Chapter XXXIV · The Outrage on Dinah.

Two narratives are here combined:

I. Shechem, son of Ḥamor, the native princeling, falls in love with Dinah, the daughter of Leah, abducts her, and keeps her in his house (^1‒3¹; compare ²⁶). He asks her in marriage from her father and brothers, offering to accept any conditions they may impose (^{11. 12}). They raise an objection on the score of circumcision (¹⁴), but eventually consent on terms not expressed in this recension. Shechem complies with the condition, whatever it was (¹⁹). Simeon and Levi, however, decide that the insult can only be wiped out by blood; they gain access to Shechem’s house, slay him, and depart with their sister (^{25 f.}). Their father, fearing an uprising of the country against him, reproves them for their rash act, which they proudly justify (^{30. 31}).—The conclusion is lost. II. Shechem dishonours Dinah, but lets her return to her family (^1‒3¹; compare ¹⁷); but continuing to love her, he appeals to Ḥamor to arrange a marriage (⁴). Ḥamor comes to speak to Jacob (⁶), and finds him and his sons together (⁷). He proposes not only a marriage between Shechem and Dinah, but a general connubium which would legalise all such unions in the future (^8‒10). Jacob’s sons agree, on condition that all the clan be circumcised (^{13. 15‒18}). Ḥamor proceeds to the gate of the city, and persuades his people to undergo the operation (^20‒24). While the fever is on them, the sons of Jacob rush the city, kill all the males, capture the women and children, and carry off the spoil (^27‒29).—The sequel is perhaps summarised in 35⁵.

¹ The parts left unresolved are verses ^1‒3 and ^{5. 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. ^{1. 2a} And Dinah ... and Shechem ... saw her, ^2b and lay with her. ^3bβ And he comforted the girl...: I. ^3a And the soul [of Shechem ...] clave to Dinah ... ^2b and he took her and violated her. ^3bα 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 ^13a, the whole of ^{13b. 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, ^{6. 8‒10} (II.); but in ^{11. 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 f. 30 f.} (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, ^{3. 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, ^{10. 21} etc.); but they are insignificant in comparison with the strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension: נשיא, ²; טמּא, ^{5. 13. 27}; נאחז, ¹⁰; המל לכם כל זכר, ^{15. 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 (37^{12 ff.}) 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 Redactor^Jehovist; 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.): ^{3a. 2b*. 3bα. 11. 12. 14. 19. 25a. 26. 30. 31}.

Elohistˣ (= II.): ^{1. 2a. 2b*. 3bβ. 4. 5?. 6. 7?. 8‒10. 13a. 15‒18a. 20‒24. 27. (25b). 28. 29}.

Compare Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 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 21^{21. 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 20^{6. 10}; compare Judges 19^{23 f.}, 2 Samuel 13^{12 ff.}); 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 22^{15 f.}—מֹהַר, the price paid to the parents (Exodus 22^{15 f.}, 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 (36^{20 ff.}), 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 ^{13. 27}, Ezekiel 18^{6. 11. 15} 22¹¹†; otherwise very frequent in Priestly-Code.—7. כשמעם] occupies an unusual position; and there are other small syntactic anomalies in ^{5. 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 18^{21 ff.}, 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 22^{9. 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 5^{3 ff.}) 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’ (^{22. 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 23^{10. 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 31^{9. 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 (49^{6. 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 31^{8. 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 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 18^{17 f.}—מתי מספר] literally ‘men of number,’ numerable, and therefore few; Deuteronomy 4²⁷ 33⁶, Jeremiah 44²⁸ etc.