1 A. Bartor, Reading Law as Narrative. A Study in the Casuistic laws of the Pentateuch, Society of Biblical Literature. Ancient Israel and its Literature 5, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2010, 5ff.

2 The construction (‚underlines the continuous character of Tamar's going crying) ותלך הלוך וזעקה consisting of a finite verb, a following infinitive absolutus of the same verb (as expression for a movement) and an additional verb which expresses an act of communication.

3 Remarkably, in the book of the covenant the case of sexual violence is not focused on. Ex 22:5 discusses only the case of the seduction of an unbetrothed female, a forced sexual violent act is not presupposed here. Beyond the in this paper discussed text Deut 22:13–27 is the theme sexual violence not discussed within the juridical texts of the Hebrew Bible. In contrast to these meagre results, the authors of narrative texts show a greater interest in the theme of forced sexuality. In addition to the “classical” rape narratives like Gen 19; 34; Jdc 19 the theme shines more or less though texts like Gen 12:10–20:20; 26.

4 A prominent example for a narrative lack of interest in the consequences of sexual violence for the person concerned is the case of Dinah in Gen 34. The rape itself is mentioned almost on the sideline. Shechem saw her (and) וישכב אתה (lay with her,) ויקח אתה (took her,) וירא אתה – in this manner – he humiliated her (ויענה) (Gen 34:2). After mentioning the rape, the author shows no interest in the fate of Dinah. She is mentioned once again in Gen 34:26. After the killing of the inhabitants of the city two of her brothers took her from the house of Shechem. Why and how she was brought in the house of her rapist is in the author's viewpoint obviously not necessary to narrate.

5 An excellent overview of the very diverging positions regarding the date of the writing of the David stories from the beginning of the last millennium is provided in the research report by Walter Dietrich, Von den ersten Königen Israels. Forschung an den Samuelisbüchern im neuen Jahrtausend. Zweiter Teil, ThR 77 (2012), 263–316.

6 Benno Jacob, Das Buch Genesis. Berlin: Schocken 1934, Reprint Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 2000, 1048f., gives the relations between Gen 34:5 – 2Sam 13:20 and Gen 34:5 – 2Sam 13:21 inter alia as examples for a literary dependence between the book of Genesis from 1 and 2Samuel.

7 I. Müllner, Gewalt im Hause Davids. Die Erzählungen von Tamar und Amnon (2Sam 13,1–22), HBS 13, Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1997, 250. Other voices have, however, suspected a literary dependence of 2Sam 13:1–22 from other Biblical texts. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York: Basic Books 1981, 73, sees in the instruction of Amnon to Tamar “lie with me” (1 Sam 13:11) a “conscious allusion” to the words spoken by Potiphar's wife in Gen 39:7 to Joseph: “Lie with me!”. But in both texts appears not more than the use of a simple imperative of שכב with a following עמי; for a conscious allusion the reader should expect more of a clear signal. Y. Zakovitch, המראות בארץ מקראות (Through the Looking Glass. Reflection Stories in the Bible), Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad 1995, 81, underlines the differences between both stories: The gender of the “seducer” is different, in Gen 39 the temptation is initiated by a female person, in 2Sam 13, by a man. Whereas the temptation is initiated by a married woman, a relationship between her and Joseph would be illegal, a relation between Tamar and her halfbrother is characterised as possible and legal. In the first story there occurs a punishment without a preceding sexual intercourse, a punishment in 2Sam 13 is missed after the forced intercourse. In Gen 39, Potiphar's wife exploits the situation of nobody being in the house; in 2Sam 13 the potential witnesses are removed by Amnon's instruction. Potiphar's wife cries for help to conceal her guilt (Gen 39:14), Tamar's crying demonstrates her innocence.

8 By this paper the literary relationship between Gen 34 and 2Sam 13:1–22 cannot be discussed. The fact that between both texts a literary relationship – whatever the specifications may be – exists seems obvious. Most striking is the use and combination of the motifs love, sexual desire and sexual violence. Shechem falls in love (ויאהב) with Dinah, after he raped her (ויטכב ויענה אתה). In contrast to Gen 34:2, there occurs the humiliation of the victim in 2Sam 13:14 before the rape itself. Gen 34:2 could be interpreted as a chain of the different acts, seeing, taking, raping and humiliating. The sequel of the expressions ויענה יטכב אתה could also, however, be interpreted as explication of one act: by raping her, he humiliated her. The situation in 2Sam 13:14 is in a narrative and syntactic viewpoints differ. Dinah's fate is reflected only in the viewpoint of her brothers because he (Shechem) had done a disgraceful thing in Israel (כי־נבלה עטה ביטראל) by lying with Jacob's daughter (Gen 34:7). נבלה here shows two aspects: the rape itself and the rape by a Canaanite. Tamar's response to the request of Amnon reads like a citation of Gen 34:7. She insists, “No my brother, do not humiliate me, because (such a think) should never been done in Israel, don't do this disgraceful thing” (2Sam 13:12). The wording את־הנבלה הזאת כי לא־יעטה ביטראל אל־תעטה intensly reminds one of the brother's or the narrator's statement in Gen 34:7 by which the plan for the brother's vengeance on Shechem is initiated (Gen 34:7.13ff.): וכן לא יעטה כי־נבלה עטה ביטראל לטכב את־בת־יעקב. Abshalom's reaction to Tamar's silence full of hate signalizes that his revenge will be well planned and prepared. The revenge is realized in both texts by the use of guile and deception. The false promise of the brothers that Shechem and his companions could marry their sisters and daughters if they were circumcised (Gen 34:14), is in the same way a deathly trap like Abshalom's invitation of Amnon to join his feast (2Sam 13:27). The father shows retentiveness whereas the brother(s) of the raped woman are impelled and motivated by their desire for vengeance. Jacob fears that the revenge of Shechem's crime will cause a fatal sequence of vengeance (Gen 34:30). David reacts with anger after he heard what happened to his daughter, a punishment, however, does not occur. About the reasons for David's inactivity the (Hebrew) text gives no hint. The reader should assume that David, like later during Abshalom's revolt and Adoniah's self-declaration as king, is not willing or able to act against one of his sons. For the literary relations between Gen 34 and 2Sam 13:1–22 Cf. A. Kunz, Die Frauen und der König David. Studien zur Figuration von Frauen in den Daviderzählungen, Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 9, Leipzig 2004, 44ff. Despite the analogies between Gen 34 and 2Sam 13:1–22, at least two major points should be named by which a fundamental difference in the narrative strategy of both stories is demonstrated. The question of which reaction of the first readers of both stories might have been intended by the narrators is not easily answered. It seems obvious that the narrator shows empathy with Dinah and her fate after the rape. She disappears from the stage, and then she is mentioned again in the house of Shechem from which she is removed by her brothers (Gen 34:26). In addition, the consequence of the rape for Shechem and his relatives is mass murder. It is hard to believe that the reader's agreement to this fatal end was intended. In contrast to Dinah, Tamar's social destruction is intensively depicted. Under this precondition, Amnon's murder by Abshalom seems more justified than the mass murder in Gen 34. In a second point, between both texts a fundamental difference exists. Jacob's resentment of a collective punishment of the companions of Shechem may have pragmatic reasons. David's inactivity after Tamar's rape may have the same reason as his behavior towards Abshalom earlier, during and after his revolt and towards Adoniah's ambitions to become king: As father he can only stand and watch the acting of his sons without being able to stop them.

9 Song of Songs 2:5. The female speaker, deep in love, asks for raisin cakes, because she is sick with love.

10 Deut 20:7 constructs the situation that a male person who is engaged with a woman cannot be sent into war as long as he has not taken her (ולא לקחה). The use of לקח implies that the coupl's first intercourse ends the period of engagement and initiates the marriage.

11 As C. Locher, Die Ehre einer Frau in Israel. Exegetische und rechtsvergleichende Studien zu Deuteronomium 22,13–21, OBO 70, Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1986, 62, pointed out for Deut 22:13–31, the “hate” itself is not a guilt, the “hate” initiated the punishable accusation of the woman. However, it is not easy to say how “the hate” of the husband towards his wife can be characterised. Does the hate start immediately during or immediately after the wedding night? Or does the hate presuppose a long process in which the husband gradually becomes weary of his wife? The second case would be more suitable for human life. In this case the question would remain open why the husband has waited such a long time with his accusation. A reduction of the meaning of the root .as expression for a desire for divorce (B שנא Wells, Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape: The Slandered Bride and False Accusation in Deuteronomy”; JBL 124 [2005], 41–72) is not con-vincing. The hate of the husband is the reason for the desire of the divorce. The consideration of E. Nielsen, Deuteronomium, HAT I/6, T%übingen: Mohr 1995, 215, that Deut 22:20f. should be seen as a later addition, has something going for it. Deut 22:13 presupposes that the husband starts to hate his wife after having sex with her. The accusation of premarital illegal sex is the consequence of the hate. Without the addition of v. 20f, the text only discusses the case of a woman or her parents who are not able to provide the proofs of her innocence. The missing of the “tokens” would allow the husband to reject his wife without paying back the bride price. The insertion of v. 20f converts the offence of pre-marital sex into a crime which must be punished with the death penalty. A different and comprehensible interpretation of Deut 22:20f is presented by J. Fleishman, The Delinquent Daughter and Legal Innovation in Deuteronomy xxii 20–21, VT 58 (2008), 191–210. The case of the “delinquent daughter” in Deut 22:20f is comparable with the case of the disobedient son in Deut 21:19f. Apart from a terminological overlapping of both texts, the responsibility of the parents for their son or daughter in public is underlined. Deut 22:20f does not demand the death penalty for every woman who enters the marriage not as virgo intacta. It is rather the case discussed that the woman kept her status secret after having premarital sex. In this manner she cheats her parents and causes a public shame for them. This crime – not the premarital sex – should be seen as the reason for the death penalty.

12 Deut 22 emphasises the durable character of the relationship between father and daughter which is continued into the marriage of the daughter. As Bartor, Reading 175–177 pointed out, Deut 22:13–19 reflects different points of view of the acting persons. Whereas the man speaks in a very distanced manner about his wife, the father calls her “my daughter” (בתי) in contrast to his son in law who is called “this man” (האיט הזה) (Deut 22:16). In the same way the daughter is characterised by her husband as “your daughter”, i.e. as the daughter of the accused father. Consequently, the father reflects a fictive speech of his son in law, the son in law had said: I did not find your daughter a virgin. Then the parents present the proofs of their daughter's innocence together with the words of the father: “But here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity!” (v.17).

13 See also the comment by A. Berlin, Sex and the Single Girl in Deuteronomy 22; in: Nili Sacher Fox/David A. Glatt-Gilad/ Michael J. Williams (eds.), Mishne Todah. Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009, 95–112.

14 R.G. Smith, The Fate of Justice and Righteousness During David's Reign. Narrative Ethics and Rereading the Court History According to 2Samuel 8:15b–20:16, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 508, New York/London: T & T Clark 2009.

15 See also Gen 34:7; Jos 7:15; Jdc 20:6.10; Jer 29:23.

16 J. Marböck, Art. נבל, ThWAT V (1986), 171.181–185. J. Lozovyy, Saul, Doeg, Nabal, and the “Son of Jesse”. Readings in 1 Samuel 16–25, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 497, New York/London: T & T Clark, 2008, 53, argues that “doing a נבלה describes a “foolish” action. However, the expression means more than this: a person who is doing a נבלה may act foolishly, but for certain he acts for his own destruction. Furthermore, the reader is informed that the story comes not to its end with the entry of Tamar in the house of Abshalom. Tamar is introduced as the sister of Abshalom (2Sam 13:1). The reader is informed that the story is in reality an Abshalom-Amnon-story and so he must expect that Abshalom will react to his action towards Tamar. P. Borgman, David, Saul, and God. Rediscovering and Ancient Story, Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press: 2008, 127.

17 The question is: which ritual exactly is hidden behind “the tokens of the daughter's virginity”. The intensive discussion to that issue cannot be reflected here intensively and in detail. A reference must be made to an article by A. Koller, Sex or Power? The Crime of the Bride in Deuteronomy 22; ZAR 16 (2010), 279–296. Koller argues that Deut 22:17 presupposes a situation in which the parents of the slandered woman retain the full responsibility of the safety and the dignity for their daughter. If the daughter is slandered by her husband that she entered the marriage not as a virgin, the parents would have the opportunity “to produce” the proofs of her innocence and so to defend her from the accusation of illegal premarital sex. Remarkable is the argumentation of the Talmud Yerushalmi to this point. jKet 28c, 5–8 argues that the presentation of the “tokens of her virginity” is useless because of the above mentioned opportunity of the use of birth blood. The following passage jKet 28c, 8–12 discusses a situation in which the statements of the husband of the accused woman and her father contradict each other. Here it is supposed that both parties can present witnesses; the party of the husband presents witnesses for the fact that the woman has had premarital sex in the house of her father; whereas the witnesses of the father claim the chastity of the daughter. Cf. also SifrDeu § 235 and bKet 46a: The last passage interprets Deut 22:17 allegoric: the parents should spread (פרט) the issue of their daugther like a new cloth.

18 Obviously the שמלה of the woman is used as a blanket like the שמלה of the poor in Ex 22:26.

19 The phrase בתולה נערה designates girl or young woman without any sexual experiences. Gen 24:16; Deut 22:28; 1 Kings 1:2; Est 2:2–3. In 2Sam 13:18, Tamar is described as בת המלך בתולה. Her social status is marked double: she is the king's daughter and she is a virgo intacta, I. Müllner, Gewalt, 306.

20 See also the interpretation by R. Alter, The David Story. A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2Samuel, New York/London: W. W. Norton 1999, 270. Tamar's ornamented tunic may well be blood stained, too, if one considers what has just been done to her.” It is remarkable that the tntk sp, which appears only in Gen 37:3,23–32; 2Sam 13:18–29, is used in both texts as an instrument to express the higher status and the destroying of its wearer. Joseph's garment demonstrates his higher status against his brothers; by its destruction, Joseph's “staged” death” is expressed. The circumstance that Tamar wears a כתונת פס has its basis in the technique of narration: By wearing and destroying a noble garment it is demonstrated that a noble person is destroyed. The interpretation of A.J. Bledstein, Tamar and the ‘coat of many colors’; in: A. Brenner (ed.), Samuel and Kings. A feminist companion to the Bible (Second Series), London: Continuum International Publishing, 2000, 65–83, that Tamar's garment would point at her priest background and emphasize that she should be seen as a “mistress of dreams” (80) has nothing to do with the plot of the story.

21 One of the first known readers and commentators of the Tamar story is Josephus. It is remarkable that Josephus, against the intention of the Biblical story, states that Tamar's status is not characterized as permanent. Josephus interprets (against the plot of the story) that Tamar accepts the consolation of her brother, she ends her crying and she remains in the house of her brother only “a long time”, not her entire life; Josephus, Ant, 162. The story, however, indicates that Tamar disappears in the house of Amnon, behind its walls she will be forgotten; Müllner, Gewalt, 325.

22 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Clarendon Press: Oxford 1988, 218, underlines that Deut 22 distinguishes intensively between the public and private sphere. An accusation for illegal intercourse in the “public (i.e. potentially visible)” area must be based on the witnesses. By this interpretation it is presupposed that illegal sexual intercourse within a city occurs in a private sphere; the resistance and crying of the woman would establish a public situation by which the innocence of the woman is proven. This interpretation evokes the question of whether or not the expression “in the city” (Deut 22:23) means “in a private house”. Of course the structure and the settlement concentration of cities in the Iron Age or in later times would hardly allow a situation in which a forced sexual intercourse could occur hidden and unnoticed. Under this precondition the silent woman in Deut 22:23 is indeed not innocent. However, the situation in 2Sam 13:1–22 is different. Tamar is separated from the public and hence from the visible and audible sphere: she is sent into the house of Amnon (2Sam 13:8), Amnon's servants are sent out (from the house) and Tamar is sent into the chamber in the midst of the house (2Sam 13:10).

23 E.S. Gerstenberger, Art. hn[II, ThWAT VI (1989), 247–270, 254.

24 J.v. Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009, 302f.

25 Cf. M. Malul, What is the Nature of the Crime of the Delinquent Daughter in Deuteronomy 22:13–21. A Rejoinder to J. Fleishman's Suggestion, VT 59 (2009), 446–459, 454.

26 I. Abrabanael, נביאים פירוש, Jerusalem 1954, 352.

27 By the interpretation of Abrabanael it is overlooked that the plot of a narrative is not oriented to the social criteria and conditions of real world. The reader and David as an agentia know what happened; a punishment of Amnon would be the reader's view of a logical consequence.

28 Tamar's separation from the public sphere is staged by two movements in contrary directions. Tamar is sent by David into the house of Amnon (לכי נה בית אמנון; v. 7) and by Amnon into the chamber inside the house (הביאי הבריה החדר; 10). The servants and potential ear and eye witnesses are sent by Amnon out of the house with the instruction: הוציאו כל־איט מעלי! The sphere to which the servants are sent is later called outside and beyond the door behind her (ונעל הדלת אחריה דנא החוצה, v.17). Tamar and possible witnesses or helpers are not only separated by the doors (and walls) of the house of Amnon but also by her transfer into the inner sphere of the house, the extra separation, חדר.

29 Deut 22:24 sketches a situation in which a hlwtbhlwtb who has illegal intercourse with a man would have to protect herself by calling for help. The Rabbinical discussion differentiates the case: crying is not necessary as an instrument which would avert the danger to be raped, the crying of the would testify to her resistance and also that she is an innocent victim of a violent act; cf. C. Edenburg, Ideology and Social Context of the Deuteronomic Women's Sex Laws (Deuteronomy 22:13–29, JBL 128 (2009), 43–60, 47.

30 The narrator does not signalize that “David's anger is compound with guilt”, J.S. Ackerman, Knowing Good and Evil. A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2, JBL 109 (1990), 41–64, 45. David's anger is a silent one; his inactivity remains, unlike the explaining additions in the Septuagint and the Qumran version, unexplained. But by avoiding the punishment of the criminal act, David “leaves the field open for Absaloms's murder” (R. Alter, The David Story. A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2Samuel, New York/London: W. W. Norton 1999, 271.

31 The majority of the occurrences of μmv Qal refers to the description of destroyed cities or buildings; cf. Lev 26:23; 1 Kings 9:8; Jes 49:19; 61:4; Ez 35:12–15; 36:4; Lam 1:4; 5:18. The use of the root DM7 in 2Sam 13:20 compares the violation of Tamar's body with a military destroying of a city; C.M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion. Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008, 146.

32 G. Braulik, Deuteronomium II (16,18–34,12), NEB 28, Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992, 168. Ex 22: 15f. discusses the case that a non-engaged women is wheedled by a man (כי־יפתה איט בולה) in a way that the man can have sex with her, but then he is obliged to marry her. However, her father has the right to refuse the marriage. Whereas Ex 22:15f leaves the question unanswered of how the illegitimate intercourse was discovered, Deut 22:28f presupposes that the rape is testified to by witnesses (ונמצאו). According to Deut 22:28f, the father is (in contrast to Ex 22:15f) not authorized to condemn his raped daughter for a life-long unmaried existence in his house; E. Otto, Zur Stellung der Frau in den ältesten Rechtstexten des Alten Testaments (Ex 2014; 22,15f.) – wider die hermeneutische Naivität im Umgang mit dem Alten Testament; ZEE 26 (1982) 279–305, 288.

33 The expression ותפטה signalizes the violent character of Amnon's behavior; E. Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 216.

34 F. Crüsemann, Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 21997, 88. If the obligation to marry the raped women should be seen as a “penalty for his wickedness” is an open question, J. Paterson, Divorce and Desertion in the Old Testament, JBL 51 (1932), 161–170, 162.

35 Occasionally it is argued that the amount of 50 pieces of silver should be seen as equal to the regular bride price is fine; D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, WBC 6B: Nashville et al.: Thomas Nelson 2002, 522.

36 It has been often observed that Tamar's story forms a sharp contrast to the David-Bathsheba-narrative in 2Sam 11f. Whereas Bathsheba is portrayed as a character which demonstrates “passive compliance and absence of resistance”, Tamar tries to avoid the act of sexual violence with a “desperate resistance”; D. Bodl, The Demise of the Warlord. A New Look at the David Story, Hebrew Bible Monographs 26, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press 2010, 227. However, in contrast to 1Kgs 1:6 which focuses David's love to his son Amnon, in 2Sam 13:1–22 there is nothing said about David's feelings for Amnon. 2Sam 13:21 states that David “became very angry” (ויחר לו מאד). The passage says nothing about the reason(s) for this anger. As reason for it the text only offers that David heard “all of these things” (הדברים האלה את־כל). The plural suggests that the entire narrated material is the reason for the anger, i.e., the rape and the repudiation. The statement by R.G. Smith in, The fate of justice and righteousness during David's reign. Rereading the court history and its ethics according to 2Samuel 8:15b–20:26, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 508, New York/London: T & T Clark International 2009, 154, that Tamar's rape and her following expulsion by her brother Abshalom are the reasons for David's anger, is not explicitly said within the narrative. By this interpretation it is presupposed that Tamar's remaining in the house of her rapist would be an acceptable solution in David's viewpoint.

37 A number of commentators interpret David's inactivity with his love for his son Amnon; cf S.L. Mckenzie, Ledavid (for David)! “Except in the Matter of Uriah the Hittite”; in: E. Eynikel/A. G. Auld (eds), For and Against David. Story and History in the Books of Samuel, BETL 232, Leuven: Peeters 2010, 309–313, 311. This interpretation is based on the version of LXX and 4QSama which add according to 1 Kings 1:6 the notice that David “loved his first born”.