| "So, what´s new in the land of Canaan?" |
An interesting little essay on the identity of the Biblical Canaanites, Amorites and Hittites. Their true identity turns out to be...no identity. All terms seem to be exonyms, they are used too late on the "Biblical" timeline to be accurate names for actual people´s during the time of Moses, and they are frequently contradictory anyway. Note also the discussion of the apologetic claim about the Hittite Empire somehow "proving" the Bible - I heard that one, too.
"Canaan" can refer to a number of different areas even in the Bible, including Phoenicia. Likewise, the Hebrew word for "Canaanite" is similar to the ditto word for "merchant", and Bible translators aren´t always sure which one is intended. Indeed, "merchant" could also be a reference to "ethnic" Phoenicians. In Egyptian sources, the Israelites are treated as just another Canaanite group. It´s well established in archeology that this was indeed the case. The Israelites were native to the territory much later known as Palestine, rather than invaders from outside.
"Amurru" is simply the Assyrian designation of Palestine and Transjordan, while "Hittite-land" doesn´t refer to the Hittite Empire in Anatolia, but to later Neo-Hittite kingdoms further south or even to Palestine itself. The writers of the Pentateuch appropriated these terms, perhaps when they had gone out of fashion completely, to give their scripture an archaic look, when in fact the terms weren´t near archaic enough.
While all this is of course interesting, one thought I can´t get out of my mind is: Why do we bother at all? Who cares about Bronze Age and Iron Age tribes and kingdoms in the Middle East, anyway? Of course, I know the answer: a small religious sect from "Canaan" eventually became a world religion. So now everyone has to give a damn about the identity of Canaanites, Amorites and Hittites. Go figure.
No comments:
Post a Comment