the positions of forward and rear guard.—Num. 10:11-28.

“So they went marching from the mountain of Jehovah for a journey of three days . . . And Jehovah’s cloud was over them.” (Num. 10:33, 34) How long a line this cloud-led column of marchers formed is not disclosed; nor the speed or distance covered in a day. With their little children and flocks, they probably traveled slowly. While on this march, which took three days, there was probably no formal camp layout with a setting up of the tabernacle for the temporary overnight encampment; rather, just the adjustments necessary for eating and sleeping.

MILITARY CAMPS

In connection with warfare, use of the term “camp” varies. It may, for example, denote the headquarters or base of operations from which raiding parties sally forth; Gilgal and Shiloh are such examples. (Josh. 4:19; 5:10; 9:6; 10:6, 15, 43; 18:9; Judg. 21:12) Or “camp” sometimes means the army itself, rather than the place where they pitch their tents at night. (Josh. 10:5; 11:4, 5) “Camping against” a city had the meaning of warring against the city, just as “pitching camp” also indicated preparation for war.—Judg. 9:50; 1 Sam. 11:1; 28:4; 2 Ki. 25:1.

Several factors influenced the selection of a site for an army encampment. High ground with limited access afforded natural protection and required less guarding than open and vulnerable spots. (1 Sam. 26:3) The camp must also have access to water. (2 Ki. 3:9) Joshua defeated a federation of kings camped at the waters of Merom. (Josh. 11:5) Gideon’s forces camped at the well of Harod (Judg. 7:1) , and one-third of David’s army camped at the torrent valley of Besor until their companions returned from the victory.—1 Sam. 30:9, 10.

A protective enclosure, as around Saul’s camp, may have been made of baggage, wagons and animals. (1 Sam. 26:5, 7) Armies having chariots may have used them to encircle their camps. More permanent campsites were sometimes protected by trenches and dirt mounds round about. Battles were not usually fought at the campsite, except in cases of surprise attack. (Josh. 11:7) Hence extensive entrenchment and strong walled enclosures were not usually built.

Secular histories give glimpses of army camp life among the pagans as it was in Bible days. The Egyptian camp of Rameses II, for example, was fenced with shields, with Pharaoh’s tent further protected by its own heavily guarded enclosure. The Assyrian fortified camp, generally circular and strengthened with walls and towers, is described as a scene of activity, with soldiers caring for horses and doing the cooking. The tents in Persian camps all faced the E, and their encampments were protected by trenches and embankments. Greek military camps were also circular, with the commanding officer tented in the middle of the camp. When the Roman army pitched camp a sizable ditch was dug around the whole of the new campsite.

CANA

(Caʹna) [probably from Hebrew qa·nehʹ, meaning “reed,” hence, a place of reeds].

The hometown of Nathanael. (John 21:2) Evidently it was just the third day after Nathanael’s introduction to Jesus and his becoming a disciple that Jesus was in Cana and attended a marriage feast, at which his mother and brothers were also present. Here he performed his first miraculous sign, that of changing water into fine wine. From here he and his family and disciples “went down to Capernaum.” (John 1:43-49; 2:1-12) Later, when again in Cana, Jesus was approached by an attendant of the king, begging him to “come down” to Capernaum to heal his dying son. Without making the trip Jesus performed the cure.—John 4:46-54.

The town is called “Cana of Galilee” in each case, evidently to distinguish it from Kanah in Asher. (Josh. 19:28) Kefr Kenna, a town about four miles (6.4 kilometers) NE of Nazareth, is the traditional site of Cana. Springs provide an ample water supply there. However, lexicographers consider the form Kenna to be a very unlikely transition from Cana (or Qa·nahʹ in Hebrew), particularly due to the doubling of the “n.” Even though Kenna could be shown to be a possible derivation of Cana, the name would not be descriptive of the present site, as it is not a “place of reeds.” There is reason to believe that Kefr Kenna’s claim to being Cana stems largely from its being easily accessible to pilgrims from Nazareth, causing it to have the favor of church authorities.

Hence, the balance of opinion and the weight of evidence favor an identification with Khirbet Qana, about nine miles (14.5 kilometers) N of Nazareth. Here the ruins of an ancient village lie on a hill at the edge of the Plain of Asochis, modernly called el-Battuf. Reeds are abundant in a nearby marshy plain, making the name Cana very fitting. It is still known in Arabic as Qana el-Jelil, equivalent of Cana of Galilee. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century C.E., speaks of residing “in a city of Galilee, which is named Cana” and later makes mention of the “great plain, wherein I lived, the name of which was Asochis.” (The Life of Flavius Josephus, pars. 16, 41) This testimony would also favor the location of Cana of Galilee at the site of Khirbet Qana, rather than Kefr Kenna. Although no spring is found at Khirbet Qana. the ruins reveal the remains of ancient cisterns; potsherds (fragments of earthen vessels) and coins believed to date from the first century C.E. have also reportedly been found there.

In ancient times a road led past Khirbet Qana down to the shores of the Sea of Galilee and along the shoreline to Capernaum, which lay some 676 feet (206 meters) below sea level; hence the expression to “come down” to Capernaum. The distance by road was about twenty-five miles (40.2 kilometers).

CANAAN

(Caʹnaan), CANAANITE [likely from the Hebrew ka·naʽʹ, to ‘be humble’; hence, low, humbled].

1. The fourth-listed son of Ham and grandson of Noah. (Gen. 9:18; 10:6; 1 Chron. 1:8) He was the progenitor of eleven tribes who eventually inhabited the region along the eastern Mediterranean between Egypt and Syria, thereby giving it the name “the land of Canaan.”—Gen. 10:15-19; 1 Chron. 16:18; see No. 2 below.

Following the incident regarding Noah’s drunkenness, Canaan came under Noah’s prophetic curse foretelling that Canaan would become the slave of both Shem and Japheth. (Gen. 9:20-27) Since the record mentions only that “Ham the father of Canaan saw his father’s nakedness and went telling it to his two brothers outside,” the question arises as to why Canaan rather than Ham became the object of the curse. Commenting on verse 24, which states that when Noah awoke from his wine he “got to know what his youngest son had done to him,” a footnote in Rotherham’s translation says: “Undoubtedly Canaan, and not Ham: Shem and Japheth, for their piety, are blessed; Canaan, for some unnamed baseness, is cursed; Ham, for his neglect, is neglected.” Similarly, a Jewish publication, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by J. B. Hertz, suggests that the brief narrative “refers to some abominable deed in which Canaan seems to have been implicated.” And, after noting that the Hebrew word translated “son” in verse 24 may mean “grandson,” this source states: “The reference is evidently to Canaan.” The Soncino Chumash, edited by A. Cohen, also points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon [Noah],” and that the expression “youngest son” refers to Canaan, who was the youngest son of Ham.

These views, of necessity, are conjectural since the Biblical record does not give any details as to Canaan’s implication in the offense against Noah. Yet some implication seems definitely intended by the fact that, just before relating the case of Noah’s drunkenness, Canaan is abruptly introduced into the account (vs. 18) and, in describing Ham’s actions, the record refers to him as “Ham the father of Canaan.” (Vs. 22) That the expression “saw his father’s nakedness” may indicate some abuse or perversion involving Canaan, is a reasonable conclusion. For in most instances incest or other sexual sins are meant when the Bible speaks of ‘laying bare’ or ‘seeing the nakedness of another.’ (Lev. 18:6-19; 20:17) So, it is possible that Canaan had committed or attempted to commit some abuse on the unconscious Noah and that Ham, though having knowledge of this, either failed to prevent it or to take disciplinary action against the offender, and compounded the wrong by making known to his brothers Noah’s disgrace.

The prophetic element of the curse must also be considered. There is no evidence to indicate that Canaan himself became the slave of Shem or Japheth during his lifetime. But, God’s foreknowledge was at work, and, since the curse expressed by Noah was divinely inspired, and since God’s disfavor is not expressed without just cause, it is likely that Canaan had already manifested a definitely corrupt trait, perhaps of a lustful nature and that God foresaw the bad results in which this characteristic would eventually culminate among Canaan’s descendants. In the earlier case of Cain, Jehovah had noted a wrong heart attitude and had warned Cain of the danger of being overcome by sin (Gen. 4:3-7); God also had discerned the unreformable bent toward wickedness on the part of the majority of the pre-Flood population, making their destruction warranted. (Gen. 6:5) The most obvious evidence of the justness of the curse placed on Canaan is thus seen in the later history of his descendants, for they built up a particularly sordid record of immorality and depravity, as both Biblical and secular history testify. The curse on Canaan saw its fulfillment some eight centuries after its pronouncement, when Canaan’s descendants were subjugated by the Semitic Israelites, later coming under the domination of the Japhetic powers of Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome.

2. The name Canaan also applies to the race descended from Ham’s son and to the land of their residence. Canaan was the earlier and native name of that part of Palestine lying W of the Jordan River (Num. 33:51; 35:10, 14), although the Canaanitish Amorites did invade the land E of the Jordan sometime prior to the Israelite conquest.—Num. 21:13, 26.

BOUNDARIES AND EARLY HISTORY

The earliest description of the boundaries of Canaan show it as extending from Sidon in the N down to Gerar near Gaza in the SW and over to Sodom and the neighboring cities in the SE. (Gen. 10:19) In Abraham’s time, however, Sodom and the other “cities of the District” seem to be viewed as distinct from Canaan proper. (Gen. 13:12) The later territories of Edom and Moab, inhabited by descendants of Abraham and Lot, were also apparently considered as outside the land of Canaan. (Gen. 36:6-8; Ex. 15:15) The territory of Canaan as promised to the nation of Israel is outlined in fuller detail at Numbers 34:2-12 and evidently began farther N than Sidon, and extended S as far as the “torrent valley of Egypt” and Kadesh-barnea. The Philistines, who were not Canaanites (Gen. 10:13, 14), had occupied the coastal region S of the Plain of Sharon, but this, too, had previously been “reckoned” as Canaanite land. (Josh. 13:3) Other tribes, such as the Kenites (descendants of Midian; Num. 10:29; Judg. 1:16) and the Amalekites (descended from Esau; Gen. 36:12) had also penetrated the territory.—Gen. 15:18-21; Num. 14:45.

Whether the descendants of Canaan migrated to and settled in this land directly after the breakup at Babel (Gen. 11:9) or whether they first accompanied the main body of Hamites to Africa and then worked their way back up into the Palestinian region, the Bible does not say. At any rate, by 1943 B.C.E. when Abraham left Haran in Paddan-aram and traveled to that land, the Canaanites were settled there and Abraham had certain dealings with both Amorites and Hittites. (Gen. 11:31; 12:5, 6; 13:7; 14:13; 23:2-20) Abraham received repeated promises from Jehovah God that his seed or descendants would inherit the land, and was instructed to “go about in the land through its length and through its breadth.” (Gen. 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:7, 13-21; 17:8) On the basis of this promise and out of respect for God’s curse, Abraham was careful that his son Isaac’s wife should not be a Canaanite.—Gen. 24:1-4.

The relative ease with which Abraham and, later, Isaac and Jacob were able to move about the land with their large herds and flocks indicates that the region was not as yet thickly populated. (Compare Genesis 34:21.) Archaeological investigations also give evidence of a rather sparse settlement at that time, with most of the towns located along the coast, in the Dead Sea region, the Jordan valley and the Plain of Esdraelon. W. P. Albright says of Palestine in the early part of the second millennium B.C.E.: “The hill country was in the main still unoccupied by sedentary population, so the Biblical tradition is absolutely correct in making the patriarchs wander over the hills of central Palestine and the dry lands of the south, where there was still plenty of room for them.” (Old Testament Commentary, p. 140) Canaan was evidently subject to some Mesopotamian (and hence Semitic) influence and domination at this time, as indicated by the Biblical record at Genesis 14:1-7 and also by secular history.

Among the towns around which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob camped were Shechem (Gen. 12:6), Bethel and Ai (12:8), Hebron (13:18), Gerar (20:1) and Beer-sheba (22:19). Though no great animosity seems to have been manifested by the Canaanites toward the Hebrew patriarchs, divine protection nevertheless was the prime factor in their freedom from attack. (Ps. 105:12-15) Thus, after the assault by Jacob’s sons on the Hivite city of Shechem, it was because “the terror of God” came to be upon the neighboring cities that “they did not chase after the sons of Jacob.”—Gen. 33:18; 34:2; 35:5.

During the great famine that resulted in Jacob’s transferring to Egypt with his family, the land of Canaan became impoverished and was notably dependent on Egypt for food. (Gen. 47:4, 13-16) Secular history indicates that Egypt exercised suzerainty over Canaan for some two centuries prior to the Israelite conquest. During this period, messages (known as the Tell el—Amarna letters), sent by vassal rulers in Syria and Palestine to Pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akh-en-Aton, present a picture of considerable intercity strife and political intrigue in the region. At the time of Israel’s arrival at its frontier (1473 B.C.E.), Canaan was a land of numerous city-states or petty kingdoms, though still showing some cohesion according to tribal relations. The spies who had searched out the land nearly forty years earlier found it to be a land rich in fruitage and its cities well fortified.—Num. 13:21-29; compare Deuteronomy 9:1; Nehemiah 9:25.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRIBES OF CANAAN

Of the eleven Canaanite tribes, the Amorites appear to have occupied a principal position in the land. (See AMORITE.) Aside from the land conquered by them E of the Jordan in Bashan and Gilead, the references to the Amorites show that they were strong in the mountainous country of Canaan proper, both in the N and in the S. (Josh. 10:5; 11:3; 13:4) Perhaps second in strength were the Hittites, who, though found as far S as Hebron in Abraham’s time (Gen. 23:19, 20), later seem to have been mainly to