01-21-2022, 11:31 AM
I prefer to say that the Code of Hammurabi was a parallel to what God had decreed long before. The Law of Noah was common knowledge, though not necessarily by that name. Rather, it was the soil in which sprouted the Semitic culture and became a common base of law and custom throughout many nations in Mesopotamia. It wasn't the only cultural background, but a very dominant one. It included a lot of things we don't see specifically stated in the Law of Noah as recorded in Scripture. The Seven Noahic Laws were similar to the Ten Commandments; there was a lot more to it.
Because these Semitic folks had been roaming back and forth between Egypt and Mesopotamia, the Hivites and other Canaanite folks were familiar with those customs, if only imperfectly. Hamor should have known not to touch her; there's no excuse for what he did. He let his lust/passion run away with him. It was no big deal among Canaanties (the custom of "kidnapping" a bride), but a crime among Semites. Jacob should have guarded Dinah better, and it falls on his shoulders that she got so wrapped up with the local girls as to be vulnerable to Hamor. Whether she went along with it or resisted is not pertinent. You have to read the Bible text recognizing that it narrates failures quite matter-of-factly, but it requires the reader knowing when to condemn them. We cannot assume the text is trying to approve of everything it relates to us.
Hamor was flatly ineligible. Had the whole clan converted to the Code of Noah first, they might have a chance after several generations. That part of the Law of Moses was also customary from ancient times, so far as we can discern. We see how it works later, when the Gibeonites were allowed to keep living under the feudal authority of Israel. Their submission included knowing they had to very specifically adopt Noah's Law in order to stay in the land. Everything that happens with them later matches what we know about that. The narrative assumes you know that, so it doesn't mention how David's conquest of the Jebusite fortress meant the Jebusites had to embrace Noah or leave the land. It wasn't a slaughter, but a conquest. The gracious feudal submission of Arauna/Ornan to David's purchase of the threshing floor to stop the plague is just what you would expect, if you knew he was a Jebusite subject to Noah. (This threshing floor was above the old fortress, long before anything had been built there.)
So the sons of Jacob flat out lied to Hamor's clan about how to be accepted as allies for the purpose of intermarriage. They had no intention of forgiving; they were plotting to slaughter the whole city from the start. To become acceptable for intermarriage would have required full conversion to Noah first, and then in three generations to merge with the patriarchal clan under the Covenant of Abraham (if the Patriarch was willing to accept them). This is how the Ancient Near Eastern feudalism worked; you embraced the sheikh's gods first, and after a few generations, could petition to be part of the family.
Yes, Hamor's clan knew this was a bonus. Think about it: Abraham and his people were highly civilized, educated, wealthy and lived a whole lot longer than folks normally did in Canaan Land (Canaanite life expectancy, even among the ruling class, was about half Abraham's). Some of those fussy customs and laws were very much about community sanitation. The Patriarchs were pretty much revered and feared by the Canaanites. Who didn't want in on some of that? So Shechem was quite friendly to Israel's clan. It was a major boost to their economy, not to mention a very powerful warlord with a small army able to protect them from very real and frequent threats of raiders roaming the central highlands in those days.
We know that some of those armed servants should have protected Dinah, but things obviously got lax. We know most certainly that Simeon and Levi didn't work alone in slaughtering the men of the city; that would be impossible. Their brothers weren't there, but armed servants had to have helped them.
Because these Semitic folks had been roaming back and forth between Egypt and Mesopotamia, the Hivites and other Canaanite folks were familiar with those customs, if only imperfectly. Hamor should have known not to touch her; there's no excuse for what he did. He let his lust/passion run away with him. It was no big deal among Canaanties (the custom of "kidnapping" a bride), but a crime among Semites. Jacob should have guarded Dinah better, and it falls on his shoulders that she got so wrapped up with the local girls as to be vulnerable to Hamor. Whether she went along with it or resisted is not pertinent. You have to read the Bible text recognizing that it narrates failures quite matter-of-factly, but it requires the reader knowing when to condemn them. We cannot assume the text is trying to approve of everything it relates to us.
Hamor was flatly ineligible. Had the whole clan converted to the Code of Noah first, they might have a chance after several generations. That part of the Law of Moses was also customary from ancient times, so far as we can discern. We see how it works later, when the Gibeonites were allowed to keep living under the feudal authority of Israel. Their submission included knowing they had to very specifically adopt Noah's Law in order to stay in the land. Everything that happens with them later matches what we know about that. The narrative assumes you know that, so it doesn't mention how David's conquest of the Jebusite fortress meant the Jebusites had to embrace Noah or leave the land. It wasn't a slaughter, but a conquest. The gracious feudal submission of Arauna/Ornan to David's purchase of the threshing floor to stop the plague is just what you would expect, if you knew he was a Jebusite subject to Noah. (This threshing floor was above the old fortress, long before anything had been built there.)
So the sons of Jacob flat out lied to Hamor's clan about how to be accepted as allies for the purpose of intermarriage. They had no intention of forgiving; they were plotting to slaughter the whole city from the start. To become acceptable for intermarriage would have required full conversion to Noah first, and then in three generations to merge with the patriarchal clan under the Covenant of Abraham (if the Patriarch was willing to accept them). This is how the Ancient Near Eastern feudalism worked; you embraced the sheikh's gods first, and after a few generations, could petition to be part of the family.
Yes, Hamor's clan knew this was a bonus. Think about it: Abraham and his people were highly civilized, educated, wealthy and lived a whole lot longer than folks normally did in Canaan Land (Canaanite life expectancy, even among the ruling class, was about half Abraham's). Some of those fussy customs and laws were very much about community sanitation. The Patriarchs were pretty much revered and feared by the Canaanites. Who didn't want in on some of that? So Shechem was quite friendly to Israel's clan. It was a major boost to their economy, not to mention a very powerful warlord with a small army able to protect them from very real and frequent threats of raiders roaming the central highlands in those days.
We know that some of those armed servants should have protected Dinah, but things obviously got lax. We know most certainly that Simeon and Levi didn't work alone in slaughtering the men of the city; that would be impossible. Their brothers weren't there, but armed servants had to have helped them.