Ch. 34

The story of Dinah and of the destruction of Shechem presents numerous difficulties which are hard to explain.

(1) The reader is surprised at finding that Jacob and his sons, who had fled from Laban and had been at the mercy of Esau, are now able, though dwelling in the midst of strangers, to seize and destroy one of the most important cities in central Canaan, and to carry off as captives the women and children of Shechem (Genesis 34:27-29).

(2) This bloody deed is represented, in Genesis 34:25; Genesis 34:30, as being done by Simeon and Levi. But, in the main portion of the chapter, all the sons of Jacob are described as implicated in the act of treachery and slaughter.

(3) Dinah appears in this chapter as a young woman; whereas we should be led to infer, both from the mention of her birth in Genesis 30:21 (cf. Genesis 31:41), and from the age assigned to Joseph in Genesis 37:2 at a period evidently considerably later, that she was still of tender years at the time when Jacob left Haran. According to this narrative, a considerable interval of time must, therefore, be supposed to have occurred since the arrival of Jacob in Canaan.

The narrative, like that in ch. 14, is an exception to the series of peaceful scenes from patriarchal life and character. Probably, it contains in its main outlines the reminiscence of early tribal history. If so, the repulsive details of the story may be regarded, not so much as incidents of personal history, as the symbolical description of early tribal relations. The main outline of the tradition may have been as follows: Dinah was the name of a small Israelite tribe, which, at the time of the occupation of Canaan, became attached to, and finally amalgamated with, and absorbed in, the native Shechemite clans. The Israelite tribes, Simeon and Levi, sought to rescue and avenge their sister tribe, and, after a pretended alliance, fell upon the Shechemites and treacherously massacred them. That they themselves were in turn almost overwhelmed by a Canaanite coalition, seems probable in view of the facts that (1) the Shechemites retained their independence (cf. Judges 9); (2) the tribes of Levi and Simeon are not referred to in the song of Deborah (Judges 5), and practically drop out of Israelite history as effective for warlike purposes. The act of violence was disavowed by the nation of Israel, cf. Genesis 34:30.

In the present narrative two slightly different versions of the same tradition are combined. In one version, Shechem is the prominent speaker (Genesis 34:11-12); Shechem submits to the condition of circumcision (Genesis 34:19); Simeon and Levi slaughter Shechem and his father Hamor, and carry away Dinah (Genesis 34:26). In the other version, Hamor the father of Shechem is the more prominent person (Genesis 34:4; Genesis 34:6; Genesis 34:8-10; Genesis 34:13-17; Genesis 34:20-25), while the affair is made to concern the people, as much as the family: again, the attack on the city, the massacre, and the looting, are represented as the deed of all the brothers of Dinah (Genesis 34:27-29). The second version, therefore, relates the story on a larger and more dreadful scale than the first.

It is very doubtful whether either of the two versions can be identified with J or E or P. Skinner remarks: “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 connection with Genesis 33:19 (E).” The two versions are amalgamated somewhat as follows:

J* (= Jahvistic school): 2b*, 3, 5 (?), 7 (?), 11, 12, 19, (25), 26, 30, 31.

E* (= Elohistic school): 1, 2a, 4, 6, 8–10, 13–18, 20–24, (25), 27–29.

1. Dinah] See Genesis 30:21, Genesis 31:41, from which passages the age of Dinah at the time of Jacob’s flight from Haran may be computed. She was nearly the last of Jacob’s children born in Haran.

2. Hivite] See Genesis 10:17. The name of a Canaanite tribe. In Joshua 9:7 the Hivites are found in Gibeon; but, from Jdg 3:3 and Joshua 11:3, their dwelling-place was traditionally connected with Lebanon.

LXX has “Horite,” as in Joshua 9:7.

“Hamor,” as the name of an animal, means “he-ass.”

the prince] This word, in Heb. nasi, is used frequently by P, Genesis 17:20, Genesis 23:6, Genesis 25:16. Lat. princeps.

3. his soul] i.e. his affections. Heb. nephesh. Cf. Genesis 12:13, Genesis 27:4.

kindly, &c.] Heb. to the heart of the damsel. The same phrase, sometimes rendered “comfortably,” occurs in Genesis 50:21; 2 Samuel 19:7; Isaiah 40:2; Hosea 2:14.

4. Get me] The parents were accustomed to obtain a wife for their son: see Genesis 21:21, Genesis 24:3-4; Jdg 14:2.

6. And Hamor] This verse continues Genesis 34:4. The intervening Genesis 34:5 is continued in Genesis 34:7.

7. wrought folly] The word nebâlah denotes “senseless wickedness,” an offence against honour and morality: cf. the use of the word in Deuteronomy 22:21; Joshua 7:15; Jdg 19:23-24; 2 Samuel 13:12.

in Israel] The addition of these words (as in Deuteronomy 22:21; Jdg 20:6; Jdg 20:10; Jeremiah 29:23) is of course an anachronism, when put into the mouth of Jacob; and indicates a time of authorship when this phrase had become proverbial.

ought not to be done] See notes on Genesis 20:9, Genesis 29:26.

9. make ye marriages with us] Hamor’s proposition is to the effect that the Israelites and the Shechemites should be amalgamated on the basis of (1) intermarriage, (2) trading rights, (3) rights of occupation of land. For the detestation of intermarriage with the Canaanites, see Deuteronomy 7:3; Joshua 23:12; Ezra 9:2.

11. And Shechem] Here, and in Genesis 34:12, Shechem makes his own) overtures to Jacob and his sons. In Genesis 34:6; Genesis 34:8-10, Hamor has been negotiating on behalf of Shechem.

12. dowry and gift] The “dowry,” or mohar, is the present made to the parents or relations, cf. Genesis 24:53; Exodus 22:16; 1 Samuel 18:25. The rendering “dowry” hardly, therefore, gives the correct idea to English readers. The “gift,” on the other hand, was the present made by the bridegroom to the bride, as in Genesis 24:53, Genesis 29:18. In Exodus 22:16, as in the present passage, the “dowry” is a payment to the parents as “compensation” for wrong, as well as “purchase-money” for the wife; cf. Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

13. the sons of Jacob] In Genesis 34:13-18 we have the treacherous proposal, made by the sons of Jacob, by which they would be able to revenge themselves upon the Shechemites, and attack them, when they would be incapacitated for defence.

14. uncircumcised] The passage contains the interesting and early tradition, that circumcision was not practised by the Canaanite dwellers in Shechem. On the widespread prevalence of this rite, see note on ch. 15. In J and E, Israelite circumcision is specially connected with the names of Moses and Joshua (Exodus 4:25; Joshua 5:2). The peculiar treachery of Jacob’s sons is made to turn upon their insistence on the sacred national rite of circumcision. The condition which Shechem, in Genesis 34:19 (J), undertakes to satisfy, is not explained, in view of E’s account (Genesis 34:13-18).

a reproach] Compare the similar expression in Joshua 5:9, where it appears that the Egyptians reproached the Israelites for their neglect of circumcision.

19. to do the thing] This verse describes Shechem’s eagerness to fulfil some condition required by Jacob. We cannot say for certain, whether this personal requirement was the same as that contained above, i.e. the obligation of circumcision (Genesis 34:15-17).

honoured above all] These words must have had some reference to the terms, presumably of a humiliating nature, to which he had consented. He was the most distinguished personage in the city. If he was willing, no one else in the community need object.

20. the gate of their city] The place for the transaction of public business: see note on Genesis 19:1, Genesis 23:10.

23. cattle … substance] It would be a good business transaction.

24. all that went out of the gate] i.e. all the citizens: cf. “all that went in at the gate,” Genesis 23:10; Genesis 23:18.

25. And it came to pass] In this verse the Compiler has combined the two versions: (1) that which ascribes the treacherous deed to the sons of Jacob generally; and (2) that in which Simeon and Levi alone are the perpetrators of the massacre.

when they were sore] The effects of the operation rendered the Shechemite males powerless to defend themselves. In this version there is a vein of coarse and repulsive humour. The Canaanites were not only put to the sword, but by their submission to the Israelite rite they had been outwitted. At the time of the attack, they were unable to offer any resistance.

unawares] Better than R.V. marg. boldly. LXX ἀσφαλῶς = “safely,” Lat. confidenter. The meaning is that the people of Shechem were secure and unsuspecting, when the attack was made. Not the courage of the assailants, but the sense of security on the part of their victims, is indicated. Cf. “the careless Ethiopians” (Ezekiel 30:9).

26. slew Hamor and Shechem … took Dinah … went forth] In this verse we have the narrative in which Simeon and Levi (cf. Genesis 34:25; Genesis 34:30) alone entered the city, slew Hamor and Shechem, took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and made off with her. Their act is one of family vengeance for the honour of their sister.

with the edge of the sword] Lit. “according to the mouth of the sword,” i.e. according to the sword’s power to devour, unmercifully. Cf. 2 Samuel 2:26; 2 Samuel 11:25.

27. The sons of Jacob] This verse and Genesis 34:28-29 record the version in which all the sons of Jacob united to massacre the males of Shechem, carried away captive the wives and children, and took possession of the wealth and property of the inhabitants: cf. Numbers 31:9; Numbers 31:11.

30. And Jacob, &c.] This and the following verse continue the narrative of Genesis 34:26. Jacob reproaches his two sons for the murder, on account of which the people of the land will be infuriated with Jacob and his house. Cf. Genesis 49:5-7.

troubled] The same word used in the story of Achan (Joshua 6:18; Joshua 7:25; 1 Chronicles 2:7). Jacob’s rebuke turns, not so much upon the dastardly treachery and cruelty of his sons, as upon the evil effects it will produce, and upon the insecurity it will bring upon himself and his house.

make me to stink] A common Heb. metaphor: cf. Exodus 5:21 (“make savour to be abhorred”); 1 Samuel 13:4 (“had in abomination”), Genesis 27:12 (“made … abhor”); 1 Chronicles 19:6 (“made … odious”).

the Canaanites and the Perizzites] See note on Genesis 13:7.

being few in number] Cf. 1 Chronicles 16:19.

31. Should he deal] Simeon and Levi regard the incident as one in which the honour of the clan was involved, and as if they had only one course of action to follow with regard to Shechem and Hamor.