Very good points, James. But all this seems like very typical male behavior, in traditional patriarchal societies - "boys will be boys, as long as they don't do it with our sister". It was convenient for them to believe that Dinah was raped, because then they did not have to deal with the possibly that SHE had acted immorally. The text, as it would seem, is ambiguous, maybe because the author, the descendants of Dinah's brothers, prefer not to accuse their own ancestors of wanton genocide of a whole city. Their act, however, is criticized by Jacob, both in v. 30 and later in his blessing in 49:5-7.
We find the same kind of behavior in chapter 38 - Judah has no problem with going to a prostitute, but when he "finds out" that his daughter-in-law Tamar had been a prostitute, he commands her burned. The text is critical of his hypocrisy, but not of either one of his acts in themselves.
We must be very careful of assuming that the authors of the Bible shared the same views on "morality" that modern-day Jews and Christians do. This is especially true for matters of sexual behavior.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.