Introduction: The term "Hittite" (yTixi; Cettai/oj; Egyptian hòt; Ugaritic hòty; Akkadian hòattu) may have several different references, the most important of which to ancient Near Eastern studies is the early second millennium B.C. kingdom in Anatolia. These innovative people were able to develop an empire and exert significant cultural influence upon the ancient Near Eastern world of the Old Testament.

1. The Hittite Kingdom of Anatolia (2000-1200 B.C.)
1. History
1. The Hatti (Third Millennium): Speakers of the Hattic language were the original inhabitants of central Anatolia in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) in the third millennium B.C.
2. Nesian Immigration (c. 2300 to 2000): Indo-European, Nesian-speaking immigrants began to rise in power in the region. Very little is known about this time.
3. Domination and synthesis (c. 2000-1750): In the early 2^nd millennium, the invaders took control to establish the groundwork for the coming Hittite empire in the form of various small Hittite (Indo-European) kingdoms (city-states). However, they retained the Hattian name and absorbed much of their religion, art, and culture.
4. Old Kingdom (1750-1400): The capital was moved to Hattusa (modern *Boghaskoy) by 1650 by Hattusili I (*Hattushilish, 1650-1620) who began to consolidate the city-states of Anatolia and raid N. Syria. Mursili I (*Murshilish, 1620-1590) continued the increase of Hittite military excursions all the way to the sack of Babylon. Then internal disunity and weakness reduced Hittite influence for the next two centuries.
5. New Kingdom (1400-1200): Through both military prowess and diplomacy of Suppiluliuma I (*Shuppiluliumas, 1375-1335? or 1344-1322) initiated the empire period by subduing and maintaining control of Cilicia and north Syrian city-states in former Egyptian territory. Although *Ramesses II sought to regain ground, Muwatalli II (*Muwatallis, 1295-1272) held him at bay at the battle of Kadesh (*1274). Hattusili III (*Hattushilish, 1267-1237) signed a treaty with Ramesses (facing the mutual Assyrian foe *Tukulti-Ninurta I) and maintained general international diplomacy. But all this ended with the fall of Hattusa (c. 1200) due indirectly to the invading Sea Peoples after the fall of Troy (Hallo & Simpson, 117-20).
6. Neo-Hittite (1200-700): After the collapse of the Hittite empire, the term "Hittite" continued to be used by the Assyrians and Hebrews to refer to the inhabitants of N. Syria. The former names of kings and inscriptions in hieroglyphic Hittite were continued by kings of this region. Much of the culture also remained but the neo-Hittites were not necessarily the same people or language as the Anatolian Hittites.
7. For further reading, the best contemporary work is T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites.
2. Influence on the ancient Near East
1. Religion: The Hittites had a pantheon of hundreds of gods and carried their religion into many regions which they conquered. See O. R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, 1976.
2. Law: The Hittites are famous for their laws, which were usually more compensatory (Indo-European) rather than lex talionis as most Semitic laws were (Bruce, NBD).
3. Militarily:
1. Iron was utilized and even exported for weapons (Gurney, 82-84).
2. Chariot war strategy and chariot design was advanced according to the landscape of N. Syria and other battle regions.
4. For further reading see especially G. Macqueen, The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor.
2. †Biblical Hittites
1. Early Palestinian "Hittites" and "Sons of Heth"
1. Biblical data
1. Patriarchal references (21^st to 20^th cent. B.C.): The Hittite land promised to Abraham (21^st cent; Gen. 15:18-20); Abraham’s purchase of the burial cave of Machpelah from Ephron, one of the txe-ynEb. (21^st cent.; Gen. 23:3ff; 25:9-10; 49:29-32; 50:13); Esau’s wives were from the txe-tAnB. (20^th cent.; Gen. 26:34; 27:46; 36:2); the origin of Jerusalem (Ezk. 16:3, 45)
2. Conquest references (15^th to 13^th cent. B.C.): The Hittites referred to in the rest of the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges are probably all references to this same people group because they are localized in Palestine (cf. Gen. 15:18-20), although some references could also include the New Kingdom Hittites during this time (Ex. 3:8; 17; 13:5; 23:23; 23:28; 33:2; 34:11; Nm. 13:29; Dt. 7:1; 20:17; Jsh. 1:4; 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; Jdg. 1:26; 3:5; cf. 1 Kg. 9:20; 2 Chr. 8:7; Ezr. 9:1; Neh. 9:8).
2. Views for their identification:

Scholars are agreed that the Hittite Empire never extended into Palestine, and thus the Biblical "Hittites" of the Patriarchal narratives are not to be identified with the Hittites of Anatolia. The OT names of Hittites are Semitic, not Nesian or Hattic.

1. Anachronistic reference: Liberals often assume the references in Genesis to be "Neo-Babylonian geographical terminology" typical of writers in a much later time, i.e., the 6^th century (Roberts, HBD).
2. Migration of Hittites: In 1936 Forrer interpreted a Hittite inscription from the 14^th century B.C. by King Mursilis II that spoke of a migration into Egyptian territory as the origin of Palestinian Hittites. Although this referred to a much earlier time when Palestine was Egyptian territory, it was not likely as early as the Abraham. However, there is nothing that would have prevented another undocumented immigration to Palestine at an earlier date.
3. Early Hattians: Gurney postulates the theory that the third-millennium Hattians were not limited to Anatolia but also in Syria and Palestine. These early populations may have remained in Palestine and been designated by the term "Hittites" (Gurney, 62). If so, the distinctive vocalization is not preserved in the MT.
4. A unique ethnic group: Hoffner argues that the early Biblical Hittites are another people group that is not elsewhere documented in archeology from the ancient Near East (POTT, 199-200, 213-14).
5. A generic reference: Some understand the term "Hittites" as a general term for non-Semitic populations, in this case properly applied to the Hurrians (cf. the equation of "daughters of the land" and "daughters of Heth" in Gen. 27:46 or "daughters of Canaan" in 28:8; e.g., Bruce, "Hittites & OT," 17-19).
2. Hittites of the Monarchy (10^th to 7^th centuries B.C.)
1. Examples:
1. Ahimelech (1 Sm. 26:6) and Uriah (2 Sm. 11:3, 6, 17, 21, 24; 12:9-10; 23:39; 1 Kg. 15:5; 1 Chr. 11:41)
2. Solomon’s Hittite wives were obtained for political stability (1 Kg. 11:1).
3. "The Kings of the Hittites" were still a significant power (1 Kg. 10:29; 2 Kg. 7:6-7; 2 Chr. 1:17).
2. The neo-Hittites of Syria (Aram) are designated by these foreign Hittites of the monarchy.
3. Significance for OT studies
1. Hittite suzerainty treaty forms made with Syrian vassal states in the 2^nd millennium b.c. compared with the structure of Deuteronomy indicates that it follows the same covenant form for that time period (Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 1963; Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy in NICOT, 20-32).
2. Narrative court history forms compared with the court history leading David’s accession may indicate that the Biblical writer intentionally followed an appropriate form as a political apology for David’s integrity and his divinely ordained appointment. The dynastic justification in 1-2 Samuel are similar to "The Apology of Hattusili" (Hoffner, ZPEB, 171-72).
3. Magic, sorcery, and sexual perversions of the Hittites have extensive documentation in incantation formulas and other rituals. For example, transvestitism was practice to attain sexual potency and may be the background for Deut. 22:5. The "lead cover" of Zech. 5:7-8 is like Hittite incantations which use a lead lid to cover evils in a bronze pot (Hoffner, POTT, 217-18; where see further examples).
4. Legal customs in Hittite laws sometimes compare to Biblical customs. For example, the removal of a shoe was a stigma for a Hittite who didn’t properly guard his post just as it was for the levirate marriage custom (Hoffner, POTT, 219; Bruce, NBD). For many more possibly illuminating parallels see E. Neufeld, The Hittite Laws.