Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites

Rate this book
It is an interesting consequence of the new reconstructions of the early history of Israel that the Israelites must originally have been Canaanites. Nevertheless, an outspoken hatred against Canaanites permeates the Old Testament. Lemche presents a new way of explaining the anti-Canaanite sentiments of the Old Testament historians, while at the same time disclosing some of the aims and ideas which governed Old Testament history writing.

191 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 1984

28 people want to read

About the author

Niels Peter Lemche

32 books7 followers

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
1 (33%)
4 stars
0 (0%)
3 stars
1 (33%)
2 stars
1 (33%)
1 star
0 (0%)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Profile Image for Parker.
471 reviews22 followers
June 15, 2024
The first two chapters, on the appearance of the term "Canaanite" in general aNE lit from the 2nd 1st millennia were quite helpful. There he demonstrates that "Canaan" was only a very loose geographical designation, no one (be they Syrian, Phoenician, or Ugaritian) thought of themselves as Canaanites, and there was no monolithic "Canaanit culture." These two chapters are worth your time.

Once he starts dealing with the biblical material, however, the usefulness of Lemche's work depends entirely on whether you can agree with him that the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomic historical books, in their entirety, are exilic at the earliest, but likely even post-exilic. This leads him to the position that biblical Canaanites are almost entirely fictitious, invented as a foil to the up-and-coming Israelites. Since I do not share his evaluation of the authorship of the OT material (I'm comfortable saying some parts could be exilic or later, but that most goes back to the 2nd millennium, whether in writing or in oral record), I did not find Lemche's study useful. I found many of his explanations convoluted and unconvincing -- and mostly unnecessary, if you simply take even a more moderately critical stance on authorship and date.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.