가나안 (Korean Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "가나안" in Korean language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Korean rank
3rd place
9th place
low place
low place
6th place
18th place
2nd place
3rd place
26th place
70th place
11th place
310th place
1st place
1st place
8,028th place
low place
1,903rd place
1,096th place
3,488th place
4,942nd place
low place
low place
993rd place
262nd place
low place
low place
5,095th place
1,519th place
2,877th place
2,279th place
826th place
1,157th place
305th place
227th place
low place
2,322nd place
low place
low place

archaeology.org

archive.org

biblica.com

blueletterbible.org

books.google.com

cambridge.org

  • Horbury, William; Davies, W. D.; Sturdy, John, 편집. (2008). 《The Cambridge History of Judaism》 3. Cambridge University Press. 210쪽. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521243773. ISBN 9781139053662. 2018년 10월 9일에 확인함.  "In both the Idumaean and the Ituraean alliances, and in the annexation of Samaria, the Judaeans had taken the leading role. They retained it. The whole political–military–religious league that now united the hill country of Palestine from Dan to Beersheba, whatever it called itself, was directed by, and soon came to be called by others, 'the Ioudaioi'"

doi.org

dx.doi.org

internationalstandardbible.com

jst.go.jp

jstage.jst.go.jp

jstor.org

  • Itai Elad and Yitzhak Paz (2018). “'En Esur (Asawir): Preliminary Report”. 《Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel》 130: 2. JSTOR 26691671. 
  • Richard, Suzanne (1987). “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism”. 《The Biblical Archaeologist》 50 (1): 22–43. doi:10.2307/3210081. JSTOR 3210081. S2CID 135293163. 
  • Malamat, Abraham (1968). “The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem: An Historical—Chronological Study”. 《Israel Exploration Journal》 18 (3): 137–156. JSTOR 27925138. The discrepancy between the length of the siege according to the regnal years of Zedekiah (years 9-11), on the one hand, and its length according to Jehoiachin's exile (years 9-12), on the other, can be cancelled out only by supposing the former to have been reckoned on a Tishri basis, and the latter on a Nisan basis. The difference of one year between the two is accounted for by the fact that the termination of the siege fell in the summer, between Nisan and Tishri, already in the 12th year according to the reckoning in Ezekiel, but still in Zedekiah's 11th year which was to end only in Tishri. 
  • Jacobson, David M. (1999). “Palestine and Israel”. 《Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research》 313 (313): 65–74. doi:10.2307/1357617. JSTOR 1357617. S2CID 163303829. 
  • Dossin, Georges (1973). “Une mention de Cananéens dans une lettre de Mari”. 《Syria》 (프랑스어) (Institut Francais du Proche-Orient) 50 (3/4): 277–282. doi:10.3406/syria.1973.6403. JSTOR 4197896. 

newenglishreview.org

oremus.org

bible.oremus.org

sciencedaily.com

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

pdfs.semanticscholar.org

ulb.ac.be

dipot.ulb.ac.be

usd.edu

  • Lehmann, Clayton Miles (Summer 1998). 〈Palestine: History〉. 《The On-line Encyclopedia of the Roman Provinces》. University of South Dakota. 2009년 8월 11일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2018년 10월 9일에 확인함. 

wayne.edu

digitalcommons.wayne.edu

web.archive.org

wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

  • Drews 1998, 48–49쪽: "The name 'Canaan' did not entirely drop out of usage in the Iron Age. Throughout the area that we—with the Greek speakers—prefer to call 'Phoenicia', the inhabitants in the first millennium BC called themselves 'Canaanites'. For the area south of Mt. Carmel, however, after the Bronze Age ended references to 'Canaan' as a present phenomenon dwindle almost to nothing (the Hebrew Bible of course makes frequent mention of 'Canaan' and 'Canaanites', but regularly as a land that had become something else, and as a people who had been annihilated)."
  • Drews 1998, 47–49쪽:"From the Egyptian texts it appears that the whole of Egypt's province in the Levant was called ‘Canaan’, and it would perhaps not be incorrect to understand the term as the name of that province...It may be that the term began as a Northwest Semitic common noun, ‘the subdued, the subjugated’, and that it then evolved into the proper name of the Asiaticland that had fallen under Egypt's dominion (just as the first Roman province in Gaul eventually became Provence)"
  • Drews 1998, 48쪽: "Until E.A. Speiser proposed that the name ‘Canaan’ was derived from the (unattested) word kinahhu, which Speiser supposed must have been an Akkadian term for reddish-blue or purple, Semiticists regularly explained ‘Canaan’ (Hebrew këna‘an; elsewhere in Northwest Semitic kn‘n) as related to the Aramaic verb kn‘: ‘to bend down, be low’. That etymology is perhaps correct after all. Speiser's alternative explanation has been generally abandoned, as has the proposal that ‘Canaan’ meant ‘the land of merchants’."
  • Lemche 1991, 24–32쪽
  • Noll 2001, 26쪽
  • Golden 2009, 5쪽
  • Golden 2009, 5–6쪽
  • Golden 2009, 6–7쪽
  • Killebrew 2005, 96쪽
  • Na'aman 2005, 110–120쪽.
  • Drews 1998, 46쪽: "An eighteenth-century letter from Mari may refer to Canaan, but the first certain cuneiform reference appears on a statue base of Idrimi, king of Alalakh  1500 BC."
  • Lemche 1991, 27–28쪽: "However, all but one of the references belong to the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, the one exception being the mention of some Canaanites in a document from Marl from the 18th century BC. In this document we find a reference to LUhabbatum u LUKi-na-ah-num. The wording of this passage creates some problems as to the identity of these 'Canaanites', because of the parallelism between LUKh-na-ah-num and LUhabbatum, which is unexpected. The Akkadian word habbatum, the meaning of which is actually 'brigands', is sometimes used to translate the Sumerian expression SA.GAZ, which is normally thought to be a logogram for habiru, 'Hebrews'. Thus there is some reason to question the identity of the 'Canaanites' who appear in this text from Marl We may ask whether these people were called 'Canaanites' because they were ethnically of another stock than the ordinary population of Mari, or whether it was because they came from a specific geographical area, the land of Canaan. However, because of the parallelism in this text between LUhabbatum and LUKi-na-ah-num, we cannot exclude the possibility that the expression 'Canaanites' was used here with a sociological meaning. It could be that the word 'Canaanites' was in this case understood as a sociological designation of some sort which shared at least some connotations with the sociological term habiru. Should this be the case, the Canaanites of Marl may well have been refugees or outlaws rather than ordinary foreigners from a certain country (from Canaan). Worth considering is also Manfred Weippert's interpretation of the passage LUhabbatum u LUKi-na-ah-num—literally 'Canaanites and brigands'—as 'Canaanite brigands', which may welt mean 'highwaymen of foreign origin', whether or not they were actually Canaanites coming from Phoenicia."