Genesis 34:1--How Often Did Dinah Visit the Daughters of the Land?

I've often heard it said that Dinah routinely (often) went to visit the Canaanite women of the land, according to the Hebrew of Genesis 34:1. My approach through the years has been to accept this statement without really finding out why the claim is made. It's probably correct, but I just want to know why.

The Hebrew verb translated "went out/went to see" in Gen. 34:1 is grammatically, qal imperfect third-person feminine singular plus waw consecutive.

Nahum M. Sarna (Genesis, JPS Commentary): "The text casts a critical eye upon Dinah’s unconventional behavior through use of the verbal stem y-t$-’, 'to go out.' Like its Akkadian and Aramaic equivalents, the verb can connote coquettish or promiscuous conduct.3"

The expression, "the daughters of the land" also conveys pejorative undertones (Sarna).

Daniel Green makes some interesting points in his article, "The Rape Of Dinah In Genesis 34: An Exegetical, Theological, And Pastoral Consideration Of Sexual Abuse And Its Effect On The People Of God." He observes:

The narrative begins with Dinah, Jacob’s daughter by Leah, going out to be among the daughters of Canaan. The implication of  ותצא is debated. It may be that she went out among the Canaanites regularly as the preterite form can be given a characteristic (perfect) nuance. The word לִר ֹות can refer to “looking at with interest” and “gazing at so as to become acquainted.” 4 Although it was not unusual for young women of this period to be unsecluded (Gen 24:13-21, 29:6, 11-12),5 to go out alone among the Shechemites was a different case. It was not normal for girls of marriageable age to go out to an alien city unguarded.6 Not only is Dinah’s action personally careless, but the fronting of the verb suggests broader danger to Israel as a whole—forbidden intimacy with Canaanites. Waltke calls Dinah’s action “improper and imprudent.”7 It probably goes too far to call her action promiscuous. To draw a parallel with Leah’s going out in 30:16 misses the mark. Leah was a married woman who desired her husband. The verb itself should not be interpreted negatively, per se. Restraint should be shown at this point. Dinah may have been lacking judgment, even foolish, but there is a big difference between imprudence and immorality.8  Parry correctly notes that the heavy blame in the passage is directed against others.9 Readers may call Dinah foolish, perhaps, but not promiscuous.

See Journal of Ministry and Theology 16.2 (Fall 2012), Page 65.

The following image comes from Robert Alter's Genesis commentary on 34:1:



 

John 8:58 Assertions (Boyce W. Blackwelder)

"The present tense is used to express timeless being. Jesus says, 'Before Abraham came to be [genesthai, aorist infinitive], I am' (egō eimi, present tense, and double nominative for emphasis). The aorist indicates a beginning for the existence of Abraham, but the present tense emphasizes the eternal preexistence of Jesus."

Blackwelder, Boyce W. Light from the Greek New Testament (Kindle Locations 1402-1407). Reformation Publishers Prestonsburg, KY. Kindle Edition. 

My Reply: It's difficult to see how the aorist indicates a beginning all by itself or even if it's contrasted with the present tense verb. Aorist verbs are default words, and the aorist represents action as a whole. It is not the aorist alone that shows Abraham had a beginning, but also the occurrence of prin. Furthermore, Jason Beduhn has rightly challenged the view expressed here regarding the present tense: since when did the Greek ever indicate eternal preexistence by using present tense verbs? That is more of a theological assertion than a grammatical datum.

Revelation 19:14 (Ian Paul Observations)

"The armies of heaven share with the rider the elite status of riding on white  horses. This army could consist of the redeemed who follow the lamb (14:4), are implicitly described as an army in their numbering 144,000 (see comment on 7:5), and as the bride of the lamb are dressed in fine linen, white and clean earlier in 19:8. It could consist of the angels, who are also dressed in white linen and are involved in the war which effects [sic] the victory of the male son in 12:7 – or it could consist of both together, since they are identified implicitly by their  shared devotion to God in worship (5:11; and see comment on 7:11) and explicitly by the angel’s rebuke of John in 19:10. This army is in striking contrast both to the armies of the fifth and sixth seals (9:1–19), with the detailed description of their armour and weapons, and to armies in the real world of the first century. The armies of heaven need no armour, since their protection comes solely from their purity and righteous deeds; and they have no need of weapons, since the victory in which they participate is won by Jesus alone (see comment on v. 19 below)."

Ian Paul, Revelation (Tyndale NTC), page 436.

Novatian and the Son's First Generation (De Trinitate 31.3-4)

 Novatian of Rome maintains that the Word is always “in” the Father (semper enim in patre) but the Father nonetheless precedes the Son “in a certain sense” and degree. Novatian also contends that the Father somehow exists qua Father “before” he generates the Son (quoniam antecedat necesse est eum) which indicates that God the Father is prior to His Son in some undefined sense (De Trinitate 31.3). So there is a positing of God’s paternal antecedence in relation to the Son since the Word has a “beginning” as Son (qui habet originem) whereas God the Father does not have a beginning qua Father: He is necessarily innascible or unbegotten (ille qui originem nescit)

W. Yorke Fausset notes that the qualifying phrases quadam ratione (“in a certain sense”), quodam modo (“in some degree”), and aliquo pacto (“in some way”) are interpolations by Gangneius, the first editor of Novatian’s De Trinitate. Yet they evidently represent Novatian’s thinking since he apparently did not want his use of praecedit to have “a strictly temporal sense.” See Novatiani Romanae Urbis Presbyteri De Trinitate liber: Novatian’s Treatise on the Trinity, ed. William Yorke Fausset (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 117-118.

Leviticus 1:6-11 Sacrifices (A Supposed Contradiction)

Robert B. Laurin claims that Ezekiel 44:11; 2 Chronicles 29:22, 24, 34 conflict with Leviticus 1:6-9 since the pentateuchal account suggests that it is the offerer himself who would kill the animal, skin it, cut it in pieces, and wash the entrails and feet, whereas the other accounts (in Ezekiel and 2 Chronicles) say that the Levites do the killing or the priests (in the case of 2 Chronicles).

While I initially thought that Lev. 1:6 clearly was talking about the offerer (not the priest or one of the Levites), John Gill's discussion and Adam Clarke helped me to see the textual variants associated with this verse and the rabbinic comments about it: I have consulted Mark Rooker's Leviticus commentary too. However, a careful reading of Lev. 1:6-9 demonstrates there is no inherent conflict between the accounts.

NET Bible (Leviticus 1:6-9): Next, the one presenting the offering[p] must skin the burnt offering and cut it into parts, and the sons of Aaron, the priest,[q] must put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. Then the sons of Aaron, the priests, must arrange the parts with the head and the suet[r] on the wood that is in the fire on the altar.[s] Finally, the one presenting the offering[t] must wash its entrails and its legs in water and the priest must offer all of it up in smoke on the altar[u]—it is[v] a burnt offering, a gift[w] of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

NET Note: tn Heb “Then he”; the referent (the offerer) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The LXX and Smr have “they” rather than “he” in both halves of this verse, suggesting that the priests, not the offerer, were to skin and cut the carcass of the bull into pieces (cf. the notes on vv. 5a and 9a). To see other points made by the NET Bible, see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+1-6&version=NET

1 John 5:7--Added to the Greek Text (J.E. McDermond)

Finally, the famous textual issue in 5:7 merits attention. As mentioned in the Preview, the KJV reads, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth…. These words are found in many Latin Vulgate manuscripts and a few late Greek manuscripts, dating mostly from after AD 1400. Textual experts generally agree that these words first found their way into the Latin texts in or around the fourth century. The Johannine Comma, as these words have come to be known, “is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers…. Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215” (Metzger: 717). It appears in four late Greek manuscripts, which were translated from “a late recension of the Latin Vulgate”: manuscripts 61 (16th c.), 88 (12th c.), 629 (14th or 15th c.), and 635 (11th c.), “which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth-century hand” (716-17). The Comma does not appear in any Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, or Slavonic NT translations before AD 1500. Copyists, aware of the Vulgate version, likely added these words to the later Greek manuscripts that then were frequently reproduced and used for the KJV. Because of the lack of support from the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, modern translators omit these words [The Johannine Comma, p. 309]

See J.E. McDermond, 1, 2, 3 John, Believers Church Bible Commentary, page 399 of the electronic edition.

Buist Fanning Analyzes Revelation 5:12 (Greek Text and Some Thoughts)

Greek (SBLGNT): λέγοντες φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· Ἄξιόν ἐστιν τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον λαβεῖν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ πλοῦτον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ ἰσχὺν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν καὶ εὐλογίαν.

NET: all of whom ³⁸  were singing ³⁹  in a loud voice: “Worthy is the lamb who was killed ⁴⁰ 

to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and praise!”

NWT 2013: and they were saying with a loud voice: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”

Fanning and most commentators normally read Rev. 5:12ff as evidence for the deity of Christ. Fanning makes this claim:

"It is christologically significant that ascriptions of praise in Revelation are offered to God alone (4:9, 11; 7:12; 19:1), to God and to the Lamb (5:13), or to Christ alone (1:6; 5:12)."

In footnote 92 on page 228 of his recent commentary, Fanning references Richard Bauckham's observation that John was working with a sensitivity to monotheistic worship when he penned Revelation. Yet Fanning (like Bauckham) thinks Christ is given worship in Rev. 5:12, which would indicate that the Lamb is divine like his Father. But I can appreciate the ascriptions that heavenly creatures give Christ without presuming he is ontologically equal with his Father. That is a point which has been discussed ad nauseam. The thing that intrigues me more is the Hebrew and Septuagintal context for the scene in Revelation 5:12ff.

1 Chronicles 29:11 (LXX): σοί κύριε ἡ μεγαλωσύνη καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ τὸ καύχημα καὶ ἡ νίκη καὶ ἡ ἰσχύς ὅτι σὺ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς δεσπόζεις ἀπὸ προσώπου σου ταράσσεται πᾶς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἔθνος

There is also Daniel 2:37, which ESV renders: You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory

LXX: σύ βασιλεῦ βασιλεὺς βασιλέων ᾧ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ βασιλείαν ἰσχυρὰν καὶ κραταιὰν καὶ ἔντιμον ἔδωκεν

See Fanning, Buist M. Revelation. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2020, page 228-229.