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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: DRAWING ANALOGY BY HISTORICAL PRECE
Page 3: 2 demonstrated that the connection
Page 7 and 8: 6 the sole use of the list in First
Page 9 and 10: 8 north “as far as the Great Rive
Page 11 and 12: 10 from the regions of the Neo-Hitt
Page 13 and 14: contact is therefore possible betwe
Page 15 and 16: 14 sufficient data to indicate that
Page 17 and 18: dominant language in the reliefs. 3
Page 19 and 20: 18 Seraiah/Sheva/Shisha/Shavsha), 4
Page 21 and 22: described as bOnê Ḥēt¯, and th
Page 23 and 24: distinct entities: Abraham the fore
Page 25 and 26: 24 generic association of these wom
Page 27 and 28: 26 Conclusion This study argues tha
Page 29 and 30: Fisher, Loren R., Duane E. Smith, a
Page 31 and 32: Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. 2006.
Page 33: Speiser, E. A. 1964. Genesis: Intro

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?