The Old Testament is based on exilic and post-exilic imagination, literary invention and fiction not facts. Its myth-narratives should be read as fiction, theology and literature, not proven facts. The ‘Cana’anites’ are in fact identical to the Phoenicians. The alphabet of the Phoenicians of the coastal regions of Palestine and Lebanon – conventionally known as the proto-Canaanite alphabet – was given to Greek, Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew. However, the Old Testament terms ‘Canaanites’ and ‘Israelites’ in Palestine do not necessarily refer to or describe two distinct ethnicities.

Niels Peter Lemche, an Old Testament scholar at the University of Copenhagen, whose interests included early Israelites and their relationship with history, the Old Testament and archaeology, has suggested that the Old Testament narrative of the ‘Israelites’ and ‘Canaanites’ must be read as ideological constructs of the other (as the non-Jews) rather than as a reference to an actual historical ethnic group: ‘The Canaanites [of Palestine] did not know that they were themselves Canaanites. Only when they had so to speak “left” their original home … did they acknowledge that they had been Canaanites’ (Lemche 1999: 152).

Literary invention and the fact that exilic Old Testament authors imaginatively coined the term ‘Canaanites’ – a religio-ideological construct by these authors – does not necessarily indicate that there was a conflict between historical Israelites and Canaanites in Palestine.

However, in the modern era (beginning with the late 19th century)

European Zionist leaders appropriated the Old Testament narratives as historical accounts and used them instrumentally to justify their settler project and their conflict with the indigenous people of Palestine. Nevertheless, the Israeli‒Palestinian conflict is a modern conflict and should not be confused with the real, historical, ancient Palestine or any subsequent religio-ideological constructs of the Old Testament narratives.

Historically the name Cana’an was indeed used in the Late Bronze Age.

But the name did not always refer to the Cisjordan area from Gaza to the Litani River. Nor was it the only term used in connection with this area (between the Wadi Gaza and the Litani). Other names such as Palestine, as well as earlier names, such as Retenu and Djahi, were also used for this area (including, at times, the inland regions of western Palestine and the Transjordan) at some point in the course of the Late Bronze Age. Cana’an referred to a geographical region of varying size, along the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon, Palestine and Syria (and not just Palestine). At times this included regions inland. In the first millennium, however, Phoenicia (modern Lebanon) was the most common name used for the northern coastal region, which had earlier been referred to as Cana’an, while the Assyrian-derived name of Philistia was most often used initially for the southern coast and later for Palestine as a whole. The name Cana’an is found in ancient Near Eastern inscriptions with reference not just to the specific area of Palestine but crucially to Syria from the 15th century BC to the early 9th century BC. The first certain reference to the name Cana’an is found in cuneiform on the statue of Idrimi from Alalakh in northern Syria (c. 1500 BC) in the form Kinahhu.

The name Cana’an is also found sixteen times in Egyptian texts; of these, twelve are from the New Kingdom (Hasel 2009: 8–17). The name is found on some of the Amarna tablets in the form kn’ny – about thirty years from the middle of the 14th century BC. In these inscriptions, the ancient port city of Ugarit itself does not belong to Cana’an, but Qadesh does. The name also occurs in Egyptian inscriptions in the form k3n‘n‘ from the 13th century Hattusa, Ramesses II and Merneptah inscriptions (this last from c. 1205 BC). On the Merneptah Stele, the town Gaza is referred to as ‘the mouth of (that is, “the opening to” k3n‘n‘’.