Jump to content

Talk:Dinah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WakandaQT (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 7 December 2021 (→Rape). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ted Mulry Gang

Dinah was the name of a song by Aussie rocker Ted Mulry back in the 70s.

"Dinah, Dinah, show us your legs Dinah, Dinah show us your legs Dinah, Dinah, show us your legs A yard above your knees"


Questionable content

I removed the sentence, "The tale thus presents a negative attitude towards intermarriage, but it also attacks honour killing." I am not a Biblical scholar, but I did some research into Dinah's story after reading The Red Tent (which is loosely base on her story). I don't know how "the tale" could present a negative attitude towards intermarriage when Jacob, the head of the tribe, actually agrees to the marriage. It is Simeon and Levi who get angry and slaughter all the men in the city. Also, the story does not condemn honour killings because God protects Jacob and his people after the slaughter in the city. The townspeople are angry, but "the terror of God fell upon the towns all around them so that no one pursued them" (Genesis 35:5). When Jacob prayed to God, God blessed him, told him to change his name to Israel, and said, "A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body" (35:11). God doesn't say anything about the entire city of men Jacob's sons have killed. This section of the Bible does not mention any punishment for Simeon or Levi, and they go on to father huge families. I don't know about what land they hold after that, though. You can read Dinah's story in Genesis chapter 34 and 35 --Fang Aili 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although Jacob agrees to the marriage, none of his children, the progenitors of the Israelites, do. Although God protects Jacob afterwards, the children are nethertheless rebuked for carrying out their actions. --User talk:FDuffy 15:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say that Jacob agrees to the marriage? Are we reading the same Bible? Yoninah 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

Dear FDuffy, thank you for organizating the material better.

I have a few questions for you:

  • What does this mean?: Dinah is alluded to only briefly in the Bible; a passing mention in a couple of locations, and in a story known as The Rape of Dinah.

She is mentioned in the Bible, as you said in the first paragraph. Why the need for this extra paragraph? And what in the world is "The Rape of Dinah?"

The "Rape of Dinah" is the main name used for the story of Dinah's rape by Shechem (this should be fairly obvious). --User talk:FDuffy 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not fairly obvious to readers of the Torah in the original Hebrew. It seems to me that much of what you present as fact is in fact inference from a superficial reading of the text. Yoninah 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origin

This whole paragraph doesn't make sense to me and looks like original research. Could you please cite your source and spell out better what you're trying to say.

  • Popular culture

This is not the place to put in names of characters in books just because they correspond to the name of a biblical character. I left in the ones that had some kind of reference to the biblical character, however far-fetched.

This is a place to put ANYTHING encyclopedic to do with the word "Dinah". Whether or not they have any connection whatsoever to the biblical character. That the biblical character is the main content of the article does not mean that it is the only content. --User talk:FDuffy 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Then I imagine you're going to put in all the women named Dinah in the New York phone book, too. Why stop at that? How about every slave named Dinah, every movie star, chef, you name it... Yoninah 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rescue Dinah"

From my reading of the story, Dinah is not mentioned after the initial rape. I have deleted the phrase "and rescue Dinah" until a citation is added with it. --Fang Aili 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence one way or the other that Dinah was raped or kidnapped by Shechem. As the text stands, it is completely unclear whether she went with him and had sex with him willingly or not. The only way you can claim rape and kidnap as fact, is by using apologetics. Raphjd (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the KJV is to Polite, the Hebrew of the text clearly implies force, the word translated "took" is a much harsher term in hebrew then it appears in the English, and also the use of the term Defiled. Even more than 'took', the verse then uses 'v'anayha' which loosely translates to torture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary hypothesis

I am removing the section on biblical criticism on the sources of the story because

Most contemporary Bible experts do not agree about which particular passages belong to which of the four principal sources, or even whether the original sources were written documents.[1]

Also Friedman's departures from Wellhausen have been criticized by his professional colleagues on several grounds, not least for ignoring all other models and all advances in scholarship outside his preferred documentary model

  1. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
I'm reverting your reversions, because your reasons are wrong on every point. Please learn something about biblical criticism before editing these matters. PiCo (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the source says--Java7837 (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us the quote please (here on this page)? I think you must be misunderstanding something.PiCo (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rape

<Edit Conflict> The story is commonly referred to as 'the rape of Dinah', but it not clearly a rape in the modern sense of the word, in which the sex must be non-consensual or with someone too young to give consent. The question of whether she gives consent is not explicitly resolved (or deemed relevant) in the Biblical text, and some commentators regard it as an immoral seduction or a violation of property rather than a rape in the modern sense. I think it should be referred to as violation and clarified in the article. Zargulon (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you on this issue. The text does not say the sex was forced on her. Nor does it say she was abducted by Shechem. Gen 34:2's use of "and took her and lay with her" does not necessarily mean kidnapped and rape. If it does, then virtually every sex story in the bible involves kidnapping and rape, which they clearly don't. Gen 34:2 "and defiled her." only means that she lost her virginity to a man that was not her husband. It would seem that there this article is written from the apologetic point of view. Raphjd (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of twenty-three versions or biblical translations consulted, 9 use the word "rape", 6 "humbled/humiliated", 3 "by force", 2 "defiled", 2 "violated", and 1 (good old KJV) "ravished". It would appear this is generally viewed as non-consensual. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow... Zargulon (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK let work with the original text, (assumption here being that Moses wrote the Bible in Hebrew) וַיִּקַּ֥ח אֹתָ֛הּ וַיִּשְׁכַּ֥ב אֹתָ֖הּ וַיְעַנֶּֽהָ Let us break it down

וַיִּקַּ֥ח אֹתָ֛הּ = and he took her (took is an oft used euphemism for marriage)
וַיִּשְׁכַּ֥ב אֹתָ֖הּ = and he laid with her (euphemism for sexual relations)
וַיְעַנֶּֽהָ = and he tortured her, no euphemism required there.

There is clearly some pain involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.241.26 (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above, it seems strange for that first line to be a "euphemism for marriage" because doesn't he subsequently ask to marry her? Unless this speculates that he married her under local customs but wanted a 2nd marriage ceremony affirmed by her own customs? WakandaQT (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge with Dinah in rabbinic literature

It has been proposed that the article Dinah in rabbinic literature be merged into this article. Please leave views below.

  • I support merging Dinah in rabbinic literature to the Dinah article.

If the Dinah in rabbinic literature section grows extensively I would like it it was made into a separate article again. --Java7837 (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not mention the Tradition that Dinah was a Twin of Zabulon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[further explanation needed]

In the extant (currently known) version,[further explanation needed] it is clear that rape took place; the verb translated as "humbled" or "violated" in chapter 34 can also mean "subdued".[4]

Edit [2] appears to have been the addition suggesting that reference [4] (Rofé, Alexander (2005). "Defilement of Virgins in Biblical Law and the Case of Dinah (Genesis 34)"), now a dead link, specifies that it is clear that rape took place. I cannot access or verify the reference, unfortunately, but we can see that this edit was a later addition on the text which previously reflected the reference.

I won't remove that text myself though, hopefully someone who's more familiar with the reference or related scholarship can decide. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connection with American Slavery and Bible Unclear

The sources clearly establish that in th 19th century, "Dinah" was a slang for an African slave woman, but they don't establish any connection of any kind to the Biblical story of Dinah, and the nature of the connection (if any) is not at all clear.

While this is an important part of American black history, it is not clear why it is in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in addition to the popular Aunt Jemima pancake mix whose label still carries a picture of a stereotypical African female cook slave/maid, there was an Aunt Dinah molasses (went out of business circa 1950), also with an African woman on the bottle. But the sources in this article give no more reason to believe the association of the name Dinah with African cook slaves/maids is Biblical in origin than the name Jemina (which isn't). Hence it is unclear why this section is in THIS article. Perhaps it belongs in a small separate article of its own.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name Jemima is Biblical name, one of Job's daughters (Jemima (Bible)), but as far as I know it was not used generally for black women, just the specific character Aunt Jemima. Dinah, in contrast, was very specifically a generic name for a black/slave woman. I assume the link came about because the biblical Dinah was carried away from her 'tribe' by force, as were African women, but as so often with the history of name-choices, it's not all that easy to find documentation of reasons why they became widely used, or their rise and fall from favour (I've never found out why "Sheila" became a generic name for women in Australia). I can't see how this can be usefully separated from the article, even though the connection to the Biblical character is not clear, that's from where the name directly derives. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbinical literature

@BullRangifer:, why is rabbinical literature not a RS? Just wondering. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is not a RS and should not be promoted here. I accidentally deleted too much. Sorry about that. Fixing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't with the Dina List is an RS, the question is whether it is mentioned by reliable source so as to deserve inclusion in the article. While the list is known in some Jewish circles, it doesn't seem to be written up in Jewish newspapers, etc. ProfGray (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dinah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

The opening of this article gives the pronunciation of the name as /ˈdaɪnə/. In my own education, I've always heard the name pronounced /ˈdiːnə/, and this is also the pronunciation given on Wiktionary. Are these both acceptable pronunciations, in which case both articles should likely be edited to include both variants, or is one or the other erroneous and in need of emendation? Is there perhaps a dialectical difference, in English at least, that affects the pronunciation? For what it's worth, my own /ˈdiːnə/-favoring education was in a Canadian English context. 192.252.236.179 (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dinah&oldid=1059185454"