Better To Ask Forgiveness?: Dinah and the Shechemites: Genesis 34

[sealchan]

Dinah was visiting women in Shechem and was taken and raped by the son of the ruler of that area. Having sampled the goods and found them to his great liking this son, himself named Shechem, told his father Hamor, “Get me this girl…”.

News spread before Hamor went to Jacob to discuss the situation. Hamor and his son Shechem make an offer of settlement and further intermarriages. Jacob’s sons come in from the field and take over negotiations. They require everyone be circumcised first. Hamor and Shechem convince everyone in the city to get circumcised.

Three days later while all the men are still in pain from their circumcision, Simeon and Levi go on a murderous rampage and kill every last man. The sons of Jacob all go out and get their plunder of animals, women, children and other household treasures. When Jacob complains to Simeon and Levi they reply, “Should he (Shechem) have treated our sister like a prostitute?”

Marriage arrangements were fraught with peril back in the day and forced sampling not always appreciated. Sheesh! It is not always better to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission obviously.

My questions are these:

• Does the author of this story care about what Dinah thinks?
• How does Shechem’s attitude “Get me this girl…” compare to Jacob’s in Genesis 29:21 “Give me my wife…”?
• What verse in Genesis 34 contains an anachronism especially if one believes that the author was Moses?
• Is there any doubt that from the beginning all the sons of Jacob were complicit in the murderous rampage of Simeon and Levi?
• Was Simeon and Levi’s actions justified by the circumstances or a gross over-reaction (i.e. murderous rampage)?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Was Simeon and Levi’s actions justified by the circumstances or a gross over-reaction (i.e. murderous rampage)?

A short narrative like that is not really going to tell us everything.
How often such events had occurred prior to that is something we have to guess.
Its is a distinct possibility that this was not the first such sin committed by these people,
and eventually the cheek had been turned for the 491st time.

 

[socharlie]

Dinah was visiting women in Shechem and was taken and raped by the son of the ruler of that area. Having sampled the goods and found them to his great liking this son, himself named Shechem, told his father Hamor, “Get me this girl…”.

News spread before Hamor went to Jacob to discuss the situation. Hamor and his son Shechem make an offer of settlement and further intermarriages. Jacob’s sons come in from the field and take over negotiations. They require everyone be circumcised first. Hamor and Shechem convince everyone in the city to get circumcised.

Three days later while all the men are still in pain from their circumcision, Simeon and Levi go on a murderous rampage and kill every last man. The sons of Jacob all go out and get their plunder of animals, women, children and other household treasures. When Jacob complains to Simeon and Levi they reply, “Should he (Shechem) have treated our sister like a prostitute?”

Marriage arrangements were fraught with peril back in the day and forced sampling not always appreciated. Sheesh! It is not always better to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission obviously.

My questions are these:

• Does the author of this story care about what Dinah thinks?
• How does Shechem’s attitude “Get me this girl…” compare to Jacob’s in Genesis 29:21 “Give me my wife…”?
• What verse in Genesis 34 contains an anachronism especially if one believes that the author was Moses?
• Is there any doubt that from the beginning all the sons of Jacob were complicit in the murderous rampage of Simeon and Levi?
• Was Simeon and Levi’s actions justified by the circumstances or a gross over-reaction (i.e. murderous rampage)?

Torah is a theological treatise that in many places in Torah characters are shown deliberately negative. E.g. Abram's behavior in Egypt
( "Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?" Gen 12)

 

[Grandliseur]

Dinah was visiting women in Shechem and was taken and raped by the son of the ruler of that area. Having sampled the goods and found them to his great liking this son, himself named Shechem, told his father Hamor, “Get me this girl…”.

News spread before Hamor went to Jacob to discuss the situation. Hamor and his son Shechem make an offer of settlement and further intermarriages. Jacob’s sons come in from the field and take over negotiations. They require everyone be circumcised first. Hamor and Shechem convince everyone in the city to get circumcised.

Three days later while all the men are still in pain from their circumcision, Simeon and Levi go on a murderous rampage and kill every last man. The sons of Jacob all go out and get their plunder of animals, women, children and other household treasures. When Jacob complains to Simeon and Levi they reply, “Should he (Shechem) have treated our sister like a prostitute?”

Marriage arrangements were fraught with peril back in the day and forced sampling not always appreciated. Sheesh! It is not always better to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission obviously.

My questions are these:

• Does the author of this story care about what Dinah thinks?
• How does Shechem’s attitude “Get me this girl…” compare to Jacob’s in Genesis 29:21 “Give me my wife…”?
• What verse in Genesis 34 contains an anachronism especially if one believes that the author was Moses?
• Is there any doubt that from the beginning all the sons of Jacob were complicit in the murderous rampage of Simeon and Levi?
• Was Simeon and Levi’s actions justified by the circumstances or a gross over-reaction (i.e. murderous rampage)?

• Its rendering is given in a neutral not taking sides simple account of what happened historically.
• Jacob had paid the price and was due what he had paid for according to custom. Shechem, had taken with violence that which did not belong to him.
• Are you referring to the portion from 34:25 onward that accuses Levi, Moses GG. grandfather of violence and murder? Because of his lineage, is that what you are getting at?!
• No, there is not much doubt in this. However, it is not quite explicit enough to say so with 100% certainty. The two main culprits are clearly mentioned, the others are not.
• Gross overreaction -
• Are we doing your homework here?! If so, please do not let us do that for you.

Many take issue with these accounts in the Bible; however, nowhere does it say that God approved of such historical violence. That the truth and facts are recorded without any embellishments is so much further proof of truth and fact.

 

[sealchan]

A short narrative like that is not really going to tell us everything.
How often such events had occurred prior to that is something we have to guess.
Its is a distinct possibility that this was not the first such sin committed by these people,
and eventually the cheek had been turned for the 491st time.

I think that the authors of this narrative had a goal to establish some local significance to the text such that we could get a benefit from studying it AND this story stands in relationship to the stories around it as part of a greater whole. We might also suppose that the audience may have a context which we do not.

As far as a possibility that a given people were reputed to be especially likely to commit rape, we should consider that this story is being told after the fact and that those people have, by the end of the story, been utterly destroyed as a separate people. The narrator doesn't indicate anything of the kind and doesn't put Dinah's visit to the women in any kind of context as you say. To think that this behavior is indicative of the people based just on this story is simply to fill in a blank left by our own reaction to the story as describing an extreme reaction.

I also think that it is just this sort of blank that the authors of this story intended for the audience to bring to the story. I have noticed in previous stories in Genesis that there seem to be these sorts of wholes that we might expect to be filled in by the story-teller, but they are not. One way of interpreting this is to think that the story is a bit crude and the teller not very reflective. Another way of interpreting this is that the story is meant to draw you in as a listener and get to either protest the story or defend it based on just such inferences as you (and I) would like to make.

I believe that this is the intent of the authors of Genesis...that we are to be drawn in and compelled to ask and answer questions in the blanks formed by the shape of the story itself.

Your assumption is one that has led me to some very fruitful thought. I recall my own response to the knowledge of any rape. One movie that comes to mind in the context of this scripture is A Time To Kill. Perhaps this movie was directly inspired by this scripture. I have read that during a certain time in U.S. history black women were referred to as Dinahs and this movie portrays the rape of a black girl. The response to that rape is one of rage and this courtroom drama centers around a man, the father, who stands trial for murder of the suspects as they are on a path towards being released. Here the father stands in as Simeon and Levi while the lawyer is a sort of Jacob. My own feelings were such that I wanted the father to be found not guilty purely for the rage that the crime itself invoked and the certainty I had that the murder victims were the perpetrators (a certainly that the movie provided by giving the audience the role of eye-witness).

Now having taken that little diversion I think that it is enlightening to go back to Genesis 34 and look at how that story begins and ends...

The first verse of Genesis 34:

Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land.

The last verse:

But [Simeon and Levi] replied, “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?”

The first verse depicts a woman alone and innocent. The last verse asks a question that goes unanswered by the story. It creates a tension between Jacob who scolds his sons for their actions and his sons who question their father. The End.

This means that the audience, the reader, must answer the question for themselves as the story itself does not. Do you answer it with the burning, righteous indignation of a brother for his sister? Or do you answer it knowing that one is alone in a land where others are more powerful and can do you harm?

Given my reference to the movie A Time To Kill you can get one of my operating assumptions. And for a people who may have been subject to a long period of brutal conquerors and a lack of legal standing in the place where they grew up and live...under such conditions of abuse and powerlessness might we sympathize? Possibly. If this story is not to be read as literal history but as a myth from the depths of time which doesn't seek to give justification for similar over-reaching acts of brutal revenge and doesn't presume to assume some other ethnicity or people are all evil and so worthy of being killed...then I can get a certain visceral pleasure from imagining such a over-whelming response to the casual abuse of women by a society which seems to want to casually overlook this.

I can project into this story a sort of #MeToo masculine moment of righteous retaliation against the impulse of men in a male dominated society to take the women they want. Is this Genesis' #MeToo moment? Maybe, maybe not. The woman in the story isn't given any direct voice, only the feelings and perspective of the men. However, Simeon and Levi, in their lack of concern over Jacob's concern, come very close to representing the voice of their sister as victim.

 

[sealchan]

Torah is a theological treatise that in many places in Torah characters are shown deliberately negative. E.g. Abram's behavior in Egypt
( "Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?" Gen 12)

I have certainly noticed this. We have Adam and Eve's disobedience, Cain murderous rage (presumably), Noah's pride (he cursed his son for accidentally seeing him naked and passed out from drinking), Abram/Abraham's less than courageous/honest behavior and inability to settle domestic disputes, Jacob's manipulations and lack of physical confidence...

God doesn't choose perfect people. God chooses whom he has chosen. This much is stated IMO in Genesis 18:17-19:

17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?
18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.
19For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

This, to me, reads in a circular way to say...

Abraham will surely become great for I have chosen him. I have chosen him so that he will keep my way of justice and righteousness. In this way I will bring about Abraham's promise [to become great].

God doesn't describe why He chose Abraham other than that it would allow Abraham to become a great nation since He chose him. Abraham does what is right and just because, in part, God chose him and, presumably, offers Abram/Abraham some extra assistance in terms of instruction.

 

[socharlie]

I have certainly noticed this. We have Adam and Eve's disobedience, Cain murderous rage (presumably), Noah's pride (he cursed his son for accidentally seeing him naked and passed out from drinking), Abram/Abraham's less than courageous/honest behavior and inability to settle domestic disputes, Jacob's manipulations and lack of physical confidence...

God doesn't choose perfect people. God chooses whom he has chosen. This much is stated IMO in Genesis 18:17-19:

17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?
18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.
19For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

This, to me, reads in a circular way to say...

Abraham will surely become great for I have chosen him. I have chosen him so that he will keep my way of justice and righteousness. In this way I will bring about Abraham's promise [to become great].

God doesn't describe why He chose Abraham other than that it would allow Abraham to become a great nation since He chose him. Abraham does what is right and just because, in part, God chose him and, presumably, offers Abram/Abraham some extra assistance in terms of instruction.

the way I sorted it out:
we meet Abram in Gen 12 communicating with God , through visions. I understand that Abram was clairvoyant and God cultivated a nation based on his DNA. There was a task of change of consciousness too. Note behavior of Egyptians after they found out of deception of Abram. They did not punish Abram but rewarded him. Sons of Israel almost killed their brother Joseph and sold him to slavery, shows no brotherly love , their behavior changed after visiting Egypt. Advanced consciousness (for that time) of Egypt was passed onto Sons of Israel and via Moses eventually onto the whole world. Another thing about Abraham that he had empathy - the key moment. Abraham argued with God trying to save Sodom. That is what God was looking for.

 

[sealchan]

• Its rendering is given in a neutral not taking sides simple account of what happened historically.

I agree that the author of the story does not make explicit judgments. He gives us a view on Jacob and on Hamor and Shechem showing their separate goals even while they attempt to make a deal. Shechem seems genuinely smitten and Jacob's boys seem willing to serve up their revenge cold. Jacob stays aloof almost as if he too is part of the audience of this story.

However, by the end an important question is raised although not for reasons, perhaps, that we might think of. Jacob is concerned about the safety of the family as it resides as foreigners in another people's land. Simeon and Levi only seem to be concerned about the way in which their sister has been treated.

This dispute leaves us in a state better than neutral...it gives us a question to answer without a clear answer being given by the story. This account, I think, is meant to start a discussion of its meaning and significance!

 

[sealchan]

• Jacob had paid the price and was due what he had paid for according to custom. Shechem, had taken with violence that which did not belong to him.

Very true. I focused in on what seemed to me to be the kind of self-centered "gimme" attitudes of the statements but Jacob had certainly, humbly and patiently spent long years in service while Shechem pursued what must have been initially a passing fancy, used violence under the likely cover of who his father was and passing fancy happened to turn into an earnest infatuation. However, both statements are made in a context of two parties with potentially common goals and both, at some point, willing to deceive to make the deal made come out in their favor.

 

[sealchan]

• Are you referring to the portion from 34:25 onward that accuses Levi, Moses GG. grandfather of violence and murder? Because of his lineage, is that what you are getting at?!

I was thinking of Genesis 34:7...

Meanwhile, Jacob’s sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were shocked and furious, because Shechem had done an outrageous thing in Israel by sleeping with Jacob’s daughter—a thing that should not be done.
(from Genesis 34 NIV)

What's anachronistic is the reference to the land of Israel. The land that, at this point, does not exist even for the traditional author Moses. In fact this story is supposedly background for why later the tribes of Simeon and Levi get a different setup when it comes to the land that the Israelites come to inhabit. Also, what is of potential interest, is that after God has renamed Jacob to Israel we still have Jacob referred to as Jacob even in the same sentence as we have reference to the land of Israel.

Clearly the author knows that Jacob is now Israel but is choosing not to call Jacob that directly.

To me this argues against Moses as author and this and other aspects of the story suggest that it was created from the perspective of a people who already enjoyed the promised land and had established moral sensibilities that were at odds with the events of this story.

 

[sealchan]

• No, there is not much doubt in this. However, it is not quite explicit enough to say so with 100% certainty. The two main culprits are clearly mentioned, the others are not.

Yes...Simeon and Levi are clearly the ones who did the killing but all the sons of Jacob shared in the looting and in Genesis 34:13 they are all implicated in the intentional deceit of Hamor and Shechem regarding the circumcision requirement.

This sort of careful ambiguity is a common feature of Genesis and part of the subtle craft of its author(s) I think. It invites debate over just such questions as I am raising.

 

[sealchan]

Are we doing your homework here?! If so, please do not let us do that for you.

As in am I posting my homework assignment on a forum to get the answers? No. But I'm glad you are holding me accountable.

This forum posting format is one I have developed for leading forum discussions on the scripture I am studying. This course of study is my own personal effort.

I could see myself as a professor, however, making up these questions as part of an assignment. I do not by any means hold myself as an expert on Biblical studies but I am following humbly in the footsteps of the Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky...

In the Beginning There Was a Bible Discussion Group. And Then PBS Came Calling.

I found Bill Moyer's capturing of this (Genesis: A Living Conversation) as a real eye-openner as to how to read the Bible. Now I'm bringing this approach (a mixture, perhaps of the Rabbi and Mr. Moyers) to a forum near you.

 

[sealchan]

the way I sorted it out:
we meet Abram in Gen 12 communicating with God , through visions. I understand that Abram was clairvoyant and God cultivated a nation based on his DNA. There was a task of change of consciousness too. Note behavior of Egyptians after they found out of deception of Abram. They did not punish Abram but rewarded him. Sons of Israel almost killed their brother Joseph and sold him to slavery, shows no brotherly love , their behavior changed after visiting Egypt. Advanced consciousness (for that time) of Egypt was passed onto Sons of Israel and via Moses eventually onto the whole world. Another thing about Abraham that he had empathy - the key moment. Abraham argued with God trying to save Sodom. That is what God was looking for.

I find it rewarding to look at the Biblical stories in a broader way, as you have here, and try and make sense of them. The transformations that the individuals in relationship to God undergo are certainly critical to understanding God's Word.

A year or two ago on another forum I studied Abraham's story in detail. If you enjoy this sort of thing then I hope you will watch for my posts. I am moving forward through Genesis and Matthew.

 

[socharlie]

I find it rewarding to look at the Biblical stories in a broader way, as you have here, and try and make sense of them. The transformations that the individuals in relationship to God undergo are certainly critical to understanding God's Word.

A year or two ago on another forum I studied Abraham's story in detail. If you enjoy this sort of thing then I hope you will watch for my posts. I am moving forward through Genesis and Matthew.

I did it several times, I had new revelations every time I read familiar stories, Gnostic type point of view opened new horizons.

 

[Grandliseur]

I agree that the author of the story does not make explicit judgments. He gives us a view on Jacob and on Hamor and Shechem showing their separate goals even while they attempt to make a deal. Shechem seems genuinely smitten and Jacob's boys seem willing to serve up their revenge cold. Jacob stays aloof almost as if he too is part of the audience of this story.

However, by the end an important question is raised although not for reasons, perhaps, that we might think of. Jacob is concerned about the safety of the family as it resides as foreigners in another people's land. Simeon and Levi only seem to be concerned about the way in which their sister has been treated.

This dispute leaves us in a state better than neutral...it gives us a question to answer without a clear answer being given by the story. This account, I think, is meant to start a discussion of its meaning and significance!

For sure, many things in this in an unbiased discussion would generally not look too sweetly at Levi and Simeon's (?) actions.

However, we should not forget that their actions were not approved of by Jacob!

Genesis 49:7 Cursed be their anger, because it is cruel, and their fury, because it acts harshly. Let me parcel them out in Jacob and let me scatter them in Israel.
​

 

[Grandliseur]

However, both statements are made in a context of two parties with potentially common goals and both, at some point, willing to deceive to make the deal made come out in their favor.

How did Jacob deceive? He was the one deceived, wasn't he?!

 

[Grandliseur]

Yes...Simeon and Levi are clearly the ones who did the killing but all the sons of Jacob shared in the looting and in Genesis 34:13 they are all implicated in the intentional deceit of Hamor and Shechem regarding the circumcision requirement.

This sort of careful ambiguity is a common feature of Genesis and part of the subtle craft of its author(s) I think. It invites debate over just such questions as I am raising.

There seem to be a great many details not provided. Judging the other sons, seems to be fraught with lack of knowledge.

 

[Grandliseur]

As in am I posting my homework assignment on a forum to get the answers? No. But I'm glad you are holding me accountable.

This forum posting format is one I have developed for leading forum discussions on the scripture I am studying. This course of study is my own personal effort.

I could see myself as a professor, however, making up these questions as part of an assignment. I do not by any means hold myself as an expert on Biblical studies but I am following humbly in the footsteps of the Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky...

In the Beginning There Was a Bible Discussion Group. And Then PBS Came Calling.

I found Bill Moyer's capturing of this (Genesis: A Living Conversation) as a real eye-openner as to how to read the Bible. Now I'm bringing this approach (a mixture, perhaps of the Rabbi and Mr. Moyers) to a forum near you.

Thank you for explaining.

 

[Tumah]

Does the author of this story care about what Dinah thinks?

Nope. What Dinah thinks has nothing to do with the lesson of the story. Neither does the time of the day, the day of the week, which color dress she was wearing, etc.

How does Shechem’s attitude “Get me this girl…” compare to Jacob’s in Genesis 29:21 “Give me my wife…”?

The language of קח - take, is used to mean marriage, such as "when a man will take a woman (Deut. 24:1)". Shechem is simply asking his father to arrange a marriage. Jacob had already made an arrangement with Rachel's father, so he was asking him to fulfill his side of the deal that was already made.

What verse in Genesis 34 contains an anachronism especially if one believes that the author was Moses?

No clue.

Is there any doubt that from the beginning all the sons of Jacob were complicit in the murderous rampage of Simeon and Levi?

Yes. The intent of the other brothers was that Shechem and his father would either refuse to circumcise of that they wouldn't be able to convince their entire town to do it. They'd then have a reason with which to deny the request. See Gen. 49:5-6.

Was Simeon and Levi’s actions justified by the circumstances or a gross over-reaction (i.e. murderous rampage)?

They were justified. Shechem and his father transgressed the Noahide commandment of stealing [Dinah]. Their community were complicit in transgressing the Noahide commandment of setting up courts by not judging them for their actions. Although in general, Jacob and his family were not responsible for carrying out Noahide justice (which is why the family didn't go around killing everyone for idolatry), in this case they were personally affected.

 

[sealchan]

How did Jacob deceive? He was the one deceived, wasn't he?!

Good question. It seems in this story that Jacob takes a step back although he is head of the household. It is as if he is uncomfortable in the role of making a decision in this case. This reminds me of Abraham dealing with the dispute between Sarah and Hagar. Here Jacob intentionally lets his sons take control.

So Jacob didn't approve of the outcome but he is ultimately responsible for it. One could reasonably infer that he was not aware of what his sons were planning.