Many archaeologists and historians of the ancient Near East now regularly promote the idea that the ancient Israelites were merely Canaanites who eventually formed a separate culture and their own ethnic identity. Rather than ancient Israel being its own ethnic group, these scholars claim that Israelites and Canaanites shared the same ancestry, then around 1200 BC or later certain Canaanites split off to form the Israelite group. This theory of shared ethnicity is based upon archaeological evidence which shows similarity in language and material culture (pottery, architecture, tools, etc.), plus a common region of settlement (cf. Kempinski, “How Profoundly Canaanized Were the Early Israelites?”). One prominent archaeologist writes that “the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan — they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people — the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were — irony of ironies — themselves originally Canaanites!” (Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed). Another writes that the ancestors of the Israelites were Canaanites, along with a small mixture of some nomadic groups and Semites who had left Egypt, and that the narratives of the Exodus and Conquest are merely unhistorical myths (Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?). Thus, for many archaeologists and historians who argue that the Israelites were merely Canaanites based on archaeological data, this data supposedly supports the idea that the stories in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, and Judges, which make a distinction between Israelites and Canaanites in the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and Iron Ages, are unhistorical, religious propaganda constructed to give a past to the Israelites of the Kingdom period. Ironically, rather than contradicting, the archaeological data actually agrees with the ancestry of the ancient Israelites and their settlement in the land of Canaan as recorded in the Bible.
First, there are numerous examples in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, and Judges which record that the Israelites had Canaanite ancestors: Genesis 38:2 records that Judah took a daughter of a Canaanite for his wife. Genesis 46:10 and Exodus 6:15 make it clear that at least one of Simeon’s sons was the son of a Canaanite woman. Exodus 2:21 records that Moses married a Midianite woman, who may have been related to the Canaanites, but certainly belonged to a group of nomads near Canaan. Joshua 23:12-13 warns about living among the Canaanites, intermarrying with them, and that the result will be the Canaanites staying in the land and being a snare to the Israelites. Other passages in Joshua say that the Israelites lived among the Canaanites, suggesting that this intermarriage occurred (Joshua 16:10, 17:12). Judges 3:31 and 5:6 mention a hero of Israel named Shamgar, son of Anath, who may have had Canaanite parentage. Anath was a Canaanite war goddess, attested at Ugarit and other places, and this “son of Anath” designation may have been due to a Canaanite lineage (it is also possible that he was not considered an Israelite, but merely helped the Israelites by defeating the Philistines). Judges 3:6 states that the Israelites intermarried with the Canaanites, and Judges 1:27-33 describes various places in Canaan where the Israelites lived together with the Canaanites. Thus, it is obvious that the Israelites of the Conquest, Judges, and Monarchy periods did have Canaanite ancestors.
Second, the Israelites shared a similar, Semitic language with the Canaanites because they had lived in the land of Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age, had lived among other Semitic people during their time in Egypt during both the Hyksos period and during the enslavement of various Asiatic groups under the Egyptians, and then settled in Canaan after the Conquest. It would have been natural for them to learn and use the local language.
Third, the early Israelites shared a common material culture (pottery, architecture, tools, etc.) with the Canaanites during the Conquest and Judges period because they had no material culture of their own at that time. The Israelite artisans who had worked in Egypt had learned Egyptian and Canaanite material culture (Canaanite material culture was prolific in the eastern Nile Delta region according to archaeological data), and even if they had developed a more specific Israelite material culture, that generation died during a period of nomadic wandering when sedentary practices such as architecture and pottery making would not have been prevalent (Numbers 32:13). Further, Joshua 24:13 makes it clear that the Israelites who came into Canaan after the wandering first settled in Canaanite cities which they did not build, resulting in adoption of Canaanite architecture and copying of other aspects of material culture, which would also have been highly influenced by living alongside Canaanites in various cities and learning or copying their crafting methods (Judges 1:27-33).
Fourth, Dever’s assertion that some of the other ancestors of the Israelites were various nomadic groups from the region and Semites who left Egypt is perfectly in line with what is recorded in the book of Exodus. The wife of Moses was a Midianite nomad, and other Israelites may have married nomads from that region or others during the Wandering, Conquest, or Judges periods. While in Egypt, it is plausible that Israelites may have married people from other Semitic groups, as Joseph went as far as marrying an Egyptian (Genesis 41:45). And, Exodus 12:38 states that a mixed multitude left Egypt, which would have included other Semites and Asiatics who were former slaves in Egypt–a fact that is known from Egyptian wall paintings and records.
Thus, the archaeological data which suggests the early Israelites shared various aspects of material culture, language, and even some Canaanite ancestors is in complete agreement with records in from the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, and Judges. The ancestors of the Israelites did previously live in Canaan at one time (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph’s early years), then returned there to conquer and settle. However, the assertion by Finkelstein that the Israelites were originally Canaanites oversteps the evidence, while the conclusion that some shared ancestry, linguistics, and material culture means there was no Exodus or Israelite Conquest is a leap in logic that does not follow from that evidence. The available historical records do not state that the Israelites of the Kingdom period were Canaanites, but only that they had some Canaanite ancestors, while the archaeological data demonstrates that the two groups had shared some aspects of material culture at one time. Further, ethnicity goes beyond mere similarities in genetics, similarities in language, or the sharing of some material culture–the Israelites were clearly distinct from the Canaanites in their theological beliefs, religious practices, diet, and political structure, except in the cases where certain Israelites adopted various Canaanite religious practices (cf. the book of Judges). Therefore, the ancient Israelites were not just Canaanites as some scholars have argued, but instead an ethnic group that intermarried with people from various regions, including Canaan, and adopted some aspects of Canaanite culture in the Bronze and Iron Ages.