Talk:Biblical Hittites

(( From Talk:Hittites ))

Pre Biblical and Biblical Hittites
The data to link the two peoples is tenuous. Using the fact that lions appear popular in both 'cultures' in itself shows the weakness of the connection. One must also assume that the bible is a completly factual historical document. It is not mainstream knowledge that the two peoples are one in the same, infact most non-biblical scholars agree that there is no link. This maybe the case with some biblical scholars whose motivation is to 'hitch' the old testament to historical fact. Therefore the pre-biblical Hittites should not be mentioned under the article biblical Hittites except as a disambiguation an encyclopedia should be a place were one can gleam authoritative factual information. It is historical fact that after their zentih in 1500-1400 BC that they were destroyed in 1200 BC by the 'sea people', source from translated tablets.--Philm101 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * there is no need to "hitch" the "old-testament" to historical fact since the tanach is a historical document. aside from bashing people for their beliefs, your argument sounds fine to me. Shyisc 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Zestauferov, I am still confused about the Hebrew term(s). Take Abraham's sepulcher story: what words or phrases in the Tanakh correspond to "Hittites" and to "Children of Heth", respectively? Are you saying that the Tanakh uses the same word "HTY" for both?Are the latter Hittites denoted by the same word(s)? And what about the "land of Hatti"? Jorge Stolfi 20:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am usually very eager to write in the Hebrew letters, but something strancge has happened to my computer and all I can see on my Hebrew pages are scandinavian vowels!?! Give me a couple of days to sort out this problem. in transliteration BNY-HT (Children/Sons of Het) and HTY (Heti i.e. Hittites) are synonymous terms they also talk about the land of HTY including Syria (but the Bible is a big book). "Hittites is also the most common English rendering of the Hebrew Bible term for the Canaanite Children of Heth i.e. HTY" I think this is clear that in English the term Hittites is also used to refer to the biblical HTY aka the canaanite children of Heth. But are you asking me to look at all the occurances of Hittites in the bible to see if they use the tame term? maybe we should continue this discussion on the Children of Heth page. Zestauferov 02:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I believe (but I am not sure) that the KJV Bible translators generally tried to use the same English words for the same Hebrew words, at least for sensitive ones like names, theological concepts, etc.. If that is true, then perhaps analyzing the usage of "Heth" and "Hittite(s)" in the KJV will not be a completely stupid thing. However, correct me if I am wrong, in the Tanakh there is no difference between "land of Hatti" and "land of the Hittites" - both are "land of the HTY", right? Also, I am guesing right that in Hebrew "HT" stands to "HTY" as "Brazil" stands to "Brazilian"? Jorge Stolfi 03:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Right on both accounts.Zestauferov 07:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have added to the list all the occurrences of "Heth". It turns out that they are all essentially confined to Genesis, and in fact (excluding repetitions) to three places: (1) the "tree of peoples" (Genesis:10, repeated in 1:Chronicles:1), where Heth is said to be a son of Canaan, brother of Cush, sons of Ham; (2) the story of Abraham buyng the burial place from the "children of Heth", including Ephron "the Hittite", who are settled in Hebron; (3) Esau's taking two "Hittite" wifes, "daughters of Canaan", and Rebeccah worried that Jacob may also take wifes "from Heth". So here it seems that "children of Heth" and "Hittites" are synonymous, and they seen as a Canaanite tribe by the writer. However the word "Heth" does not occur elsewhere in the KJV, only "Hittite(s)" (HTY). So if there is mention of a "land of Hatti" (HTY) it is not spelled Hatti nor Heth.


 * Correct. In KJV it would probably appear as the land of the hittites Zestauferov 07:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Still assuming that the Bible can be relied upon, are the BNY-HT and HTY of Genesis the same as the HTY of the conquest, and of Solomon's time? It seems too much to ask of three little letters, especially since identical names occur even in the Genesis:10 list (I noticed two "Sheba"s and two "Asshur"s). Jorge Stolfi 06:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting question but we then have to look at the attitudes towards the HTY if they are always the same then we may assume that they are considered the same by the authors. If attitudes are different however, then perhaps they are a new gentile populatrion as you suggest.Zestauferov 07:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Identification
I am sorry Codex, but your identification section makes very little sense. It is not clear if you want to argue for an identification of the HTY with the New Kingdom (Hittite Empire): It is undisputed that Luwian was spoken into the Iron Age. It is undisputed that rulers in Anatolia had Hittite/Luwian names well into Biblical times. A admit it is commonly accepted that the HTY may be related to the Neo-Hittite kingdoms, but what is the evidence for connecting the HTY with the actual Hittite Empire? And more to the point, who supports this identification? The 1700 stone lion seems patently inconsequential. Even if it was Hittite, what has that got to do with the Bible? Are lions mentioned in connection with the HTY? dab (&#5839;) 10:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't even know who first added the bit about the lion. But, just because you don't hold the viewpoint yourself, does not mean it is not "mainstream" as it was originally titled.  By trying to marginalize the mainstream viewpoint, as you are evidently doing, you're really barking up the wrong tree. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The name "Sayce" is on its own in the "Identification Hypotheses" subheading. What is the guy's first name and where is his 'pedia entry? -z42 Zeppelin42 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahimelekh
The section dealing with Kings mentions two of David's generals as Hittites (Ahimelekh and Uriah) The link for Ahimelekh talks about an Ahimelekh who was a decended to Eli the Priest, which would also make him a priest, a Kohen from the tribe of Levi and not a Hittite. Are these two different people? Omegarad 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Egypts
"In particular, Canaan is one of the sons of Ham, who is also said to be the ancestor of the Egyptians, and the Philistine. The sons of Canaan are given as Sidon, Heth, then the (ancestors of?) the Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, and the Hamathites."


 * It is nowhere said that Ham is an Ancestor of the Egypts. There is only a people named Mizraim (or the like) who were much later identified with the Egypts by some religious sources. Another reason for that confustion may be Ham and Chem (the latter being the name the Egypts gave to themselves).--80.141.219.170 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hittites in the New Testament?
The Words by Jesus in Mt 5,13-16 "You can't hide a town placed in the heights" may reflect a remembrance of Hattusa, the capital of the Hittite empire, that was in fact placed in the top of a highland, and received all supplies from the territories they ruled. When the Hittite empire entered in a civil war as a result of the attempt to over-throne the legitimate king by one of his close relatives, and products for the basic needs no longer arrived there, the Hittites burnt everything in Hattusa, and run away. It's peculiar, but you find surnames that are phonetic cognates of words related to the Hittites in places such as the Spanish Baske country, where a prominent politician had the name: "Juan Maria Atutxa". Also a reference in the Old Testament exists, as pointed, in Ezekiel 16:3,45 "Jerusalem: your father was Amurrite, and your mother, Hittite".--Jgrosay (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, as with your message on Talk:Hittites, I think you are engaging in Original research.  I also recommend you read WP:TALK.  It explains that the purpose of these talk pages is not a general forum for editors to give our pet theories on a subject, but specifically, to discuss improvements to the article text, which should ideally be based on ideas already found in reliable sources. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Chronology
This is an argument based on one made by David Downs in Unwrapping the Pharoahs.

Hittite chronology has been dated mainly by Egyptian synchronisms (thus, Egyptian chronology defines Hittite chronology). For example, the collapse of the Hittite empire is pegged at 1200BC by papyri and monumental evidence from the reign of Ramses III dated to 1180BC by the standard Egyptian chronology. In these sources (researched by J. H. Breasted), Ramses claims victory over the "sea people," and more importantly, he states that the sea people had already annihilated the Hittites.

Meanwhile, at least the latter part of the Assyrian chronology has been dated separately using Babylonian and other Near and Middle Eastern synchronisms, including well-defined celestial events such as lunar and solar eclipses. (The idea that the Egyptian chronology is anchored by the "Sothic cycle" is now largely discredited (Sir Alan Gardiner's "rags and tatters"), so Egyptologists really have no celestial events for anchors.

Now, tablets found at Hattusa document a set of wars with Assyria that are dated c. 13/14th century BC according to the Hittite (i.e., Egyptian) chronology. However, Assyrian tablets from Nineveh dated fairly strongly to the 8th and 9th centuries BC state that Shalmaneser III and Sennacherib were at war with the very same Hittite kings named in the Hattusa tablets.

So, one of three things is happening: 1) this synchronism of wars is falsely identified; 2) the late Assyrian chronology is wrong by a number of centuries; or 3) the Egyptian chronology--and hence, the Hittite chronology--is wrong by a number of centuries, at least for the era of discussion. If 1) or 2) is true, then everything proceeds as before.  If 3), then at least two conclusions are suggested for Anatolia. First, the "Anatolian dark ages" never happened, which explains the lack of artifacts in that era (or vice versa: let the trowel people be vindicated). (The same is true for the "Greek dark ages," and so forth throughout the Mediterranean, Near, and Middle East.) Second, the idea of the "old" and "new" Hittites being one and the same takes on a new flavor. Of course, the full implications for world history are staggering and beyond the scope of this comment.Tweedye (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblical Hittites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621164708/http://knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm to http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Which scholars discovered Hittite references in late 19th century?
I'm sure that this article is largely reliable, but it does not cite as many sources as I had hoped. Specifically, who were the initial scholars who discovered Hittite references? Pete unseth (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)