旧约是建立在被掳时期和被掳后时期的想象、文学创作与虚构之上的,而非基于事实。其中的神话叙事应当被视为虚构、神学和文学作品来阅读,而不是已被证实的事实。"迦南人"实际上与腓尼基人是同一群体。腓尼基人在巴勒斯坦和黎巴嫩沿海地区使用的字母——通常被称为原迦南字母——传给了希腊人、阿拉姆人、阿拉伯人和希伯来人。然而,旧约中在巴勒斯坦所说的"迦南人"和"以色列人"这两个词,不一定指代或描述两个截然不同的民族。

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.

尼尔斯·彼得·莱姆切（Niels Peter Lemche）是哥本哈根大学的旧约学者，其研究兴趣包括早期以色列人及其与历史、旧约和考古学的关系。他提出，旧约中关于“以色列人”和“迦南人”的叙述应当被理解为对“他者”（即非犹太人）的意识形态建构，而不是对某个真实历史族群的指称：“[巴勒斯坦的]迦南人并不知道自己是迦南人。只有当他们可以说是‘离开’了原来的家园之后……他们才承认自己曾是迦南人。”（Lemche 1999: 152）

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).

文学虚构，以及流亡时期的旧约作者富于想象地创造出“迦南人”这一称谓——这一由这些作者构建的宗教意识形态概念——并不必然表明历史上的以色列人与巴勒斯坦的迦南人之间存在冲突。

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.

然而，在现代时期（始于19世纪末）

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

欧洲的犹太复国主义领袖将旧约叙事当作历史记载加以挪用，并借此工具性地为其定居者殖民计划以及他们与巴勒斯坦原住民之间的冲突辩护。尽管如此，以色列与巴勒斯坦之间的冲突是一场现代冲突，不应与真实的、历史上的古代巴勒斯坦，或旧约叙事此后衍生的任何宗教意识形态建构混为一谈。

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.

历史上，“迦南”（Cana’an）这一名称确实在青铜时代晚期就已使用。

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

但这个名称并非总是指从加沙到利塔尼河之间的约旦河西岸地区。与这一地区相关使用的名称也不止这一个。在晚期青铜时代的某些时期,其他名称如巴勒斯坦,以及更早的名称如Retenu和Djahi,也被用来指称这一地区(有时也包括西巴勒斯坦的内陆地区和外约旦)。Cana’an指的是一个范围大小不一的地理区域,沿黎巴嫩、巴勒斯坦和叙利亚的地中海沿岸分布(而不仅仅是巴勒斯坦)。有时这一区域还包括内陆地区。然而在第一个千年,Phoenicia(今黎巴嫩)是北部沿海地区最常用的名称,此前该地区曾被称为Cana’an;而源自亚述的Philistia一名,最初多用于南部沿海地区,后来则多用于指整个巴勒斯坦。Cana’an这一名称在古代近东的铭文中出现时,所指的不仅是巴勒斯坦的特定地区,关键的是还包括叙利亚,时间从公元前15世纪延续到公元前9世纪初。关于Cana’an这一名称最早可以确定的记载,见于叙利亚北部阿拉拉赫的伊德里米雕像上的楔形文字(约公元前1500年),其形式为Kinahhu。

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.

埃及文献中还有十六次提到“迦南”这一名称;其中十二次出自新王国时期(Hasel 2009: 8–17)。在阿马尔那泥板的部分文本中,该名称写作 kn’ny,时间约在公元前14世纪中叶,即三十年左右的跨度。在这些铭文中,古老的港口城市乌迦里特本身并不属于迦南,而卡デシュ(Qadesh)则属于迦南。该名称也以 k3n‘n‘ 的形式出现在埃及铭文中,见于公元前13世纪的赫梯都城哈图沙以及拉美西斯二世和美楞普塔的铭文(后者约为公元前1205年)。在美楞普塔石碑上,加沙城被称为“(即通往)k3n‘n‘ 的门户”。

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‘’.