Perizzites

Strange Canaanite Brothers

The Perizzites are almost always mentioned in the Torah alongside their brother groups, and we never get a reference to them without at least the mention of the Canaanites. In none of these references does it imply, or hint that the Perizzites are related to Canaan in any capacity other than the obvious political alliances. Many of these references frequently include the Amorites and Hittites, with nearly as many mentions of the Jebusites and Hivites - potentially implying geographic relativity of these groups. Girgashites and Rephaim appear less frequently, but more so than the last five children of Canaan, or Sidon.

Particularly we never get a mention of Sidon despite his prominence as the first son of Canaan which has the obvious indication that Perizzites did not dwell near the Phoenician groups, mostly along the Levantine coast. Likewise, the final five children are never mentioned implying these groups also dwelt some distance from the central Canaanite heartland that the Perizzites, despite not being “Canaanites” also lived around.

Any theory could be postulated for this group, but it would be prescient to dig into the biblical references relating to their activities to divulge who, or where these people lived. Joshua 11:3 gives us “(To) the Canaanite on the east and on the west, and (to) the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite in the mountains, and (to) the Hivite under Hermon in the land of Mizpah.” The first bit of this reference potentially clues us into the Canaanites proper being separate from the groups “in the mountains”, or rather up in the hill country. One potential meaning for the term Canaan actually is just that, “lowlands” possibly coming from the root ‘kn’ meaning "to be low, humble, depressed" - contrasting with Aram meaning highlands. In this context we can view the Canaanites proper as a low country people, with the other groups, such as the Perizzites, occupying the hill country.

Another reference in Joshua 17:15 helps affirm this being the location of the Perizzites “And Joshua said to them, "If you are a numerous people, then go up to the forest, and cut down for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim, if Mount Ephraim is too confined for you.” Both the Perizzites and Rephaim, who have been looked at extensively in the Book of Nimrod, lived in the hilly forest country showing how they were not even civilized enough to have cut down their own forests to build proper cities for themselves.

A translation of the term “Perizzite” could be taken to mean “rural person”¹ or “belonging to a village” which might have the implication that these people are mere villagers coinciding with the previous information about them living in forests. This obviously has the implication that these people simply never really had a king, or any kind of unified polity and thus were always led, or ruled over by the Canaanites who likely extracted some sort of tax, or resources from these people.

One interesting theory put forth by Ibn Ezra in his commentary on Genesis 13:7:1 where he elaborates on the potential relationship of the Perizzites to the other Canaanites saying “[And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land.] This is to be understood as its counterpart (Gen. 12:6). It is possible that Perizzi was a son of Canaan and was included in the list of Canaan’s sons under a different name. He, like the prophet Samuel’s son and grandfather, had two names.” In a case of dual naming, Perizzi might have been a son of Canaan still but under one of the other names listed.

This theory is partially supported by our previous point that Perizzites are never mentioned alongside five of the other Canaanites, implying they could be any of these groups. While most of these groups are known through various extra-geographical references not in Canaan, it is possible the Sinites represent the actual listing of the Perizzites on the table. This theory would not apply to the Rephaim, who are known from a variety of non-Canaanite related references implying they might actually be something else entirely.

1. For the etymology, see David Noel Freedman; Allen C. Myers (31 December 2000). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Amsterdam University Press. p. 1030.