Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 05-02-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

On the Hittites I would like to see if the IIDB thread actually searched out the views of the scholars before the discoveries of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Gleason Archer claim is as follows..

"The references [in the Bible] to the Hittites were treated with incredulity and condemned as mere fiction on the part of late authors of the Torah" (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 1974, p. 165).

How conveniently you try to shift burden of proof. What; did you think I wouldn't notice?

It isn't up to the participants in the IIDB thread to seek out the views of such scholars. Archer and the bible literalists are the ones who claim that references to the Hittites were treated with incredulity. Therefore, it is up to them to demonstrate that point.

Quote:

I know there's a thread - I contributed to it. Whittaker's claim that skeptics or "worldly scholars" doubted the existence of the Hittites ...

Yet when we go to the thread I can find your really offer very little.

That's because you aren't reading for content.

Quote:

In fact you actually defacto acknowledge that the discoveries change the viewpoint about the Hittites.

Incorrect. What I patiently tried to explain was that there are two groups of people. Let's look at my entire comment, without praxeus' editing:

Quote:

[i]I realize you were being ironic here, but I just wanted to point out that this claim stems from a fundamental misunderstanding (no pun intended) of who the Hittites were.

Or, which two groups of people they were. From the Oxford Companion to the Bible:

1. "Among the people Israel found in Canaan were the 'sons of Heth,' members of a Canaanite family (Gen 10.15)....The names given for these Hittites are all Semitic, and it is likely that they all were members of a local Canaanite tribe.

2. The Hittites of Anatolia (modern Turkey) were another people, forgotten until excavations at Boghazkoy were begun in 1906. This was the site of tehir capital, Hattusha, containing a palace and temples."

So the fundies have gotten themselves confused. The people that archaeologists weren't sure existed are the 2nd group, not the first group. But it's the 1st group of people named "Hittites" that the bible talks about.

The 2nd group plays little or no part in the OT Bible, primarily because their empire came to an end at about the time of the Sea Peoples. There were several neo-Hittite city states that continued, but the empire was over.[/i]

Quote:

And there is no discussion whatsoever about the skeptic and liberal critics of the Bible before the discoveries.

That's because it isn't my job to do so. That wasn't my claim; it was Archer's claim. As much as you might like to shift the burden of proof, you aren't going to succeed with me.

Quote:

You do a classic handwave and claim that the dozens of Bible references are only to a Canaanite tribe and not to the Hittite people. This is your one verse reference.

<edit> There is more than that - the statement came from a well-respected source (Oxford Companion).

Quote:

However Bible encyclopedias say that Heth was the ancestor of the Hittites, making your distinction that much more curious.

Why so? Since there are two groups of people called by the name "Hittites", it's certainly possible that a mythological legend about an ancestor named Heth would spring up around one such group. Or perhaps are you still stuck on your error that there is only one group by the name of "Hittite"?

Quote:

Note also that Hebron does not fit your Canaanite geography.

Yes, it does.

Quote:

Claiming that your confused claim has somehow trumped Maier, a Phd Professor of Ancient History !

1. Paul Maier is not engaged in true historical research, because he starts out with a position of infallibility and works his way backwards. He's not even an archaeologist. Proof that he isn't dealing critically with the material? In another section he says:

No Israelite Sojourn in Egypt or Exodus Therefrom? Critics make much of the supposed “fact” that there is no mention of the Hebrews in hieroglyphic inscriptions, no mention of Moses, and no records of such a mass population movement as claimed in the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt. This “fact” is questionable. The famous Israel Stele (an inscribed stone or slab) of Pharaoh Merneptah (described more fully below) states, “Israel — his seed is not.”

But this stele only proves that the Egyptians knew of a people / tribe that called itself "Israel". It doesn't do anything to prove that the Hebrews were in bondage in Egypt. Only a novice would make such a glaring mistake - a novice, or an apologist.

2. It is not my claim that has trumped Maier; the information comes from multiple sources. Maier is the lone fruitcake, standing in the field by himself.

Quote:

We see that Sauron is way out on a limb. Giving no (!) references for his theory of confusion and attacking the professional historians from a base of straw.

Uh, no. What we see is that praxeus is straining mightily, but succeeding only in whacking himself in the face with that selfsame tree limb.

Quote:

And not surprisingly Amaleq offered no challenge to the dubious Sauron assertion, despite the lack of even a single scholarly reference.

No scholarly reference? Apparently you have never heard of the Oxford Companion to the Bible. Not surprising, given the cartoon quality of your postings.

Sauron · 05-02-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

You don't get much more biased and closedminded than what we
see here. A big problem with the current crew of IIDB posters.

Nonsense. You just consistently fail to offer anything above comic-book level quality. We naturally reject it. That frustrates you because you don't have anything else to offer. The cupboard is empty; you're out of bullets.

Ron Wyatt - are you serious?

Quote:

And precisely what are the solid sources that Whittaker overlooked in writing the paper ?

Whittaker was using McDowell - did you not read, prax?
But then again: someone like yourself who swallows Ron Wyatt in one whole gulp isn't going to choke on a little McDowell being used, are you?

Quote:

Or are you saying that nobody should write about the Exodus and Saudi Arabia because (as noted above) the supposed "solid sources" the professional archaeologists, simply have done nothing !

They've done nothing, because there's no evidence or hint that would lead them to Saudi Arabia. You might as well be complaining that they aren't looking for evidence of wandering Jews in ancient China.

Quote:

Therefore everybody should be silent ?

Now we get to watch praxeus play faux-hysterics as a distraction technique. Throwing dirt in the air, hoping to cloud the issue, hmmm?

Nobody said "don't write". You can write whatever you want - but don't try to pass it off as scholarly, historical, or actual archaeology when the sources are crappy, when you're working at a diploma mill, and when your not playing in your actual field of study.

Quote:

There aren't any such archaeologists. Why would an archaeologist look for the Exodus where it isn't attested to have occurred?

There is Bible geography and Paul and Josephus and Philo and Jewish references and all.

The Bible geography doesn't put the Exodus in Saudi Arabia; it puts it in Sinai. All other works you mention are derivative from the OT. Do you understand why that means there are no attestations for an exodus in Saudi Arabia? Can you work it out for yourself?

Quote:

Nothing, since the alleged Exodus didn't take place in Saudi Arabia.

So why not give your evidences for this assertion of yours ?
And explain how you deal with contrary references and evidences.

I just did.

Toto · 05-02-2007, 05:45 PM

This seems to be taken from the closed wilderness trek thread.

A previous Hittite thread referencing Peter Kirby's The Hittites and the Legendary Critics.

Please read Peter's essay for a model of good historical and critical research.

Toto · 05-02-2007, 06:25 PM

praxeus wants his prior post imported here, but I see that Peter's essay completely refutes this post, so I don't see why it should be propagated.

But I think that spin's post following it deserves repeating:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

On the Hittites I would like to see if the IIDB thread actually searched out the views of the scholars before the discoveries of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Ooh, look, praxeus dabbling in something else he knows nothing about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

The Gleason Archer claim...

Gleason who?

To Sauron:

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Yet when we go to the thread I can find your really offer very little. In fact you actually defacto acknowledge that the discoveries change the viewpoint about the Hittites. And there is no discussion whatsoever about the skeptic and liberal critics of the Bible before the discoveries.

The reason why the biblical data was not appreciated was because it didn't make sense as to what it says. It still doesn't. Because it didn't make sense, people repudiated it. Not strange. However, there were Hittites, though they were not a group of people living in Canaan. In fact, the Hittites never got south of northern Syria, so you can see why earlier analysts were confused. The biblical data is simply wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

You do a classic handwave and claim that the dozens of Bible references are only to a Canaanite tribe and not to the Hittite people. This is your one verse reference.

Genesis 10:15
And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,

Sauron
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...29#post1436978
2. The Hittites of Anatolia (modern Turkey) were another people, forgotten until excavations at Boghazkoy were begun in 1906. This was the site of tehir capital, Hattusha, containing a palace and temples."

You apparently consider the Bible references as not fitting for the Hittites, although your logic is a bit vague and your language carefully couched to offer wiggle-room.

"little or no part".

Sauron, you don't tell us which of the dozens of references in the Tanach to the Hittites are

"little..part"

references to the Hittite kingdom for which archaeology had its great discoveries in the 19th and early 20th centuries refuting skeptic and liberal harumphing.

This is small comfort to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

So would you please unpack your claim more specifically.
What verses in the Bible are actually fully unrelated to the Hittites whose kingdom extended down from modern-day Turkey so that the Bible references are only to (by your theory) an unrelated Canaanite tribe ?

Naturally, none of the biblical references deal with the Hittites of Hatti. All the named biblical Hittites have Semitic names. Sauron rightly pointed out that the bible linked the Hittites to Canaan (Heth = XT, Hittites = XTY, a normal Hebrew gentilic). This is not surprising as, for the bible, they were some of thelocal population in Canaan that the Israelites defeated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

So the dates and the logic will be necessary to try
to unpack your theory of 'confusion'.

Until you can give a biblical date for the flood, I don't see why anyone should get drawn into your quibbling about dates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Saurun
The 2nd group plays little or no part in the OT Bible, primarily because their empire came to an end at about the time of the Sea Peoples. There were several neo-Hittite city states that continued, but the empire was over.

However Bible encyclopedias say that Heth was the ancestor of the Hittites, making your distinction that much more curious.

This is just bible dictionaries accepting the biblical data. There is little analysis of the content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?...s&word=Hittite
a descendant of Canaan, and the ancestor of the Hittites (Gen. 10:18; Deut. 7:1), who dwelt in the vicinity of Hebron (Gen. 23:3, 7). The Hittites were a Hamitic race. They are called "the sons of Heth" (Gen. 23:3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 20)

Just incidentally, the Hittites of Hatti were certainly not "Hamitic". They were Indo-European, related to other early Indo-European presences in the region.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

This gives zilch support to your theory of confusion involving two unrelated people. Note also that Hebron does not fit your Canaanite geography.

I'm not so sure. If the biblical Hittites are not just a gratuitous chioce of name for a traditional population of Canaan, then one needs to explain why the Hittites of Hatti, who never went south of northern Syria (which was the border with the Egyptian territory), suddenly appear in Hebrew traditions about the conquest of Canaan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Skeptics have, in the past, held certain parts of the Bible as historically inaccurate because there was no confirmation of them. The Hittite empire is such an example. For years it was believed by skeptics that the empire didn’t exist. Thus, the Bible was clearly in error. However, evidence of the Hittite empire was found, and the skeptics had to drop their objections (Fred Wright, Highlights of Archaeology in the Bible Lands, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1955), 94-95.).

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no103.htm
Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 2 pp. 12-19 (2004)
Paul L. Maier, Ph.D. Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University

The Existence of Hittites.
Genesis 23 reports that Abraham buried Sarah in the Cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite. Second Samuel 11 tells of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. A century ago the Hittites were unknown outside of the Old Testament, and critics claimed that they were a figment of biblical imagination. In 1906, however, archaeologists digging east of Ankara, Turkey, discovered the ruins of Hattusas, the ancient Hittite capital at what is today called Boghazkoy, as well as its vast collection of Hittite historical records, which showed an empire flourishing in the mid-second millennium BC. This critical challenge, among many others, was immediately proved worthless — a pattern that would often be repeated in the decades to come.

What is truly interesting is Maier's silence about the Semitic names for these "Hittites". That should have made him twig to the shallowness of the information he was providing. But he was too happy dealing in apologetics, which is something he is well-known for, so any scholarship seems to have flown at the window while writing the above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...te#post4062744
From a post I made to someone else on the same topic:

Claiming that your confused claim has somehow trumped Maier, a Phd Professor of Ancient History !

Credentials apparently aren't enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...te#post4065527
Meier has misrepresented the state of archaeology, jumbled a collection of archaeological items together, and waved a magic wand.

I doubt this. Why don't you look at any standard work on the Hittites and check them out, eg books by O.R. Gurney (or via: amazon.co.uk) or G.J. MacQueen (or via: amazon.co.uk). See if they, or any other you might find, will endorse the thesis. Maier might have a PhD, but that's studying Barth and Cullmann which has nothing directly to do with history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

We see that Sauron is way out on a limb. Giving no (!) references for his theory of confusion and attacking the professional historians from a base of straw.

Anyone can find some person with letters after their name willing to say silly things, especially if they are apologists for anything. Again, you need to know something about the field to know what the status quo is. You cannot point to one person with letters and claim status quo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Overall, apparently the Hittite claim is actually very true...

Well, there were people called Hittites. The ones from Hatti however were never in Canaan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

...and IIDB folks have avoided addressing it, except for the Sauron couched claim that the Hittites of the Bible are not the historic Hittites.

What exactly would you like to know that's relevant here?

spin

gracebkr · 05-03-2007, 11:36 AM

Many "stories" of the Bible are turning out to have evidence to support them. Hittites is one of them, Jericho another, Goliath another. They are also matching up geographically and all non believers are wetting their pants.

http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~maeira/Gol...scription.html
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeol...t/jericho.html
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archa...s/hittites.htm
http://www.digbible.org/tour/index.html

Toto · 05-03-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracebkr

Many "stories" of the Bible are turning out to have evidence to support them. Hittites is one of them, Jericho another, Goliath another. They are also matching up geographically and all non believers are wetting their pants.

http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~maeira/Gol...scription.html
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeol...t/jericho.html
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archa...s/hittites.htm
http://www.digbible.org/tour/index.html

I recommend reading the thread before you post. Your Hittite link says:

Quote:

Scholars thought the Bible was wrong because there was no evidence of Hittites until Hittite pottery was dug up.

.

This is not true. There is no time when scholars thought that there was no evidence of the Hittites.

To quote a link given above:

Quote:

It turns out that even the most negative of the criticisms in the nineteenth century was not that the Hittites had no existence but, rather, that the Hittites weren't as "significant" as the Bible indicates.

Thus, there is a legend here. It is the legend about "the liberal critics," those opponents of the Bible whose hammers fall in futility against the anvil of the Bible. When it comes to the nineteenth century opinion of critics who denied the existence of the Hittites, it is a legend that has developed because of its congeniality to apologetic concerns.

And perhaps you have missed the extensive discussion here of the lack of evidence for the Exodus and the Biblical assault on Jericho?

The idea that the Bible is proven by archeology is shear delusion.

Chuck Rightmire · 05-03-2007, 11:20 PM

It's been a while since I read anything about the biblical Hittites. Apparently there have been changes in the last few years. The last things I recall reading, a few decades ago, were that the Hittites of the bible were the same Hittites of Anatolia, as witnessed in the peace treaty of one of the Pharoahs, a Rameses, I believe, who ceded them quite a bit of respect. (His own steles called it a great vistory; however, it was not a great victory for him, according to the treaty as translated. How do the different Hittites of Palestine fit into this? Until the archeological finds, the Hittites of Anatolia were not considered particularly important in Middle Eastern history. Then came the treaty.:wave:

I might add that it really doesn't make any difference if archeologists discover all the physical sites in the Bible are real places. It still does not prove that the interpretation of the events that may or may not have occurred at those sites is truth.:devil3:

yalla · 05-04-2007, 01:29 AM

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.c...&f=1&t=151&m=1

This OP from a thread at EvC has a good explanation of how the anatolian people came to be confused with the "Hittites" of the Bible.
This statement:
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,

is discussed with evidence and references in the post.

Chuck Rightmire · 05-05-2007, 12:01 AM

When I Googled Hittites and Egypt and then Biblical Hittites I got some of the same information that they are still treated under the one term despite the debates involving them. We know that the Egyptians were involved with the Hittites and the Hebrews with the Egyptians. And we also know that the Hittites seemed to have forced a treaty of trade and brotherhood on the Egyptians after the battle of Kadesh. So what's the big reason for the flap on identity. Remember, the proof of existence of a specific people, whether as a small hill tribe or a mighty Anatolian empire does not make any proof of the subjective god of the bible.

lpetrich · 05-05-2007, 03:29 AM

Gleason Archer's argument is like the argument of some Xian apologists that when they were atheists, they had tried to disprove the Bible but failed.

I've seen similar arguments about science in general, that the Bible is full of things that scientists were startled to rediscover, like the approximate sphericity of the Earth. Curiously, I've never seen anyone claim that about evolution, that the Bible had described descent by modification and natural selection and our simian ancestry, and that scientists were startled to rediscover these things.

And gracebkr, your argument from archeology could just as well demonstrate Hellenic paganism. Many of the places in Greek mythology are real places, and Heinrich Schliemann had found Troy by using the Iliad as a guidebook.

05-03-2007, 11:20 PM	#7
Chuck Rightmire Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Billings, Montana Posts: 451	sheer delusion or just placing things where they fit? It's been a while since I read anything about the biblical Hittites. Apparently there have been changes in the last few years. The last things I recall reading, a few decades ago, were that the Hittites of the bible were the same Hittites of Anatolia, as witnessed in the peace treaty of one of the Pharoahs, a Rameses, I believe, who ceded them quite a bit of respect. (His own steles called it a great vistory; however, it was not a great victory for him, according to the treaty as translated. How do the different Hittites of Palestine fit into this? Until the archeological finds, the Hittites of Anatolia were not considered particularly important in Middle Eastern history. Then came the treaty.:wave: I might add that it really doesn't make any difference if archeologists discover all the physical sites in the Bible are real places. It still does not prove that the interpretation of the events that may or may not have occurred at those sites is truth.:devil3:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-02-2007, 05:45 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This seems to be taken from the closed wilderness trek thread. A previous Hittite thread referencing Peter Kirby's The Hittites and the Legendary Critics. Please read Peter's essay for a model of good historical and critical research.

05-03-2007, 11:36 AM	#5
gracebkr Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: usa Posts: 272	Many "stories" of the Bible are turning out to have evidence to support them. Hittites is one of them, Jericho another, Goliath another. They are also matching up geographically and all non believers are wetting their pants. http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~maeira/Gol...scription.html http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeol...t/jericho.html http://www.bibleandscience.com/archa...s/hittites.htm http://www.digbible.org/tour/index.html

05-04-2007, 01:29 AM	#8
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.c...&f=1&t=151&m=1 This OP from a thread at EvC has a good explanation of how the anatolian people came to be confused with the "Hittites" of the Bible. This statement: 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, is discussed with evidence and references in the post.

05-05-2007, 12:01 AM	#9
Chuck Rightmire Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Billings, Montana Posts: 451	When I Googled Hittites and Egypt and then Biblical Hittites I got some of the same information that they are still treated under the one term despite the debates involving them. We know that the Egyptians were involved with the Hittites and the Hebrews with the Egyptians. And we also know that the Hittites seemed to have forced a treaty of trade and brotherhood on the Egyptians after the battle of Kadesh. So what's the big reason for the flap on identity. Remember, the proof of existence of a specific people, whether as a small hill tribe or a mighty Anatolian empire does not make any proof of the subjective god of the bible.

05-05-2007, 03:29 AM	#10
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Gleason Archer's argument is like the argument of some Xian apologists that when they were atheists, they had tried to disprove the Bible but failed. I've seen similar arguments about science in general, that the Bible is full of things that scientists were startled to rediscover, like the approximate sphericity of the Earth. Curiously, I've never seen anyone claim that about evolution, that the Bible had described descent by modification and natural selection and our simian ancestry, and that scientists were startled to rediscover these things. And gracebkr, your argument from archeology could just as well demonstrate Hellenic paganism. Many of the places in Greek mythology are real places, and Heinrich Schliemann had found Troy by using the Iliad as a guidebook.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.