_The Outrage on Dinah._
Two narratives are here combined:
I. Shechem, son of Ḥamor, the II. Shechem dishonours Dinah,
native princeling, falls in but lets her return to her
love with Dinah, the daughter of family (¹⁻³*; compare ¹⁷);
Leah, abducts her, and keeps her but continuing to love her, he
in his house (¹⁻³*; compare ²⁶). appeals to Ḥamor to arrange a
He asks her in marriage from her marriage (⁴). Ḥamor comes to
father and brothers, offering speak to Jacob (⁶), and finds
to accept any conditions they him and his sons together (⁷).
may impose (¹¹ᐧ ¹²). They raise He proposes not only a marriage
an objection on the score between Shechem and Dinah, but a
of circumcision (¹⁴), but general _connubium_ which would
eventually consent on terms not legalise all such unions in
expressed in this recension. the future (⁸⁻¹⁰). Jacob’s sons
Shechem complies with the agree, on condition that all the
condition, whatever it was clan be circumcised (¹³ᐧ ¹⁵⁻¹⁸).
(¹⁹). Simeon and Levi, however, Ḥamor proceeds to the gate of
decide that the insult can only the city, and persuades his
be wiped out by blood; they people to undergo the operation
gain access to Shechem’s house, (²⁰⁻²⁴). While the fever is on
slay him, and depart with their them, the sons of Jacob rush
sister (²⁵ ᶠᐧ). Their father, the city, kill all the males,
fearing an uprising of the capture the women and children,
country against him, reproves and carry off the spoil (²⁷⁻²⁹).
them for their rash act, which ――The sequel is _perhaps_
they proudly justify (³⁰ᐧ ³¹). summarised in 35⁵.
――The conclusion is lost.
¹ The parts left unresolved are verses ¹⁻³ and ⁵ᐧ ⁷.――In ¹⁻³,
³ᵃ looks like a first mention of Dinah; and in ²ᵇ וישכב אתה is
perhaps ∥ ויקח אתה ויענה; and with a transposition we might read
thus: II. ¹ᐧ ²ᵃ And Dinah ... and Shechem ... saw her, ²ᵇ
and lay with her. ³ᵇ{β} And he comforted the girl...: I.
³ᵃ And the soul [of Shechem ...] clave to Dinah ... ²ᵇ and
he took her and violated her. ³ᵇ{α} And he loved the girl
...――⁵ and ⁷ seem to me to belong to II. rather than I.;
but the indications are conflicting, and they are possibly
redactional verses, inserted to explain the transition
from the singular in ⁶ to the plural in ⁸.――Naturally the
redactor has been busy smoothing over discrepancies; and
to him may be attributed את־שכם ו in ³ᵃ, the whole of ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁸ᵇ,
ושכם בנו in ²⁰ᵃ, עירם for עירו in ²⁰ᵇ (compare ²⁴), ואל־שכם בנו in
²⁴; ואת־חמור ו and בנו in ²⁶ᵃ; and the removal of ²⁵ᵇ from ²⁷
(_v.i._).
This rough analysis¹ rests mainly on the material incongruities
of the narrative, viz.: (a) In II., after the seduction Dinah
is still in the hands of her relatives, ¹⁷; but in I. she is
in Shechem’s house and has to be rescued by force, ²⁶. (b) The
negotiations are conducted by Ḥămôr alone, ⁶ᐧ ⁸⁻¹⁰ (II.); but
in ¹¹ᐧ ¹² (I.) Shechem is abruptly introduced pleading his own
cause. (c) Shechem has already fulfilled the compact, ¹⁹ (I.),
before the people of the city are consulted, ²⁰⁻²⁴ (II.). (d)
Simeon and Levi alone avenge the outrage, and are alone held
responsible for the consequences, ²⁵ ᶠᐧ ³⁰ ᶠᐧ (I.); but all the
sons of Jacob are implicated in the sack of the city, ²⁷⁻²⁹
(II.).
_Sources._――If _style_ alone were decisive, I. might safely be
identified with Yahwist: note דבק ב, ³ (2²⁴); נערָ, ³ᐧ ¹²; מצא חן בע׳,
¹¹; בכנעני ובפרזי, ³⁰. In II., Cornill has pointed out some linguistic
affinities with Elohist (see the notes on דבר על לב, ³; ילדה, ⁴; סחר,
¹⁰ᐧ ²¹ etc.); but they are insignificant in comparison with the
strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension: נשיא, ²;
טמּא, ⁵ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²⁷; נאחז, ¹⁰; המל לכם כל זכר, ¹⁵ᐧ ²²; קנין and בהמה, ²³; כל זכר,
²⁴; כל יצאי שער עיר ²⁴ (_bis_): compare the list in Kuenen _Gesammelte
Abhandlungen_ 269 f. These are so striking that Dillmann and
Driver assign the narrative unhesitatingly to Priestly-Code, and
all admit that it has undergone a Priestly redaction (Cornill
calls attention to a very similar case in Numbers 31).
But there are grave _material_ difficulties in assigning either
recension to Yahwist or Elohist. (1) In chapter 34, Jacob’s
children are grown up; and this implies a considerable lapse of
time since chapter 33. (2) A bloody encounter with the natives
of the land is contrary to the peaceful ideal of patriarchal
life consistently maintained by Yahwist and (hardly less
consistently) by Elohist. (3) Against I. = Yahwist, in
particular, (a) In Yahwist the patriarch is generally named
Israel after 32²⁸; and here Jacob is used throughout. (b) We
have seen reason to believe that in Yahwist, Jacob was not West
of the Jordan at all at this time (page 414). (c) The sons of
Jacob would not be found quietly feeding their flocks at Shechem
(37¹² ᶠᶠᐧ) if an incident like this had been of recent occurrence.
(4) As regards II. = Elohist, there is less difficulty; but
on this hypothesis the amalgamation with Yahwist must be due
to Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ; and how does it happen that the assumed
Priestly redaction is confined to the one component? Moreover,
the incident is irreconcilable with 48²² (Elohist). (5) Finally,
if _Ḥōrite_ be the true reading in verse ², we have here a
tradition differing from any of the Pentateuch documents.
These objections are urged with great force by Meyer, who also
shows that in Genesis there are sporadic traces of a divergent
tradition which ignored the Exodus, and traced the conquest and
division of the land directly to Jacob and his sons (chapters
38. 48²²). To this (older) tradition he assigns chapter 34.
The first recension must have taken literary shape within
the Yahwistic school, and the second may have been current
in Elohistic circles; but neither found a place in the main
document of the school to which it belonged, and its insertion
here was an afterthought suggested by a supposed connexion with
33¹⁹ (Elohist). This seems to me the best solution, though it
leaves the dual recension, the amalgamation, and the Priestly
redaction unexplained riddles.――Calling the two narratives
Yahwistˣ and Elohistˣ, we divide as follows:
Yahwistˣ (= I.): ³ᵃᐧ ²ᵇ*ᐧ ³ᵇ{α}ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵ᵃᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³¹.
Elohistˣ (= II.): ¹ᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ²ᵇ*ᐧ ³ᵇ{β}ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁵{?}ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷{?}ᐧ ⁸⁻¹⁰ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ
¹⁵⁻¹⁸ᵃᐧ ²⁰⁻²⁴ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ⁽²⁵ᵇ⁾ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹.
Compare Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 45 f., 314 ff.;
Kuenen _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1880, 257 ff. (= _Gesammelte
Abhandlungen_ 255 ff.), _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar
het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_
i. 315 f.; Cornill _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xi. 1‒15; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 412 ff.; Delitzsch 413; Dillmann 368 ff.;
Holzinger 213 ff.; Gunkel 326 ff.; Strack 126 f.; Procksch 35 f.
=1‒12. Dinah is seduced by Shechem, and afterwards sought in
marriage.=――=2.= _the Ḥivvite_] see on 10¹⁷; LXX _the Ḥōrite_
(_v.i._).――=3.= _spoke to_ (literally _over_) _the heart_] 50²¹
(Elohist). The phrase means ‘to comfort,’ not ‘to woo’; compare
Hosea 2¹⁶, Isaiah 40², Ruth 2¹³ etc.――=4.= Compare 21²¹ᐧ ²⁴ 38⁶,
Judges 14².――=5.= _kept silence_] took no steps to redress the
injury (2 Samuel 19¹¹).――=7.= _wrought scandalous folly in Israel_]
a standing phrase for crimes of the kind here indicated (Deuteronomy
22²¹, Judges 20⁶ᐧ ¹⁰; compare Judges 19²³ ᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 13¹² ᶠᶠᐧ); though
‘in Israel’ is an anachronism. נְבָלָה is never mere foolishness, but
always disgraceful conduct or language.――_such things are not done_]
20⁹ 29²⁶.――=8‒10.= Ḥămōr, as prince, takes a broad view: not content
with arranging this particular marriage, he proposes an amalgamation
of the two races; thinking apparently that the advantage to Jacob
would be sufficient compensation for the offence.――=9.= Almost
verbally identical with Deuteronomy 7³ (compare Joshua 23¹²).――=11,
12.= Shechem’s offer relates only to his own private affair.――_Ask
me ever so much_] literally ‘Multiply upon me.’ The Hebrew law of
compensation for seduction is given in Exodus 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ――מֹהַר, the price
paid to the parents (Exodus 22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 18²⁵), and מַתָּן (so only
here), the gift to the bride, are virtually distinguished in 24⁵³.
* * * * *
=1.= בנות הארץ 27⁴⁶ (Priestly-Code or Redactor).――=2.= החוי] LXX הַחֹרִי.
Confusion of ו and ר is common; but LXX deserves consideration
as the harder reading; and also because the only other place
where LXX has חרי for Massoretic Text חוי is Joshua 9⁷, a passage
somewhat similar to this (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und
ihre Nachbarstämme_, 331). It is a slight confirmation of
LXX that animal names are frequent among the Ḥorite clans
(36²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), and Ḥămôr means ‘he-ass.’――נשיא] a favourite word
of Priestly-Code; compare 17²⁰ 23⁶ 25¹⁶.――שכב את (verse ⁷ 35²²
etc.)] The Massoretic always point the את in this phrase as _not
accusative_.――=3.= נערָ] see 24¹⁴.――=5.= טִמֵּא] in the sexual sense
verses ¹³ᐧ ²⁷, Ezekiel 18⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ 22¹¹†; otherwise very frequent
in Priestly-Code.――=7.= כשמעם] occupies an unusual position;
and there are other small syntactic anomalies in ⁵ᐧ ⁷.――=8.=
חשק ב] Deuteronomy 7⁷ 10¹⁵ 21¹¹, Psalms 91¹⁴†: contrast דבק, verse
³.――On the _casus pendens_, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 _b_.――=9.=
התחתן] ‘enter into the relation of חֹתֵן and חָתָן’ (1 Samuel 18²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ,
1 Kings 3¹), and more generally ‘form marriage alliance’
(Deuteronomy 7³, Joshua 23¹², Ezra 9¹⁴).――=10.= סחר] as 42³⁴
(Elohist); but compare 23¹⁶ (Priestly-Code).――והאחזו] Niphal
in this sense peculiar to Priestly-Code (47²⁷, Numbers 32³⁰,
Joshua 22⁹ᐧ ¹⁹).――=12.= מהר ומתן] LXX τὴν φερνήν.
* * * * *
=13‒17. The answer.=――=13a.= _with duplicity_] In this recension
(Elohistˣ) the requirement of circumcision is merely a pretext to
render the Shechemites incapable of self-defence.――=14.= Here, on the
contrary (Yahwistˣ), the family acts in good faith, and the compact
is violated by Simeon and Levi alone.――_that were a reproach to us_]
Joshua 5⁹. Circumcision is regarded as a tribal custom, which it would
be a disgrace to infringe. That the custom actually existed from the
earliest time among the Hebrews is extremely probable (page 296 f.);
but the fact that both Yahwist (Exodus 4²⁵) and Elohist (Joshua 5³ ᶠᶠᐧ)
record its introduction in the age of the Exodus is an additional
proof that this chapter follows an independent tradition.――=15.=
Continuing ¹³ᵃ.――_Only on this condition will we consent_] referring
primarily to the _connubium_.――=16.= _become one people_] A result
really desired by the Shechemites, but not seriously contemplated by
the sons of Jacob.
* * * * *
=13b= occupies a syntactically impossible position, and must
be deleted as a redactional gloss. וידברו joins on to ¹⁵.――=14.=
LXX καὶ εἶπαν αὐτοῖς Συμεὼν καὶ Λευὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ Δείνας υἱοὶ
δὲ Λείας κτλ.――an intelligent anticipation of critical results
(compare ²⁵)?――Or is this the original text?――א׳ אשר לו ערלה
for ‘uncircumcised’ does not recur.――=15.= נאות] Either
(Brown-Driver-Briggs) imperfect Niphal, or (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 72 _h_) intransitive imperfect Qal of √ אוֹת, ‘consent’ (²²ᐧ ²³,
2 Kings 12⁹†).――להמל וגו׳] as 17¹⁰.
* * * * *
=18‒24. The condition accepted.=――=19.= _the most honoured member
of his family_] emphasising the greatness of his sacrifice, and the
strength of his attachment to Dinah.――=21‒23.= Ḥămōr naturally says
nothing of the personal matter, but dwells on the advantages the clan
will derive from union with the Israelites. The men are already _on
friendly terms_ with them; the land is _spacious_ enough; and by
adopting circumcision they will obtain a great accession to their
wealth.
* * * * *
=19.= אֵחַר] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 _d_.――=21.= רחבת ידים (LXX
πλατεῖα)] ‘broad on both sides’; Judges 18¹⁰, Isaiah 22¹⁸ [33²¹,
1 Chronicles 4⁴⁰, Nehemiah 7⁴, Psalms 104²⁵]†.――=24.= Between וימלו
and כל־זכר] LXX inserts τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας αὐτῶν.――כל־יצאי וגו׳]
compare 23¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁸. The repetition of the phrase is avoided by LXX.
* * * * *
=25‒31. The vengeance of the Hebrews.=――=25.= _on the third day_] when
the inflammation is said, in the case of adults, to be at its height
(Delitzsch, Dillmann).――_Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah_]
compare 49⁵. In chapter 29 f., Leah had four other sons who were as
much full brothers of Dinah as these two. Was there another tradition,
according to which Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (so
Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 286¹, 426 f.)?――=26.=
לפי חרב] according to the usage of war: without quarter (compare
2 Samuel 11²⁵).――_and went out_] Evidently this is the close of
the exploit.――=27.= _came upon the slain_] Compare Vulgate _Quibus
egressis, irruerunt super occisos cæteri filii Jacob_. That is
perhaps the sense intended by the redactor. But, to say nothing of the
improbability of two men being able to kill all the males of the city,
the second narrative (Elohistˣ) must have given an independent account
of the attack on Shechem. ²⁵ᵇ must be transferred to this verse; and
another word must be substituted for חֲלָלִים (_v.i._).――=28, 29.= Compare
the similar phraseology of Numbers 31⁹ᐧ ¹¹ (Priestly-Code).――=30,
31= (continuing ²⁶). Jacob rebukes Simeon and Levi, not for their
treachery and cruelty, but for their recklessness in exposing the
whole tribe to the vengeance of the Canaanites.――_I am few in number_]
it is the tribal, not the individual, consciousness which finds
expression here.
The legend at the basis of chapter 34 reflects, we can scarcely
doubt, an incident of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan. Shechem
is the eponymus of the ancient city of that name, and Ḥămôr
of the tribe dwelling there; Ḥămôr is the father of Shechem,
because the tribe is older than its possession of the city.
Jacob, in like manner, stands for the Israelites, who are nomads
ranging the country round Shechem, and on friendly terms with
its inhabitants. Whether Dînāh was a weak Hebrew clan threatened
with absorption by the Ḥamorites is not so certain; it is more
natural to suppose that a literal outrage of the kind described
was the cause of the racial quarrel which ensued.¹――There
are two historic events which seem to stand in some connexion
with the narrative――the Hebrew conquest of Shechem, and the
dissolution of Simeon and Levi as tribal entities. (1) The
conquest of Shechem is presupposed in Joshua 24; but it is
remarkable that it is never mentioned either among the cities
captured by the Israelites, or among those which remained
independent. The account of its destruction by Abimelech in
Judges 9 appears to imply that it had been continuously in the
possession of the Bnê Ḥămôr down to that time. On the other
hand, the poetic fragment Genesis 48²² attributes the conquest
to Jacob himself, but as an honourable feat of arms unstained
by the treachery which is so prominent in chapter 34. How these
conflicting data are to be reconciled, we can hardly conjecture.
The differences are too great to justify the opinion that
48²² and 34 are merely legendary reflexions of the historic
fact recorded in Judges 9. Yet it is scarcely credible that
Shechem was thrice conquered, twice from the same people under
circumstances of general similarity. One chief objection to
identifying 34 with Judges 9 is the prominence of Simeon and
Levi in Yahwistˣ. We may either (with Steuernagel) put back the
incident (which may after all have been an _unsuccessful_ attack
on Shechem) to the early days of the Hebrew migration, while
Simeon and Levi were independent and still migratory tribes; or
(with Meyer) assume that the story of Dinah originated near the
Simeonite territory in the South, and was afterwards transferred
to Shechem because of certain points of affinity with the
historic overthrow of that city under Abimelech.――(2) The
dispersion of Simeon and Levi is referred to in the Blessing
of Jacob (49⁶ᐧ ⁷), as the consequence of deeds of violence,
disapproved by the conscience of the nation. It is universally
assumed by critics that the two passages are variations of
the same theme; hence it is held by many (Wellhausen, Stade,
Gunkel, Steuernagel, al.) that Yahwistˣ went on to tell how the
Canaanites actually retaliated by the slaughter of Simeon and
Levi, while the other brothers escaped. That is just possible;
but if so, the narrative departs very widely from the prevailing
tradition, according to which Simeon and Levi not only survived,
but went down into Egypt with the rest of the family. And
there is room for doubt whether the curse on Simeon and Levi in
chapter 49 is the result of any particular action of these two
tribes (see page 516 f.).――The one point, indeed, which stands
out with some degree of evidence from these discussions is that
there was a form of the patriarchal tradition which knew nothing
of the sojourn in Egypt, and connected the story of the conquest
with the name of Jacob.
¹ A singularly apposite and interesting modern parallel
is quoted by Bennett (page 318 f.) from Doughty, _Arabia
Deserta_, ii. 114.
* * * * *
=27‒29= are regarded by Dillmann as a late interpolation; and this
is perhaps necessary if the second account is to be identified with
Priestly-Code. The possibility that the verses have been glossed by
some one who had Numbers 31 in mind is not to be denied.――=27.= חללים]
literally ‘pierced,’ means either ‘slain’ (Numbers 19¹⁸ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ etc.),
or (rarely) ‘fatally wounded’ (Lamentations 2¹² etc.); neither
sense being suitable here. Gunkel suggests חֹלִים, ‘sick’ ∥ כאבים, verse
²⁵.――=29.= שָׁב֖וּ וַיָּבֹ֑זּוּ] Remove athnach to שבו (√ שבה) and omit ו before את
(compare _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Peshiṭtå).――בבית] collective; but Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) LXX ἐν τῇ
πόλει καὶ ὅσα ἦν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις.――=30.= עכר] = Arabic _‛akira_, ‘be
turbid,’ in Hebrew literally ‘make turbid’ = ‘undo,’――a strong word;
compare Joshua 6¹⁸ 7²⁵, 1 Kings 18¹⁷ ᶠᐧ――מתי מספר] literally ‘men of
number,’ numerable, and therefore few; Deuteronomy 4²⁷ 33⁶, Jeremiah
44²⁸ etc.
* * * * *