Theologische Nuggets IV (Genesis 34 - 44:26)

Genesis 34:2

Als Sichem sie sah, der Sohn des Hiwiters Hamor, der des Landes Herr war, nahm er sie, legte sich zu ihr und tat ihr Gewalt an.

Wir wissen jetzt, dass die Hiwiter in der Nähe wohnen, wir hatten sie schon in der Liste in Kapitel 10,17, und das Dina wohl mit den Hiwitern verkehrt hat. Der Sohn heißt genau so wie die Stadt in der Jakob residiert hat was eine kleine Ironie in dieser tragischen Geschichte ist. Der Ort Sichem tut ihm nicht gut, genau so wie der Sohn mit dem Namen Sichem Dina nicht gut tut.  

Hamor ist auch der Vater von den Personen von denen Jakob das Feldstück gekauft hat um ein Altar aufzubauen. Somit ist das Ende von Kapitel 33 eine Brücke zu der Geschichte in Kapitel 34. 

Hamor der Fürst des Landes hat also einen Sohn Sichem, der Dina vergewaltigt. Dies bestätigt die Vermutung, dass Dina hier sich zu einer Festlichkeit in die Stadt gegangen ist in der Hormone so hochgeschaukelt werden und die Masse so abgelenkt ist, dass ein Mann einer Frau solch eine Gewalt antun kann. Schlimme tragische Situation, die das Leben eines Mädchen leider nachhaltig prägen wird. Interessant jedoch ist, dass die Fakten sehr sachlich berichtet werden ohne das Gewaltbilder im Kopf des Lesers entstehen. Dina wird hier ganz klar als das Opfer dargestellt. Victim Blaming findet hier in der Bibel also nicht statt. 

The language of v. 1 ("daughters") and v. 2 ("saw," "took") is reminiscent of another infamous Genesis account: the sons of God "saw" the daughters of men and "took" wives for themselves ("married," NIV, 6:2). ... The language "and violated her" renders two verbs as a hendiadys, lit., "he lay [with] her [wayyiškab ʾōtāh] and humbled her" (wayʿannehā)." The NJPS also translates the verbs as one, "(he) lay with her by force." The HCSB offers the traditional interpretation of the act, "[he] raped her!" However, the precise meaning of the description "lay ... humbled" is disputed. This description of the offense committed by Shechem has been traditionally interpreted as the rape of Dinah. The absence of a technical term meaning "rape" (forced sexual relations) in biblical Hebrew has left open the question as to whether the description in Shechem's case is rape or simply "sexual relations." If in this latter case Shechem's crime was not rape but his transgression of customary sexual behavior, his specific violation could be one of two possible breaches. First, his crime was the mere fact that as a foreigner ... he engaged in sexual relations with an Israelite. Or second, he did not go through the proper procedure of betrothal, but having done so, he further offended Jacob's household by failure to admit his crime and to provide proper compensation for the offense. The result was a shaming of the woman and the household of Jacob. ... The description in 34:2 has the equivalent idea of taking by force in the description "[Shechem] took [lāqaḥ] her" (cp. "seized her," NRSV, NAB, NJB). ... We conclude that Dinah was raped.Hamor" may be a pejorative name conferred by the Israelites, but more likely the name is honorable since the donkey was a valued animal. Sarna remarks that the title "ruler" (nāśîʾ) is appropriate for Hamor, as opposed to "king" (melek), which usually refers to a city and its suburbs. Pre-Israelite Shechem was a city-state involving an extended region.

K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, Bd. 1B of The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 591–593.

Dinah paid the full penalty of her carelessness. She suffered the fate which Sarah and Rebekah encountered in the land of Pharaoh and Abimelech; she was seen and taken by the son of the prince" (Kalisch); forcibly, i. e. against her will in the first instance, though not, it is apparent, without the blandishments of a lover.

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Hrsg., Genesis, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 404.

The Hebrew term means "donkey," but it is unlikely that a negative connotation was intended. In the Mari texts, the phrase "to kill a donkey" meant "to conclude a covenant." As a result, while Hamor is a personal name in 33:19, it may have a double meaning. The phrase "sons of Hamor" may refer to a confederation (see vv. 30–31). If so, Shechem may have been a fairly cosmopolitan city made up of members of many people groups. This may explain Dinah's apparent curiosity in v. 1, as well as the imprudent nature of her venture into the city.

John D. Barry u. a., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Gen 34,2.