Monday, July 23, 2012

Filtering Ancient Perspectives

Now Ephron was sitting among the sons of Heth; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the sons of Heth; even of all who went in at the gate of his city, saying, "No, my lord, hear me; I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it. In the presence of the sons of my people I give it to you; bury your dead." (Genesis 23:10-11 NASB)

Who are these "sons of Heth" mentioned here?  One, Ephron, is a Hittite, but who are the rest?  There is a good case that can be made that, from the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures, these are the "Hittites" to which they refer from time to time.  The case ties this passage to several others, and grounds the Hittites of the Hebrew Scriptures to Heth, the son of Canaan, the son of Ham, the son of Noah.  Regionally speaking it's not easy to discern which of Noah's sons settled where, there's a lot of overlap.  But Canaan is typically easy to figure (not so much his sons though).

The problem with this is that there is a commonly referred to people group from the region of Asia Minor known as the Hittites.  This people is most likely very largely responsible for inaugurating the iron age of humanity.  They were an early empire of city-states that conquered into Mesopotamia and Egypt for a time.  They were a feared people, yet their form of diplomatic treaties were used long after their passing from the political stage.

It seems that the Hittite people the Hebrew Scriptures refer to are Canaanites settled in and around Hebron.  Abraham's friend, Mamre and his three brothers, are among these.  This would also most likely include the member of King David's elite body guard, Uriah; the man David kills to get his wife and avoid a scandal.  There are other examples.  They figure as part of the scenery of much of the story of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I'm not sure of the etymological development of the name of the two groups, and it could possibly be an accident of language that connects them.  The Hittites of Asia Minor get their name from their capitol city, Hattusa, whereas the Hittites of the Hebrew Scriptures get their name from the son of Canaan, Heth.  In terms of ancient Semitic written language, there are a lot of similarities between these two possible sources.

There are other opinion(s) on who the Hittites of the Hebrew Scriptures actually were and how/if they are connected to the Asia Minor empire.  These views typically work from the possibility that the Hebrew record seeks to explain or account for the Hittites of Asia Minor through the explanation of the sons of Heth.  The problem of locating them in Hebron isn't that daunting considering the extent of struggles the Hittite Empire had with Egypt.  One problem comes with timing, juxtaposing the Hittites campaigns against Egypt with Abraham's sojourn in Hebron.  Another problem comes with the other people groups associated with Hebron, the "sons of Anak" and others.  So, both views are problematic.  It seems that until the Assyrians resettled Syria, pockets of Hittite political city-states existed defiantly against changing political climates.  So, it's possible this could be one of the more southerly colonies.

Why bring this up, and as with much of world history, "who cares?"  What people usually mean by that is, "Why should I care?" so I will address that question by explaining why I care.  In essence, I care because I want to understand Abraham better; I want to understand Moses; I want to understand David; I want to know what it was like in their world, and how they dealt with it.  I want to know because that is where my Master dealt with them, and they dealt with my Master.  It was in the set of environments of an ancient world that my Master spoke with them, and understanding that environment better helps me understand how my Master deals with me, how He speaks with me, and how I must deal with Him.

I can't always translate the faith of Abraham across four thousand years, but I'm not going to be able to bring across even a tenth if I don't try to better understand the world in which he lived with his Master.  I have to have faith in a digitally driven world.  His was entirely analog, things took months and years which now take seconds or less.  Then people heard God's voice, and now we give people drugs for schizophrenia when that happens.  God "rained fire and brimstone from the heavens" and we don't see that much now.  Things are different, so how to I understand the context of his faith and bring that understanding forward to apply to this digital world?

To a huge extent, understanding Abraham's world is impossible.  Therefore understanding just the intricacies of that region in that historical period is really impossible.  When it comes down to it, I can only ever gain a clearer glimpse of such a place and time.  My hope is that just that more detailed glimpse will provide me a better understanding of how I live and walk in faith with my Master.  As I face the challenges of my environment, how do I show faith in my Master as Abraham did?  He drew a knife and raised it to kill his son Isaac.  I would be thrown in jail and/or a mental hospital for such behavior.  Then, it wasn't unheard of; now it's heard of as stories of insane parents who destroy their families in murder/suicide family activities.

Who the Hittites are influences how I understand the people who saw Abraham as a "Prince of God".  It influences how I understand his ability to influence such people for his Master.  I have people around me who need to be influenced for my Master.  What were Abraham's people like compared to mine?  What did he do, and what should I do?  Maybe it is as simple as just living with them as I live with my Master.  Maybe there's something I can say or do or see and understand that will help.

So I continue to "shovel" down into the Scriptures seeking to "unearth" some meaning and understanding of my Master and His work with me.  In the mean time, I probably should get out and talk to my neighbors more.  Who knows, maybe the answer will come in the midst of being faithful with what I know now, rather than what I discover later? Maybe it's both.

No comments:

Post a Comment