Can an Israelite be a Canaanite?

 The most interesting part of this week's readings and discussions was definitely Thursday’s. Ever since taking the Hebrew Bible class my freshman year, I’ve discussed the Documentary Hypothesis with tons of people. It fascinates me so much, and I used to go on and on to my nonreligious friends, knowing they didn’t care but that they’d listen. One of the things I appreciate so much about the religion courses at Trinity, and specifically classes taught by Dr. Spigel are the immense amount of background and history we get on a subject. The reading for Thursday went through the timeline (or timelines you could say) of Jerusalem. Chapter 2 specifically talked about the Israelites and who they were made up of. Growing up Christian, the Israelites were the absolute conquerors of the Canaanites, two completely separate people groups, and you never heard or thought otherwise. As we talked about in class, this is just one of many theories. We specifically talked about how the Bible says Israelites were outsiders who came in and conquered Canaan, whereas archeology shows that Israelites were more likely a group who broke off from the Canaanites, with only some outsiders. “...Others are coming to the conclusion that instead of erupting violently into Canaan from the outside, Israel emerged peacefully and gradually from within Canaanite society,”(Armstrong 77) is what Armstrong says on the third page of chapter two, admitting that there are still those that believe that the Israelites conquered the land in the way the bible says. As someone looking from a biased perspective, I too have a hard time trying to reteach myself some of the things that have been ingrained in me from such a young age, but I can’t deny what the science shows. 

I mentioned the Documentary Hypothesis because it’s a very similar concept to me. Trying to understand that there were potentially multiple different writings that make up the Hebrew Bible is such a foreign concept to me, just like the story of the Israelites origins not being exactly what I was taught all of my life. I think it just goes to show how important it is to look into these types of ideas when putting your entire life, time, and effort into a religion. It surprised me when I would mention the hypothesis to some of the adults at my church and get nothing but confused expressions in return. I think it is so important to not only consider the proof we are given of conflicting histories in the bible, but to make that a part of your religious walk (if you’re religious of course), to understand that the answers we were given are not always right, and that’s okay.

(Using citations from my online book, but they might be different from the paper version or other online versions)