>They said to them, “We can’t do such a thing; we can’t give our sister to a man who is not circumcised. That would be a disgrace to us.>We will enter into an agreement with you on one condition only: that you become like us by circumcising all your males.>Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We’ll settle among you and become one people with you>Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem. >The young man, who was the most honored of all his father’s family, lost no time in doing what they said, because he was delighted with Jacob’s daughter.>So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of their city to speak to the men of their city. >These men are friendly toward us,” they said. “Let them live in our land and trade in it; the land has plenty of room for them. We can marry their daughters and they can marry ours. >But the men will agree to live with us as one people only on the condition that our males be circumcised, as they themselves are.>Won’t their livestock, their property and all their other animals become ours? So let us agree to their terms, and they will settle among us.”>All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city was circumcised.>Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male. >They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses.REALLY makes one think
>two men defeat an entire cityWhat fucking capeshit is this?
>>18032429back then a city was like 10 mudhuts you know
This story is an anti samaritan polemic. Theres a few different origin stories for Shechem in the bible, you can tell how late each one was written by how much the author hates samaritans.
>Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and my men being few in number, they will gather together against me and strike me, and I will be destroyed, I and my household.”
>>18032445>it's bad what you did>but only because they will retaliate and we are outnumbered>not because backstabbing and being dishonourable is a bad
>>18032444Jacob is upset with his sons for doing this though.Second, later on the law reveals that the right thing to do was let her marry shechem after he was circumcised. >>18032432This and also male household servants were expected to fight alongside their masters.
>>18032444This is an example of why secularists are not to be taken seriously. Rather than "multiple origin stories" there are accounts of the city at different periods, and this interpretation of the text does not arise unless you approach it with the presupposition that it was all made up centuries after the fact and then cobbled together. This particular interpretation of the story as an anti-Samaritan origin story of Shechem is absurd, since 1. The males are exterminated and the women and children are enslaved; rather than being an origin story, it is a destruction story, and 2. Simeon and Levi's actions are clearly portrayed as negative
>>18032453Where do you see the word only in this verse?
>>18032456>Second, later on the law reveals that the right thing to do was let her marry shechem after he was circumcised. doesn't Deuteronomy 22:28-29 only cover jew on jew rape?
>>18032456>Jacob is upset with his sons for doing this though.Yeah because he fears retaliation. He doesnt condemn them for killing the city in revenge for the rape of Dinah. Having prince Shechem himself be the rapist is clearly anti schechem and by extension can be anti samaritan. Compare to earlier in genesis where abraham makes an alter at schechem which seems pro schechem. Joshua renewing the covenant at schechem and burying joseph's bones there pro schechem for sure. Contrast with judges where the schechemites are cursed for appointing abimelech king and destroyed, anti schechem. Its interesting to look at all the stories about that city and think if the author is condemning it or exalting it. I think all the negative stories about schechem gotta be from a judean author later after Schechem becomes the capital of the northern kingdom. Call it "bias analysis" or something
>>18032405You left out >Because their sister Dinah had been defiled, Jacob’s sons replied deceitfully as they spoke to Shechem and his father Hamor.
>>18032468so?
>>18032465>Yeah because he fears retaliation. He doesnt condemn them for killing the city in revenge for the rape of DinahThe implication being that he thought their actions were basically positive (while actually condemning them, how absurd) for the wrath of the Canaanites to come against Jacob would not mean he personally would be destroyed, it would mean their entire family would be destroyed, his recorded complaint is basically "what have you done, don't you realize you've just gotten your entire family killed?">Having prince Shechem himself be the rapist is clearly anti schechem and by extension can be anti samaritan. >Compare to earlier in genesis where abraham makes an alter at schechem which seems pro schechem. It doesn't say there was a rape, verse 3 implies there wasn't. The violation was premarital sex, which ruined her virginity. The penalty for this under the law would not be death but compulsive marriage with no permission to divorce under any circumstances. The Books of Moses taken as a whole, Shechem is doing the right thing and the sons of Jacob are in the wrong. I do not share the false assumption that these were a series of different contradictory stories cobbled together, the texts are not "pro" or "anti" Shechem, but historical. >Call it "biasSure will
>>18032478>his recorded complaint is basically "what have you done, don't you realize you've just gotten your entire family killed?"Yeah exactly. In the ethics of the old testament its a good thing to massacre an entire city for violating your sister, the only issue with that is it might harm the family in return. These arent universal ethics, that which is good is what benefits your family and community and harming other groups is fine. Same deal in joshua where exterimating a canaanite city so the israelites can take over is also seen as good. Very different from modern ethics but thats not a problem with the book per say, thats just the readers sensibilities changing with time.
>>18032485>Very different from modern ethicsjews still act this way thoughbeit
>>18032485>In the ethics of the old testament its a good thing to massacre an entire city for violating your sisterCould you substantiate this? Especially in light of the fact this assertion directly contradicts the specific text we are examining?>the only issue with that is it might harm the family in returnIt's certainly a strange interpretation that the text is saying it's a good thing to do that which it says is a bad thing which should not be done.>These arent universal ethicsThe bible has universal ethics. The Books of Moses say the law was holy and good, that it ought to drive the gentiles to jealousy for the Israelites to have such righteous law, gentiles are expected to follow portions of it even when they know nothing of Israel (Numbers 15:32-36), and the Canaanites are said to merit destruction because of their obscene immorality. >Same deal in joshua where exterimating a canaanite city so the israelites can take over is also seen as good. Complete category error
>>18032495>jews still act this way thoughbeitAnd thats why they rule the world. NEETscze was correct with his master vs slave ethics. >>18032498Off the top of my head you got all the massacres of the canaanites in joshua, midianite extermination in numbers, Moabite slaughter in judges egyptian firstborn death in exodus all of which are either commanded by god or done by god. Here in genesis we got abraham deceiving pharoah and abimilech bringing curses on their house. All of these have some amount of a self defense style element to them but the overall point is before greek influence these near eastern texts shed no tears for the enemy groups being harmed, when gods telling israel to kill every midianite man its the same vein as the assyrian slabs bragging about how they annihilated the enemy group so hooray for us. How strongly this connects to this exact story in genesis here is debatable but i think its a modern projection to think a story in genesis has a problem because the protagonists were meanies and hurt another group
>>18032510>Off the top of my head you got all the massacres of the canaanites in joshua, midianite extermination in numbers, Moabite slaughter in judges egyptian firstborn death in exodusWhich one of these was on account of "violating your sister"?>Here in genesis we got abraham deceiving pharoah and abimilech Why does he do that? Is it because there is no fear of God among them (universal ethics, again)?>i think its a modern projection to think a story in genesis has a problem because the protagonists were meanies and hurt another groupJust ignore the part where the text itself explicitly says it.
>you did WHAT WITH THE JEWS Heinrich!?>don't you REALIZE that now America will enter the war against us?!>[Authors Note]:This can be seen as clear proof that Hitler condemend the Holocaust as unjust and evil
>>18032518>Just ignore the part where the text itself explicitly says it.That doesnt happen though. Do you know what "explicitly" means anon? Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You guys did something mean to schechem and thats bad dont hurt other people ok treat all humans ethically"Wait a minute it doesnt say that. It says "You have brought trouble on me by making me obnoxious to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed"The criticism of the action is that it can bring retaliation on the family because there are more canaanites. Each word of the scipture is critical. The problem is (1) it aggravates the canaanites against jacob (2) jacobs family is small (3) other groups can unite to destroy him. So if your group is big and strong enough massacre away, that removes (2)
>>18032429Two Israelites.
>>18032465He actually removed their blessing because they were too cruel.“Simeon and Levi are brothers— their swords are weapons of violence.Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly,for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel!I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel.
>>18032628I hadnt considered this, appreciate it anon
>>18032533>That doesnt happen though.>>18032445
