The Bible and the Hittites, Exploding another 'Biblical Archaeology' Myth.

How many times have you heard it? I am sure many more than you care to remember. I am talking about the bog standard reply from Bible believers when you mention archaeology and the Bible.Countless times I have heard ‘well archaeology confirms everything in the Bible, look at the Hittites!’ I swear if I hear about the Hittites and the Bible again I will scream LOL.I think it is time that that misinformed people stopped spreading this untruth and that this misconception was finally laid to rest.The next time anyone mentions to you that ‘The Hittites of the Bible were thought to be a myth until excavations at Bogzhakoy in Anatolia unearthed evidence of the Hittites confirming God's Word as 100% accurate’, inform them that the Anatolian Hittites have nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical ones, there is no relationship at all between the biblical Hittites and the huge find in modern day Turkey.To claim that the biblical Hittites are the same Hittites that were found at Boghazkoy in Turkey is simply untrue, they are NOT the same people, and why this keeps being circulated suggests to me that either no one has investigated this or they have investigated it and decided to turn a blind eye. I choose to believe the former, I wouldn’t like to think that scholars would deliberately try to mislead people, but it is about time that ‘biblical archaeologists’ admitted the truth about the Hittites.Here is some information about the Hittites:From ‘The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3 D. N. Freedman (ed) Doubleday, New York, London, 1992.Entry ‘Hittites’ page 233: In the biblical references to the Hittites two different groups may be discerned. One is a local people of Palestine, settled in the area around Hebron before Abraham’s arrival, the descendants of Canaan through the eponymous ancestors of Heth. They lived in the heart of the land promised to the Israelites, so that God had to expressly command the Israelites to destroy them. That they were not eradicated but continued to inhabit southern Palestine, including the area around Jerusalem, may be seen in the references to Hittites in the Hebrew army, as forced labour conscripts, or as possible wives for the Hebrews, all the way through to the return from the Babylonian exile. Almost all the references of Hittites in the Old Testament fit into this picture of a local Canaanite people never quite eradicated in the Hebrew conquest of Canaan.

​

There are five references to Hittites which do not fit with this picture. The reference in Joshua 1:4 to the area around the Euphrates as the Hittite country cannot be the Hittites of Hebron, but rather, depending on the dating of the conquest, either the Hittite Empire’s territories in North Syria or the successor Neo-Hittite Kingdoms in that region.

​

The reference in Judges 1:26 to the man who after betraying Bethel goes to the ‘land of the Hittites’, the only other occurrence of this phrase besides the Joshua 1:4 passage, it is quite possible that the Neo-Hittite area is meant.

​

The references to the ‘Kings of the Hittites’ in 1 Kings 10:29 and 2 Chronicles 1:17, where they are importing horses and chariots from Solomon, and 2 Kings 7:6, in which their very name causes the Syrian army to flee, again inply a powerful and wealthy group of Kings, not a local Canaanite people who had been reduced by the conquest and enslaved by Solomon. Again the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms fit perfectly, the chronology is right, they were in the same area as the Syrians and the plural ‘kings’ fits very well with the nature of these states, which were not unified into a polity, but consisted of a number of small kingdoms. Also, just a word on the ‘Neo-Hittites’, these are not the Hittites of Anatolia either, ‘yet the language and the religion of these ‘Neo-Hittites’ inscriptions are not those of the Hittites of Hattusas, nor are they those of the common people who inhabited Syria under the Hittite Empire (for they were Hurrians). (O R Gurney, The Hittites, page 40. Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex 1952)*Note that Hattusas is BoghazkoyGurney’s book was written over 50 years ago, so there really is no excuse for keeping this Hittite myth going, no scholar worth his salt ever links the Hittites of Palestine with the Anatolian ones. Gurney has an interesting chapter entitled ‘The Hittites in Palestine’ in which he states: We have to deal with the paradoxical fact that, whereas the Hittites appear in the Old Testament as a Palestinian tribe, increasing knowledge of the history of the ancient people of Hatti has led us even farther away from Palestine, until their homeland has been discovered in the heart of the Anatolian plateau. That the Syrian vassals states of the Hittite Empire were confined to the area north of Kadesh on the Orontes, and that although Hittite armies reached Damascus, they never entered Palestine itself (Gurney. P59).So we can see from the biblical texts that there are two distinctive groups that are referred to as Hittite, neither is the Hittites of Boghazkoy, it is incorrect to identify them as such. The Hittites that are attested to at Boghazkoy were never anywhere near Palestine: In the consideration of the Hittite history two main periods can be distinguished, the period before 1200 BCE and the period after that date. In the first period the Hittite Empire centred in inner Anatolia, extended southward toward the northern reaches of Syria, but never as far south as Palestine. In the second period, small Hittite kingdoms and principalities covered vast areas in Anatolia and Syria, none of them extending south of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. (‘Hittites in the Old Testament’ in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, G A Buttrick (ed) Abingdon Press New York 1962)Here is another extract; this is from the Oxford Companion to the Bible:Among the people of Israel found in Canaan were the ‘Sons of Heth’ members of a Canaanite family (Gen 10:15). Esau married two of their women (Gen 26:34) and later Ezekiel decried Israel’s religious faithlessness by calling her a descendant of a Canaanite and a Hittite, Ephron the Hittite sold his field and cave near Hebron to Abraham. The names given for these Hittites are all Semitic and it is likely that they all were members of a local Canaanite tribe. The Hittites of Anatolia, (modern Turkey) were another people, forgotten until excavations at Boghazkoy were begun in 1906. (Entry ‘Hittites’ page 285, Bruce Metzger and Michael D Coogan (eds) Oxford University Press, New York 1993)An excellent book on the Hittites is the fairly recent book by Trevor Bryce entitled ‘The Kingdom of the Hittites’, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998, in which he claims that archaeologists have an embarrassment of riches at Boghazkoy, is this good news for the Bible though, apparently not?Bryce does tell us the origin of the apparent problem the term Hittite: How did the term ‘Hittite’ come about? It arose out of a few scattered biblical references to a Canaanite people after the end of the Bronze Age. The term was subsequently adopted by scholars to refer to the Late bronze Age kingdom in Anatolia. As far as we know, the Late Bronze Age Hittites never used any ethnic of political term to designate themselves, certainly not one which reflected an Indo-European origin. They simply called themselves ‘people of the land of Hatti (pp. 18-19).So you can see that the Anatolian ‘Hittites’ never referred to themselves as Hittites in the biblical term, it appears that we had a problem in the bible with a people there was no evidence for, then we had the discovery of a people at Bogzhakoy and for no real reason they were lumped together, and lo and behold the Bible is proven once again! It really is scandalous that this deliberate misleading of the general public is being maintained, and what is worse, it is being maintained by people who allegedly follow a god who insists that his followers tell the truth.A final word on the Hittites from Bryce: The Bible contains a number of references to Hittites and Hittite kings. What connections, if any, do these ‘Biblical Hittites’ have with the kingdom which dominated Anatolia and parts of Syria in the Late Bronze Age, and its successors in the centuries which followed?

​

A number of references place the Hittites in a Canaanite context, slearly as a local Canaanite tribe, descendants of the eponymous patriarch Heth, and encountered by Abraham around Hebron. The names of these ‘Hittites’ are for the most part of Semitic type; for example Ephron, Judith, Zohar. These were presumably the Hittites who were subject to Solomon and who were elsewhere in conflict with the Israelites. They were a small group living in the hills during the era of the Patriarchs and the later descendants of that group, and clearly to be distinguished from the Hittites of historical records (emphasis mine). The Hittites of the Bible are simply not the same people who are evidenced at Boghazkoy, this is a very well known fact within archaeological circles, so why it is still being hyped?So I think we can put this ‘biblical archaeology’ myth to bed once and for all.Brian.

Hi,Firstly I am not in the habit of making things up LOL,Secondly, there is no book report involved.Thirdly, maybe you have simply not read the same materials as I have.Anyway, here are ten links to sites that claim what I said in my intro, if you are at all interested you can do a Google and look at some others:My Google search was 'Bible Archaeology Hittites' returned 2, 250 hits, different search strings would also yield different results of course.1. IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Hittites Another important discovery was the Hittites and the decipherment of their texts. Scholars thought the Bible was wrong because there was no evidence of Hittites until Hittite pottery was dug up. 2. Page not found – MULTIMEDIA PRESENTATION OF BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGYBoghaz-Koy: Much to the annoyance of the biblical critics, A.H. Sayce found the capital of the Hittites in 1876. Hugo Winckler, German cuneiform scholar, went to investigate upon hearing about the selling of tablets by the locals. At Boghaz-Koy, he uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel, monumental pictures and 10,000 clay tablets that speak of Boghaz-Koy as the Hittite capital called Hattusha. The Hittites are mentioned 47 times in the Bible. 3. 404 Not Found There are so many examples that I hardly know where to begin. One of my favorites, however, is the example of the Hittites. For many years critics maintained that the Hittite civilization did not exist because the only historic record of the people was in the Bible. As the result of archaeological discoveries, there are now hundreds of artifacts documenting the Hittite civilization, spanning more than 1,000 years. 4. Forbidden (Genesis 23:10). Archaeologists and historians, for hundreds of years said: ‘The Bible is wrong. It cannot be God’s book because there is a mistake. There is no evidence of there ever being a people called the Hittites.
No buried cities, no documents mentioning them, nothing at all.’
Because there was no evidence, they didn’t believe that the Bible could be right. Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica had nothing in about Hittites.

​

Then, an archaeologist discovered an ancient slab with writing on it. This mentioned that someone had had a battle with a nation of people called Hittites! The Bible was right! The following edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica contained lots if information about this people! 5. http://www.plvcc.org/archaeology_and_the_bible.htmThe skeptics once claimed that no such nation as the Hittites ever existed since they were mentioned only in the Bible. They felt that the Hittites were only an imaginary race of people. Records of Egypt and Assyria have now been found which show that the Hittites for nearly seven centuries occupied Northern Syria and Southern Asia Minor and were one of the greatest nations on the earth at that time. Many ruins of Hittite buildings have been found. Thus the claim of the skeptic has been silenced about the Hittites and again our faith remains in the truthfulness of the Bible. 6. Archaeology and the Old Testament The Hittites played a prominent role in Old Testament history. They interacted with biblical figures as early as Abraham and as late as Solomon. They are mentioned in Genesis 15:20 as people who inhabited the land of Canaan. 1 Kings 10:29 records that they purchased chariots and horses from King Solomon. The most prominent Hittite is Uriah the husband of Bathsheba. The Hittites were a powerful force in the Middle East from 1750 B.C. until 1200 B.C. Prior to the late 19th century, nothing was known of the Hittites outside the Bible, and many critics alleged that they were an invention of the biblical authors.

​

In 1876 a dramatic discovery changed this perception. A British scholar named A. H. Sayce found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey. He suspected that they might be evidence of the Hittite nation. Ten years later, more clay tablets were found in Turkey at a place called Boghaz-koy. German cuneiform expert Hugo Winckler investigated the tablets and began his own expedition at the site in 1906.

​

Winckler's excavations uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several massive sculptures. In one storeroom he found over ten thousand clay tablets. One of the documents proved to be a record of a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite king. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-koy was the capital of the Hittite kingdom. Its original name was Hattusha and the city covered an area of 300 acres. The Hittite nation had been discovered! 7. http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htmIf you want a good example of how archaeology goes hand-in-hand with the Bible, let me tell you about the Hittites and how I once visited their capital city in Turkey. As we read through the first few books of the Old Testament, we can find about forty references to the Hittites, and I’ve been interested in the Hittites for a long time. I knew that even though they appear in the Bible, they had been lost to history and forgotten. I knew that critics of the Bible doubted whether there ever was such a race of people and brushed them aside as "myth" or "legend." And I knew that in the twentieth century, archaeologists had uncovered the Hittite capital at Hattusas in Turkey and that we now have a vast amount of information about these Hittites. 8. Page not found - Apologetics PressHowever, the year 1876 saw many people changing their minds about both the Hittites and the Bible. An archaeologist, Hugo Winckler, visited a city in Turkey named Boghaz-Ky. Upon excavating portions of the city, he found a breathtaking number of human artifactsincluding five temples, many sculptures, and a fortified castle. But more important, he found a huge storeroom filled with over 10,000 clay tablets. After completing the difficult task of deciphering the tablets, it was announced to the world that the Hittites had been found. The sight at Boghaz-Ky had been the Hittite capital city, Hattusha (see Price, 1997, p. 83).

​

All the people who had used the absence of archaeological evidence about the Hittites to mock the Bible’s accuracy were shamefaced and silent, and another small piece of evidence was added to the ever-growing mass of facts verifying the Bible’s accuracy.9. Forbidden!The Bible refers to a civilization of people called the Hittites, but no other literature has made reference to such a civilization. Critics used to say this was just fiction in the Bible. However, archaeological excavations in the 1950's found the remains of the Hittite empire in the area where the Bible said it was (Turkey/Syria), and Carbon-14 dating tests prove that it existed at the time stated in the Bible (1375-1200 B.C.). 10. http://www.bibleworld.com/arch01.htmForgotten people have been brought to life by the archaeological spade. The Hittites, even though mentioned more than 40 times in the Old Testament (Josh. 1:4, et al.), were unknown outside the Bible at the beginning of the twentieth century. Some critics had denied the existence of such a people. By 1906 the Hittite capital at Boghazkoy (near Ankara, the capital of modern Turkey) was being excavated by Hugo Winckler. I have visited the site as well as the Anatolian Civilizations Museum in Ankara where the Hittite treasures are housed. Courses in Hittite civilization are now offered in major universities.

​

The names of numerous individuals who are mentioned in the Scriptures have been found on inscriptions, seals, and bullae from the period in which they lived. Ahab, Jehu, Mesha, Jehoiachin, Gemariah, Baruch, and Sargon are just a few of those named in the Bible who are also now known from historical records outside the Bible. Since you have been involved in paleontology and archaeology for over 50 years you must love the subject as much as I do. You must also be as horrified as I am when you see the discipline being abused in this fashion.I have been sent literally hundreds of email over the last few years regarding the Hittites and the Bible, I have no reason to make these claims up.I must admit that I am very very surprised that you haven't heard this claim before. Anyway, perhaps we just mmove in different circles.Brian.

Hi,I wasn't specifically talking about people at this forum, I was speaking in general terms. This misconception is like a rash all over the Internet.I am not claiming that everyone who claims this is deliberately misleading others, they more than likely believe that it is true. However, these stories have to originate somewhere and I believe it is those who set themselves up as an authority on Near Eastern archaeology that have been so desparate to prove things from the Bile that they have put two and two together and come up with five.I believe that most of the people presenting this Hittite argument simply have read it somewhere and swallowed it hook, line and sinker, they haven't taken any time to look into it.Brian.

Hi,Bryce explained how they came to be named Hittites: How did the term ‘Hittite’ come about? It arose out of a few scattered biblical references to a Canaanite people after the end of the Bronze Age. The term was subsequently adopted by scholars to refer to the Late bronze Age kingdom in Anatolia. As far as we know, the Late Bronze Age Hittites never used any ethnic of political term to designate themselves, certainly not one which reflected an Indo-European origin. They simply called themselves ‘people of the land of Hatti (pp. 18-19).Brian.

Hi,Sorry about the delay in replying, there was a book I had to collect to reference correctly. Yes this is essentially what happened:It can be traced to Archibald Sayce who, in a lecture to the Society of Biblical Archaeology in London in 1882, claimed that far from being a small Canaanite tribe who dwelt in the Palestinian hills, the Hittites were the people of a great empire stretching across the face of the ancient Near East, from the Aegean Sea’s eastern shoreline to the banks of the Euphrates, centuries before the age of the Patriarchs ( Trevor Bryce, Life and Society in the Hittite World , Oxford University Press, Oxford 2002, page 3).He had suspected for some time that Boghazkoy was the capital of the Hittites because some hieroglyphic scripts found at Aleppo and Hamath in Northern Syria were in fact the work of the Hittites (the biblical Hittites) and matched the script on a monument at Boghazkoy.But in 1902, 20 years after Sayce's claim, in the El Amarna tablets there were two tablets identified by J A Knudtzon as containing a new Indo-European language. The cuneiform script was found among the diplomatic correspondence of the Pharaohs Akhenaten and his father Amenhophis III. On one of the tablets, Knudtzon noticed that a king was mentioned who belonged to a country to called Arzawa, so naturally enough he called the new language Arzawan. His claim hardly found any support with contemporary scholars until it became known that a few fragments of clay tablets written in the same language had been found at Boghazkoy and as more tablets were unearthed in 1906, many more ‘Arzawan’ scripts were found.Although this was an important discovery for philologists, it presented a few problems for Sayce's theory. Central Anatolia wasn’t the place where you would expect to find early speakers of Indo-European, so two immediate questions had to be answered, first who were these people and second, how had they got there. First one was easy to answer. The tablets clearly showed that Boghazkoy was ancient Hattusas, the capital of the land of Hatti.Here is the rub, obviously the language of the tablets was that used by the people of Hatti, so the language was ‘consequently re-christened ‘Hittite’, and the name ‘Arzawan’ was quietly forgotten.’ ( J G Macqueen ‘The Hittites and their contemporaries in Asia Minor’ Thames and Hudson London 1986. page 22)It is an interesting term ‘re-christened’ if I were a sceptic I would say that someone jumped the gun a little here in naming the people of the land of Hatti as ‘Hittites.’The Arzawa tablets contradict Sayce's naming of the Boghazkoy inhabitants as being Hittite because they were written in cuneiform script and not in hieroglyphics.The ‘Hieroglyphic Hittites’ at Boghazkoy is also an Indo-European language and, although it has certain similarities to the cuneiform, it is by no means identical with it (Macqueen page. 24)The modern use of Hittite is clearly articficial when used in the Boghazkoy context, only a person interested in maintianing this biblical perfection myth would cling to the Hittites in the Bible as the Boghazkoy 'Hittites' Therefore our current designation of Hittite should be understood to represent an artificial categorisation of the peoples who lived under the political banner of Hattusa. (Ronald L. Gorny ‘Environment, Archaeology, and History in Hittite Anatolia. Biblical Archaeologist, Volume 52, 1989, page 82)The people who occupied central Anatolia were of mixed ethnic origins, Hattians, Hurrians, Luwians and numerous smaller groups, they called themselves by the traditional name of the region in which they lived, the ‘people of the Land of Hatti’.Bryce hopefully puts the final nail in the coffin of this myth when he sates that ‘Largely for the sake of convenience, and because of their long-assumed biblical connections, we have adopted for them the name ‘Hittite’ So yes, the name was given in haste, before the evidence was properly examined, and the term simply stuck, as Bryce said it was for the sake of convenience.Here is another very important point. Apart from one reference to ‘the land of Hittites’, which sometimes denotes Syria, all other references to the Hittites in the Old Testament are to a small group living in the hills during the era of the Patriarchs. In Hoffner’s opinion ( ‘The Hittites and Hurrians’ in D J Wiseman’s ‘Peoples of the Old Testament Times’, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1973, page. 196) this group is neither Hurrian (textual error hty for hry ) nor the group of Kurushtameans which migrated to the ‘land of Egypt’.The textual errors referred to actually help to solve the historical enigma of having Hittites in Palestine, as we know from the archives from Boghazkoy, the ‘Hittites’ there were never in Palestine. If we replace with ‘Horite’ the name ‘Hittites’ many, if not most of the historical problems disappear. This only involves changing one consonant, and in Hebrew consonant text, this would be palaeographically admissible (Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, page 615)It has always appeared strange that the Horites, who played such an important role in the history of Syria and Palestine in the 2nd millennium BCE have received very scant mention in the Old Testament, far out of proportion to their real importance. By replacing ‘Hittites’ when the term designates people in Palestine, with ‘Hurrians’, we may obtain a picture that is fully compatible with our knowledge of Hurrian history. (IDB. p.615)The people of Boghazkoy only ever referred to themselves as people of 'the Land of Hatti'. Sayce incorrectly identified them as the biblical 'Hittites', scholars adpoted the term, and by the time that it was shown that they were not the biblical 'Hittites' the name had become too well assosciated with them, so for the sake of convenience, it was kept.It wasn't that difficult to find this information out, of course I have access to a wonderful library, I really don't know how the so-called 'biblical archaeologists' on many Christian websites maintain this myth, they should do their homework.Hope this helps, if you require any more information, or you would like anything here clarified, then let me know please.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 11-26-2003]

Hi Ken,Are you finished editing your post, can I reply now and find that the post I am replying to hasn't undergone any more editing before I answer the points you raise?Could I ask that instead of editing the same message over and over again, you make a new post for any new information you add to a previous reply. Failing that, could you perhaps make sure that a reply is in its final form before you post it?To keep finding that you alter almost every message you post is a bit confusing, I find on ocassions that you edit a reply before I have had time to reply to it.So, can I take it that it is safe to reply now, or are you intending to edit the message again?Brian.

Hi Ken, I very seldom use web resources Ken, I prefer to use as many primary sources as I can. I find that many webmasters do not research or reference their materials very well, or are over selective with the material they present, so I prefer to get my hands on the actual materials that people cite and then make my own conclusions. Many websites misrepresent scholars’ positions, whether accidentally or otherwise, so I tend to prefer the original work. I, therefore, prefer to work form as many original sources as I can, journals, books, archaeological surveys, and private conversations with respected scholars.My conclusion is based on a great deal of the available evidence, not just on one or two references from a couple of websites that provide no details at all for the counter argument. Can I say that archaeology will always have its limitations Ken, the nature of the discipline dictates this. Every archaeological artefact is subjected to the investigator’s interpretation and that is probably the biggest limitation of archaeology.Also, your limitation is not always a problem, it is not always a factor because in many many instances there is ample evidence to support a theory, and sometimes the evidence from archaeology is so convincing that to object to it would be absurd. For example, the huge amount of archaeological data available in relation to the alleged conquest of Canaan by Joshua and his armies prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there ever was a unified military conquest of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age transition. The evidence from archaeology against a unified military conquest is so overwhelming that to question it is perverse. Therefore, your source’s desperate appeal to the sanctuary of the ‘absence of evidence’ stance is not relevant to the subject under discussion.
Essentially, your source is not only misleading you, he is showing a lack of knowledge about the archaeological data that is available. He is making an erroneous claim by saying that the lack of archaeological evidence at excavation site ‘X’ means that the evidence available at excavation site ‘Y’ will also be lacking, this is a very childish approach to archaeology. Which Near Eastern archives were destroyed that a have any bearing on the subject in question? Can you give a reference for this, how does your source arrive at his conclusion of 2%?Also, of the ‘2%’ that have been excavated, how many of them are related to the subject in question? Okay, let us have a look at the quality of the source that you use, here is the paragraph from the website that your partial quote can be found in. Instead of quoting the paragraph twice I will comment on what I consider to be important parts of the text. While archaeology is of great help to our understanding the Bible, the biblical evidence in the text must be given priority over the archaeological evidence from the field. The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology. The primary limitation of archaeology is the extremely fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence. Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives. Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. Right away we can see the bias of the author, he makes a ridiculous claim that the Bible must be given priority over the texts. There is no reason other than faith for doing this.One of the major problems with giving the Bible priority over the archaeological evidence is that you are not giving the archaeological artefacts a chance to be examined independent of the Bible. This was in fact the way archaeological exploration was carried out from the end of the 19th century until the mid 1970’s when the huge amount of contrary evidence forced many so-called ‘biblical archaeologists’ to accept that the Biblical accounts of many Near Eastern events simply do not fit with the evidence available.Contrary to your source, there is a huge amount of data available; you just need to look at Kathleen Kenyon’s survey of Jericho to see a good example of this.So, while your source may well be correct in his estimation of the percentage of possible archaeological sites, (although you are yet to provide evidence for this) the sites that have been excavated have provided a wealth of information about the background of the world in which the Bible evolved.Another small problem, your source only mentioned sites in Israel, what about the rest of Palestine, Syria, Turkey and Egypt? What is the situation in these countries in regard to the dealing with biblical characters and events, does he have a percentage for those countries?This is all immaterial anyway, because for the topic in question there is ample evidence available, and this is what you have to address Ken. You need to look at the evidence that I have given and refute that evidence, you do not have to claim the old ‘absence of evidence’ wimp out. It is boring and unconvincing. This is still an ‘absence of evidence’ plea, this does not mean that there has to be evidence to support the Bible here, it may mean that there could be evidence. Why don’t you or your source actually address the evidence that we do have instead of praying that something might turn up. Not in all cases Ken, look at Avraham Biran at Tel Dan, or Manfred Bietak Avaris, and what about Sayce at the site in question, Boghazkoy, are you telling me that they haven’t excavated very much at that site? However, you can get permission to view the archaeological survey from whichever excavation you want. Your source knows virtually nothing about archaeology because if he did he would know how to get his hands on unpublished archaeological information from virtually any excavation that’s ever been done.The main problem with this claim is the fact that everything (except for one or two souvenirs) is catalogued and either displayed or stored. The texts that are unpublished are still available for almost anyone to examine. Now, depending on who sponsored the excavation and who owns the land, various criteria may have to be met before you can get to examine these artefacts, but, many unpublished texts are available on microfilm or on-line from some universities and scholars can translate/examine these texts themselves. I would really like a reference for this gem, but as I have informed you, there are ways to examine unpublished archaeological materials. This is a wild goose chase anyway because there are thousands of texts available from Boghazkoy, why are you mentioning the lack of texts when one of the world’s leading Hittitologists claims that they have an embarrassment of archaeological riches from Boghazkoy?Your source also fails to deal with the non-textual evidence, for example the size and layout of a settlement speaks volumes about the development of a society and the interaction of that society would have had with other groups. But archaeology is not used in isolation, archaeology is only ONE source that is used to investigate Ancient Near Eastern history. The archaeological artefacts are not taken by themselves, they are interpreted, placed in a context and used to either support or disprove an hypothesis about the past. To suggest that archaeology is used by itself to undermine the bible is a misrepresentation of the facts. What exactly do you think the limitations of archaeology are? Is it purely in relation to the amount of artefacts available or is it something else? This is laughable. Which biblical texts survive from the Patriarchal period, the Amarna period or the pre-exilic period? The abundance of literary sources from Amarna, Mari, Nuzi, Ebla, and Alalakh, to mention only a few, make the biblical record look utterly insignificant by comparison. I will, for the record, state again that I adore the Old Testament, it is a wonderful collection of texts.The Bible really does not represent the most complete literary record of these times, the Bible may represent the most complete literary record of the Israelites of these times but in regard to external events the Bible has a very poor track record. Compare the Bible to the huge amount of information from the Amarna letters, then get back to me. This point about the Bible being the most complete literary record ‘of these times’ is embarrassing.Even if we look back to the Jonah fiasco, the biblical story as we have it dates from 400 or 500 years after the events it describes. We can see by comparing the biblical texts with the archaeological information that the Bible is fairly unreliable, so much of the Bible has been disproved by archaeological data that its reliability is very questionable. It is very proper to take a primary source against a secondary source. The Bible is not a primary source, the accounts are second hand (at least) and written long after many of the events in it were said to have happened. However, in archaeology we have some superb primary sources, apart from the aforementioned texts we have many inscriptions that illuminate the past, the Mesha Stele, The Merneptha Stele, the Tel Dan Stele, The Kurkh monolith, Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, etc.The Bible is not this wonderful, historically accurate font of information that you would like it to be. The Bible is a closed book, nothing will be added or taken away. Archaeological investigations are continuing and more evidence is found all the time, which compels archaeologists to either claim more supporting evidence for their theories or to change their theories. If anything, it is the Bible that has the limitations not archaeology. The Bible suffocates under the weight of hugely inaccurate chronologies, innumerable contradictions, masses of folklore, an over abundance of myth and idealist propaganda. Not to mention the smattering of anachronisms that prove in many cases that the Bible was written a long time after many of the alleged events portrayed in it happened. A bit of a double standard here Ken, suddenly archaeology is useful if it appears to support the Bible, but where it doesn’t support the Bible then archaeology is unreliable. If archaeology is useful as a handmaiden to the Bible then why cant it be a handmaiden for other disciplines? When I finish my dissertation I will let you know. But I think what the available information tells us about early Israel really would surprise you. Given the information above I would say that very little of it is relevant to the topic. You NEED to address the specific points that I have made, you really haven’t related any of your research to refuting any particular points. Ken I think you have accidentally misread what Professor Humble claims, he does not say this IS Hittite art, he says it MAY be Hittite art, read it again.From your link: ‘But even though the lion and dog are interesting, there is something else that interests me even more. This relief may (emphasis mine) be Hittite art.’It has not been shown that this art is linked to the Indo-European people that settled at Boghazkoy. Yes we will take it into consideration as soon as you tell us what it is. This is a rather vague claim, it isn’t even referenced so how can I go and examine it?I have no idea why Forrer arrives at this conclusion, I have no idea what particular inscription you are talking about or what it says. These are the sort of things that you need to present in your argument, if you do not have the explanation of why Forrer comes to his conclusions you could at least provide bibliographical details so I can have a look for myself. Do you even know Forrer's Christian name?Having said that, there are a few things in the quote provided that don’t quite sit right. Firstly, when Mursilis II reigned in the mid to late 14th century BCE Palestine was still Egyptian territory, it was a massive empire so there must be something that compelled Forrer to suggest that Boghazkoy ‘Hittites’ wandered into Palestine. What evidence does Forrer present that contradicts this claim: In the consideration of the Hittite history two main periods can be distinguished, the period before 1200 BCE and the period after that date. In the first period the Hittite Empire centred in inner Anatolia, extended southward toward the northern reaches of Syria, but never as far south as Palestine. In the second period, small Hittite kingdoms and principalities covered vast areas in Anatolia and Syria, none of them extending south of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. (‘Hittites in the Old Testament’ in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, G A Buttrick (ed) Abingdon Press New York 1962) .Forrer’s claim also contradicts leading Hittitologist Oliver R Gurney who declares: We have to deal with the paradoxical fact that, whereas the Hittites appear in the Old Testament as a Palestinian tribe, increasing knowledge of the history of the ancient people of Hatti has led us even farther away from Palestine, until their homeland has been discovered in the heart of the Anatolian plateau. That the Syrian vassals states of the Hittite Empire were confined to the area north of Kadesh on the Orontes, and that although Hittite armies reached Damascus, they never entered Palestine itself (Gurney. O R. The Hittites, Middlesex, Penguin Books 1952, p.59).Gurney has no doubts that the Boghazkoy ‘Hittites’ never entered Palestine, you have provided nothing at all to make me or any one else have any reason to reconsider Gurney’s stance. Actually the passage above doesn’t give any reason at all to reconsider anything, there is nothing at all in that paragraph that challenges the conclusions of the world’s leading Hittitologists. There is nothing at all to examine Ken, it is just a basic summary of what someone proposed around 70 years ago, it says nothing about why he proposes anything. It is an empty claim. If you want to challenge my conclusion then give me something concrete not just a few lines from a web page. But was it the Indo-European ‘Hittites’ Ken, what link is there with the Boghazkoy ‘Hittites’. You do know that ‘Ephron’ is a Semitic name? You do know that there are no Semitic names at all in the thousands of texts from Boghazkoy so what is it you are proposing that links the ‘Abraham Hittites’ to the ‘Boghazkoy Hittites’? Nothing of any substance here, everything has been dealt with in my other posts. Strange this Ken, did you even read my earlier posts, I referenced a few sources that explained this and how the term ‘Hittite’ was wrongly given to the Indo-European people and it was only for the sake of convenience that the name stuck, try reading message 15 Ken. Well let’s see the evidence then, what evidence does the Wycliffe offer that may indicate that Indo-European ‘Hittites’ may have ‘immigrated’ to central Palestine?
‘A relatively unimportant group’ does not really describe the might of the Hittites who were powerful enough to give the Egyptians a run for their money. The archaeological evidence in relation to the Hittites of Boghazkoy is not fragmentary, read my posts, the Boghazkoy find was massive and certainly not fragmentary. But you haven’t provided anything at all worth considering Ken, give me something to get my teeth into, not just condensed, unexplained opinions, give me the reasons why these opinions exist. How can I refute what, say Forrer, claims if I do not have his evidence to examine? You did conclude that there are two distinct and unrelated groups called ‘Hittite’ in the Bible, I mean the Wycliffe does explain this doesn’t it? Well there are five references to ‘Hittites’ in the Bible that do not fit the picture of the ‘Sons of Heth’, there are two distinct groups referred to as ‘Hittite’ and you still haven’t mentioned a single shred of evidence that any of them have links to Boghazkoy. Except that the Wycliffe states categorically that the Indo-European people were artificially named.Ken, what evidence do you have to challenge my conclusion, all you have offered is something that amounts to ‘maybe’, ‘possibly’ and ‘there might be’.What evidence do you actually have that suggests there were Indo-European 'Hittites' (the ones who were artificially named rememeber)from Boghazkoy around the Hebron area in the Patriarchal period?Brian.

Hi Frank The Egyptians had a strong presence in Palestine well into the Late Iron Age I (1200-1000 BCE) then during this period Egyptian strength weakened and they eventually withdrew from the area. The Anatolian Hittite Empire collapsed dramatically around 1240-1200 BCE and they had never ventured into Palestine, there is nothing at all to suggest that they did. Abraham’s ‘Hittites’ dwelt around the Hebron area, there are no links at all between the Anatolian ‘Hittites’ and this area. The description of Abraham’s Hittites is inconsistent with the huge, powerful empire of the Anatolian ‘Hittites’. There is no mention of anything Semitic in the texts from Boghazkoy, not a single solitary mention. If anyone disagrees with you then just ask him or her for a name and in which Boghazkoy tablet it can be found.Brian.

I graduated in May 2005 from the University of Glasgow. The dissertation was an appraisal of the debate over the origins of Ancient Israel. I used three sources, the Hebrew Bible, archaeological evidence, and comparative anthropology. I studied under a Manchester graduate for my honour degree at Stirling. You have more than likely heard of Keith Whitelam, it was one of his courses that initially got me interested in the origins debate. As I said, I graduated last May from Glasgow, it was a Master of Theology by Research. I began an M.litt is archaeology last september, also at Glasgow, but I had to withdraw because it was taking up too much time. I have since found a uni that offers a MA in archaeology by distance learning, so I will be starting that later in the year. In my studies I was initially interested in the development of religions, but I am now leaning more towards focussing on archaeology. If I complete the MA in archaeology I will be in the fortunate position of having two disciplines in which to attempt a PhD.I have been teaching Religious Education and History at high schools since 1999, and tutoring at Glasgow uni since 2003 (Intro to Hebrew Bible and Eastern Religions), but I see my future in adult ed.Nice to have you aboard, I hope you can hang around as I am sure you will be an extremely valuable addition to the board.Brian.

But, you do know that 99% of the time it is tongue in cheek?Brian.

Who are these anonymous scholars that fundies keep mentioning?

There’s another life wasted. I provided ten links in post number 6, did you not read them?The link from apologetics press is copyrighted to 2002 so maybe you need to research the topic a bit more.To be fair, I’d say all of the links probably lead to conservative fundy Xian websites because we know that this type of Xian has no problems with lying to people. In fact they need to lie because their faith is so ridiculous. Another liar for God, or do you genuinely have no idea about the topic? Well read the links in post 6 and get familiar with the lies that are being spread all over the Internet by lying xians, it is only one of many.So, why are you in the seminary:Head trauma
Ex-alcoholic
Ex- Drug addict
Ex- Gambler
Ex- wife-beater
Or
My life was at an all time low, I had no one to turn to.Maybe even all of the above?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : NOTE: Brian got a 24 hour suspension for this message.

Could you supply some of this 'secular' evidence that archaeology has found for Belshazzar and Potifer (Potiohar), or is this another Peg fantasy?