Eventually I hope to post a new analysis of the Table of Nations (of Genesis 10). It will be based on the insight that the name Canaan actually was a psuedonym of Nimrod (as a son of Ham's wife, and therefore a legal son of Ham). By cursing Canaan, the author(s) of Genesis were subtly cursing Nimrod and the institution of kingship that propagated through Nimrod (Egyptian Narmer). Both Israelites and Canaanites were then apples that fell not far from the trunk of the royal tree.
The original Israelites were clans associated with Middle Kingdom pharaohs (see Chart 1). Canaanites likewise would have claimed affiliation with those same pharaohs as ancestors or perhaps other pharoahs from the Old Kingdom period. They had an equally proud heritage. Physically they would not have been much different than the Israelite tribes that had come up from Egypt to displace them. The kings of the Canaanites did have the "home field advantage" even if their franchises had been revoked by the "current administration".
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.