A. The Scriptural Influence
Hatshepsut must have dispatched her expedition to Punt near to the very beginning of her reign (that is, about the seventh year of Thutmose III), because in the ninth year she gathered together all of her nobles and proclaimed before them the great things that she had done at the behest of her father Amon-Ra. Senenmut and Nehesi were given places of honour while she recounted to the assembly the result of her great venture. Hatshepsut reminded them all of Amon's oracle commanding her "... to establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded".
(i) An Image from Genesis
It is at the conclusion of Hatshepsut's speech to her nobles that we encounter a further scriptural image. Thus Baikie has commented briefly on Hatshepsut's boast that: "I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in", that this is "a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening" (op. cit., 74).
(ii) An Image from Proverbs
In another, related verse of the Punt reliefs, referring to Amon-Ra's leading of the expedition to "the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land", the god speaks of his creating of the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms that can only remind one of the words that Solomon wrote about Wisdom's role in the work of Creation:
"I, Wisdom ... was with [the Creator], forming all things, and was His delight every day, playing before Him at all times, playing on the surface of His earth, delighting to be with the sons of men" (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31).
In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the goddess of wisdom:
"... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt ...".
Interestingly, the original roles of the goddesses Hathor and Isis, in the prestigious Heliopolitan 'theology', were ones very similar to those of Moses' sister and mother, re-spectively (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Thus we read in Grimal (op. cit., 42-43): "Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...".
Compare this with the action of Moses's mother and sister:
"[Moses's mother] put the child in [the basket] and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. And his sister stood at a distance .... Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, 'Shall I go and call you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?' ... And the child grew ..." (Exodus: 2:3-4,7,10).
(iii) Images from the Song of Songs
In the weighing scene of all the goods acquired from Punt, Hatshepsut boasts:
'His Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land'.
This passage can be favourably compared with various verses from King Solo-mon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called Song of Solomon), for example: "Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon" (4:10-11). (Cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5),
The question has to be asked: Did Solomon write this poem in honour of Queen Hatshepsut? Maccoby (op. cit.) certainly believed this to be the case, for the following reasons:
1. "To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would I compare you, my darling" (1:9). This direct reference to Egypt seems strange if applied to an Israelite girl, but quite natural if the beloved is an Egyptian.
2. "Black am I but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Qedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has blackened me" (1:6). The dark complexion of the female beloved, making her conspic-uous among the "daughters of Jerusalem", would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman.
3. "Who is she that cometh out of the wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?" (3:6). According to Veli-kovsky's reconstruction, the Queen of Sheba came up to Jerusalem from the direction of the southern wilderness, travelling overland from Aqaba (Ezion-geber). Moreover, she brought with her a great store of perfumes. She gave to Solomon "a very great store of spices ... there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon" (I Kings 10:10).
4. "My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard I have not kept" (1:6). It has been regarded as a great puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher, whilst elsewhere in the poem she appears as a great lady. But may it not be, asks Maccoby, that here she is speaking metaphorically about her kingdom as a "vineyard"?
[And perhaps - as I would like further to suggest - about her native religion?].
The anger of her "brothers", countrymen, may easily be understood if she were the Queen of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon had both political and religious impli-cations that would have been unwelcome. It might well have led to the subjection of Egypt to the power of Solomon.
5. There would be no objections, however, to a match between Solomon and an Egyptian princess whose hand would not bring with it power over Egypt.
We know that Solomon did marry an Egyptian princess.
Here, I would like to slip in another comment. Previously, I had suggested that Solomon may have married Hatshepsut's daughter, Neferure, who would have been only a child at the time. I think it likely that it was in regard to the little Neferure that Solomon wrote the words: "We have a little sister, and she has no breasts" (8:8), intending these words to be understood as if having been spoken by the Egyptians.
Fittingly, then, according to Maccoby's interpretation of this verse, the Egyptians were here offering to Solomon an Egyptian princess whom he could marry, when she was old enough.
I continue with Maccoby's useful comments:
6. "O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house" (8:1-2). She regrets that Solomon is not an Egyptian, so that she could marry him.
"My own vineyard is before me ..." (8:12). She must return to her own country.
In Egypt, at the time of Hatshepsut, we find a very similar type of love poetry.
(iv) An Image from the Psalms
When, late in her reign, the time came for Hatshepsut to celebrate the jubilee of her father's acknowledgement of her as heiress of the land, she summoned her favourite, Senenmut, and put him in charge of the immensely difficult task of procuring from Aswan the great shafts of granite that were needed to make her two commemorative obelisks. When the obelisks had been completed, the usual, formal words were inscribed upon them. Of a different tone however, as Baikie has pointed out, were those words in-scribed at the base of the obelisks (op. cit., 88):
"The base inscriptions ... are of more importance, chiefly because they again strike that personal note which is so seldom heard from these ancient records, and give us an actual glimpse into the mind and the heart of a great woman. I do not think that it is fanciful to see in these utter-ances the expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression underneath all the customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae. After the usual recitation of the titulary and en-comium of the queen, she goes on: 'I have done this from a loving heart for my father Amen; I have entered into his scheme for this first jubilee; I was wise by his excellent spirit, and I forgot nothing of that which he exacted. My Majesty knows that he is divine'."
And then in language that according to Baikie "might have come straight out of the Book of Psalms" (had it not been for the fact that his chronology would not allow it), the queen continues:
'I did it under his command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing; it was he who gave me directions. I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. My heart was wise before my father; I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty, and encompasses those who follow him'.
Baikie continues with his insightful commentary, though blissfully unaware that it really was the Psalms, and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that would have influenced Hatshepsut's prayer (ibid., 89):
"The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah:
'Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob - For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it".
B. Influence of the Temple and Its Liturgy
It is difficult to determine precisely when Hatshepsut commenced the building of her beautiful temple, "The Most Splendid of Splendours", at Deir el-Bahri. Even Dorman, in his detailed analysis, cannot arrive at a specific date; though he would place the temple's beginning very early during Hatshepsut's rule (from the seventh year of Thutmose III).
In the context of our reconstruction, it would be surprising if Hatshepsut and Senenmut, the temple's architect, had not been greatly influenced by the design of the glorious Temple in Jerusalem. This latter magnificent edifice - the plans for which it should be recalled were David's (cf. I Chronicles 28:11) - had been built about a decade earlier.
Certainly Velikovsky had urged that Solomon's Temple had provided the model for the Deir el-Bahri temple - according to his belief that Punt was Jerusalem. He had naturally, therefore, interpreted Hatshepsut's fulfilment of Amon-Ra's command, that she "establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple, in his garden", as indicating that Hatshepsut was trying to imitate the terraces of trees sur-rounding the Temple in Jerusalem.
In a footnote, Velikovsky referred to G. Maspero's comment (in The Struggle of the Nations, 241, n.2) about the opinion of the early Egyptologist Mariette:
"Mariette, struck by the strange appearance of the edifice [Hatshepsut's temple], thought that it betrayed a foreign influence, and supposed that Queen ... [Hatshepsut] had constructed it in the model of some buildings seen by her officers in the land of Puanit [Punt]".
Intriguing too, in the light of the biblical information that Phoenician craftsmen had assisted in the building of Solomon's Temple, was Mariette's observation that Hatshepsut's temple "probably represents ... a Phoenician influence" (Quoted by Naville, op. cit., 1).
Bimson (op. cit., 16), however, was critical of Velikovsky's claim that the design of Hatshepsut's temple was based upon the Jewish model. Clearly, he argued, it was based upon the layout of the Eleventh Dynasty temple in the vicinity ...:
"Although on a smaller scale than Hatshepsut's temple, [the Eleventh Dynasty one] foreshadows it in many ways. Like Hatshepsut's, it was terraced and approached by a causeway and ramp, and had an open court with a cloister-like colonnade. There is no doubt that the designer of Hatshepsut's temple, Senmut, was inspired by [the] earlier construction".
Against the massive western cliffs of white limestone at Deir el-Bahri, that time and the sun have coloured a rosy yellow, Hatshepsut had her temple built. Into these cliffs, which form an absolutely vertical barrier, its 'holy of holies' was cut.
Of this temple, Mariette had remarked: "it is an exception and an accident in the architectural life of Egypt". (As quoted by E. Naville, op. cit.).
Mariette was not alone in his acknowledgement of the striking originality of Hat-shepsut's temple. Baikie (op. cit., 67-68) for instance, whilst admitting that the Eleventh Dynasty temple would have offered to Senenmut "... the suggestion of how it would be best to treat such a site ...", was nevertheless adamant that Hatshepsut's temple was far from being a slavish imitation of the older building:
"Since the earlier temple has been completely excavated, it has become customary to deny to Hatshepsut's architect any claim to originality in the design which he evolved for the great temple. "Hatshepsut's temple", says Dr. H.R. Hall ..., "was directly imitated from that of her predecessor, to whom, and not to her or her architect Sennemut, any praise for its sup-posed (not real) originality is due"."
But Baikie, for his part, would not have a bar of Hall's line of reasoning:
"This, however, is to carry purism to an extravagant extent. It is quite obvious that Hatshepsut and her architect took the suggestion of a terraced temple from the earlier building beside which they were placing their own; but that is the beginning and the end of their indebtedness to the earlier architect. Senmut appreciated a good suggestion when he saw it - all the more credit to him for his commonsense; but to say that he must therefore be denied any credit for originality is to set up a canon of criticism which would deprive Shakespeare of the credit for the creation of Hamlet, and Donatello of that for the creation of the Gattamelata statue. Having got his suggestion, he proceeded to glorify it, until he had produced a building which is infinitely superior ... to that of the earlier architect".
Baikie regarded the Eleventh Dynasty effort as being "stumpy and sawn-off looking compared with the grace of the successive terraces, the long ramps and the graceful colonnades of the XVIIIth Dynasty artist". The earlier temple, "if it was completed, as is suggested by a small pyramid", he went on to observe somewhat humorously:
"... deliberately sacrificed the very gain of long horizontal lines for which its terraces were designed, and which was the one possible gain of using such a design and such a site together, and put a fool's cap on the whole structure by inviting comparison between the towering cliffs and the diminutive pyramid which perked up below them".
By contrast, according to Baikie:
"Senmut's work ... disturbs us by no distracting element. Its successive stages, with their long lines of alternating light and shadow, actually emphasise, instead of competing with, the height of the giant cliffs behind them, but offer to us a totally different kind of majesty and beauty in which the work of man, no longer aspiring to rivalry with that of Nature, derives fresh loveliness from the majestic setting in which it has been placed.
Grimal's comment on the Deir el-Bahri edifice was somewhat similar, though more terse (op. cit., 211): "The great originality of Hatshepsut's complex lay in its organ-ization into a succession of terraces in which the changes in plan enabled the monument to harmonize with the natural ampitheatre of the cliffs".
Importantly Professor Breasted, an earlier admirer of the temple's design, regarded this marvellous structure as being a sure witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the later Greeks would be credited as the origin-ators (History, 274):
"In front of the terraces were ranged fine colonnades, which, when seen from a distance, to this day exhibit such an exquisite sense of proportion and of proper grouping, as to quite disprove the common assertion that the Greeks were the first to understand the art of adjusting external colon-nades, and that the Egyptian understood only the employment of the column in the interiors".
It is clear from the above descriptions of the majestic Eighteenth Dynasty temple at Deir el-Bahri that its sweeping terraces were one of its most notable features. Similarly, as Velikovsky has pointed out (op. cit., 121):
"The Temple of Jerusalem was built upon terraces planted with trees. These terraces were cut by an ascending path. The processions of the Levites started on the lowest terrace, and as they sang they mounted the path. This explains the fact that some of their Psalms are called Shir ha-maaloth, "song of the ascent"."
More than anything else, according to Velikovsky (ibid., 121-122), it would have been the nature of the respective sites at which the temples of Jerusalem and Deir el-Bahri were built that would have determined any significant differences between them.
Velikovsky then went on to say, in regard to the temple service, that (ibid., 122):
"Not only the temple architecture but also the temple service in Egypt were given many new features. It was not until the temple of the Most Splendid at Deir el Bahari was constructed that twelve priests, with a high priest heading them, officiated before the altar. A relief on a fragment, now in the Louvre Museum, shows twelve priests divided into four orders, three in each order, and a damaged inscription over their heads reads: "... in the temple of Amon, in Most Spendid of Splendors, by the high priest of Amon ..."."
It ought not to surprise us that Hatshepsut would have copied all that she had seen pertaining to Solomon's Temple during her visit to Jerusalem, if - as we believe - she was the Queen of Sheba. For the Bible tells us how she had drunk it all in with astonishment:
"And when the Queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon ... his cup-bearers, and his burnt offerings which he offered at the Temple of the Lord, there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king, 'The report was true which I heard in my own land of your affairs and of your wisdom, but I did not believe the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it ...'.
... And King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all that she desired" (II Chronicles 9: 3, 4-5, 6, 12).
Including the plans of his Temple and details relating to its priesthood and liturgy?
We shall let Velikovsky have the last word on this matter, since this article would never have been written had he not provided the important synchronism between King Solomon and Queen Hatshepsut:
"The office of the high priest was established in the Egyptian service only at the time of Queen Hatshepsut. This reform in the religious service was in-troduced after the visit of the queen to the Divine Land, where shortly before the House of the Lord had been completed".
It is difficult to determine precisely when Hatshepsut commenced the building of her beautiful temple, "The Most Splendid of Splendours", at Deir el-Bahri. Even Dorman, in his detailed analysis, cannot arrive at a specific date; though he would place the temple's beginning very early during Hatshepsut's rule (from the seventh year of Thutmose III).
In the context of our reconstruction, it would be surprising if Hatshepsut and Senenmut, the temple's architect, had not been greatly influenced by the design of the glorious Temple in Jerusalem. This latter magnificent edifice - the plans for which it should be recalled were David's (cf. I Chronicles 28:11) - had been built about a decade earlier.
Certainly Velikovsky had urged that Solomon's Temple had provided the model for the Deir el-Bahri temple - according to his belief that Punt was Jerusalem. He had naturally, therefore, interpreted Hatshepsut's fulfilment of Amon-Ra's command, that she "establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple, in his garden", as indicating that Hatshepsut was trying to imitate the terraces of trees sur-rounding the Temple in Jerusalem.
In a footnote, Velikovsky referred to G. Maspero's comment (in The Struggle of the Nations, 241, n.2) about the opinion of the early Egyptologist Mariette:
"Mariette, struck by the strange appearance of the edifice [Hatshepsut's temple], thought that it betrayed a foreign influence, and supposed that Queen ... [Hatshepsut] had constructed it in the model of some buildings seen by her officers in the land of Puanit [Punt]".
Intriguing too, in the light of the biblical information that Phoenician craftsmen had assisted in the building of Solomon's Temple, was Mariette's observation that Hatshepsut's temple "probably represents ... a Phoenician influence" (Quoted by Naville, op. cit., 1).
Bimson (op. cit., 16), however, was critical of Velikovsky's claim that the design of Hatshepsut's temple was based upon the Jewish model. Clearly, he argued, it was based upon the layout of the Eleventh Dynasty temple in the vicinity ...:
"Although on a smaller scale than Hatshepsut's temple, [the Eleventh Dynasty one] foreshadows it in many ways. Like Hatshepsut's, it was terraced and approached by a causeway and ramp, and had an open court with a cloister-like colonnade. There is no doubt that the designer of Hatshepsut's temple, Senmut, was inspired by [the] earlier construction".
Against the massive western cliffs of white limestone at Deir el-Bahri, that time and the sun have coloured a rosy yellow, Hatshepsut had her temple built. Into these cliffs, which form an absolutely vertical barrier, its 'holy of holies' was cut.
Of this temple, Mariette had remarked: "it is an exception and an accident in the architectural life of Egypt". (As quoted by E. Naville, op. cit.).
Mariette was not alone in his acknowledgement of the striking originality of Hat-shepsut's temple. Baikie (op. cit., 67-68) for instance, whilst admitting that the Eleventh Dynasty temple would have offered to Senenmut "... the suggestion of how it would be best to treat such a site ...", was nevertheless adamant that Hatshepsut's temple was far from being a slavish imitation of the older building:
"Since the earlier temple has been completely excavated, it has become customary to deny to Hatshepsut's architect any claim to originality in the design which he evolved for the great temple. "Hatshepsut's temple", says Dr. H.R. Hall ..., "was directly imitated from that of her predecessor, to whom, and not to her or her architect Sennemut, any praise for its sup-posed (not real) originality is due"."
But Baikie, for his part, would not have a bar of Hall's line of reasoning:
"This, however, is to carry purism to an extravagant extent. It is quite obvious that Hatshepsut and her architect took the suggestion of a terraced temple from the earlier building beside which they were placing their own; but that is the beginning and the end of their indebtedness to the earlier architect. Senmut appreciated a good suggestion when he saw it - all the more credit to him for his commonsense; but to say that he must therefore be denied any credit for originality is to set up a canon of criticism which would deprive Shakespeare of the credit for the creation of Hamlet, and Donatello of that for the creation of the Gattamelata statue. Having got his suggestion, he proceeded to glorify it, until he had produced a building which is infinitely superior ... to that of the earlier architect".
Baikie regarded the Eleventh Dynasty effort as being "stumpy and sawn-off looking compared with the grace of the successive terraces, the long ramps and the graceful colonnades of the XVIIIth Dynasty artist". The earlier temple, "if it was completed, as is suggested by a small pyramid", he went on to observe somewhat humorously:
"... deliberately sacrificed the very gain of long horizontal lines for which its terraces were designed, and which was the one possible gain of using such a design and such a site together, and put a fool's cap on the whole structure by inviting comparison between the towering cliffs and the diminutive pyramid which perked up below them".
By contrast, according to Baikie:
"Senmut's work ... disturbs us by no distracting element. Its successive stages, with their long lines of alternating light and shadow, actually emphasise, instead of competing with, the height of the giant cliffs behind them, but offer to us a totally different kind of majesty and beauty in which the work of man, no longer aspiring to rivalry with that of Nature, derives fresh loveliness from the majestic setting in which it has been placed.
Grimal's comment on the Deir el-Bahri edifice was somewhat similar, though more terse (op. cit., 211): "The great originality of Hatshepsut's complex lay in its organ-ization into a succession of terraces in which the changes in plan enabled the monument to harmonize with the natural ampitheatre of the cliffs".
Importantly Professor Breasted, an earlier admirer of the temple's design, regarded this marvellous structure as being a sure witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the later Greeks would be credited as the origin-ators (History, 274):
"In front of the terraces were ranged fine colonnades, which, when seen from a distance, to this day exhibit such an exquisite sense of proportion and of proper grouping, as to quite disprove the common assertion that the Greeks were the first to understand the art of adjusting external colon-nades, and that the Egyptian understood only the employment of the column in the interiors".
It is clear from the above descriptions of the majestic Eighteenth Dynasty temple at Deir el-Bahri that its sweeping terraces were one of its most notable features. Similarly, as Velikovsky has pointed out (op. cit., 121):
"The Temple of Jerusalem was built upon terraces planted with trees. These terraces were cut by an ascending path. The processions of the Levites started on the lowest terrace, and as they sang they mounted the path. This explains the fact that some of their Psalms are called Shir ha-maaloth, "song of the ascent"."
More than anything else, according to Velikovsky (ibid., 121-122), it would have been the nature of the respective sites at which the temples of Jerusalem and Deir el-Bahri were built that would have determined any significant differences between them.
Velikovsky then went on to say, in regard to the temple service, that (ibid., 122):
"Not only the temple architecture but also the temple service in Egypt were given many new features. It was not until the temple of the Most Splendid at Deir el Bahari was constructed that twelve priests, with a high priest heading them, officiated before the altar. A relief on a fragment, now in the Louvre Museum, shows twelve priests divided into four orders, three in each order, and a damaged inscription over their heads reads: "... in the temple of Amon, in Most Spendid of Splendors, by the high priest of Amon ..."."
It ought not to surprise us that Hatshepsut would have copied all that she had seen pertaining to Solomon's Temple during her visit to Jerusalem, if - as we believe - she was the Queen of Sheba. For the Bible tells us how she had drunk it all in with astonishment:
"And when the Queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon ... his cup-bearers, and his burnt offerings which he offered at the Temple of the Lord, there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king, 'The report was true which I heard in my own land of your affairs and of your wisdom, but I did not believe the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it ...'.
... And King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all that she desired" (II Chronicles 9: 3, 4-5, 6, 12).
Including the plans of his Temple and details relating to its priesthood and liturgy?
We shall let Velikovsky have the last word on this matter, since this article would never have been written had he not provided the important synchronism between King Solomon and Queen Hatshepsut:
"The office of the high priest was established in the Egyptian service only at the time of Queen Hatshepsut. This reform in the religious service was in-troduced after the visit of the queen to the Divine Land, where shortly before the House of the Lord had been completed".
