'Dinah Gets Into Trouble' - Does Story 20 Mean Rape = Fornication?

by sd-7 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  FreeGirl2006

  Sadly, I know two sisters (I guess they are still in) who were raped and df'd. One was df'd because if her skirt has been over her knees the rape would never have happened (plus she got pregnant from the rape and what kind of example would that set????). The other sickening df'ing took place because the mother did not scream. She was in the car with her daughter. Her daughter was handcuffed to the steering wheel and the rapist had a gun. He said he would shoot the daughter if the mother did anything to try to stop him.

  That attitude just spills over onto abuse victims (at least it did in my case). One of the reasons I count my blessings to be out every single day!
• 

  3rdgen

  Oh, I get it now. The moral of the story is : NEVER make friends with girls who wear jewelery.
• 

  3rdgen

  Freegirl2006, OMG Raped again be the WTBT$
• 

  King Solomon

  Ohhhh, the story of Dinah is so morally uplifting:

  2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. 3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. 4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, "Get me this girl as my wife."

  Was it rape? Hmmm, it says his "heart was drawn to her", and "he loved her" AND "spoke tenderly to her". Is that LUV in the air I smell?

  In the cultural context, that's not suggestive of "rape". The story is NOT about whether she gave consent or not, or put up a fight: a women giving consent for sex is a modern concept projected onto an ancient story.

  The REAL offense of Shechem was the breach of protocol of the marriage process, with the males and patriarch NOT giving their consent. Never-mind Dinah's honor and feelings (i.e. whether she liked the guy or not: that's irrelevant, as again, a woman's right to choose their marriage partner is a MODERN CONCEPT automatically superimposed onto an ancient story where it didn't work like that). This is ALL about an insult to the MALE'S egos: it was THEIR honor was attacked.

  Other lesson from the story:

  Deception, and negotiating in bad faith is OK, when there's familial honor on the line.

  In this case, Dinah's brothers pulled the oldest trick in the book: get the party that insulted your honor to circumcise themselves, and when they're still in pain and unable to fight back, KILL THEM! Afterwards, take their land, cattle, women, etc.

  Then the capper is how Abraham chides his sons for their actions, but NOT because it was morally-wrong to avenge the family's honor, etc, but because it stirred up trouble with the other inhabitants of the land! The brother's defense? "Should we just let them others trat her like a prostitute? (when it's really about her being THEIR slab of meat to be used to enter power alliances via marriage)". It was ALL about their male honor.

  So those who are asking if it was rape or not are COMPLEATLY (sic) missing the bigger picture here. It's misogyny, pure and simple, reflective of the mores' of a collection of Ancient Near East hunter-gatherer goat-herders.

  Oh, man: gimme some of that ol' time religion!!!
• 

  SixofNine

  The story is NOT about whether she gave consent or not, or put up a fight: a women giving consent for sex is a modern concept projected onto an ancient story.

  That may be true, but it still would be interesting to know what the original text implies.
• 

  snowbird

  I read the account in the Book of Jasher and it states that Shechem took Dinah to his home against her consent and KEPT her there while Hamor, his father, negotiated with Jacob, her father, for a bride price.

  This book also states that Simeon ended up marrying his sister, Dinah - probably because no other Semite would have wanted her?
• 

  Balaamsass

  Such a heartwarming story for young JWs.......
• 

  Leolaia

  Well, I partly agree with King Solomon about the issue of consent. The writer has zero interest in Dinah's perspective and consent; throughout the narrative she is silent. It is pointless to ask about her consent....nor does her consent matter when it comes to marriage in patriarchical society. It is possible that the story describes an attempted abduction marriage, which basically is a crime of theft against the bride's father. That doesn't mean that it wasn't rape. The story is set in a rape culture where women were considered property and rape was institutionalized; they still had inherent human rights even if the culture did not recognize them. See the article "Rape is Rape is Rape: The Story of Dinah and Shechem (Genesis 34)" by Yael Shemesh in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (2007), pp. 2-21. As I argue below, the story construes the act as one of outright rape regardless of whether Dinah had the (culturally recognized) right to give consent or not.

  That may be true, but it still would be interesting to know what the original text implies.

  SixofNine....The incident involved rape not because it was specifically non-consensual (the text has no interest in female consent) but because it is described as an act of sexual violence against her. This is clear in two places in the text. First we read: "When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and violated her ('otah way`anneha)" (Genesis 34:2). The verb `anah here has the general sense of "oppress, afflict, humble someone" (cf. Akkadian enû "thwart, do violence to"), as can be seen in its use in passages referring to the subjugation of the Israelites in slavery (Genesis 15:13, Exodus 1:11-13, Deuteronomy 26:6). It is used in the Samson story to refer to physical violence contemplated and then meted out to Samson (Judges 16:5, 6, 19), and it describes the act of putting Joseph's feet into fetters in Psalm 105:18. When it has reference to a woman in a sexual context, it usually has the sense of "rape" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Judges 19:24-25, 20:5, 2 Samuel 13:12-14, Ezekiel 22:10-11, Lamentations 5:11). The second clear indication that Dinah was raped is in v. 7 where the word n e balah "outrageous thing" (intensified with m e 'od "very") describes Shechem's act, which is very similar to the descriptions of other rapes in the OT:

  Genesis 34:2, 7: "When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and raped ( way`anneh , a form of `anah) her.... For he had committed (`asah) an outrage (m e 'od kî-nebalah) in Israel (be-yisra'el)....such a thing that is not to be committed (w e -ken lo' ye`aseh)".

  Judges 19:30, 20:6, 10: " Such a thing has never been done (lo'-nihy e tah kazo't), not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt.... During the night the men of Gibeah came after me and surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They raped (`innû, a form of `anah) my concubine, and she died. I took my concubine, cut her into pieces and sent one piece to each region of Israel's inheritance, because they committed (`asû) this lewd and outrageous act (ûn e balah) in Israel (be-yisra'el) ".

  2 Samuel 13:12-14: " 'No, my brother!' she said to him. 'Don’t rape me (`anennî, a form of `anah)! Such a thing should not be committed (lo'-ye`aseh ken) in Israel (be-yisra'el) ! Don’t commit ('al-ta` a seh) this outrageous act ('et-hann e balah). What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.' But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than her, he raped (way`anneh, a form of `anah) her".

  Note the similar language used in all three stories; the concubine story also explicitly mentions the lethal violence inflicted on the victim and the Tamar story gives the victim a voice to deny her consent. There are also deeper similarities between the three stories. In each case, the rape sparks a violent retribution with a heavy toll on the rapist's community, and in all three stories the avengers use a ruse to accomplish their goals. In the Dinah story, Simeon and Levi slaughter the rapist's entire male community by tricking them to circumcise themselves; they strike when the Hivites are in pain recovering from the mass circumcision. In the concubine story, the Israelites muster troops to attack the Benjaminites, to " give them what they deserve for this outrageous act committed in Israel" (Judges 20:10), and they fake a retreat in order to ambush the Benjaminites. And in the Tamar story, Absalom invites Tamar's rapist to a sheep-shearing banquet in order to have him killed when he is drunk with wine. So the strong similarities between all three stories supports the interpretation that the story concerns outright rape. Some readers have tried to mitigate the rapey nature of the story by appealing to the statement in v. 3 that Shechem's " heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved (wayye' e hab) the young woman and spoke tenderly to her". But in no way does this alter the force of what is stated in the preceding verse. Similarly in the Tamar story, her rapist says that he is "in love" ('oheb) with her (2 Samuel 13:4); he still commits an act of violence against her.