and result in their being ‘vomited out of the land’ also.—Ex. 23:32, 33; 34:12-17; Lev. 18:26-30; Deut. 7:2-5, 25, 26.

Judges 3:1, 2 states that Jehovah let some of the Canaanite nations stay “so as by them to test Israel, that is, all those who had not experienced any of the wars of Canaan; it was only in order for the generations of the sons of Israel to have the experience, so as to teach them war, that is, only those who before that had not experienced such things.” This does not contradict the earlier statement (Judg. 2:20-22) that Jehovah did not drive out these nations due to Israel’s unfaithfulness and also to “test Israel, whether they will be keepers of Jehovah’s way.” Rather, it harmonizes with that reason and shows that later generations of Israelites would thereby be faced with the opportunity to demonstrate obedience to God’s commands concerning the Canaanites, putting their faith to the test to the point of endangering their lives in war in order to prove obedient. The wars with the nations of Canaan described thereafter in the book of Judges, and the later wars fought by Saul and David, exemplify this purpose.

In view of all of this, it is clear that opinions held by some Bible critics that the destruction or the Canaanites by Israel is not in harmony with the ‘spirit’ of the Christian Greek Scriptures does not accord with the facts, as a comparison of such texts as Matthew 3:7-12; 22:1-7; 23:33; 25:41-46; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 19:14, 27; Romans 1:18-32; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; 2:3; Revelation 19:11-21 will demonstrate.

LATER HISTORY

Following the conquest, the situation between the Canaanites and the Israelites gradually became one of relatively peaceful coexistence, though to Israel’s detriment. (Judg. 3:5, 6; compare Judges 19:11-14.) Syrian, Moabite and Philistine rulers successively gained temporary domination over the Israelites, but it was not until the time of Jabin, called “the king of Canaan,” that the Canaanites regained sufficient power to accomplish a twenty-year subjugation of Israel. (Judg. 4:2, 3) After Jabin’s ultimate defeat by Barak, Israel’s difficulties during the pre-kingdom period came principally from non-Canaanite sources, the Midianites, Ammonites and Philistines. Likewise during Saul’s reign, of the Canaanite tribes only the Amorites are briefly mentioned. (1 Sam. 7:14) King David evicted the Jebusites from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6-9), but his major campaigns were against the Philistines, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Amalekites and the Syrians. Thus, the Canaanites, though still possessing cities and holding land in Israel’s territory (2 Sam. 24:7, 16-18), had evidently ceased to be a threat militarily. Two Hittite warriors are mentioned among David’s fighting force.—1 Sam. 26:6; 2 Sam. 23:39.

During Solomon’s rule he put the remnants of the Canaanite tribes to forced labor in his many projects (1 Ki. 9:20, 21), extending his building work even to the far northern Canaanite city of Hamath. (2 Chron 8:4) But Canaanite wives later contributed to Solomon’s downfall, the loss of much of the kingdom for his heir, and the religious corruption of the nation. (1 Ki. 11:1, 13, 31-33) From Solomon’s reign (1037-997 B.C.E.) down to the rule of Jehoram of Israel (c. 917-905 B.C.E.) only the Hittites appear to have maintained a considerable measure of prominence and strength as a tribe, though evidently located to the N of Israel’s territory and adjacent to, or in, Syria.—1 Ki. 10:29; 2 Ki. 7:6.

Intermarriage with Canaanites still was a problem among the returned Israelite exiles following the Babylonian captivity (Ezra 9:1, 2), but the Canaanite kingdoms, including those of the Hittites, had evidently disintegrated under the impact of Syrian, Assyrian and Babylonian aggression. The term “Canaan” came to refer primarily to Phoenicia, as in Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Tyre (Isa. 23:1, 11, NW, 1958 ed., ftn.) and in the case of the “Phoenician” (literally, Canaanite [Gr., Kha·na·naiʹos]) woman from the region of Tyre and Zidon (Sidon) who approached Jesus.—Matt. 15:22; compare Mark 7:26.

COMMERCIAL AND GEOPOLITICAL IMPORTANCE

Canaan formed a land bridge connecting Egypt with Asia and, more particularly, Mesopotamia. Though the economy of the country was basically agricultural, commercial trade was also engaged in and the seaport cities of Tyre and Sidon became major trade centers with fleets of ships that were renowned throughout the then known world. (Compare Ezekiel chapter 27.) Thus, as far back as Job’s time, the word “Canaanite” had become synonymous with ‘tradesman’ or ‘merchant’ and is so translated. (Job 41:6; Zeph. 1:11; note also the reference to Babylon as “the land of Canaan,” Ezekiel 17:4, 12.) Canaan thus occupied a very strategic place in the “Fertile Crescent” and was the target of the great empires of Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and Africa seeking to control military passage and commercial traffic through its confines. God’s placing of his chosen people in this land, therefore, was certain to draw the attention of the nations and have far-reaching effects; in a geographical sense, though more importantly in a religious sense, the Israelites could be said to dwell “in the center of the earth.”—Ezek. 38:12.

LANGUAGE

Although the Bible record clearly shows the Canaanites to be Hamitic, the majority of reference works speak of them as of Semitic origin. This classification is based on the evidence of a Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites. The evidence most frequently appealed to is the large number of texts found at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) written in a Semitic language or dialect and considered to date from as far back as the fourteenth century B.C.E. However, as already stated, Ugarit apparently did not come within the Biblical boundaries of Canaan. An article in The Biblical Archaeologist (Vol. XXVIII, 1965, 4, p. 105) by A. F. Rainey states that on ethnic, political, and, probably, linguistic bases “it is now clearly a misnomer to call Ugarit a ‘Canaanite’ city.” He gives further evidence to show that “Ugarit and the land of Canaan were separate and distinct political entities.” Hence, these tablets provide no clear rule by which to determine the language of the Canaanites.

Many of the Tell el-Amarna letters found in Egypt do proceed from cities in Canaan proper, and these letters, considered as predating the Israelite conquest, are written mainly in cuneiform Babylonian, a Semitic language. This, however, was the diplomatic language of the entire Near East at that time, so that it was used even when writing to the Egyptian court. Thus, it is of considerable interest to note the statement by Professor Alfred Haldar (writing in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 495) that “the Amarna Letters contain evidence for the opinion that non-Semitic ethnic elements settled in Palestine and Syria at a rather early date, for a number of these letters show a remarkable influence of non-Semitic tongues.” [Italics ours.]

The facts are that the original language spoken by the first inhabitants of Canaan is as yet unknown. As the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 ed., Vol. 4, p. 689) states of Canaan, prior to the time of the Tell el-Amarna tablets: “But ancient Canaan is a ‘dumb’ country; there are no inscriptions. This is due to the perishable nature of their writing material. Papyrus, wood and leather disappeared in the wet soil.” So there are no writings available from Canaanite sources for a period of some seven centuries after the Flood by which to determine their original language.

It is true, however, that the Bible account itself appears to show that Abraham and his descendants were able to converse with the people of Canaan without the need of an interpreter, and it may also be noted that, while some place-names of a non-Semitic type were used, most of the towns and cities captured by the Israelites already bore Semitic names. Still, Philistine kings in Abraham’s time and also, evidently, David’s time, were called “Abimelech” (Gen. 20:2; 21:32; Psalm 34, superscription), a thoroughly Semitic name (or title), whereas it is nowhere contended that the Philistines were a Semitic race. So, it would appear that the Canaanite tribes, over a period of some centuries from the time of the confusion of tongues at Babel (Gen. 11:8, 9), apparently changed over to a Semitic tongue from their original Hamitic language. This may have been due to their close association with the Aramaic-speaking peoples of Syria, or as a result of Mesopotamian domination for a period of time, or for other reasons not now apparent. Such a change would be no greater than that of other ancient nations, such as the ancient Persians, who, though of Indo-European (Japhetic) stock, later adopted the Semitic Aramaean language and alphabet.

The “language of Canaan” referred to at Isaiah 19:18 would by then (eighth century B.C.E.) be the Hebrew language, the principal language of the land.

CANALS

Waterways, usually artificial, for irrigation, flood control, navigation and water supply for towns and cities. Canals have been used from very early times.

PALESTINE

In Palestine, irrigation was not so vital to the economy as in Egypt and Babylonia, where there was less rainfall, and where fewer springs, streams and wells existed. (Deut. 11:10, 11) There was little opportunity for irrigation in the wilderness of Judah or in southern Judah. Nevertheless, some irrigating of gardens was done in Palestine, and conduits were built to carry water into Jerusalem particularly.

Tradition ascribes to Solomon the construction of a conduit from the “Pools of Solomon,” beyond Bethlehem, to the temple enclosure at Jerusalem. At Ecclesiastes 2:6, Solomon says: “I made pools of water for myself, to irrigate with them the forest.” So large an undertaking of the building of the pools could well have included such a conduit for the larger supply of water needed at Jerusalem when the temple services were instituted. However, there is no evidence, other than tradition, to support the Solomonic origin of this conduit. At a later date a conduit was constructed to carry water from the springs in the modern-day Wadi el-’arrub in the plain of Berachah a little S of Tekoa. The conduit ran N, by Tekoa, to Jerusalem. It is called the “low-level aqueduct.” This conduit is apparently the one alluded to by Josephus, who says that it was constructed by Pontius Pilate. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, chap. III, par. 2; Wars of the Jews, Book II, chap. IX, par. 4) Part of this conduit has existed to modern times.

The “high-level aqueduct,” which probably entered Jerusalem at the Jaffa Gate, is thought by some to have been built by Herod the Great, beginning at the Wadi el-Biyar N of Tekoa. It may have been made to supply Herod’s citadel and palace and the canals in his palace gardens. (Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, Book V, chap. IV, par. 4) This aqueduct ran through a tunnel and passed over the valley in which were located the “Pools of Solomon.” The siphon principle was apparently employed at one point.

Other canals, aqueducts and conduits, cisterns, pools and reservoirs were built by the early inhabitants of Palestine, by the kings of Israel and Judah, and by the Romans.—2 Ki. 18:17; 20:20; 2 Chron. 32:30; Isa. 7:3; 22:9-11; 36:2, see GIHON No. 2; FORTIFICATIONS.

EGYPT

Egypt, being virtually without rain, depended on the overflow of the Nile River for water. Each year it spread over the flat land and deposited silt brought down from the Upper Nile watershed, giving the land a new layer of soil. Crops grew abundantly. To control the water and to preserve it between the Nile inundations, an irrigation system of dikes, canals, pools and ditches was constructed, controlled by the government. One method of raising the water to a higher level, in use until this day, was the shaduf. A container suspended on one end of a counterbalanced pole was lowered into the river or canal and raised by the operator, emptying the water into a basin or canal at the next height. The Bible speaks of the Israelites in Egypt as doing irrigating with the foot, which may have reference to the use of a foot-powered waterwheel or to the practice of turning the water into different channels by pushing the earth with the foot or opening the wall of a channel to divert the flow.—Deut. 11:10, NW, ftn., 1953 ed.

A canal that seems to have been in existence in the time of Seti I (latter half of the second millennium B.C.E.) is thought by some to have extended from the northern tip of the Red Sea to the eastern branch of the Nile Delta. This would enable Pharaoh’s ships to sail from the Mediterranean down the Nile branch into the Red Sea. Later, Pharaoh Necho, in the seventh century B.C.E., began to build another canal, but this was uncompleted. Later rulers did work on the channel. Finally, Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.E.) connected the canal with the Red Sea. In Cleopatra’s time (51-30 B.C.E.) it was in disuse. Later work on the canal is attributed by some to Trajan (98-117 C.E.) and by others to the Moslems.

MESOPOTAMIA

The land between the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers receives very little rainfall, but during the rainy season the rivers rise menacingly and overflow the land, making the southern part of Mesopotamia a wilderness “sea.” To avoid catastrophic floods and to retain some of the water for later use, an elaborate system of dikes, sluices, canals and catch basins was built. In digging a canal the earth from it was thrown up on each side as an embankment. Large sluices regulated the water flow. Channels cut in the embankment could be quickly blocked or opened to control the flow into small trenches that watered the gardens. The shaduf and other means were used to raise the water to areas with an elevation higher than the canal. While the land between the rivers is desolate without water, it is exceedingly fertile when irrigated.

Traces of canals and embankments, long ago filled with silt, are faintly visible. In an effort to preserve a canal, from time to time the reeds choking the channel were cut, partial dredging was done and the embankments made higher. But it was a gradually losing battle. Finally, the fast flow of silt would raise the level of the canal bottom so high that it was necessary to abandon it and dig a new canal bed.

Documents unearthed in archaeological diggings reveal that the rulers of Mesopotamia regarded it as a duty and an act of piety to maintain and improve the canal system, and, indeed, it was essential to the economy. The digging of a canal was an event of outstanding importance, comparable to a victory in battle, the acquisition of territory or the building of a temple. Prisoners captured in warfare were used as forced labor to maintain the canal systems.

The canals also furnished Babylonia with a means of communication and transportation of goods. Shallow basketlike vessels and rafts carried merchandise to and from the sea. By means of these the products of the fertile land to the N of Babylon were brought down for sale. Ancient Babylon was a commercial depot between the Eastern and Western world, having many ships in the Persian Gulf. It is said to have