Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible and the Hittites, Exploding another 'Biblical Archaeology' Myth.
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 53 (89305)
02-28-2004 7:04 PM


the report of an "archaeology myth....explosion" was greatly exaggerated
Mark Twain when told his obituary was published in a newspaper is reported to have said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Now as far as the "archaeology myth" being "exploded" I would say the report of the explosion was greatly exagerrated.
The author of this string wrote:
"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..."
"I think it is time that that misinformed people stopped spreading this untruth and that this misconception was finally laid to rest."
I will agree that many people are not as informed as they could be regarding the Hittites but it seems as though the author has neglected to do a thorough search through the available literature and web resources himself or has merely looked for data to support his position.
I would say that there seems to be evidence against there being an "archeological myth...explosion" in terms of the archaeology and other disciplines. For one we must remember that Bible archaeology has its limitations at this point in time. A website provides the following useful commentary:
"Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins."
taken from: imja.com - This website is for sale! - imja Juin Resources and Information.
Given the information offered in the above paragraph, I would say there is some uncertainty regarding the Hittite migrations in regards to Israel.
Here is a relief that the Israel Museum in Jerusalem says is Hittite art and it is dated at 1700 B.C. according to Professor Humble:
http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm
We must also consider the data that Forrer provided that would indicate that the Hittites that were found at Boghazkoy in Turkey may also have been the Biblical Hittites given at a website below:
"Migration of Hittites: In 1936 Forrer interpreted a Hittite inscription from the 14th century B.C. by King Mursilis II that spoke of a migration into Egyptian territory as the origin of Palestinian Hittites. Although this referred to a much earlier time when Palestine was Egyptian territory, it was not likely as early as the Abraham. However, there is nothing that would have prevented another undocumented immigration to Palestine at an earlier date."
taken from:
Free Website Building Software | Create a Website - Homestead
Given the lion and dog relief in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem which Professor Humble mentions perhaps the above paragraph should at least be considered.
The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia states that the scholars Lehman and and Tucker "detected traces of Hittite real estate procedure in the transaction between Ephron and Abraham" (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 800).
In addition, a website offers some commentary readers may wish to consider regarding this matter:
Archaeology and the Old Testament
The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia also states the the Indo European Hittites who entered Anotolia received their name by accident by virtue of settling in territory previously held by a non-Indo-European group called the Hatti-people. I mention this not to support a Indo European Hittite migration to Palestine but to explain how they got their name.
Now it is true that the Wycliffe Bible Encylopedia states that usually the references to Hittites in the Bible refer to the sons of Heth which a "relatively unimportant group living in Palestine since the days of the Partriarchs." (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 799) it is clealy not as dogmatic as the author of this string was and offers evidence that may indicate that Indo-European Hittites who entered Anotolia may have immigrated to central Palestine. It does seem the Hittites play a more minor role in the Bible than some groups (Wycliffe calls them "relatively unimportant") because my Strong commentary had 20 plus references to the word Hittites whereas the word Amorites had 70 plus references. Now given the current fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence mentioned above plus the other information I mentioned, I do believe Wycliffe is being judicious in regards to their stated views on the subject.
So while it may be true that the "sons of Heth" may usually be the Biblical Hittites there is not enough certainty in my opinion and the opinion of the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia to make categorical statements.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 03-01-2004 5:24 AM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 19 by Brian, posted 03-02-2004 10:38 AM kendemyer has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 17 of 53 (89518)
03-01-2004 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by kendemyer
02-28-2004 7:04 PM


Can I reply Now?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kendemyer, posted 02-28-2004 7:04 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 53 (89579)
03-01-2004 1:20 PM


To: Brian
To: Brian
Re: "could you perhaps make sure that a reply is in its final form before you post it?"
I have no problem with this request. I have decided to be more reliant on the preview function and compose my material when I have all my resources available. Although I did edit this post, I assure you this post will be the exception that proves the rule.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 19 of 53 (89769)
03-02-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by kendemyer
02-28-2004 7:04 PM


Re: the report of an
Hi Ken,
I will agree that many people are not as informed as they could be regarding the Hittites but it seems as though the author has neglected to do a thorough search through the available literature and web resources himself or has merely looked for data to support his position.
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.
I would say that there seems to be evidence against there being an "archeological myth...explosion" in terms of the archaeology and other disciplines. For one we must remember that Bible archaeology has its limitations at this point in time.
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.
A website provides the following useful commentary:
"Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time.
Which Near Eastern archives were destroyed that a have any bearing on the subject in question?
To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins."
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.
To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins.
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.
Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined,
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?
and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published.
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.
Of the 500,000 cuneiform texts that are known to have been discovered over the past 100 years, only 10% have ever been published.
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.
Such limitations in archaeology should caution historians, social scientists, and theologians from drawing unwarranted conclusions concerning the biblical text based on the paucity of archaeological remains.
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.
However, once we assess the proper purpose of archaeology and acknowledge its limitations, we can successfully compare its material evidence to the biblical record.
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?
Even so, it must be remembered that the Bible itself is an archaeological document and while we have only a limited number of archaeological artifacts from the biblical period, the Bible represents the most complete literary record we possess of these times.
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.
For this reason it is improper to elevate archaeological data above the biblical text to challenge the latter’s integrity.
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.
However, while the Bible is a completed revelation it is not an exhaustive one.
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.
Though its message can be readily understood in any age, it is still selective in its statements and set in ancient contexts.
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.
Therefore, despite its limitations, archaeology as a handmaiden to the Bible can enlarge the scope of its statements and make its context more understandable.
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?
But what are we to say concerning the minimalists claims that there exists no evidence of an early Israel?
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 offered in the above paragraph, I would say there is some uncertainty regarding the Hittite migrations in regards to Israel.
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.
Here is a relief that the Israel Museum in Jerusalem says is Hittite art and it is dated at 1700 B.C. according to Professor Humble:
http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm
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.
We must also consider the data that Forrer provided that would indicate that the Hittites that were found at Boghazkoy in Turkey may also have been the Biblical Hittites given at a website below:
Yes we will take it into consideration as soon as you tell us what it is.
"Migration of Hittites: In 1936 Forrer interpreted a Hittite inscription from the 14th century B.C. by King Mursilis II that spoke of a migration into Egyptian territory as the origin of Palestinian Hittites. Although this referred to a much earlier time when Palestine was Egyptian territory, it was not likely as early as the Abraham. However, there is nothing that would have prevented another undocumented immigration to Palestine at an earlier date."
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.
Given the lion and dog relief in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem which Professor Humble mentions perhaps the above paragraph should at least be considered.
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.
The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia states that the scholars Lehman and and Tucker "detected traces of Hittite real estate procedure in the transaction between Ephron and Abraham" (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 800).
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’?
In addition, a website offers some commentary readers may wish to consider regarding this matter:
Archaeology and the Old Testament
Nothing of any substance here, everything has been dealt with in my other posts.
The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia also states the the Indo European Hittites who entered Anotolia received their name by accident by virtue of settling in territory previously held by a non-Indo-European group called the Hatti-people. I mention this not to support a Indo European Hittite migration to Palestine but to explain how they got their name.
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.
Now it is true that the Wycliffe Bible Encylopedia states that usually the references to Hittites in the Bible refer to the sons of Heth which a "relatively unimportant group living in Palestine since the days of the Partriarchs." (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 799) it is clealy not as dogmatic as the author of this string was and offers evidence that may indicate that Indo-European Hittites who entered Anotolia may have immigrated to central Palestine.
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.
Now given the current fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence mentioned above
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.
plus the other information I mentioned,
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?
I do believe Wycliffe is being judicious in regards to their stated views on the subject.
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?
So while it may be true that the "sons of Heth" may usually be the Biblical Hittites
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.
there is not enough certainty in my opinion and the opinion of the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia to make categorical statements.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kendemyer, posted 02-28-2004 7:04 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Textcritic, posted 06-09-2006 11:39 AM Brian has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 53 (89777)
03-02-2004 12:19 PM


the report of an "archeology myth...explosion" was greatly exaggerated
Dear Brian:
It is absolutely true that Professor Humble said it may be Hittite art. But is Professor Humble alone in his estimation? According to Professor Humble, absolutely not. I think you are being very selective in your response to the website information. Please read the quotes below from this website: http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm
"The Israel Museum has labeled the relief Hittite art."
Here is the specific Museum plus information where the artifact was discovered:
"I’ve visited the Israel Museum in Jerusalem many times, and I have often stopped to look at a relief carved in stone that was discovered at Beth Shan, about 20 miles south of the Sea of Galilee."
Plus you fail to give the reasons why Professor Humble is of the opinion of why it is Hittite art:
"Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite city of Hattusas in Turkey, and now we know that the Hittites were a powerful people around 1500 BC. But back to the stone relief of the lion and dog. Remember that it was discovered at Beth Shan near the Sea of Galilee and goes back to about 1700 BC. And it may be Hittite art. It looks very much like Hittite relief's that I have seen in the museums in Istanbul and Ankara. And lions are often pictured in Hittite art."
And again, according to Professor humble the Israel Museum in Jerusalem concurs:
"The Israel Museum has labeled the relief Hittite art."
I just see your response as more indication that you do not want to address information that is contrary to your stated views. It comes to no surprise to me that it is reflected in the type of research you did.
Lastly, I see these as strawman:
"To suggest that archaeology is used by itself to undermine the bible is a misrepresentation of the facts."
Because of what I said later:
"The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia states that the scholars Lehman and and Tucker "detected traces of Hittite real estate procedure in the transaction between Ephron and Abraham" (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 800)."
I believe the above section of my post at least partly deals with textual analysis in regards to scholars.
Here is the second strawman:
"The archaeological evidence in relation to the Hittites of Boghazkoy is not fragmentary,"
I never said it was fragmentary. There is a lot of data in Turkey for example. I was pointing to the possible migration and possible existence in Palestine as far as the fragmentary nature of archeology in many cases. I also clearly gave evidence which you never found due to the type of research efforts you made.
Also, Wycliffe gives diverse views regarding the presence of Indo European Hittites in Palestine. I clearly said this.
I do agree with this statement though:
"So, while your source may well be correct in his estimation of the percentage of possible archaeological sites,"
If you want to know where his 2% figure comes from then I suggest regarding the sources given in the authors endnotes or you can write to office@imja.com .
Lastly, Re: "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?"
Please use the endnotes the website author provided.
SUMMARY
I see a lack of willingness to address the information I provided. I think the total avoidance of the Israel Musuem in Jersusalem concurring opinion according to Professor Humble is great evidence of this. I offer no further commentary as the author of the string is posting a voluminous response without really truly addressing what I posted plus he is setting up strawmen.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]

  
Frankypoo
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 53 (90854)
03-06-2004 8:08 PM


Ok, flame me if you must because I'm the newbie extreme of this board, but I have to ask a few questions to get things straight. First off, I was surprised, Brian, that hardly any of the ealier respondants had heard of this controversy! That's the first thing I get from creationists aside from evolution, the Hittites... and this information is very valuable to me, so I have to make sure I'm understanding it correctly.
So the Egyptians had control over the near east up until (when?) and therefore it was unlikely that those from Anatolia would have come down to Palestine, where Abraham had mentioned dwelt the biblical Hittites? Plus there's no semitic literary connection at Boghazkoy?

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brian, posted 03-07-2004 2:58 PM Frankypoo has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 22 of 53 (90959)
03-07-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Frankypoo
03-06-2004 8:08 PM


Hi Frank
So the Egyptians had control over the near east up until (when?)
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.
and therefore it was unlikely that those from Anatolia would have come down to Palestine
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.
where Abraham had mentioned dwelt the biblical Hittites?
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’.
Plus there's no Semitic literary connection at Boghazkoy?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Frankypoo, posted 03-06-2004 8:08 PM Frankypoo has not replied

  
Frankypoo
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 53 (90963)
03-07-2004 3:28 PM


Thanks a ton!

  
craigj_au
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 53 (307598)
04-28-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
11-20-2003 1:59 PM


I was doing some research on Hittites, and came across your post. It seems you have answered your own objection in your quote from the Anchor Bible Dictionary:
"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"
Here it is acknowledged that at least Joshua 1:4 may well be refering to the Anatolian Hittites, and then there are the Biblical references to the Neo-Hittites, which you try to too quickly dismiss as unrelated to the Anatolian Hittites. But cf Bryce 2005 p351.
So too your dismissal of any relationship between Canaanite and Neo-Hittites. Thus regarding your Bryce quote, you omit his following comments:
"Yet there are other biblical references to the Hittites and their land which are inconsistent with the notion of their being a small Canaanite hill tribe... Is there any connection between the two sets of references, any relationship between the local Canaanite tribe and the neo-Hittite kingdoms?... Hoffner has commented that Hittite cultural influence reaching the Israelites indirectly via the Canaanite kingdoms, after a passage of time, is detectable in many instances. His contention is that through many years of contact with cities in Syria and Phoenicia (Carchemish, Aleppo, Ugarit) Hittite civilization left its marks there. From there Hittite influences may have filtered southwards to Israel just prior to the beginning of the kingdom of David." (New Edition, 2005, p356)
And, yes, I have omitted some bits because I didn't want to type it all, and I'm only quoting the bits to counter your over-stated conclusions.
Regards,
Craig.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 11-20-2003 1:59 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 2:14 PM craigj_au has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 25 of 53 (317223)
06-03-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by craigj_au
04-28-2006 11:10 PM


Roots
Whoa.
From the beggining;
Says that Bilical folks say that the Hittites existed, so the bible MUST be a valid source. Even if, as you say, the hittites being referanced to are not the same hittites that have been dug up, does this create a validity? Its an Ad Hoc relationship: if A comes before B, then A caused B. The two events are unrelated (the existance of the Hittites and the validity of the bible) and just because the bible mentions the Hittites, who may or may not have existed, that does not prove the entire Bible true or false.

I believe in God, I just call it Nature

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by craigj_au, posted 04-28-2006 11:10 PM craigj_au has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Textcritic, posted 06-09-2006 11:49 AM Damouse has not replied

  
Textcritic
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 53 (319527)
06-09-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Brian
03-02-2004 10:38 AM


Re: the report of an
Hi Brian.
I am a new member and I must say I very much enjoy reading your posts.
I'm just curious: I noticed that you mentioned you are completing a dissertation in what appears to be Near Eastern Acrheology or Biblical Studies. I am currently working on a PhD from the University of Manchester in Second Temple Jewish Literature, with an emphasis on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Where are you studying, and what is the topic of your thesis?
I am not an archaeologist, but I have a prevailing interest in Israelite history and early religious foundations. For the record, I have found Ziony Zevit's tome, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Paralactic Apprroaches (London; New York: Continuum, 2001) to be a very nice and effective approach for integrating archaeological finds into our study of the Hebrew Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Brian, posted 03-02-2004 10:38 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 06-09-2006 7:28 PM Textcritic has not replied

  
Textcritic
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 53 (319528)
06-09-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Damouse
06-03-2006 2:14 PM


Re: Roots
The sheer idiocy of this notion is even more pronounced in some circles. Waaaaay back when I was in high school, I attended a youth conference where I was told that prior to the excavations in Bozhazkoy in 1903, there was absolutely no reason to believe that the Bible was historically accurate and reliable. It seems that only after proof of the "Hittites" was unearthed and that they were declared one of the most important civilizations of the ancient Near East does the Bible suddenly become "inerrant".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 2:14 PM Damouse has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 28 of 53 (319532)
06-09-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
11-20-2003 1:59 PM


The one that has bugged me since I found out about it was the story about the Dead Sea Scrolls backing up the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Isaiah scroll was the big one mentioned. That story came out in something like 1947 and was retracted in 1948. Yet I heard about it as though it had never been retracted in 1982, and it is still repeated.
The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah represents a 3rd text type, different from both the Masoretic and Septuagint. However, concerning Jeremiah, where the difference between the two texts is much greater, consisting of seven entire different chapters, the Dead Sea Scrolls backed up the Septuagint. That story's true, but no one repeats it, because it's not what we want to hear.
By the way, I didn't do as much research as you. All of that came from the article on the Septuagint in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 11-20-2003 1:59 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Textcritic, posted 06-09-2006 12:13 PM truthlover has replied

  
Textcritic
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 53 (319537)
06-09-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by truthlover
06-09-2006 11:56 AM


quote:
The one that has bugged me since I found out about it was the story about the Dead Sea Scrolls backing up the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Isaiah scroll was the big one mentioned. That story came out in something like 1947 and was retracted in 1948. Yet I heard about it as though it had never been retracted in 1982, and it is still repeated.
I am currently involved in the publication project of the two Isaiah Scrolls from Qumran Cave 1 (due to be released by Oxford Clarendon Press sometime in late 2007), and I spent MONTHS compiling variants for all 21 copies of the book of Isaiah, and my list for Isa-a (the aforementioned Great Isaiah Scroll) is 111 pages with over 4,200 entries.
quote:
The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah represents a 3rd text type, different from both the Masoretic and Septuagint. However, concerning Jeremiah, where the difference between the two texts is much greater, consisting of seven entire different chapters, the Dead Sea Scrolls backed up the Septuagint. That story's true, but no one repeats it, because it's not what we want to hear.
This little bit about Jeremiah is not quite accurate. There were six copies found of the Book of Jeremiah, and all of them are highly fragmentary. While very little remains from any signle scroll, there is enough extant for scholars to have determined that forms of BOTH the pre-Masoretic Jeremiah and the LXX Jeremiah were in circulation at Qumran. This is particularly interesting to me, as it confirms that this particular sect was well aware of the existenc eof multiple editions, and it seems that they did not have a preference as far as this particular work is concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by truthlover, posted 06-09-2006 11:56 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by truthlover, posted 06-09-2006 5:05 PM Textcritic has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 30 of 53 (319605)
06-09-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Textcritic
06-09-2006 12:13 PM


While very little remains from any signle scroll, there is enough extant for scholars to have determined that forms of BOTH the pre-Masoretic Jeremiah and the LXX Jeremiah were in circulation at Qumran.
Fascinating.
I am a disciple of Yeshua, by the way. Radical enough to be living in a somewhat communal Christian community, but I believe in being honest about history, anyway. I am a long-time student of the Pre-Nicene Fathers (as in, I've really read and re-read them), but otherwise not a historian. I love the textual histories. You'll be a very interesting source.
Even Brian is an interesting source, and he rather aggressively publishes against our faith on this board. I've learned a lot of history from him nonetheless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Textcritic, posted 06-09-2006 12:13 PM Textcritic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 06-09-2006 7:29 PM truthlover has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024