Talk:Canaan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bad, very childish edits

This article was recently cleaned up for neutrality, yet now already it is returning to a POV-pushing nightmare once again by editors who cannot seem to see past the end of their own noses and realize that other POVs beside their own really do exist out there.

1) Canaan is a biblical region. Yet the bias of Nattybummpo, and now enforced by the admin Dougweller, would suppress this fact in the very intro by censoring the words "Canaan is a historical and a biblical land" and mentioning only that it "is a historical land". Really neutral POV, guys. I love your sense of balancing both sides.

2) The mnetion of "Palestinian territories" in the intro was piped to the much more ambiguous term "Palestine" by Nattybummpo, and now enforced by the admin Dougweller, for no clear or good reason.

3) Killebrew's opinion that Jerusalem was significant before 1550 BC and after 720 BC, but in between was insignificant, is not a monopoly, it is a "point of view" that many other sources do not agree with. Yet in a hypocritical travesty of NPOV, her opinion is being endorsed as factual by wikipedia, and all sources that disagree with her are being brushed aside as unreliable, with the circular fallacy that "in oder to be considered reliable, they would have to agree with Killebrew's school of thought". Such disregard for mentioning the fact that other points of view exist (such as archaeologist Eilat Mazar) exist, and taking sides in direct contradiction of WP:NPOV and enforced by admins, reveals a mentality that reminds one of certain totalitarian governments, but to see it on a supposedly "neutral" site makes me want to vomit. Another editor added evidence that other POVs exist, and it is simply blanked as if you are terrified to let readers learn that another POV exists. What are you so afraid of? If the correctness of your POV were really as axiomatic as you seem to think, then you should have nothing to fear from mentioning dissent. Instead you are inviting protest, and I most strongly protest.

The editor who added the dissenting viewpoint may not have used the best source in a news article, but that is a poor pretext for what is being done in the name of keeping the article one-sided. Per protocol, the deleted information should at least be placed here for further discussion, but instead only edit war. So here it is:

However, other archaeologists contend that Jerusalem was a highly important and fortified city during the Davidic and Solomonic period (c.1000-930 BCE), and likely thereafter as well. "King David's Palace is Found, Archaeologist Says" New York Times, August 5, 2005

4) Extraneous tags have been returned to TWO different places in the section "Canaan in the Hebrew Bible" warning the reader that: "This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them." Never mind the fact that if one actually READS this section, there are indeed abundant "secondary sources that critically analyze" the Tanakh. It still quotes the Tanakh view on the subject of Canaan, and some editors apparently hate to acknowledge that there is one, because of their bias, so let's just put tags up all over the place stating in pretense that there are no critical secondary sources whatsoever.

For all of this reasons, I am going to recommend once again that more editors check the lack of neutrality and one-sided direction this is taking. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section's 'Canaan' pronunciation

The etymology section begins with

The English term Canaan (pronounced /'keɪnən/ since c. 1500, thanks to the Great Vowel Shift) [...]

I have heard a few people pronounce "Canaan" (کنعان،بلد النبی اللہ اصحاق و یعقوب علیہم السلام)(the place) as "keɪnən", but more frequently I hear "kɑnɑ:n" as the pronunciation in (American???) English, while "Canaanites" (the people) I do hear the the first two syllables as matching "keɪnən". Can we have a citation to back up the assertion currently in the article. If not, would it be better to change it to reflect "kɑnɑ:n" since it is discussing the term for the region, and not pointedly at the term for the people? — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

kɑnɑ:n would be a more learned pronunciation, approximating the way it would be pronounced in every other language besides English, since no other literary language had so extensive a vowel shift. It may be gaining more ground as academics attempt to spread greater accuracy and knowledge. But for most English speakers, I suspect "keɪnən" is still more widespread; there are any number of Christian Churches in the United States that even call themselves (ironically IMHO) by the name of "Canaan", and assuredly it is pronounced by them as "keɪnən"; it can also be assumed that Canaan Banana, being an English speaking politician, pronounced his first name as "keɪnən". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Revisions

I've made a few edits/additions - most importantly, I've created a new subsection called "Overview" within the History section, plus added new subsections for two periods that were previously not mentioned at all.

I think the History section is too long and mentions so many details that the main story is lost. I'd like to cut it back somewhat.

I'd also like to add sections on other aspects of Canaan - literature and religion, especially. PiCo (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Two articles needed

The article is discussing two separate though related subjects, the historical Canaanites and the Canaanites in the bible. The first is (or are, or were) a real people (had a distinct cultural identity known from archaeology and their own literature), the second were a fictitious group found only in biblical literature where they were created as a foil to the Israelites (i.e., the biblical authors invented their own "Canaanites" in order to distinguish themselves as a God-chosaen people). There should be two articles. PiCo (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are pushing a point of view school of thought pretty hard here, Pico. There are other opinions on the matter. And please try to remember that the names of books (like Bible) are capitalized in English. No matter how much personal contempt you may have for the Bible, there is still no grammatical rule allowing for a special exception to be made to the English rules of capitalization. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fictitious or not, there is a good argument for two articles, one on Canaanites in the Bible (which obviously wouldn't call them fictitious whether that's right or wrong), and the other - not sure about the title, but about the Canaanites that are clearly recorded through historical and archaeological sources. And this isn't the article, anyone can use capital letters here however they wish unless it's disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the good argument? I still haven't seen it... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess if you don't think they are separate subjects, you can't see it. But they are separate subjects - only if you take a literalist pov could they be the same subject. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Historical records" about this region consist of Hebrew, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian etc. etc. etc. religious texts. It takes a minimalist POV to state that the Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian etc. etc. religious sources are all "reliable historical documents" but only the Hebrew sources including the OT are "not reliable historical documents". They are all essential views of the same elephant. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the minimimalist pov. And over-stating the extent to which the other sources can be called religious sources. And perhaps you could point to the diff where I said 'reliable historical documents' as I can't find it. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the first step is to gather some reliable modern sources for both parts of the article. I'll start a Bibliography section for that. The most interesting part will be writing about Biblical Canaan - I know a few good books on that. PiCo (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the first step would be achieving consensus first. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a consensus to put books in a bibliography? Anyway, at the moment I'm just putting the existing books into harvestref format. PiCo (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

PiCo, I'm not quite understanding your biblical Canaanites being "a fictitious group found only in biblical literature where they were created as a foil to the Israelites" and that they were "invented." Surely there were Canaanites in Canaan when Judah and Israel were there, so how is it that they are "invented" when there were Canaanites living in the land along side them? Even with Fink's ‹Israel is derived from the Canaanites› stance (which I agree is partially true), there were still those who did not become Israelites or Judaites who continued to live in the region. Even the Phoenicians referred to themselves as Canaanites. I'd also reiterate — by reference to — Til Eulenspiegel's comment above which he began with «"Historical records" about this region [...]» — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry al-Shimoni I haven't looked back at this till now.

My understanding is this: Israel and Judah developed out of Canaanite culture - their inhabitants were Canaanites, they spoke Canaanite dialects and worshiped Canaanite gods (with the important exception of Yahweh, who was not Canaanite) and were generally indistinguishable from Canaanites. In the 8th century a prophetic movement arose in Israel (northern kingdom) dedicated to the idea that Israel (the kingdom) should worship Yahweh alone. They pretty much failed. Then Israel was destroyed and the prophets came south to Judah, where Yahweh was worshiped. They blamed the destruction of Israel on the failure of the kings of Israel to worship Yahweh, and, through a series of largely accidental events (the murder of a king, the accession of an 8 year old child to the throne, their success in becoming the child-king's guardians), they managed to become the single most powerful faction in Judah. These were the Deuteronomists. Their basic idea was that the kingdom should worship Yahweh alone, under the terms of a covenant between Israel (now seen as the people of God, not the kingdom) and Yahweh. "Canaanites" were those who were not "Israel".

Judah was destroyed by Babylon. Catastrophe, especially for the Deuteronomists - the covenant had failed. They could have reacted by declaring they'd been wrong - quite probably many Judahites did. Those who didn't, however, circled the wagons and insisted that if the covenant had failed it was Israel's fault for sinning - and sin was defined purely as not worshiping Yahweh alone. It's this period that many of the great prophetic books come from - half of Isaiah, all of Ezekiel, some of Jeremiah. It's also in this period that the history books get re-written - that's the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. There are many voices in the books, but they all try to explain why God abandoned Israel, and put the blame on Israel.

The third act began with the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539, just one long lifetime after the Exile. Not everyone had been exiled, by the way - back in Judah there were Judahites who'd stayed on. They'd taken over the lands of the exiles. Some of them worshiped Yahweh, some didn't (remember how prophets right down to Jeremiah excoriate the Judahites for following other gods - Yahweh-worship was an ideal more than a reality). And now the Yahweh-alone exiles were coming back, and they were more self-righteous than ever - Yahweh had delivered them, using Cyrus as his instrument! (Remember that Isaiah calls Cyrus the messiah, meaning the God-anointed king over Israel).

The fourth and final act was what happened when the exiles and the non-exiles met in Jerusalem in the last decades of the 6th century and the early 5th. There were questions to sort out, notably who really, truly owned all that land. The exiles had the upper hand - the Persians had recognised them as the rightful rulers of the province of Yehud (see Ezra-Nehemiah). The exiles effectively laid down the law to the non-exiles: join us and worship Yahweh and generally follow us, or else. They were Israel (holy community of Yahweh), everyone else, whether Judahite or not, was Canaan ... which was quite true, because they were indeed Canaan, but not the sort of Canaan that had or has any significance outside the history of the formation of early Judaism.

That's my personal potted version. I'd like to point you to the books that led me to this view, but it's not easy to find it set out like this. Some of the names you could look up are Albertz, Grabbe, Ska, and Blenkinsopp. Til would call them minimalists, but they're not - minimalists hold that the bible was complete fiction written in Hellenistic times or later, while these people agree that it was written first the mid-1st millennium and then revised heavily in the Exile and immediately after. That's mainstream these days.

Anywa, Ti will be delighted to hear that I'm trying very hard to give up Wikipedia - time is too precious, Wikipedia is too impermanent, and I fear I show addictive personality traits. PiCo (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I just think the records of the Hebrews, Assyrians, Egyptians, Hittites, etc. about Canaan are all like pieces of one jigsaw puzzle, and I didn't think some of the pieces need to be segregated on some kind of ideological basis; I also continue to dispute statements like 'that's mainstream these days' being thrown about such controversial / contentious matters -- whose mainstream? Everyone it seems claims to be 'mainstream' these days. And being a wikipedian editor isn't that bad, you can make time for it without giving it up entirely. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically, Til, I agree. The analogy of a jigsaw puzzle is apt; the problem is that the jigsaw has been chewed by the dog, the kids have lost a lot of the pieces, and the instructions were written in a language meant for someone else and then seem to have put through the washing machine. I also agree that we shouldn't just throw around statements about what's mainstream. Personally I try to find books that are recent (recent because theories change over time, as new evidence and techniques come available), from people from solid academic backgrounds, and inside those I try to find statements along the lines of "Many scholars today believe...". That's not always possible.

I don't want to segregate the bible on the basis of any ideology of my own; I want to recognise that the biblical authors had their ideology, and treat what they wrote in the same spirit they wrote it. In other words, as a very good guide to their ideas of what Israel, the holy community set apart by God, was.

And make time? They've stopped making time! The clock ticks on, relentless. PiCo (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is basically one of the few main theories going around. The problem is it is one of a few main theories, not the one and only main theory (there seems to be about 3 big ones when generalized, without splitting hairs). I can easily see another (or more) article(s) on Canaanites if it/they center(s) of the concept of one of the generalized theories (something like "The xxx Theory of Biblical Canaanites"). Such an article I think would be strong as long as its more than just a stub article.

However, it's a little more difficult (though, not impossible) for me to see another article on Canaanites if it is along the idea of article A is about "historical" Canaanites and article B is about "fictitious" Canaanites (something like "Canaan" as A and "Canaan (biblical)" as B). Such a split I think would eventually get remerged not too far down the road.

If there isn't enough material — to prevent it from being in a stub status — for a "Theory of..." type article like the first example it may work better as a dedicated section in this current article (multiple theories could fall into such a section to help reënforce the idea of the section, perhaps each as a subsection).

Just a comment regarding the comment on finding new/recent books. A problem I frequently see in many scientific fields is the concept people appear to have is that when a recent book/study comes out, even citing new evidence or logic concerning the interpretation of old evidence, they make an assumption that this new study "settles the argument" and that the concept in it is the new consensus. This is rarely ever the case, but rather just a new interpretation that may take decades to be decided on (usually after hundreds of other papers and books comment, tease-out, put it to trial, and deconstruct it). Old theories still can hold water, and are likely to not have as much written about them as newer ones just because the older one is felt to be strong and unneeding of prolific comment. New hypothesis, theories, books, studies, evidence is good, but doesn't necessarily nullify everything that preceded it. I, too, like to find new/recent thoughts/evidence, but I can be harsh/critical of them regardless of whether it supports a new concept or an old one, regardless if it supports a concept that I think has weight or one that I don't. Just some thoughts of mine. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no argument that the Hebrew sources reflected then-current Hebrew ideology. It's just that the Egyptian sources like the Merneptah stele reflect Egyptian ideology, and the Assyrian sources reflect Assyrian ideology, etc. etc... What exactly would be the logical or neutral basis for saying "we like everybody else's sources, but the Jews are fictitious"? (Which has also been a recurrent theme in ideology over the millennia, since at least Vespasian, btw) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hang on Til, when I said the Biblical Canaanites were fictitious I didn't mean they didn't exist, I hope that should be clear from what I wrote above. I meant that the Bible's definition of "Canaanite" was highly idiosyncratic, because of the way the Bible tries to create a very sharp distinction between the Holy People and the rest. For the Bible-authors and editors of the time of Ezra, a Canaanite was anyone living in the immediate area who refused to accept their view of what was right - a great many Judahites must have ended up being branded as Canaanites, just because they refused to divorce their non-Israelite (read "not just back from Babylon with the right family connections") wives.

Leaving that aside, I've just had a look over the article and I'd like to suggest a few structural adjustments, not too radical, that might satisfy everyone.

• Nomenclature is fine but needs to be drastically shortened.
• History is probably fine with some revision to make it more inclusive - it's a bit too Israel-centred.
• New sections needed on religion and literature.
• Biblical Canaan can stay but needs review.

Just a suggestion. PiCo (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Amoritic is Canaanite?

Til Eulenspiegel, you have until Tuesday to source that, or out it goes again. SamEV (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I don't call laying down unilateral ultimatums and deadlines according to your own whim very collaborative. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How about undoing the good-faith work of an editor in good standing and basing it on some vague notion of what you 'think' is a fact, rather than than giving me the benefit of the doubt and researching your 'thought' first? How about your accusing me of POV-pushing on top of that? How does that conform to Wikipedia's guidelines?

I'm about to remove your claim again. If you'd like to restore it, append a reliable source at the same time. I 'think' it's one of those claims that's doubtful enough to be removed immediately, rather than be fact-tagged awaiting a reference for days, anyway. SamEV (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern Location of Canaan

The recent edit, SamEV (talk), deletes Palestine from the modern areas which make up Ancient Canaan, Palestine is a modern entity in the State of Palestine and the Palestinian territories, leaving them out leaves a gap where Ancient Canaan used to be and also removes Palestine from the history, please revert your changes as they seem biased towards Israel viewpoint. Silvertrail (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it makes sense to list both as listing only one is obviously biased and pov. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert because of the inclusion of Palestine, but because the changes overall were so bad. SamEV (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You can partially revert, especially when doing so prevents a significant POV bias. But anyways the way you just modified my edit is not the way it should be worded either. "Israel (including the Palestinian territories" makes it seem like the Palestinian territories are a part of Israel, which may be Israel's view but is not accurate in the slightest. It Should be "Israel and the Palestinian Territories" or "Israel and the State of Palestine". Lazyfoxx (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming it was just a minor formatting error on your part, I fixed it. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the map, there is a high resolution of it available on the website linked in the description, it would be nice if someone uploaded a higher res version of it we could use for this article, being able to read the city names would be a plus. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Biblical Canaanites (revisited)

Firstly: there should be more secondary sources such as Richard Friedman providing analysis, and less direct citations refering to the Bible, the reason is given in Wikipedia:Reliable sources: they [primary sources] must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. , which means that using the Bible, being a primary source, to claim a statement in Wikipedia must correspond exactly to the statement in the Bible. Better to use academic sources.

Secondly: based on the same Wikipedia guidelines, the last paragraph of the section synthesizes unduly: it claims that

"the Bible describes God cautioning the Israelites against the sexual idolatry of the Canaanites and their fertility cult (Leviticus 18:27)".

which it doesn't. Then it uses Zechariah 14:21 to stress that synthesis, and by reading it seems very certain that that verse doesn't refer to the Hebrew conquest of Canaan at all. I've seen this kind of local-preacher behavior too often in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a preaching ground for convincing everybody to go to the local church and donate tithes to the local priest blathering dishonest arguments, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! Grrr! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

1) "The Bible describes God cautioning the Israelites against the sexual idolatry of the Canaanites and their fertility cult" Actually, the Bible does this in so many verses, we could come up with quite a few citations. Why should the section on Canaanites in the Bible not mention this fact? Or are you somehow arguing that the Bible does not ever say anything like this? Have you not ever read it? 2) "By the time of the Second Temple, "Canaanite" in Hebrew had come to be not an ethnic designation, so much as a general synonym for "merchant", as it is interpreted in, for example, Zechariah 14:21" Please look up what most of the interpretations of this verse actually are in most Bibles, specifically how the Hebrew term "Kena'ani" is interpreted. I think you'll find this too is a factual and informative statement. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true Til Eulenspiegel, then you should have no problem finding a reliable secondary source expressing that opinion. Using primary sources alone opens the text up to challenges on the basis that is not reliable sourced. Tiamut^talk 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fine. If either of you thinks this is the wrong interpretation of how the Bible characterizes Canaanites, then please, enlighten us how YOU think the Bible characterizes Canaanites. Then we'll see what the secondary sources have to say about how the Bible characterizes Canaanites. According to the rules, any secondary source that any of us find addressing the topic may be considered. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What I think isn't important. All I am saying, is that the section might benefit from the use of secondary sources, like this one for example. Its much better to express what is written in secondary sources, than it is to cite selected Bible passages as examples to SYNTH conclusions (which may very well be the same conclusions made in scholarship, but the fact remains that at wikipedia we prefer secondary sources). That's all I'm trying to say. Tiamut^talk 16:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here, I found one secondary source answering the question simply and correctly, right off the bat: "The Bible for blockheads: a user-friendly look at the Good Book" By Douglas Connelly [1] This is pretty typical of the mainstream take on synopsizing what the Bible says on the Canaanites:

"Canaanite religion centered around many gods and goddesses. Some of their deities - Baal, Dagon, Asherah, and Astarte - appear often in the Old Testament. Their worship involved animal (and possibly human) sacrifices. Both male and female cult prostitutes played a large part in their fertility festivals. Canaanite religion and worship are pictured in the Bible as disgusting to the Lord. God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites "on account of the wickedness of these nations" (Deuteronomy 9:4-5). Some Canaanite practices were especially repulsive to God - practices such as burning their sons and their daughters in fires to their ods (Deut 12:31). Because God's command to destroy the Canaanites was never fully carried out, the people of Israel often followed their Canaanite neighbours in immoral and idolatrous worship"

That didn't take too long to find, but there's tons more; do any schools of thought actually contradict this view? If so, perhaps we can cite them too, for balance. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to bring this up so people who know how to work on wiki pages can move it. A real scholar needs to look at this line "Canaan first appears as one of Noah's grandsons, cursed with perpetual slavery because his father Ham had "looked upon" the drunk and naked Noah". This was written by reading the bible in English without understanding of Hebrew figures of speech. What 'uncovering your fathers nakedness' means in English is 'having sex with his wife' in this case Hams mother. Unless you believe she was with child because her son looked at her naked husband. If you believe this I cannot help. My point is if this truly is an encyclopedia cannot people with education and understanding write the pages? If not wikipedia has zero credibility. 173.184.236.59 (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC) ?

I read English and Hebrew and can assure you you've got it backwards. The Hebrew text is reflected faithfully in the English translation; for centuries there have been disputed interpretations about what precisely it really means that Ham "looked upon" Noah's nakedness. What you gave is only one interpretation, the rabbinic Talmudic one, that this means Ham had sex with Noah's wife. This was the interpretation of the faction within Judaism that wrote the Babylonian Talmud. This has never been anyone else's interpretation and has never been undisputed, so I think it would be best to leave it as is with the original untampered text, and then we can get into which various groups interpret it to mean what at Curse of Ham, with the link to that article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Former country infobox

The infobox of former country for Canaan is not appropriate and in fact is a pure synthesis. Canaan was never a "monarchic state" but a loose regional definition, composing of various tribal confederations and small kingdoms, which had eventually evolved into what became known as Phoenicia, Israelite Kingdoms and Philistia.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the footnote I added? If you find it inadequate, then propose to modify it or expand it. SamEV (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the country infobox is used for regions, not just actual countries. SamEV (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox is used for kingdoms/states/geopolitical entities and also provinces. Canaan was none - it is a purely geographic definition overlapping Levant. Please do not change the long standing status quo, which has obviously been without the geopolitical infobox until few weeks ago.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@SamEV, please engage in dialogue prior to your edit-pushing. Maybe we can find a solution?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You could start by being civil. Try again. SamEV (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you are stubborn to edit-war, i invite other users from Wikiproject former countries. Please provide some rationale and precedent for "former country template" application, which is not used for other former geographic regions like Mesopotamia, Fertile Crescent, Anatolia etc.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_former_country lists 2,570 articles using this template. Upon scanning them fairly rapidly, it seems not many are comparable to Canaan as a "former geographic region", however a possible exception is Alamannia. It says it was "ruled by independent tribal kings" and that's what we have here as well, independent tribal kings who all happen to speak the same language. Also might be worth noting that Canaan is usually referred to as a "country" (eretz) in early sources despite apparently never being unified except for when it was under foreign (usually Egyptian) domination. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate. As it was, even with the footnote, readers were likely to come away with the idea that "Canaan was a monarchy" - a country ruled by a king. It was never a country in the usual sense of the word. Alamannia was at last nominally a dukedom at one point, although I don't think the infobox there does anything but confuse. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Precedent isn't lacking. See for example Central Powers, European Coal and Steel Community, League of Nations, and, still more relevantly, Etruscan civilization, Philistia, Indo-Greeks, and Deccan sultanates -- which I don't put forth as an exhaustive list.

The footnote can be modified further, as can other data. I invite concrete proposals. SamEV (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC); 07:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Philistia was created by myself and it was a "Pentapolis" a political union of 5 cities, hence a kind of political entity. Canaan was not near similar to Pentapolis of Philistia (which was located within Canaan along with multiple kingdoms, tribes and foreign tributers. League of Nations was not a geographic region either, but a political entity (doubtful country, but still more relevant); European Coal and Steel Community should not have the former country box, but still also not a geographic region; Etruscan civilization is a very dim definition (maybe referring to pre-monarchic tribal structure); Indo Greeks refers to the "Indo-Greek kingdom"; and Deccan sultanates is also a political structure. You examples are irrelevant to Canaan - a geographic area.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a proposal: The main argument against this infobox is that it is the "wrong" infobox. This does not apparently involve general opposition to the principle of "infoboxes" on wikipedia articles in general. Since appropriateness of the specific "former country" infobox has become so contentious, perhaps we could design our own special infobox just for this unique situation. We could even call it "Template:Infobox Canaan" and we could fill it with exactly the data that is agreed to be appropriate for this article. Til Eulenspiegel /[[User talk: |talk]]/ 12:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is already a geographic infobox mentioning Canaan on the page Levant (which is almost synonymous with Canaan). We can use the same structure here, maybe slightly expanded; certainly not former country template.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I think your spin about the examples I gave is unconvincing and desperate, Greyshark09. You missed the point that, for example, the Etruscan Civilization area and the Deccan Sultanates didn't constitute a unified "country", as Canaan didn't. But let's move on.

You are engaging in very impolite behavior SamEV; you should better take a look at WP:CIVIL. Also i note that some claims in current article are trying to picture Canaan as a state, this is why i put WP:UNDUE tag.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest these changes to the current infobox: "Monarchy" to "Monarchies", and "various cities" to "various states and capitals" or "no single regional capital" or "not a unified country with one capital", which would render the footnote unnecessary. SamEV (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - summarizing the opinions it seems only SamEV is pushing for "former country infobox", while me (Greyshark09) and Dougweller oppose. Til Eulenspiegel proposes to use a customized infobox as a compromise. Anyway there is a clear majority against adding this new "former country infobox" here.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Canaan was a land ("Land of Canaan") inhabited by Canaanites, all speakers of the Canaanite language. There are only few suggestions that they were ever politically unified under a Canaanite ruler, for example the tradition in some early sources that around the time Joseph and his brethren were living in Egypt, Egypt went to war with the "king of Canaan" Makamaron. But there is no way to either verify or disprove such accounts, and it seems Canaan when independent was a country usually ruled by multiple kings of petty city states. Are there any other examples of former countries ruled by multiple kings of petty city-states? Yes, indeed: Sumer, Phoenicia, and Ancient Greece were all in the same boat, among others. Yet despite not being unified politically, each of these was still unified linguistically, culturally, and ethnically so that people rarely get bent out of shape when Sumer, Phoenicia and Ancient Greece are referred to as having been "countries" in the geographic sense. If the infobox is causing that much strife simply because the name of the infobox includes the words "former country", just use a different or customized infobox. Or is the opposition to having any infobox at all? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• As well elaborated by Til Eulenspiegel, I fully agree. It is hard to find an issue about that. In principle I see that infobox very useful to any reader. All or most of peoples had alternate periods without a consensual ruler. If a sole monarch existed or not, is not this what defines a people or nation. However if the words "former country" is somehow disputed, just it seems enough replace them by "region" or alike meaning though I understand for that historic period the word "country" doesn’t imply that existed an unified power. Rosetta Stele (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, so far I've neglected to bring that up, viz. that "country" doesn't even mean necessarily an independent unified state. It can simply mean a region, too!

I'm willing to accept doing away with the specific "former country" template and replacing it with an ad hoc creation. SamEV (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Different customized infobox is indeed proper here. I shall implementGreyShark (dibra) 07:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction and propaganda

The text says "The English name Canaan ultimately comes from the Hebrew כנען, via Greek Χαναάν Khanaan and Latin Canaan. The Hebrew name Canaan is of obscure origins ..."

If the Hebrew name is "of obscure origins" then the name can not possible come ULTIMATELY from Hebrew. Furthermore, if it WAS a Hebrew word, one would be SURE that it is a Hebrew word. Therefore one CAN BE SURE IT IS NOT a Hebrew word. DO NOT automatically take ownership of something that is NOT YOURS! EG: You see a car on the street. You don't know who's car it is. Are you allowed to take it? Change the text to unknown origin. Theorising is against Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.177.64 (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You may be reading too much into it... In etymological terms, it is simply explaining the fact that the English form is taken from Latin, which was taken from the Greek form, which in turn was taken from the Hebrew. It is already clear from the next sentence that the Hebrew name probably originated elsewhere. 'Ultimately' in etymology doesn't necessarily always imply the original source of the word, it just means that's as far back as it can be reliably traced. Although if we replaced 'ultimately' with 'eventually' it might be more technically correct... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

it is undisputed that the term predates Hebrew, as it is attested from at least about 1450 BC. That's basically common Northwest Semitic. Hebrew proper evolves by about 1000 BC. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The canaan are Phoenician, the phoenician/Canaan are the left over from wars between ancients Greek, and Persian and Egyptian. The word Phoenician is Greek word refered to wet land, which's by the eastern shore of Mediterranean sea. the canaan are the name of the people who lived there also named by the Greek. however, the Phoenician/canaan spoke Aramaic. Aramaic heavily influnced by the Greeks also Persian and Egyptian. Aramaic influnced other languages as Arabic and many other languages. Therefore, in Arabic that land call falasteen referring to the Greek word Phoenician. so, totally agree its Greek word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiaqel (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Only part of Canaanites became Phoenicians. Phoenicians were a group of people of Canaan origin living in Lebanon predominantely. In the same way that Moab and Edom were Canaanite from Jordan and Israelites were Canaanites from the kingdom of Israel. Phoenician appears much after Canaanite around 1000 BC and are centered in the north of Canaan as urbanized traders. Phoenicians bring the Canaanite alphabet to the greeks not the other way around.

Sources to improve this article

This article could do with some clarificatory improvements based on scholarly sources. The best source I have found which reviews scholarly research on the subject is:

• Oded Tammuz, Canaan - A Land Without Limits, Ugarit Forschungen 33: 501-543

Also a briefer and less technical overview is here:

• Michael G. Hasel, The Battle of Kadesh

And some of the key pieces of research and scholarly debate are here:

• Niels Peter Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites
• Nadav Na'aman, Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E., particularly:
  • Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Age Canaan, Nadav Naʾaman, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 313 (Feb., 1999), pp. 31-37
• Anson F. Rainey, Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 304 (Nov., 1996), pp. 1-15 (also here)
• Michael C. Astour, The Origin of the Terms "Canaan," "Phoenician," and "Purple", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4, Erich F. Schmidt Memorial Issue. Part Two (Oct., 1965), pp. 346-350
• Benjamin Mazar, Canaan and the Canaanites, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 102 (Apr., 1946), pp. 7-12
• Ephraim Avigdor Speiser, The Name Phoinikes, Language, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1936 - Jun., 1938), pp. 121-126, Linguistic Society of America

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ebla and the oldest reference to Canaanites

Na'aman p.111: "The earliest published reference to the Canaanites is in a letter from Mari dated to about the middle of the 18th century BCE."

Til, how can we reconcile this with your Ebla references?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reference does not seem to be aware of the references to Canaan elucidated by Ebla researchers, which indeed predate those of Mari. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So you think Na'aman, one of the handful of scholars who has devoted a book and numerous articles to this topic, simply wasn't aware of the Ebla tablets? Surely there must be a better explanation? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know but it sounds like he didn't mention them. I am often surprised at how many sources outside of actual Ebla research don't seem to know too much about Ebla. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Til, I have found the answer here: [2]:

• dBE Ganana('i/um): the reading and location of this place-name has been the subject of fierce debate. G. PETTINATO has always defended the identification with Canaan. A. ARCHI proposed identifying the placename with a city close to Gasur in the middle Euphrates valley, or more specifically, close to Emar. D.O. EDZARD locates it in north Syria. We are inclined towards A. ARCHI's interpretation, which seems more prudent. Its location depends on the location of Gasur, which is possibly situated north-west of Mari,1 so that it is possible to consider a location in the Middle Euphrates region.
  [Pettinato] reads kà-na-na/um: cf. OA 18 [1979] 103; Atti del I Congresso Internationale di Studi Fenici e Punici, 117-118; Or 54 [1985] 238 n. 24.. Cf. most recently MEE 5 19 rev. iii 3 dingir-kà-na-na 'divino Dingir-kanana'; F. D'AGOSTINO, MEE 7 23 obv. ix 8 A<be > kàna-[na] 'Signore'> di Cana'an'. This identification is very dubious, and is based more on the Greek transcription in the Septuagint (Khanaan) than on the Hebrew vocalization (Kcnacan) and the occurrences in cuneiform from the second millennium that all have the form Kinahi, Kinahnum, Kinahha both in Mari and in Alalah, El-cAmarna, Ugarit and Hattuša; cf. HAL 462; Β. GRONEBERG, RGTC 3 139; Κ. NASHEF, RGTC 5.

In other words, scholarly consensus appears to be against this identification, particularly since the form of the word is different from all the other cuneiform references, which explains why Na'aman doesn't even mention it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

ROFL Oh, you "found the answer", eh? Tell me, how can you possibly read something that says in plain English, "has been the subject of fierce debate', and transmogrify that in your mind into "In other words, scholar consensus appears to be" and accept me to do the same in my mind? I can show you scores of other specialist sources on Ebla stating quite specifically that there are lots of references to Canaan in the material, especially associated with Dagan's title, but not exclusively. Yet you managed to come up with the one naysayer in the stack (must have taken some digging there) who says in black and white, third grade level English "has been the subject of fierce debate" just so you can hold that up and report it as a "scholarly consensus"... Wikipedia is an amazing place, I tell you! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please could you rephrase this in a way that is not offensive or rude, and assumes good faith? You have completely misunderstood me. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sadly that's mild. Some people might find it pretty off-putting and make them not want to edit, especially as this sort of PA is often unaccompanied by anything constructive - in this case, no sources. I've just rewritten a sentence which misrepresented what Tubb wrote in 1998. See my edit summary. Without knowing the sources and the dates I have no idea whether we can say there is an actual consensus for these earlier dates. But my knowing or not knowing doesn't matter so long as there is a dispute, we can't state there is a consensus. Not unusual in such circumstances, we often can only quote and attribute what someone says about a consensus. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, appreciate it. Your point is well made re what we can say.

Also thanks for your clarification re Tubb - that makes it very clear. On a related point, does anyone have any objection then to removing the sentence in the lead: "Canaan is historically attested throughout the 4th millennium BC"?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is from one of the sources I used, "Ebla, Ugarit and the Old Testament", Dahood quotes Pettinato saying: "The attestation of the term 'Canaan' in the Eblaite texts precludes the accusation of using an anachronistic designation. [Author comments here in footnote: "And, one might add, upsets the thesis of J.D. Muhly, JAOS 97 (1977) p. 65, who claims that 'the term Canaanite is of even more questionable legitimacy; the name has no real historical meaning before the Late Bronze Age...' The Ebla Tablets frequently call Dagan "the Canaanite" to emphasize his origins in the west; the people of Ebla were evidently conscious of Canaan as a geographic entity as early as 2500 BC."] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple more:

• Lemche: "A divine name is known from Ebla which may be of interest in this connection, dBE Ga- -na-ilum , which may be translated as "the Canaanite Dagan". The precise meaning of this name must await further confirmation as to the correct rendering of the name itself. Moreover, this is the only reference of the kind coming from Ebla, and the exact meaning of this 'Canaan', should it at all be Canaan, is not clear."
• Anchor Bible Series: "Much has been made of the supposed occurrences of Canaan in the Ebla texts (Pettinato 1981a: 341 index s.v.), but it is not certain that the writings Ga-na-na and Ga-na-ne can be interpreted that way (Edzard 1981b: 95)." [3]

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems fair to say that there does seem to be lively disagreement on both sides, and many more sources out there seem to indicate that too. And I apologize for getting a little irritated in my earlier response, I just see people claiming "scholarly consensus" all the time, a little too quickly, to describe its exact semantic opposite, but I'm sure you meant well. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Til, i appreciate it. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just before we close on all this, do you think this debate is related to the wider debate over the Ebla tablets and the bible, which has been positioned as Pettinato and Dahood drawing a wide variety of sensational conclusions about Ebla's connections to biblical history which were later undermined (e.g. [4], [5] and summarised in Ebla_tablets#Biblical_archaeology)?

If so, it would be interesting to know whether any scholars other than Dahood and Pettinato have published anything explicitly supporting their reading of Canaan. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There are several, I'm sure you can find them if you're interested! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Went away thinking this had save, came back to an ec, saved, another ec. I'm trying to get a sense of the chronology here. Pettinato is obviously earlier than Dahood. Dahood wrote his article in 1979 in Bible and Spade, so I'm not going to take that too seriously - non-peer reviewed Creationist media are not the sort of source that I take seriously except as examples of non-scientific approaches. Yes Til, I know he published elsewhere and you might see B&S as a reliable source, but even then --[6]. Anyway, so far it appears that the later sources are dubious. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A true scientific approach is one that uses the scientific method, whereas a pseudo-scientific approach typically resorts to peer pressure, ostracisation, black balling, appeals to authority and marginalization of dissenting scholars, and things that have zilch to do with the scientific method in absence of conclusive proof. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment Til.

However, you mentioned your view that there are several scholars who support Dahood and Pettinato. I have spent a couple of hours and I can't find any. Perhaps because I am defining the relevant "scholars" to mean "experts in cuneiform epigraphy" as opposed to "experts in religion". The way I have searched is simply by looking around for books and articles including the words "Canaan", "Ebla", "Pettinato", and "Archi". Since Archi was Pettinato's replacement as the leading epigrapher for the Ebla excavations, and he disagreed with Pettinato on a wide variety of issues, anyone considering this issue seriously would have referred to both of the two people. Anyway, using that method I did not find anyone supporting Pettinato. Would you mind sharing your sources with us please? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are describing how you used a circular method of a litmus test and are feigning astonishment that you couldn't find any debate? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to not trust me at all. I'm not sure what I have done to deserve this behaviour. I find your use of the word "feigning" to be highly offensive.

So you disagree with my method and conclusion. Will you provide an alternative method or else some sources to underpin your position?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I happen to think that the Ebla references quite feasibly could refer to Canaan. This is not my original, novel hypothesis, as we have already seen several prominent scholars have taken and continue to take this same position. But at this stage it is starting to look like you will stop at nothing to get wikipedia to take a non-neutral position and declare what school of thought is "right" and the school of thought I agree with is "wrong" with no evidence required, only the usual prejudices we see manifested above, like calling anyone who disagrees a "Creationist" as a pejorative. I have seen this cycle repeated too many times, Wikipedia as a whole never has and never will adopt the agenda some editors have here because there are far too many users on it who disagree with it, so when is this going to stop, enough is enough? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Perhaps you are taking memories of bad experiences you have with other editors, and projecting them on to me. Please stop this. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

To cut to the chase and save time on your research, Michael Astour is the main Ebla scholar giving the refuting argument to Pettinato in this instance. He seizes on one of the more questionable references, a tablet known as the report of General Enna-Dagan to the King of Ebla, mentioning that the King of Mari had won a victory in Ganane-ki; he says this "couldn;t possibly" mean Canaan because it is mentioned in the same line as Gasur, thus 'proving' it is a location near Gasur. But then he similarly tries to brush off all the other references to the deity dBe-Gananum / Ganana / Ganani etc. with the same explanation, which has not been compelling to all other scholars in this instance. So that's why I refrained from mentioning the more questionable instance (the report of Enna Dagan) in the section. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Great. I have asked you three times now to provide the sources you said you have of scholars who support Dahood and Pettinato in light of the criticisms raised against them. I assume since this is the third time you sidestepped the question that you have been unable to find any. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I think the Creationist comment is aimed at me. Til will not accept the idea that Wikipedia looks for mainstream sources for subjects such as this one. We can represent Creationist sources when they are appropriate, of course, although there are times when we have to make sure we label them correctly, eg if we use an article from Bible and Spade as a source we should make sure the reader knows what kind of non-peer reviewed publication it is. I'm not the only editor that would be chary about using someone who publishes in an inerrantist publication, we all should be careful with such sources. Til has a right to his own pov on Creationism but not to attack others who disagree with Creationism. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The debate among published scholars is whether references to Ganan- at Ebla might conceivably have to do with Canaan the well known country in the region that was called by similar names by all its neighbours in every direction. The obvious, simple answer is, all we have to do is accurately report the disagreement on this issue without taking sides or pretending "There is no disagreement" as we often see less honest editors suggest on other contentious issues. However since there are two editors who are aggressively trying to frame this as a debate about Creationism and about me, I am going to have to request further comments. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Til, your behaviour is aggressive and inflammatory. Please stop reading into what you think other editors intentions are. As it relates to me, you have consistently misinterpreted my intentions every time, so please stop guessing. I want to ensure this article reflects the true scholarly position, just like you. If we disagree on interpretation of the sources, we can discuss. But I have nothing to discuss because you have refused to provide the sources you state exist, despite being asked four separate times. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Explanation please

This revert from User:Til Eulenspiegel was unexplained. Please explain. My issues are:

• The whole paragraph is uncited
• "The southern highlands of the region were later named Judea after the kingdom of Judah, " => use of the word "later" is questionable
• "while the coastal region came to be known as Παλαιστίνη in Greek (Latin Palaestina), from the name of the Philistines. " => why is this relevant? The Philistines in the bible were contemporaneous with Canaan, so what's new here? What is the point we are trying to make?
• "That name was extended to a larger area in the 2nd century, with the establishment of the Roman province of Syria Palaestina." => This is factually incorrect (see Timeline of the name Palestine)
• The whole thing is poorly written and really not very relevant

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's really not questiaonable that Judea (Iudaea) is the Latinized form of Judah (Yehuda) and was used later. Since these are unquestionably later names for the same region as Canaan, how is the relevance not obvious? And the fact that the name was extended to a larger area in the 2nd century (after Bar Kokba) and renamed Syria Palaestina is beyond dispute, not "factually incorrect". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Til,

• Re Judah, "later" than when? Later than Canaan?
• These are NOT names for the same region as Canaan. They are subdivisions. There are many other subdivisions we could add to this (Galilee, Samaria, Coele Syria, Phoenicia, etc etc). Why have we focused on only these two?
• The name Palestine was used for the wider area by Herodotus in the 5th century BC.

If you really want to keep this pitiful paragraph, please fix it and source it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the Roman name of the province of Judea is later than it was called Canaan. And if what is there is deficient, removing it will not correct that. And Herodotus is the first attested usage of the general geographic term for Philistia or Canaan, however it was at the time of Bar Kokba in the second century that the Romans abolished Judea and officially applied the term Palaestina to a specifically defined larger area, and it kept this name from then until 1948. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. But the paragraph doesn't make any of this clear, and is therefore misleading. I just don't see the point - why bother eludicidating the history of the subdivisions. Anyway, if you feel strongly please fix it and cite it. Otherwise it will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The term Palestine was used in manuscripts translated from Herodotus dated from 3rd century onwards (translated to Latin i think). There is no genuine work, surviving in original Greek language from previous times to check whether he indeed utilized "Palestine", or was it just a translation/rewrite. You seem to neglect this fact all the time.GreyShark (dibra) 13:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Greyshark, from Timeline of the name "Palestine", how about Aristotle, Ovid, Philo and Josephus? All of those are clearly referring to the wider region, yet are before Bar Kokhba. So the point doesn't rely on Herodotus. And even if it did, the dating and veracity of works attributed to Herodotus is mainstream scholarly consensus, suggesting otherwise is fringe. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand the point of this paragraph, it doesn't doesn't appear to fit properly in its current form, and i'm not sure what it is trying to achieve. Can anyone explain this? If not, i will delete it. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you doubtful that the region of Canaan later officially bore the names of Judaea and Palaestina, or just don't understand the relevance to this article? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that a paragraph focusing on two selected subdivisions of Canaan fits very well in the greco-roman historioiography section of the article. If you want to build out a new section describing all the main subdivisions of Canaan over time, that would make sense. But what we have now does not fit and looks very odd. Do you feel strongly about this? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone complaining about it but you, yet you keep issuing these ultimatums that if you aren't given an explanation that is completely satisfactory to you, you will unilaterally delete it anyway - and clearly no explanation so far has completely satisfied you no matter how clearly it is explained. Something about that approach toward collaboration just kind of bothers me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel equally bothered, but all things considered I think in practice we are collaborating ok. I'm sure we'll learn to understand each other more if we continue editing in the same areas, and it will become easier over time. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the dividing line between Canaan and Phoenicia and why?

There appears to be a conventional dividing line between Canaan and Phoenicia in academia. It shows itself in:

• Phoenician alphabet attested from 1050BC, from which the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet is said to descend
• Kings such as Ahiram and Ithobaal I from 800-1000BC (see also List of kings of Tyre)
• Other artefacts such as those in the National Museum of Beirut

It all seems very arbitrary, since the name Phoenicia is an exonym not attested until c.700BC, and the local name was always Canaan.

Does anyone know if there is a rule for this and if so who came up with it?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Greeks came up with the name "Phoenician", they distinguished them from the rest of the Canaanites (like the Israeliets, who were hillmen) because the Phoenicians were a seafaring people, the only Canaanites to be such a people. But truly, there was no significant difference between them and other Canaanites, whether culturally, linguistically or religiously speaking. Guy355 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I agree. So if the Greeks came up with the name, why do we call Ahiram a Phoenician? The Greeks are not attested in 1000BC, so he would never have been called a "Phoenician" by anyone. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That's true, he wouldn't be called Phoenician, nor would he identify as one. Just like a pre While settlement native Aussie wouldn't call himself a native Aussie. Guy355 (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Image of Canaanite

I assume that the name of this image file reflects the opinion of some knowledgeable people: 'Canaanites Book of Gates'.

Asiatics (Canaanites) portrayed in the Ancient Egyptian "Book of Gates", 13th Century BCE

So why has it been deleted? The justification was as follows,

"this is misleading as the book of gates does not mention canaanites. It shows people from Asia, but the Canaan connection is conjecture"

Well, I didn't make any conjectures. So is this justified? Y-barton (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

These peoples are the Aamu. "The AAMU are dwellers in the deserts to the east and north-east of Egypt." source: Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy (Budge). Y-barton (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Y-barton, agreed - my justification in the file's move history [7] was exactly because, as you say, they are Aamu, not Canaanites. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have read a little more on the Aamu - the term is most often translated as "Asiatics", and was also widely used to refer to the Hyksos. The main reason why this picture should not be in this article is because the term Aamu is not usually translated as Canaanites, and that is because the term Canaanites (Ka-na-na) has a specific meaning in Egypt used in 16 known sources (Canaan#Late_Bronze_Age_Hieroglyphic_and_Hieratic_.281500-1000_BC.29).

Perhaps we could create a new article named Aamu? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So what are you going to put in this article? Who do you think are the Aamu? Y-barton (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we create a separate article on Aamu first, with this picture illustrating it. When we have a good range of sources there we can then consider how best to cross reference it here. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Tabnit sarcophagus

The text of sarcophagus of Tabnit of Sidon, 6th century BCE, also offers a clue as to what 'kn.n' might mean originally. The first line of the text runs: 'nk tbnt, khn Strt, mlk Sdnm' would be 'anok Tabint, khana Astarte, melk Sidonum' with vowels added, translating into 'I, Tabint, priest/consort of Astarte, king of Sidon'. From the scant knowledge of Phoenician, we know that '-onu' or '.n' denotes 1st person plural. Thus, 'kn.n' could be an endonym derived from religious preferences from the beginning that later come to be synonymous with 'purple' among neighboring peoples of the Phoenicians, as they came to be associated with purple dye.

Here are a couple of sources which give the Tabnit inscription: [8] [9].

The above description added by an anon editor has the first couple of sentences right. But I don't see the connection to kn.n or purple.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a new article on the subject Tabnit sarcophagus. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Religious Dogma

The main article has a lot of unsubstantiated bible dogma. The archaeological documentary: "The Unknown Secrets of the Bible" (available on youtube) shows that the cities of Canaan decayed over a thousand years and not from battles. The lower class people (who had been burdened with taxes and slavery) of Hazor moved on and set up settlememnts in the hills, calling themself the nation of Israel, so Israelites (the term Israel first appearing in 1250 BC on the Mennonite Stellae).(80.31.144.16 (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC))

There are a number of statements in this article that are based on poor-quality sources or based on no citation at all. I would prefer to see it based on scientific facts and hard evidence - the reader deserves some quality of source and this important topic deserves better treatment. To this end, you might place some templates or templates where appropriate. Regards,William Harris • talk • 03:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing full citation for one reference. Only abbreviation can be found

In the last paragraph of the "Late Bronze Age (1550–1200)" subsection in the History section there are a couple of places that cite to "Georges Roux – Ancient Iraq" as the supporting source. However, there is nowhere in the article nor the footnotes any additional information about this work. Is it a book? A journal article? A web page? I have no idea. Either the work was at one point properly referenced but that reference has since then been deleted, or the citation was done incorrectly to begin with. Ileanadu (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I used Revision History Search - that's the way it was added, it's a 1964 book cited incorrectly from the start. Doug Weller (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Origins section

I'm not terribly happy about this. It doesn't seem to be directly sourced and some of it looks like OR. Jonathan Tubb says in the source used that "If the origins of the Ghassul-Beersheba culture are, as yet, poorly understood. there are even greater problems relating to the apparent disappearance of the culture towards the end of the fourth millennium" - ignore the last as he earlier says that there's probably no reason to seek its origins outside of the area. He also says that "There may well have been infiltrations of newcomers from the north towards the end of the fourth millennium, and these people undoubtedly brought with them significant new ideas. Surely, however, they did not arrive in an empty land. The population of the Early Bronze Age was composed in the majority of the Ghassul-Beersheba people of the Chalcolithic."[10] Doug Weller talk 11:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the biblical character "Canaan" should be included in the ethymology?

According to the Hebrew Bible, Canaan is named after Canaan, one of Noah's grandsons. I personally don't believe it, but do you think it can serve a place in the 'Ethymology' section? It seems to be a small interesting fact, and since many people actually do believe in the Bible, it can serve a place after all.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 02:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "etymology" is quite the right place for it, because etymology deals more with what the specific word "Canaan" meant in whatever language first used the name. But right below the etymology section is a section called "Canaan in Scripture," which mentions that the biblical grandson of Noah is called Canaan. It's possible that the section could use some rewriting, because there is some issue with how things are organized there. But definitely Noah's grandson is mentioned in the article.Alephb (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canaan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090811054625/http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Palestine/history.htm to http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/erp/Palestine/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519195012/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/canaanites-and-philistines.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/canaanites-and-philistines.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canaan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510193810/http://www.ientneareast.net/wares_kerak.html to http://www.ientneareast.net/wares_kerak.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

News Flash: Modern research

All RELIABLE sources agree that Canaanites spoke SEMITIC... how about User:Dilidor find a RELIABLE SOURCE claiming Canaanites were really "Hamitic" that isnt pseudoscientific white supremacist crap from a past century 71.246.151.78 (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

AND, User:Dilidor, rather than engage in discussion, merely reverts back in "Hamitic", despite it not appearing in the reference given and having been added by a troll only last week... 71.246.151.78 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede says re: the endonym: «the name "Canaanites" (כְּנָעַנִיְם‬ kənā‘anīm, כְּנָעַנִי‬ kənā‘anī) is attested, many centuries later»

So, I have various issues with the following:

 The name "Canaanites" (כְּנָעַנִיְם‬ kənā‘anīm, כְּנָעַנִי‬ kənā‘anī) is attested, many centuries later, as the endonym of the people later known to the Ancient Greeks from c. 500 BC as Phoenicians

1. The Canaanites (i.e., the Phoenicians), did not use the Hebrew alphabet; they used the Phoenician alphabet. When we are saying their endonym is attested, why would anyone use Hebrew? It's like saying «the people from the U.S. called themselves "美國人"». And for crying out loud, the Hebrew alphabet either derives from the Phoenician alphabet or is contemporaneous at best!
2. Are we sure that the cited sentence is the proper gloss of what Drews (the citation) says? Because what I see on the citation hardly supports the sentence. At all.
3. The Book of Joshua was first written during Josiah's reign, i.e., circa 625 BC. How can we say "attested" "many centuries later" among the Greeks of "500 BC"? There's all of 125 years in between the Hebrew attestation and the supposed Greek attestation.
4. The name "Canaan" is attested with absolute certainty from the Amarna Letters (1350 BC) and from Idrimi's statue (1550 BC). Is Wikipedia going to say in its own voice that "Canaanite" only arises a millenium later?
Unless there are objections, I'll work on eradicating this sentence and replacing with something coherent (supported by WP:RS, of course).XavierItzm (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

References

As you say , The name "Canaan" is attested with absolute certainty from the Amarna Letters (1350 BC) and from Idrimi's statue (1550 BC). Is Wikipedia going to say in its own voice that "Canaanite" only arises a millenium later?

Yes, I'm afraid wikipedia is going to say that in its own voice, because over the years wikipedia has become notorious as a hotbed for pushing militant minimalism -- an emotion-based and peer-driven substitute for rationally accepting any objective evidence that conflicts with their desired projections. 71.246.152.84 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC) That's what you get with "an encyclopedia anyone can edit", of course. The revisionists organize and take over. 71.246.152.84 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Boring. Ok, I'll leave it here even though it's just a forum style post because you haven't even bothered to find out why it says that. For a start, that was originally sourced to p.61. See this edit. @Onceinawhile:, this is your edit (plus some following changes), would you please sort this out? I'm hoping you have a copy of Drews. @XavierItzm:, thanks for catching this. IP, why can't you actually be helpful and do some research rather than just whine? Doug Weller talk 14:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Alphabets. Whether you want to call it the "Phoenician alphabet", "Canaanite alphabet", "Proto-Canaanite alphabet", "Paleo-Hebrew alphabet" or "Hebrew alphabet", it's all the same alphabet, with the same letters. There's some differences in letter shape from one century to another, but the comparison with Chinese is ... not quite right. It's an issue of different scripts, not different alphabets. Alephb (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Xavier, thanks for your detailed comment. My thoughts on each of your points in turn:

1. The reason Hebrew is used is that Biblical use of the word Canaanite is both its most frequent usage as well as its most notable. The majority of readers will be familiar with the Bible in some form, but not with the various archaeological artifacts. Having said which, I don’t think it adds much so do not object to its removal

2. I agree the cite only supports part of the sentence. See source here. We should bring sources for the rest, which will not be hard to find.

3. + 4. The wording is confusing, and should be improved. What it is supposed to say is that many centuries after the people we describe in the lead paragraph who lived in “the late 2nd millennium BC” (i.e. Canaanites-proper), the term was used to self-describe a group of people in the same area (and other areas)(and that by the way that other group were classically called Phoenician, and the term Phoenician is much newer being in use from only 500 BC). All sourced throughout the article, but not explained properly.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In regards to "whose Alphabaet" it is, beyond both alphabets being basically the same, the are a development of a prior ancestor to the south (or at least that's the only attestation found so far of the proto Alphabet) - Proto-Sinaitic script. Modern Hebrew script (which is merely a font change - based on the Armiac script) is legible (machine legible (fonts), and human legible) to a much larger portion of readers than the older script.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Proto-Sinaitic script is so far attested only in Serabit el-Khadim, in the Sinai Peninsula. "The Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, along with the contemporary parallels found in Canaan and Wadi el-Hol, are thus hypothesized to show an intermediate step between Egyptian hieratic script and the Phoenician alphabet. Brian Colless (2014) notes that 18 of the 22 letters of the Phoenician alphabet have counterparts in the Byblos syllabary, and it seems that the proto-alphabet evolved as a simplification of the syllabary, moving from syllabic to consonantal writing, in the style of the Egyptian script (which did not normally indicate vowels); this goes against the Goldwasser hypothesis (2010) that the original alphabet was invented by ignorant miners in Sinai. According to the "alphabet theory", the early Semitic proto-alphabet reflected in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions would have given rise to both the South Arabian script and the Proto-Canaanite script by the time of the Bronze Age collapse (1200–1150 BCE)." There is a comparison template between the symbols used in Hieroglyphs, Proto-Sinaitic, the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, the Phoenician alphabet, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, the Aramaic alphabet, Biblical Hebrew, Archaic Greek alphabets, the Greek alphabet, the Old Italic script, and the Latin alphabet. Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Israel to "exterminate" Canaanites? Maybe Not

I am not sure if it is appropriate to say objectively that Israel was to exterminate Canaan. The research of John H. Walton among others has suggested (in his book The lost World of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan and in other sources) that the Hebrew word herem does not mean to wipe out, but to utterly devote something to a deity (in that case Yahweh). In other words, it appears major research in biblical studies suggest that the command may not have been to exterminate the Canaanites, but to remove them from the cities. My suggestions is either the introduction is altogether updated to change it from "exterminated" to something that fits the meaning of herem better or to add content in the intro to explain alternative viewpoints of herem. Superdadsuper (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"State of Palestine"

Greyshark09, please quit your obvious POV pushing via use of that name "State of Palestine". The Arab areas of the former Mandate of Palestine are called "Palestinian Territories". Your inserting "State of Palestine" is politically motivated. Other readers will know what I mean if they visit that article. SamEV (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We continue to see 'Palestine' and 'Palestinians' slipped into every article on the Jewish National Home (Israel). This historical revisionism gives us such nonsense as the Canaanites were Palestinians! That Jesus was a Palestinian! The Philistines were Greeks. Palestine was the Roman Empires replacement name for Judea as of 135 AD. Prior to 1964 the Jews were the Palestinians. The Canaanites were few in number and were either eliminated or incorporated into the 12 tribes. We must not allow the islamists and antisemites to corrupt the history of the Jewish National Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.144.29 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I rarely agree with Greyshark nowadays. But 88.111.144.29, your comment is ignorant. If you think Canaan is the Jewish National Home, and are not willing to consider that Palestinians have a claim too, that makes you a bigot. You think that Jesus cannot be called Palestinian, that makes you ignorant of the concept of overlapping identities. You think that the Philistines were Greeks, that makes you ignorant of the fact that this myth came from a popular 19th century work on the Sea Peoples, which has never been proven due to the "difficultly of connecting pots with people" and the fact that the only known Philistine inscription of significance (Ekron inscription) was in a Semitic language. You think that the Canaanites were eliminated or incorporated into Israel, that means you haven't read this article since the Phoenicians and Punics continued to use the name for more than a millennium. You think that the concept of Palestine was created in 135AD, making you ignorant of the fact that there is no direct proof for this romantic theory, and the name had been used by most well known Roman and Greek writers for the previous 600 years, including by Jewish writers Josephus and Philo. You think that 1964 was when Muslims and Christians started to call themselves Palestinian, making you ignorant of frequent usage from at least 1898, including the title of a major Arab newspaper and usage as the frequent alternative name of the Mutassarifate of Jerusalem. You think that to disagree with your myths makes someone an antisemite or islamist, that makes you someone with a deeply closed mind, living in a bubble. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The 12 tribes of Israel is not historically verified either. There was a kingdom of Israel and a kingdom of Judah; and classes of people in those Kingdoms that claimed ascendence to those tribal origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.30.99 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Given how rarely this IP has edited, their last edit being about 6 years ago, so either this is a one-off, someone accidentally logged off editing, or a sock. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

New Map

@IYY: thank you for the new map. Please could you provide a source for the statement that the cities in your map are the major Canaanite cities? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I added a note citing my two main sources. By I mean "Major" I mean cities that controlled some territory beyond their own walls, and conducting political correspondences (most of these cities appear in the Amarna letters). I can add and/or remove cities if needed. IYY (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Genetics section deleted

For the second time, I had to delete a section on genetics. The material given seemed to be from primary sources and the user who twice inserted that section inserted a similar section into articles where that section was obviously completely out of place.

Another reason for deleting that section was that it was not connected in any way to the context. Please give your reasons here on the talk page or refrain from inserting that section again. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Section on black Africans deleted

I twice deleted a section on Black Africans as descendants of Canaan. That subject is covered by the article Curse of Canaan. It is connected with the Biblical person Canaan who has his own article, not with the region Canaan. This article is about the region. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Last sentence of lede: "They also built ..."

I just deleted the last sentence of the lede, because no reference was given and because the pronoun "They" has no reference (Who is "they" ?). At least some of the cities mentioned in the sentence are not mentioned again in the text (I checked Palermo and Ibiza). The sentence was: They also built cities that still stand such as Sidon, Acre or Akka, Baalbek, Beirut, Byblos, Latakia, Ashkelon, Tyre, Tartus, Hebron, Jericho, Haifa, Jaffa, Tangier, Tripoli, Palermo, Cagliari, Lisbon, Cadiz, Malaga, and Ibiza. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Χανάαν ή Χαναάν?

There appears to be some disagreement about how to the word Canaan is spelled/pronounced in Greek, specifically by @Rsk6400: who, if understand them correctly, belives it is Χανάαν as opposed to Χαναάν. Rsk6400 seems to have WP:RS that support the spelling (Χανάαν), but there are also seem to be numerous WP:RS that disagree (Χαναάν)... So, I figured I'd bring this issue here to hash it out. I've reverted the spelling in the article to what I think was the consensus before Rsk6400 made their changes, my apologies if I've misjudged consensus.
I am not experienced at all in what Wikipedia's standards are when it comes to referencing Biblical Greek, nor am I sure how the reliability of various sources is handled in this kind of instance. That being said, it seems to me that the correct spelling of this place is Χαναάν. This is how Canaan appears in the Πατριαρχικό Κείμενο 1904 (Patriarchal Text of 1904) which is the most recent untranslated edition of the New Testament officially in use by the Orthodox Church (you can compare the text to English here or find it more directly here). My understanding is that this is one of the most authoritative texts, particularly regarding linguistic fidelity to earlier Greek editions. Another point towards Χαναάν is that this is the word is spelled in Katharevousa, Dimotiki, and Standard Modern Greek. —Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding consensus: I don't think you can speak of "consensus" before something has been discussed. So, thank you for starting the discussion. I had a look into the history of the article. At the beginning of 2019, there was indeed only the spelling Χαναάν, but at the end of last year, there were both spellings, Χανάαν having been added to the lede.

Regarding the sources you cited: We are talking about Biblical Greek, not Modern Greek. So, as you put it correctly, modern usage is a "point towards Χαναάν", but not a very strong point, since Greek, like every living language, has been changing over the centuries. Πατριαρχικό Κείμενο 1904 is certainly stronger, since it gives the Biblical text in the original Biblical Greek, but Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece is the internationally recognized scholarly standard edition aiming at reproducing the original text as best as possible. I don't know whether Πατριαρχικό Κείμενο also is a scholarly text, but at least Nestle-Aland (I used the most recent 28th edition of 2012) is much younger, meaning that it is based on 108 more years of research.

Having said that, I have to admit that there are no accents in the earliest manuscripts. For that reason, Rahlf's edition of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) has Χανααν without any accent, and the New Testament dictionary of Bauer-Aland (6th edition, 1988) says, "Χανάαν (also Χαναάν)". So, following Bauer-Aland, I'd suggest to leave Χανάαν in the lede and in the info box, but to add Χαναάν to the etymology section. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a linguist and not a biblical scholar so I'm certainly not expert enough in biblical versions to fully understand the weight of one version over the other. But then again, there's no reason biblical Greek need's to be the Greek used here, in fact most of the article's references to Greece are not biblical in nature, though I imagine a huge chunk of traffic comes to this page for biblical reasons and not historical ones.

To me, the evidence for Xαναάν is that it seems to be used in many editions of the bible & Greek as a whole seems to prefer it. I bring up modern Greek varieties not because the word's spelling in modern Greek should be the deciding factor but to point out that both Katharevousa (which academically reconstructed Koine) and Dimotiki (which naturally evolved from Koine) agree on the tone's placement on the 3rd alpha. When these two agree on a feature it's generally something that was present in Koine. This is especially true with loan words that have a tendency to remain unchanged in Greek. Tones don't often shift like this in Greek, though the -νααν syllable(s) is not at all normal structure for Greek. This agreement of many versions of Greek combined with the agreement of many reliable biblical versions gives me the impression that Χαναάν should be standard with Χανάαν listed as secondary.

All that being said, this is obviously a very minor issue and I don't think either resolution is problematic. I'd say let's give it a few days to see if anyone else has opinions. —Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting and very learned discussion about a seemingly minor issue of an accent or tone. I.e., should the accent or tone be on the last syllable of the word, or on the one preceding the last one (next to last), or second syllable of the three syllable word. Since I assume that the origin of the word is in the Semitic (Phoenician/Hebrew) linguistic area, and not in Greek, it may help to point out that the same debate apparently exists concerning the original Hebrew pronunciation of the word. Before looking at the page, I knew that the modern Hebrew pronunciation is 'kna'án', with the accent in the last syllable. The IPA Hebrew transliterartion of the Hebrew in the article, however, gives the accent in the next to last syllable, as 'kná'an'. And so the same issue arises. As we cannot be certain of the original Hebrew pronuniciation, since the text did not have vowels and diacritical accent marks since the 8th or 9th centuries CE with the Masoretes, and since we would have to check all usages of the word according to the tone prescribed by the Masoretes to reach a recommended conclusion on the proprer tone or accentuation of the word, I would say we would have to defer a resolution for now. But since the modern Hebrew (Sephardic) pronunciation is commonly or usually in the last syllable of words, I would change the recommended accentuation currently given in the IPA transliteration of the Hebew word Canaan. However, since the issue is really overall a minor one, I won't really bother changing anything for the time being. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that the question is a minor one, but I still enjoy the discussion, since I'm learning a lot from you. BTW: I'm not a Biblical scholar, just a theologian who still takes a look into his Greek and Hebrew Bibles from time to time.

Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk · contribs), your point about modern Greek is original research, since it makes a synthesis of the statement that "loan words ... have a tendency to remain unchanged in Greek" and the statement that modern Greek accentuation is Xαναάν. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that age and context matter. So a 1904 edition intended for liturgical use is no match for a scholarly 2012 edition. Instead of "Biblical Greek" we could use "Ancient Greek", but I think finding a source for the ancient spelling outside the Bible would be difficult. Since the Septuagint is older (which means in this case, closer to the time to which the article refers) than the New Testament, and since its most recent scholarly edition has Xανααν without any accent, maybe a good solution is: "Xανααν" with a reference: "The current scholarly edition of the Greek Old Testament spells the word without any accents, cf. Septuaginta : id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 2. ed. / recogn. et emendavit Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart : Dt. Bibelges., 2006. - LXXII, 1184, 941 S. ISBN 978-3-438-05119-6. However, in modern Greek the accentuation is Xαναάν, while the current scholarly edition of the New Testament has Xανάαν." Rsk6400 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Rsk6400. I like your solution above to the issue at hand a lot and I endorse it. I wish I could come up with an equally simple and elegant solution to the issue of the Hebrew accent soon too. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:warshy, thanks a lot. Regarding the Hebrew accent, I think that it is much less of a problem. Since the Hebrew Bible is virtually the only surviving text written in ancient Hebrew, and since all (or at least, virtually all) its extant copies having vocalisation and accentuation go back to the Ben Asher family (around 1000 AD), the form given in the article is without an alternative. I don't say, that it is the correct form, but it is the only form that has come down to us. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not that simple. I don't know where the form given in the article was taken from, and I don't know where in the Masorah that specific form appears. Do you? I will have to check that with some time. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I am looking at it, and the first mention, I believe, is Genesis 12:5 where it appears twice. The article IPA transliteration reads:

Kenāʿan; Hebrew: כְּנַעַן – Kənáʿan, in pausa כְּנָעַן – Kənā́ʿan;

I think this should be changed to:

Kənaʿan; Hebrew: כְּנַעַן – Kənaʿan, in pausa כְּנָעַן – Kənā́ʿan;

Thoughts? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice the form Kenāʿan. But that's supposed to be Phoenician, and that's definitely wrong, because the four Phoenician letters given are KN`N (see article on Phoenician alphabet). There should be no consonants in the transliteration of Phoenician. It should be changed to:

Knʿn; Hebrew: כְּנַעַן – Kənáʿan, in pausa כְּנָעַן – Kənā́ʿan.

But I don't see why you want to drop the accent of Kənáʿan. The first occurrence is Genesis 9:18, the word occurs 93 times, 53 times in pausa, 40 times in context. The accent is there, even in the context forms (I checked Genesis 9:22 in my printed edition of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia). Rsk6400 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. Genesis 9 refers to the character/person, the son of Kham, whereas 12 refers to the land specifically. But you are correct, the accent is there. I just had not seen it, knowing how the language is currently spoken/pronounced. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Phoenician

The article says "Phoenician: 𐤊𐤍𐤏𐤍 – Kenāʿan;" in the introduction. Which Phoenician inscription is supposed to have that? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Prehistory Cleanup and Maps

Hi guys, I am working on cleaning up the prehistory section. If you have issue with my work lets discuss it here instead of just undoing my edits. I am improving it by copying over key info from article Ghassulian. Its unclear until you flip between the two that there is a connection. it would help to charactize the canaaites ethnogensis more if vital background info on proto-canaanites is part of the narrative. I am working on getting permission to have an image of the ghassulian star and refs to all the child-sacrifice and tophet jars will be added. The most import thing though is dates from when to when? that is missing all throughout the history. Does anyone else think it is confusing to have Ugarit in the prehistory its a canaaite city that isn't really canaanite. why so much attention given to this? Another thing is the way the article is bascially just a list of archeology field reports, maybe these should be moved to an archeology section instead of cluttering up the history section.--Gurdjieff (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I added a placeholder map, I will up the graphic quality soon--Gurdjieff (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Convert Mentions Section to Archeology Section

I will make a big change to this article and move all the mentions in near east section to a new Archeology section at the end--Gurdjieff (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing stuff

Hey @The big zoro: if you are gonna remove tons of stuff please explain why you removed some in the edit summary.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Canaanites

There is a discussion regarding the recent removal of material at Talk:Canaanites. —Srnec (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I recently revived the Canaanites article which had been redirected to this article and have been moving Canaanite information which was at this article there. Please go there to discuss whether that article should be kept or merged into this article. It's been long enough and I have done what I can for now, so if the result is remerge, I won't resist.Editor2020 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish etymology

Since the name appeared in the Amarna letters before Hebrew existed as a distinct language, the claim that it originated in Hebrew is impossible. Scholars argue over whether it is even Semitic, see here for example. The whole etymology section needs rewriting. Zero^talk 02:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that the term originated in Hebrew. I only see that the English term is derived from Hebrew (which makes sense as, as the term was "popularized" by the Hebrew Bible and its later translations). Tombah (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why does the ugly map keep re-appearing?

No matter how many times I erase an ugly low info map from like the 1500s or something. it REAPPEARS! then my beautiful GIS based map that shows the important cannanite cities is deleted. why is this happening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurdjieff (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)