generation following Yey.
- Egypt of the Pharaohs, p 198.
- Jan Assmann, The Mind of Egypt, p 149.
- Genesis 32:28
- Osman, House of the Messiah, p 96.
- See also Judges 8:8
- Genesis 35:11
- Genesis 28:12-13
- Z. Sitchin, When Time Began, p 87.
- S.N. Kramer, The Sumerians, p 67.
- Thomas Thompson, The Bible in History, 1999.
- D. Redford, "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.
- Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p 203.
- Translated by B.M. Bryan, The Reign of Thutmose IV, 1991, Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Revelation 5:5
- Gen. 37:3-8
- Genesis 45:7; 50:20
- Gen. 39:1
- 1 Chron. 8:30
- Gen 41:45
- Genesis 47:21 (KJV)
- Genesis 49:25
- Genesis 45:8
- Popularized by "minimalist" researchers such as Phillip Davies and Thomas Thompson.