The Winter 2012 issue of Bible and Spade may be the most important issue we have ever produced. It is dedicated to the subject of child sacrifice in the ancient world and Israel, and modern day abortion. In conjunction with the release of this issue, ABR will also be posting online articles to supplement Bible and Spade. In addition, ABR is offering the '180' DVD, featuring Ray Comfort. This 33 minute video documents discussions with 8 individuals who are pro-abortion. With impeccable logic and grace, Mr. Comfort helps these folks change their minds about modern day child sacrifice taking place in abortion clinics all across our land. We pray that this DVD, Bible and Spade, and our online articles will help changes hearts and minds on this critically important subject. 

---

Introduction

Despite considerable biblical evidence already summoned to support a strong pro-life position, more scriptural testimony seems to be needed to convince some Christians that anything less than such a position is unbiblical. One objection frequently raised to a dogmatic stand against abortion is that the Bible never specifically addresses the issue.

The reason for this omission has been pointed out by the Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline who, commenting on the lack of abortion legislation in biblical law says, "It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention this offense in the criminal code."[1]

There was, however, a rite performed in ancient Israel which has many parallels to the modern practice of abortion and is specifically addressed in the Sciptures. It was the rite of child sacrifice and Moses said it was one of the "detestable things the Lord hates" (Deuteronomy 12:31). In this article the largely neglected parallels between the ancient rite of child sacrifice and the modern practice of abortion will be examined in detail.

Archaeological and Extra-Biblical Literary Data

Before the biblical texts which address the practice of child sacrifice are examined, it will be helpful to draw on some of the archeological and extra-biblical literary data for the background they provide.

In 1921 the largest cemetery of sacrificed infants in the ancient Near East was discovered at Carthage. It is well established that this rite of child sacrifice originated in Phoenicia, ancient Israel's northern neighbor, and was brought to Carthage by its Phoenician colonizers.[2] Hundreds of burial urns filled with the cremated bones of infants, mostly newborns but even some children up to age six years old, as well as animals have been uncovered at Carthage.

They were buried there between the 8th century B.C. and the fall of Carthage during the third Punic War in 146 B.C. On the burial monuments that sometimes accompanied the urns, there was often inscribed the name or symbol of the goddess Tanit, the main Phoenician female deity, and her consort Ba'al Hammon. Infants and children were regularly sacrificed to this divine couple.

Fulfillment of a vow was probably the most frequent reason an infant or child was sacrificed as witnessed by the third century B.C. Greek author Kleitarchos (paraphrased by a later writer):

Out of reverence for Kronos (the Greek equivalent of Ba'al Hammon), the Phoenicians, and especially the Carthaginians, whenever they seek to obtain some great favor, vow one of their children, burning it as a sacrifice to the deity if they are especially eager to gain success.[3]

A typical example of an inscription follows:

To our lady, to Tanit, the face of Ba'al and to our lord, to Ba'al Hammon that which was vowed (by) PN son of PN son of PN. Because he (the deity) heard his (the dedicant's) voice and blessed him.[4]

Thus fulfillment of a vow before or after obtaining a special favor from the gods, a favor that brings blessing or success to the dedicant, appears to be the most common reason for child sacrifice. Occasionally, however, at times of civic crisis, mass child sacrifice was practiced as attested by the first century B.C. Greek historian Diodorus Siculus who reported the response of the Carthaginians to their army's defeat by Agathocles in 310 B.C.:

Therefore the Carthaginians, believing that the misfortune had come to them from the gods, betook themselves to every manner of supplication of the divine powers . . . In their zeal to make amends for their omission, they selected two hundred of the noblest children and sacrificed them publicly.[5]

The actual rite of child sacrifice at Carthage has been graphically described by Diodorus Siculus:

There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.[6]

Plutarch, a first and second century A.D. Greek author, adds to the description that:

the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums so that the cries of wailing should not reach the ears of the people.[7]

There is conflicting evidence regarding the actual cause of death of the victims. Some reports suggest that they were burned alive[8] while other reports suggest that the infants and children were slaughtered first.[9] The victims themselves were members of both the wealthy mercantile and estate-owning class as well as the lower socioeconomic class as attested by the titles of the dedicants on the burial monuments.[10] Occasionally, however, the upper class would substitute lower class children for their own by purchasing them from the poor and then sacrificing them as Diodorus Siculus reports:

in former times they (the Carthaginians) had been accustomed to sacrifice to this god the noblest of their sons, but more recently, secretly buying and nurturing children, they had sent these to the sacrifice.[11]

Two inscriptions at Carthage even show that occasionally the parents would sacrifice a defective child hoping to later receive a healthy one as a substitute. In one inscription a man named Tuscus says that he gave Ba'al "his mute son Bod'astart, a defective child, in exchange for a healthy one. "[12] Child sacrifice probably became a standard practice for both religious and sociological reasons. Diodorus Siculus suggests that the:

ancient myth that Cronos did away with his own children appears to have been kept in mind among the Carthagians through this observance.[13]

The second and third century A.D. Roman lawyer and Christian apologist who was a native North African and spent most of his life in Carthage, Tertullian, wrote:

Saturn (the latinized African equalivant of Ba'al Hammon) did not spare his own children; so, where other people's were concerned, he naturally persisted in not sparing them; and their own parents offered them to him, were glad to respond...[14]

According to the ancient myth, Saturn selfishly swallowed up the first five of his children in order to prevent his destined dethronement by one of them.[15] Hoping to gain Saturn's favor and thus his blessing, the Carthaginians worshipped Saturn by imitating him. Serving a god with ungodly attributes, the Carthaginians were willing to submit to his murderous demands. Indeed Saturn's demands may have assisted the Carthaginians in their own self-serving plans. The Syro-Palestinian archeologists Lawrence Stager and Samuel Wolff suggest that:

Among the social elite of Punic Carthage the institution of child sacrifice may have assisted in the consolidation and maintenance of family wealth. One hardly needed several children parceling up the patrimony into smaller and smaller pieces . . . for the artisans and commoners of Carthage, ritual infanticide could provide a hedge against poverty. For all these participants in this aspect of the cult, then, child sacrifice provided special favors from the gods.[16]

This suggestion is supported by archeological evidence at Carthage that the practice of child sacrifice flourished as never before at the height of its population as well as civilization.[17]

A funerary stela dedicated to the goddess Tanit at Carthage. Archaeologists have discovered upwards of 20,000 burial urns at the Carthaginian Tophet, which contain the incinerated remains of children sacrificed to Tanit and her consort, Ba'al Hammon. The Carthaganians came from Phoenicia (north of Israel in modern day Lebanon), and brought with them Canaanite customs and practices, including child sacrifice. The Israelites were repeatedly warned by God not to adapt the despicable practices of the Canaanites. Failing to heed these warnings, God eventually brought judgment upon the Israelites. Wikimedia Commons

Biblical Citations

Child sacrifice was not confined to Phoenicia, Carthage and the western Mediterranean world. It was also practiced by the Canaanites and through the process of religious syncretism by some Israelites. The earliest reference to child sacrifice in the Bible is found in Leviticus where the practice is address by Moses in connection with Molech:

Do not give any of your children to be passed through (the fire) to Molech for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. (Lev. 18:21; see also 20:1-5).

In I Kings 11:7, Molech is identified as "the detestable god of the Ammonites" and recent archeological evidence in the former territory of the Ammonites from the period of the Conquest supports biblical testimony that child sacrifice was practiced in Jordan roughly contemporarily with Moses."[18] The Hebrew word Molech is the same Semitic root as the Punic word mulk which was found inscribed on several burial monuments at Carthage giving linguistic evidence for the continuity between the practice of child sacrifice in Canaan and at Carthage. But whereas at Carthage the word refers to the sacrificial offerings including human sacrifice, in Leviticus it refers to the god who demands child sacrifice.[19] The "passing through" refers to sacrificing by burning in a fire.[20] For this "passing through to Molech" (same Hebrew words in Leviticus and Jeremiah) took place later in Israel's history in the region of the high places of Ba'al in the Valley of Ben Hinnom in Jeremiah 32:35. This murderous scene was described by the Lord through the mouth of Jeremiah in earlier chapters:

For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built me the high places of Ba'al to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Ba'al -something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth [possibly derived from an Aramaic word meaning hearth or fireplace but here referring to the precinct of child sacrifice] or the Valley of ben Hinnom, but the Valley of slaughter. (Jeremiah 19:4-6; see also 7:31-32)[21]

The history of child sacrifice in ancient Israel and God's response to the practice can be uncovered by examining the biblical texts that address it in the Pentateuch, historical books and prophetic writings. In the Pentateuch, Moses warns the Israelites who will soon enter the land of Canaan (Leviticus 18:3 and 20:21-24) where they will be exposed to the cult of Molech not to sacrifice any of their children to the god:

The Lord said to Moses, say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech. (Leviticus 20:1-5; see also 18:21).

The penalty for sacrifice to Molech is harsh, i.e., stoning to death (Lev. 20:2); for it is a serious offense against the Lord.

1. It defiles God's sanctuary (Lev. 20:3) and since His holy presence cannot abide in a place polluted by sin, it threatens abandonment by God of His people.

2. It profanes God's holy name making God appear less than the holy God that He is by inferring that He is a God who desires, or at least permits, child sacrifice.

3. God knew that the practice of child sacrifice to Molech was a form of spiritual prostitution (Lev. 20:5). God's relationship to His people is a close personal one with a human analogy in the sexual intimacy of marriage. God, of course, expects the exclusive commitment of marriage, not the pick-and-choose relationships of prostitution.

4. In Deuteronomy, God through Moses rejects child sacrifice even if allegedly done in the worship and service of God Himself (Deut. 12:29-31). In reference to the nations of Canaan that Israel was about to invade and dispossess (12:29) and the worship of their gods (12:30), Moses commands:

You must not worship the Lord your God in their way because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)

With remarkable discernment, Moses recognized that such unacceptable service can sometimes begin not as a conscious determination to do ungodly things but as an "ensnaring" by other nations and their gods (12:30).[22]

Two of Moses' admonitions against child sacrifice are found in the stipulation section of the loosely covenant treaty form of Leviticus 18:21 and the more rigid covenant treaty form of Deuteronomy[23] (Deut. 12:29-31). In the covenants made between God and Israel, the Lord expected His people to obey the civil, moral and religious stipulations. His commands were to be obeyed because of allegiance to His Lordship and out of a sense of gratitude for His great acts of redemption (Lev. 18:2-3 and Deut. 5:1-2,6 and 12:1).

Failure to obey the covenantal stipulations is failure to give God full allegiance as Lord and failure to respond appropriately to His gracious acts of redemption.

Disregarding the covenant stipulations is a serious offense, some of which, including child sacrifice, are so grievous as to be punished by capital punishment which is to be done by the entire community (Lev. 20:2-3). If the offense goes undetected by the community, God Himself threatens to "set my face against" and "cut off" the offender (Lev. 20:3), probably a threat of premature death.[24] So detestable to God is child sacrifice that He even threatens to set His face against and cut off those who, though not participants in the practice, "close their eyes" to the crime (Lev. 20:4-5). Further, the warning not only applied to God's covenant people but to any non-Israelite living in Israel (Lev. 20:2). Child sacrifice was not one of the many tribal customs aliens who lived in Israel were permitted to practice.

In these Pentateuchal passages dealing with child sacrifice the offense is recognized as a sin in at least three different ways. As noted above it was seen as a sin against God, i.e. in defiling His sanctuary, in profaning His holy name, in spiritual prostituting to Molech and in ungodly worship of the Lord Himself. But child sacrifice was also perceived as a sexual sin and/or sin against the family as well as a sin against the community. In Leviticus 18 (see also Lev. 20:9ff), the stipulation against child sacrifice is listed among various sexual sins, e.g. incest (18:6ff), adultery (18:20), homosexual acts (18:22) and bestiality (18:23). It is not obvious from the immediate context of Leviticus 18 and 20 why child sacrifice is linked to various illicit sexual practices. It is probable, however, that the worship of Molech not only involved child sacrifice but the pagan custom of cultic prostitution.

In Isaiah 57:9, "Molech" (mlk in Hebrew. It must be remembered that vowel notation was a later addition by Masorete scholars to the received consonantal text) is mentioned. Earlier in the chapter "those sacrificing their children" (57:5b) is in parallel with "those burning with lust" (57:5a). They are also described in 57:3 as "offspring of the adulterer and the prostitute." The Hebrew word for adulterer is masculine while the prostitute is feminine, indicating that the children are the offspring of an adulterous father and a prostituting mother. But the phrase is not to be taken literally. Rather, the declared attributes of the parents are in fact used to characterize the offspring themselves.[25] The connection between child sacrifice and cultic prostitution is even clearer in Ezekiel where we read:

And you took your sons and your daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children and made them pass through (the fire) to the idols. (Ezekiel 16:20-21)

Thus the Old Testament scholar Moshe Weinfeld links cultic prostitution with child sacrifice in Isaiah and Ezekiel saying, "The children born of cultic prostitution associated with Molech were presumably delivered to the idolatrous priests, even as the offspring of a regular marriage may have been handed over to Molech."[26] Given that some of the children offered to Molech were conceived illegitimately during adulterous/prostituting affairs, it seems probable that child sacrifice offered a convenient way to dispose of the consequences of these aberrant sexual practices.

Another possible reason for grouping child sacrifice with illicit sexual practices is that they are all sins against the family. Of the sexual sins listed together in 20:10ff, the Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser, Jr., says: "Every assault against an individual here is simultaneously an attack on the very existence of the family."[27] Kaiser sees these sexual sins all as sins against the family since they disrupt normal family relationships. It is possible then that child sacrifice, which was clearly an assault against the family, came to be associated with other stipulations that protected the family. Since the family was the foundation of Israelite society, any threat to the family was a threat to the community as well. Thus, the community was to be vigilant in guarding against the practice and was to take the severest community action against any offenders, i.e., stoning to death.

Despite the covenantal stipulations and warnings against child sacrifice, Scripture records that some Israelites did in fact practice child sacrifice. Of Ahaz, the 8th century B.C. king of Judah, we read:

He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even made his son pass through the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. (2 Kings 16:3)

Sadly Ahaz's grandson Manasseh followed in his footsteps (2 Kings 21:6). But these accounts of child sacrifice were not isolated as recorded by Jeremiah (see above). Being a prophet of God, it was Jeremiah's obligation to prosecute on behalf of God the covenant lawsuit against those who had broken the covenant. The evidence against the Israelites was incontestable for it was publicly visible to all. As the Lord's mouthpiece, Jeremiah testifies against Judah:

They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, something I did not command nor did it enter my mind. (Jer. 7:30-31; see also 19:4-5)

Because of this offense for which Israel is corporately responsible, Jeremiah predicts disaster (7:32-34 and 19:1-3, 6-15). If only the people would repent, disaster could be thwarted (Jer. 18:5-11). But the Israelites were a "stiff-necked" people who would not listen to God's words (Jer. 9:15; see also 18:5-12). They had forsaken their God to serve other gods even to the extent that they would sacrifice their own children spilling "the blood of the innocent" (Jer. 19:4). Mannaseh's grandson Josiah had tried to bring about reformation among the Israelites. After renewing the covenant between God and His people (2 Kings 23:1-3), Josiah:

desecrated Topheth which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to make his son or daughter pass through the fire to Molech. (2 Kings 23:10)

But Josiah's reformation was short-lived as evidenced by Jeremiah's prophetic witness (see above). God used Rome to judge Carthage in 146 B.C., bringing an end to child sacrifice there.[27b] Hundreds of years earlier God used Babylon to judge Israel when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, leveling God's temple which signified God's just abandonment of His people, and leading Israel into captivity. While exiled in Babylon, Ezekiel reminded the two prostituting sisters Oholah (representing Samaria in Ezekiel 23:4) and Oholibah (representing Jerusalem) of the reason they had been exiled. In confronting the two with "their detestable practices" the Lord through Ezekiel said:

they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their idols, they even made the children they bore to me pass through the fire as food for them (Ezekiel 23:36-37).

Idolatry had not disappeared by New Testament times, but took on a broader meaning. Commenting on the New Testament authors' understanding of idolatry, Herbert Schlossberg notes that "a man can place anyone or anything at the top of his pyramid of values, and that is ultimately what he serves. The ultimacy of that service profoundly affects the way he lives."[28] Physical idols were still common in New Testament times, e.g. I Corinthians 8:4-5. However, in Pauline theology idolatry is also recognized as any worshipping or serving the creature rather than the Creator which is equivalent to exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:23,25).[29] Placing anything above the Creator and His truth is idolatry, for in this idolatry the creature's erroneous value judgments are substituted for the Creator's correct ones. Sadly, people know the truth but suppress it (Rom. 1:18). For God has revealed His nature, power and laws both in the visible world and in the hearts and consciences of humanity (Rom. 1:19-20; 2:14-15). But mankind is on a downward spiral of depravity and destruction that begins with devaluing the Creator and His truth and ultimately leads to an outpouring of God's just wrath at the final judgment (Rom. 1:24-32, 2:5,8-9,12). Even now mankind is experiencing God's wrath as He gives men over to the consequences of their sin (Rom. 1:26-28). Apart from God's gracious intervention, all mankind faces the present and future revelation of God's just wrath. But as recipients of God's righteousness through faith in Christ Jesus, we have been justified (Rom. 1:17; 3:21-28). Having been justified by His grace, our lives must not be conformed to this world's idolatrous values but be transformed by the renewing of our minds to God's perfect will (Rom. 12:2).

Parallels of Child Sacrifice and Abortion

At the risk on the one hand of pointing out obvious parallels and on the other hand of suggesting parallels which some may say are forced, we compare the ancient practice of child sacrifice with the modern practice of abortion. However, before going any further it should be noted that the parallels between the two have been recognized for centuries. Tertullian, for example, commenting on the Roman practice of infanticide by comparing it to the Carthaginian practice of child sacrifice, admonishes:

there is no difference as to baby killing whether you do it as a sacred rite or just because you choose to do it.

In the same context Tertullian describes the Christian attitude towards both abortion and infanticide saying:

For us murder is once for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one take away the life once born or destroy it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man, the fruit is always present in the seed.[30]

The most obvious parallel between the rite of child sacrifice and the practice of abortion is the sober fact that the parents actually kill their own offspring. There are however many other parallels. At Carthage the main reason for sacrificing a child was to avert potential dangers in a crisis or to gain success through fulfilling a vow. Today many times when a woman faces an unwanted pregnancy, abortion seems to be the only way to resolve the crisis she finds herself in. The potential danger to reputation, education, career, etc., become overwhelming. To avert the seemingly terrifying consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term, the woman may turn to abortion as a means of escape. Another woman may experience much less of the anxiety and fear that accompany a crisis. She may simply see the pregnancy as an intrusion into her self-serving lifestyle and an obstacle in the way of the road to her success. Sadly this woman's offspring must be sacrificed so that she can continue uninterrupted with her plans for the future.[30b]

It is no secret that in American society extramarital sexual intercourse (fornication and adultery) is the cause of most pregnancies that end in abortion. Pregnancy is a risk many are willing to take knowing that any undesired consequences can be eliminated by abortion.[30c] The theologican Carl Henry recognizes this fact in calling abortion "the horrendous modern immolation of millions of fetuses on the alter of sex gratification."[31] As suggested earlier, child sacrifice in Canaan may have been a convenient way to dispose of the consequences of the illicit sexual practice of temple prostitution associated with the cult of Molech. If so, the modern practice of men irresponsibly engaging in sexual intercourse with women to whom they do not intend to commit themselves and provide for parallels the wayward Israelite man engaging in extramarital relations with a temple prostitute. In both cases the men leave the women to bear the consequences of their aberrant sexual practices. New England Christian Action Council executive director John Rankin rightly calls this irresponsible behavior of men towards women as "the ultimate male chauvinism."[32]

As noted earlier, child sacrifice may have been a means of population control at Carthage. At present around the world abortion is sanctioned, even encouraged, by some societies as a means of population control. In China, communist party agents actually impose great social and economic pressure on couples to abort their offspring if they already have one child. In this country, the sanctions are more subtle. Presumably, Medicaid funded abortions afford the poor equal access to medical care, but one wonders whether some wealthy policy makers hope to control population growth among the poor under the guise of good will. In this there is an intimation of a parallel to the Carthaginian practice of the wealthy buying the poor's offspring to sacrifice in place of their own children. Apart from state funding, occasionally both the rich and the poor will abort later pregnancies if they feel their families are large enough. As at Carthage, socioeconomic concerns often play a prominent role in the decision.

Sometimes the Carthaginians sacrificed defective children in exchange for healthy ones. It is now standard medical practice to do an amniocentesis at an early stage of pregnancy when congenital abnormalities are suspected. If an impairment is confirmed, the parents are advised to consider terminating the pregnancy. To carry to term and raise a defective child is not expected of the parents since they can exchange the frail one they now have for a healthy one in the future. In some states obstetricians who fail to advise their patients of the need for an amniocentesis can be successfully sued for malpractice on the legal grounds that the delivered infants are "wrongful life." [33]

Even the actual rite of child sacrifice has modem parallels in the medical techniques used to perform abortions. In the saline abortion the dying infant is chemically burned as it thrashes about for minutes to hours before finally succumbing. In the suction abortion the loud whir of the vacuum pump muffles the sound of the mother crying out in pain and sadness and the ripping and gushing sound of the infant being torn piecemeal from the womb.

Finally, the flourishing of abortion in modern America, like child sacrifice in ancient Carthage, at the height of its civilization is an unmistakable parallel. The words written by P. Mosca at the conclusion of his doctoral dissertation dealing with child sacrifice might well be written of abortion today:

. . . it is impossible to deal with this subject at any length without coming to terms with the human dimension: how could a culture so well developed morally, intellectually and materially tolerate so "abominable" a custom? How could a sophisticated people sanction what seems to be such a barbaric practice for so long a time? How at the most visceral and critical level could human parents bring about the destruction of their own child?"[34]

One religious truth emerges in comparing ancient child sacrifice to modem abortion, i.e., people become like the gods/God they worship. The Carthaginians worshipped Ba'al Hammon, equivalent to Kronos and Saturn. Not surprisingly they became like him, willing to sacrifice their children to avert potential danger and gain success in their self-serving endeavors. Modern autonomous man worships himself and is willing to abort his own offspring in order to resolve crises and achieve his own goals. In serving the idolatrous self, men become more and more like the self-serving idol they worship, i.e. sinful man. They are willing to disregard any of God's gracious laws in order to accomplish their own ends. In their self-idolatry men have set themselves on a downward spiral of depravity and destruction from which only God's gracious mercy can deliver them.

In contrast to those who worship themselves, those who worship the holy God become holy. God sets Himself before His people as thestandard of righteousness, "Be holy because I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev. 19:2). In serving this righteous God, men and women become more and more like Him in righteousness. Of course, even the holy people of God have faith not in their own righteousness, but in the saving work of their righteous Lord, Jesus Christ.

Conclusions

Since there are many parallels between ancient child sacrifice and modern abortion, it is reasonable to conclude that the attitude of our unchanging God towards abortion today is similar to His attitude towards child sacrifice in the past. What then can we rationally surmise is God's judgment regarding the practice of abortion both among Christians and those who are not His people?

Like child sacrifice in ancient Israel, the practice of abortion by Christians is spiritual prostitution to an idol, defiles God's sanctuary and profanes His holy name. God alone is the Author of life and it is not the creature's prerogative to question the Creator's wisdom in bringing to life a fellow human being at conception. Whenever men disregard their Creator's wise judgment by destroying His innocent creation, they are serving another god. They are, in fact, spiritually prostituting themselves to the idolatrous self whom they believe is wiser in its value judgments. Some values which are put forward to justify abortion are clearly idolatrous, e.g., the mother's right to choose, which is placed at the top of the pyramid of values by those who call themselves pro-choice. Other idolatrous values are more subtle, e.g., empathy for a mother's suffering in the midst of the crisis arising from an unwanted pregnancy or concern for the quality of life of a defective fetus. Both of these later values are good in themselves but become idolatrous when they abrogate the Creator's wise judgment in creating human life. It is not as though God fails to realize in creating some human beings that they may become a source of conflict in an unplanned conception or that a handicapped person will indeed face difficulties.

Whenever Christians disregard the Creator's true value judgments, they dethrone God and by their sin defile the temple in which He dwells, the temple of their own body (I Cor. 6:19). Dethroned and defiled by the idolatrous sin of abortion, God threatens to abandon the wayward Christian unless there is repentance. For God will not dwell in a temple in which another god is enthroned and a sanctuary polluted by sin. And the Christian who approves of or participates in the sin of abortion not only affects himself but he profanes God's holy name. People intuitively know that a man's attitude and behavior reflect his values. The Christian claims that God's authoritative Word determines his values. If a Christian then speaks or acts in away that is contrary to that Word, he brings dishonor to God's name. For to those who do not know God, the Christian is their chief witness to the Word of God. And the Christian who approves of or participates in the practice of abortion is testifying to the world that his God condones the practice. He is in reality bearing false witness, for by his attitude and behavior he infers that the Creator consents to His creatures destroying innocent fellow creatures. This false witness actually implies through his testimony that God is at odds with Himself. For in creating a human being God has clearly judged it to be of value. If God approved of abortion, He would be essentially saying that his value judgments are sometimes wrong.

Many Christians who accept or take part in the practice of abortion have not made a conscious decision to sin and bring dishonor to God by condoning idolatrous values. Regardless of the motive, however, these Christians are unacceptably serving God. Indeed God hates the detestable sin of abortion. For not only is abortion a sin against God and His innocent creation but it is a sin against the family and community as well. Scripture throughout teaches that children are a blessing from the Lord and that loving nurture is the godly response of parents toward their offspring. Abortion is the rejection of the God-given role to parent His creation. For an unmarried woman unable to cope with the doubly difficult role of single parenting, the child may be God's gift through her to a barren couple within the community. Whether God's blessing is received and lovingly nurtured by the biologic parents or given to adoptive parents, the birth of a child is a blessing to the family and community.

Often abortion is the evil solution to the consequences of a sexual sin. Whether a pregnancy results from fornication or adultery, where the mother is a guilty participant in the sin, or a pregnancy results from rape or incest, where the mother usually is the guiltless victim of another's sin, abortion is an ungodly solution. For the Sovereign Redeemer is able to bring about good where there was evil. A new creation resulting from a sexual sin is an extraordinary witness to this redemptive truth.

Sadly many Christians refuse to completely submit to the Lordship of the Creator and fail to appreciate the redemptive power of their God to save man from the full consequences of sin. The defective fetus is the victim of that original sin which resulted in the fall of all creation. A mother may be the victim of her own or another's sexual sin or the victim of corporate societal sin, e.g., unjust poverty. In all of these situations abortion has no redeeming character; for God never deals with sin or its consequences by countering it with sin but with righteousness. The unhealthy child should be loved and cared for more not less because of its weakness. The pregnant woman should be counseled to do what is right and given assistance in every possible way to support a godly decision to nurture in her body God's creation during its first nine months of life. Christians must always affirm, both by word and deed, the sovereignty of the Creator and recognize His power to righteously redeem mankind from the results of sin.

Up to this point we have been trying to discover God's attitude towards abortion among Christians, based on Scripture's testimony of His attitude towards child sacrifice among the Israelites. We now turn to God's judgment regarding abortion among those who are not Christians and the Christian response to the practice among them.

As previously noted in the theocratic nation of Israel, some non-Israelite customs were tolerated and some, like child sacrifice, were not. Today God's people in the United States do not live in a theocracy; rather, they live in a democratic state. As such, Christians must determine, based on the principles of God's law, when they should become actively involved in the democratic process to restrict the behavior of some individuals in the interest of other individuals and society-at-large and when they should tolerate different values and customs. Abortion is clearly a practice which is intolerable and must be restrained by the state. For abortion is the denial of the "inalienable God-given right to life"[35] of an innocent human being and it is an attack at the very foundation of our society, i.e., the family and community.

Even many of those who are not Christians acknowledge that abortion is wrong. For God's law is written on the hearts of men and women to which their conscience bears witness (see Romans 2:14). Others have suppressed God's truth by substituting their own self-serving idolatrous values. The truth of God's power and divinity have been revealed in creation (see Romans 1:18ff). But men and women have suppressed this truth and their rejection of this revelation of God is clearly evident in the sin of abortion. For scarcely is the power and divinity of God more clearly seen than in His creative power bringing to life each human being, everyone made in His own divine image (see Genesis 1:27). No man-made technology has the power to create life, much less a human life stamped with the divine imprimatur. Rather, through the medical technology of abortion mankind rebels against the creative power of the Almighty by destroying the divine image-bearers. No, abortion is not acceptable as practiceby Christians or non-Christians and must not be tolerated by this or any other society. Those individuals who fail to heed God's law by condoning abortion will surely face God's judgment if they remain impenitent. Even those who do not condone abortion but fail to take action against it will face judgment. For as noted previously in Leviticus both the Israelite who sacrificed his child to Molech and those who closed their eyes to the sin faced the judgment of God. And if a society as a whole persistently rejects God's laws it will surely corporately face God's judgment.The city of Carthage and the nation of Israel are but two of many historical testimonies to the outpouring of God's wrath against unrelenting corporate sin.[36]

Something is happening in this land which God did not command nor did it enter His mind -this place is being filled with the blood of the innocent. So beware, for blood is on our hands and God will set his face against us unless we repent and are cleansed by his merciful forgiveness.

This is what the Lord says:

Look I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions. (Jeremiah 18:11)

Oh, that we might not respond like ancient Israel.

It is no use. We will continue with our own plans, each of us will follow the stubborness of his evil heart. (Jeremiah 18:12)

 

Endnotes:

1. Kline, M.G., "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1977, p. 193.

2. Harden, D., The Phoenicians, 1962, p. 88.

3. For translation see Mosca P.G., Child Sacrifice in Caananite and Israelite Religion, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1975, p. 22.

4. Stager, LE. and Wolff, S.R., "Child Sacrifice at Carthage -Religious Rite or Population Control?", Biblical Archaelogy Review, Jan./Feb. 1984, p. 45.

5. Siculus, Diodorus, The Library of History, Book XX:14, The Loeb Classical Library.

6. Ibid.

7. Plutarch, De superstitione 171, The Loeb Classical Library.

8. Mosca, P.G., op. cit., p. 27, Mosca translates Kleitarchos' paraphraser from Scholia to Plato's Republic as follows: "There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the `grin' is known as `sardonic laughter,' since they die laughing."

9. de Vaux, R., Studies in Old Testament Sacrifices, 1964, p. 81. de Vaux says that slaughter preceding the cremation "has been well established by J. Guey in Melanges D'archeologic et D'histoire, 1937, pp. 94-99."

10. Stager, L.E. and Wolff, S.R., op. cit., pp. 45, 47, citing P.G. Mosca's epigraphic work documented in his Ph.D. dissertation op. cit.

11. Siculus, Diodorus, op. cit., See also Plutarch op. cited where he says "Those who had no children would buy some little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds."

12. Kennedy, C., "Queries/Comments," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1984, p. 20, citing J. Feuvier's article "Une Sacrifice d'Enfant chez les Numides," Annuaire de l'Institut de Philogic et d'Histoire Orientales et Slave, 1953.

13. Siculus, Diodorus, op. cit.

14. Tertullian, Apologeticus IX: 4 The Loeb Classical Library.

15. Hamilton, E., Mythology, 1940, pp. 65, 66.

16. Stager, L.E. and Wolff, S.R., op. cit., pp. 50,51

17. Ibid., pp. 40-42. The archeological evidence to support their conclusion is the greater proportion of human remains to animal remains in the most recent burial urns.

18. Wenham, G.J., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament-The Book of Leviticus, 1979, p. 259. There are text critical problems with I Kings 11:7. It may be that Milcum should be substituted for Molech in this verse (see I Kings 11:5, 33 in Hebrew)

19. Some scholars suggest that some uses of Molech in the Old Testament may have originally been used to refer to the live sacrificial offerings like Punic mulk. e.g., Mosca, P.G., op. cit., for summary see conclusions of chapter two and three.

20. Some scholars unconvincingly suggest that the "passing throught to Molech" was a ritual "passing through" without active sacrifice. e.g., Snaith, N.H., "The Cult of Molech," Vetus Testamentum, 1966, vol. 16, pp. 123, 124. For the best refutation of this view see: Mosca, P.G., op. cit., esp. p. 152; also see the Jeremiah passages quoted in this article.

21. Smith, W.R., Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 377. Note the reference to the fire pit of Topheth in Isaiah 30:33.

22. Wenham, G.J., op. cit., p. 249.

23. Kline, M.G., The Treaty of the Great King, 1963, pp. 79-83.

24. Wenham, G.J., op. cit., pp. 285, 286.

25. Whybray, R.N., Isaiah 40-66: New Century Bible, 1975, p. 202.

26. Weinfeld, M., Ugarit-Forschungen IV, 1972, p. 144. Translation by P. Mosca, p. 143.

27. Kaiser, W.C., Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics, 1983, p. 124.

27b. ABR editorial note: It does seem quite natural to make the connection between Carthaginian child sacrifice and their civilization’s subsequent destruction by the Roman Empire. We know from the testimony of Scripture that God judged Israel through both the Assyrians and the Babylonians because of Israel’s idolatry, which included child sacrifice. We do not have such explicit testimony from Scripture concerning the Carthaginians, and so we must urge caution in interpreting God’s purposes in extra-biblical historical events not explained in Scripture. There are, however, many passages which warn nations not to engage in such evil and immoral practices. We can confidently affirm that, if a nation perpetually persists in defying the laws of God, God will eventually bring judgment in His way, and in His time. As Christians, we can urge our nation(s) to repent before such divine acts take place.

28. Schlossberg, H., Idols for Destruction, 1983, p. 6.

29. Romans 1:23 and 1:25b mutually inform each other as indicated by the identical Greek verb translated "exchange" and parallel sentence structure.

30. Tertullian, Apologeticus IX.- 6, 8.

30b. ABR editorial note: Perhaps the most egregious and morally repugnant example of this can be seen in so-called “twin reduction”. This sanitized term describes a practice whereby a woman (often with the approval of her male partner) chooses to eliminate one of her perfectly healthy twin babies in utero, primarily because of prospective financial hardship or interference with career ambitions. See this highly disturbing story online, The Two Minus One Pregnancy

30c. ABR editorial note: Estimates vary slightly amongst reporting agencies, but about 82 percent of the women having abortions are unmarried or separated. See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6001.pdf.

31. Henry, C. in reviewing G. Jone's book Brave New People, 1985, see book cover.

32. Rankin, J.C., Contrabortion, June 1984, pg. 1.

33. Schmidt, S.M., "Wrongful Life," Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct. 28, 1983, Vol. 250, pp. 2209-10.

34. Mosca, P., op. cit., pp. 273, 274.

35. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, July 4, 1776.

36. See endnote 27b.

Acknowledgements

Credit is due to Gary Pratico, Ph.D., for his assistance in directing me to extrabiblical literary sources and archeological data regarding child sacrifice.

Credit is due to Gordon Hugenberger, Ph.D.(c), and Hilton Terrell, M.D., for grammatical and stylistic help.

This article was originally published in the Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, Volume 1, Number 2. It has been reproduced here with permission, with slight editorial updates and notes by the ABR staff.

The Winter 2012 issue of Bible and Spade may be the most important issue we have ever produced. It is dedicated to the subject of child sacrifice in the ancient world and Israel, and modern day abortion. In conjunction with the release of this issue, ABR will also be posting online articles to supplement Bible and Spade. In addition, ABR is offering the '180' DVD, featuring Ray Comfort. This 33 minute video documents discussions with 8 individuals who are pro-abortion. With impeccable logic and grace, Mr. Comfort helps these folks change their minds about modern day child sacrifice taking place in abortion clinics all across our land. We pray that this DVD, Bible and Spade, and our online articles will help change hearts and minds on this critically important subject.

"The presence of Hittites in the narratives of Israelite beginnings is thus rhetorical and ideological rather than historical." -John Van Seters. The appearance of the term "Hittites" in English Bible translations has been an apologetic, archaeological and historical problem for quite some time. Many claim that references to the Hittites in the Old Testament are either errors or fictional anachronisms. In this important article, Dr. Bryant Wood proposes that the solution to this problem is a linguistic one. Based on a detailed assessment of the original Hebrew text, and an evaluation of the archaeological evidence pertaining to the Hittite and neo-Hittite kingdoms, Dr. Wood concludes our English translations require correction. Once this is accomplished, we once again find the Bible is accurate and trustworthy...

 

This article was originally published in the June 2011 issue (54.2) of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

 

The name "Hittite(s)" appears forty-eight times in contemporary English Bibles,¹ stemming from the reformation Geneva Bible published in 1560. All English translations prior to the Geneva Bible had "Hethite(s)" rather than "Hittite(s)," based on the Latin Vulgate. The Roman Catholic Douay English translation of the OT is the only modern English version to retain "Hethite(s)" from the Vulgate.² Both names are Anglicized transliterations of the masculine singular gentilic חִתִּי (ḥittî) derived from חֵת (ḥēt). The two names also are used to represent the three additional gentilics of חֵת (ḥēt):

1. חִתִּית (ḥittît) (feminine singular)
2. חִתִּים (ḥittîm) (masculine plural), and
3. חתִּיֹּת (ḥittîyōt) (feminine plural)

Should it be "Hethite(s)," "Hittite(s)," or a combination of the two? We shall answer that question by examining the usage of the four gentilic forms of חֵת (ḥēt) in the Hebrew Bible.³

There was a time when historians scoffed at the name "Hittite(s)" in the OT since it was not known outside the Bible.⁴ Archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey and Syria from the early nineteenth century on, however, have revealed an Indo-European group scholars have dubbed “Hittites” (as opposed to “Hethites”), who established an empire in Anatolia that became a major power in the ancient Near East. But a serious problem remains. The Biblical references to Hittites living in Canaan appear to be unhistorical since there is no evidence—linguistic, historical, or archaeological—for a Hittite presence in Canaan. Kempinsky attempted to establish an early twelfth-century migration of Hittites to Canaan, requiring Abraham to be placed in the thirteenth-twelfth century BC,⁵ but this scenario finds little support in the archaeological record. Singer recently reviewed the finds and concluded:

The archaeological evidence seems hardly sufficient to prove a presence of northern Hittites in Palestine. After a century of intensive excavations, all that has surfaced is a handful of Hittite seals and about a dozen pottery vessels that exhibit some northern artistic influences. The seals may have belonged to Hittite citizens who passed through Canaan, and the vessels may have filtered gradually into Palestine through various Syrian intermediaries. The paucity of tangible evidence becomes even more conspicuous in the face of the absence of two salient features of Hittite culture—the hieroglyphic script and the cremation burial—both of which seem to have extended only as far south as the region of Hama in central Syria.⁶

As for the Biblical use of the term "Hittite(s)" for residents of Canaan, Singer subscribes to an anachronistic explanation. He believes the name came from the Assyrian period when the term Ḫatti was used for Anatolia, Syria, and Israel.⁷

The difficulty, which Gelb said was “a historical enigma,”⁸ has been described succinctly by Ishida: “although the Hebrew Bible often mentions the Hittites among the original inhabitants of the Promised Land, we have had so far no definite evidence of a Hittite presence in Palestine in the second millennium B.C. Therefore recent studies are reluctant to regard biblical references to the Hittites in Palestine as historical.”⁹

The purposes of this paper are to clear up the confusion by sorting out the non-Hittites from the genuine Hittites, and offer a means to distinguish between the two.

I. Historical Background¹⁰

The origin of the Anatolian Indo-Europeans we call Hittites is unknown. They appeared in central Anatolia early in the second millennium BC and established a kingdom that lasted from the early seventeenth c. to the early twelfth c. BC. Their capital was at Ḫattusha, modern Boğazkale, in North central Turkey. Hittite history can be divided into two major periods, the Old Kingdom, ca. 1670–1400 BC, and the Empire, or New Kingdom, ca. 1400–1177 BC. When the empire disintegrated, its second most important city Carchemish, along with other city-states in southern Anatolia and northern Syria, survived to become the Neo-Hittite states, which continued until the late eighth century BC when they were absorbed by the Assyrian empire.

With the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs by Champollion in 1823, ancient Egyptian inscriptions began to disclose contacts with a northern country called Ḫ-tᵓ, Kheta, beginning in the reign of Tuthmosis III (ca. 1504–1450 BC). Egyptologists noted the similarity to חִתִּי, ḥittî, in the Hebrew Bible and so plucked the name Hittites from the KJV and applied it to the people of Ḫ-tᵓ.¹¹ Similarly, with the decipherment of cuneiform in the mid-nineteenth century, Assyrian texts spoke of a western area named Ḫatti, so Assyriologists followed their Egyptological counterparts and referred to the people of Ḫatti as Hittites.¹² Even before the discovery of contemporary Hittite texts in Anatolia, sufficient information was available in the Egyptian and Assyrian records that William Wright, an early pioneer in the discovery of Hittite inscriptions, was able to write a rudimentary history of the Hittites in 1884.¹³ This was soon followed by updated treatments by Sayce in 1888 and following,¹⁴ and Garstang in 1910.¹⁵ Beginning in 1906, the Hittites came into the full light of history when a royal archive of over 10,000 clay tablets was excavated at Ḫattusha. In the texts, the kingdom was referred to as “the land of Ḫatti” and the citizens as “the people of Ḫatti.”¹⁶

II. The Autochthonous Sons of Heth¹⁷

A number of scholars recognized the occurrences of Hittite(s) in the OT can be divided into two groups, those who were indigenous to Canaan and those from outside Canaan.¹⁸ Of the forty-eight references to Hittite(s) in the OT, forty-two are singular gentilics referring to the indigenous residents of Canaan. Of those forty-two, forty are masculine with a prefixed definite article, הַחִתִּי (haḥittî), and two are feminine without the prefixed definite article, חִתִּית (ḥittît). Nineteen of the forty masculine singular gentilics refer to individuals (Ephron, Zohar, Beeri, Elon Ahimelech, and Uriah), while the other twenty-one are used collectively in the lists of indigenous occupants of the land.¹⁹ The two fem. sing. gentilics were used pejoratively by Ezekiel concerning Jerusalem’s origins. We shall examine the contexts of these passages to determine what the OT has to say about the native “Hittites.”

1. Abraham buys a family sepulcher (ca. 2085–2029 BC).²⁰ The most instructive instance of חִתִּי (ḥittî) occurs in Gen 23:10, in the account of Abraham’s purchase of a cave in which to bury his recently deceased spouse Sarah.²¹ He approached the בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt) to enter into negotiations for the cave (v. 3). Abraham presented himself as “an alien and a stranger” (v. 4), suggesting the בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt) were established inhabitants. This is confirmed in verse 7 where the בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt) are referred to as “people of the land.” The term בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt) occurs eight times in Genesis 23, as well as in 25:10 and 49:32. It is clear the בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt) were the descendants of חֵת (ḥēt), son of Canaan. But in verse 10 Ephron is called הַחִתִּי (haḥittî), unmistakably an equivalent term for בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt). The same juxtaposition occurs in Gen 49:29, 30 and 32. The close association of חִתִּי (ḥittî) with בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt) and חִתִּית (ḥittît) with בְּנוֹת־חֵת (benôt ḥēt) (see below) indicates the sing. gentilic forms חִתִּי (ḥittî) and חִתִּית (ḥittît) should be understood as ethnonyms, names applied to a group of people based on their ethnic identity or lineage. Throughout the OT, הַחִתִּי (ha ḥittî) were seen as one of the native people groups of Canaan, already present when Abraham entered the land (Gen 15:20). They were located in the hill country (Num 13:29; Josh 11:3), specifically in Hebron (Gen 23:19), and perhaps in Jerusalem (Ezek 16:3, 45), and they appear in the lists of aboriginal peoples of Canaan, along with other sons of Canaan listed in Gen 10:15–17 = 1 Chr 1:13–15 (Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Hivites). Moreover, the two personal names of the בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt) in Genesis 23, Ephron and Zohar, are Semitic, not Indo-European.²² Zohar occurs elsewhere in the OT as one of the sons of Simeon (Gen 46:10; Exod 6:15).

2. Esau marries Judith, Basemath, and Adah (ca. 1966 BC). When Esau was forty years old he grieved his parents Isaac and Rebekah by marrying Judith daughter of Beeri הַחִתִּי (haḥittî), and Basemath daughter of Elon הַחִתִּי (haḥittî) (Gen 26:34–35). Shortly thereafter, Rebekah expressed her displeasure to Isaac, calling these new wives ת־חֵתוֹנבְּ (benôt ḥēt), and “daughters of the land” (Gen 27:46). Again we see חִתִּי (ḥittî) equated with indigenous descendants of חֵת (ḥēt). In Esau’s genealogy a third wife is listed, Adah daughter of Elon הַחִתִּי (haḥittî), one of the “women of Canaan” (Gen 36:2). The personal names listed in these passages, Judith, Beeri, Basemath, Elon, and Adah, are Semitic.²³ Other instances of these names in the OT are: Beeri father of Amos (Hos 1:1); Elon, son of Zebulun (Gen 46:14; Num 26:26), a town (Josh 19:43), and a judge (Judg 12:11, 12); and Adah wife of Lamach (Gen 4:19, 20, 23).

3. David and Ahimelech and Uriah (ca. 1015–990 BC).²⁴ Among David’s band of 600 “who were in distress or in debt or discontented” (1 Sam 22:2) was one Ahimelech הַחִתִּי (haḥittî). When David prepared to enter Saul’s camp at the hill of Hakilah he asked Ahimelech הַחִתִּי (haḥittî) Abishai son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, “Who will go down into the camp with me to Saul?” (1 Sam 26:6). While Ahimelech הַחִתִּי (haḥittî) failed to respond, Abishai accepted the challenge and went into Saul’s camp with David. Other than this fleeting reference to Ahimelech הַחִתִּי (haḥittî) nothing further is recorded about him in the OT. A more famous Ahimelech was the priest of Nob (1 Samuel 21–22). Once again we see that a חִתִּי (ḥittî) bore a Semitic name.²⁵

The most famous חִתִּי (ḥittî) we encounter in the OT is Uriah, whose ethnonym is mentioned ten times.²⁶ In addition to being Bathsheba’s husband, he was one of David’s Mighty Men (2 Sam 23:39 = 1 Chr 11:41) and the only חִתִּי (ḥittî) to make it into the NT (Matt 1:6). Despite intense scrutiny, there is no clear evidence to suggest his name is Hittite.²⁷ The fact that there were two priests,²⁸ a prophet (Jer 26:20–23), and an official (Neh 8:4) bearing this name strongly indicates that Uriah, the consummate “Hittite,” had a Semitic Yahwistic name.

4. Solomon conscripts חִתִּי (ḥittî) (970–930 BC). In order to carry out his ambitious building projects, Solomon conscripted חִתִּי (ḥittî), along with other native groups, as slave labor (1 Kgs 9:20–21 = 2 Chr 8:7–8). He used them to build the temple (seven years), his royal palace (thirteen years), Jerusalem’s fortifications, Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Upper Beth Horon, Lower Beth Horon, Baalath, Tadmor, store cities in Hamath, and towns for chariots and horses (1 Kgs 9:10, 15–23 = 2 Chr 8:1–10).

5. Ezekiel chastises Jerusalem (ca. 593–571 BC). Yahweh commanded Ezekiel to deliver an allegory to Jerusalem concerning her unfaithfulness. It began with a reference to Jerusalem’s pre-Israelite origins: “Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites: your father was an Amorite and your mother a חִתִּית (ḥittît)” (Ezek 16:3). Later in the message Yahweh continued, “Everyone who quotes proverbs will quote this proverb about you: ‘Like mother, like daughter.’ You are a true daughter of your mother, who despised her husband and her children; and you are a true sister of your sisters, who despised their husbands and their children. Your mother was a חִתִּית (ḥittît) and your father an Amorite” (Ezek 16:44–45). In these two statements that Jerusalem’s mother was a חִתִּית (ḥittît), we have the only instances of the fem. sing. gentilic of חִתִּי (ḥittî) in the OT. Here, the descendants of חֵת (ḥēt) are seen as pre-Israelite residents of Canaan who were part of the early settlement of Jerusalem, along with another branch of the Canaanites, the Amorites (Gen 10:16 = 1 Chr 1:14).

6. Summary of חִתִּי (ḥittî) and חִתִּית (ḥittît) in the OT. In this examination of the usage of the ethnonyms חִתִּי (ḥittî) and חִתִּית (ḥittît) in the OT it is readily apparent that they were autochthonous occupants of Canaan descended from חֵת (ḥēt), son of Canaan. There is no suggestion they came from outside Canaan. Their names were exclusively Semitic, including one Yahwistic name, and they were often associated with other sons of Canaan. No archaeological data has been found to suggest an enclave of Indo-European Anatolian Hittites resided in Canaan at any time in Hittite history. What is more, the Indo-European Anatolian Hittites did not exist as early as Abraham and Isaac.

III. Will the Real Hittites Please Stand Up!

Only six of the forty-eight occurrences of the name "Hittite(s)" in our English Bibles pertain to the Indo-European Anatolian-Syrian Hittites of the second-first millennia BC. In these instances, the masc. plural gentilic of חִתִּי (ḥittî) with prefixed definite article, הַחִתִּים (ha ḥittîm) (five times), and the feminine pl. gentilic of חִתִּי (ḥittî) without prefixed definite article, חִתִּיֹּת (ḥittîyōt) (one time), were employed. Of the five occurrences of the masc. pl., two of them relate to the period of the Hittite empire, referred to as אֶרֶץ הַחִתִּים ('ereṣ haḥittîm), “land of the Hittites.” The remaining three, מַלְכֵי הַחִתִּים (malḵê haḥittîm), “kings of the Hittites” (twice), and the fem. pl., denote the Neo-Hittite states. In addition, there are a number of instances where Neo-Hittite states were cited individually by name. These references indicate considerable contact between the United and Northern Kingdoms and the Neo-Hittite polities. We shall examine these references, plus one extra-Biblical source, to elucidate the relationship between ancient Israel and the real Hittites.

1. Tidal king of Goiim (ca. 2085 BC). A number of scholars have made a connection between Tidal in Gen 14:1, 9 and the Hittite royal name Tudḫaliya. Kitchen is firmly convinced of this link: “Tidʿal is universally recognized as an early form of Tudkhalia, well known from the Hittite world centered in Anatolia.”²⁹ But this proposal has a serious chronological difficulty. Although there were two or three Tudḫaliyas in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth century, and another in the late thirteenth century, it is questionable if there was an earlier king by that name.³⁰ After surveying the evidence, Singer is skeptical of the association: “The dispute over the existence of an Old Hittite king named Tudḫaliya will probably linger on until some binding evidence turns up (at Kültepe?), but its relevance to biblical Tidʿal is quite doubtful: needless to say, Tidʿal’s kingdom, Goiim, ‘Nations,’ has nothing to do with second-millennium Ḫatti.”³¹ Even if evidence is found for an Old Hittite king named Tudḫaliya prior to the late fifteenth century BC, it would be irrelevant to Genesis 14, since the Biblical date for that event is in the twenty-first century BC, long before the founding of the Hittite empire ca. 1670 BC.

2. Yahweh’s promise to Israel (1406 BC). In Josh 1:4 Yahweh promised Joshua Israel’s territory would extend to כֹּל אֶרֶץ הַחִתִּים (kol 'ereṣ haḥittîm), “all (the) land of the Hittites.” The region in view is north of Canaan since it included the area “from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates...to the Great Sea on the west.” Thus the land of the Hittites in this instance most certainly is the territory beyond northern Syria, i.e., Anatolia. Since we know from extra-Biblical texts the ancient name for Anatolia was Ḫatti, even before the Indo-Europeans arrived,³² the plural gentilic forms חִתִּים (ḥittîm) and חִתִּיֹּת (ḥittîyōt) should be understood as demonyms, names for a group of people based on the name of the region in which they lived. In the time of Joshua, the Hittite empire was in a transition from a decline in the sixteenth and fifteenth century, to a resurgence under Tudḫaliya I/II at the beginning of the Empire period.

3. The informer from Bethel (mid-fourteenth century BC). Judges 1 describes the period after the death of Joshua (v. 1) and prior to the oppressions, when the tribes were securing their allotments. Although it is not possible to be precise about the date of this period, it was most likely a span of about ten years in the mid-fourteenth century BC.³³ In the account of the house of Joseph taking Bethel (vv. 22–26) we are told of a man who came out of Bethel and revealed to Josephite spies the way into the city. Bethel was subsequently put to the sword, and the informer and his family spared. The man from Bethel then emigrated to the אֶרֶץ הַחִתִּים ('ereṣ haḥittîm) where he built a city which he named Luz (Judg 1:26), the old Amorite name for Bethel (Gen 28:19). Although no clues are given as to the location of אֶרֶץ הַחִתִּים ('ereṣ haḥittîm) in this verse, the expression is the same as in Josh 1:4, suggesting the area of Anatolia.³⁴ The mid-fourteenth century is about the time of the Hittite king Tudḫaliya III, when Ḫatti was being harried by attacks from the west and north.³⁵

4. David and Hamath (1010–970 BC). When David brought the ark to Jerusalem, he “assembled all the Israelites, from the Shihor River in Egypt to Lebo Hamath” to join in the celebration (1 Chr 13:5). Lebo (or “Entrance of”) Hamath was a geographical designation for Israel’s northern border.³⁶ The exact meaning and location of Lebo Hamath are unknown. Hamath, modern Hamāh ca. 180 km north-northeast of Damascus, was the southern-most of the Neo-Hittite city-states and is well attested from ancient texts and excavation.³⁷ David subdued Hadadezer king of the Aramean city of Zobah, located in the North Beqa Valley of Lebanon, as well as Damascus, and Hadadezer’s satellite towns Tebah and Berothai (2 Sam 8:3–8 = 1 Chr 18:3–8). When Toi, ruler of Hamath, heard of David’s victories he sent tribute to David by way of his son Joram (2 Sam 8:10)/Hadoram (1 Chr 18:10), possibly indicating Toi was subject to David.³⁸ Hamath was strategically important to David since it served as a buffer between Israel and the other Neo-Hittite states further north.

5. Solomon and the Neo-Hittites (970–930 BC). Solomon expanded the relations David established with Hamath to other Neo-Hittite kingdoms. Among Solomon’s many achievements listed in 1 Kgs 10 was a lively trade in horses and chariots between Egypt and the Neo-Hittite states: “Solomon’s horses were imported from Egypt and from Kue—the royal merchants purchased them from Kue. They imported a chariot from Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty. They also exported them to all מַלְכֵי הַחִתִּים (malḵê haḥittîm) and of the Arameans” (1 Kgs 10:28–29 = 2 Chr 1:16–17).³⁹ In this case multiple Hittite kings are specified in the Hebrew text, indicative of the Neo-Hittite period. Earlier translators had difficulty with the Hebrew name קֹוֶה/קֹוֵא (qowe), transliterated Kue in most modern translations. The translators of the Geneva Bible, and later the KJV, thought the word was a form of קַו (qaw), “line,” and thus translated קֹוֶה/קֹוֵא (qowe) as “linen yarn.” We now know קֹוֶה/קֹוֵא was a Neo-Hittite kingdom in Cilicia in southern Turkey named Que in the ancient texts.⁴⁰ In addition, Solomon made political alliances with his neighbors by marrying foreign women, including Pharaoh’s daughter, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and חִתִּיֹּת (ḥittîyōt) (1 Kgs 11:1), obviously a reference to foreigners, not the בְּנוֹת־חֵת (benôt ḥēt). The Aramean state of Zobah, previously subdued by David, and the Neo-Hittite state of Hamath, likely subject to David, revolted at some point because Solomon had to recapture them midway through his reign (2 Chr 8:3). He then established trading centers in the region of Hamath (2 Chr 8:4).

6. Ahab and Irḫulēni at the battle of Qarqar (853 BC). In the sixth year of the reign of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BC) the Assyrian army marched west to engage a coalition of 12 kings at Qarqar, ca. 80 km north-northwest of Hamath. The coalition included Ahab king of Israel and Irḫulēni king of Hamath. The most detailed account of the event is recorded on the Kurkh Stele.⁴¹ Qarqar is described in the stele as one of Irḫulēni’s “royal cities” and is known through texts and archaeology.⁴² The sizes of the various forces involved in the battle are recorded on the stele.⁴³ The largest of the coalition forces was that of Aramean Hadad-ezer (Ben-Hadad II) king of Damascus who had 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry and 20,000 troops. Irḫulēni of Hamath is credited with 700 chariots, 700 cavalry and 10,000 troops; and Ahab 2,000 chariots and 10,000 troops.⁴⁴ Since Ahab’s force appears to have been larger than Irḫulēni’s, it is plausible Irḫulēni was subject to Ahab and the two joined forces, along with other states in the region, to combat a common enemy at Qarqar. Shalmaneser boasted a great victory, but that is doubtful. The coalition apparently was able to forestall the Assyrian advance, given Shalmaneser was obliged to return to the area to fight the same coalition in his tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth years.⁴⁵ Since Ahab died in 853 BC, it would have been his son Joram (852–841 BC) who participated in these later engagements.

7. Siege of Samaria during the reign of Joram (852–841 BC). Samaria came under siege by Ben-Hadad II (ca. 860–841 BC) during the reign of Joram. The siege was so severe the populace was reduced to cannibalism (2 Kgs 6:28–29). Relief finally came through an act of Yahweh: “the Lord had caused the Arameans to hear the sound of chariots and horses and a great army, so that they said to one another, ‘Look, the king of Israel has hired מַלְכֵי הַחִתִּים (malḵê haḥittîm) and Egyptian kings to attack us!’ So they got up and fled in the dusk and abandoned their tents and their horses and donkeys. They left the camp and fled for their lives” (2 Kgs 7:6–7). The phrase מַלְכֵי הַחִתִּים (malḵê haḥittîm) again denotes the Neo-Hittite states, which most times were at war with the Arameans.

8. Amos’s woe against Zion and Mount Samaria (ca. 760–750 BC). Amos told those “who are complacent in Zion” and “who feel secure on Mount Samaria” (Amos 6:1) to “Go to Calneh and look at it; go from there to great Hamath...Are they better off than your two kingdoms? Is their land larger than yours?” (Amos 6:2). Calneh is Kunulua, capital of the Neo-Hittite kingdom of Patina (Unqi in Assyrian texts), identified as Tell Taϲyinat in the Plain of Antioch in southern Turkey. It is evidenced by texts and excavation.⁴⁶ Hamath, formerly a Neo-Hittite state, was taken over by Arameans in 796 BC.⁴⁷

9. The fall of the Neo-Hittites. With the rise of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC), the political landscape in the Levant radically changed. He began a process of annexing the Neo-Hittite and Aramean states as Assyrian provinces, which was complete by the reign of Sennacherib (704–681 BC). As was their policy, the Assyrians removed the upper echelons of society and replaced them with captives from other areas. This brought an end to the Hittite civilization and culture, which was lost to history except for the few brief references preserved in the Hebrew Bible, including an echo of the fall of the Neo-Hittite states in Isaiah. In Yahweh's condemnation of Jerusalem (ca. 700 BC), he alluded to “the Assyrian, the rod of my anger” (Isa 10:5a) who bragged about the nations he had recently conquered, including two Neo-Hittite states:

I send him [the Assyrian] against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me...‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he [the Assyrian] says. ‘Has not Calno fared like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad, and Samaria like Damascus? As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols, kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria—shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?’” (Isa 10:6a, 8–11).

Calno (= Calneh in Amos 6:2), Kunulua in the ancient texts, was capital of the Neo-Hittite kingdom of Patina and annexed to the Assyrian empire by Tiglath-pileser III in 738 BC.⁴⁸ Carchemish, just inside the southern border of Turkey ca. 225 km north-northeast of Hamath, was the most important of the Neo-Hittite states. It is well known from texts and excavation.⁴⁹ Carchemish fell to Sargon II in 717 BC.⁵⁰ The Aramean states of Hamath, Arpad and Damascus were annexed by the Assyrians as well.

10. Summary of חִתִּים (ḥittîm) and חִתִּיֹּת (ḥittîyōt) in the OT. The demonyms חִתִּים (ḥittîm) and חִתִּיֹּת (ḥittîyōt) were used in the context of foreigners from the Anatolia-northern Syria region, unquestionably the people known from ancient texts scholars have labeled “Hittites.” The Biblical usage is historically accurate and consistent with recovered evidence. The descriptive construct אֶרֶץ הַחִתִּים ('ereṣ haḥittîm) was used for the Hittite empire at the beginning of the conquest in 1406 BC and in the early judges period in the mid-fourteenth century BC. A different construct, מַלְכֵ הַחִתִּים (malḵê haḥittîm), was used for the Neo-Hittite states in historical contexts of the mid-tenth and mid-ninth century BC.⁵¹ The fall of the Neo-Hittite states to the Assyrians in the late eighth century BC was alluded to ca. 700 BC.

From the brief references in the OT and several extra-Biblical documents, we learn Israel had considerable contact with the Neo-Hittites. Around 1000 BC, David received gifts from the king of Neo-Hittite Hamath, indicating Hamath was a vassal state, or, at the very least, on friendly terms with Israel. In the early tenth century Solomon seized Hamath, made alliances by marrying Neo-Hittite women, and carried on trade with Neo-Hittite states. In the ninth century Ahab, and later his son Joram, joined forces with Hamath and ten other kingdoms to temporarily halt the Assyrian advance into the region.

IV. The Conclusion of the Matter

We have seen that the singular gentilics חִתִּי (ḥittî) and חִתִּית (ḥittît) were used in the OT exclusively for the descendants of the eponymous ancestor חֵת (ḥēt), who were indigenous residents of Canaan from pre-Abrahamic times. The plural gentilics חִתִּים (ḥittîm) and חִתִּיֹּת (ḥittîyōt), on the other hand, were used in the OT exclusively for the Indo-Europeans who resided in Anatolia and northern Syria ca. 1670–717 BC.⁵² That two different groups were in view also is seen by the use of two different terms in the same chronological-historical context in the books of Joshua, Judges and 1 Kings/2 Chronicles.⁵³ Early translators failed to distinguish between the two groups and rendered both the singular and plural gentilics by the same anglicized transliteration "Hethite(s)" or "Hittite(s)."

When references to the people of Ḫatti were encountered in Egyptian texts in the first half of the nineteenth century and Assyrian texts in the mid-nineteenth century, the KJV name "Hittites" was applied to them. As a result, researchers have been misled by English translations and have assumed the Bible writers had the Indo-Europeans in mind for both the indigenous descendants of חֵת (ḥēt) and the citizens of Ḫatti. This has resulted in a great deal of confusion and misconceptions in the scholarly literature. What to do about this conundrum and etymological morass?

McMahon hit upon the key to the solution, but failed to prosecute his observation to its logical conclusion. He wrote:

These five references to the Hittites which on the basis of context may be understood as the Hittites of north Syria, that is, Neo-Hittites,⁵⁴ are also the only five occurrences of the plural form ḥittîm in the OT. This may mean nothing, but it could be some indication of a distinction made in the text between the Hittites of Palestine, descendants of Heth, and the Hittites of Anatolia and north Syria, the men of Ḫatti.⁵⁵

The problem is one of semantics and terminology. As the term Hittites for the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia and north Syria is firmly embedded in the scholarly and popular literature, that name cannot be changed.⁵⁶ Because the Bible writers distinguished between the two groups, this should be reflected in our English translations. I suggest an ecumenical solution to the problem. Since the demonyms חִתִּים (ḥittîm) and חִתִּיֹּת (ḥittîyōt) refer to the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia and northern Syria, I propose retaining the Protestant term "Hittites" for those entities. For the ethnonyms חִתִּי (ḥittî) and חִתִּית (ḥittît), on the other hand, the Roman Catholic term "Hethite(s)" is the correct choice, since חִתִּי (ḥittî) is synonymous with בְּנֵי־חֵת (benê ḥēt) and חִתִּית (haḥittît) is synonymous with בְּנוֹת־חֵת (benôt ḥēt). If these changes were incorporated into future translations of our English Bibles, it would clearly distinguish the indigenous descendants of חֵת (ḥēt) from the people of Ḫatti and alleviate present misunderstandings.

The occurrences of the names related to חֵת (ḥēt) and Ḫatti, along with recommended translations, are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Proposed Translations for Hebrew Ethnonyms and Demonyms Currently Translated “Hittite(s)”

 

Endnotes

 Endnotes-Hittites-and-Hethites.pdf

Previously, we looked in Part One at the general validity of testimony in establishing facts. Next, Part Two examined ways to reconcile the Ararat testimonies with general scientific concerns. Part Three considered ways geological data, in particular, can coexist with the Ararat testimonies. Finally, we turn now to address a matter of history.

In Part One of this study we looked at issues relating to the general validity of testimony as a tool for evaluating truth-claims, and in Part Two discussed ways to accommodate these testimonies in the search for Noah's Ark without throwing science out on its ear, just exercising care to use it with minimal assumptions about unknown initial conditions. Since geology is supposedly an objective science rather than one that assumes unknowable initial conditions, in Part Three we now look at the claim that geological studies have proven that Mt. Ararat is a young volcanic peak that could not have existed at the time of the Flood..

There are a number of issues that frequently are raised as reasons for disregarding the body of testimony asserting Noah's Ark has not only survived on Mt. Ararat, but has been seen by numerous eyewitnesses. We now turn to a consideration of several of these issues. 

The lack of success in finding Noah's Ark on Turkey's Mt. Ararat has prompted various researchers to search for the Ark elsewhere. Since the biblical 'mountains of Ararat' cannot be exegetically equated with the single mountain known today as Mt. Ararat (Agri Dagh, 'the painful mountain,' in Turkish), we cannot use Scripture to prove Mt. Ararat was where the Ark landed, nor that it was even in existence as the Flood waters were abating. This ambiguity has opened the door for suggestions that other peaks could have been the site of the Ark's landing-place.

Several friends have sent me the eight pictures and map that have been circulating on the Internet, especially among Christians, of three or four giant human skeletons that were allegedly found in an archaeological excavation a few kilometers to the east of Mycenae in the Peloponnese of Greece.