Historically speaking, the Patriarch Jacob corresponds to pharaoh Amenhotep II of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty (See Chapter 15). Amenhotep II had two queens, Tia (Leah) and the more favored Merit-Amon (Rachel). As in the story of Patriarch Jacob, six princes were born to Tia (Leah) and two were the sons of Merit-Amon (Rachel). Jacob is characterized in the Bible as crafty, but also as a caring husband and father. He was accused of stealing his brothers birthright. Nevertheless, he tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to prevent similar strife from repeating itself among his own sons. Ultimately, he did as his father had done, and appointed a younger son to be his successor. In later life, Jacob is quoted as saying, My years have been few and filled with affliction.l The Egyptian name Inyo(tef) is similar in form to the Hebrew aniyah, meaning groaning, lamentation, sorrow. From Patriarch Jacobs depiction we can also gain a glimpse of the character of his archetype Sargon/Inyotef, and the price that he paid to establish a new dynasty. The name of Israel is not introduced in the Book of Genesis until the account of the Patriarch Jacob, grandson of Abraham. This is long after the time of Sargon, the second Adam. A leading theme in the life of Patriarch Jacob (Amenhotep II) is how this brainy son of Isaac managed to prevail over his elder and more brawny twin brother Esau (Saussatar).m After wrestling with his brother and with God (his father Isaac), the Patriarch Jacob receives the birthright (kingly succession) and is declared to be Israel. Upon grabbing the throne, Amenhotep II, like the earlier Gudea, was renowned in the Bible (if not archaeology) for gathering expensive building materials from abroad, including timber from the forests of Lebanon, in order to build a magnificent temple. (See discussion in Chapter 9.) The title of Israel (He Rules as God) was bestowed upon Amenhotep II (Patriarch Jacob). However, he was not the original Israel. Sargon was big, bold and beautiful. Yet, he had at least two factors ruling against him. First of all, he was not the biological son of his father. Secondly, his father was himself probably not the true son of the reigning king, Ur-Zababa, but a brother or legal heir. In other words, Sargon was the adopted son (ben) of a tanist (yem), a ben-yem.a By law, he was as legitimate as any other royal prince. In practice, his pedigree was a disappointment and he faced discrimination. Both his legal father and especially Ur-Zababa would have preferred to carry on their respective dynasties through a true son. They did not want to place the natural son of a rival prince upon the throne until all other options had been exhausted. Therefore, it is expected that either or both of them were still actively trying to father such a son, or considering the appointment of sons born to them through minor wives. Sargon was certainly a leading candidate for the throne, however his status was also extremely precarious. Amenhotep II was the son of Thutmose III and a minor wife of the king: Merytre-Hatshepsut. He was not, however, the firstborn son of this pharaoh; his elder brother Amenemhat, the son of the great kings chief wife Satiah, was originally the intended heir to the throne
Posted on: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:15:34 +0000