Genesis 34 provides a window into the world of women’s lives in ancient Israel with the story of Dinah’s rape at the hands of the Hivite Shechem and her brothers’ revenge. At least, it should. But the interpretation of the language used in this chapter and its implications both within the story and the larger ancient world are still a topic of controversy within the academic community. In this paper I aim to 1) understand the writer’s perspective on and moral opinion of the events he portrays by primarily analyzing the writer’s focus, word choice, and tone within the chapter, and 2) understand Dinah’s perspective on her own sexual encounter and her relationship with Shechem to determine whether or not this is a case of rape as we understand it today, as opposed to an abduction marriage or similar relationship in which Dinah was a willful participant.
Immediately we find out that Dinah is not treated as a character in this story, but rather as an object. Beyond in Genesis 34:1 where she “went out to visit the daughters of the land”, not a single action is directly attributed to her. In fact, the focus immediately shifts to Shechem’s actions and role in the story and remains there for the next few verses, marking him as the central character in this first section of the text. Despite this, the writer does clearly indicate that the sexual act initiated by Shechem is not reciprocated by Dinah; Shechem “saw her, took her, and lay with her by force” (Genesis 34:2). For this reason, and for the purpose of my paper, I will consider Shechem’s actions an act of violence and an act of rape (at least in the modern definition of the concept of rape) since Dinah is not stated to have explicitly given her consent for this sexual act. However, and perhaps more importantly, he does not clarify that Shechem’s attention is unwanted by Dinah, simply because Dinah makes no action either in acceptance or rejection of his advances on her. Joseph Fleishman takes an interesting approach to the concept of rape by attempting to define its counterpart in antiquity against the rules governing sexuality and marriage at the time. He proposes that rape in antiquity should be defined as sexual relations forced upon a woman without the consent of her legal guardian (whether father or husband), and without the rapist intending to marry his victim. This forms the crux of his argument: that Dinah’s rape is not a story of rape but of abduction marriage, since Shechem intended to wed her when he initiated his sexual act (Fleishman, 12-13).
I would have to agree with Yael Shemesh’s interpretation of Genesis 34, not just because we both applied the modern definition of rape to Dinah’s story but because she also addresses the alternate theories of Shechem and Dinah’s relationship as framed by either seduction or abduction marriage. She analyzes the Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 34:2 in the context of other passages about sexual violence in the Bible and comes to the conclusion that the connotations of these words do not allow for a non-violent interpretation of these events (Shemesh, 3-5).
Genesis 34:3 provides no clarification on Dinah’s part, but does properly define Shechem’s feelings towards her. The writer explains that Shechem is in love with Dinah, and this is why he speaks tenderly to her. That is, his speaking tenderly to her is meant to convey his love for her, as this is the explanation given by the writer. A crucial detail is that this verse doesn’t have any explicit connection to the previous one. Shechem may have been speaking tenderly to her immediately after he raped her, or he could be speaking tenderly to her in an effort to court her. We know that his speaking tenderly to her takes place after her rape, but we can't assume it takes place immediately after her rape, which would imply that Shechem is attempting to console her after assaulting her. And again, Dinah has no input in this development, so we do not know if she returned or rejected his feelings for her. Up to this point, the writer has described this series of events from Shechem’s perspective. Shechem is the character whose actions advance the story, and Shechem is the character whose feelings and motivations we are given insight into. So far, we can only conclude that Shechem did rape Dinah, at least in the modern notion of the term, and nothing of Dinah herself. The writer has thus far portrayed her as a silent spectator to her own rape.
The writer’s focus never does return to her, instead examining the consequences of Shechem’s actions insofar as they affect her family. “Jacob heard that [Hamor] had defiled his daughter Dinah”, Genesis 34:5 begins. The use of the word “defiled” still does not indicate that Dinah was a willing or unwilling participant in Shechem’s sexual act, but does convey the perceived violence done unto her as a result. The writer indicates that this violence is extended to her family and all of Israel as a whole, both by referring to Dinah as Jacob’s daughter, and through the reactions of her brothers. Interestingly enough, the fact that Dinah is Jacob’s daughter seems to take precedence: “The men were distressed and very angry, because [Shechem] had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing not to be done” (Genesis 34:7). The use of “lying with” as opposed to “defiling” reduces the importance of the violence done unto Dinah herself in favor of the violence done unto her family and unto Israel.
At least, until Dinah’s brothers take their revenge. “The other sons of Jacob came upon the slain and plundered the town, because their sister had been defiled” (Genesis 34:27). Her brothers act out in full recognition of the sexual violence and defilement Dinah experienced at Shechem’s hands. This is further supported by Genesis 34:31, where they justify their actions with the sentence “‘Should our sister be treated like a whore?’” and again focusing on the sexual violence Dinah experienced. This recognition of Dinah’s encounter with Shechem as both forced and sexual in nature underscores her helplessness and effectively absolves Dinah of any responsibility for her attack.
The writer himself does not seem to pass judgment on this reasoning or on any of the events in Genesis 34, beyond in verse 7 when he states that lying with Dinah was “a thing not to be done”. This is the only sort of condemnation of Shechem’s actions, and the writer’s disapproval seems to stem from the fact that Dinah is Jacob’s daughter, rather than the violence methods Shechem used to lay with her. Beyond this, though, Shechem is portrayed in far more sympathetic terms than Dinah simply because he is the focus of the first few verses of the chapter. The only indication that Shechem’s actions are negative and have affected Dinah come from the subjective perspective of Dinah’s brothers, rather than from the writer. Caroline Blyth indicates in her article “Redeemed by His Love? : the Characterization of Shechem in Genesis 34” that the bulk of scholarship thus far interprets the writer's focus on Shechem’s love for Dinah as an attempt to portray him in favorable, rather than neutral, terms. Blyth herself disagrees, and provides much-needed historical context to explain just how inappropriate and looked down upon Shechem’s actions would have been. She cites marriage as the proper context for sexual relations as outlined in Genesis 2:24, as well as a divine mandate forbidding Israelite-Canaanite intermarriage in Deuteronomy 7:1-5 (Blyth, “Redeemed?”, 6-8). As Blyth then goes on to explain, the nuanced connotations of the Hebrew words used in Genesis 34:3 to portray Shechem’s love for Dinah are lost in translation—while the writer’s tone seems neutral, Blyth explains that historical and religious context would paint Shechem’s actions as abhorrent in ancient Israel (Blyth, “Redeemed?”, 13).
Thus far, we can conclude a number of things. First, that Shechem did rape Dinah, and their initial encounter was one of sexual violence. Second, that her brothers’ perspective acknowledges this sexual violence and denies any willingness on her part in their eyes. And third, that the writer does not directly express any strong moral opinion concerning Dinah’s rape except in respect to how it affects her family, though the immorality of Shechem’s actions is meant to be self-evident. But what about Dinah? Can we can conclude anything at all from her inactivity and silence?
Here I argue that Dinah may have broken her silence, and that if this is the case, this would clearly demonstrate her rejection of Shechem. The key is in Genesis 34:5 again: “Jacob heard that [Hamor] had defiled his daughter Dinah”. Who did Jacob hear this from? The writer does not indicate who delivers the news. This occurs before Hamor and Shechem come to speak with him about marrying Dinah to Shechem, so it is unlikely that either of them informed him of Dinah’s rape. As the victim and possibly the only other person with knowledge of Shechem’s actions, it seems likely that Dinah herself was the one to tell Jacob of what had transpired, and more likely that she would tell her father of her defilement if she rejected Shechem’s love.
Genesis 34’s story of Dinah’s rape is far more revealing than its seemingly neutral tone may suggest. Careful reading reveals several details about the treatment of Dinah’s rape—that it affected not just her, but her family as well, and that she was not blamed for her defilement. Historical and religious context both suggest that this story was meant to evoke a far more visceral reaction to Shechem’s actions in an ancient context, and he was ultimately punished for this crime, even if the writer does not explicitly state any of this. This set of observations provides a unique window into the social attitudes towards women, family, sexuality, and marriage that indicate that Dinah and other women might not have been able to seek legal justice for the sexual violence inflicted against them, but that the victim wouldn't also automatically be blamed for her rape.