HITTITES AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Hittite culture (or cultures – see my post titled “Hittites – Historical Background”) as uncovered through their numerous recovered writings help to illuminate portions of the Old Testament and better place those passages in their historical setting. Below is a brief survey of some examples:

The Rainbow in Genesis 9 “The rainbow first appears in the biblical text at the conclusion of the flood (Gen 9:1-17). It is the sign of the covenant that God makes between himself and Noah, the living creators and the earth for generations to come (Gen 9:12-13)...The Hebrew qeset can mean either 'rainbow' or 'bow,' a weapon for warfare...A Hittite curse on armies involved removing the warriors' bows...Breaking the bow of a warrior came to symbolize the signing of a treaty between parties.” (Branch)

Property Transfer in Genesis 23 “An...approach to the legal features outlined in Genesis 23 has been proposed by R. Westbrook, based on what he terms 'a legal fiction of double transfer.' Westbrook notes that in land transactions from Ugarit, 'a number take the curious form of a tripartite transaction whereby the king intervenes not merely as a witness but as an intermediary through whose hands the property passes from one party to the other.' Similar transactions are found from Boghazkoy [in Turkey during Hittite occupation] and in Elamite documents dated about 1600 B.C.” (Alexander)

Esau's Wives in Genesis 25:34; 27:46 “ Esau's wives were two Hittite women (Gen 26:34; 27:46...)...the ethnic diversity of Esau's wives suggests an Edomite population that was a composite of diverse ethnic elements...” (Knauth)

Ark of the Covenant in Genesis 28 “”Texts for the renovation of a small sanctuary in the Hittite countryside, in Anatolia roughly contemporary with the early judges, often replace the stones [of commemoration of an encounter of a man with a deity] with new statues, evidently understood by the empire to offer a more powerful expression of the deity's nature and force. The ark commanded through Moses is also new to Israel, likewise replacing among other things the simple stone of the type used by Jacob of Bethel (Gen 28:18-22).” (Fleming)

Terephim in Genesis 31:19 “The terephim offer specific and troubling manifestations of divine images in the Pentateuch. The plural term terepim, which is used even when it denotes a singular item, occurs fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible [from Genesis 31:19 to Zechariah 10:2]. The meaning of the term is not clear. Scholars have various etymologies, but none has won particular favor...T.J. Lewis, in his survey of this material prefers 'benevolent or malevolent spirit' (from Hittite)...connecting ancestor figures with necromatic functions, though the interpretation is not without difficulties.” (Hunt)

Moses in Pharaoh's Court in Exodus 2 “The covenant contained in Exodus to Leviticus and Deuteronomy belongs in phase 5 [of the changing forms of treaties and covenants].., about 1400 to 1200 B.C. – and neither earlier nor later. Before and after that two-century span, the formats were wholly different...But how could Hebrew brick-slaves in the East Delta know about such matters? Not at all – unless someone of theirs had been at the court of Pi-Ramesses, where such things were not just known but were enacted, such as the treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittites in 1259 B.C. Had there been a Moses at that East Delta court in those days, there is no problem; if not, the problem is insoluble.” (Kitchen)

Laws in Exodus 21 “Exodus 21:22 refers to the price of restitution paid to the judges...In Hittite Laws Paragraph 17 one finds a similar example to that in Exodus, with one difference: in the apodosis [the main clause of a conditional sentence] the Hittite document assesses the 'estimate,' for the damaged embryo, while the OT text focuses on the husband's authority. The meaning 'estimate' implied in the Hittite document, is supported by the Septuagint's rendition.” (Pentiuc)

Selman states, “Probably the closest parallel between the Pentateuch and ancient Near Eastern laws is the famous les talionis, the principle of an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth (cf. Ex 21:23-25). However, although such laws occur in the...Hittite laws (c. sixteenth century B.C.), the variations between them illustrate just how difficult it is to interpret their interrelationship...for the biblical laws, talion, or equivalent retribution, is a general principle applicable to all...a monetary fine is the only penalty in the laws of Ur-Nammu, Eshnunn and the Hittites...it is...possible that the biblical laws are simply announcements of principle, whereas the monetary compensation reflects actual practice.”

Laws Regarding Stealing in Exodus 22 “In some ways the Bible seems lenient concerning theft. In the ANE [including the Hittites] theft of an animal could require up to thirtyfold restitution and the death of the thief who could not pay.” (See Exodus 22:1-4). (Sprinkle)

Offerings in Leviticus 4-6 “Although the root ht', meaning 'to miss, to sin' occurs in virtually all the Semitic languages; there are apparently no examples in which the root or any of its derivatives is used for ritual purification. Nevertheless, the concepts associated with the 'sin offering' were well known in other ancient Near Eastern ritual literature. For example, we know from Hittite and other ritual texts that purity of the sacred precincts of sanctuaries was a most serious concern.” (Averbeck) And regarding guilt offerings, he says, “Conceptually there are certain parallels that have been proposed for ritual terms and procedures in Hittite and Hurrian texts...”

Scapegoat Ritual in Leviticus 16 Klingbeil states that “relevant material from Syria (Ebla) and Asia Minor (Hittites) have been discussed concerning elimination rituals, such as the well-known scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16.”

Sexual Laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 “The laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 systematically define consanguineal members who were within the individual household...while forbidden sexual contact between them...This legislation (also found in Deut 27:20-23) had its primary concern...over relationships with immediate blood kin...Incest was equally abhorrent in most other ancient Near Eastern societies (e.g., the prohibitions in the Hittite laws)...” (Matthews)

“Hittite Laws, while condemning bestiality, did not consider homosexual acts as sins, except when it involved incest with one's own son. In contrast, Leviticus 18:22 unequivocally prohibits sex between men, and Leviticus 20:13 states it was punishable by death...at issue in context (Lev 18:6-23) is the integrity of the family.” (Sprinkle)

Unlike other ancient Near East societies, “The Hittites, like Israel, viewed both incest and bestiality as sins of impurity that could provoke the gods to wrath, were punishable by death and required sacrificial cleansing rituals...” (Sprinkle)

Outline of the Book of Deuteronomy “G.E. Mendenhall maintained that the book of Deuteronomy in its organizational structure and form is very similar to certain suzerain-vassal treaties common in the ancient Near East. In its arrangement Deuteronomy may thus be viewed as reflecting the same core sections, appearing in roughly the same order, as are found in ancient Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties...When viewed in this light, the structure of Deuteronomy is a mirror reflection of a treaty form borrowed from a neighboring Near Eastern culture. This understanding of Deuteronomy, however, has not met with universal acceptance among scholars.” (Taylor) I should mention at this point that I don't know of any interpretation of any passage of Scripture which has ever met with “universal acceptance among scholars.”

McConville expands on the above: “The chief distinguishing mark of the Hittite treaties, as opposed to the Assyrian treaties of the first millennium, is the presence of an historical prologue, which the latter lack. Some scholars (Kitchen, Kline, Craigie) accept that Deut follows clearly the Hittite pattern, while others...think that the differences between [the Hittite and Assyrian] treaties are not so marked that Deut can be dated by its affinity with the former. However, the OT form is ultimately unique.” But, “the choice of this particular form (the Hittite vassal-treaty) is the closest model for OT covenantal texts, since it is a first suggestion that the covenant in the OT is conceived essentially as relationship.”

Covenant in Joshua 24 “The format of the covenant between Israel and their God in Joshua 24 is an abbreviated form of what occurs in Exodus-Leviticus and most clearly of all in Deuteronomy; it is the format of c. 1350-1190 BCE [BCE = before the common era = B.C.] exclusively, as attested in almost forty Hittite, Anatolian and northern Syrian documents and with Egypt in that period, which firmly excludes all other epochs...” (Kitchen)