How to spot a Canaanite

      How to spot a  Canaanite

       We are all very well aware that the Patriarchs were promised possession of the land of the Canaanites.  The Canaanites were to be dispossessed because of the moral and religious abominations that they practiced.  Moreover the Torah commands us to destroy (cherem) the Canaanites as well as the other indigenous nations. 

        The question then arises- how was one to recognize a Canaanite?  One would hope that if this mitzvah were fulfilled (and it is questionable based on verses in Joshua and Judges whether there was ever wholesale destruction of the people of Canaan). Were the genetically different?  Or were the distinguished linguistically, or by dress or by religious practice.  The latter would seem to be the sin qua non of being Canaanite- at least according to the Torah and the prophets.

       For the Israelites arriving in Canaan after the exodus the task of identifying the Canaanite people was perhaps easier than for later generations.  It is unlikely that Bnei Yisrael having been in Egypt for several hundred years would have spoken the same dialect as the people who were in Canaan during that time.  Also the tribal society of the Israelites was a world away from the more urbanized Canaanites.

      But looking a few hundred years down the road to the time of the United monarchy, a time when the Israelites had become more urbanized and there had been a few centuries for the two peoples to resemble each other in speech and dress, what would be a distinguishing sign that someone was or was not an Israelite (aside from the obvious tribal affiliation- whether names or behavioral signs).

It is obvious from Joshua 9 and Judges 1 that the Canaanites continued to live among the Israelites.  In what capacity did they remain?  There are several verses that may shed light.  In the story of Noach in Breishit 9: 21-27 Noach curses Canaan.  The story itself is fascinating in that it should have been Ham who was cursed ( a topic for another day), but the word that is mentioned several time is eved (slave).  Canaan will be a slave to Shem and Japhet.  In the above-mentioned chapters in Joshua and Judges the Canaanites who could not be driven out are to be tributaries (slaves or forced laborers). Finally during the reign of Solomon the forced laborers (1Kings 9:20-21) are the Amorites and other indigenous people “to this day”.

      In conclusion , besides the obvious religious differences ( it is thought that at least some of the bamot ( the high places) were previously related to Canaanite cult places) at some point in  first Temple period the Canaanites were a lower economic and social class of forced laborers.  The fact that the prophets hardly make mention of them after the eight century would seem to indicate that by that time they were no longer a significant factor either socially of religiously ( The use of the word Canaanite in Ezra 9 and Nechemiah 9 deserves further thought but most likely refers to “aboriginal inhabitants”)

2 Kings 18-19

3 Sides to the Story

     The story of the siege of Jerusalem by Sancheirev( Sennacherib) king of Assyria during the reign of Chizkiayu (Hezekiah) has to rank as one of greatest miracles in the Tanach.  As Sennacherib is campaigning in Judah, he finally comes to Jerusalem and lays siege to it.  After consulting with Yeshayahu (Isaiah) he is reassured that the Assyrians will not conquer the city.  Sure enough that night an angel of the Lord smites the Assyrians and 185,000 of their soldiers die.  The Assyrian king turns and goes back to Nineveh and is assassinated as per the prophets prediction.

      This is certainly a miracle to rival the splitting of the sea in Egypt.  Yet there is a parallel source in Assyrian records which describes the same event.  The Assyrian archives record that he took many fortified cities in Judah, how the king of Jerusalem was locked in his city like a bird in a cage, and how a large tribute of gold and silver was sent to Nineveh as the price for leaving the city intact.  

       Certainly here are two divergent accounts. It is well known that kings tend to exaggerate their achievements.  On the other hand, should the biblical account be taken at face value?  In order to sort out what transpired we should first consider the elements that are common to both stories.  Four points are common to both accounts.  1. Sennacherib conquered many cities in Judah.  2. A siege of Jerusalem occurred.  3. A large tribute of silver and gold was paid to the Assyrians.  4. Sennacherib removed the siege from Jerusalem.

     These are the common points and it would be reasonable to accept the reality of these points.  The main point of disagreement is killing of the 185,000 troops.  Of course one would not expect the Assyrians to record this type of defeat  much as we would not expect the Egyptians to record the humiliating defeat they suffered at the hands of the God of Israel.  

     However, on close examination of the biblical account two distinct threads can be discerned.  In 18:13-16 the story basically plays out.  Hezekiah having rebelled against Assyria gets second thoughts.  He asks forgiveness and makes at least a partial payment of his obligation.  This should have been the end of the incident leading right into 19:36.   The tone of the verses from 18:17 on imply a Israelite king who is still defiant, and possibly still besieged.  Why would the Assyrians continue to attack Jerusalem after they had gotten what they wanted anyway?  To teach a pesky vassal a lesson? Perhaps.  But maybe we should consider a conflation of two sources- one a historiographic one and a second prophetic source which complement each other.  Another possibility is the suggestion of some modern scholars who postulate two separate campaigns by Sennacherib- one in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah and a second one near the end of Sennecheribs  reign.  This would connect Isaiah's prophecy of the death of Sennacherib close in time to verse 19:37.  This two campaign theory is problematic because Hezekiah reigned until 698 BCE and Sennacherib reigned until 680 BCE.

     In any event this pericope is a good exercise  in evaluating contrasting sources.

The United Monarchy- Utopian ideal or failed reality

We are taught from our very first exposure to Tanach that Yaakov's twelve sons were progenitors of the twelve tribes that became the nation of Israel- Bnei Yisrael( literally the "Sons of Israel"- Israel of course being Yaakovs other name.).  The question is whether this was the "natural" state of the polity in Eretz Yisrael.  Were the twelve tribes always a cohesive unit only to be torn in two by the secession of the Northern kingdom under Jeroboam.   Perhaps this is an idyllic notion.  Certainly the unity of the tribes is stressed by Moshe in Bamidbar and Devarim when the tribes of Reuben, Gad  and Menashe stake a claim on the other side of the Jordan river.
In the book of Yehoshua the incident of the trans Jordanian altar reinforces the unity of the tribes.  After that, however , it appears that each tribe looks after its own interests.  So that in the war against Yavin, king of Hazor only some of the tribes participate.  And so it is throughout the book of Judges.  Each story is localized to a particular tribe or few tribes.  This culminates in the civil war with Binyomin at the end of Shofetim.  It is only under the kingship of Shaul, Dovid and Shlomo that the tribe are united for about 100 years.  When the 10 northern tribes secede under Yeravam, the idealistic union of 12 shevatim is forever torn apart.  So if we use the figure of the Tanach of 480 years from the exodus until the dedication of the first Temple( or 440 years from the entry into Canaan) and assume the Temple stood for 410 years- we see that the tribal confederation lasted 100 out of about 700 years, the North falling to the Assyrians in 722.  ( Personally I find it difficult to take  literally  the number 480 but consider it a starting point for calculation.)  So purely from a percentage of time one would have difficulty calling the tribal confederation a strong establishment.  The Tanach also notes differences in modes of worship of HaShem by the northern and Southern kingdoms.  Whether this is the result of separation geographically from Yehudah or the proximity of some of the Northern tribes to the Phoenicians is hard to say.