Archaelogists Claimed the Hittites didn't Exist?

[WinAce]

I've seen this claim from a few credibility-lacking sites (and the posters who use them), but what's the real deal here? I can't find any primary references to this.

It also doesn't seem like something that would be done lightly, as arguments from silence are generally backed up with other evidence and/or arguments. Furthermore, even some of the most difficult Biblical problems (I won't name any here to keep from derailing the thread) are commented on with "no evidence is known of..." or "from what we know of _____ practice, this seems unlikely" or "the inerrantist explanation is far-fetched and unreasonable".

Here are a few possible explanations I can see.

[list=1]
Someone on the lunatic fringe claimed the Hittites didn't exist and sold many books.
A well-respected archaelogist commented at a press conference that he thought the Old Testament might be incorrect on this and the fundies made a mountain out of a molehill.
A consensus of archaelogists from all except Christian backgrounds said, without reservation, that the Old Testament was mistaken on this point and had to eat their hats later.
[/list=1]

Guess which choice my money's on. :cool:

[Revolg]

"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!

Less than a decade after Winckler's find, Czech scholar Bedrich Hronzny proved the Hittite language is an early relative of the Indo-European languages of Greek, Latin, French, German, and English. The Hittite language now has a central place in the study of the history of the Indo-European languages.

The discovery also confirmed other biblical facts. Five temples were found containing many tablets with details of the rites and ceremonies that priests performed. These ceremonies described rites for purification from sin and purification of a new temple. The instructions proved to be very elaborate and lengthy. Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written (1400 B.C.). The Boghaz-koy texts along with others from Egyptian sites and a site along the Euphrates called Emar have proven that the ceremonies described in the Jewish Pentateuch are consistent with the ceremonies of the cultures of this time period.

The Hittite Empire made treaties with civilizations they conquered. Two dozen of these have been translated and provide a better understanding of treaties in the Old Testament. The discovery of the Hittite Empire at Boghaz-koy has significantly advanced our understanding of the patriarchal period. Dr. Fred Wright summarizes the importance of this find in regard to biblical historicity."

http://www.probe.org/docs/arch-ot.html

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 05:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79414#post79414)
WinAce:

I've seen this claim from a few credibility-lacking sites (and the posters who use them), but what's the real deal here? I can't find any primary references to this.

It also doesn't seem like something that would be done lightly, as arguments from silence are generally backed up with other evidence and/or arguments. Furthermore, even some of the most difficult Biblical problems (I won't name any here to keep from derailing the thread) are commented on with "no evidence is known of..." or "from what we know of _____ practice, this seems unlikely" or "the inerrantist explanation is far-fetched and unreasonable".

Here are a few possible explanations I can see.

[list=1]
Someone on the lunatic fringe claimed the Hittites didn't exist and sold many books.
A well-respected archaelogist commented at a press conference that he thought the Old Testament might be incorrect on this and the fundies made a mountain out of a molehill.
A consensus of archaelogists from all except Christian backgrounds said, without reservation, that the Old Testament was mistaken on this point and had to eat their hats later.
[/list=1]

Guess which choice my money's on. :cool:

I agree with you here I do believe that Archaeologist are more or less fair in their assessments but not all. Lets not for get the Copenhagen school today who are parallel with the Jesus Seminar in New Testament Studies. They are fundamentalist in a different direction.
I really get sick of your misrepresenation of everyone who believes in Orthodox Christianity. I do not call all Atheist nut bags because there are many. No, I read their writings and then make my own determination. For instance I respect Richard Carrier of Infidels, Jeff Lowder, Kyle Gerkin etc. I do not respect the ones who seem to be so hostile to Christianity that they could not see straight (No pun intended). So if you would please tone down the rhetoric it would be nice, no one really cares what your opinion is on people who believe in Orthodoxy. I think people like N.T. Wright, Bill T. Arnold (OT professor), Patrick D. Miller (OT at Princenton) would not like your painting of a broad brush on people who are Evangelical.
This brings me to another point someone can hold a high view of scripture and not be a "inerrantist". Also they can believe in the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Atonement etc. So please Define "fundamentalist" in a way that everyone understands.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Dr.GH]

Even earlier, Christians apparently had no answer to liberal archaeologists who thought that the Hittites were a biblical myth.

It would seem that the “liberal archaeologists” bogeyman raised by socrates are either long dead 19th century “orientalists,” or nonexistent. I tend to think that, like any new there was the quite proper scientific reserve, and questioning which socrates (or his unidentified sources) have over interpreted. I can find no bibliographic evidence of this, but I have not made a significant search. At any event, “liberal” used as an epithet is merely prejudicial.

I poked around a little bit and picked up the following:
In the 1870's a solution was offered and accepted. Kheta were the Hittites, occasionally mentioned in the Scriptures. It was the phonetic similarity of the names that prompted this identification.

William Wright, a missionary in Damascus, came to this conclusion and also decided that the mysteries {sic} signs are Hittite writings. Since almost nothing was known of Hittite history, it was like resurrecting an empire from oblivion, and it was called `a
discovery of a forgotten empire.' These were sensational matters in the 1880's.

W. Wright, `The Empire of the Hittites', London, 1886; UC Berkeley DS 66 W8.

A.H. Sayce, `The Hittites: The Story of a Forgotten Empire', (1888)
From: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hittites.html


From University of Washington library holdings:

Wright, William, 1837-1899. The empire of the Hittites. By William Wright ... With decipherment of Hittite inscriptions by Prof. A.H. Sayce, LL. D.; a Hittite map by Col. Sir C. Wilson ... and Capt. Conder, R.E. and a complete set of Hittite inscriptions revised by
Mr. W.H. Rylands, F.S.A. New York, Scribner & Welford, 1884. LOCATION: Suzzallo Stacks; Call #= 939.45 W937e

Sayce, A. H. (Archibald Henry), 1845-1933. The Hittites : the story of a forgotten empire. London : Religious Tract Society, 1925. LOCATION: Suzzallo Stacks; Call #= 939.45
Sa9h4

Wright was a missionary, and Sayce wrote religious tracs. This suggests another possibility: later, politically motivated commentators have interpreted the normal questioning of new discoveries as attacks on these two missionary/scholars. But, again, I have no sources that even suggest that there was much, or any criticism of Wright and Sayce. Indeed the website I linked above was somewhat 'grumpy' that the mideastern chronologies currently in standard use were not more heavily criticized.

At any event, the academic arguments from 130 years ago are utterly pointless interruptions of the tread on ERV insertions by soctares. Nice try, be sure to play again.

[Socrates]

The social scientist DrG.H. sez:I can find no bibliographic evidence of this, but I have not made a significant search. At any event, “liberal” used as an epithet is merely prejudicial.Maybe he should have done a bibliographic search before writing and supporting the demonstrably misinformed Winace. And "liberal" was the term used by the liberals themselves, so stop whinging.At any event, the academic arguments from 130 years ago are utterly pointless interruptions of the tread on ERV insertions by soctares. Nice try, be sure to play again.Nonsense -- they are yet another example of how the Bible has remained the anvil on which many "assured conclusions of scholarship that show the Bible to be false" have been splattered.

[Dr.GH]

A rather quick, even superficial, search provided sources that contradict the notion that some nefarious “liberals” tried to deny the existence of “Hittites” merely because they were mentioned in the Biblical narrative. By superficial, I mean that I did not read the original 130 year old literature, and instead relied on secondary sources fron the 1940's onward.

Rather, the record discloses that within a very short time, the Hittite theory and associated chronological hypothesis became the common assumption in mideastern archaeology. There is a massive literature on the Hittites. These books and articles are all in reference to "Hittites." Indeed, I could not find a single article or book that denied the existance of the Hittites.

Who were these archaeologists, what was the basis for their dispute (130 to 200 years ago ((if there ever was one?)) and were they motivated by being "liberal," or being some other of socrates' favorite epithets?

socrates has still not provided his references to original literature to support his assertions. Thus, the rest of his argument is pure bombastic sputtering.

[Socratism]

It is pretty common to consider scriptural references to be mythological, until evidence turns up to support them.

Since this has been going on for a long time I do not doubt that that was once a common attitude toward the "Hittites".

It certainly is true today for Moses and was until recently the attitute toward King David.

There is also a tendency in writing histories to ignore certain past attitudes in order to concentrate on ideas that have stood the test of time. Thus, I am amused by histories of the space program which do not jibe with my own personal experience living through the era. Some things, particular embarassing ones, never seem to make it into the history books.

The only antidote to recently written "sanitized" or "political correct" histories is to try to find sources that have survived from the period in question. That is why I like to collect old books on subjects I am interested in.

BTW, here is an interesting article concerning the historical accuracy of scripture which mentions the Hittite point that Socrates said.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9806a.htm

[Dr.GH]

Thanks for the reference.

"The Hittites are mentioned over forty times in Scripture (Exodus 23:28; Joshua 1:4; et al.), and were so feared that on one occasion they caused the Syrians to flee from Israel (2 Kings 7:6). Yet critics suggested that Hittites were a figment of the Bible writers’ imaginations, since no evidence of their existence had been located. But in the late 1800s, A.H. Sayce discovered inscriptions in Syria that he designated as Hittite. Then, in 1906, Hugh Winckler excavated Boghazkoy, Turkey and discovered that the Hittite capital had been located on that very site. His find was all the more powerful because of the more than 10,000 clay tablets contained in the ancient city’s library, containing the society’s law system that eventually came to be known as the Hittite Code. Thus, Ira Price wrote of the Hittites:


The lack of extra-biblical testimony to their existence led some scholars about a half-century ago to deny their historicity. They scoffed at the idea of Israel allying herself with such an unhistorical people as the Hittites, as narrated in 2 Kings vii.6. But those utterances have vanished into thin air (1907, pp. 75-76).


So, in the 1850s some orientalists (the science of archeaology didn't exist) thought (properly) that exclucive reliance on the Old Testament was not a conductive research program. Well, how would you test the historicrity of the Bible without looking for extra-biblical sources? Every source I have seen indicated that as soon as there was a hint of independent evidence, scholars were falling over themselves to acknowledge the Hittites. Your source confirms my suspicion that long after the fact, fundamentalists tried to link proper competent conservative schalorship with opposition to the Biblical message. By 1907 the well had already been poisoned.

I would also note that your source had a weak grasp of the facts, "..., A.H. Sayce discovered inscriptions in Syria ..." This is not the case, according to the sources I found in just a superficial search of the literature. Those sources included Sayce himself (and are cited above).

Clearly the notion that "liberal archaeologists" attempted to deny the existance of the Hittites merely to vex good Christians is shown to be another fraud.

[Blake Reas]

Who cares? Can we please talk about some actual archaeology? We are here to talk about the signifigance of Rocks not the people who find them.

Blake

[runtmc2jc]

I've seen this claim from a few credibility-lacking sites (and the posters who use them), but what's the real deal here? I can't find any primary references to this.

It also doesn't seem like something that would be done lightly, as arguments from silence are generally backed up with other evidence and/or arguments. Furthermore, even some of the most difficult Biblical problems (I won't name any here to keep from derailing the thread) are commented on with "no evidence is known of..." or "from what we know of _____ practice, this seems unlikely" or "the inerrantist explanation is far-fetched and unreasonable".

Here are a few possible explanations I can see.


Someone on the lunatic fringe claimed the Hittites didn't exist and sold many books.
A well-respected archaelogist commented at a press conference that he thought the Old Testament might be incorrect on this and the fundies made a mountain out of a molehill.
A consensus of archaelogists from all except Christian backgrounds said, without reservation, that the Old Testament was mistaken on this point and had to eat their hats later.


Guess which choice my money's on. :cool:

velikovsky did not doubt the existance of a 'tribe' known as the hittites, but doubted the evidences found belonged to this little known people. his contention is (i believe - it's been a long time since i studied this) that the archeological findings attributed to the 'hittites' actually belong to the neo-chaldeans.

[mikeledo]

The Hittites certainly existed, but the question is when? When we attempt to place the OT text on a linear chronology, everything before Omri becomes screwed up. Numeria is a city connected to Gomorrah according to several Bible scholars. It was destroyed circa 2500 BCE. Abraham witnessed its destruction and also lived at the same time as Hittites. Hittites simply did not exist prior to 1800 BCE. This creates linear chronology problems. Either Numeria is not the city, or the Hittites were another people. We can never give up the idea of absolute historical linear chronology.

The chronolgy problems is the OT are horrible. It is so far off, it is like writing a history book and having the birth of Christ following the discovery of America. That is how bad this thing is. Bible thumpers address the problem by claiming all of science is wrong, while secular scholars simply ignore it.

[runtmc2jc]

The Hittites certainly existed, but the question is when? When we attempt to place the OT text on a linear chronology, everything before Omri becomes screwed up. Numeria is a city connected to Gomorrah according to several Bible scholars. It was destroyed circa 2500 BCE. Abraham witnessed its destruction and also lived at the same time as Hittites. Hittites simply did not exist prior to 1800 BCE. This creates linear chronology problems. Either Numeria is not the city, or the Hittites were another people. We can never give up the idea of absolute historical linear chronology.

The chronolgy problems is the OT are horrible. It is so far off, it is like writing a history book and having the birth of Christ following the discovery of America. That is how bad this thing is. Bible thumpers address the problem by claiming all of science is wrong, while secular scholars simply ignore it.

i would take the other route, that the o.t. chronology is basically accurate, and other ancient histories, especially that of egypt, are in confusion and chaos. the remains of the 'hittite' empire may or may not be that of the tribe mentioned in the o.t. i don't recall seeing this tribe mentioned as an empire as it does the egyptian, assyrian and babylonian empires. if i'm not mistaken, every time the word hittite is mentioned, other tribes are mentioned right along with it, not ascribing any particular eminence to the hittites.

[mikeledo]

i would take the other route, that the o.t. chronology is basically accurate, and other ancient histories, especially that of egypt, are in confusion and chaos. the remains of the 'hittite' empire may or may not be that of the tribe mentioned in the o.t. i don't recall seeing this tribe mentioned as an empire as it does the egyptian, assyrian and babylonian empires. if i'm not mistaken, every time the word hittite is mentioned, other tribes are mentioned right along with it, not ascribing any particular eminence to the hittites.

Most Bible believers do take that route and ignore the fact the Egyptian chronology is written in stone and is supported by Assyrian chronology. These in turn are supported from archaelogical evidence, including pottery and C-14 dating. In supporting the Bible over these known chronologies one would have to ignore nearly every aspect of logic and science. It is easier to change one book, the Bible, than it is to alter the entire history of the world.

[shunyadragon]

i would take the other route, that the o.t. chronology is basically accurate, and other ancient histories, especially that of egypt, are in confusion and chaos. the remains of the 'hittite' empire may or may not be that of the tribe mentioned in the o.t. i don't recall seeing this tribe mentioned as an empire as it does the egyptian, assyrian and babylonian empires. if i'm not mistaken, every time the word hittite is mentioned, other tribes are mentioned right along with it, not ascribing any particular eminence to the hittites.

The hanging on OT chronology becomes a matter of faith and not evidence. All the scholars that rely primarilly on evidence comeup with a different chronology. Historians and archeologists do not consider the an accurate historicl text. They consider much of the Bible as a collection of historical narratives.

The existence of Hittites has never been denied. Academic hyperbole as to what historians believed in the past carries very little weight. There have been and still are many questions as to who they were and how long they existed as a tribe. It is true that there is no evidence for Hittites before ~1800 BC.

[HRG_new]

IIRC, the "Hittites" of the Bible have little to do with the Hittites/Hethites - who called themselves Nesi; "Hatti" was the name of a pre-Hittite population - whose capital was excavated at Boghazköj.

After this Hittite empire collapsed, some client states in the South survived and left records in Hieroglyph Hittite, a language which is today called Luvian. It's those people who correspond to "Hittites" like Uriah.

[runtmc2jc]

Most Bible believers do take that route and ignore the fact the Egyptian chronology is written in stone and is supported by Assyrian chronology. These in turn are supported from archaelogical evidence, including pottery and C-14 dating. In supporting the Bible over these known chronologies one would have to ignore nearly every aspect of logic and science. It is easier to change one book, the Bible, than it is to alter the entire history of the world.

actually there is much confusion in reconciling the ancient chronologies, especially when attempting to corroborate with archeological findings such as pottery and the like. some very inventive (far-fetched) theories had to be concocted to reconcile some of these findings with the accepted chronology. for specifics i recommend the Ages in Chaos series (Velikovsky) which goes into great detail on these very points. (see: "Ages in Chaos", "Ramses and His Times", "Peoples of the Sea", and "Oedipus and Ahknaton.")

[mikeledo]

actually there is much confusion in reconciling the ancient chronologies, especially when attempting to corroborate with archeological findings such as pottery and the like. some very inventive (far-fetched) theories had to be concocted to reconcile some of these findings with the accepted chronology. for specifics i recommend the Ages in Chaos series (Velikovsky) which goes into great detail on these very points. (see: "Ages in Chaos", "Ramses and His Times", "Peoples of the Sea", and "Oedipus and Ahknaton.")

I have read all of Velikovshy's works. There is no confusion among archaeologists as to dating pottery etc, just those who have far fetched theories.

[runtmc2jc]

Most Bible believers do take that route and ignore the fact the Egyptian chronology is written in stone and is supported by Assyrian chronology. These in turn are supported from archaelogical evidence, including pottery and C-14 dating. In supporting the Bible over these known chronologies one would have to ignore nearly every aspect of logic and science. It is easier to change one book, the Bible, than it is to alter the entire history of the world.

yes that's true, and much of it in hieroglyphics, which were not even deciphered before the first dynasties were dated. subsequent dating was built upon the earlier dating, and not until recently has this chronology been questioned. (actually velikovsky questioned it some 50 years ago).

[learning]

actually, I read it was some Christians who assumed that a certain Pharaoh (Rameses?) was the one of Moses time, so they (the British and/or French I take it) took their dating of the Egyptians from that. There have been some more recent questioning of this, especially by Rohl (sp?) as he claims to have found some dozen names of Egyptian Pharaohs not on another list, and claims that by putting them into the dates, this will lead to the Biblical history fitting the things that happened.

I'ld like to know how or why they think that Egyptian or Assyrian chronology is any better or more accurate than Biblical? I'ld like to know where they've used much, if any, C-14 dating? I've hardly read of any. It is usually the pottery and other things they link together.

[bandecoot]

actually, I read it was some Christians who assumed that a certain Pharaoh (Rameses?) was the one of Moses time, so they (the British and/or French I take it) took their dating of the Egyptians from that. There have been some more recent questioning of this, especially by Rohl (sp?) as he claims to have found some dozen names of Egyptian Pharaohs not on another list, and claims that by putting them into the dates, this will lead to the Biblical history fitting the things that happened.

I'ld like to know how or why they think that Egyptian or Assyrian chronology is any better or more accurate than Biblical? I'ld like to know where they've used much, if any, C-14 dating? I've hardly read of any. It is usually the pottery and other things they link together.


C-14 is not much used to date certain things if they have been contaminated by 100 or so years of exposure to aerosol contaminents like Tobacco smoke and pollens.

As for accuracy, there is a lot more examples of Egyptian chronology and Assyrian Chronology and they tend to agree on dates. This is borne out by hundreds of years worth of treaties and trade agreements between the two nations. Israel never seems to loom very large in the Ancient world and the Biblical chronology is patchy at best. The OT conflates placenames with peoples names, and mostly never mentions the names of other kings or Pharaohs at all.

About what one would expect from a minor and relativley unimportant Client Kingdom.

[shunyadragon]

actually, I read it was some Christians who assumed that a certain Pharaoh (Rameses?) was the one of Moses time, so they (the British and/or French I take it) took their dating of the Egyptians from that. There have been some more recent questioning of this, especially by Rohl (sp?) as he claims to have found some dozen names of Egyptian Pharaohs not on another list, and claims that by putting them into the dates, this will lead to the Biblical history fitting the things that happened.

I'ld like to know how or why they think that Egyptian or Assyrian chronology is any better or more accurate than Biblical? I'ld like to know where they've used much, if any, C-14 dating? I've hardly read of any. It is usually the pottery and other things they link together.

Why? Because we have no Biblical records in stone, papyrus or clay that are ~100 - ~300 BC at best, and date much of anything with certainty before this time. We have far more Assyrian, Egyptian, and Babylonian ancient records of trade, and other subjects with only a side mention of Isreal or the Hebrews.

I would need a better reference for Rohl?. There have been more recent discoveries, but nothing that would disagree with what is known about Egyptian chronology that fits Assyrian chronology.

[learning]

,
I would need a better reference for Rohl?. There have been more recent discoveries, but nothing that would disagree with what is known about Egyptian chronology that fits Assyrian chronology.

Here's a few links concerning Rohl.(for references)
www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/rohl.html

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

[shunyadragon]

Here's a few links concerning Rohl.(for references)
www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/rohl.html (http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/rohl.html)

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

Thank you for the reference. I had to download the whole thing by Pope to get an over all picture of the argument for this chronology. It appeared to be well done research, but with some strong emphasis on hypothetical weak IFs. It wil take me a bit of time to digest, in part because my background knowledge of Egyptian chronology is weak, and I consider all chronologies to have a lot of gaps and problems simply from the lack of knowledge. My view generally is to try and synchronize the most modern better researched references.

[learning]

LOL, Egyptian chronology has so many kings, and so many 'ifs' (like) did this queen rule, or did she not? or did these Kings rule side by side, like some in the northern kingdom, some in the lower kingdom, at the same time, or not? So... with all of these 'ifs' and with all of the so called 'accuracy' as to the Egyptian and Biblical chronology, it will take some time to work out. That is why I don't let the so called 'chronology that doesn't match the Bible' thing bother me anymore. There are indeed, too many 'ifs'. :smile: