1

THE FUNCTION AND MEANING OF GENESIS 34 -

THE STORY OF DINAH IN ITS CONTEXT

1. Introduction

The story of Dinah (Genesis 34) is one of the most ambiguous and complex stories not only in

Genesis but also in the entire Old Testament. The result of this ambiguity is the existence of many

different interpretations of the story and many difficult questions raised by these different

interpretations. For example, what exactly happened to Dinah? What are the motives of the main

characters? What is the narrator’s point of view? Who is the one condemned by the narrator, and

who is the one justified? What is the message that the narrator wanted to convey? Is there any

meaning in the story, or do we, the readers, create a meaning?

The purpose of my essay is to show, in the context of the current discussion of Genesis 34,

what are the function and meaning of Genesis 34 according to details of the text and according to its

context. In the first part of my essay I will briefly present three current interpretations of Genesis

34.1 I have chosen these three interpretations because they are representatives of current trends in

the interpretation of Genesis 34 and because they all came to three different conclusions about the

meaning of it. In the second part of my essay I will look at some important but often misinterpreted

textual details of Genesis 34 (what exactly happened to Dinah, how are the main characters

described). In the third part, I will try to show what is the function and meaning of this story in its

broader context (plot, characterization and theological themes of the whole of Genesis).2 This is the

question that most interpreters have not considered.3

1 I will analyse these three interpretations chronologicaly (1985, 1991, 1994). The first interpretation is: Meir

Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Idealogical Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 1985), pp. 441-81. The second interpretation is: Danna Nolan Fewell, and David M. Gunn, ‘Tipping

the Balance: Sternberg’s Reader and the Rape of Dinah’, JBL 110 (1991), pp. 193-211. The third interpretation is: Lyn

M. Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped? (Genesis 34)’, JSOT 62 (1994), pp. 19-36. 2 Goldingay points out that biblical narratives came into being to address theological questions, not merely

historical. But in order to grasp this theological meaning, exegete may undertake the task by the four means. Goldingay

says: ‘First, it involves teasing out the theological implications of individual stories within the larger narrative…

Second, it involves standing back and giving an account of the distinctive plot of the story… Third, it involves realizing

a portrayal of the two or four characters in the story… fourth, it is a matter of analyzing the narrative’s various insights

on its own specific theme(s).’ (John Goldingay, ‘Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology’, in Joel B. Green and

Max Turner [eds.], Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans, 2000], pp. 123-142 [127]) 3 Coats even thinks that this story is isolated in its context, without any significant relation to other chapters

(except with Gen. 33.15-20; 35.1-7). (George W. Coats, Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature [The

Forms of the Old Testament Literature, 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983], pp. 233-34) But, there are interpreters

2

2. Three Representative Interpretations of Genesis 34

Meir Sternberg in his book The Poetics of Biblical Narrative uses the story of Dinah to illustrate

how his concept of ‘foolproof composition’ works.4 He concludes that for an objective reader5 there

is no doubt that from the very beginning the sympathies of the narrator lie with Simeon and Levi.6

They are the only positive male characters in the story. According to Sternberg, the two brothers

acted out of high principle to save not only the honour of an innocent maiden, or familial honour,

but also to save national identity and religious tradition.7 Others in the story acted out of self-

serving pragmatism (Jacob), materialism (Hivites and rest of brothers), and lust (Shechem).

On the other hand, Fewell and Gunn,8 trying to deconstruct Sternberg’s interpretation, have

concluded that a non-ideological, objective reading that leads to the meaning of text does not exist,

but an irreducible plurality of legitimate readings.9 Regarding the story of Dinah, they argue that

Dinah is not ‘a helpless girl to be rescued’, but ‘a young woman who could have made her own

choices’ if she had been asked.10 According to them, Dinah was not in Shechem’s house against her

will. Although raped, it was the best solution for her to be married to her rapist (now ‘lover’).11

Furthermore, Jacob’s initial silence was wisdom in the face of a potentially dangerous situation for

his family.12 Shechem’s offer, on the other hand, describes him as a sincere, loving person who

seeks to make restitution for the wrong he has done Dinah.13 Therefore, even a passive Jacob,

‘rapist’ Shechem and Hamor appear in a better light than do the irresponsible and brutal Dinah’s

brothers.14

that look at this narrative in the context of Genesis. For example, John H.Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A

Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), pp. 200-202; Laurence A. Turner, Genesis

(Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 146-51; Sharon Pace

Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis: From Sarah to Potiphar’s Wife (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 87-97. 4 According to this concept, ‘the Bible is difficult to read, easy to underread and overread and even misread, but

virtually impossible to… counterread’. (Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, pp. 50-51) 5 According to Sternberg, an competent (objective) reader, with an adequate historical knowledge, ‘cannot go far

wrong even if he does little more than follow the statements made and the incidents enacted on the narrative surface’.

(Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 51) 6 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 446. 7 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 453. 8 Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance, pp. 193-211. 9 According to Fewell and Gunn (‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 194) ‘Sternberg, like the rest of us, is an ideological

reader… His reading of Genesis 34… expose something of its ideological anchorage, and in the process [we wish to]

offer an alternative reading that is rooted in a somewhat different value system, which we think of as feminist.’ 10 Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 211. 11 ‘Even if, by some chance, some other man were willing to marry her, she would remain highly vulnerable to

being “put away” by him when it suited him (Deut 22:13-21).’ (Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 210) 12 Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 208. 13 Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 197. 14 ‘Where Sternberg’s reader sees admirable principles, our reader sees culpable neglect of responsibility. If

Simeon and Levi are Sternberg’s heroes, they are certainly not ours.’ (Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 211)

3

The third interpretation, presented by Lyn Bechtel,15 is a critique of the traditional ‘rape’

reading of the text. Bechtel’s conclusion, after a detailed analysis of the story and its group-oriented

dynamics, is that Dinah is not raped. The story portrays Dinah and Jacob as persons interested in

interacting with outsiders. On the other hand, Jacob’s sons are militant folks ‘who are threatened by

the impure outsiders and want to maintain strict group purity and absolute separation. The story

seems to be challenging this attitude by showing the potential danger in which it places the

group.’16

There is something characteristic in these three readings.17 First, these readings imply that it

is rather clear in the text that Dinah was raped (Sternberg, Fewell and Gunn) or that she was not

(Bechtel). Second most of them are focused upon the ‘black/ white’ evaluation of the characters in

the story.18 They look for the meaning of the story in what somebody in the story has done or not

done, and what are the readers’ feelings about it. Third, these interpretations fail to consider the

function and the meaning of the story in its broader context.

Therefore, there are several questions that I want to consider in the following chapters: How

much is it appropriate to speak so convincingly about the rape, or against it? Is it, according to the

text, possible to speak about the main characters in terms of heroes and villains, or sympathies and

antipathies? What can the broader context of Genesis 34 contribute to our understanding of the

function and meaning of it?

15 Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, pp. 19-36. 16 Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 36. 17 In this essay I will not offer a detailed critique of these interpretations. Nevertheless, I will briefly consider

some positive or negative aspects of these interpretations later (especially in footnotes). For a more detailed critique of

first two interpretations see Paul Noble, ‘A “Balanced” Reading of the Rape of Dinah: Some Exegetical and

Methodological Observations’, BibInt 4 (1996), pp. 173-204. Regarding Sternberg’s interpretation see also Naomi

Segal, review of The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1985), by Meir Sternberg, in VT 38 (1998), pp. 243-49. 18 By this I don’t imply that these interpretations consider some characters as perfect persons. Namely, Fewell

and Gunn point out that, ‘our reader expresses a measure of sympathy for them [Jacob, Hamor and Shechem], not as

heroes but as complex characters making the best of a flawed world.’ (Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 211)

Nevertheless, all these interpretations show some sympathies for particular characters, and consider them as positive

characters in the story.

4

3. The Textual Details of Genesis 34

a. The Analysis of What Exactly Happened to Dinah?

According to Gen. 34.1-3,19 Leah’s daughter Dinah, probably a young teenager girl,20 went out (ys’)

to see (to visit) the daughters of the land. Her motives are not given. Shechem, the prince of the

land,21 saw (r’h) her, took (lqh) her, laid her (�kb �otah) and did something with her that is

described by ‘nh in the Piel. Furthermore, his whole being clung (dbq) to her, he loved (�hb) her

and spoke ‘to her heart’. The narrator’s comment of what happened is that Shechem ‘defiled’ (tm’)

Dinah (34.5,13,27), that he had done ‘folly’ (nebulah) in Israel (34.7), something that ought not to

be done (34.7).22

The proponents of the ‘rape’ reading of Genesis 34 conclude that the expressions lqh, �kb

�otah, and ‘nh (34.2) designate physical force (violence),23 and that the expressions nebulah and

tm’ imply the severity of Shechem’s rape.24

But it is important to notice that none of these words has an inherent connotation of rape.

First, the word lqh is used several times in Genesis 34 in the context of ‘giving and taking’ wives

(vv. 9, 16, 21) without reference to physical force.25 It is only in vv. 25-26 (taking the sword and

killing all the males) where violence is described in association with lqh.26 Also, the combination

19 See my translation and comments in Appendix. 20 According to von Rad (Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary [Old Testament Library; trans. J.H. Marks;

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1972], p. 331) ‘Dinah cannot have been a mature girl’. She is probably at

that moment a teenager, probably about fifteen years old. See Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible

Commentary: The Holy Bible with Exegetical and Expository Comment (Volume 1; Washington, DC: Review and

Herald Publishing Association, 1953), p. 412. 21 Word ‘the land’ is used in Gen. 34 (31 verses) six times (vv. 1, 2, 10, 21, 21, 30), more frequently than in any

other narrative chapter in Jacob’s story. Only chapter 36 uses this word more frequently, but this due to the fact that it is

geneaology of Esau, not narrative. Also, chapter 26 has similar frequeancy of this word (6 times in 35 verses). It is

interesting that there is a thematic parallel between Gen. 26 and Gen. 34; both chapters deal with the relationship of

patriarchs to the inhabitants of the land. 22 At the first glance, it is a little ambiguous whether these expressions are narrator’s comment or brother’s point

of view. Nevertheless, I think that it is quite clear that nebulah and tm’ are narrator’s comment just as it is the comment

in Gen. 34.13 that Jacob’s sons spoke to Hamor and Shechem ‘with deceit’. Also, according to Sternberg, the phrase

‘because he had committed an outrage in Israel’ suggests that it is the narrator’s comment, because at that time ‘Israel’

had not yet become a nation. ‘The characters can hardly think and judge in terms of a category shrouded in the future,

but no such limitation hampers the omiscient teller.’ (Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 454) 23 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 446; Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis: From

Sarah to Potiphar’s Wife (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 87-97 ( 92); Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Word

Biblical Commentary, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), pp. 310-11; Noble, ‘A “Balanced” Reading of the Rape of

Dinah’, p. 190. 24 See Mishael Maswari Caspi, ‘The Story of the Rape of Dinah: The Narrator and the Reader’, Hebrew Studies

26 (1985), pp. 25-45 (32). 25 Lqh in Gen. 34.17 (‘we will take our daughter and go’) can mean taking Dinah by force (pace Sternberg, The

Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 458), but not necessarily. I will return to this issue later. 26 Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 28. ‘Without a similar association of force in v. 2, there is no

indication of rape in Shechem’s ‘taking’ (lqh) of Dinah.’ (Ibid)

5

‘to see’ and ‘take’ is already mentioned in Gen. 3.6 and 6.2 in the context of something sinful, but

not with connotation of violence.27

Second, the verb �kb in v. 2 is probably used with the direct object �otah.28 But, it is

neither true that verb �kb used with the preposition ‘m (‘with’) connotes a mutually agreed upon

sexual act,29 nor that �kb with the direct object �otah indicates rape.30 Namely, while �kb with

the direct object ‘is used only of acts that are in some way irregular’,31 in most cases this is not in

the context of rape.32

Thirdly, the verb ‘nh (usually translated as ‘to humble’) ‘indicates the moral and social

degrading and debasing by which a girl loses the expectancy of a fully valid marriage’,33 but it does

not automatically indicate rape. According to Bechtel, ‘nh in the Piel ‘indicates the “humiliation” or

“shaming” of a woman through certain kinds of sexual intercourse including rape, through [sic] not

necessarily.’ 34 The rape is clearly indicated in Deut. 22.28-29; 2 Sam. 13.11-14, but not in Deut.

21.14; 22.24. Similarly, the verb ‘to defile’ (tm’), a normal term for ritual impurity (Lev. 5.2; 11.25,

28), is also a strong verb used to denote defilement35 caused by a wrongful sexual relationship, but

not necessarily rape.36 Furthermore, the word ‘folly’ (nebulah) is ‘an ancient expression for the most

serious kind of sexual evil’;37 sometimes used in connotation to rape (Judg. 19.23-24; 20.6; 2 Sam

13.12), but sometimes in the cases of other serious kind of sexual evils such as adultery (Jer. 29.23)

and harlotry (Deut. 22.21).

27 This idea is expressed by Laurence A. Turner, during his lectures (December 2000) at Newbold College. 28 BHS points ithah (indirect object, ‘with’) instead of othah. 29 ‘In Hebrew, the preposition “with” implies permission’ (Caspi, ‘The Story of the Rape of Dinah , p. 32). The

problem with this suggestion is that in Deut. 22.25-27 the man overpowers (hzq) the young woman, lies (�kb) with her

(‘immah), and she cries out, yet it uses ‘immah. So, �kb with the preposition ‘m does not necessarily connote a sexual

act with permission. 30 So Caspi (‘The Story of the Rape of Dinah’, p. 32): ‘He says, “and he lay with her..” using the direct object

(othah) rather than the indirect object (immah) to draw attention to the force used in committing the crime.’ 31 Noble, ‘The Rape of Dinah’, p. 178. For example, Gen. 19.32; 26.10; 35.16; Lev. 15.24; 20.11-13; Num. 5.13,

18. 32 In Gen. 19.32; 26.10 the sexual act is probably without permission (willingness), but it is surely not case in

Gen. 35.16; Lev. 15.24; 20.11-13; Num. 5.13, 18. 33 Von Rad, Genesis, p. 331. In Gen. 34.2 it is given in the Piel. Its meaning in the Piel is ‘to humilate

intensely’. See more W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testament Libros (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1951), p. 719. 34 Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 24). 35 According to Brueggemann, ‘an elemental notion of ritual uncleanness is more powerful, more compelling,

and (as here) more dangerous than a judgment of moral guilt. That is, the woman is not simply taken. She is made

ritually unacceptable.’ (Walter Brueggemann, Genesis [Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and

Preaching; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982], pp. 275-76) 36 See Num. 5.13-31; Lev. 21.7, 13-14; Ezek. 18.6, 11, 15; 23.17; 33.26. 37 Von Rad, Genesis, p. 332.

6

What might be concluded, therefore, regarding the supposed rape of Dinah? Was Becthel

right by claiming that there is no indication that Dinah is raped?38

First, this analysis has shown that none of words that are mentioned in Genesis 34 has an

inherit meaning of rape. Second, none of the verbs that are used in the other OT accounts to

designate rape39 are present in Genesis 34. Third, the concluding comment of Jacob’s sons - ‘should

he treat our sister as a harlot?’ (Gen. 34.31) 40 - suggest that even Jacob’s sons did not think about

rape.41 Furthermore, as Bechtel has pointed out, ‘sociological studies reveal that rapists feel hostility

and hatred toward their victims, not love’.42 But the text is clear that Shechem felt love, not

hostility, towards Dinah (34.3).43

Yet, even if it is difficult according to Genesis 34 to conclude that Dinah was really raped, it

is quite clear that Shechem has done something to Dinah44 very evil in the eyes of the narrator.

Namely, we have seen that almost all the aforementioned expressions are very strong words that

imply some kind of horribly wrongful sexual relationship. It is also interesting to notice that

Shechem is the one condemned by the narrator, not Dinah. According to the text we cannot

conclude why he is condemned. Rape remains one of the possible answers,45 but never more so

indubitable as it was until recently. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is more likely that Shechem,

a young man, seduced Dinah, a girl under age (see footnote 20) and had a sexual relationship with

her. Because such act is today considered as something very bad, even culpable, I suppose that it

was at least so wrongful at ancient time. That can be the reason why Jacob’s sons were so eager to

punish Shechem but not Dinah.46

38 Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 31. 39 Hzq – (‘to overpower’) in Deut. 22.25; Judg. 19.25; 2 Sam. 13.14. Verb tps (‘to seize’) in Deut. 22.28. ‘ll (‘to

abuse’, ‘to act severely’) in Judg. 19.25. Kb� (‘to subdue, force, violate, abuse’) in Est. 7.8. 40 I agree that it is ambiguous who this ‘he’ is, who treat Dinah as a harlot, Shechem or Jacob. I think that the

narrator has deliberately used this word in such a way, probably in order to include both of them. 41 Namely, according to Bechtel (‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 20), ‘rape may be defined as a man’s

forcible, aggressive sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time does not consent and shows obious resistance or

vigorous struggle’. This is obviously not what happens with a harlot; in their case the mutual consent is present. (Ibid, p.

31) 42 Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 29. 43 Compare with 2 Sam. 13.1-16, where the text is clear that Amnon raped Tamar, but after the rape he hated her. 44 Shechem is described not as the one who has done something evil together with Dinah, but something evil to

Dinah. She is through the whole narrative, except in verse 1, always the object of a verb. See Turner, Genesis, p. 149. 45 It is interesting that other accounts of rape (Deut. 22.25, 28; Judg. 19.22-20.10; 2 Sam. 13.11-14) in the OT

use many words and phrases that are used in Genesis 34 (�kb �otah, ‘nh, nebulah, tm’, ‘thing that ought not to be

done’). This is the reason why I don’t want to exclude completely the possibility of rape. 46 According to von Rad (Genesis, p. 331), ‘the verb which is usually translated “humble” (‘inna) indicates the

moral and social degrading and debasing by which a girl loses the expectancy of a fully valid marriage.’ If Dinah was a

teenager girl, and if she lost the expextancy of a fully valid marriage by sexual intercourse with Shechem, than it is

7

Was Dinah kept in Shechem’s house forcibly, against her will?47 The text never explicitly

answers this question. If Dinah was not raped, then probably not. Even if she was raped, there are at

least two reasons why I don’t think that Dinah was in Shechem’s house against her will. First,

according to Deut. 22.13-21 and 2 Samuel 13, Dinah’s best interest, even if she was raped, ‘within

the narrow limits of this society is to marry Shechem, the man who loves her and takes delight in

her’.48 Second, if Dinah was forcibly kept in Shechem’s house, why did Hamor and Shechem come

to Jacob ready to submit to all conditions, in order to ‘find favour’ (Gen. 34.11)? The reason is, in

my opinion, not because they were a weaker side.49 Rather, it is because they were not interested to

keep Dinah forcibly, but to touch the hearts of Jacob and his sons, as much as Shechem tried to

touch Dinah’s heart.50

In sum, according to the text it is not appropriate to imply so convincingly either that Dinah

was raped, or that Dinah was not raped. According to the text it is clear that Shechem has done

something very bad to Dinah in the eyes of the narrator. In my opinion, the text speaks about

seduction of a girl under age, but rape also remains one of the possibilities.

b. The Assessment of the Narrator’s Description of Main Characters

What can we conclude about Jacob, Shechem, Hamor, Hivites and Jacob’s sons on the basis of

Genesis 34? Who are the positive characters (heroes) in the story, and who are the negative ones

(villains)?

According to Fewell and Gunn, and Bechtel, Jacob is a positive character in the story,

because he showed the wisdom in the face of a potentially dangerous situation for his family as a

whole,51 and because in the long run his attitude (willingness to include ‘outsiders’) promoted the

understandable why her brothers were so angry (Gen. 34.7). Even if it was not against her will, it is possible that she

was too young to be responsible. 47 See Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 456. 48 Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 210. (See also Turner, Genesis, p. 149) But I don’t agree with

Fewell and Gunn that Shechem’s love for Dinah was a positive, what we call unselfish, love. More about this below. 49 The Hivites was probably the ones who outnumbered the Israelites, not vice versa (see Gen. 34.30). 50 Fewell and Gunn points out that ‘the expression “he spoke to [her] heart,” indicates both Shechem’s action and

Dinah’s positive response’. (Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 196) I agree with Sternberg (Meir Sternberg,

‘Biblical Poetics and Sexual Politics: From Reading to Counterreading’, JBL 111 [1992], pp. 463-88 [476-77]) that text

doesn’t say anything about Dinah’s response. The text says that Shechem ‘spoke to her heart’, but not that he ‘touched

her heart’. According to the text, we cannot imply neither postive nor negative response of Dinah. 51 According to Fewell and Gunn, Jacob’s ‘anger is understandable. His sons have usurped his authority, decived

him in the process, and acted without repsonsibility. They leave him to face the consequences, him and the rest of the

family – the women and children. Jacob is still pater-familias and still has to deal with the threat to the family’s very

existence – a threat that the brothers’ acitons have exacerbated beyond measure.’ (Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the

Balance’, p. 208)

8

well-being and longevity of the family.52 But how much is this understanding in accordance with

the text?

It is important that throughout Genesis 34 Jacob is not the main focus (he appears only in

34.5, 30). According to Gen. 34.5, Jacob heard about Dinah’s defilement, but ‘kept silent’

(hekherish) until his sons came in. Actually, he remained silent (without any reaction) at all until the

sons’ massacre (34.30). Eventually, when we hear his voice, he does not react against the sons’

massacre as something morally wrong, but against the possible consequences of their actions to his

own life.53

Although the narrator nowhere explicitly reveals Jacob’s motifs, this later text suggests that

his major concern was probably for his own skin, not for his daughter.54 He was interested for the

well-being of his family55 only inasmuch as it was connected with his own well-being. It seems to

me that Jacob remained silent not because he was wise56 or co-operative,57 but because of neglect58

and probably for the sake of gain. Namely, the text reveals the possibility for Jacob’s family to

become a great nation by becoming ‘one people’ with the Hivites (34.16, 22), and to gain the

possession of the land by intermarriage (34.10).59 Is it possible, as Kass points out, that Jacob

overlooked ‘an assault on his daughter so that he might easily get wives for all of his sons’?60

Genesis 34 nowhere explicitly answers this question. But I will come to it later and try to

demonstrate how can the broader context help us to answer this question. Nevertheless Jacob can

hardly be a positive character.61

The text is more clear in its negative evaluation of Shechem. I don’t agree with Fewell and

Gunn that Shechem’s ‘willingness to pay anything that they stipulate may be taken to show … how

52 Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 35. 53 Notice the selfish interest of Jacob, ‘You have brought trouble on me, by making me odious among the

inhabitants of the land … and my men being few in number, they will gather together against me and attack me and I

shall be destroyed, I and my household’ (Gen. 34.30 Italics supplied). 54 Turner, Genesis, p. 150. 55 Fewell and Gunn (‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 207) point out that Jacob’s reaction in v. 30 reveals not only his

concern about the preservation of self, but also his concern about the preservation of the whole family (‘I and my house’

in Gen. 34.30). 56 So Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 208. 57 So Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 35; Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 198. 58 According to Sternberg, in the Bible’s usage, the verb hekherish ‘often has the pejorative connotations of

inertness or neglect (e.g., 2 Sam 19:11; Hab 1:13; Esth 4:14)’. (Sternberg, ‘The Poetics of Biblical Narrative’, p. 448) 59 Thomas W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox

Press, 1988), p. 64. 60 Leon R. Kass, ‘Regarding Daughters and Sisters’, Commentary 93 (April 1992), pp. 29-38 (33). 61 ‘This story shows Jacob’s old nature reasserting itself, a man whose moral principles are weak, who is fearful

of standing up for right when it may cost him dearly, who doubts God’s power to protect, and who allows hatred to

divide him from his children just as it had divided him from his brother.’ (Wenham, Genesis, p. 318 )

9

eager he is to make restitution for what he has done’.62 The text never mentioned any apology or

repentance. Nor does the text describe Shechem’s metamorphosis from ‘abuser’ to true ‘lover’.63

His willingness to give (34.11) does not reveal his responsibility or a true (agape) love, but, as in

case of Esau (25.34), impulsiveness and a desire to get whatever he wants by any means possible

(34.5, 11).64 The expressions of his love65 in Genesis 34 do not emphasise positive, but, on the

contrary, selfish and sensual overtones of his love (his strong emotional affection to Dinah).66 So,

Shechem is willing to give (whatever they say) in order to get (Dinah as wife). The narrative

describes his selfish lust, not penitence and agape (self-sacrificing) love.

Accordingly, Hamor is not characterized as an honourable man whose aim is to bond,

cooperate and live together with other groups.67 Rather, his failure to acknowledge in any way the

wrongfulness of what Shechem had done presents him in a different light. He was a parent ready to

do whatever he can in order to satisfy the appetite of his spoiled child. Although very skilful in his

dealing with the elders of the city (Gen. 34.21-24),68 Hamor was actually a ‘puppet’ in the hands of

his son. The Hivites can be rightly described as a nation ‘indifferent to … the defilement of women

eager for intermarriage, keen upon gain, coveting both its neighbors’ wives and its neighbors’

cattle’.69 So, neither Jacob, nor Hamor, nor the Hivites had shown the right attitude to Shechem’s

62 Fewell and Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance’, pp. 200-201. (Italics supplied) See also Claus Westermann, Genesis

12-36: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), p. 540. 63 As Fewell and Gunn suggest (‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 197). 64 See Turner, Genesis, p. 149. Turner adds that, ‘just as Esau exhibited two sides to his nature, so does

Shechem.’ (Ibid) It is true that both exhibited two sides to their natures, but it does not mean that the ‘second’ nature of

both are equally positive. Namely, Esau’s attitude towards Jacob in Gen. 33, and Shechem’s love and generosity

(readiness to give) in Gen. 34.11 are not, in my opinion, equally positive. 65 His whole being clung (dbq) to her, he loved (�hb) her and spoke ‘to her heart’ (dbr ‘al leb). Furthermore, his

whole being longs for (h�q) and delights (hpz) in Dinah. (See Gen. 34.3, 4, 11, 19) 66 Fewell and Gunn (‘Tipping the Balance’, p. 196) think that verbs for Shechem’s love in Genesis 34 have

‘uniformly positive overtones’. (See also Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, pp. 28-29) But, although in many

examples these verbs are used to describe a positive relationship between people (dbq – in Gen. 2.24; Prov. 18.24; Ruth

1.14; �hb – Gen. 22.2; Ex 21.5; 1 Sam. 18.20), this is not always so (dbq – Josh. 23.12). And, what is even more

important, these verbs do not emphasise a morally positive element of love, but passionate, emotional element of love

(See h�q – Deut. 21.11; dbq – 1 Kgs. 11.2; 2 Kgs. 3.3; �hb – Gen. 24.67; 29.18, 30; 37.3, 4; 44.20). In some of these

examples ‘loving’ people showed favouritism (Gen. 25.28; 37.3; 44.20), which can hardly be a positive element of love.

See G. Wallis, ‘Dabhaq’, in Johannes G. Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (Volume III; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974�), pp. 79-83; G. Wallis, ‘Hasaq’, in Johannes G.

Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Volume V; Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1974�), pp. 261-63. 67 So Bechtel, ‘What if Dinah is not Raped?’, p. 35. 68 von Rad describes his speech as ‘a little diplomatic masterpiece’. (Genesis, p. 333) Turner adds that he is

‘economical with the truth’ when speaking to his elders. (Genesis, p. 148) He and his son give quite opposite

impression in 34.23 than in speaking to Jacob’s family (34.10). 69 Kass, ‘Regarding Daughters and Sisters’, p. 35.

10

act which is clearly condemned by the narrator.70 They were more interested in what they could

gain, than in what is right or wrong.

But what might be said about Jacob’s sons? Their first reaction when they heard about

Dinah’s defilement is completely different from Jacob’s.71 The Gen. 34.7 says that they ‘were

grieved’ and ‘very angry’. The first word is ‘sb that is also used in Gen. 6.6 to describe God’s

reaction to wickedness of Noah’s generation.72 The second word is yihar that ‘is used to describe

God’s anger against those who would afflict the widow or the orphan (Exod. 22:23)’.73 So, these

words imply their positive reaction; supposedly the concern for their sister’s honour.74 But, their

initially good reaction became questioned because of the means used to defend her honour. Namely,

the narrator clearly indicates that they spoke to Hamor and Shechem ‘with deceit’ (34.13).75 What

does this tell us about them and their motives? Did they really work out of their religious idealism,76

or, maybe, to defend their own honor (‘a disgrace to us’ – 34.14)?77 The text is again silent

(ambiguous) about their motives.

But what the text clearly describes is the cruelty of all the Dinah’s brothers.78 Even if their

initial anger was justifiable and even expected, their deceit and the final act of massacre, plunder

70 Nowhere in the text it is explicitly stated that Hivites were acquainted with events related to Dinah. But, this

does not mean that they were apsolutly ignorant. Namely, the text similarly nowhere says that Hamor was informed

about what exactly happened (Gen. 34.4). Nevertheless, nobody would assume that Hamor didn’t know this. 71 The text of Gen. 34.6-8 is a little ambiguous regarding what exactly happened. Verse 6 states that Hamor and

Shechem ‘went out’ (see ys’ in 34.1) to speak with Jacob. Verse 7 has an ambiguous syntax. First part can be translated

as ‘Now the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved…’ (NASB), or ‘just as

the sons of Jacob came in from the field. When they heard of it, the men were indignant and very angry’ (NRSV). The

ambiguous question is, when they discovered what happened - in the field, or when they came home? If they discovered

it at home, does it mean that ‘Jacob never bothered to let them know’ it? (Wenham, Genesis, p. 311) If they heard what

happened in the field, who is the one who informed them, Jacob or someone else?

According to the text, it also seems that they came home just in the moment when Hamor and Shechem were

speaking to Jacob. According to Gen. 34.8, Hamor continued to speak with them (probably both with Jacob and his

sons). The question is also, why Hamor included Jacob’s sons in his negotiation? Is not the father the one who decides

about his daughter? The text does not give an unambiguous answers to these questions. 72 Turner, Genesis, p. 150. 73 Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis, p. 93. 74 Several commentators have noticed that Jacob’s sons took over the responsibilities of their father (Jeansonne,

The Women of Genesis, p. 94; Caspi, ‘The Story of the Rape of Dinah’, p. 29; Turner, Genesis, p. 150). This is also

implied by Gen. 34.17, where brothers called Dinah ‘our daughter’ (34.17). 75 Sailhamer notices that, ‘the sons of Jacob have taken the place of their father in the thematic structure of the

narratives.’ (John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 1992], p. 201) 76 To defend the sister’s right, and to prevent the family of an exogamous marriage. (Sternberg, The Poetics of

Biblical Narrative, p. 472) 77 According to Fewell and Gunn (Tibing the Balance’, p. 202), Gen. 34.14 implies that it was their honour at

stake, not the honour of Dinah. 78 Sternberg seperates Simeon and Levi from other Jacob’s sons. According to him, ‘Simeon and Levi turn out to

be the only ones who cling to the antimaterialistic norms … formulated in the Israelite reply to the Hivites… Their

concern has been selfless and single-minded: to redress the wrong done tho their sister and the whole family.’ (The

11

and maybe massive rape, is everything else but not ‘a blessing to nations’. Namely, even if Dinah

was raped, the killing of Shechem is ‘revenge beyond any normal legal limits’.79 According to Deut.

22.28-29, rape of an unattached girl leads to forcible marriage with no divorce, and payment of a set

bride money. This is exactly what Shechem and Hamor offered to Jacob’s family (34.12).

Therefore, the massacre of the whole city because of an act of defilement questions the positiveness

of the brothers’ initial reaction. It is true that Deut. 22.28-29 probably refers only to the covenant

community, and that Deut. 7.1-2 commands Israelites to destroy Canaanites. Nevertheless, nowhere

in Genesis are patriarchs encouraged to have such an attitude towards their neighbours, but to be a

blessing.

In conclusion, the story of Dinah does not offer ‘a straightforward set of rules, but a

heightened awareness of the complexity of the situation’.80 This is the reason why it is impossible to

speak about characters in the story in terms of heroes and villains, or sympathies and antipathies.

While it is, in my opinion, difficult to find any admirable quality in Shechem, Hamor and the

Hivites, the reader is in doubt about who reacted rightly, passive Jacob or revengeful sons.

Although it could be possible to find something positive both in Jacob and in his sons, their

concluding conversation (34.30-31) suggests that they are all seriously flawed. Jacob failed to react

against the defilement of his daughter, but his sons reacted in a seriously wrong way.

But in spite of its ambiguity, the story is a great irony about human greed. It seems that

every character in the story was interested in some kind of profit. This is quite clear with the Hivites

and Shechem (they desired Israel’s livestock, property and Dinah), and little ambiguous with Jacob

and his sons. But, the irony is that nobody got what he planned to get. It is clear that the Hivites lost

everything, even their lives. But Jacob’s family also lost. The massacre brought trouble not only to

Jacob, but also to his whole household (Gen. 34.30).

4. The Story of Dinah in Its Context

According to Brueggemann, the story of Dinah ‘seems to have no relationship with anything before

Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 472) Other sons, according to Sternberg, are not the positive ones, because they came

after the slain (‘hyena-like appearance’), and worked out of materialism (‘looted’).

But, there is no other evidence in the text that justifies such a seperation between Simeon and Levi, and other

sons. According ot Gen. 34.13-17, they planned and worked together. It seems to me more likely that such a separation

was part of their plans, not against their plans. 79 Raymond Westbrook, ‘Punishments and Crimes’, in David Noel Freedmann (ed.), The Anchor Bible

Dictionary (Volume 5; New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 546-56 (552). 80 Noble, ‘The Rape of Dinah’, p. 195. Italics supplied.

12

or after’.81 This view is, probably, the reason why all of the three aforementioned interpretations do

not consider this story in its context. In this chapter I want to show that the story of Dinah is related

to whole book of Genesis both in plot, charaterization and theological motifs. Also I want to show

how our understanding of its function and meaning can be enriched by looking at this story in its

context.

a. Plot

To understand better the story of Dinah, it is good to start with Jacob’s running away from his

brother and coming to Bethel. In Bethel he receives divine promise that God will guard him, be

with him, and bring him back to the promised land (28.15). Jacob responds with a conditional vow:

‘If God will be with me … and I return to my father’s house in safety [shalom], then the Lord will

be my God’ (28.20-21). Jacob also promises that Bethel will be God’s house, and that he will give a

tenth to God (28.22).

The subsequent narrative describes Jacob’s troubles in a foreign land, but also God’s

presence with him. Finally, Jacob becomes exceedingly prosperous (30.43). 82 But in the moment of

increasing tension between Laban and Jacob, God appears to Jacob saying, ‘Return to the land of

your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you’ (31.3 - italics supplied). Jacob responds,

and secretly runs away from Laban and prepares for the encounter with his brother Esau. In both

cases the reader expects the worse to happen to Jacob. But in both occasions God intervenes, and

instead of violence we find peace and reconciliation, both with Laban (31.22-55) and Esau (33.1-

17).83 But in spite of reconciliation with Esau, Jacob is not willing to go with him and live with him.

Rather, he comes to Shechem to live there.

The text emphasizes that Jacob comes safely [shalem] to the city of Shechem, as he had

asked (28.20-21). Consequently, he keeps his word and builds an altar, whose name signifies that

the Lord is, finally, his God (33.18-20). But, suddenly the reader sees a reversal from what

happened recently. ‘Just as the reader expects violence but surprisingly finds peace when Jacob

81 Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 274. See also Coats, Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature, pp.

233-34. 82 The narrative is ambiguous whether is Jacob’ success the result of his own calculation (30.73-43), or the result

of God’s intervention (31.9-13). 83 So, Jacob is again running away. In first occasion he run away from Esau to Laban. Now he is running away

from Laban to his brother Esau. At the end of first flight, Laban embraces Jacob, and kisses him (29.13). At the end of

this second flight, Esau embraces and kisses him (34.4). It is also interesting that the conflict between Laban and Jacob

‘is not resolved, merely recognized and managed. The coldness between the two main antagonists is illustrated by

13

meets Esau, the reader expects peace at Shechem, but instead finds violence.’84 Instead of becoming

a great nation and gaining the possession of the land by becoming one people with the Hivites,

Jacob’s family becomes odious among them (34.30). Jacob is again supposed to flee, and he comes

to Bethel.85

So, it is quite clear that the story of Dinah ‘presupposes what precedes and is assumed in the

material that follows’;86 it is an integral part of the larger, united sequence of events (plot). But what

does this plot-line speak about the function and meaning of Genesis 34?

First, I agree with Jeansonne that this story demonstrates ‘that the promise of God for land

and descendants is, at times, in doubt’.87 The story, in fact, ends with uncertainty about what will

happen to Jacob’s family. Will Jacob become a great nation, and will he come to the possession of

the land? At that moment when this story ends, both of these two elements of the Abrahamic

blessing are in doubt, because Jacob’s existence in itself is in doubt.

But the question is why is this so? It seems that the plot suggests that the reason again lies in

Jacob’s attempt to fulfil God’s promises.88 Namely, God asked him to return to the land of his

fathers and to his relatives. But he is not willing to go to Bethel, nor even to his old father, and of

course not to live with his closest relative - Esau. Rather, he is more ready to live with the Hivites.

Although nowhere in the text explicitly stated, it seems that Jacob sees in interaction with the

Hivites the opportunity to become a great nation, and to possess the land.89 As Abraham was ready

Laban’s farewell kisses for his grandchildren and daughters (31.55). There is no embrace for Jacob (cf. 29.13).’ (Turner,

Genesis, p. 137) 84 Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis, p. 90. 85 Turner points out, ‘For the first time in the narrative the reader might feel easy about assuming the best rather

than worst about Jacob’s actions.’ (Turner, Genesis, p. 152) I agree. But, Jacob again moves from Bethel (35.16), where

God wants him to live (35.1). But, it seems that the reason is not his unwillingness to obey God, but his desire to come

to his father (35.27). Eventually, the text reveals that at the end Esau is the one who went to another land away from his

brother Jacob (36.6), not because of bad relationship, but ‘for their property had become too great for them to live

together’ (36.7). 86 Wenham, Genesis, p. 308. 87 Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis, p. 97. 88 Jacob lived by the principle that God helps those who help themselves (Edward M. Curtis, ‘Structure, Style

and Context as a Key to Interpretation Jacob’s Encounter at Peniel’, JETS 30 [1987], pp. 129-37 [132]). His life was

characterized by his initiative to fulfil God’s promises, instead of waiting for God to fulfil his promise. The most

evident example is Genesis 27. So, Jacob was similar to his grandfather Abraham. ‘Abraham tried to contribute to the

fulfillment of the promise by fathering a child throughout Sarai’s handmaid Hagar’ (Ibid, p. 131), and earlier by taking

Lot as adopted child. 89 The Hamor’s offer to Jacob’s family is, ‘And intermarry with us; give your daughters to us, and take our

daughters for yourselves. Thus you shall live with us, and the land shall be open before you; live and trade in it, and

acquire property in it.’ (34.9-10 NASB) We have already seen that Jacob had bought the piece of land (33.19). Also,

Gen. 34.16, 22 mentions the possibility for Jacob’s family and Hivites to become one people. In my opinion, these are

good hints to Jacob’s perception of situation.

14

to ‘sacrifice’ his wife in order to survive,90 so Jacob was ready to ‘sacrifice’ his daughter in order to

get wives for all his sons.91 Also that was probably the reason why he was so reluctant to return to

Bethel and even to his father.92

Finally, God commands Jacob to go up to Bethel and live there (35.1) and make an altar

there (35.1, 7).93 There is a striking similarity between Jacob’s first and second coming to Bethel. In

the first situation, by taking initiative in his hand, Jacob put his life in danger. But, God graciously

revealed to him in Bethel with encouraging promise (28.15). Similarly, by taking initiative in their

hands, Jacob and his sons again put their lives in danger. But God again intervenes (35.5) and

promises that he will give him the land and descendants (35.11-12).94

a. Charaterization and Theological Themes

There are also many other similarities between the story of Dinah and other parts of Genesis.95 I

want to mention only a few.

An interesting similarity exists between Jacob’s camping before Shechem (33.18) and Lot’s

settling down in Sodom (13.12). In both occasions the Canaanites are described as wicked. In both

cases Lot and Jacob brought troubles on themselves, but God intervened to save them. In fact, both

stories speak about the danger of bringing together to the Canaanites. Genesis and the whole of the

Pentateuch repeatedly speak about incompatibility between two ‘cultures’; between sons of God

and sons of men (Gen. 6.2), between the chosen family and their neighbours. The chosen family is

discouraged to intermarry with Canaanites (Gen. 24.3; 26.34-35; 27.46; 28.8, Deut. 7.3).

This question of relationship that is supposed to exist between chosen family and their

neighbours is also present in Genesis 26,96 and in Genesis 12 and 20. In all these cases the chosen

90 Turner notices, ‘She can therefore be sacrificed without endangering the promises. But he must ensure the

safety of himself and Lot if the catalogue of commands, blessings and promises of 12.1-3 are to see the light of day (see

14.13-16; 20.1-7; 26.6-11).’ (Turner, Genesis, p. 66) The same was true with Isaac (26.6-11). 91 In that point I agree with Kass (‘Regarding Daughters and Sisters’, p. 33). 92 Namely, it seems that Jacob stayed in Succoth and near Shechem several years (von Rad, Genesis, p. 331;

Turner, Genesis, p. 147). According to the text, he has as yet not returned to Bethel (35.1-12), nor to his father (35.27). 93 The word ‘there’ (hebr. sham) is in Gen. 35.1-8 used four times; two times in verse 1, and two times in verse

7. It seems to me that it suggests that God’s desire for Jacob was to live not near Shechem (33.18), but somewhere else.

Althought Jacob erected an altar there, in Shechem, God wanted Jacob to eracte an altar there, in Bethel, and live there. 94 In the first occasion God promise is, ‘I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you

back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you’ (28.15). The second time God

promises, ‘I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and

kings shall come forht from you. And the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, and I will give

the land to your descendants after you.’ (35.11-12) God evidently points out that he is the one who will fulfil the

promise. It is not Jacob who has to fulfil God’s promises. 95 See Wenham, Genesis, pp. 308-309.

15

family failed to obey God’s command to be a blessing to nations (12.3). The patriarchs thought only

about their own interests. The same is true in Genesis 34. But in contrast to the generally pacific

relations of the patriarchs with their Canaanite neighbors,97 this story presents Jacob’s sons as

bloodthirsty avengers.

So, Genesis 34, considered in its broader context, glorifies neither Jacob’s and Dinah’s

willingness to cooperate with ‘outsiders’ (pace Fewell and Gunn, and Bechtel), nor brutal idealism

of Jacob’s sons (pace Sternberg). It shows that both Jacob and his sons failed to have right

relationships with their neighbors. Jacob failed to keep the separateness of the group, but his sons

failed to be a blessing.

Genesis 34 also describes one of the main consequences of sin – broken relationship inside

family (Gen. 3.12, 16; Gen. 4). As patriarchs showed little courage in protecting their wives (Gen.

12; 12; 20; 26), so Jacob showed little courage to protect his daughter Dinah.98 Also, the dominant

motif in Genesis 34 is conflict, that is the dominant motif in the whole of Jacob’s story.99 The

conflict is not only between Jacob’s sons and the Hivites, it is also between Jacob and his sons.

‘The family tragedy has not led to reconciliation but to a deepening of the rift between Jacob and

his sons.’100 This alienation between father and sons will be present throughout the following

narrative. The story of Dinah is in such a way a good prelude to the Joseph story.

The motif of deceit (direct, or ‘silent’), so dominant in Jacob story, is very dominant in this

story too. First of all, Jacob’s sons spoke deceitfully to Hamor and Shechem (like father, like sons!).

Second, Hamor and Shechem spoke to Jacob and his sons as if nothing had happened except that a

young man had fallen in love and wants to negotiate a marriage according to the custom.101 Then,

Shechem and Hamor in their speech to the men of their city were quiet about their agreement with

Jacob’s family. They presented the matter as a great economic advantage for the townspeople but

96 Genesis 26, according to Fishbane’s chiastic structure of Jacob Cycle, corresponds to Genesis 34. (Michael

Fishbane, ‘Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle [Gen 25:19-35:22]’, JJS 26 [1975], pp. 15-38. Wenham also

notices this: ‘On first sight, neither chapter relates very closely to the surounding material or to the theme of Genesis.

Both chapters involve dealings with the inhabitants of the land… In both cases the patriarch shows little courage in

protecting his wife or daughter, but ultimately he escapes unharmed and not a little richer.’ (Wenham, Genesis, p. 309) 97 Stephen A. Geller, ‘The Sack of Shechem: the Use of Typology in Biblical Covenant Religion’, Prooftexts 10

(1990), pp. 1-15 (1-2). 98 Maybe it is because Dinah is a daughter, not son. Also he is a daugter of Leah, his unloved wife. For contrast,

see Jacob’s love towards Joseph and Benjamin, the sons of his loved wife, Rachel (Gen. 37.3; 42.36-38). So, the story

of Dinah shows also the parental favouritism, already present in Gen. 25.28. 99Turner points out, ‘Previously, conflict between Jacob and Esau or Jacob and Laban, perhaps even between

Rachel and Leah, had threatened violence, but nothing had actually happened. Here, conflict yields its full fruit: not

simply personal animosity, but the massacre of a whole city.’ (Turner, Genesis, p. 148) 100 Wenham, Genesis, p. 318.

16

did not mention at all an advantage to Shechem. Some interpreters even see deceit in Hivites’

hidden intentions to ‘usurp’ the property of Jacob (34.23).102 In the context of the whole of

Genesis103 these ‘deceit’ motifs powerfully speak about the problems in human relationships.

Where there is deceit, there is no trust, but only self-interest and alienation.

Lastly, the theme of Genesis in the context of the Pentateuch, as David Clines has shown, ‘is

the partial fulfilment – which implies also the partial non-fulfilment – of the promise to or blessing

of the patriarchs. The promise or blessing is both the divine initiative in a world where human

initiatives always lead to disaster, and are an affirmation of the primal divine intentions for

humanity.’104 This theme runs not only through the whole of Genesis,105 but also through Genesis

34. The story of Dinah demonstrates that the initiative of Jacob and his family also leads to disaster.

Therefore, I don’t agree with Sailhamer that in spite of the fact that the plans of Jacob and his sons

‘ran counter to God’s own, they could not thwart the eventual success of his intention.’106 Although

God was again gracious despite unfaithfulness of the chosen family (35.5),107 the story in fact

shows that human initiative and sinfulness can thwart the success of God’s intention. Or, as Turner

has concluded in his discussion about the announcements of plot in Genesis, God’s promises

‘would have had a better chance of fulfilment if the human characters had done less to attempt to

101 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 456. 102 Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature 9; Sheffield: Almond

Press, 1983), pp. 76-78. See also Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 466. 103 There are a number of ‘deceit’ motifs in Genesis. The serpent deceived Eva that she will not die (3.4).

Abraham and Isaac tried to deceive a foreign king three times (12.13; 20.2; 26.7). Jacob deceived his father Isaac

(27.18-26; 27.35), Laban (30.37-43) and Esau (33.12-17). Laban deceived Jacob a few times (29.16-28; 30.35). Jacob’s

sons deceived father (37.31-35). There is also some kind of deceit in Joseph’s secret dealing with his brothers (ch. 42-

43). In all this examples, except in first, deceit is in the context of bad relationships between people. 104 David J.A, Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2nd edn,

1997), p. 30. 105 From the beginning of Genesis we see God whose primal intention for humanity has been to bless it (Gen

1.28). On the other hand we see human beings that wanted to ‘become like God’ (Gen 3.5. See Thomas W. Mann, ‘”All

the Families of the Earth”: The Theological Unity of Genesis’, Int 45 [1991], pp. 341-53 [347]) and result of this is that

they destroyed ‘what God has made good’ (Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, p. 83). Even then, to such human

sinful condition, God gracefully responds with the call to the patriarchs. God chooses Abraham and his family, gives

him the promise of land, of blessing and of progeny, and commands him to be a blessing to all the families of the earth

(Gen. 12.2). The rest of the book is a story about the relation of Abraham and the other patriarchs to the promise and to

the command, and about God’s relation to these sinful human beings. In other words, one of the main themes ‘in the

Genesis narratives is the contrast between the work of man and the work of God, and that theme appears to be important

in interpreting the stories about Jacob.’ (Curtis, ‘Structure, Style and Context as a Key to Interpretation Jacob’s

Encounter at Peniel’, p. 130) 106 Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, p. 201-202. See also Wenham, Genesis, p. 309; Curtis, ‘Structure,

Style and Context as a Key to Interpretation Jacob’s Encounter at Peniel’, p. 131. 107 Contrary to Sternberg who thinks that Jacob’s family recived divine protection because the sons have done

right in keeping the prohibition in Deut. 7.2-3. (Sternberg, ‘‘Biblical Poetics and Sexual Politics: From Reading to

Counterreading’, p. 483)

17

fulfil them and allowed Yahweh to do more.’108 It seems that this is one of the most important

messages that Genesis 34 conveys.

5. Conclusion

In the beginning of this essay I have already mentioned that the main discussion between Fewell

and Gunn, and Sternberg is not so much about the story of Dinah per se, as about the reader’s

approach to the biblical text. Both interpretations assume the importance of the reader in analysing

the meaning or significance of a text, but disagree about the exact role of it.109 For Sternberg the

meaning is ‘there’, in the text, and all competent readers who follow the directives of the text, can

see it. For Fewell and Gunn ‘what a reader finds to be “there” will essentially depend … upon his or

her own ideology.’110 In other words, it is impossible to come to the meaning of a text.

To this discussion Noble rightly responds showing that both interpretations have

misinterpreted some details in Genesis 34. He concludes that one can move towards an objective,

reader-independent understanding of the text, but only ‘by careful attention to the linguistic

details’.111 But, as this essay has shown, it is important to put attention not only to the linguistic

details in a text apart from its context, but also to the broader context of a particular text.

Namely, in Genesis 34 we have only a few clear indications of the meaning of the story. We

have the narrator’s condemnation of what Shechem initially did, the comment that Jacob’s sons

spoke with deceit, the fact that Jacob didn’t react except pragmatically at the end of the story, a

description that nobody got what he/she wanted to get and that patriarchal family is sometimes in

danger. But what should one conclude about the meaning of the story according to these details? Do

these details per se encourage the idealism of Simeon and Levi (pace Sternberg), the wisdom of

Jacob and alleged responsibility of Shechem (pace Fewell and Gunn), or the readiness of all

108 Laurence A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:

Supplement Series, 96; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), p. 180. 109 Reader-oriented but modern interpreters of the Bible (Sternberg) view ‘texts as objects with determinate

meanings and readers as those who, if they follow the directives of the text, will arrive at its objective determinate

meaning.’ Postmodernists (Gunn and Fewell), on the other hand, ‘see texts as having no real existence apart from the

act of reading and readers as free to actualize texts in an indefinite variety of ways.’ (Terence J. Keegan, ‘Biblical

Criticism and the Challenge of Postmodernism’, BibInt 3 [1995], pp. 1-14 [4]) 110 Noble, ‘The Rape of Dinah’, p. 177. 111 Noble, ‘The Rape of Dinah’, p. 201. He admits that the reader’s presuppositions have influence on his/her

understanding of the text. Nevertheless, through the so-called ‘hermeneutical spiral’, the reader can progressively move

towards a determinate, reader-independent meaning of the text. (Ibid, p. 202)

18

characters except Jacob’s sons to cooperate with ‘outsiders’ (pace Bechtel)?112 My conclusion is

that, without looking at the story in its broader context, any of these and some other alternatives that

the text itself offers can be almost equally valid.113

But, if we look at the story of Dinah in its broader context, if we compare the motifs and

details found in the text with the motifs in its context, then it is much more likely that we will come

nearer to the meaning of it. Namely, the context of this story suggests that the narrator uses this

story to describe the complexity and sinfulness of human beings (deceit, conflicts, selfishness…).

The story in its context pictures how human attempts to fulfil God’s promises by their own plans

and schemes (Jacob is not willing to go to Bethel, to his father and brother) tend to destroy God’s

intention.

In conclusion, I admit that it is impossible to attain a 100%-correct understanding of a

text.114 Nevertheless, the reader can gradually move towards the objective meaning of a particular

biblical text only by looking at the text in its context; by following the broader plot and by

comparing the motifs in that text with the motifs in its context.

112 Or, in other words, does Genesis 34 condemn self-serving pragmatism of Jacob, materialism of the Hivites

and Jacob’s sons, and Shechem’s lust (pace Sternberg), or irresponsibility and brutality of Jacob’s sons (pace Fewell

and Gunn), or desire to maintain strict group purity and absolute separation (pace Bechtel)? 113 By this I don’t imply that all of these three interpretations are completely in accordance with the alternatives

that the text itself offers. Namely, as I have shown, Genesis 34 nowhere indicates that Shechem makes restitution for

what he has done. But, for example, does Genesis 34 per se condemn or encourage cooperation with 'outsiders'? It

seems to me that only on the basis of Genesis 34 we can come to both conclusions. 114 It is because every interpretation is subjective and in some sense ideological. Regarding this I agree with

Goldingay that ‘every audience comes to a story with different prior commitments. Our hearing of it is never

exclusively objective. Both historical and literary study is undertaken by interpreters who belongs in particular contexts

and to their work out of particular commitments.’ (John Goldingay, ‘How Far Do Readers Make Sense?: Interpreting

Biblical Narrative’, Themelios 18 [1993], pp. 5-10 [7]). Also, ‘audiences with particular backgrounds are able to

perceive, articulate, and respond to aspects of texts which audiences with other backgrounds may miss and be missed

by., even though they [liberation and feminist hermeneutics] also illustrate how the same audiences (like all audiences)

are also by virtue of their background liable to mishear the text in other respects. ’ (Ibid, p. 6)

19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baumgartner, W., Lexicon in Veteris Testament Libros (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1951).

Bechtel, Lyn M., ‘What if Dinah is not Raped? (Genesis 34)’, JSOT 62 (1994), pp. 19-36.

Berlin, Adele, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature 9; Sheffield:

Almond Press, 1983).

Brueggemann, Walter, Genesis (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching;

Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982).

Caspi, Mishael Maswari, ‘The Story of the Rape of Dinah: The Narrator and the Reader’, Hebrew

Studies 26 (1985), pp. 25-45.

Clines, David J.A., The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 2nd edn, 1997).

Coats, George W., Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature (The Forms of the Old

Testament Literature, 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983).

Curtis, Edward M., ‘Structure, Style and Context as a Key to Interpretation Jacob’s Encounter at

Peniel’, JETS 30 (1987), pp. 129-37.

Fewell, Danna Nolan and David M. Gunn, ‘Tipping the Balance: Sternberg’s Reader and the Rape

of Dinah’, JBL 110 (1991), pp. 193-211.

Fishbane, Michael, ‘Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen 25:19-35:22)’, JJS 26

(1975), pp. 15-38.

Geller, Stephen A., ‘The Sack of Shechem: the Use of Typology in Biblical Covenant Religion’,

Prooftexts 10 (1990), pp. 1-15.

Goldingay, John, ‘Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology’, in Joel B. Green and Max Turner

(eds.), Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology

(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 123-142.

__‘How Far Do Readers Make Sense?: Interpreting Biblical Narrative’, Themelios 18 (1993), pp. 5-

10.

Jeansonne, Sharon Pace, The Women of Genesis: From Sarah to Potiphar’s Wife (Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1990).

Kass, Leon R., ‘Regarding Daughters and Sisters’, Commentary 93 (April 1992), pp. 29-38.

Keegan, Terence J., ‘Biblical Criticism and the Challenge of Postmodernism’, BibInt 3 (1995), pp.

1-14.

Klein, Ralph W., ‘Israel/ Today’s Believers and the Nations: Three Test Cases’, CurTM 24 (1997),

pp. 232-37.

20

Mann, Thomas W., The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John

Knox Press, 1988).

__‘”All the Families of the Earth”: The Theological Unity of Genesis’, Int 45 (1991), pp. 341-53.

Nichol, Francis D., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary: The Holy Bible with Exegetical

and Expository Comment (Volume 1; Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing

Association, 1953).

Noble, Paul, ‘A “Balanced” Reading of the Rape of Dinah: Some Exegetical and Methodological

Observations’, BibInt 4 (1996), pp. 173-204.

Rad, Gerhard von, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; trans. J.H. Marks;

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1972).

Sailhamer, John H., The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992).

Segal, Naomi, review of The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of

Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), by Meir Sternberg, in VT 38

(1998), pp. 243-49.

Sternberg, Meir, ‘Biblical Poetics and Sexual Politics: From Reading to Counterreading’, JBL 111

(1992), pp. 463-88.

__The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Idealogical Literature and the Drama of Reading

(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985).

Turner, Laurence A., Announcements of Plot in Genesis (Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament: Supplement Series, 96; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).

__Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

Wallis, G., ‘Dabhaq’, in Johannes G. Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds.), Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament (Volume III; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974�), pp. 79-

83.

__‘Hasaq’, in Johannes G. Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the

Old Testament (Volume V; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974�), pp. 261-63.

Wenham, Gordon, Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary, 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994).

Westbrook, Raymond, ‘Punishments and Crimes’, in David Noel Freedmann (ed.), The Anchor

Bible Dictionary (Volume 5; New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 546-56.

Westermann, Claus, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg

Publishing House, 1985).

21

APPENDIX - Translation of Gen. 34.1-7, 13-17, 30-31

(34.1) Dinah, daughter of Leah whom, she had borne to Jacob went out115 to see116 the daughters of

the land. (34.2) But saw117 her Shechem, son of Hamor, the leader118 of the land, and took119 her,

and lie (with) her,120 and humble her.121 (34.3) And his soul clung to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob

and he loved the girl and spoke to the heart of the girl. (34.4) And Shechem said to his father

Hamor: Take to me this girl to (be) my wife. (34.5) And Jacob heard that he defiled122 Dinah, his

daughter, but his sons were (with) his cattle in the field, and Jacob kept silent until their coming.

(34.6) And Hamor, the father of Shechem, went out to speak with him. (34.7)123 And sons of Jacob

came from the field as they heard and men were aggrieved and very angry to them because he did

what is folly in Israel by laying the daughter of Jacob, for such thing ought not to be done.

(34.13) But, the sons of Jacob answered to Shechem and Hamor, his father, in deceit

(deceitfully) they spoke, because he had defiled their sister Dinah. (34.14) And they said to them:

we cannot124 to do125 such think to give our sister to the man who is uncircumcised because it

should be126 disgrace to us. (34.15) Only in this127 we shall agree128 with you, if you become like us

in that every male of you be circumcised.129 (34.16) And then we will give our daughter to you, and

your daughters we will take for ourselves, and we will dwell among you, and we will become one

people. (34.17) But if you will not listen us to be circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.

(34.30) And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: you troubled me by making me odious130

among the inhabitants131 of the land, Canaanites and Perizzites; and (because) my people are few in

number, they will gather132 against me, and attack me133 and I shall be destroyed,134 I and my

household. (34.31) But they said: would he135 treat our sister as harlot?

115 went out – verb. qal. Imperf. 3. fem. sing. waw cons. 116 to see – verb. qal. inf. constr. 117 see – verb. qal. imperf. waw cons. 3. masc. sing. 118 the leader – noun. nom. masc. sing. constr. (Probably refers to Hamor, but it can also refer to Shechem). 119 took – verb. qal. imperf. 3. masc. sing. 120 see footnote 28. 121 humble her – verb. piel. imperf. 3. masc. sing. + suff. 3. fem. sing. (Piel = ‘to humilate intensely’) 122 defiled – verb. piel. perf. 3. masc. sing. (Again in Piel, to emphasise intensity of defilement). 123 for different syntax see footnote 71. 124 cannot – verb. hophal. imperf. 1. pl. (‘we are not able’) 125 to do – verb. qal. inf. constr. 126 it should be – prominal pronoun masc. sing. 3. person (‘he’), that is sometimes used as ‘to be’ 127 only in this = only on this condition 128 we shall agree – verb. nifal. imperf. 1. pl 129 verb. nifal. inf. constr. 130 by making me odious – prep. + verb. hifil. inf. constr. + suf. 1. sing. 131 inhabitants – verb. part. act. 132 gather – verb. nifal. perf. 3. plural. (But it translates as futur). 133 attack me – verb. hifil. perf. 3. plural. (also futur in translation) 134 be destroyed – verb. nifal. perf. 1. sg. 135 This is a little ambiguous who is the subject of the verb ‘treat’, Shechem or Jacob.