Adamanteus said:
More than likely, the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews never actually happened, especially not in the way it is depicted in the Bible. In fact, the Hebrews probably were Canaanites themselves, who simply adopted a monotheist religion. Excavations at Ugarit reveal religious texts that resembles much Old Testament texts, suggesting origin.
Leo Caesius said:
Isaiah specifically identifies Hebrew as "the lip (=language) of Canaan" so there you have it.
There is probably a lot of truth in this. But to simply say that "the Hebrews were Canaanites who adopted monotheism" is a bit simplistic.
For one thing, a people known as the "Habiru" or "Hapiru" had been living in Canaan since at least the reign of Pharoah Akhenaton of Egypt in the 14th Century BC, and probably earlier. The Habiru were apparently wandering nomads who lived among, but were not part of, general Canaanite society. A people by the same name had been first mentioned in Sumerian records as living in Southern Mesopotamia 1,000 years earlier, and like the "Canaanite" Habiru, were nomads who were considered aliens living among the Sumerian society of the region. Indeed, it is interesting that one can almost trace, in the historical record, a migration of these people from Southern Mesopotamia through central and northern Mesopotamia to Palestine, which is very similar to the route described for Abraham in the Bible. The difference is that the historical texts mentioning the Habiru are all separated by several hundred years (Ur--2150 BC; north-central Mesopotamia--1550 BC; Palestine--1350 BC), so clearly we aren't talking about the migration of a single family as portrayed in the Bible. Instead, the Biblical narrative of Abraham and the Patriarchs would more likely be a metaphor for a folk migration which took place over a period of 1,000 years. There is, of course, some question as to whether these "Habiru" are to be identified with the Biblical "Hebrews," but the possibility certainly can't be discounted out of hand. And if they are to be so identified, then clearly there were "Hebrews" living in Canaan as a separate people long before the supposed time of the Exodus.
But does that mean there wasn't an Exodus, and the Hebrews were simply "Canaanites who adopted monotheism?" No. Because there is some (admittedly sparse) evidence (in the form of names) that the Habiru/Hebrews may have been among the tribes known by the Egyptians as the Hyksos. If so, when the Hyksos were defeated, it is very likely that said tribes would have been enslaved in Egypt. It is true that the enslavement and later escape of the Hebrews from Egypt is not mentioned in Egyptian records, but that is not surprising. The enslavement of an Asiatic tribe would not have been a matter of great import, at least not enough that the tribe would have been mentioned specifically by name. And the escape would definitely not have been mentioned, as Egyptian records are very propagandistic in nature and don't promote Egyptian defeats.
So, the most likely scenario, at least to my mind, is that the Habiru/Hebrews migrated from Sumer to Palestine over the course of 1,000 years beginning about 2100 BC. Some of them took part in the Hyksos conquest of Egypt, while others remained in Palestine. The ones who joined the Hyksos invasion were later enslaved, and escaped during the latter part of the reign of Pharaoh Rameses II and returned to Palestine. There they rejoined their kinsmen, and began to overthrow the Canaanite rulers of the local city-states, some by conquest, others by diplomacy or intermarriage, over a period of 200 years.
Needless to say, it is very likely that in the long time they were in Canaan before they finally took control (which really didn't happen completely until the reign of King David), they would have adopted the Canaanite language and probably aspects of the local religion too. But this doesn't mean they were actually "Canaanites."