A region generally identified with the landmass between
ancient Syria and Egypt, including parts of the Sinai Peninsula,
Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and southern
Phoenicia (modern Lebanon). Although there is some discussion about
the origin of the name “Canaan” and its meaning, the name
apparently arises from the primary inhabitants of the region prior to
Joshua’s incursion into the land, since it is primarily used in
connection with the phrase “the land of,” indicating that
the descendants of Canaan possess it. Because the identity of the
land of Canaan was linked as much to its inhabitants as it was to any
sort of fixed borders, the boundaries are identified in various ways
throughout the biblical text. Such descriptions vary from a rather
limited area of influence (as suggested by Num. 13:29) to a larger
land spanning an area from the Euphrates to the Nile (Gen. 15:18;
Exod. 23:23). Because of its strategic position as a buffer between
Egypt and Mesopotamia and between Arabia and the sea, it served as a
primary trading outpost and the location of numerous important
historical events both prior to and after Israel’s appearance
in the land.
In
the Bible, the geographical reference “the land of Canaan”
finds primary expression, not surprisingly, in Genesis through
Judges. The promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the
land of the Canaanites (Gen. 15:18–21) is the theological focal
point of the uses of the term “Canaan” throughout these
biblical books. Once that inheritance was achieved and Israel became
a viable state, the term’s use seems to serve the double
purpose of being both a geographical marker and a reminder of the
nature of its former predominant inhabitants. The prophets drew upon
the term to remind Israel of the land’s former status, both in
its positive (Isa. 19:18) and negative (Isa. 23:11; Zeph. 2:5)
connotations. The term is transliterated twice in the NT in the
recounting of OT history (Acts 7:11; 13:19). One further connection
between Canaan and the perspectives communicated concerning it in the
OT is the apparent association of the land with corrupt trade
practices. That is, while some believe that the word “Canaan”
always meant “merchant” or some similar word, its use in
Scripture suggests that the tradesmen of Canaan were of such
disrepute in the recollection of ancient Israel that the term became
a synonym for “unjust trader” (Job 41:6; Ezek. 16:29;
17:4; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21).
History
The
proximity of Canaan to Egypt meant that from its earliest periods it
found itself beholden to the pharaohs of Egypt. The Egyptian
Execration texts from the Old Kingdom era tell of Egypt’s
influence over Canaan in the early second millennium. After the
expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, the pharaohs of the New Kingdom
asserted their control over the land. Most famous among these records
is Thutmose III’s account of his defeat of Megiddo through
the implementation of both cunning and skill. This same pharaoh would
establish a system of dividing Canaan and its inhabitants for
taxation and administration that would be so successful that Solomon
would reimplement the same system during his reign (1 Kings
4:7–19). Even in the weaker days of Egypt following the New
Kingdom, pharaohs such as Necho and Shishak and their successors the
Ptolemies would often seek to revisit the days of glory in campaigns
into Canaan.
In
addition to Egypt, other outside forces found their way into Canaan
and exerted influence on its development. The earliest settlers seem
to have come from Mesopotamia, and Semitic influence is witnessed as
early as 3000 BC. In the period between Egypt’s control of
Canaan during the Old Kingdom and its later reassertion after
expelling the Hyksos, Canaan witnessed a massive influx of Amorites
from the north and also incursions by the Hittites and the Hurrians.
As Egypt’s power waned toward the end of the New Kingdom, the
Philistines came in from the sea and the Israelites from across the
Jordan. All these societies were absorbed into the Canaanite culture
or were themselves modified by the Canaanites. Israelite success in
removing mention of the Canaanites as an identifiable entity would
not be firmly established until late in the eighth century under
Hezekiah.
The
story of Israel’s predominance in the area of Canaan begins, of
course, with the infiltration into the land under Joshua and persists
until the fall of the temple in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans.
During that period, Canaan endured as a place of importance as a
staging ground for controlling both Mesopotamia and Egypt and
therefore witnessed campaigns by most of the great leaders of
Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Of course, with each
campaign came alterations in both the political and the cultural
landscape of the land and reinforcement of the view that the area was
the center of the world. Indeed, it is in Canaan, in the Jezreel
Valley, that Scripture turns its focus for the final battle between
God and the forces of Satan at Armageddon.
Geography
and Climate
Geography.
Though small in scope, the region of Canaan encompassed a
surprisingly wide variety of environments. Within its topography one
could find perilous deserts, snow-capped mountains, thick forests,
lush plains, coastal beaches, rugged hills, deep valleys, and
separate water sources full of both life and minerals. The Shephelah,
or coastal plain, lacks any natural harbor areas that would have led
to the early exploitation of the Mediterranean in the south that is
so well known in the northern areas of Phoenicia. It does, however,
provide wide-open, fertile areas fed by the rain runoff from the
central hill country, which allowed it to be a useful source of
farming and civilization from a very early period.
The
central hill country is essentially a ridge that runs parallel to the
coast and undulates in elevation from the mountainous north to the
rugged but less elevated regions of the south. This ridge served as a
natural barrier against travel from west to east, so it is not
surprising that important military towns such as Hazor cropped up in
places where valleys in this ridge allowed travelers to move from the
coast to the inland regions as necessary to reach Mesopotamia from
Egypt. One such valley of significance through the history of the
land of Canaan is the Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley. It provides a wide
swath of land that moves from Akko in the west ( just
north of the Carmel Range) to the Sea of Galilee in the east, with
access points in the north and south. Within this valley were
settlements such as Megiddo and Hazor in earlier times, and Nazareth
and Tiberias in later times.
Along
the eastern edge of the central hill country is the Jordan Rift
Valley. The elevation drops dramatically from cities in the hill
country, such as Jerusalem at about 2,500 feet above sea level, to
cities in the valley, such as Jericho at about 1,000 feet below sea
level, within the span of about fifteen miles. The valley itself is
part of a much larger rift that starts in southeast Turkey and
continues all the way to Mozambique in Africa. Waters from snowy
Mount Hermon and a couple of natural springs feed into the Sea of
Galilee and then flow into the Jordan River, which snakes its way
down into the Dead Sea. The lands around the Jordan River were once
very fertile in the north and probably included abundant forests and
wildlife. Toward the south of the Jordan River, one approaches the
wilderness surrounding the Dead Sea, a region well known for its
mineral contents.
The
southernmost section of Canaan, known as the Negev, is an unforgiving
region with mountains, deserts, and interspersed oases throughout. It
opens up into the Arabian Desert to the east and the Sinai Peninsula
to the southwest. Its primary cities of importance in biblical times
were Beersheba and Raphia. As the gateway from Egypt to Canaan, the
Negev played a significant role in biblical history.
Climate.
The climate of Canaan played a significant role in its religion and
history. It is generally recognized that climate change played a
rather momentous role in population movements by nomads, in
destabilization of powerful governments, and in the capability, or
lack thereof, of nations to participate in the trade that was at the
heart of Canaan’s growth, spread of influence, and success.
Within Canaan itself, because the natural water sources were on the
wrong side of the central hill country, most of its water came from
rainfall. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the
discussions that take place in both Canaanite and Israelite religious
expressions concerning the power of their gods found utterance in
terms of a god’s ability to grant rain (see 1 Kings
17–18). The rainy season began in October and typically
continued through April. The other months of the year witnessed
little or no rainfall. Although in a temperate zone within which one
might expect high temperatures, the coastal plains were kept
relatively cool by winds coming in off the sea. The coastal mountain
areas, such as Carmel, were the most likely to receive rainfall, so
when they were without it, all the land suffered (Amos 1:2).
Culture
and Politics
The
history of Canaan begins with an archaeological record that travels
back into the first signs of human settlement anywhere in the world.
Such early attestation exists within the confines of Palestine itself
at Jericho and Megiddo, both sites of natural springs that would have
attracted settlers. The pre-Israelite civilizations of Canaan are
well attested during the Bronze Age (c. 3300–1200 BC). Their
culture as represented in the art and architecture of the land
demonstrates a developed people who were metropolitan in taste and
gifted in style. Furthermore, because of the placement of the land
between Egypt and Mesopotamia and the numerous incursions by outside
forces throughout its history, Canaan reveals a people with a high
tolerance for change and a willingness to absorb other viewpoints
into their perspectives and practice. Archaeological finds reveal a
mixture of Egyptian, Sumerian, Amorite, Hittite, and Akkadian
influences in their literature, material wealth, and religion.
Though
unified in terms of a worldview and religious expression, the people
of Canaan were politically committed to independent expressions of
their power and influence. The greater cities seem to have served as
hubs around which smaller communities and cities organized and
remained separate from each other. The Amarna letters of the
fourteenth century BC reveal leaders who did not trust each other and
who sought the Egyptian pharaoh’s favor as they vied for
position and strength. As one would expect, different city-states
held more sway in different eras. Ebla flourished in the period of
2500–2000 BC and then again around 1800 BC. Likewise, Byblos
flourished in the period of 2500–1300 BC. It is in the Middle
Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) that cities more directly involved
with the biblical narrative started to flourish. For instance,
Jerusalem, Jericho, Hazor, and Megiddo reached their height of power
and influence around 1700–1500 BC, and each of these is
mentioned in various texts of the time that give us some insight into
Canaan’s role in the greater political history. It is
Ugarit/Ras Shamra, which flourished in 1400–1200 BC, however,
that has granted us the greatest amount of textual knowledge and
information about the religion and literature of Canaan.
Religion
The
excavations of Ras Shamra (beginning in 1929), and the accompanying
discovery of its archive of clay tablets, granted modern scholars a
perspective into Canaanite religion that had been hinted at in the
biblical text but previously had remained somewhat of a mystery. The
tablets themselves date between 1400 and 1200 BC. They reveal a
highly developed religion with identifiable, well-defined deities.
These deities represent religious practice and thought in the region
that go back to at least 2000 BC, and the Mesopotamian religions they
are dependent on go back well beyond that.
Canaanite
deities.
The
primary gods identified in the text include El, Baal, Asherah (at
Ugarit, Athirat), Anath (at Ugarit, Anat), and Ashtoreth (at Ugarit,
Astarte). El was the supreme Canaanite deity, though in popular use
the people of Canaan seem to have been more interested in Baal.
The
relationship between the Canaanite use of the name “El”
for their supreme god and Israel’s use of the same in reference
to its own God (Gen. 33:20; Job 8:3; Pss. 18:31, 33, 48; 68:21) is
something that biblical authors used at various points in their
writings (Ps. 81:9–10; Nah. 1:2), never in the sense of
associating the two as one and the same, but solely for the purpose
of distinguishing their God, Yahweh, from any associations with the
descriptions and nature of the Canaanite El (Exod. 34:14).
Practically speaking, the coincidence probably resulted from the fact
that the Hebrew word ’el had a dual intent in its common usage,
similar to the way a modern English speaker will sometimes use “god”
as either a common or a proper noun.
Like
“El,” the term “Baal” had a dual function in
its use. Because the word means “master” or “lord,”
the people of Canaan could apply “Baal” to either the
singular deity of the greater pantheon or to individual gods of a
more local variety. Local manifestations included Baal-Peor,
Baal-Hermon, Baal-Zebul, and Baal-Meon. The OT acknowledges the
multiplicity of Baals in some places (Judg. 2:11; 3:7; 1 Sam.
7:4) but also seems to allude to a singular ultimate Baal (1 Kings
18; 2 Kings 21:3), called “Baal-Shamen” or
“Baal-Hadad” elsewhere. The fact that Baal was recognized
in the Ugaritic texts as the god of the thunderbolt adds an
interesting insight to the struggle on Mount Carmel, in which one
would suppose that had he been real, the one thing he should have
been able to do was bring fire down from the sky; but he could not
(1 Kings 18). Recognition that the term “Baal” could
refer to a number of gods or to one ultimate god may also help one
understand the syncretism that took place in Israel between Yahweh
and Baal addressed by the prophet Hosea (Hos. 2:16). To the common
person who recognized the multiplicity of the term “Baal”
and yet also heard of his supremacy, the assignment of the name to
Yahweh and the resulting combining that would occur would seem a
natural progression, though still sinful in the eyes of God.
The
synthesis of Baal and Yahweh is demonstrated in Scripture as being a
temptation from national Israel’s earliest encounters with
Baalism. The events at Peor (Num. 25) demonstrate a propensity toward
this type of activity, but the confusion between Yahweh and Baal
became strongest once Israel entered into the land. Gideon had a
second name, “Jerub-Baal” (Judg. 6:32), and the people
themselves worshiped Baal-Berith (“Baal of the covenant”)
as an indication that they believed their covenant to be with Baal,
not Yahweh. Saul, Jonathan, and David all had sons named for Baal:
Esh-Baal, Merib-Baal, and Beeliada respectively. Jeroboam I made
the connection even more explicit in his setting of shrines at Dan
and Bethel with the golden calves that were common icons for Baal in
the era, but that he apparently viewed as being appropriate
representations of Yahweh. By the time of the prophets, such
confusion evidently was entrenched into the very heart of both Israel
and Judah; however, Yahweh was able to utilize the false assessments
of his character to clarify his true character and ultimately bring
Israel back to him.
Asherah
was the wife of El in Ugaritic mythology, but apparently because of
Baal’s accessibility and ubiquitous nature, she was ultimately
given to Baal as a consort among Canaanites in the south. Apparently,
her worship was also linked to trees, and the mentioning of “Asherah
poles” (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; Judg. 6:25) in Scripture
suggests that such a linkage had been stylized into representative
trees at sacred locations. Asherah had prophets (1 Kings 18:19)
and specific instruments of worship in Israel (2 Kings 23:4) and
became so ensconced in practice and thought that her form often was
replicated in the form of items known as Asherim. The previously
mentioned synthesis between Baal and Yahweh seems also to have found
expression regarding Asherah within Israel. At Kuntillet Ajrud a
famous graffito reads “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.”
This example of the people granting a consort to Yahweh is yet
another instance where the biblical revelation is so distinct among
surrounding cultures because of the absence of such imagery regarding
God.
Anath
was understood as both Baal’s sister and his lover in Canaanite
mythology. Given her apparent replacement in the thought of the
southern Canaanite tribes by Asherah, it is not surprising that the
only place we find Anath mentioned is in appellations, such as “Beth
Anath” (lit., “the house of Anath” [Josh. 19:38;
Judg. 1:33]). She also seems to have played a role in the tone of
Baal worship in that she functioned as a goddess of both warfare and
sexuality. Her portrayal in Ugaritic texts and in inscriptions from
Egypt suggests a lasciviousness that has become the defining
characteristic of Canaanite worship and also seems to be at the
center of the methodology implemented by Hosea to reach Israel, which
had become ensnarled in a similar outlook regarding Yahweh (Hos.
1–3).
The
descriptions of Ashtoreth at Ugarit portray her in much the same
light as Anath. Some cultures such as Egypt and later Syria seem to
have even melded them together into one being. Whether this combining
was a part of the Israelite conceptions is difficult to determine,
although such a combination may explain why only Ashtoreth is
mentioned in the biblical text as an individual deity and not Anath.
In any case, Ashtoreth apparently was a primary figure in the
corruption of worship during the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:5,
33; 2 Kings 23:13).
Summary.
By the time the Israelites entered the land, they found a religion
that was already well established and accustomed to absorbing various
viewpoints into its expression and practice. Additionally, they found
a religion that catered to the more base and animalistic tendencies
to which all humanity is drawn since the fall. The commonality of
such practices among almost all ancient cultures serves as a potent
reminder of the distinctiveness and power of the biblical worldview.
The narratives, poems, and prophetic oracles of the OT demonstrate a
knowledge of these beliefs and an acknowledgment of their place in
the lives of everyday Israelites, but they never demonstrate a
submission to them in their portrayal of the true God and his
expectations of his people.
