Nota Bene-- C:\DOCUME~1\XPMUSER\MYDOCU~1\NBFILE~1 ...

DRAWING ANALOGY BY HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE: MAKING A CASE FOR 

CONTACT BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCT “HITTITE” IN THE HEBREW BIBLE 

AND ITS SYRO-HITTITE CULTURAL CONTEXT 

Institute for Biblical Research 

Neal A. Huddleston 

Trinity International University 

September 2012

DRAWING ANALOGY BY HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE: MAKING A CASE FOR 

CONTACT BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCT “HITTITE” IN THE HEBREW BIBLE 

AND ITS SYRO-HITTITE CULTURAL CONTEXT 

Abstract 

While a number of Hittite canonical, monumental, and archival parallels are suggested 

for the early literatures in the HB, the demonstrable contact necessary for strengthening these 

analogues remains unclear. Likewise, the typical understanding of ḥittî in HB depends on the 

assumptions outlined in early biblical scholarship, where “Hittite” in the majority of cases 

refers to an autochthonous people group located in the southern foothills of Palestine. The 

discovery of organic connections between the fallen Hittite empire and its Neo-Hittite successor 

states call for a fresh clarification of these issues through a text-linguistic analysis of ḥittî in HB, 

as well as geographic considerations, relevant onomastics, and summary of the Hittite material 

culture of Palestine. 

Introduction 

In light of the significance of proposed Anatolian typologies to the early literatures in the 

Hebrew Bible (HB), 1 it is important to clearly understand what Scripture has in view when 

employing the term “Hittite.” It is equally important to demonstrate at least the possibility of 

indirect interaction between Israelite and Hittite culture. 2 Neo-Assyrian parallels need little 

justification due to the many contacts evidenced in the literatures, artifacts, and geographic 

movements relating these cultures at different times and places in Israel’s and Judah’s later 

history. By contrast, the expanding scholarly literature regarding the Hittite empire has 

——————————— 

1 For convenient collections of texts in English, summaries and bibliography, see “Hittite Canonical 

Compositions” (CoS, 1:145–235), “Hittite Monumental Inscriptions” (CoS, 2:75–132), and “Hittite Archival 

Documents” (CoS, 3:41–72). 

2 For Collins “Hittite” is rooted in a secondary use taken from northern Israel through Assyrian influences. 

“Hittite” reflects an embedded cultural memory manifested in a literary convention. The term therefore represents 

indirect historical precursors when applied to assumed populations in the southern Levant, rather than assuming 

population displacement for which there is no archaeological evidence (Collins 2007, 197–213). The Hittite 

artifacts found in Canaan as well as later cultural influences via Hittite elite are best explained as the product of the 

pax Hethitica-Egyptiaca (to borrow an important phrase from Itamar Singer), especially during the thirteenth 

century (Collins 2007, 213–218). According to Hoffner, archaeological and textual evidence indicates that 

Anatolian Hittite civilization never came into direct contact with the people of Israel. He prefers to limit possible 

contacts as indirect based on the extreme limits of official boundaries marked by Kadesh on the Orontes. In this 

view, secondary influence rose through Hittite connections with Karkamiš, Aleppo, and Ugarit. These influences 

would then have filtered southward prior to the Israelite monarchy, where “elements of Hittite culture in their 

‘Neo-Hittite’ after-life may have been brought into David’s court by North Syrian immigrants” (1973, 221; cf. 

2004, 191–192). 

1

2 

demonstrated that the connection between the “Hittites” and early Israel is less than clear. Adding 

to the mixed picture is the assumption that “Hittite” in the majority of cases within the HB refers 

to an autochthonous people group located in the southern foothills of Palestine. This essay seeks 

to clarify both of these issues through a text-linguistic analysis of ḥittî in HB, geographic 

considerations, relevant onomastics, and material Hittite culture. 

The Case for Contact 

The classic treatment of the term “Hittite” by Forrer (1936; 1937) continues to influence 

contemporary treatments of the topic. In his first article he summarizes the possible referents 

under the following heuristic: 1) the original “Hattians” of Anatolia (third millennium to the 18c 

BC), 2) the conquerors of these peoples and founders of the Hittite empire (ca. 1620–1207? BC), 

3) the post-empire Neo-Hittite petty kingdoms (rising ca. 1200 BC), and 4) the people of the 

Judean hill country bearing the same appellation (1936, 196). 3 These categories have been 

subsequently modified but remain essentially the same. Ishida for instance distinguishes between 

the Neo-Hittite successor states in Syria and the general inhabitants of Syria-Palestine (cf. atti” “H˘ 

as the 9c Neo-Assyrian synonym for “Amurru”) (1979, 468). 4 

Biblical references belong to the third and fourth categories where Forrer suggests that 

those in southern Judah might be fugitives from Kuruštama (on the northern frontier of atti; H˘ 

1937, 110–115). Without archeological evidence this proposal remains speculative and not 

widely accepted (see Singer 2004; 2006, 730–732). 

——————————— 

3 Forrer provides a fifth category as a “catch-all” for uses which later employed the term “Hittite” in an 

incongruous way, where the referent is clearly not related to one of the first four categories. 

4 For a historical overview, see Hoffner (1973; 1994) and Beckman (2007). For recent book-length 

treatments, see Bryce (2005) and Collins (2007).

3 

“Hittite” in the HB 

The term “Hittite” (ḥittî; ‏(ִחִּתי 5 derives from OT scholarship which originally applied the 

gentilic to a presumed tribal group which inhabited the Levantine hill-country. It was 

subsequently adopted in reference to the Anatolian empire which existed during the LBA (Bryce 

2005, 18–19). This adaptation of terminology paved the way for category confusion between 

“Hittite” and “Hethite.” It is therefore assumed that the Ḥittî of the patriarchal narratives (Gen 

23:10; 25:9; 26:34; etc.) are equated to the indigenous bOnê Ḥēt¯ 

Ḥēt¯ and bOnôt ‏(ְּבֵני־ֵחת)‏ 

‏.(ְּבנֹות־ֵחת)‏ 

According to this view both bOnê/bOnôt Ḥēt¯ 

and Ḥittî represent a “Canaanitish” people 

(McMahon 1992, 3:231) and have nothing to do with northern cultural constructs, or are a 

displaced non-Semitic people group (which the material culture does not support). 

This brief analysis argues for revising the standard assumption that bOnê/bOnôt Ḥēt¯ 

is 

equivalent to Ḥittî. The assumption that Ḥittî in HB regularly refers to a people indigenous to the 

southern foothills of Canaan, both in the patriarchal narratives as well as the formulaic lists, 

should be questioned. Textual usage and paucity of material culture casts doubt on the accepted 

interpretations. 

“The Land of the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites...”. Before engaging the 

“Hittites” of the patriarchal narratives, it is first necessary to discuss its use in the frequent 

formulaic lists. The singular, articular and gentilic haḥittî ‏(ַהִחִּתי)‏ appears with two distinct uses in 

the HB: as an ethnic marker, e.g., Ephron the haḥittî (Gen 23:10), and as a generic appellation in 

a formulaic list for one of the people groups associated with “the land,” e.g., “the land of the 

Canaanites, the haḥittî, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites” (Exod 3:17). 

The first occurrence of haḥittî in the HB falls in the latter category (Gen 15:19–21). The haḥittî 

——————————— 

5 Hoffner suggests the etymological similarity between Hebrew ḥēt¯ 

or ḥittî and its Hittite or Akkadian 

equivalents, H˘ ati/H˘ atti (cf. del Monte and Tischler 1978) and h˘ attû, respectively, are likely “due to chance 

conflation,” that is, coincidental (1973, 214). Güterbock, however, clarifies the vowel shift in the Hebrew term as 

an expected phenomenon: “The Masoretic vocalization with i follows the phonetic principle where a shifts to i in a 

closed syllable. The original pronunciation *Ḥattî is to be expected according the cuneiform pattern” (1972– 

1975, 372). („Die masoretische Vokalisation mit i folgt dem hebr. Lautgesetz ă > ĭ in geschlossener Silbe; 

ursprüngliche Aussprache *Ḥattî ist nach dem keilschriftlichen Vorbild zu erwarten.“)

element typically appears in one of the first three slots regardless of list length or content (contra 

McMahon 1992, 3:231–232). 6 McMahon suggests that Deuteronomy’s “seven nations greater 

and stronger” than Israel ‏ִׁשְבָעה גֹוִים ‏ַרִּבים ‏ַוֲעצּוִמים ‏ִמֶּמ ‏ָּך)‏ ; Deut 7:1) represents the final “standardized” 

form though Ishida applies this privilege to the more common six-fold list. 7 The formula appears 

with the “Canaanite, Hittite, and Amorite” in various orders in the first half, with an apparently 

frozen “Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite” order in the second half. The seven-fold list simply inserts 

“Girgashite.” 

Ishida summarizes the basic form as three major nations + three minor nations, where the 

first half are well known and well attested in extra-biblical sources, and the second half are 

neither well known nor well attested. The reason for variation, argues Ishida, lies in the 

diachronic development of the first three nations, also attested in ancient Near Eastern sources 

(1979, 465). The implications of this diachronic development for the Hittite Empire and their 

successor states has recently become pronounced, where material and textual evidence 

strengthens proposed continuity between the LBA and Iron I culture (see Hawkins 1988; 1995; 

Harrison 2007; 2009a; 2009b; 2010). The “Hittite” of the lists could therefore refer to the powers 

of geographic Israel's northern extremes. 

A second reason for variation might be quantitative in respect to the first three list 

elements. Weinfeld argues that they form the largest people groups in pre-conquest Israel: “The 

Canaanites mostly designated the coastal population associated with the Egyptian province of 

——————————— 

6 Ishida interacts with the 27 total occurrences, noting that they vary between 2 to 12 nations. For a 

convenient table, see Ishida (1979, 461–462). He categorizes them according to five rubrics: six-fold lists and their 

variations, representative nations, geographical, the Table of Nations, and lists from later sources (1979, 463). 

7 McMahon’s suggested standard stems from this passage and appears three times in HB though not 

necessarily in the same order (Deut 7:1, Josh 3:10, and Josh 24:11): “Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, 

Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.” Numerous permutations appear throughout HB (e.g., Gen 15:19-21; Exod 3:8, 

17; 13:5; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Num 13:29; Deut 20:17; Josh 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; Judg 3:5; 1 Kgs 9:20; 2 Chr 8:7; Ezra 

9:1; etc.). Ishida (1979, 464) argues that the six-fold list is standard since it appears more frequently than others 

(11x); the five (2x of 4x total) and seven-fold (3x) lists are interpreted as later variations. Reclassification leaves 

Ishida with 14 total stylized six-fold lists plus variations. For an updating of Ishida’s lists, see Collins 

(2007, 201n11). 

4

5 

Canaan; the Amorites usually referred to the population of the hill country; while the Hittites 

referred to groups of fugitives from the Anatolian regions... who later formed the neo-Hittite 

small kingdoms” (1991a, 362). While his supposition regarding the presence of Anatolian 

fugitives in the Judean hill country is not supported by material culture (1991a, 363–364), his 

larger geographic framework possesses textual merit. 

Long standing trade routes which passed through the Levant functioned to tie atti and H˘ 

Egypt together on both economic and diplomatic levels during their LBA peaceful relations, 

providing a pre-existing and commonly used corridor for later movements. While the appearance 

of “Hittites” in Canaan proper could have resulted from any number of factors over an extensive 

period of time, these conditions allowed for both their presence and movement. For example, 

individual merchants from the north could have settled in Canaan (perhaps where business was 

lucrative), individual diplomats could have remained for a number of reasons (perhaps as expatriots), 

and any northerly individual could have moved their households for practical reasons 

(perhaps as a result of food shortage, climate change, political unrest, etc.). The few Hittite 

material remains from Megiddo, Aphek, Tel Nami, and Tell el-Far’ah (south) support at least the 

first two possibilities and are suggestive of the last. A quantitative perspective is consistent with 

Neo-Hittite populations in the north, but not with the resettlement of large populations. 

A third possible explanation for variation lies at the canonical level where the list 

functions as an intentional literary device. The three total occurrences of the seven-fold list may 

be connected within the larger context of Deuteronomy and Joshua (Deut 7:1; Josh 3:10; 24:11). 

In Deuteronomy the seven-fold list appears first as the immediate application of the call to 

covenant love and the ideal ḥerem law (Deut 6), and the subsequent six-fold list (Deut 20:17) 

also appears in conjunction with warfare law. If McConville correctly observes that seven is a 

fitting number for a thorough purgation (2002, 153), then these two uses anticipate the 

incomplete fulfillment of the idealized ḥerem law which resulted in the Judges debacle. This 

tension between the ideal and its subsequent reality in Deuteronomy is explicitly spelled out by

6 

the sole use of the list in First Kings (9:20-21), where Solomon is said to have conscripted to 

forced labor the offspring of those peoples “whom the Israelites were unable to ḥerem.” In 

Joshua the seven-fold list forms an inclusio bracketing the initial conquest account (ch. 3) and the 

concluding post-conquest covenant renewal (ch. 24). Between these two occurrences lie three 

six-fold lists (Josh 9:1; 11:2; 12:8). Perhaps the alternation in number, content, and sequence is 

likewise intended to anticipate both the incompleteness of the conquest and the resulting 

consequences. The ḥerem passage points in this direction with its prohibition against 

intermarriage (Deut 7:3–4), a superfluous command if it possesses no anticipatory significance. 

(On the marriage of women taken in war [Deut 21:10–14], see Tigay 1996, 194–195.) 

Thus, Deuteronomy incorporates into its legal-parenetic discourse the literary ideal with 

an anticipation of the practical outworking of conquest, demonstrated explicitly by the lists in 

both Joshua and Kings. This suggested literary function of the list is both consistent with and 

emphasizes Israel’s failure to extend its political borders around its northern neighbors (though 

these lands were part of the “land promise”; see Gen 15:18, Deut 1:7, and Josh 1:4). The regular 

appearance of the list in the Pentateuch through Kings exemplifies its diachronic, historiographic 

and literary functions, 8 consistently pointing the way toward a northern referent for “Hittite.” 

Further Geographic Considerations. Internal geographic considerations likewise 

suggest a northerly referent for the list “Hittites.” Haḥittî appears four times in association with 

the collocation “in the hill country” (bāhār; ‏(ָּבָהר along with at least the Jebusites and Amorites. 

While the presence of Jebusites may indicate a southern locale, the contexts of Numbers 

implicitly and of Joshua explicitly indicates the north is in view. In Numbers the spies provide an 

overview of where they went, which includes all territories beginning at the wilderness of Zin 

——————————— 

8 Ezekiel may provide further evidence for a later use of the first three list elements in literary crafting. 

Jerusalem’s birth occurs in the land of the Canaanites where her father is Amorite and her mother ḥittît (Ezek 16:3, 

45). The haḥittî together with the Canaanite and Amorite represent a tradition which the prophet uses as a 

metaphor for Judah’s unfaithfulness to YHWH.

and as far north as Lebo-hamath (13:21; cf. 34:8). 9 Thus, though “hill country” in both north and 

south is condensed indiscriminately in their report it is important to note that both are indeed in 

view. It is left to the audience to discern which people group belong where. The Amorites and 

haḥittî make reasonable northern candidates with the Jebusites occupying the south. 10 

In Joshua the context provides some clarification where the list applies to a northern 

coalition of peoples summoned by Jabin in defense of Hazor (11:3). Geographically the hill 

country attributed to “the Amorites, haḥittî, the Perizzites, and the Jebusites” also appears in 

conjunction with the Hivites located in “the land of Mizpah” just below Mt. Hermon. 11 Wherever 

this northern hill country lies exactly, the parallel suggests it is north of Hazor. Haḥittî is 

associated twice more with bāhār, both in the framework of the formulaic six-fold list and 

generic geographic descriptors. Interestingly the narrator indicates that the Canaanite kings who 

heard and responded to the treaty made between Israel and Gibeon included those as far north as 

Lebanon (9:1), which is consistent with the northerly location demonstrated by the Hazor 

campaign. The final reference is ambiguous (12:8) and should be read in light of the other two 

Joshua contexts. Where the phrase “in the hill country” might apply to haḥittî a northern 

geographic location seems to be consistently intended. 

Another important geographic point favoring a Neo-Hittite referent for the haḥittî of the 

lists is found in idealized dimensions of the land promised to Israel. The divine oath as stated to 

Abraham (Gen 15:18), Moses (Deut 1:7), and Joshua (Josh 1:4) reflect a territory which extends 

——————————— 

9 For a discussion of the northern border of the Promised Land, including the likely locations of Mt. Hor, 

Lebo-hamath, and Zedad, see Rainey (2006, 35). 

10 “Amorite” may appear interchangeably for “Canaanite” as a universal term for the general populace of 

Palestine. The context here and in Joshua indicate a more specific use of the term via the geographic marker “in the 

hill country” as well as the presence of other listed people groups. The more specific use of the term “Amorite” has 

the northern region (Amurru) of Palestine in view. For an overview of the Amorites supported by ancient Near 

Eastern texts and data, see Liverani (1973; cf. Schoville 1994, 164–167). 

11 Hoffner (1973, 225) suggests the biblical Hivites be identified as principally Hurrian (following 

Speiser). He also argues the Jebusites too may be Hurrian based on the Amarna age personal name “Servant of 

H˘ epa” and variants for the 10c ruler “Arawnah.” 

7

8 

north “as far as the Great River, the River Euphrates” ‏.(ַעד־ַהָּנָהר ‏ַהָּג ‏ֹדל ‏ְנַהר־ְּפָרת)‏ 12 The idealized 

extent then includes regions from Kadesh on the Orontes and Hamat to the Euphrates, not to 

mention the Phoenician seaboard. Though these territories were never occupied by Israel, they 

did exert influence on Israel according to the conquest and monarchical history (cf. the Philistine 

strongholds). 

Plural “Hittites”. Several passages in HB regularly employ “Hittite” in the plural 

(ḥittîm/ḥittiyyot) explicitly in reference to Neo-Hittite territories in northern Syria and southeastern 

Anatolia during the early first millennium. Its use in Kings connects the plural gentilic 

form to the articular collective haḥittî of the lists. Such a connection suggests that the perspective 

of the author viewed the list haḥittî as influential peoples located on the northernmost border of 

the Promised Land rather than an autochthonous people group located in the Judean foothills. 

First Kgs 11:1-2 employs the feminine plural “Hittite women” (ḥittiyyot) to designate one 

group of several taken in diplomatic marriage by Solomon. The lovers which bear explicit 

national identities in the closing chapter of this account represent discrete political entities, 

specifically the daughter of Pharaoh and women from Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidon, and those 

bearing the appellation ḥittiyyot. The first five of these bodies all appear as outlying regions 

surrounding geographic Israel, extending from Egypt in the south through the eastern desert 

regions (Edom, Moab, Ammon) and along the northern Phoenician seaboard (Sidon). Interpreting 

the ḥittiyyot as a reference to an entity from within Israel such as the Judean foothills is 

inconsistent with this picture and also leaves the northern border unaccounted for. The intended 

referent for ḥittiyyot is logically Neo-Hittite, where Hamat makes a likely candidate along the 

extreme northern border of those territories claimed by David. 

On a canonical level the text ironically censures Solomon’s methods of politicking with 

an appeal to Torah and its prohibition against intermarriage which leads to idolatry (Exod 34:11- 

——————————— 

12 The only difference among these three references in the collocation is the orthography of ‏,גדל spelled 

plene גדול in Josh 1:4.

9 

16). The allusion in Exodus employs the standard six-fold list as an exemplar of peoples for 

Israel to eschew, and, interestingly, the only women listed in Solomon’s political entourage 

whose nationality also appears in the lists are “Hittite.” From this perspective the “Hittites” of the 

lists therefore refer to a northern people(s) who are not de facto tied to the Judean foothills. The 

sole use of the list in Kings falls at the introduction of this larger narrative, further demonstrating 

this conclusion with its reference to the ḥerem laws in Deuteronomy (7:1-2; 20:16-18). The 

canonical shaping and perspective of the text lends credence to a northerly referent for the 

articular collective haḥittî in the lists. 

This re-use in Kings provides important historiographic evidence for unravelling what is 

meant by “Hittite” in the lists. It supplies a textual perspective which connects the articular 

collective and the plural to a consistently northern location. All uses of ḥittîm, in conjunction 

with ḥittiyyot, collaborate this use in Kings as seen by the following survey. First, Josh 1:4 refers 

to the territory of the “Hittites” as extending from Lebanon to the Euphrates. A geographic 

distinction is made which singles out the Neo-Hittite petty kingdoms to the north of Israel (see 

Bryce 2005, 487n141). 

Second, 1 Kgs 10:28-29 and its synoptic parallel in 2 Chr 1:16-17 refer to a group of 

Hittite and Syrian kings for whom Solomon was involved in arms trade from Egypt in the south 

and from Que 13 on the Anatolian coastal plain. He apparently imported horses from both Que and 

Egypt as well as Egyptian chariots and exported both to Aramean and “Hittite” kings. The trade 

of Cilician horses with Neo-Hittites via Solomonic middlemen seems geographically odd unless 

he used sea transport (see McMahon 1992, 3:233), a situation supported by the Septuagint (κατὰ 

θα' λασσαν ε ξεπορευ' οντο for ‏;ְּבָיָדם ‏ֹיִצאּו 1 Kgs 10:29). Thus, Solomon perhaps controlled both 

major land and sea based routes for moving goods from Egypt and Que to his northern 

neighbors. 14 The perspective of the text clearly distinguishes between Aramean and Hittite rulers 

——————————— 

13 Assyrian Quê; Neo-Babylonian H˘ ume; Hebrew Q e vēh (Rainey, et al. 2006, 131). 

14 For the difficulties in positing Solomon as arms-dealer for Egypt, see Dillard (1987, 13–14). The

10 

from the regions of the Neo-Hittite states. Stated negatively, there is no blurring or confusion 

between these two groups at the canonical level. 

Third, the Arameans of 2 Kgs 7:6 attribute to a group of “Hittite kings” similar military 

clout as “Egyptian kings” (see Bryce 2005, 356; cf. 2 Chr 1:17 which places them in collocation 

with the kings of Syria). The author makes a clear distinction between the Syrian and Hittite 

rulers. Regardless of the referent for the “Egyptian kings,” the mere thought of such a coalition 

caused a Syrian army, led by Ben-Hadad and intent on continuing a siege against Samaria, to flee 

for their lives. 15 Additionally, the Syrians assumed Israel contracted these forces, which implies 

peaceful political relationships between these Iron Age rulers and consistently demonstrates an 

awareness of their distinctiveness. 

Fourth, a local from Luz (Bethel) in Judg 1:26 is conscripted to betray his city with the 

promise of protection. After the deed he relocates to an unknown place to rebuild in “the land of 

the Hittites” ‏ַהִחִּתים)‏ ‏.(ֶאֶרץ The geographic referent appears to be ambiguous and the collocation 

itself does not seem to provide much help in determining location in the HB. It may be an 

intentional shorthand for the longer six-fold formula in which case its reference could be the 

ambiguous “hill country” (cf. Num 13:29; Josh 11:3). It could also be a reflex of its earlier 

occurrence in Josh 1:4 in which case the Neo-Hittite states would be in view. That the 

collocation appears only here and in Joshua tips the scale in favor of a northern referent. 16 

—————————————————————————————————————— 

conjecture in BHS in shifting ‏ִמִּמְצָרִים to ‏ִמֻּמְצִרי which might then indicate a northern Muṣri near Que (so DeVries 

2003, 140) boasts no textual evidence to commend it. Also, the location of an Anatolian or north Syrian Muṣri has 

not been clearly identified (Rainey, et al. 2006, 201). Apparently Egyptian chariot technology was revived during 

the 21st and 22nd Dynasties (Rainey, et al. 2006, 166) and Solomon took advantage of the opportunity. 

15 Though the time period is not clear, the account is placed between Joram’s first and fifth year over the 

Northern Kingdom (2 Kgs 3:1; 8:16). 

16 Block (1999, 103–104) suggests the purpose of the narrative is to emphasize the continued presence of 

Canaanites within Israel and the disastrous consequences of this situation. The narrative remains unconcerned with 

where Luz was relocated, being largely focused on what happened to the original site (cf. Gen 35:8 etc.) which was 

already historically sacred.

11 

Similarly, later NA references employing an approximate collocation via māt H˘ atti 

frequently refer to the Neo-Hittite states rather than the general populace of the west. Though this 

last point has been debated, Cogan has cogently demonstrated that “Māt H˘ atti originally signified 

the Hittite Empire and the geographical sphere under Hittite rule; later, it came to serve as the 

name for the states of Anatolia and Upper Syria that were the political and cultural heirs of the 

imperial Hittites. It never seems to have lost this meaning” (2002, 89; see Singer 2006, 726). 

Fifth, in 2 Sam 24:6 the Lucianic recension reads “and to the land of the Hittites at 

‏ְוֶאל־ֶאֶרץ ( Taḥtîm-ḥod¯šî” Kadesh” (καὶ εις γηñν Χεττιεὶµ Κα' δης) for the obscure “and to the land of 

in the MT. That the recension is essentially stylistic in character and that the reading ‏(ַּתְחִּתים·ָחְד ‏ִׁשי 

ואל under discussion is a place name favors a Vorlage unique from the traditional text (perhaps 

Contextually it falls in David’s census of Israel which begins from Aroer in ‏.(ארץ החתים קדשה 

southern Gad and moves northward ultimately to Gilead, then “into the land of the Hittites, that 

is, Kades,” 17 and from there loops southward to Dan, around to Sidon, to Tyre, etc. The context 

indicates a northerly location. Perhaps the best candidate is Kadesh-on-the-Orontes (so Fisher, 

Smith and Rummel 1975, 279, 8§34f). It is both well known and possesses continued historical 

importance for its political and military roles during the LBA. It functioned as a royal city during 

the Amarna period and the location for the conflict over Amurru territory between Ramesses and 

Muwatalli. 18 Wherever the place might have been, it was apparently located in the north. 19 Direct 

——————————— 

17 See the modern versions which adopt this reading, such as the NRSV and the ESV (“and to Kadesh in 

the land of the Hittites”; also HCSB, NJB), as well as the Lutherbibel („und zum Land der Hetiter nach Kadesch“) 

and a few French translations (e.g., «dans le pays des Hittites, à Cadès», BFC). 

18 Egyptian Qidšu, Akkadian Kinsa. For bibliography and historical-geographic discussion see BDB (s.v. 

2.), and Rainey (2006, 62, 68–69, 78–80, 96–98). The strongest manuscript support קד ‏ׁש (s.v. HALOT ‏,(חד ‏ׁשי 

(Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) provides εις γηñν Θαβασων η« ε στιν Αδασαι, which Rainey interprets as a reference to 

Bashan via the -βασων element and its location along the route toward Dan (2006, 163–164). 

19 Rainey’s argument is based on the order of locations cited in the census, the key being his interpretation 

of the phrase ‏ָּדָנה ‏ַּיַען in the sense of “to Dan ‏(ָּדָנה)‏ at the foot of Mount Hermon, and on to Jaan ‏,(ַּיַען)‏ an obvious 

metathesis for Ijon (2006, ‏”(ִעֹּין)‏ 163). He therefore concludes that in order for the Lucianic reading to be correct it 

‏ָּדָנה·ַּיַען would necessarily have to come after Ijon in order of presentation. However, it is also possible to interpret 

as the territory of Dan, specifically Ijon, which would then provide a reasonable route from Gilead northward to 

Kadesh-on-the-Orontes and then southward to Ijon in the territory of Dan, around to Sidon, to Tyre and so forth.

contact is therefore possible between Neo-Hittites and those of military age included in David’s 

census. 

Finally, there is evidence of direct Neo-Hittite influence during the period attributed to 

David (2 Sam 8:9–10 || 1 Chr 18:9–10) and later to Ahab via the Neo-Hittite city of Hamat on the 

middle Orontes. David experienced political affiliations with its king Toi and later Ahab entered 

into coalition with the Neo-Hittite king of Hamat, Irh˘uleni/Urhilina, 20 and the Aramean king of 

Damascus, Hadad-idri (Ben-Hadad), which defeated Shalmaneser III at the battle of Qarqar in 

853 (see Collins 2007, 199; cf. the Kurkh Monolith, CoS 2.113A). Though ḥittîm does not appear 

in these contexts the Hurrian and Luwian onomastics point toward a Neo-Hittite presence. Israel 

apparently had some sort of relationship with Hamat beginning with David until their dissolution 

under Aramean and Assyrian influence. 

Northeastern and northwestern counterparts to Hamat are also consistent with this picture. 

The Neo-Hittite rulers of Karkamiš likely represent an unbroken line back to Šuppiluliuma I 

(Hawkins 1988; 1995; 2000b), demonstrating direct Hittite vestiges in Syria after the empire 

crumbled rather than a total collapse and assimilation into Syrian culture. Indeed, the Hittite 

artistic expression at Karkamiš influenced that of Aramean controlled Zinçirli (Hawkins 2008). 

Similarly, Tarh˘untašša (Que) was under direct control of the tattered Hittite empire perhaps as 

—————————————————————————————————————— 

Another key to understanding the correct direction of Joab’s route appears to be the compound prepositional 

phrase “around to Sidon” ‏ֶאל־ִצידֹון)‏ ‏.(ְוָסִביב “Around” is only necessary if a change in direction is in view, and if one 

moves from Ijon to Tyre it is fairly direct. Also, that it could refer to the skirting of Sidonian territory along the 

coast is incorrect, for the directive “to” is included to mark a specific destination, i.e., the city rather than the 

territory of Sidon. If Rainey’s proposal is followed, Joab’s route took him from Dan to Ijon, then around the 

territory of Sidon and then to Tyre, striking the city of Sidon off the itinerary. Textual delimiters will not permit 

this interpretation. Whatever “around” means, Sidon must be included. 

20 The former spelling is cuneiform, the latter hieroglyphic Luwian, and the name itself is likely Hurrian. 

As observed by Hawkins, Shalmaneser’s multiple encounters with this coalition in 853, 849, 848, and 845 BC 

indicates its success in repelling his advances. By 841 BC Hamat no longer supported Damascus, perhaps due to an 

alliance with Assyria. For discussion see Hawkins (1980, 162). That Hamat is likely Neo-Hittite at this time is 

evidenced by the presence of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions until it later came under Aramean domination. In 

Hawkins’ words: “The inscription of Zakir marks the point at which the kingdom of Hamath had passed from an 

‘Anatolian’ dynasty, using Hieroglyphic Hittite to Aramaean control” (1975, 68). 

12

13 

late as the 11c (Hawkins 1988, 106–107; cf. Beckman 2007, 111–112), thus strengthening the 

possibility for cultural continuity with the later “Hittite kings” of Que in the 10c. 

It is therefore reasonable that later “Canaanites” associated with the name “Hittite” are 

descendants of the Neo-Hittites, representing an amalgam of Hattians, Luwians, Hurrians, and 

others (Bryce 2009, 62). This type of situation reflects the cultural make-up of Empire era 

Hittites and their successor states, for they never possessed a clearly distinct ethnic identity but 

functioned as a melting pot of peoples who boasted of themselves as “the land of a thousand 

gods.” 21 

Onomastica 

A handful of personal names provide further evidence of direct Neo-Hittite interference 

in early Israel. After David’s defeat of Hadadezer of Zobah and her Aramean allies in Damascus, 

Neo-Hittite Toi of Hamat sent tribute to and likely entered a formal alliance with David. 22 

“Toi/Tou” ‏ּתִעי/‏ ֹ ‏ּתעּו)‏ ֹ ) is the Semiticized version of the (likely) Hurrian noun e (“man”) which 

tah˘ 

also appears as a PN at Meskene (Emar; Hawkins 2000b, 400n30). 23 While recognizing the 

challenges inherent in identifying ethnicity based on linguistic elements alone, 24 there is 

——————————— 

21 This cultural situation is also supported by the clear presence of Hurrian and Luwian influence within 

Hatti land at an early time in its political history: “At least during the period covered by the available texts, H˘ atti 

was always a multicultural civilization” (Beckman 2007, 109–110). 

22 In both accounts (2 Sam 8:10; 1 Chr 18:10) Toi/Tou sent an envoy to David “in order to ask him for 

peace and to bless him” ‏ְׁשָאל־לֹו ‏ְל ‏ָׁשלֹום ‏ּוְלָבֲרכֹו)‏ ‏.(ִל While the idiom lišol lô lOšālôm by itself does not technically mark 

treaty making language, context can support this interpretation. It can also indicate the necessary precursors for 

establishing the relationship necessary to the treaty making process. For discussion see Wiseman (1982, 319). The 

current context suggests that diplomacy is in view, either to pursue or to establish treaty relations. After all, it falls 

within the purview of a military defeat of a superior enemy, the sending of the royal heir as ambassador, and the 

bestowal of lavish gifts. 

23 “Toi” probably lacks a theophoric element and is therefore abbreviated, the fuller form following the 

pattern “man of X deity” (Younger; personal communication). 

24 Apart from other information (such as a distinctive material culture) linguistic data may be indicative of 

bilingualism or of a shared language between unique cultures. See the succinct discussion by Goedegebuure as it 

pertains to the relationship between Hattian and Hittite in the early second millennium (2008, 137–139).

14 

sufficient data to indicate that Hamat was under Neo-Hittite rule until its Aramean usurpation by 

Zakkur (ca. beginning of the eighth century; see Hawkins 1975, 68; 2000b, 400–401). 

Toi’s own son functioned as his personal representative in this exchange, whose name 

appears in two Semitic forms: “Hadoram” with a Syrian theophoric meaning “Hadad is exalted” 

2 ‏;יֹוָרם)‏ exalted” 1 Chr 18:10); “Joram” with a Yahwistic theophoric meaning “YHWH is ‏;ֲהדֹוָרם)‏ 

Sam 8:10). When the versions are included the picture becomes more complex. In Chronicles the 

Peshitta reads “Joram” 25 over against “Hadoram” in the LXX 26 and MT, likely influenced by the 

MT in the Samuel parallel. In Samuel the LXX reads “Hadoram” over against “Joram” in the 

MT. Since it is highly unlikely the Greek translators would have changed a Yahwistic theophoric 

to reflect a Syrian deity the reading is judged original to their Vorlage. 27 The two traditions are 

not mutually exclusive; for royalty to have multiple names is common currency in the ancient 

Near East. 28 

Goedegebuure (2008, 145) adopts an algorithm for determining direction of linguistic 

influence between Hattian and Hittite which is fruitfully applicable to the theophoric shift in the 

naming of Toi’s son. The direction of linguistic influence, and hence the direction of cultural 

intrusion, is discernible through the following four principles (with slight modification; X = 

——————————— 

25 The Arabic also reads “Joram,” likely influenced by the Peshitta. 

26 The Göttingen Septuagint project is not yet finished, including Joshua through Chronicles, thus Rahlfs- 

Hanhart is employed here. All spellings of “Hadoram” provided in this edition are as follows: ιδουραµ (Sinaiticus); 

ιδουρααµ (Vaticanus); δουραµ (Alexandrinus); αδουραµ (up to three quarters of all manuscripts). 

27 It may represent a tradition more ancient than that preserved in the MT, with the Chronicler apparently 

drawing on a similar vein. Rahlfs-Hanhart provides Ιεδδουραν τὸν υιὸν αυ τουñ, noting a transposition of the name 

with the article in the Lucianic recension (an expected stylistic variation) and an additional article before the name 

in Alexandrinus—the name is spelled the same throughout. BHS suggests orthographic variants with the note (τὸν) 

Ιεδ(δ)ουρ(ρ)α(ν), but without explanation. While one might posit a corruption in the MT where an original paleo- 

Hebrew hdrm was changed to ywrm, the suggestion involves two significant letter changes without supporting data 

and remains speculative (see comments in Klein 2006, 395n45). 

28 Malamat (1963, 6–7) offers Eliakim-Jehoiakim and Mattaniah-Zedekiah as examples, who received 

their second name under the influence of Egypt and Babylon respectively (2 Kgs 23:34; 24:17). Both of these 

examples, however, involve a different situation, where the foreign power appoints a new vassal and in so doing 

provides them a new name.

eceptor language; Y = donor language): (1) demonstrate change inducing contact between X and 

Y; (2) demonstrate shared features between X and Y language systems (i.e., “look at the whole 

language, for structural interference will not be isolated”); (3) demonstrate that these features did 

not exist in pre-X, thus proving X as receptor; (4) demonstrate that these features did exist in pre- 

Y, thus proving Y as donor. In the case of Hadoram-Joram, the Yahwistic element is 

demonstrably intrusive. While our existing knowledge makes a presumed Yahweh cult in Hamat 

speculative, Toi is influenced enough by the rising Israelite power on his southern border to 

warrant sending a political envoy led by his son bearing gifts and a new name intended to please 

the new monarch. 

Nevertheless Hamat remained under Neo-Hittite control as evidenced by Toi’s 

successors whose names appear in both Assyrian annals and in local hieroglyphic Luwian: Parita, 

Urhilina, and Uratami, where Urhilina is Hurrian and his son’s name Uratami is Luwian. 29 After 

the usurpation by Zakkur the remaining independent rulers of Hamat no longer bear Anatolian 

names. Yau-bidi, either Aramean or Hebrew, represents the last and is given the appellation 

“evil Hittite” by Sargon II (see Hawkins for source texts; 2000b, 401n55). The reference is likely 

geographic, though it does not militate against the possibility of continued Neo-Hittite influence 

under Aramean rule or the continued amalgamation of the two cultures. 

By way of contrast, this linguistic mixing of personal names is also reflected in the 

Aramean controlled Samal (Zinçirli). Kilamuwa and Panamuwa (I and II) are Luwian, and the 

names of Panamuwa II’s father and son, Bar-ṣur and Bar-rākib respectively, are Aramaic. 30 

Novák (2005, 253–254) observes that the material culture is consistent with this duality, for the 

art closely follows the Hittite themes found at Karkamiš but Samalian Aramaic represents the 

——————————— 

29 See the discussion in Sader (1987, 214–216); for all known occurrences see the references in Savaş 

(1998) and editions in Hawkins (2000a, 403–423). 

30 The first element of Panamuwa is of uncertain meaning, and -muwa indicates “power” or “seed, 

offspring.” QRL, the father of Panamuwa I, while of uncertain etymology is non-Semitic and likely Anatolian. For 

discussion see Tropper (1993, 60). 

15

dominant language in the reliefs. 31 Hawkins (2008, 601) suggests that the onomastic interchange 

indicates a close relationship (“perhaps intermarriage”) between the Aramean rulers of Samal 

and the surrounding Neo-Hittite states. 

In the biblical dimension persons referred to as “Hittite” for the most part bear Semitic 

names: Ahimelech ‏,(אחימלך)‏ Elon ‏,(אילון)‏ Beeri ‏,(בארי)‏ Basemath ‏,(בשמת)‏ Judith ‏,(יהודית)‏ Adah 

though there is no ‏,(אוריה)‏ 32 The exception appears to be Uriah ‏.(צהר)‏ Zohar ‏,(עפרון)‏ Ephron ‏,(עדה)‏ 

consensus regarding the origin of the name. The following proposals are representative. “Uriah” 

could be non-Semitic, derived from the Hurrian noun euri (Nuzi: erui), 33 “lord,” or the Luwian 

adjective ura/i, “great.” Both of these possibilities occur extensively in the onomastics. 34 A 

shortened form is then likely, where “Uriah” indicates “Lord of X,” “X deity is Lord,” “X deity is 

great,” or the like. Noth (1966, 168n1; so Hoffner 1969, 32) accepts the possibility of a Hurrian 

connection („Mitanninamen Arija bezw. Urija“), but believes “Uriah” is a genuinely Israelite 

name which was applied to this individual. Its spelling in HB does favor a Hebrew derivation (cf. 

the full form אּוִרָּיהּו in Jer 26:20–23). In this view it means something like “Yah is my light/fire.” 

A third option combines elements from these suggestions, positing “Uriah” as a Mischname 

——————————— 

31 Hawkins points out the unique character of these inscriptions, for they are not incised as is typical but 

rather are rendered in relief (minus the background). Hieroglyphic Luwian is accomplished in the same way and is 

likely the inspiration for the style in the Samalian reliefs (Hawkins 2008, 601). 

עדה (1966). Noth 32 For references, bibliography, and discussion concerning these names see HALOT and 

‏.אלעדדה or עדיהו may represent a shortened form of 

33 On the frequent metathesis of liquids adjacent to another consonant in Hurrian PNs see Speiser 

(1941, 68); on the use of /b/ for /w/ (-ue-) in the variants of ewri in the cuneiform literature, see Speiser 

(1941, 42n92). 

˘ 

34 For eu˘ 

ri (evri) in compound with or an epithet of divine names in the Hittite pantheon, see the catalogue 

in Gessel (1998–2001, 3:186–187): e.g., d IŠKUR… eb-ri/e-eb-ri (storm deity), d Ku-mar-bi-ni-ue e e-ue e -er-n[e] 

(grain deity), d é-pa-ap-ti e-bar-na (Queen of Heaven and consort of Teššub). He also provides the Luwian 

component urazza- 

H˘ 

but without references (3:242); see Speiser for the adjectival suffix -zi in Hurrian (1941, 116). 

For euri in both divine and personal names in the onomastica see the catalogue in Laroche (1980, 85–87, 285– 

286): e.g., Ebri-LUGAL-ma and Ibri-talma/i. For UR/Ura- in hieroglyphic Luwian PNs, see the complete list with 

references in Savaş (1998, e.g., 152–154): e.g., Uramuwas (Ura-mu-wa-ā, I MAGNUS+RA/I-mu-wa/i-ia), 

Urtami/Uratami (UR-r-tà-mi-s, MAGNUS+RA/I-tà-mi-sa, etc.), Ura-Tarhunzas ( I MAGNUS+RA-TONITRUS-tasa-za, 

UR-TRH, GRAND 1 -W-s, etc.). 

˘ 

˘ 

˘ 

˘ 

˘ 

16

17 

consisting of a non-Semitic element and a Yahwistic theophoric. 35 This understanding yields 

something like “Yah is Lord” or “Yah is great.” 36 Mazar (1986, 136–137) for precedence points 

to the Arawnah-Awarnah 37 of Jerusalem as a Hurrian title based on the genitive euri-ne, yielding 

a shortened “Lord of X” or simply “Lord” (i.e., a feudal lord). 38 Reminiscent in the same location 

is the Amarna age ruler of Jerusalem with the Mischname Abdi-H˘ eba (“Servant of the goddess 

H˘ ebat”) 39 exhibiting a Semitic element plus a Hurrian theophoric. 

Whether Uriah, the Arawnah-Awarnah, and Abdi-H˘ eba can be organically connected 

remains to be demonstrated, but the Jerusalem connection of the latter two as rulers of the same 

location, the Semitic-Hurrian onomastics of Abdi-H˘ eba, and David’s connection to the first two 

suggest that the Hurrian-Semitic onomastics should be taken seriously for Uriah. Further 

supporting the name “Uriah” as Hurrian-Semitic are the following observations: other non- 

Israelites in David’s service bear non-Israelite names (e.g., the likely Hurrian 

——————————— 

35 For an extensive argument favoring a compound consisting of the Luwian adjective and Israelite 

theophoric, see Arbeitman (1982). 

36 Though it does not appear to occur in PNs, uri- could be a shortened form of the Hurrian adjective urh˘ i, 

“true, faithful” (see Laroche 1980, 286). The fuller form occurs frequently in PNs such as Urh˘ i-Tešub, Urh˘ i-Tilla, 

Urh˘ i-Kušuh˘ , Urh˘ i-tarmi, and Urh˘ iya(na). In its possible application to “Uriah,” the result yields something like 

“Yah is true/faithful”— an intriguing irony in the David-Bathsheba-Uriah triangle. 

37 The variations in the MT’s orthography are not surprising in light of the appellation’s foreign derivation 

(2 Sam 24): האורנה K הארונה)‏ Q; v. 16), ארניה K ארונה)‏ Q; v. 18), ארונה 7x (vv. 20–24). The Chronicler spells the 

name ארנן which the LXX consistently adopts via Ορνα. The variation ארונה/האורנה also appears in the regular 

metathesis of ewri-erwi in the eastern and western (Nuzi) dialects. The first occurrence in the MT bears the article, 

suggesting that Arawnah-Awarnah is a title rather than a personal name. Second Samuel 24:23 supports a titular 

understanding if Mazar’s passing suggestion (1986, 136) is correct in reading המלך as an appositive rather than a 

vocative: “All this did Arawnah the king give to the king” ‏ֹּכל ‏ָנַתן ‏ֲאַרְוָנה ‏ַהֶּמֶלְך ‏ַלֶּמֶלְך)‏ ‏.(ַה By understanding the sentence 

as narrative rather than continued discourse of the Arawnah, this reading has the added advantage of removing the 

awkwardness of a personal self-reference given to David the king rather than an expected “your servant” or similar. 

38 Speiser (1941, 98–101) explicates the -ne suffix as essentially indefinite in force, where its various 

nuances are traced to a base meaning of “one” used as a relative particle. Hence, it can take on definite force or 

function as an attributive particle for a following noun. In application to Euri-ne its force literally indicates “lord, 

one of X (land/town/city).” While Mazar supposes an intentional shift in the title to make it sound more Israelite, it 

is also possible the MT has simply masked the -ne with a late vocalization of -nâ. 

39 E.g., EA 280:16–24, 30–35; 285:1–4; 286:1–4, 5–15, 61–64; 287:1–3, 64–70; 288:1–4, 62–66; 289:1– 

4, 45–51; 290:1–4, 14–21; 366:20–28. 

˘ 

˘

18 

Seraiah/Sheva/Shisha/Shavsha), 40 Uriah is presented as a “Hittite” numerous times, the 

Hurrian/Luwian elements proposed for “Uriah” are not unusual in light of their high frequency in 

the onomastics, and the double-name of Toi’s son Hadoram-Joram in connection with David 

provides immediate precedent. The preponderance of the data indicates that “Uriah” was most 

likely an original Hurrian name to which a Yahwistic theophoric was added in deference to the 

Davidide administration. 

In summary, both Hamat and Samal illustrate the different textures belonging to the 

Syro-Hittite states and show that the mixing of Anatolian and Semitic cultures took place in both 

directions. The biblical material is consistent with this picture, adding the budding Israelite 

power to the picture painted at Hamat. The onomastics surrounding the Hurrian Arawnah- 

Awarnah, the Hurrian-Semitic “Uriah,” the Hurrian “Toi,” and the Semitic adoption of and shift 

in the name of his son Hadoram-Joram all point to the mutual sharing of cultural influences 

between the early Israelite monarchy and the Neo-Hittite successor states. It would be unusual 

indeed if the “Hittites” connected with David were not influenced by his cultural heritage. 

Survey of “Hittite” in the Patriarchal Narratives 

At first blush the articular singular haḥittî in the Patriarchal narratives appears 

incongruous with the historiography of Kings, for haḥittî is connected to an apparently 

indigenous group with the appellation “Hethites” (literally “children of Heth,” ‏;ְּבֵני־ֵחת e.g., Gen 

23:10). Rather than assuming the two should be equated the textual data suggests that they are in 

fact distinct. 41 The data does not, however, explicitly define the relationship between them. 

——————————— 

40 See Mazar for a convenient summary and detailed discussion regarding especially the name for David’s 

scribe (1986, 129–130, 133–135). Mazar also proposes a Hurrian etymology for Naharai and Ittai, the latter via 

Εθθι in the LXX (σεθθει, εθθει in Vaticanus; ιθι, ηθει in the Lucianic recension) as Eteia or Etiia. He also suggests 

that Yidya ( I Yi-id-ia), ruler of Ashkelon during the Amarna age (cf. the openings in EA 320–326, 370), is 

equivalent to this Hurrian name. 

41 One proposal suggests translating the collocation bOnê/bOnôt Ḥēt¯ 

as “sons/daughters of Heth,” the 

articular singular haḥittî as “Hethite,” and the plural haḥittîm as “Hittite” (Wood 2011). There are at least two 

obstacles challenging these suggested glosses. First, “children of X” is often idiomatic for a people group and thus 

functions as a gentilic. In this case a better translation for bOnê/bOnôt Ḥēt¯ 

would be “Hethites.” Second, the

19 

Abraham. Early on Speiser suggested a non-Semitic background for the bOnê Ḥēt¯ 

of 

Genesis twenty-three (1964, 172–173). His two lines of argument connect them to the 

eponymous Ḥēt¯, son of Canaan (Gen 10:15) and suppose Hebron’s previous name, Kiriath-arba, 

is non-Semitic. Also, the Jerusalem oracle in Ezekiel (16:3, 45) furnishes a geographic Jebusite 

connection. The name change is therefore due to a change in ownership from non-Semitic 

Jebusites to Abraham the Semite. Speiser’s assumptions provide a succinct articulation of the 

commonly accepted ethnic connection between the bOnê Ḥēt¯ 

and Ephron as “Hittites.” 

A closer look at the context reveals that haḥittî directly applies only to Ephron and his 

progenitor Zohar. 42 The collocation “Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite” (25:9) directly ascribes 

Zohar as haḥittî, and then Ephron by virtue of kinship. The pattern “PN 1 

ben(ê) PN 2 

articular 

gentilic” appears throughout the HB. 43 Two passages indicate the final gentilic (whether 

originally geographic or ethnic) applies grammatically to PN 2 

. In Samuel the two commanders 

Baanah and Rechab are both described as “the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite of the Benjamites, 

for Beeroth is also considered part of Benjamin” (2 Sam 4:2). “Beerothite” represents a 

geographic PN converted to a gentilic and applied to Rimmon the father of these two men. In 

Kings Jaazaniah is described simply as “the son of the Maacathite” (2 Kgs 25:23), leaving out the 

expected PN 2 

. “The Maacathite” stands in lieu of Jaazaniah’s progenitor and thus PN 2 

. 

Therefore, both Ephron and Zohar are haḥittî. 

While the context makes plain a connection between Ephron (and Zohar) haḥittî and the 

bOnê Ḥēt¯, it also keeps the two entities distinct. Neither Ephron nor his progenitor Zohar are 

—————————————————————————————————————— 

suggestion collapses individuals which the historical and linguistic data suggests are distinct into a single entity. It 

is better to gloss haḥittî as “Hittite” until it can be demonstrated that these individuals are in fact the Hethites of the 

Patriarchal narratives. 

42 “Ephron” (the person) appears 12x, all in Genesis: 23:8, 10 2x, 13, 14, 16 2x, 17; 25:9; 49:29, 30; 

50:13. He is presented as “the son of Zohar” 2x (23:8; 25:9) and in conjunction with haḥittî 5x (23:10; 25:9; 49:29, 

30; 50:13). 

43 This pattern appears 32x: Gen 25:9; 28:5; 34:2; Num 10:29; 32:12; Josh 14:6, 14; Judg 12:13, 15; 2 

Sam 4:2; 21:8; 23:26, 29, 34; 2 Kgs 25:23; 1 Chr 11:12, 28, 30, 34, 35, 42; 27:9; 2 Chr 20:14; 24:26 2x; 31:14; 

Esth 3:1, 10; 8:5; 9:24; Job 32:2, 6.

described as bOnê Ḥēt¯, and the remote bOnê Ḥēt¯ 

are never referred to as ḥittî in any form. Indeed, 

if Ephron and Zohar were bOnê Ḥēt¯ 

no ethnic determinative should be expected for them (cf. the 

regular descriptor for Ruth hammôăb¯ 

îyâ). The use of haḥittî indicates Zohar’s family is not 

natively bOnê Ḥēt¯. The Table of Nations is consistent with these observations. Interestingly, all 

the children listed for Canaan in the Table appear in gentilic form except for Sidon and Heth, 

further demonstrating an eponymous relationship to the bOnê Ḥēt¯. A number of these also appear 

in the formulaic lists: “the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites” (Gen 10:15-18). 

All are explicitly referred to as “the clans of the Canaanites” (10:18). Neither “Perizzites” nor the 

gentilic haḥittî appear in the Table unless one assumes that Ḥēt¯ 

is a proxy for haḥittî. The Table 

of Nations suggests Heth is the eponymous ancestor of the bOnê Ḥēt¯ 

but states nothing regarding 

a relationship to either Zohar or Ephron haḥittî. Thus, the immediate and larger contexts 

consistently distinguish between haḥittî and the bOnê Ḥēt¯. In sum, two specific individuals bear 

the gentilic haḥittî but not the bOnê Ḥēt¯ 

group. Contextually, “Hittite” applies only to a single 

family in the immediate area. 

While the context infers a strong association between the Hethites and the family of 

Zohar and Ephron, the lack of familial or ethnic language between them makes an organic 

connection tenuous. Rather, a close reading posits the relationship in legal and financial terms. In 

the legal dimension the Hethites are referred to as “the people of the land” (23:7, 12, 13) whom 

Abraham first approaches before speaking with Ephron directly. Similarly, in the concluding 

summary statement it is the Hethites who finalize the transaction: “Thus the field and the cave in 

‏ַוָּיָקם ‏ַה ‏ָּׂשֶדה ‏ְוַהְּמָעָרה ‏ֲא ‏ֶׁשר־ּבֹו ‏ְלַאְבָרָהם ( Hethites” it were assured to Abraham for a burial plot by the 

44 The Hethites function as both witnesses and final guarantors of the ‏.(ַלֲאֻחַּזת־ָקֶבר ‏ֵמֵאת ‏ְּבֵני־ֵחת׃ 

transaction, a situation Abraham understood as evident in his approach and deferment to them 

——————————— 

44 Vayyiqṭōl is interpreted as summarizing the section and the context suggests a legal gloss for ‏ַוָּיָקם (see 

JM § 118i, 363; IBHS § 33.2.1d, 550; GKC § 111k, 328). 

20

vis-à-vis Ephron in the first place (cf. חוה in 23:7, 12). 45 In other words, Abraham is not merely 

seeking their permission, for their legal participation is vital to the permanency the patriarch 

desires. Westbrook (following Boyer) suggests the section be read as a “tripartite transaction” 

which finds parallels in Akkadian at Ugarit, Boğazköy, and Mesopotamia during the same time 

period, and in earlier Elamite material (16c). In this situation the monarch functions as an 

intermediary, making the sale more secure by such involvement (Westbrook 1991, 32–34). 46 It is 

not difficult to see why this type of deed would appeal to a non-native desiring an enduring 

inheritance for the family name. If this is the background for Abraham’s request, later references 

to the purchase should reflect this important dimension and indeed they do. Abraham’s burial 

account (Gen 25:10) and Jacob’s burial request (Gen 49:32) both support this view with their 

focus on the Hethites as finalizing the transaction. 

In the financial dimension Ephron haḥittî sets the price of the property and receives 

payment from Abraham. A number of financial idioms appear throughout the passage, and all of 

them relate directly between Abraham and Ephron. 47 A cooperation then exists between three 

——————————— 

45 For a supposed Hittite legal background see Lehmann (1953). For a supposed NB background see 

Tucker (1966). For an informative critique of these two proposals see Hoffner (1969, 33–37) and Westbrook 

(1991; cf. Singer 2006, 728). The general nature of the patriarchal account preserves parallels which are arguably 

present in both first and second millennia legal texts (Hoffner 1969, 37; Westbrook 1991, 34). HL §§ 46-47, to 

which the biblical account has been compared, are provided here for convenience, following Hoffner’s critical 

reading (1997, 54–58): 

§ 46 If in a village someone hold land (lit. fields) as an inheritance share, if the [larger part of] the land 

has been given to him/her, (s)he shall render the luzzi-services. But if the sm[aller part] (of) the land [has been 

given] to him/her, (s)he shall not render the luzzi-services: they shall render them from the house of his/her father. 

If an heir cuts out for himself/herself unused(?)/Idle(?) land, or the man of the village give land to him/her (in 

addition to his/her inherited land), (s)he shall render the luzzi-services (on the new land). 

§ 47b If anyone buys all the land of a man having a TUKUL-obligation, he shall render the luzzi-services. 

But if he buys only the largest portion of the land, he shall not render the luzzi-services. But if he carves out for 

himself idle/fallow land, or the men of the village give (him land), he shall render the luzzi-services. 

46 In Westbrook’s words: “[W]e suggest that the widespread existence in the latter half of the second 

millenium BCE of a legal fiction of double transfer, by sovereign as well as by property-owner, in cases where the 

long-term rights of the alienee to the land were to be particularly emphasized, might well give rise to the popular 

notion of the alienee acquiring the land both from sovereign and owner, either of which could be indifferently 

mentioned as alienator” (1991, 34). 

47 These are as follows: נתן (consistently used for “sell” and “buy”; 23:4, 9, 13, etc.), ‏ְּבֶכֶסף ‏ָמֵלא (“for full 

price”; 23:9), ‏ֶּכֶסף ‏ַה ‏ָּׂשֶדה (“the price of the field”; 23:13), ‏ַאְרַּבע ‏ֵמ ‏ֹאת ‏ֶׁשֶקל ‏ֶּכֶסף (“four-hundred shekels of silver”; 23:15, 

(“acceptable to the merchants”; 23:16). For the possible ‏ֹעֵבר ‏ַל ֹ ‏ּסֵחר 23:16), money”; (“to weigh out ‏ׁשקל + ‏ֶּכֶסף 16), 

socio-economic dimensions of Abraham’s self-designation as a “foreigner” ‏;ּתֹו ‏ָׁשב)‏ 23:4), see Hamilton 

21

distinct entities: Abraham the foreigner as buyer, the Hethites as legal witness and guarantor, and 

Ephron as seller. Whatever other associations might exist between the family of Zohar and the 

Hethites, their relationship involves the right to own and sell property. 

This account is remarkably parallel to Boaz’s acquiring the property of Elimelech (Ruth 

4). Both Abraham and Boaz initiate the real-estate transaction; both transactions occur in the city 

gates and include as many native witnesses as possible; both transactions involve foreigners 

(Abraham the “resident alien,” Ephron haḥittî, Ruth hammôăb¯ 

îyâ); both transactions are 

finalized by the native population; neither transaction provides the details of the actual agreement 

but rather consists of discourse (i.e., they are both reports of what happened, not legal documents 

themselves). The specific situation surrounding each property request represents the primary 

difference between the two. Other differences include the sale of property to a foreigner versus 

the movement of property within an established inheritance and the reasons for the requests in 

the first place. The parallel further supports Hoffner’s conclusion “that we have here not a Hittite 

legal proceeding nor a neo-Babylonian contract style, but a characteristic Hebrew description of 

the oral manoeuvring of two parties prior to agreeing on a transaction” (1969, 36n23). 

Esau. Two passages in the Patriarchal narratives do appear to collectively support an 

organic connection between haḥittî and bOnê Ḥēt¯. Esau’s wives Judith and Basemath make life 

difficult for Isaac and Rebekah where they are referred to as daughters of haḥittî fathers (26:34- 

35). Rebekah later laments over her first son’s choice of marriage partners, hoping better for 

Jacob (Gen 27:46): “I am disgusted with my life because of the daughters of Ḥēt¯ 

[bOnôt¯ 

Ḥēt¯]! If 

Jacob takes a wife from the bOnôt¯ 

Ḥēt¯ 

like these, from the daughters of the land, what good will 

my life be?” However, a careful look at the background of Esau’s wives reveals that the matter is 

not as simple as it appears. 

—————————————————————————————————————— 

(1995, 128n27). If tôšāb¯ 

does imply economic dependence the context defines it in terms of land ownership, not 

wealth. Though this idiom would be the only possible financial term relating directly to the Hethites, it appears to 

function as deferment for requesting a land purchase in their territory. 

22

In 26:34 the narrator presents Judith as “the daughter of Beeri haḥittî” and Basemath as 

“the daughter of Elon haḥittî.” The Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX and Peshitta present Elon as a 

23 

“Hivite” (perhaps Hurrian) vis-à-vis the haḥittî of the MT. When Esau realized the bOnôt¯ 

KOnāan vexed his parents (28:8) he married “Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, 

the sister of Nebaioth” (Ishmael’s oldest son; 28:9). The Peshitta reads “Basemath” for 

בשמתהיא)‏ Basemath” “Mahalath” and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan interprets “Mahalath who is 

both of these are likely an attempt at harmonization with 36:3 where Basemath is ‏;(מחלת 

presented as the daughter of Ismael and sister of Nebaioth, rather than the daughter of Elon. 

Genesis 36:2-3 falls in the TôlOd¯ôt framework for Esau where the narrator states that 

“Esau took his wives from the daughters of Canaan [bOnôt¯ 

KOnāan]”: Adah “the daughter of 

Elon haḥittî,” Oholibamah “the daughter of Anah, the granddaughter 48 of Zibeon the Hivite,” and 

Basemath “the daughter of Ishmael, the sister of Nebaioth.” The Samaritan Pentateuch reads 

“Mahalath” for “Basemath,” likely an attempted harmonization with 28:9. In 36:20 Zibeon is 

referred to as a Horite (Hurrian) prince of Seir. 49 

If the sequence of the MT is taken at face value, Esau first marries two women with 

haḥittî parentage (Judith and Basemath), one of whom is characterized as Hivite (Basemath) in 

the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX and Peshitta. Rebekah then grieves over his choices, referring to 

them as and as “the daughters of the land.” This combination indicates Rebekah’s 

——————————— 

bOnôt¯ 

Ḥēt¯ 

48 The MT reads “daughter of Zibeon,” ‏,ַּבת־ֵאילֹון but the LXX supplies “son,” τουñ υιουñ Σεβεγὼν, a reading 

supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Peshitta, and is also consistent with Anah’s lineage expressed in 36:24- 

25 (the same situation appears in 36:14; cf. 36:39). In 36:1 Anah is introduced with the other chiefs of Seir, 

including his father Zibeon, as the offspring of their eponymous ancestor Seir. This connection does not de facto 

make them brothers, but simply emphasizes their organic linkage to this important individual. Glossing “daughter 

of Zibeon” with “granddaughter” clarifies the family relationship, where “daughter” is taken to indicate “ancestor” 

and apply to Oholibamah rather than Anah. The versions appear to be harmonizing a perceived inconsistency. 

49 “Hivite” and “Horite” may both refer to Hurrians (cf. Hoffner 1973, 225) though the southern location 

of Seir appears to militate against their presence in Edom (Bartlett 1973, 230). Speiser suggests the Horites/Hivites 

located in north Syria-Palestine are non-Semitic Hurrians but those of Seir are Semites to whom the biblical text 

coincidentally or mistakenly applied the term (1964, 282–283). His reasoning is based on lack of archeological and 

epigraphic data in the region. Whether the connection made in the textual record can be nuanced will depend on 

the type of material evidence which might yet surface.

24 

generic association of these women with the local inhabitants. Rebekah’s perspective is 

confirmed by the narrator’s reference to Esau’s wives as KOnāan where Esau responds to 

bOnôt¯ 

his parent’s displeasure by marrying an Ishmaelite (Mahalath). Esau’s TôlOd¯ôt then summarizes 

these points, also presenting Esau’s wives collectively as KOnāan with some significant 

bOnôt¯ 

modification: Judith the daughter of Beeri haḥittî is not mentioned; Adah the daughter of Elon 

haḥittî replaces Basemath the daughter of Elon haḥittî; Basemath the daughter of Ishmael and 

sister of Nebaioth replaces Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth; Oholibamah 

daughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite/Horite is added (perhaps in lieu of the 

absent Judith). In sum, these women are specifically characterized as haḥittî, Hivite, Horite, and 

Ishmaelite when referred to individually, and are generically characterized as Hethites, as local 

inhabitants (“daughters of the land”), and as Canaanites when referred to collectively. 

However one characterizes the relationship between these traditions it is certain that a 

simple one-to-one correlation will not suffice. For our purposes the first two women explicitly 

illustrate the conundrum. Is Basemath haḥittî, Hivite, or Ishmaelite? Perhaps Basemath is another 

name for Adah? Similarly, is Judith also Oholibamah? If so, is Judith/Oholibamah haḥittî or 

Hivite/Horite? While definitive solutions are not attempted here, one can follow the text in 

categorizing these women generically as part of the local population, that is, Hethite, that is, 

Canaanite. It therefore appears that “local” is a reasonable understanding for Rebekah’s semantic 

use of Hethite (cf. the generic use of Amorite for Canaanite). To equate Hethite and Hittite in 

these contexts therefore confuses general and specific categories of usage and ignores significant 

textual challenges. A distinction is made on the textual level between their individual familial 

identities and their corporate relationship to the general populace of a particular geographic 

location. This distinction is consistent with Abraham’s experience with Ephron haḥittî and the 

local Hethite population. 

So if the haḥittî in the Patriarchal narratives are not Hethites, who are they? While the 

text does not specify an answer to this question, the collective use of haḥittî elsewhere in the

25 

Pentateuch and in Kings provides a cue. “Hittite” in the Patriarchal narratives refer to individuals 

and their immediate families exhibiting enough distinction from the local populace to be 

associated by the narrator with the northerly peoples identified during the conquest and 

subsequent monarchy. 

Artifacts 

Distinctly Hittite artifacts in Palestine are rare, a fact which also supports the biblical use 

of “Hittite.” Collins’ succinct summary (2007, 216–218) argues that the Megiddo ivory and 

Aphek bulla are products of Hittite-Egyptian diplomatic contacts during the 13c. The rest, she 

suggests, are remnants left by their respective Hittite owners while doing business in the region. 

Her conclusion is apropos of the material data: 

[N]o migration is necessary to explain the Hittites in the Bible… the Hittites who came to 

northern Palestine during the pax Hethitica-Egyptiaca, whether their stay was long or 

short, were sufficient in quantity and, more importantly, in quality to explain the level of 

cultural transmission that is evident. … But at no time were conditions more perfect or 

Palestine, which was perched on the cusp of a new era, more poised to absorb new 

influences than in the latter half of the thirteenth century (2007, 218). 

The surveyed textual data is consistent with the small number of discovered artifacts, provided in 

the following short list, and some fall on well traveled thoroughfares (e.g., Megiddo and Aphek): 

1. Ivory plaque: Megiddo 13c palace “treasury” (Loud 1939, 10, 14, Plate 11; Novacek 

2011, 56–57) 50 

2. Bulla: Aphek (Antipatris) LBA Egyptian governor’s residence (Singer 1977) 51 

3. Steatite stamp seal: Megiddo 13c residential (Loud 1948, 156, Plate 162:7; Singer 

1995) 52 

4. Seals and 2 silver signet rings: Tell el-Far’ah (south) Ø13c (Singer 2003) 53 

5. Bronze signet ring: Tel Nami 13c grave piece (of a priest?) (Singer 2011a) 54 

——————————— 

50 This piece is no doubt a luxury item, perhaps evidencing trade or the presence of an Egyptian official. 

Regarding its authenticity as Hittite see the bibliography in Kantor (1956, 155–56, n8-P. 19). 

51 This bulla may evidence an Egyptian official receiving a trade item (Singer 2011b). 

52 The seal boasts the PN and title “Anuziti the charioteer,” referring to a member of a diplomatic envoy. 

53 These rings bear the names “Zazuwa” and “Ana.” 

54 The grave may have belonged to a priest in light of the presence of other cultic items. The ring bears the 

Hurrian PN “Ushe” and is similar to the Tell el-Far’ah rings.

26 

Conclusion 

This study argues that HB employs ḥittî in its various permutations as a geographic-ethnic 

identifier for specific families originating from or peoples located in the northern regions of 

Syria-Palestine. The application of the term to the bOnê (as if they are “Hittites”) or the 

Ḥēt¯ 

application of bOnê to the term (as if ḥittî are “Hethites”) introduces category confusion on 

Ḥēt¯ 

contextual, geographic, and linguistic grounds. The patriarchs likely used the appellation for 

individual families who exhibited cultural homogeneity with northern peoples, much in the same 

way one might refer to an ethnically Asian person from a Chinese province or from China Town 

as “Chinese” regardless of actual origin. Assyrian annals of the mid-ninth century onwards 

provide a contextual illustration, for the areas controlled by the Neo-Hittite kingdoms were 

referred to as “Hatti” due to their connection to the fallen Hittite empire (Collins 2007, 198). 

While this appellation is no doubt geographic, it is also vested with Hittite culture as the 

Assyrian interchange of “Hatti” with “Karkamiš” demonstrates (Hawkins 2000b, 73). Those 

“Hittites” mentioned in the lists and in the periods during and following the conquest refer to 

various people groups relative to the collapse of the Hittite empire and the Neo-Hittite successor 

states. Consistent application of ḥittî to northern Palestine and to individuals with roots in that 

area avoids category confusion, reflects geographic and onomastic delimiters supplied in the text, 

and explains the paucity of material Hittite culture within Canaan.

WORKS CITED 

Arbeitman, Yoël L. 1982. Luwio-Semitic and Hurrio-Mitannio-Semitic Mischname-Theophores 

in the Bible, on Crete, and at Troy. Scripta Mediterranea 3: 5–53. 

Bartlett, J. R. 1973. The Moabites and Edomites. Pages 229–58 in Peoples of Old Testament 

Times. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. London: Oxford University Press. 

Beckman, Gary. 2007. From H˘ attuša to Carchemish: The Latest on Hittite History. Pages 97–112 

in Current Issues in the Study of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. 

Claremont: Regina Books. 

Block, Daniel I. 1999. Judges, Ruth. The New American Commentary 6. Nashville: Broadman & 

Holman Publishers. 

Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. 1996. The Brown-Driver-Briggs 

Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. 

Boston: Peabody, Hendrickson. Repr. from 1906. Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 

Bryce, Trevor. 2009. The Hittite Empire 1650–1200 BC. Pages 44–69 in The Great Empires of 

the Ancient World. Edited by Thomas Harrison. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. 

———. 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. 

Cogan, Mordechai. 2002. Locating māt H˘ atti in Neo-Assyrian Inscriptions. Pages 86–92 in 

Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines. 

Ed. Eliezer D. Oren and Shmuel Aḥituv. Beer-Sheva 15. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion 

University of the Negev Press. 

Collins, Billie Jean. 2007. The Hittites and Their World. Archaeology and Biblical Studies. 7. 

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 

del Monte, Giuseppe F., and Johann Tischler. 1978. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der 

hethitischen Texte. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6. Wiesbaden: 

Ludwig Reichert. 

DeVries, Simon J. 2003. 1 Kings. Second ed. Word Biblical Commentary 12. Dallas: Word 

Books. 

Dillard, Raymond B. 1987. 2 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commentary 15. Dallas: Word Books. 

Elliger, K., and W. Rudoph, eds. 1997. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5 th corrected ed. Prepared 

by A. Schenker 1997. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 

27

Fisher, Loren R., Duane E. Smith, and Stan Rummel, ed. 1975. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts 

from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, Volume II. Analecta orientalia 50. Rome: Pontificium 

institutum biblicum. 

Forrer, E. O. 1937. The Hittites in Palestine [2]. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 69: 100–115. 

———. 1936. The Hittites in Palestine [1]. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 68: 190–203. 

Gelb, Ignace J., Pierre M. Purves, and Allan A. MacRae, eds. 1963. Nuzi Personal Names. 2d ed. 

University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 57. University of Chicago Press. 

Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2 nd English ed. Edited and enlarged by 

E. Kautzsche. Revised in accordance with the 28 th German ed. (1909) by A. E. Cowley. 

Oxford: The Clarendon press. 

Gessel, Ben H. L. van. 1998–2001. Onomasticon of the Hittite Pantheon. HdO I-III/33. Leiden: 

Brill. 

Goedegebuure, Petra. 2008. Central Anatolian Languages and Language Communities in the 

Colony Period: A Luwian-Hattian Symbiosis and the Independent Hittites. Pages 137–80 

in Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period. Edited by Jan Gerrit 

Dercksen. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 

Güterbock, H. G. 1972–75. Hethiter, Hethitisch. Pages 372–75 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 

und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4. Edited by Erich Ebeling, Bruno Meissner, Ernst 

Weidner, Wolfram von Soden, and Dietz Otto Edzard. Berlin und Leipzig: Walter de 

Gruyter. 

Hallo, William W., ed., K. Lawson Younger, associate editor. 2002. Archival Documents from 

the Biblical World. Vol. 3 of The Context of Scripture. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 

———. 2000. Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Vol. 2 of The Context of 

Scripture. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 

———. 1997. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Vol. 1 of The Context of 

Scripture. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 

Hamilton, Victor P. 1995. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. The New International 

Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 

28 

Harrison, Timothy P. 2010. The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition in the North Orontes 

Valley. Pages 83–102 in Societies in Transition: Evolutionary Processes in the Northern 

Levant Between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age. Edited by F. Venturi. Bologna: 

CLUEB. 

———. 2009a. Lifting the Veil on a “Dark Age”: Ta‘yinat and the North Orontes Valley During 

the Early Iron Age. Pages 171–84 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of 

Lawrence E. Stager. Edited by J. David Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 

———. 2009b. Neo-Hittites in the “Land of Palistin.” Near Eastern Archaeology 72: 174–89. 

———. 2007. Neo-Hittites in the North Orontes Valley: Recent Investigations at Tell Ta‘Yinat. 

The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 2: 59–68.

Hawkins, John David. 2008. Samal. A. Pages XI/7–8:600–605 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 

und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Walter de Gruyter. 

———. 2000a. Hama. Pages 398–423 in Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol. I: 

Inscriptions from the Iron Age, Part 2: Text: Amuq, Aleppo, Hama, Tabal, Assur Letters, 

Miscellaneous, Seals, Indices. Edited by Roberto Gusmani, Anna Morpurgo Davies, 

Klaus Strunk, and Calvert Watkins. Untersuchungen Zur Indogermanischen Sprach- und 

Kulturwissenschaft 8.1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 

———. 2000b. Karkamiš. Pages 72–223 in Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol. I: 

Inscriptions from the Iron Age, Part 1: Text: Introduction, Karatepe, Karkamiš, Tell 

Ahmar, Maraş, Malatya, Commagene. Edited by Roberto Gusmani, Anna Morpurgo 

Davies, Klaus Strunk, and Calvert Watkins. Untersuchungen Zur Indogermanischen 

Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 8.1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 

———. 1995. “Great Kings” and “Country-Lords” at Malatya and Karkamiš. Pages 73–85 in 

Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink 

ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by Theo P. J. van den Hout and 

Johan de Roos. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. 

———. 1988. Kuzi-Tešub and the “Great Kings” of Karkamiš. Anatolian Studies 38: 99–108. 

———. 1980. Irh˘uleni. Page 162 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen 

Archäologie 5. Edited by Erich Ebeling, Bruno Meissner, Ernst Weidner, Wolfram von 

Soden, and Dietz Otto Edzard. Berlin und Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. 

———. 1975. Hamath. Pages 67–70 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen 

Archäologie 4. Edited by Erich Ebeling, Bruno Meissner, Ernst Weidner, Wolfram von 

Soden, and Dietz Otto Edzard. Berlin und Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. 

Hoffner, Harry A. 2004. Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data. 

Pages 176–92 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and 

Assumptions: The Proceedings of a Symposium, August 12–14, 2001 at Trinity 

International University. Edited by Alan R. Millard and James K. Hoffmeier. Grand 

Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans. 

———. 1997. The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition. Edited by P. M. M. G. Akkermans, C. 

H. J. de Geus, E. Haerinck, Theo P. J. van den Hout, M. Stol, and D. van der Plas. 

Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui 23. Leiden ; New York: Brill. 

———. 1994. Hittites. Pages 127–55 in Peoples of the Old Testament World. Edited by Alfred J. 

Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi. With a foreword by Alan R. 

Millard. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 

———. 1973. The Hittites and Hurrians. Pages 197–228 in Peoples of Old Testament Times. 

Edited by D. J. Wiseman. London: Oxford University Press. 

———. 1969. Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study. Tyndale 

Bulletin 20: 27–55. 

Ishida, Tomoo. 1979. The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite 

Nations. Biblica 60: 461–690. 

29

Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Subsidia Biblica 27. Roma: 

Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. 

Kantor, Helene Juliet. 1956. Syro-Palestinian Ivories. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15: 153– 

74. 

Klein, Ralph W. 2006. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Edited by Thomas Krüger. Hermeneia—a 

Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. 1994–2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the 

Old Testament. Revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, translated and 

edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill. 

Laroche, Emmanuel. 1980. Glossaire de la langue hourrite. Paris: Klincksieck. 

Lehmann, Manfred R. 1953. Abraham’s Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law. Bulletin of the 

American Schools of Oriental Research 129: 15–18. 

Liverani, Mario. 1973. The Amorites. Pages 100–133 in Peoples of Old Testament Times. Edited 

by D. J. Wiseman. London: Oxford University Press. 

Loud, Gordon. 1948. Megiddo II Seasons of 1935–39. 2 Vols. Oriental Institute Publications 62. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

———. 1939. The Megiddo Ivories. Oriental Institute Publications 52. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Malamat, A. 1963. Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon. Journal of Near 

Eastern Studies 22: 1–17. 

Mazar, Benjamin. 1986. King David’s Scribe and the High Officialdom of the United Monarchy 

of Israel. Pages 126–38 in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Edited by 

Shmuel Aḥituv and Baruch A. Levine. Translated by Ruth Rigbi and Elisheva Rigbi. 

Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 

McConville, J. G. 2002. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Leicester, England: 

Apollos ; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 

McMahon, Gregory. 1992. Hittites in the OT. Pages 3:231–34 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 

Edited by David Noel Freedman, associate editors Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, and 

John David Pleins, managing editor Astrid B. Beck. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. 

Moran, William L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Noth, Martin. 1966. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen 

Namengebung. Beiträge Zur Wissenschaft Vom Alten und Neuen Testament, III, 10. 

Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Repr. from 1928. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart. 

30 

Novacek, Gabrielle Vera. 2011. Ancient Israel: Highlights from the Collections of the Oriental 

Institute, University of Chicago—Featuring Objects from the Haas and Schwartz 

Megiddo Gallery. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 31. Chicago: The Oriental 

Institute of the University of Chicago.

Novák, Mirko. 2005. Arameans and Luwians—Processes of an Acculturation. Pages 252–66 in 

Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique 

Internationale, Leiden, 1–4 July 2002. Edited by W. H. Van Soldt. In cooperation with R. 

Kalvelagen and D. Katz. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. 2006. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece ixuta LXX interpretes. 

Revised edition, Duo volumina in uno. Revised by Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche 

Bibelgesellschaft. 

Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notley. 2006. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical 

World. With contributions by J. Uzziel, I. Shai, and B. Schultz. Jerusalem: Carta. 

Sader, Hélène S. 1987. Les états araméens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu’à leur 

transformation en provinces assyriennes. Beiruter Texte und Studien 36. Beirut: Franz 

Steiner Verlag. 

Savaş, Savaş Özkan. 1998. Divine, Personal and Geographical Names in the Anatolian (Hittite- 

Luwian) Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları. 

Schoville, Keith N. 1994. Canaanites and Amorites. Pages 157–82 in Peoples of the Old 

Testament World. Edited by Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. 

Yamauchi. With a foreword by Alan R. Millard. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 

Singer, Itamar. 2011a. A Hittite Signet Ring from Tel Nami. Pages 585–88 in The Calm Before 

the Storm: Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia and the 

Levant. Ed. Billie Jean Collins. Writings from the Ancient World Supplements 1. Atlanta: 

Society of Biblical Literature. Repr. from 1993. Pages 189–193 in Kinattūtu ša darâti: 

Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. 

———. 2011b. Megiddo Mentioned in a Letter from Boğazköy. Pages 573–78 in The Calm 

Before the Storm: Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia 

and the Levant. Ed. Billie Jean Collins. Writings from the Ancient World Supplements 1. 

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Repr. from 1988. Pages 327–332 in Documentum 

Asiae Minoris Antiquae: Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: 

Harrassowitz. 

———. 2006. The Hittites and the Bible Revisited. Pages 723–56 in “I Will Speak the Riddles of 

Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the 

Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji. 

Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 

———. 2004. The Kuruštama Treaty Revisited. Pages 591–607 in Šarnikzel: Hethitologische 

Studien zum Gedenkenan an Emil Orgetorix Forrer (19.02.1894 - 10.01.1986). Edited by 

Detlev Groddek and Sylvester Rößle. DBH 10. Dresden: Technische Universität. 

———. 2003. Two Hittite Ring Seals from Tell el-Farah (South). Pages 133–35 [Hebrew] in 

Eretz-Israel 27. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 

———. 1995. A Hittite Seal from Megiddo. Biblical Archaeologist 58, no. 2: 91–93. 

31 

———. 1977. A Hittite Hieroglyphic Seal Impression from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 4, no. 3: 178– 

90.

Speiser, E. A. 1964. Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible 1. Garden 

City: Doubleday. 

———. 1941. Introduction to Hurrian. Edited by Millar Burrows and E. A. Speiser. Annual of 

the American Schools of Oriental Research 20. New Haven: American Schools of 

Oriental Research. 

Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996. Deuteronomy ‏:דברים The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS 

Translation. Edited by Nahum M. Sarna and Chaim Potok. The JPS Torah Commentary. 

Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 

Tropper, Josef. 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli: neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik 

des phönizischen, samalischen und aramäischen Textkorpus. Abhandlungen zur Literatur 

Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 6. Münster: UGARIT-Verlag. 

Tucker, Gene M. 1966. The Legal Background of Genesis 23. Journal of Biblical 

Literature 85: 77–84. 

Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona 

Lake: Eisenbrauns. 

Weinfeld, Moshe. 1991a. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and 

Commentary. The Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday. 

Westbrook, Raymond. 1991. Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah. Pages 24–35 in Property and 

the Family in Biblical Law. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 

Series 113. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 

Wevers, John William, ed. 1974. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum—Genesis. 

Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 

Ruprecht. 

Wiseman, Donald J. 1982. “Is It Peace?”—Covenant and Diplomacy. Vetus 

Testamentum 32: 311–26. 

Wood, Bryant G. 2011. Hittites and Hethites: A Proposed Solution to an Etymological 

Conundrum. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54: 239–50. 

32

Nota Bene-- C:\DOCUME~1\XPMUSER\MYDOCU~1\NBFILE~1 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?