Dinah, Priestly Victim

• In Event: The Bible in its Ancient Near Eastern Context

Abstract

The violent story of Dinah in Genesis 34 is a result of redaction and not the original intent of the narrative. Since Dillmann’s 1875 Genesis commentary, scholars have identified two competing strands in the narrative as J and P. More recently, Alexander Rofé (2005) identifies thematic and linguistic differences between the two versions. While Yair Zakovitch views the secondary elements as assimilation from the Tamar and Amnon story in 2 Samuel 13. Missing from this conversation is a comprehensive analysis of Genesis 34 into its various source designations that takes into account linguistic, thematic, literary, and historical concerns.
This paper will consider the two independent narratives found in Genesis 34. When read alone, the original story has a very different meaning and function, and demonstrates different issues and anxieties of its historical context, its overall source document, and within the narrative frame, from the later story that is attached to it. These are lost when they are redacted together. While markers of the two sources are easily apparent, the two stories are well integrated, and unlike other instances of doubled stories, the doublets are less conspicuous. This tension is boldly apparent in the way we understand the final verse of the chapter: “Should he make our sister like a prostitute?” It is impossible to attach this verse to either of the narratives, but it functions well as a conclusion to the combined story and each individual narrative. I will address the two stories as they function alone as well as how they come together forming the narrative of the received tradition. The original version may comply with the biblical laws requiring a man who lies with an unbetrothed virgin to marry her and pay the bride price to the father (Deut 22:28-29; Exod 22:16-17), while the priestly rewrite reflects a post-exilic concern with endogamy, transforming the narrative it a violent response to what would have been considered an acceptable situation. The priestly additions to this narrative highlight a larger priestly concern with the issue of endogamy apparent in other priestly texts as well.

author

• Alison Joseph, Villanova University