Inhaltsverzeichnis

Manfred Hutter
Beziehungen der „Welt der Hethiter“ zur „Welt des Alten
Testaments“: Einleitende Fragestellungen .................................................... 3

Zsolt Simon
Die angenommenen hethitisch-biblischen kulturellen Parallelen:
Das Problem der Vermittlung ..................................................................... 17

Amir Gilan
Hittites in Canaan? The Archaeological evidence ...................................... 39

Manfred Hutter
Exkurs: Philister und Anatolien .................................................................. 53

Birgit Christiansen / Elena Devecchi

Die hethitischen Vasallenverträge und die biblische Bundeskonzeption ......... 65

Sylvia Hutter-Braunsar
Hethitische und biblische Gesetzescorpora ................................................ 89

Meik Gerhards
Hethitische und biblische Historiographie ................................................ 107

Birgit Christiansen
Reinheitsvorstellungen und Entsühnungsriten der Hethiter
und ihr möglicher Einfluss auf die biblische Überlieferung ..................... 131

Ada Taggar-Cohen
Hittite Priesthood – State Administration in the Service of the Gods:
Its implications for the Interpretations of Biblical Priesthood .................. 155
 Hittite Priesthood – State Administration in the
Service of the Gods: Its implications for the
Interpretations of Biblical Priesthood
Ada Taggar-Cohen

The priesthood in Hittite society was an essential component of social and

state formation, in the same way it was in other Ancient Near Eastern
societies, as is evident from several millennia of documentation. The Hittite
depiction of the priesthood is projected through the thousands of texts found
in Anatolia written mainly in cuneiform script in the Hittite language, and
also some in Hieroglyphic Luwian, during the second half of the second
millennium BCE. The majority of Hittite texts regarding the priesthood are
cultic texts describing prescriptive rituals, and only a few letters and
administrative texts, as well as some bullae, mention priests. Hittite texts
rarely mention the priests by name when referring to their social or political
roles, thus we have very few historical figures of priests, except for royalty,
who also served as priests. An up-to-date description of current knowledge
of the Hittite priesthood may enable us to shed some light on the very
complicated and much debated state of biblical priesthood as it is portrayed
in the Pentateuch and in the historical books of the Hebrew Bible.

1. Previous Studies of Hittite Cultic Personnel

Hittite texts are by and large of a cultic nature. They include numerous
prescriptive rituals for the cult through which we can learn about the
activities of its personnel. On the other hand there are some administrative
cultic texts describing the organization of cultic personnel in the cult
institutions of the kingdom. A study of these texts shows that the cultic
personnel are subjugated to the royal court. They appear in the texts as
serving at state-owned temples and shrines and are thus under the juris-
diction of the king’s law.
The study of Hittite cultic personnel as state servants started with a short
description of the Hittite Temple by Hans G. Güterbock, in which he
attempted to indicate under which Hittite titles cult personnel are listed. 1 As
he points out, there are several general titles for cult personnel and while the
priests may be included under the title LÚḫilammatta-, they also appear with
other titles. Other work followed up with short descriptions of the priest-

1
Güterbock, Temple, 125-132.
156 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

hood, such as the general description by Maciej Popko in his work on the
Hittite religions.2 Gregory McMahon and Jörg Klinger also tried to give an
overview picture of Hittite priesthood.3 In addition there is specific work on
cult centers such as M. Popko’s monographs on the towns of Zippalanda
and Arinna,4 and specific descriptions of certain titles of priestly groups. 5
Material on the Hittite priesthood is vast and therefore difficult to cover in a
short paper. I will here forth concentrate on two principal aspects: the main
characteristics of the Hittite priesthood as a state administrative post and the
description of the priesthood’s tasks in relation to its profession.
Cultic personnel appear in the Hittite texts with numerous titles: cooks
and bakers, cupbearers, “table-man”, reciting-men, cleaners, singers and
musicians, acrobats, as well as shepherds and cowherds. 6 One must then ask
who is the priest among these many cultic functionaries. The answer to this
question lies in our definition of priest and priesthood. A general definition
would be a person who is engaged in the service of the divine world; one
who organizes and takes care of the place and the representations of the
gods. He or she may also be regarded as a facilitator between the divine and
human spheres. However, this definition could also include other func-
tionaries besides priests.
In a study of the Hittite priesthood7 I suggested a two-way approach,
using the Hittite texts themselves as witness for the priests, while depending
on titles borrowed from the ancient Mesopotamian religious terminology,
which the Hittites used through the borrowed cuneiform script. The result is
the following list of the major priestly titles representing hierarchical
administrative ranks of priests and priestesses responsible for running the
kingdom’s cult.

2. Hittite Priesthood

2.1. The main Priestly Titles in Hittite texts

The Hittite priesthood was composed of male and female functionaries and
they had both similar and different tasks in the cult. Both male and female
were regarded as an essential part of the cult personnel. Since Hittite society

2
Popko, Religions, 67-80.
3
McMahon, Theology, 1981-1995; Klinger, Priestertum, 93-111; Klinger, Priester,
640-643; Collins, Hittites, 157-195.
4
Popko, Zippalanda; Popko, Priester; Popko, Arinna.
5
Such as Miller, katra/i-women, 423-432.
6
Pecchioli Daddi, Mestieri, 144-435.
7
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 6-32.
 Hittite Priesthood … 157

was a patriarchal one, the male was regarded higher in the hierarchy than
the female but she was his partner; they imitated the world of the gods
which presented a male and female configuration. 8
The main title for the male priest is LÚSANGA; the determinative LÚ
standing for “man” precedes the Sumerogram SANGA to be read in
Akkadian š ngû, and also appears, written syllabically in Hittite texts as
š nkunni-/š kkunni-, in texts from the New Kingdom. 9 This title is used in
Sumerian and Akkadian to designate the one who conducts cultic activities
on behalf of the gods, but it is even more important that the š ngû is a
professional who is an administrative functionary in the cult. 10
The priestly title LÚSANGA in Hittite appears in hierarchical form
indicating “high priest”, or better, “chief priest”: LÚSANGA GAL / GAL
LÚ
SANGA, and lower ranked priest: LÚSANGA TUR.11 It should be noted
that in the Hittite texts the title “head / lord of a temple” is not used, but
only the title “chief priest”.12 The title LÚSANGA GAL may appear at the
beginning of a ritual but the Sumerogram GAL does not reappear in regard
to these priests (KUB 20.88) in the rest of the description. In a large temple
this title may relate to more than one priest. He may then be titled as a priest
of a certain deity, but in fact worshiped several deities.
Next to these ranked titles, we find definitions of “quality” such as “new
SANGA-priest” (SANGA GIBIL) or “old SANGA-priest” (SANGA ŠU.GI),
8
The Hittites’ world of the gods shows a clear hierarchy, organized also in a
family-type structure. For the developed pantheon of the New Kingdom see
Popko, Religions, 110-115.
9
See Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 29-30.141, passim. The texts show Hurrian con-
nections, and the title may have been originally Hurrian, while there was an
older Hittite noun ending with -a which stood behind the Sumerogram SANGA.
10
Sallaberger / Huber Vulliet, Priester, 617. CAD Š/1, 377, identifies the title as
“chief administrator of a temple”, however not all the SANGA-priests could
have been the chief, since there were so many of them.
11
Both titles appear for a group of priests as well as individuals. Popko, arkuti-
Priestern, 71-74, refers to the title of priest as SANGA ARKŪTI which he
translates as “Priester niederer Stellung” (priest of low rank), which I believe
should be correlated to SANGA.TUR. For Akkadian arkû meaning “in secon-
dary / lower rank” see CAD A/2, 289.
12
One text of NS has the title LÚMEŠ EN É.DINGIRMEŠ “the lords of the house of
the gods” (Pecchioli Daddi, Mestieri, 208). Among the bullae found at Nişantepe
in Ḫattuša, there were 14 bullae pertaining to the same official written in Luwian
Hieroglyphs, with the title DEUS.DOMUS.DOMINUS read by Suzanne Her-
bordt as a possible LÚ EN É.DINGIRLIM “lord of the temple?”; however due to
its rarity I have not included it in my reference. See Herbordt, Prinzen- und
Beamtensiegel, 103. For its reading see Hawkins, Commentaries, 303.
158 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

and “holy SANGA-priest” (SANGA KÙ.GA, in Hittite šuppi-); other

definitions connect the priest to certain deities or places such as the
“SANGA-priest of the Storm-god”, or the “SANGA-priest of the Storm-god
of the town of Nerik”.13 The second main male priest’s title is LÚGUDU12
read according to Akkadian p šīšu and translated as “the anointed,” but in
Hittite material this priest is not mentioned in any text as being anointed or
that he anoints others.14
Priestesses in the cult appear under two main titles: MUNUSSANGA and
MUNUS
AMA.DINGIRLIM. The reading of the first Sumerogram MUNUSSANGA
in Hittite is unknown, and according to attestations in the texts it seems that
this title appeared in older Hittite texts. This priestess appears with the title
MUNUS
SANGA.GAL “chief SANGA-priestess”. She is affiliated to a certain
god, not necessarily a goddess. The second title MUNUSAMA.DINGIRLIM is
read in Hittite šiw nz nn - and translated as “mother of the god”.15 This
title may have replaced the older title MUNUSSANGA.16
A general term for the priests is used in the Hittite texts written
sumerographically LÚÉ.DINGIRLIM and translated as “Temple-man”, usually
in the plural form. It relates to the priests as a group of temple personnel,
both male and female.17

13
See Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 140-167, for more details of SANGA titles.
14
This title has been suggested as a loan word from Sumerian to Akkadian. In
Sumerian pa4-šeš “older brother”; see Sallaberger / Huber Vulliet, Priester, 630.
In old Hittite texts it may have been read as kumra- borrowed from the Akkadian
title kumru- equivalent to Ugaritic and Hebrew komer (2Kings 23:5; Zeph 1:4).
Hoffner, Commentary, 130 with note 45.
15
This can also be translated as “divine mother” indicating the female assigned to
the divine world. Güterbock, Temple, 130 with note 23, suggested that the
Hittites read the word in Akkadian ummi ilim for the ending LIM. Jacob Klein’s
suggestion to me was that the word AMA in Sumerian could imply the female
aspect of DINGIR, and not necessarily the “mother”.
16
These two titles for priestesses are not found in Sumero-Akkadian texts. For the
title NIN.DINGIR (read recently EREŠ.DINGIR) representing a royal princess
see Taggar-Cohen, NIN.DINGIR, 313-327.
17
Its reading in Hittite has been suggested as LÚ Ékarimnala-. However, the direct
Hittite translation of É.DINGIRLIM in the texts is šiun š p rn - “house of the
god(s)” (= temple). I therefore tend to accept Kloekhorst’s (Dictionary, 451)
suggestion that this word Ékarimni- is of foreign origin and stands for a certain
kind of cultic building, and its personnel are termed accordingly LÚ Ékarimnala-.
See also Güterbock, Temple, 125.130. For the development of the title
LÚ
É.DINGIRLIM see Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 279-311. SANGA and AMA.DINGIR
are titled “servants of the god” LÚMEŠ ARAD. DINGIRLIM.
 Hittite Priesthood … 159

The titles listed above do not reveal the functions of the cult personnel;
the texts must be consulted for this. They are, however, the main titles of
the priesthood in the Hittite temples, although as was mentioned earlier,
there were more cult members serving the gods, who may be regarded as
priests working in the temples. The titles mentioned above refer to the
leading cult professionals, who were administratively responsible for the
cult’s places and activities. This is retrieved from the text that rules on the
responsibility for the maintenance of the cult by the “Commanders of
Border Garrisons”. In CTH 261, an “išḫiul-instruction to the Commanders
of Border Garrison”,18 there is an order to the commanders to “take account
of the Elders, SANGA-priests, GUDU-priests (and) AMA.DINGIR-priest-
esses”; the commanders must ensure that cultic buildings and their utensils
are restored. They should make sure that all festivals to the gods are
celebrated on time. Each Commander of the Border Garrison has to make
sure that “(If) to any deity there is no SANGA-priest, GUDU-priest (nor)
AMA-priestess, let them immediately assign him/her”. 19 This text then
identifies the major cult personnel responsible for the temple buildings and
utensils as well as the ones who carry out the cultic worship with these three
administrative cult titles.
Titles such as LÚḪAL (“seer, magician”20), LÚ dIM (“the man of the
Storm-god”), LÚtazzielli- or MUNUSkatra- were regarded probably as part of
the priesthood, but some may not have been part of the fixed administration
of the temples. They are to be considered special functionaries, belonging
also to the state cult, with specific tasks and responsible for specific rituals,
some of which belonged to certain traditional religious rituals other than
Hittite.21 Since the Hittite religion had a mixture of several religious origins,
such as Ḫattian, Luwian, and Ḫurrian, it is likely that some of these func-
tionaries originated in those religious traditions and were adapted to the
official state religion.22 The LÚSANGA, the MUNUSAMA.DINGIR and the
GUDU12 belonged to the core of the Hittite priesthood. Most temples had at

18
Pecchioli Daddi, Vincolo; Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 11-15.
19
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 13-14.
20
In Akkadian this reads barû and translates as “seer”; for the Hittite see Herbordt,
Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel, 102 with literature.
21
For the LÚtazzielli, a functionary belonging to the Zippalanda cult center, see
recently Arıkan, Official, 33-58.
22
For a detailed presentation of the LÚGUDU12 in comparison with the LÚ dU see
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 229-274.
160 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

least one LÚSANGA, and MUNUSAMA.DINGIRLIM. Some had more than one
SANGA-priest, but did not have a priestess or a GUDU 12-priest.23

2.2. The Duties and Tasks of the Priesthood

Male and female priests represented the divine male and female and served
them together. Both the SANGA-priest and the AMA.DINGIRLIM-priestess
served in the temples throughout the kingdom, as well as in rituals at open
sanctuaries. They offered food and beverages to the gods; they took care of
the divine statues and officiated in rituals on behalf of the royal family and
the people.24 The priestess is not described as slaughtering the sacrifice, as
was the priest, neither is she said to recite or pour libation, but she
participated actively in the rituals, presenting offerings to the participants
and also eating from the sacrifices. Her title clearly points to her feminine
role. Priests and priestesses were to purify themselves before festivals and
before any cultic activity. They had to be in a clean and pure state when
officiating. While the priest is described as washing, anointing and carrying
the statues of the gods, the activity traced from the texts regarding the
priestess mainly describes her as serving the gods, or just participating in
the rituals. Both of them traveled in order to participate in festivals or rituals
in different locations, although they basically belonged to a certain temple.
It has to be noted here that the king, queen, princes and princesses as priests
and priestesses also traveled within the core land of Ḫatti to take part in
important festivals at the different cult centres.
As for the GUDU-priest, he was secondary in status to the SANGA and
probably also to the AMA.DINGIRLIM, but he was definitely part of the
official priesthood, and in many rituals appeared alongside the other two.
He is described in all texts as taking part in rituals and festivals. He was
mainly a libation priest, whose roots are in the ancient Anatolian religious
traditions, and he carried the divine statues and staffs. He had strong ties
with the worship of the royal family and was a leading priest in rituals for
the prince, heir to the Hittite throne. The Hittite priests were appointed by
both the gods and the state administration and in the case of important

23
The Karaḫna text (CTH 517) numbers three SANGA-priests, one AMA.DINGIRLIM
and its total temple personnel are 775 ḫilamatta-men. Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood,
21-24.
24
Many of the texts describe the priests assisting members of the royal family
during rituals, and CTH 264 §9 includes a warning to the priests not to let the
public delay its worship to the deities.
 Hittite Priesthood … 161

temples, by the royal court, and the king himself. 25 Discharging a priest or a
priestess from their post necessitated divine approval as well. 26

2.3. The status of the Priesthood in the Hittite Kingdom

The text “Instructions to Temple Personnel” (CTH 264) sets the obligations
of the priesthood in a legal context, within the administration of the cult.27
The Hittite title for this text is išḫiul-, a term meaning the legal relations
between the Hittite king and the state administrative servants, in this case
the group of the cult personnel working at the temples. It designates temple
personnel as servants of the king and demands their loyalty to him, via the
taking of oaths.28 CTH 264 is actually the išḫiul- for the temple personnel of
Ḫattuša. Commitment of the personnel is obtained via the text which lists
all duties expected of them in their job and obliges them to take an oath
promising to fulfill those duties.29 CTH 264 incorporates other temple per-
sonnel such as the cooks, waiters, cupbearers, the shepherds and cowherds
as well as the priests. However, a large part of the text is directed at the
priesthood identified by the above-mentioned titles. This išḫiul- for the
temple personnel places them in the same position as all other servants of
the king, as part of the kingdom’s administrative workers. Their loyalty is
guaranteed by the oaths made to the gods. If they sin, punishment comes
from both the king’s law if they are caught, and from divine wrath if their
sin is revealed to the gods. CTH 264 is one of the few texts which can be
titled as išḫiul- for temple personnel. While CTH 264 is aimed at the
priesthood of the temples of Ḫattuša, there is also one for the temple in
Nerik, and one for the temple of IŠTAR in Šamuḫa. 30 In the texts for both
the Nerik and Šamuḫa priesthood, the king, as the head of the cult, directly
instructs the priests in the detailed practice of rituals.

25
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 217-226.
26
Known cases of this were basically political ones concerning the discharge of
the queen mother from her priestly role; see the cases of the dismissal of the
queen Tawananna by Muršili II and the queen Danuḫepa by Muwatalli II,
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 380-383.
27
A recent treatment of this text is found in Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 33-139;
Klinger, Instruktionen, 70-81.
28
For the instruction texts of išḫiul- see von Schuler, Dienstanweisungen. See also
a recently published reassessment by Pecchioli Daddi, išḫiul-Texte, 280-290.
29
For this group of texts called išḫiul- of the instructions category see Taggar-
Cohen, Covenant, 14-17.
30
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 179, for Nerik (KUB 31.113) and 307-308, for Šamuḫa
(KUB 32.133); compare Miller, Studies, 312-319.
162 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

The Hittite administrative texts relating to the cult reserve an important

place for the priesthood. The main reason for this is that the priesthood is an
extension of the king and queen’s servitude to the divine world. The gods
and goddesses bless the king and queen and their kingdom according to
their satisfaction with the worship they receive from their land. From the
hierarchal point of view, the king and queen are the high priests; high priest
with the title LÚSANGA and the cultic title Tabarna, and high priestess with
the title MUNUSAMA.DINGIRLIM, and the cultic title Tawananna. They
officiate as such in important religious centers around the country and dele-
gate their authority to the priesthood.31 This delegation of authority is clear
from the fact that the priesthood in the “Instructions for Temple Personnel”
(CTH 246) are directly responsible for their sins before the gods:
(§6/1, lines 64-66) “Whoever took out (some) of your divine thick bread
(or from) the libation [vessel], let you god, my lord, be [looking] after
him. Let him (i.e. the god) seize his house from bottom to top”; (§7, lines
26-29) “When afterwards it acts, the will of the gods is strong. It is not
fast to seize, but once it seizes it never lets go. Be very much afraid
(regarding) the will of the gods.”
While the temple personnel and especially the priesthood are subject to
divine judgment, they are also judged by the king himself; such is the
humiliating punishment for not fulfilling the rules for guarding the temple
(§11, lines 21-34).
The duties of the priesthood mentioned in the text cover the following
issues: (a) demands for cleansing/purification of those who handle the food
for the gods; (b) orders to celebrate the festivals to the gods at the right time
of the year; (c) the careful treatment of sacrifices; (d) the rules for guarding
the temple grounds by the priests; (e) warnings regarding the attitude of
priests to the gods they serve; that they fear the gods and do not cheat, steal
or be negligent.
The instruction texts for the temple personnel mostly relate to the tasks
of the male priests, but also mention the priestesses, and since in Hittite
language the verb may refer to both male and female, it is hard to decide
which tasks the priestesses were to fulfill, and which not. It seems to me
that the text allocates many tasks to the priestesses; while it may exclude
her from the night guard, she was to assure, together with the other priests,
that the festival in the temple was not disturbed by drunken people
(compare §11 with §12 of CTH 264).

31
For the Hittite royal priesthood king, queen, prince and princess, see Taggar-
Cohen, Priesthood, 369-383.
 Hittite Priesthood … 163

The Hittite texts also reveal that the Hittite priesthood had ancient roots
in Anatolia and had privileges mentioned in the Hittite laws (HL §50) and
other legal decrees regarding the priesthood.32 The priesthood was a
profession acquired by learning and practice, and thus was a hereditary one
which kept its traditions as well as its wealth down through the
generations.33 The priests did not live on temple grounds but had their own
houses. They were married and had families. Being a son or daughter of a
priest or a priestess was probably mentioned as an honor.
The fact that the priesthood was part of the administration of the king-
dom is clear from the collection of seals found two decades ago in Boğazköy,
at Nişantepe, which was an important administrative center in the late
period of the New Hittite kingdom. 34 From this large corpus of over three
thousand bullae, 11 percent belonged to priests or temple personnel. The
titles which appear on these bullae are all concerning males and are as
follows in Luwian Hieroglyphs: SACERDOS2 “priest” (LÚSANGA); DEUS.
DOMUS.DOMINUS “lord of the temple”? (EN É.DINGIRLIM?); PASTOR
“shepherd” (LÚNA.GAD); URCEUS “cupbearer” (LÚSÌLA.ŠU.DU8.A); the
sign L 135.2 “augur” (LÚIGI.MUŠEN); pa-ti-li (LÚpatili-priest), hi-la-mi
(LÚḫil mmi- “temple-servant”), ta-pari-tà-sa5 (LÚt prit šši- “cultic person-
nel”). Most noteworthy is the combination of the titles for one person, such
as priest and scribe, prince scribe and priest, or lord of a temple and priest.

2.4. Hittite Priesthood and Political Changes

The scope of this current article is restricted to the Hittite state priesthood,
and we have shown how the priesthood was part of the administration of the
Hittite kingdom, that is to say, priesthood employed in the temples of the
king, and under his jurisdiction. These temples were seen as the property of
the king, although everything in them belonged to the gods, as the king or
the queen dedicated all to them. 35 The priests appearing in the texts by name
are part of the bureaucratic registration. Their mention is in what we term as
32
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 203-208.
33
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 209-211. No mention of a clan name is made, as with
the Bible, but a continuation of priestly families is clear.
34
For a description of the findings see Herbordt, Seals (1998), 309-318; Herbordt,
Seals (2002), 53-60.
35
The išḫiul for the Commanders of Border Governors (CTH 261) instructs them
to list all temple equipment: “let the border commander write down the (cultic)
utensils of a deity, and let him send it before His Majesty” (KUB 13.2 ii 42-43).
The išḫiul for the temple personnel repeats time and again that everything in the
temple belongs to the gods and that temple personnel should not dare to use it or
take it for themselves (CTH 264 §8, lines 30-56).
164 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

“inventory texts”.36 When a temple was built or reconstructed, the temple

personnel were allocated to it by the central government. 37 A text indicating
the establishment of a new cult center for the goddess Zašḫapuna at Tanipiya
includes the granting of houses for the priests (CTH 321). Changes in the
cult involved the priests in direct relation to the king. Such recorded
changes are known for example for the cult center of the town of Nerik, 38
and the cult of IŠTAR in Šamuḫa. 39 Both cases indicate how the Hittite king
was involved in person with major cultic activities, while the case of
Šamuḫa could have suggested disloyalty to Tudḫaliya III on behalf of the
priesthood. Such cultic changes were connected with political changes of
which we do not always have the entire picture.40
From Hittite letters it can be seen how the Hittite Great King of Ḫattuša
was directly involved in person with issues relating to the cult in different
parts of his kingdom.41 However, above all we have no evidence that the
Hittite priesthood was in any way involved in political intrigues outside its
cultic realm. The priesthood’s committed legal administrative loyalty to the
Great King of Ḫattuša seemed to have dictated its loyal servitude.

3. The Hittite Priesthood and the Hebrew Bible

The comparative method, applied to the study of the Bible and the Ancient
Near Eastern cultures, was also applied to material from Anatolia.
Comparisons starting in the mid-20th century dealt mostly with Hittite
treaties and their place in interpreting biblical monotheism. 42 Some com-
parisons were made regarding specific cultic issues, while treatment of the

36
Hazenbos, Organization.
37
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 21-24 (for Karaḫna, CTH 517), 189 (KUB 42.100),
220-221 (KUB 12.2).
38
For a recent re-evaluation of the Nerik cult center historical evolution, during the
time of Arnuwanda I and Ḫattušili III, see Klinger, Cult, 97-109.
39
Collins, Hittites, 46 with note 52.
40
The most interesting one was the transfer of the capital from Ḫattuša to
Tarḫuntašša by Muwatalli II, who is said to have transferred the gods as well.
However, we do not have documentation on that since Tarḫuntašša has not yet
been located. See Singer, Ḫattuša, 535-541.
41
For the story of the LÚḪAL Zu-Bacala from Emar who complained to the king of
being forced to pay taxes and was exempted, see Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood,
208.
42
See research description in Weeks, Admonition, 1-12.
 Hittite Priesthood … 165

priesthood per se was actually rare.43 As described by Noel Weeks, the

issue of methodological comparison of Hittite texts and Israelite biblical
accounts challenged the Wellhausen synthesis and was therefore strongly
rejected by many.44 However, methodological difficulties did not stop
scholars from searching for comparisons, hence the publications that con-
tinue to this day.45 The formation of the Hittite Priesthood described above
allows us to suggest a comparison that would shed light on the state-
administrative position of biblical priesthood and its relations with kingship.
The study of the biblical priesthood is divided into two basic categories:
the study of its historical development from pre-monarchic Israel up to the
destruction of the second temple,46 and a study of the biblical “priestly
texts” which are divided by scholars into pre-exilic and exilic texts, repre-
senting different concepts of understanding Israelite cultic practices and
beliefs as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible. 47 In the following short discussion
I would like to offer a comparison relating to the Israelite priesthood’s
historical development as seen during the monarchic period of Israel and
Judah, and point to the possible interpretation of specific texts. 48 Obser-
vations will be made from two angles: firstly, a comparison of priestly titles
representing priestly hierarchy; secondly, through observing priestly status

43
Most comparisons deal with the cult in general, such as the research of David
Wright (see bibliography), Fauth, Beschwörungspriesterinnen, 289-318; for a
short overview of comparative publications see Hoffner, Parallels, xxix-xxxiv.
Jacob Milgrom was one of the scholars who used the comparative method with
Hittite texts more than others. The only direct comparison regarding the priest-
hood was that of J. Milgrom, which at the present time is being quoted in all
publications relating to biblical priesthood. Milgrom, Custody, 204-209. For a
discussion and critical approach to Milgrom’s comparison see Taggar-Cohen,
Covenant, 22-23.
44
Weeks, Admonition, 134-142.
45
For a short overview see Collins, Hittites, 197-223; see also the recent study by
Feder, Blood expiation.
46
This is based mainly on biblical texts and recently also on archaeological data
from the excavations in Israel. For a very early and basic study of biblical
priesthood see Cody, History. For a current presentation of biblical priesthood
see the overview by Blenkinsopp, Sage, 66-114; Stager, Archaeology, 1-35. For
a recent attempt to combine text and archeological research see Zwickel, Priest-
hood, 401-426.
47
Hence the different presentations of the priests in the sources JE, P, D (DH).
48
There is room for more comparative topics, but for the purpose of this study, it
will have to be limited. I have chosen not to touch on the practice of priesthood’s
tasks and duties, since these demand detailed discussions in each case.
166 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

as an administrative servitude to the king, it will be argued that the biblical

priesthood was like its counterpart in Anatolia: a royal servitude to the
god.49
Both priesthoods are privileged institutions within the monarchy, and as
royal administrative servants are in daily contact with the wealth of the
temples. Both are hereditary in essence although individuals of non-priestly
origin may join.50

3.1. Titles
Titles in the administrative context of Hittite officials, as shown by Suzanne
Herbordt’s study of the bullae, are indications of status and hierarchy. The
king stood at the top and important officials followed below him. It should
be noted that there was no high priest beneath the Hittite king, probably
since the king himself was the high priest. 51 Moreover, the title “priest”
belonged to officials not necessarily working daily in the temple, such as
the princes or scribes, for whom it is a secondary title, or maybe an
honorary title. 52 In the same way we find that biblical titles for the priests
do not reveal one high priest during the monarchy. 53
The Biblical Hebrew word for priest is kō ēn; the meaning of the title is
not clear. A secondary group of priests according to the Pentateuch are the
Levites, lēvi.54 The word kō ēn may be taken from Akkadian kânu Š stem to
mean “bow down, worship” or from the Hebrew root kûn “to stand”,

49
For this definition see Taggar-Cohen, Covenant, 11-17.
50
This had to be done at a young age in order to learn and master the profession as
in the case of Samuel (1Sam 3).
51
Popko, Arinna, 68, suggested that the Hittite priests titled šupp eš “holy” were
the head of the Hittite priesthood. Thus four priests from Ḫattuša, three from
Arinna and one from Zippalanda were the elite of the priesthood in the mainland
of the Hittite kingdom. Unfortunately we do not have historical records to
support this yet. The incident of the cult of IŠTAR in Šamuḫa (KUB 32.133)
may point to a different formation. When the king readdresses the disloyalty of
the priests and scribes he refers to them in the plural form as a group and there is
no mention of one high priest or even a few high priests. Note that none of their
names is mentioned.
52
The title “chief priest”, SANGA GAL, does not appear among the bullae. That is
to say it may have had importance within the temples and not regarding the royal
administration. It could also be incidental.
53
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 34-39. Aaron is secondary to Moses, under whose rules
he acts.
54
The title lēvi can be regarded as either a cultic professional title or a title for a
clan.
 Hittite Priesthood … 167

“serve” or “lay down, set forth (a sacrifice)”. 55 The word lēvi derives from
the probable meaning “accompany” “adjoined” (Num 18:2). These titles
have thus no connection with the Mesopotamian and Hittite title SANGA.
As for the description of the priests: the priests mentioned in the Bible
are identified by their name and the deity they serve, or the place they
worship, as in the Hittite texts: King Melchizedek of Salem, a priest of God
Most High (Gen 14:18); Mattan, the priest of Baal (2Kings 11:18 // 2Chr
23:17); Poti-phera, priest of On (Gen 41:45.50); Jethro, the priest of Midian
(Ex 3:1); Hophni and Pinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of YHWH
(1Sam 1:3)56; Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (Am 7:10). 57 The titles of
YHWH priests show hierarchy as follows: kō ēn gādōl “chief / high
priest” Jos 20:6; kō ēn ārōš “head priest”, and kō ēn mišne “second in
rank priest” (2Kings 23:4).
A temple functionary in Hittite texts written with the Sumerograms
LÚ
NA.GAD standing for “shepherd” and appearing also as hieroglyphic
MAGNUS.PASTOR (cun. GAL LÚNA.GAD “chief shepherd”) on three
bullae, together with the title EUNUCHUS2 (“eunuch / high official),58 can
be compared with Doeg Haedomi ’ bir ārō‘im šer leŠ ul “Saul’s chief
herdsman” (1Sam 21:8).59 In Jer 20:1 a priest is described with an additional
post: Pashur son of Immer, is titled as “the priest who was chief officer of
the House of YHWH” (pāqid nāgid bebeit YHWH). This is a combined title
as we saw in the Hittite bullae above.60
There is a puzzling description for Israelite priests during the changes
made by Jeroboam I, replacing the priesthood in two main cultic centers of
Israel. He chose priests miqṣot ācam translated “from the ranks of the
people” (JPS for 1Kings 12:31). The word qāṣe means “end, edge”; I
suggest it refers to those low-ranked among the priesthood. Since the
priestly administration in the main temples of the north was loyal to the
Judean king, he had to replace the priests. He could not choose lay people
since the work of the priests is a profession that has to be learned. He chose
“low ranked” priests who worked in the temples. This might correlate with
the Hittite title SANGA ARKŪTI.61

55
See Dommershausen, kōhēn, 66.
56
The priests of Nob are also titled priests of YHWH (1Sam 22:17).
57
See also 2Kings 10:19; 1Sam 5:5; Jer 48:7.
58
Herbordt, Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel, 94.103.
59
See already Aster, Doeg, 357-361.
60
The debated title of David’s sons as priests (2Sam 8:18) can be explained in the
same way.
61
See above footnote 11 for the meaning of the word.
168 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

Looking at the titles indicating “quality”, we find two titles, which

correlate with Hittite ones: zikne kō nim “old priests, veteran priests”
(2Kings 19:2) and kō nim mequd šim “holy, consecrated priests”
(2Chr 26:18); the Hebrew word qādōš can be compared with Hittite
šupp eš LÚMEŠ SANGA “holy priests”. The title “holy” is to be regarded
separately from “pure”, although in Hittite the word šuppi- may be
translated as “pure”.62 Hebrew has a separate word for “pure”, tā ōr, which
is actually “cultic pure” as is the Hittite parkui-.63 šuppi- like qādōš has the
descriptive state of being holy. 64 To denote making something holy, conse-
crating it, Hittite uses the form šuppi ḫḫ- and Hebrew uses the Picel form
qīddēš, thus the state of becoming holy, sacred or consecrated results being
holy or consecrated. The meat served to the gods (from the sacrifice) is
called (UZU)šupp - “consecrated, holy meat” in Hittite, in the same way as
the Hebrew term for the food of sacrifice to be eaten only by priests is
qādōš (Ex 29:33; Lev 22:10).65 The process of making the priests holy is
described in Exodus 28-29; an equivalent process is described in the in-
stallation text of a Hittite priest. However, the important act of “anoint-
ment” performed upon the Israelite priest and after which the priest received
the title kō ēn māšū (Num 3:3) is not a known form in the Hittite
text for installing a new priest.66 In Hittite we find high priests titled “holy”

62
Kloekhorst, Dictionary, 789.
63
CHD P, 164.
64
The “holy” is that which belongs to the divine sphere, to divine beings and their
activity. There is thus a difference between sanctification and purification. A
detailed study of the terminology for “holiness” and “purity” in Sumerian,
Akkadian and Hebrew can be found in Wilson, “Holiness”. For his specific
discussion of the terminology in Sumerian KÙ and Hebrew QDŠ, see Wilson,
“Holiness”, 85-91.
65
In this regard the Hittite instructions to the priests prohibited them from giving
the special bread for the gods to other people “The piantalla-bread, however, [do
not give to your wiv]es, children or female or male slaves” (CTH 264 §6/2, line 4).
66
The Levites remain “pure”, and are not called “holy”, this title is exclusively for
the priests. The installation of a Hittite priest does not indicate anointment. The
only mention of anointment was that of the king as part of the ritual of his
installation as a priest, as well as his coronation. For an edition of the Hittite text
of installation of a new priest see Taggar-Cohen, EZEN-pulaš, 127-159. The
Hittite text of installation of a new priest can be further compared with the
installation of the Levites in Num 8. For the anointment of Hittite kings see
Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 226, and Yakubovich, Kings, 107-137. The installa-
tion of the Israelite high priest in Leviticus and Exodus was compared with the
installation of the NIN.DINGIR-priestess in Emar by Klingbeil, Study. How-
ever, some biblical scholars hold the view that the anointment of the priesthood
 Hittite Priesthood … 169

as well as low-ranked priests termed “holy” LÚMEŠ SANGA TUR-TIM

šupp eš (KBo 11.46). In Exodus 29, Aaron as well as his sons are termed
and regarded as holy. This state of holiness of the Aaronide priests
separated them from the Levites, who were only in a pure state. It thus
enables them to be the only priests officiating inside the inner room of the
temple. This separates the Israelite priesthood of YHWH into two clear
groups of priests, and what separates them is graded holiness; those who
could approach the divine and those who could not. 67 This division does not
exist in the Hittite texts. The holy priests participated together with the other
cult personnel in the ritual. Thus, their holiness was a definition of their
special function.68 This difference may point to the possibility that the
graded holiness of the priests in the Pentateuch, which does not exist in
Deuteronomy and in DH texts, where the priests and Levites are termed as
kō nim- Lēvim, is indeed a later development that is part of the
evolution of the position of “high priest” of the Second Temple.

3.2. Priestly Groups, Status and Formation

Within Hittite priesthood the king and the royal family had an important
position and role, as we learn from the mentions of the king and his family’s
involvement in the cultic rituals in which they officiated in person. Israelite
kings must also be regarded as high priests of the kingdom. David,
Solomon, Jeroboam I, Ahaz, Azariah/Uzziyah all acted as priests,69 although
the texts do not name or describe them as priests, except in two cases: one
regarding the sons of David (2Sam 8:18), and the other, the very short
mention of the banishment of the Mother of Asa who is termed Gebīr
“Queen Mother”(1Kings 15:13).70 The Israelite royal family had respon-
sibilities within the cult. While the priestly title of David’s sons can be
compared with the Hittite princes who were titled priests (see above), the
banishment of the queen mother in relation to her religious role in the

in the Pentateuch is of a post-exilic origin in the need to create the king-high

priest position. Blenkinsopp, Sage, 79-80; in this regard it would make it similar
to the Hittite priesthood.
67
Jenson, Holiness, 115-148.
68
See Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 148, for a possible explanation that they received
this title for being incubation priests.
69
See Morgenstern, Chapter, 1-24; Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 76-79.
70
The Hebrew Bible excludes women from officiating in YHWH’s cult, but in
reality this may not have been so, with the mention of women in the temple
(2Kings 23:7), and professionals such as the priestess Hulda (2Kings 22:14), and
a woman from Ein-Dor (1Sam 28:7). For the status of females in Israelite cult cf.
Marsman, Women.
170 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

kingdom resembles the fear of the effect of the banishment of the Hittite
Tawananna by the Hittite kings.71 The priests, who officiated from David’s
time onwards, show their total dependency on the king. In David’s time we
have at least three prominent priests: Abiathar son of Ahimelech, Zadok,
and Azariah son of Nathan. When Abiathar was banished by Solomon for
fear of disloyalty, he was sent to Anatot, a city of priests, which means he
continued his life as a priest, but not at the court. His banishment had to be
divinely justified, as in the case of Macacha (1Kings 2:27).72
The establishment of the temple in Jerusalem, or in this context, in Bet-
El, Dan and Samaria,73 represents the establishment of royal temples and
royal priesthoods.74 These priests were royal priests, as were their counter-
parts in the Hittite kingdom, in the words of Deborah Rooke: “chief priests
who had no independent powers of leadership, and were effectively under
royal authority and responsible to the monarch in every sphere, including
the cultic sphere.”75 From the time of Ahimelech the (chief) priest of Nob,
under the first monarch Saul, the established temples functioned as royal
sanctuaries. The priests were expected in accordance to be loyal to the king.
The harsh punishment of Ahimelech and his entire family of the priests of
Nob resembles the punishment to be inflicted on the Hittite priests if they
disobeyed the king’s instructions (CTH 264 §3, lines 36-38; §6/1, lines
64-66).76
The group of cult personnel described in the Pentateuch, mainly in the
book of Numbers, suggests a division into two groups titled “priests” and
“Levites”; the relations between them is of higher and lower rank, as well as
graded holiness. The Hittite texts do not present any issue of graded holiness,
however there is a clear division within the temple personnel of three groups:

71
Ben-Barak, Status, 23-34. I still believe a comparison with the Hittite Tawa-
nanna is needed.
72
The case of the banishment of Abiathar in comparison with the banishment of
the Tawananna is most illuminating since the Hittite king had the accord of the
deity to kill her for her treachery, but he preferred to send her away rather than
kill her, as did Solomon. He did not dare to kill the priest although he killed
Adonijah and Yoab.
73
“YHWH of Šomron”, mentioned in Kuntilat cAgrud inscription KAjr 18:1, must
have had a temple in Samaria. King Ahab is mentioned as worshiping him,
although there was also a temple in the capital to Bacal (2Kings 10:8-18), as
there was also in Jerusalem (2Kings 11:18).
74
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 72-79.
75
Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 77.
76
For a study of the Nob incident in comparison to Hittite texts see Taggar-Cohen,
Loyalty, 251-268.
 Hittite Priesthood … 171

priests, kitchen attendants, who care for the preparation and serving of the
food for the gods, and the shepherds and cowherds. The priests, according
to the above description, although taken as a separate group, are adminis-
tratively included in the ḫilammatta-men, “temple personnel”77. The picture
that arises from the texts is that at the head of the cult stand the priests and
priestesses, who are responsible for cultic activity inside the temples, but
they also act outside the temples, conducting festivals at shrines outside the
city to where they carry the statues of the gods. The second group
hierarchically, the “kitchen attendants”, includes those who take care of the
food for the gods; they belong inside and outside the temples as they
officiate during the rituals, but are not priests themselves. The third group,
who are not priests either, includes those who are responsible for the
sacrificial animals.78

4. Conclusion
In this presentation of the Hittite Priesthood, a picture of the important
administrative role the priesthood maintained in the Hittite kingdom
throughout its existence has been offered. The cult was an important factor
in the economy of the state, since celebrations of the festivals and
maintenance of the cult was costly. The priesthood held an important and
vital position in running the cult and organizing it. The administrative
position of the priests set them in proximity to the gods, thus their
obligation was directly to the gods, and at the same time they were obliged
to fulfil the demands of the king as he prescribed according to the išḫiul-
texts to the priesthood.
A comparison of the Hittite and biblical priesthoods can help clarify
unclear issues in both cultures. Further study of the Hittite functionary
LÚ
ḪAL, who according to the Emar texts was a priest with large adminis-
trative roles, may shed light on whom I believe to be a model for under-
standing Samuel as a cult functionary: a prophet, a seer and a priest. Further
study of the Tawananna and the queen mother in the Israelite court may
shed new light on the concept of the queen as a priestess in the Israelite
religion.

77
In this text (CTH 517) they are termed also ḫ zziwit šši-men as they are
grouped with priests alone; see Taggar-Cohen, Priesthood, 22.24.
78
They are part of temple personnel and in iconography they can be seen leading
the ox(en) in front of the statue of the god inside the temple. See Yildirim,
Scenes, 849, fig. 3. Milgrom, Custody, determined that the Hittite priests were
divided into two groups similar to the biblical groups; however, careful reading
of the Hittite text does not support this. See Taggar-Cohen, Covenant, 22-23.
172 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

The comparison with the Hittite priesthood does not establish the
formation of biblical priesthood in the second millennium, but rather shows
how biblical Israel was part of its surrounding cultural heritage in the cultic
sphere.

Summary
The makeup of the Hittite priesthood reflects the fusion of Hittite religion out of
several different traditions. Having absorbed several religious traditions – Hattian,
Hurrian, Luwian and Hittite – the Hittite cult was sustained by a large number of
professionals of various vocations. The Hittite texts enable us to draw a picture of
the main priestly titles and their functions, as well as to understand the relationships
of the priests with the temples on the one hand, and with the royal administration
and royal family on the other. In its first part this paper portrays the Hittite
priesthood as “state controlled”; in its second part it offers a comparison with the
Bible, highlighted in two main aspects: one being the status of the priesthood in
biblical texts, and the other is the way in which priestly activities are portrayed. The
division of the Biblical priesthood into hierarchical titles and groups is set against
the Hittite evidence, as well as the total loyalty demanded from the priesthood to the
king as seen for example in the story of the priesthood of Nob.

Zusammenfassung
Die Komplexität des hethitischen Priestertums resultiert aus der Zusammensetzung
der hethitischen Religion aus unterschiedlichen Traditionen – hattisch, hurritisch,
luwisch und hethitisch. Dadurch wurde der hethitische Kult durch eine große Zahl
religiöser Spezialisten mit unterschiedlichen Qualifikationen und Ausrichtungen
geprägt. Die hethitischen Texte ermöglichen uns, die wichtigen Titel der Priester
sowie deren Funktionen zu skizzieren, genauso ist es dadurch möglich, die Bezie-
hung der Priester zu den Tempeln auf der einen Seite und zur Verwaltung und zur
königlichen Familie auf der anderen Seite zu verstehen. Der erste Teil des Beitrags
behandelt das Priestertum als staatlich kontrollierte und ausgerichtete Einrichtung,
der zweite Teil stellt Vergleiche zur Bibel an, wobei vor allem zwei hauptsächliche
Aspekte hervorgehoben werden: einerseits der Status des Priestertums in biblischen
Texten, andererseits die Art wie priesterliche Aktivitäten beschrieben werden. Die
Einteilung des biblischen Priestertums mit hierarchischen Titeln und Gruppen wird
dabei dem Befund hethitischer Texte gegenübergestellt; die Beziehung und gefor-
derte Loyalität des Priestertums zum Königshaus wird anhand der Erzählung über
die Priesterschaft in Nob besprochen.

Bibliography
Arıkan, Y., An Official in Hittite Cult: LÚtazzelli-, in: Groddek, D. / Zorman, M.
(eds.), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65.
Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 2007, 33-58.
 Hittite Priesthood … 173

Aster, S.Z., What was Doeg the Edomite’s Title? Textual Emendation Versus a
Comparative Approach to 1 Samuel 21:8, in: JBL 122 (2003) 353-361.
Ben-Barak, Z., The Status and Right of the G B R , in: JBL 110 (1991) 23-34.
Blenkinsopp, J., Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient
Israel, Louisville, KY 1995.
Cody, A., A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Rome 1969.
Collins, B.-J., The Hittites and Their World, Atlanta, GA 2007.
Dommershausen, W., kōhēn, in: TDOT 7, 1995, 66-75.
Fauth, W., Hethitische Beschwörungspriesterinnen – Israelitische Propheten. Diffe-
rente Phänotypen magischer Religiosität in Vorderasien, in: Dietrich, M. / Kott-
sieper, I. (eds.), „Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf“. Studien zum Alten Testa-
ment und zum Alten Orient, FS für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70.
Lebensjahres (AOAT 250), Münster 1998, 289-318.
Feder, Y., Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Rituals, Atlanta, GA 2011.
Güterbock, H.G., The Hittite Temple According to Written Sources, in: CRRAI,
Leiden 1992, 125-132.
Hawkins, J.D., Commentaries on the Readings, in: Herbordt, S., Die Prinzen- und
Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Großreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nisan-
tepe-Archiv in Hattusa (BoḪa 19), Mainz 2005, 248-313.
Hazenbos, J., The Organization of the Anatolian Local Cults During the Thirteenth
Century B.C.: An appraisal of the Hittite cult inventories, Leiden 2003.
Herbordt, S., Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Großreichszeit auf
Tonbullen aus dem Nisantepe-Archiv in Hattusa (BoḪa 19), Mainz 2005.
Herbordt, S., Seals and Sealings from the Nisantepe-Archive, Bogazköy. A Prosopo-
graphical Study, in: Yener, K.A. / Hoffner, H.A. (eds.), Recent Developments in
Hittite Archaeology and History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock,
Winona Lake, IN 2002, 53-60.
Herbordt, S., Seals and Sealings of Hittite Officials from the Nisantepe-Archive,
Bogazköy, in: Alp, S. / Süel, A. (eds.), III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri.
Çorum 16-22 Eylül 1996, Ankara 1998, 309-318.
Hoffner, H.A., A Brief Commentary on the Hittite Illuyanka Myth (CTH 321), in:
Roth, M.T. et al. (eds.), Studies Presented to Robert Biggs June 4, 2004 (AS 27),
Chicago, IL 2007, 119-140.
Hoffner, H.A., Hittite-Israelite cultural parallels, in: Hallo, W.W. / Younger, K.L.
(eds.), The Context of Scripture, III, Leiden 2002, xxix-xxxiv.
Jenson, Ph. P., Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World
(JSOT.S 106), Sheffield 1992.
Klingbeil, G., A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as found in Leviti-
cus 8 and Emar 369, Lewiston, NY 1998.
Klinger, J., The Cult of Nerik – Revisited, in: Pecchioli Daddi, F. / Torri, G. / Corti,
C. (eds.), The Central-North Anatolia in Hittite Period. New Perspectives at the
Light of Recent Excavations, Roma 2009, 97-109.
Klinger, J., Instruktionen und Verwandtes, in: Kaiser, O. (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt
des Alten Testaments. Ergänzungslieferung, Gütersloh 2001, 70-81.
Klinger, J., Priester, in: RLA 10, 2003-2005, 640-643.
174 Ada Taggar-Cohen – BN NF 156 (2013)

Klinger, J., Zum ‘Priestertum’ im hethitischen Anatolien, in: Hethitica 15 (2002) 93-
111.
Kloekhorst, A., Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden
2008.
Marsman, H.J., Women in Ugarit and Israel: their social and religious position in the
context of the ancient Near East (OTS 49), Leiden 2003.
McMahon, G., Theology, Priests, and Worship in Hittite Anatolia, in: Sasson, J.C.
(ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, New York 1995, 1981-1995.
Milgrom, J., The Shared Custody of the Tabernacle and a Hittite Analogy, in: JAOS
90 (1970) 204-209.
Miller, J.L., The katra/i-women in the Kizzuwatnean Rituals from Hattuša, in:
Parpola, S. / Whiting, R.M. (eds.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East:
Proceedings of the 47th RAI, Helsinki 2002, 423-432.
Miller, J.L., Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzu-
watna Rituals (StBoT 46), Wiesbaden 2004.
Morgenstern, J., A Chapter in the History of the High-Priesthood, in: AJSL 55
(1938) 1-24.
Nelson, R.D., Raising Up A Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical
Theology, Louisville, KY 1993.
Pecchioli Daddi, F., Die mittelhethitischen išḫiul-Texte, in: AoF 32 (2005) 280-290.
Pecchioli Daddi, F., Mestieri, professioni e dignitá nell’Anatolia ittitta, Roma 1982.
Pecchioli Daddi, F., Il vincolo per i governatori di provincial (Studia Mediterranea
14), Pavia 2003.
Popko, M., Arinna: Eine heilige Stadt der Hethiter (StBoT 50), Wiesbaden 2009.
Popko, M., Noch zu den hethitischen arkuti-Priestern, in: JANER 4 (2004) 71-74.
Popko, M., Die Priester von Arinna, in: Richter, T. / Prechel, D. / Klinger, J. (eds.),
Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburts-
tag. Saarbrücken 2001, 327-331.
Popko, M., Religions of Asia Minor, Warsaw 1995.
Popko, M., Zippalanda: Ein Kultzentrum im hethitischen Kleinasien (THeth 21),
Heidelberg 1994.
Rooke, D., Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in
Ancient Israel, Oxford 2000.
Sallaberger, W. / Huber Vulliet, F., Priester. Mesopotamia, in: RLA 10, 2003-2005,
617-640.
Schuler, E. von, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen für höhere Hof- und Staatsbeamte
(AfO.B 10), Graz 1957.
Singer, I., From Ḫattuša to Tarḫuntašša: some thoughts on Muwatalli’s Reign, in:
Alp, S. / Süel, A. (eds.), III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri. Çorum
16-22 Eylül 1996, Ankara 1998, 535-541.
Stager, L.E., The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel, in: BASOR 260
(1985) 1-35.
Taggar-Cohen, A., Biblical covenant and Hittite išḫiul re-examined, in: VT 61
(2011) 1-28.
Taggar-Cohen, A., “The EZEN-pulaš – A Hittite Installation Rite of a New Priest in
light of the Installation of dIM Priestess in Emar,” in: JANER 2 (2002) 127-159.
 Hittite Priesthood … 175

Taggar-Cohen, A., Political Loyalty in the Biblical Account of 1 Samuel xx–xxii in

Light of Hittite Texts, in: VT 55 (2005) 251-268.
Taggar-Cohen, A., The NIN.DINGIR in the Hittite Kingdom: A Mesopotamian
priestly office in Hatti?, in: AoF 33 (2006) 313-327.
Taggar-Cohen, A., Covenant Priesthood: A Cross-Cultural Legal and Religious
Study of Biblical and Hittite Priesthood in: Leuchter, M. / Hutton, J. (eds.),
Priests and Levites in History and Tradition, Atlanta, GA 2011, 11-24.
Taggar-Cohen, A., Hittite Priesthood (THeth 26), Heidelberg 2006.
Taggar-Cohen, A., Violence at the Birth of Religion: Exodus 19-40 in Light of
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, in: Journal of the Interdisciplinary Study of Mono-
theistic Religions 1 (2005) 101-116.
Weeks, N., Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant
Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships, London 2004.
Wilson, J.E., “Holiness” and “Purity” in Mesopotamia (AOAT 237), Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1994.
Wright, D.P., Analogy in Biblical and Hittite Ritual, in: Janowski, B. / Koch, K. /
Wilhelm, G. (eds.), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien,
Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament im 2. und 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend
(OBO 129), Fribourg 1993, 473-506.
Wright, D.P., The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite
and Mesopotamian Literature, Atlanta, GA 1987.
Wright, D.P., The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite
Literature, in: JAOS 106 (1986) 433-446.
Wright, D.P., The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity, in: Anderson, G.A. / Olyan, S.M.
(eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOT.S 125), Sheffield 1991, 150-
181.
Yakubovich, I., Were Hittite Kings Divinely Anointed?, in: JANER 5 (2005) 107-137.
Yildirim, T., New scenes on the second relief vase from Hüseyindede and their
interpretation in light of the Hittite representative art, in: Studi Micenei ed Egeo-
Anatolici 60 (2008) 837-850.
Zwickel, W., Priesthood and the Development of Cult in the Books of Kings, in:
Lemaire, A. / Halpern, B. (eds.), The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition,
Historiography and Reception (VT.S 129), Leiden 2010, 401-426.

Prof. Dr. Ada Taggar-Cohen

Doshisha University
Kamigyo-ku
Kyoto 602-8580
Japan
E-Mail: [email protected]