I. It is extremely difficult to draw any distinction between the remaining members of the Canaanitish group. As described in the early books of the Old Testament, they have a general family likeness. They are described as living in a state of political disintegration, the combined result of the Semitic love of independence and of the varied conformation of the soil. Thirty-one of their petty kings are mentioned in Josh. xii. 9-24, including the king of Hazor (afterwards reckoned to Naphtali), whose realm, in Judg. xi. 10, is called “the chief of all those kingdoms.” We find, indeed,*a king of Bezek claiming to have enslaved “seventy” of the surrounding reguli (Judg. i. 7), but this is an altogether exceptional event, for which the loosening of authority produced by the guerilla warfare of the Israelites sufficiently accounts. Yet the isolation of the Canaanites can never have been complete. Like the Phoenicians, they will have had their federations, as appears to be implied by the title Baal-berith, or “Baal of the Covenant” (Judg. viii. 33); and hieroglyphic inscriptions tell of their alliances with the Khita or Hittites against their Egyptian suzerains. Indeed, the rebellious tendencies of the Syrian states will partly explain the inaction of the Pharaohs during the Israelitish conquest. The only injury Joshua could do to the latter would consist in blocking up the military coast-road to the north of Syria, but this was well secured by Egyptian garrisons, which Joshua did not venture to attack; while to get the Canaanites humbled without any trouble was a clear gain. That the Israelites were not immediately and at all points successful is now universally recognized. The work of many years was concentrated by tradition on a single great name; yet the Old Testament itself corrects by numberless indications the error of the more imaginative narrative. Thus the kingdom of Hazor, which had been utterly destroyed, according to Josh. xi. 10, 11, emerges again in the more accurate account of Judges (iv. 2, 3). And both Joshua and Judges (not to descend later—see Amorites) supply evidence for the continued Canaanitish occupation of many parts of the country (Josh. xiii. 13, xv. 63, xvi. 10, xvii. 12, 13; Judg. i. 19-36). The immediate result of the invasion was, not the extinction of the old, but the addition of a new (and yet not wholly new) element, of stronger stuff but less advanced culture.

II. No doubt the Israelites a⅛ first put an end to much of which they could not discern the value, or, to use their own phrase, made it a lcherem, a thing consecrated to God by destruction. The origin of Hebrew literature would not be such a blank if the sacred archives of Kiryath-sépher, or “the Book-city,” otherwise called Kiryath-sannah, or “the Law-city (?)” (Josh. xv. 15, 49), had been preserved. Still the attractions of culture were superior in the long run to the dictates of religious zeal. Goodly houses, vineyards, and oliveyards (Deut. vi. 10, 11) were agents more powerful even than chariots of iron. The secrets of agriculture had to be learned from the Canaanites; intercourse naturally led to intermarriage, and so a new strife arose in the field of religion, in which half the Jewish nation perished utterly, and the other half was only saved by its voluntary submission to a spiritual despotism.

III. The pages of the book of Judges are full of complaints of Israelitish infidelity, which is rightly ascribed by the compiler to mixture of blood (Judg. iii. 6). It is true that expressions like this of infidelity have only a limited accuracy. As Ewald and Kuenen have pointed out, the final editor of Judges lived in the age of the Exile, when the religion of Yahveh (miscalled Jehovah) had attained its full development. From his point of view, religious approximation to the Canaanites was wilful apostasy, because it involved the effacement of the distinction between physical and moral religion. But of this distinction the Israelites were hardly more conscious than the Canaanites.

The religions of both nations were based, on a feeling for the powers of nature, whether regarded as destructive and awful, as by the one, or as favourable and lovely, as by the other. Thus the one religion was stern and in tendency moral; the other soft and in tendency immoral: there was indeed a difference, but not a clear-cut distinction between them. To come to particulars,—the chief object of Canaanitish worship was the dual-natured god of life and fruitfulness, viz., Baal, or rather the Baal, ⅛.e., “the lord,” and his consort Ashérah, z.e., “the happy,” and so “happy-making, favourable” (as in Assyrian, Salmanu-âsir, “Salman is favourable’'). The masculine form is also probably a divine title, and has given its name to the tribe of Asher, as Gad (“good fortune”) to the Gadites. As Movers long ago pointed out, Ashérah is not identical with Ashtoreth or Astarte, whose name is philologically different, and who belongs to another type of Semitic religion. Her symbol was the stem of a tree (Deut. xvi. 21; Judg. vi. 25), though this may have been sometimes carved into an image; that of the Baal probably had the form of a cone, arid represented the rays of the sun. It is these symbols which are referred to in the phrase, “the Baals and the Ashérahs” (Judg. iii. 7); the “groves” of the authorized version is an evident mistranslation (see in the Hebrew or some accurate modern version, Judg. vi. 25; 1 Kings xv. 13; 2 Kings xxiii. 6). The licensed harlotry which formed part of the worship of Ashérah was profoundly obnoxious to the later Hebrew writers (Num. xxv.; Deut, xxiii. 18), though, indeed, even the folk-lore of the Israelites showstraces of aversion to its attendant immorality. An illustration of this is furnished in the narrative of Sodom (Gen. xviii., xix.), which can only refer to the later Canaanites. Similarly, another writer (Gen. xv. 16) describes “the iniquity of the Amorites” as the divine justification of the Israelitish conquest. It is also the subject of a threatening passage in the Levitical legislation (Lev. xviii.), which if composed during the Babylonian exile, as is held by Graf and Kalisch, is a remarkable evidence of the tenacity of pre-Israelitish customs.

Another characteristic of Canaanitish religion, though far from peculiar to this, was soothsaying. After Israelite prophecy had broken its shell, and taken its daring flight into a more spiritual region, its first anxiety was to destroy that rival phenomenon which enslaved the minds of men to gross superstition. Hence the earnest dehortations of Isaiah (it 6), and of the writer of Deuteronomy (xviii. 10-14).

There was only one relic of Canaanitish times which the disciples of prophetic religion could not or would not throw aside—the old traditions. For it can hardly be doubted by uncompromising historical critics that some, perhaps many, of the narratives of Genesis are but purified versions of Canaanitish myths and legends. The most obvious examples will naturally be those stories which are attached to localities in Canaan, e.g., Luz and Beersheba. Of course the story of Melchizedek, “the king of Salem,” and “priest of the most high God” (Gen. xiv. 17-24), is not one of these, being out of harmony with all our other notices of the Canaanites. It is also easily separable from the rest of the narrative, and may possibly be as late as the Maccabean period, and written in honour of the temple and its priesthood, which are glorified by being, as it were, prefigured in the patriarchal age.

IV. The question has been asked of late, whether a remnant of the old population of Palestine may not still be in existence. Μ. Clermont-Ganneau, following Prof. E. H. Palmer (History of the Jewish Nation, p. 64), answers it confidently in the affirmative. In the fellahín or peasants of the Holy Land he sees the descendants of the Canaanites, who, having en reduced to a state of serfdom, were contemntuously overlooked by the successive hordes of conquerors. Their strange superstitious customs have been remarked by every close observer, and are evidently survivals of some early form of religion. Μ. Ganneau also mentions some curious legendary parallels to Biblical narratives existing among them. Dr Thomson (The Land and the Book, pp. 226-8) holds a similar theory about the sect of the Nusairîeh in northern Syria, who are equally bad Moslems, but more probably represent the debris of the later Syrian paganism.

V. We have yet to speak of the ethnological relation of the Canaanites and the Israelites. The linguistic evidence points to a kinship as close as that of both to the Phoenicians. Not only are the personal names of the Canaanites (Melchizedek, Adonibezek, Adonizedek, Oman or Aranyah, of which Araunah seems to be a corruption) pure Hebrew, but so too are the names of their cities, an evidence of still greater value, as given both in the Old Testament and in the lists of the places conquered by Thothmes III. The latter have been discovered by Mariette-Bey on a kind of triumphal arch at Karnak; they include 119 names belonging to Canaan, of which 75 have been identified with known Hebrew names of places (Mariette-Bey, in Comptes Rendus de l ’ Academie des Inscriptions, 1874, p. 243, &c.). The same Hebraic character is apparent in the names given in the “Travels of a Mohar” (see the Records of the Past, vol. ii. pp. 107-116), tvhich have been illustrated, we understand, by the recent explorations of Lieutenant Conder. How, it has been asked, is this community of language to be accounted for? The problem is a real one to those who regard the Table of Nations (Gen. X.) as an ethnological authority, for in that document the Canaanites are classed separately from the Hebrews among the descendants of Ham. From this, as we believe, antiquated point of view, it becomes necessary to assume that the Canaanites borrowed their language from some of the genuine descendants of Shem. From the Israelites? But they spoke the language long before the Israelite immigration. From an aboriginal Semiticspeaking race? But there is no historical evidence for the existence of such a people. We are thus driven to accept the view that the Table of Nations is arranged not on an ethnological but on a geographical principle. The Canaanites will then be classed among the descendants of Ham as belonging, according to the compilers, to the southern terrestrial zone—not, however, the Canaanites, in our sense of the word, for these formed no part of the original Table (see Canaan), but the Phoenicians. Apart from this misunderstood document there is no difficulty in admitting the affinity of the three nations, the Israelites, the Canaanites, and the Phoenicians, who all appear to have migrated successively from a Babylonian centre (see Phoenicians). The last to move westward were probably the Hebrews They are generally supposed to have originally spoken an Aramaic dialect, but after entering Palestine to have adopted that of the more civilized Canaanites (see Introductions of Bleek and De Wette-Schrader). The only evidence, however, offered in support of this view is Gen. xxxi. 47, where the “cairn of witness” receives a Hebrew name from Jacob, an Aramaic from Laban. From this it is inferred that Laban’s great-uncle Abraham must, according to tradition, have spoken Aramaic, as if Aramaic were as early a development as Hebrew, and as if the writer in Genesis had any thought of illustrating philological problems! Of any such event in the history of the Hebrews we have simply no evidence whatever.

Compare Ewald, History of the People of Israel, Eng. trans., vol. i. pp. 232-242; Kuenen, Religion of Israel, Eng. trans., vol. i. chap. 1 (with note) and 4; Movers, Die Phönizier, vol. ii. (1), pp. 61-82; Knobel, Die Völkertafel der Genesis, pp. 202, 321, 332-338; Clermont-Ganneau, “The Arabs in Palestine,”in Macmillan's Magazine, August 1875

But we learn from the Scripture history, that the Hittites in particular were become degenerate in the time of Isaac and Rebekah; for they could not endure the thoughts of Jacob’s marrying one of the daughters of Heth, as Esau had done. From this time, then, we may date the prevalence of those abominations which subjected them to the divine displeasure, and made them unworthy of the land which they possessed. In the days of Moses, they were become incorrigible idolaters; for he commands his people to destroy their altars, and break down their images, (statues or pillars,) and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. And lest they should pervert the Israelites, the latter were strictly enjoined not to intermarry with them; but “to smite them, and utterly destroy them, nor show mercy upon them,” Deut. vii, 1–5. They are accused of the cruel custom of sacrificing men, and are said to have made their seed pass through the fire to Moloch, Lev. xviii, 21. Their morals were as corrupt as their doctrine: adultery, bestiality of all sorts, profanation, incest, and all manner of uncleanness, are the sins laid to their charge. “The Canaanites,” says Mr. Bryant, “as they were a sister tribe of the Mizraim, resembled them in their rites and religion. They held a heifer, or cow, in high veneration, agreeably to the customs of Egypt. Their chief deity was the sun, whom they worshipped, together with the Baalim, under the titles of Ourchol, Adonis, or Thamuz.”

When the measure of the idolatries and abominations of the Canaanites was filled up, God delivered their country into the hands of the Israelites, who conquered it under Joshua. However, they resisted with obstinate valour, and kept Joshua employed six years from the time of his passing the river Jordan, and entering Canaan, in the year B. C. 1451, to the year B. C. 1445, the sabbatical year beginning from the autumnal equinox; when he made a division of the land among the tribes of Israel, and rested from his conquests. As God had commanded this people, long before, to be treated with rigour, see Deut. vii, 2, Joshua extirpated great numbers, and obliged the rest to fly, some of them into Africa, and others into Greece. Procopius says, they first retreated into Egypt, but advanced into Africa, where they built many cities, and spread themselves over those vast regions which reach to the straits, preserving their old language with little alteration. In the time of Athanasius, the Africans still said they were descended from the Canaanites; and when asked their origin, they answered, “Canani.” It is agreed, that the Punic tongue was nearly the same as the Canaanitish or Hebrew.

On the rigorous treatment of the nations of Canaan by the Israelites, to which infidels have taken so many exceptions, the following remarks of Paley are a sufficient reply: The first thing to be observed is, that the nations of Canaan were destroyed for their wickedness. This is plain from Lev. xviii, 24, &c. Now the facts disclosed in this passage sufficiently testify, that the Canaanites were a wicked people; that detestable practices were general among them, and even habitual; that it was for these enormities the nations of Canaan were destroyed. It was not, as some have imagined, to make way for the Israelites; nor was it simply to make away with their idolatry; but it was because of the abominable crimes which usually accompanied the latter. And we may farther learn from the passage, that God’s abhorrence of these crimes and his indignation against them are regulated by the rules of strict impartiality, since Moses solemnly warns the Israelites against falling into the like wicked courses, “that the land,” says he, “cast not you out also, when you defile it, as it cast out the nations that were before you; for whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people,” Lev. xviii, 28, 29. Now, when God, for the wickedness of a people, sends an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague among them, there is no complaint of injustice, especially when the calamity is known, or expressly declared beforehand, to be inflicted for the wickedness of such people. It is rather regarded as an act of exemplary penal justice, and, as such, consistent with the character of the moral Governor of the universe. The objection, therefore, is not to the Canaanitish nations being destroyed; (for when their national wickedness is considered, and when that is expressly stated as the cause of their destruction, the dispensation, however severe, will not be questioned;) but the objection is solely to the manner of destroying them. I mean there is nothing but the manner left to be objected to: their wickedness accounts for the thing itself. To which objection it may be replied, that if the thing itself be just, the manner is of little signification, of little signification even to the sufferers themselves. For where is the great difference, even to them, whether they were destroyed by an earthquake, a pestilence, a famine, or by the hands of an enemy? Where is the difference, even to our imperfect apprehensions of divine justice, provided it be, and is known to be, for their wickedness that they are destroyed? But this destruction, you say, confounded the innocent with the guilty. The sword of Joshua, and of the Jews spared neither women nor children. Is it not the same with all other national visitations? Would not an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague, or a famine among them have done the same? Even in an ordinary and natural death the same thing happens; God takes away the life he lends, without regard, that we can perceive, to age, or sex, or character. “But, after all, promiscuous massacres, the burning of cities, the laying waste of countries, are things dreadful to reflect upon.” Who doubts it? so are all the judgments of Almighty God. The effect, in whatever way it shows itself, must necessarily be tremendous, when the Lord, as the Psalmist expresses it, “moveth out of his place to punish the wicked.” But it ought to satisfy us; at least this is the point upon which we ought to rest and fix our attention; that it was for excessive, wilful, and forewarned wickedness, that all this befel them, and that it is all along so declared in the history which recites it. But, farther, if punishing them by the hands of the Israelites rather than by a pestilence, an earthquake, a fire, or any such calamity, be still an objection, we may perceive, I think, some reasons for this method of punishment in preference to any other whatever; always bearing in our mind, that the question is not concerning the justice of the punishment, but the mode of it. It is well known, that the people of those ages were affected by no proof of the power of the gods which they worshipped, so deeply as by their giving them victory in war. It was by this species of evidence that the superiority of their own gods above the gods of the nations which they conquered, was, in their opinion, evinced. This being the actual persuasion which then prevailed in the world, no matter whether well or ill founded, how were the neighbouring nations, for whose admonition this dreadful example was intended, how were they to be convinced of the supreme power of the God of Israel above the pretended gods of other nations; and of the righteous character of Jehovah, that is, of his abhorrence of the vices which prevailed in the land of Canaan? How, I say, were they to be convinced so well, or at all indeed, as by enabling the Israelites, whose God he was known and acknowledged to be, to conquer under his banner, and drive out before them, those who resisted the execution of that commission with which the Israelites declared themselves to be invested, namely, the expulsion and extermination of the Canaanitish nations? This convinced surrounding countries, and all who were observers or spectators of what passed, first, that the God of Israel was a real God; secondly, that the gods which other nations worshipped, were either no gods, or had no power against the God of Israel; and thirdly, that it was he, and he alone, who possessed both the power and the will, to punish, to destroy, and to exterminate from before his face, both nations and individuals, who gave themselves up to the crimes and wickedness for which the Canaanites were notorious. Nothing of this sort would have appeared, or with the same evidence, from an earthquake, or a plague, or any natural calamity. These might not have been attributed to divine agency at all, or not to the interposition of the God of Israel. Another reason which made this destruction both more necessary, and more general, than it would have otherwise been, was the consideration, that if any of the old inhabitants were left, they would prove a snare to those who succeeded them in the country; would draw and seduce them by degrees into the vices and corruptions which prevailed among themselves. Vices of all kinds, but vices most particularly of the licentious kind, are astonishingly infectious. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A small number of persons addicted to them, and allowed to practise them with impunity or encouragement, will spread them through the whole mass. This reason is formally and expressly assigned, not simply for the punishment, but for the extent to which it was carried; namely, extermination: “Thou shalt utterly destroy them, that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods.” In reading the Old Testament account, therefore, of the Jewish wars and conquests in Canaan, and the terrible destruction brought upon the inhabitants thereof, we are always to remember that we are reading the execution of a dreadful but just sentence, pronounced by Jehovah against the intolerable and incorrigible crimes of these nations; that they were intended to be made an example to the whole world of God’s avenging wrath against sins, which, if they had been suffered to continue, might have polluted the whole ancient world, and which could only be checked by the signal and public overthrow of nations notoriously addicted to them, and so addicted as even to have incorporated them into their religion and their public institutions; and that the Israelites were mere instruments in the hands of a righteous Providence for effecting the extirpation of a people, of whom it was necessary to make a public example to the rest of mankind; that this extermination, which might have been accomplished by a pestilence, by fire, by earthquakes, was appointed to be done by the hands of the Israelites, as being the clearest and most intelligible method of displaying the power and the righteousness of the God of Israel; his power over the pretended gods of other nations; and his righteous indignation against the crimes into which they were fallen.