RAPE CULTURE: MALES AND FEMALES SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF JOSEPH AND TAMAR Genesis 39 \u0026 II Samuel 13:1 – 22

$Page 1: RAPE CULTURE: MALES AND FEMALES SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF JOSEPH AND TAMAR Genesis 39 \u0026 II Samuel 13:1 – 22$
PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

RAPE CULTURE: MALES AND FEMALES SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF JOSEPH AND TAMAR

Genesis 39 & II Samuel 13:1 – 22

SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR BRAIN RAINEY AND PROFFESSOR ERIN E. FLEMING

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

OT 3380: JUSTICE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ANCIENT NEAR EAST

& OT 3409: KING DAVID

BY LUIS QUIÑONES-ROMÁN

DECEMBER 7, 2015

Luis Quinones-Roman December 7, 2015 Prof. Brain Rainey & Prof. Erin Fleming Final Paper

RAPE CULTURE: MALES AND FEMALES 2

Introduction

In this paper, I aim to analyze the notion of rape in the Hebrew Bible (HB) looking at the

accounts of Joseph and Tamar (Gen. 39 and 2 Samuel 13:1 – 22). It is challenging to discuss the

scholars’ different perspective on rape because of the emotions that are evoked for those who

have been victims of sexual assault. At the same time, choosing male rape victims as the focus

point in this paper was very interesting decision due to the insufficient evidence acquired.

Besides, the most challenging thread in any rape case study is to answer the question “why is it

important to discuss the case of ‘male rape victims’ alongside the ‘incest rape victims’?” The

answer, I believe, is that both incidents are often being overlooked and ignored by both society

and scholars. Some even reduce this matter to a brief footnote. As I research, I encountered

different definitions that did not aim to adequately provide protection to male rape victims.

The biblical accounts of Joseph and Tamar bring a remarkable insight for those who are

victims of sexual assaults. Scholars seem to interpret the rape of Tamar as part of David’s

punishment for his involvement with Bathsheba. However, regardless of this affirmation, there is

the big taboo concerning “rape” and “sexual assault” committed by a family member. I could not

comprehend why it is taboo to talk about the implications of an incestuous rape and male rape. I

wonder why it is so problematic to discuss male and incestuous rape. No one seems to want to

get his or her hands dirty with this issue.

Moreover, Feminist scholars have argued that “rape” is a powerful term that evokes a lot

of emotions and bad memories for those who have been victims of sexual assault. The term

brings the notion of a violent and unwanted sexual act in which the victim is powerless and

dominated his or her aggressor. Historically speaking, the concept of “rape” has served to protect



a man’s right to exclusive sexual access to a woman. At the same time, it has been used as part of

the larger ideological framework that disempowers women and those who are being victims of

any type of sexual aggression. The power dynamics that one encounters between the victims and

the victimizer circumscribe the notion of control and domination, which eventually leads to the

male’s authority to control his victims.

I will examine how the concept “rape” is presented and how is being described in both

Gen. 39 and 2 Samuel 13. This paper will be structured in four parts: Male and Female Roles,

The Notion of Rape, Joseph and Tamar, and finally, One God and the Two Fates. I will argue

that the understanding of “rape” in the Ancient Near East alongside the biblical account of

Joseph and Tamar is seen as a power dynamic which allows the victimizer to use his victims for

his or her own desires for control and domination. As we shall see, the biblical story holds quite

a few surprises for the careful reader, and a closer reading of both tales will grant more insight

into notions of rape culture in the Bible.

Males and Females: how to define gender and sex in the modern sense?

Gender roles in the Bible are articulated from a patriarchal perspective. The Bible

emerged from a culture of male domination; however, there are some instances where the

females take the active roles. Scholars in the 1970’s within women’s studies distinguished social

gender roles from biological sex.1 By the mid-1980’s gender studies emerged as a distinct field

of inquiry about women and men with the attempt to demonstrate all cultural assumptions based

on stereotypes.2 The studies of women began in the mid-1980’s to replace the notion of

patriarchal domination, which literally means the domination of men over women. Since than,

1 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (ed.), Feminist Biblical Studies in the Twentieth Century: Scholarship and Movement, (Atlanta, GA.: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), p. 6 2 Ibid, p. 6



gender has become an analytical category alongside race, class, age, and colonialism.3 The basic

goal is to problematize and replace those social constructions of gender.

The terms “gender” and “sex” are, perhaps, the most challenging subjects to define in any

investigation. The terms are specially related to the basic ideas of the sexual revolution. Joan W.

Scott argues that the word “gender” denotes a rejection of the biological sense implicit in the use

of the term “sex.” Thus, “Gender” also emphasized the relational aspect of normative definitions

towards an understanding of masculinity and femininity. It also introduces a relational notion

into the analytic vocabulary, which defines both male and female in terms of one another. Scott

proposes that the goal in gender studies is to discover the range in sex roles and in sexual

symbolism in different societies and periods, to find out what meaning they had and how they

functioned to maintain the social order or to promote it.4 On the other hand, “sex” is the division

of a species into either male or female, especially in relation to the reproductive functions. The

term refers to the biological sense that drives species to reproduce. It is clear that the

differentiation in the case of sex is based on genitals and nothing else.

The understanding of gender within a feminist approach is to be primarily a movement

toward human equality in which oppressed and oppressor are finally reconciled in a renewed

humanity. Mary Ann Tolbert denotes that the tendency sometimes arises from a more radical

evaluation of the pervasiveness of androcentric structures and consequently concludes with a

more radical response of revolution and separatism. 5 Then, the definition of male and female

was in terms of a gendered separation to constrain behavior and shape social configurations. The

3 Mary Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, second edition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), p. 1 4 Joan W. Scott, “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” in The American Historical Review, Vol. 91, No. 5 (December, 1986), 1054 5 Mary Ann Tolbert, “Defining the Problem: The Bible and Feminist Hermeneutics,” in Semeia 28 (Vanderbilt University, 1983), 117



religious and social configurations were that women’s femininity was restricted to their role as

wives, which meant to please their own husbands’ desires. On the contrary, men's masculinity

revolves around the notion of susceptibility of the male to worldly temptation and his need for a

woman to rein in his willfulness. In addition, a woman’s responsibility is to instruct her family

with Christian values, and to watch over the sanctity of the family.

Emil Brunner writes, “Our sexuality penetrates to the deepest metaphysical ground of our

personality.”6 It is here where essential manhood and womanhood are bonded to our personhood,

which conducts every facet of one’s life. For instance, when the Bible mentions that men and

women fulfill different roles in relation to each other, charging men with a unique leadership

role, it based this differentiation in a cultural norm but this does not mean they are permanent

facts of creation. In fact, culturally speaking the place of women was determined in theory—and

to a great extent in practice—by the universal belief that women are inferior in capacity and by

reference to the specific commands for their subjugation found in Genesis and elsewhere. The

understanding was that women were inferior to men, and therefore, they must concentrate on

their duties so that they can encounter salvation. The feminist hermeneutical approach

understands its task as engaging with the biblical texts from the perspectives and political

investments of feminist movements for change. Tolbert suggests that only by insisting on the

paradoxical position of feminists within androcentric culture and, more specifically, Christian

feminists within the Christian tradition, can a truly creative movement toward new patterns of

existence arise.7

Furthermore, the sexuality of a woman is more difficult to articulate than any other

subject regarding a women’s life. For Christendom, the assumption was that women did not 6 Emil Brunner, Justice and Social Order, (Trad. Mary Hottinger), (Cambridge, UK: The Lutterworth Press, 1945), p. 127 7 Ibid, Mary Ann Tolbert, p. 121



control their sexuality. Rather, men were over women because women were weaker physically,

mentally, and spiritually. Beverley Clark argues that a large number of influential thinkers in the

previous centuries were denying misogyny and patriarchy as a valid historical category. 8 Not

only were women relegated to occupy insignificant roles in society, but them were also neglected

as being equal to men. They are always viewed as submissive to and even dependent upon the

will of their husbands. Also, women’s chastity was used to control the wife’s sexuality.9 In this

way, the husband would know that the children were his, and therefore he was the one who had

authority over his wife’s sexuality (or in the case of a unmarried woman, her father).

The more radical forms of feminism consider male power and male dominated culture as

the primary source of the oppression of every woman. The so-called patriarchal family, which

regards women as subordinate, is especially problematic. Catherine Howey argues, “When

women behaved like men, they were no longer obediently or silently accepting their inferiority to

men.”10 Howey is clearing describing that the assumption here is to relinquish all notions of

women’s empowerment. The affirmation is that the social belief was that women were not agents

of power, so that they can be manipulated and controlled. This brings us to the notion of

predisposing men as being the only agents of power and possession. In this view, women are

seen as objects of desire and control.

The Notion of Rape: an essential understanding of the concept

The definition of “rape” is very controversial in itself. Also, it is a universal problem that

most cultures in the world encounter even though the understanding of the act might change

8 Beverley Clack, Misogyny in the Western Philosophical Tradition: A Reader, (New York: Routledge, 1999), 9 Ibid, “The Vain, Exotic, and Erotic Feather: Dress, Gender, and Power in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth Century England,” p. 229 10 Catherine Howey, “The Vain, Exotic, and Erotic Feather: Dress, Gender, and Power in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth Century England,” in Alexandra Cuffel and Brian Britt, Religion, Gender, and Culture in the Pre-Modern World, (New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 212 – 231



between cultures. According to some scholars, the understanding of rape seems to possess two

elements: the first revolves around the motive behind the act, and the second is concerned with

the consequences and reactions that have followed. In the West, the notion of rape has been

understood as a crime committed by a man against a woman, and it is hard to imagine a case

where this is the other way around. Men do not talk about themselves as victims of rape,

especially when committed by a woman against them; even more, there is barely any evidence of

this type of issue—men being rape by women. Richard Morgan in his article “Women Raping

Men” argues that the evidence of female-on-male rape is almost entirely absent from the usual

crime markers: police reports and the statistics that rely on them.11 The term rape, from a

standpoint of technical understanding, seems to be promoting the notion of men being the

aggressors in every case. In this sense, the definition is problematic. The concept of a woman

raping a man seems so strange that most people would question his masculinity, and therefore

one would doubt if he is indeed “macho.” Such a man would be seen as an oversensitive person

who is not equipped to handle a sexually confident woman, as in the case of Joseph.

Historically speaking, the essential elements of a rape crime are viewed as sexual

penetration, force, and lack of consent. The definition of “rape” has been understood to mean the

use of violence or the threat of it to force sex upon an unwilling woman. The traditional

definition of rape is often understood as a nonconsensual act that involves physical injury or the

use of any mechanism to take someone by force. Marie Fortune defines rape from a legal

perspective as “forced penetration by the penis or any object of the vagina, mouth, or anus

against the will of the victim.”12 This legal definition perhaps can be problematic to those who

would argue that “rape” is not only forcing penetration over a victim. In fact, some scholars

11 Richard Morgan, “Women raping men,” (April 2004), p. 80 12 Marie M. Fortune, Sexual Violence: The Unmentionable Sin, (New York, 1983), p. 7



extend the definition to argue that a husband that has sex with his wife against her will can be

accused of rape. At the same time, it is interesting to note that this measure can be challenging

for those who are trying to include verbal insinuations as a form of rape. The use of seductive

language is a key point to redefine the notion of rape as a nonconsensual act. Feminist scholars

have redefined rape beyond the spectrum of the ordinary use of the term proposing other forms

of rape. As a result, scholars nowadays tend to extend a whole range of sexual relations that have

never before been in the notion of rape. Therefore, feminist thinkers are inclined to redefine

“date rape” or seduction as a form of rape, and moreover they are trying to claim, “men are

rapists.”13 By the same token, some feminist thinkers have expanded the definition to include the

use of verbal insinuations as a mechanism to seduce women, and therefore it is a form of rape.

However, the debate is still very polarized and scholars seem to be inclined to think that the only

criterion that is accepted as evidence in the rape act is lack of consent.

The ideologies, stereotypes, and dominant attitudes that govern the construction of

gender within patriarchal societies may enable us to make a distinction between mutual desires,

consensual sexual intercourse, and the criminal act of sexual violence. Carol Smart points out

that many contemporary cultures condone pressing a woman until she submits to have sexual

intercourse.14 These types of characteristics, in their extreme form, can promote the sexual

assault and abuse that leads to rape. Where men are being taught that a woman’s “no” is never a

final “no” but rather is a “yes,” that places her in a more vulnerable position to be in a rape

crime. Further, in a seductive society where the media is promoting sex, both man and woman

are left with the obsessive desire to have sexual intercourse. Susanne Scholz suggests that rape is

a “classic act of domination,” an expression of a power structure that goes beyond gender 13 Andrea Dworkin, “Men and Boys,” in Pornography: Men Possessing Women, (New York, NY: A Plume Book, 1989), p. 48 14 Coral Smart, Feminism and the Power of Law, (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 41



relations.15 In this sense, sexual intercourse is used as a form of power and domination over the

opposite sex. Susan Brownmiller argues that rape rarely has anything to do with sex or the sexual

seductiveness of women, but has everything to do with power relations between men and

women.16 Rape must be analyzed through understanding the different motives for it.

The question that one might ask here is what the HB says about “rape”? The general view

when interpreting the notion of rape in the HB is that there is not an actual concept to use as a

parallel to the English term “rape.” However, the HB has a few instances where it uses the term

תפש to refer to the notion of rape. At the same time, the Hebrew term (to catch or wield) תפש

only calls for caution in the use of the word when describing some biblical sexual intercourse. In

2 Sam 13:1-22, the same root חזק is used in describing one of the clearest examples of “Hebrew

biblical rape”: Ammon’s rape of Tamar. Despite the lack of terms, the notion of rape came be

understand when reading and interpreting the cases in which a person is being either taken by

force or unwillingly in order to have sexual intercourse. It is this notion that leads us to

understand that the cases of Joseph and Tamar as rape. The accounts have many more

similarities than differences, as we will see. One would expect to find similar expressions and

word used in the texts that address sexual assault.

The combination of language points to a more significant relationship for the stories of

Joseph and Tamar. But before reviewing the research on the narratives, we must analyze some of

the collective languages and descriptions of the characters. The narrative revels in the fact that

Joseph is described as handsome and good-looking (Gen. 39:6). This, perhaps, may demonstrate

that Joseph is a virgin. In fact, there are some few instances where young males are describes as

handsome and good-looking, but there is no mention of them being virgins. Tamar, however, is

15 Susanne Scholz, Rape Plots: A Feminist Cultural Study of Genesis 34, (New York, NY: Peter Lang), p. 25 16 Susan Brownmiller, Against our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, (New York: Bantam Books, 1975), p. 24



described explicitly as a virgin (2 Sam. 13:2). Moreover, in Gen. 39:7, Mrs. Potiphar says: שכבה

עמי ,Come to bed with me” while in 2 Sam. 13:11 Ammon use the same expression“ ,ותאמר עמי

Come to bed with me.” At the same time, both victims refuse the offer of their“ ,בואי שכבי

aggressors. The text in Gen. 39:9 shows that Joseph said: וימאן ויאמר אל־אשת, “But he refused and

said unto his master’s wife.” In 2 Sam. 13:12, Tamar replies to her offender saying, אל־תענני כי

She answered him, ‘No, my brother, do not force me.’” The most explicit“ ,תאמר לו אל־אחי

expression of non-consent is when Joseph says:

איננו גדול יתבב הזה ממני ולא־חשך ממני מאומה כי אם־אותך באשר את־אשתו ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדלה

הזאת וחטאתי לאלהים׃

“There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee,

because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Gen.

39:9). By the same token, Tamar categorically states: אל־תעשה את־הנבלה ׃הזאת ואני אנה אוליך

,for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do anything so vile! As for me“ ,לא־יעשה כן בישראל

where could I carry my shame?” (2 Samuel 13:12 – 13a)

Joseph and Tamar: how to understand the notion of rape in both accounts?

Scholars have identified only three major incidents of rape in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis

34, Judge 19, and 2 Samuel 13. In each of those texts, the act of rape is seen as committed by a

man against a woman. Hence, there is the progression that moves in the social imaginary that

creates the idea that only men are capable of raping women. For John Thompson, the social

imaginary is “the creative and symbolic dimension of the social world, the dimension through

which human beings create their ways of living together and their ways of representing their



collective life.” 17 In the Western culture, the notion of woman raping man is not quite

understood, and there is not much evidence to view the females as sexual aggressors.

Before I examine how these texts moves to the progression of rape, we must see some

structural similarities between Genesis 39 and 2 Samuel 13:

Genesis 39 “Joseph” 2 Samuel 13 “Tamar”

(v. 1 – 6) The background of the story (v. 1 – 9 a) Ammon’s love for Tamar

(v. 7 – 12) The Crime of Mrs. Potiphar:

desire, seduction, and hate

(v. 9b - 17) The Crime of Ammon:

love, rape, and hate

(v. 13 – 23) Post-Rape Response: silence

and prison

(v. 18 – 22) Post-Rape Reponses:

silence and shame

In both passages, the crime is set at the center of the tale and provides the middle point between

the pre-rape and post-rape events. All three scenes describe the reality of the victims and their

fate, who seem to not have a way out of those tragedies.

Date Rape: Mrs. Potiphar and Joseph

The historical setting in Genesis 39 has been a difficult one for scholars to pinpoint. We

know from the text that it is during the time when Israel was still a nomadic tribe. It falls a few

centuries before David becomes the king of the United Tribes. Joseph’s father is a nomad living

with his family in tents. However, many scholars have found evidence from the text supporting

the theory that Joseph’s time in Egypt must have come during the Hyksos period, between the

years of 2000 and 1600 BC.18 Thus, scholars are still debating this issue. Genesis 39 is an

important chapter for the political and theological developments that take place. It is in Egypt

that Israel becomes a powerful ethnicity—when Joseph and the twelve tribes arrive, they are a 17 John B. Thompson, Studies in the Theory of Ideology, (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1984), p. 6 18 T. Saeve-Soederbergh, in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 37 (1951), 53–71



small nomadic people. The scene in this chapter takes place when Joseph is still a young man.

Scholar believes that chapter 39 begins where the previous chapter left off. This passage seems

to be fairly comprehensive. Moreover, it seems problematic for scholars to view the story of

Joseph as a case of rape because the victimizer is a woman, and therefore the tale is often

understood as a young man both resisting and running away from temptation.

As the story unfolds, the reader is told that Potiphar’s wife cast longing eyes on Joseph,

and that she seduced Joseph “day by day” to lie down with her in bed (vv. 7). At the same time,

scholars have mentioned that there are similarities found between the Joseph story and the

Egyptian parallel of the “Tale of Two Brothers.” They see many strong correlations between

these two stories, and there are even scholars that argue that the later Joseph story was built

around this earlier Egyptian mythological tale. It is this assertion that makes us believe that

Potiphar’s wife had been seducing Joseph for a long time. For classical biblical commentaries,

the tale might suggest that Potiphar was indeed a eunuch and this shows that his wife had sexual

needs and that she perhaps was looking elsewhere to satisfy them. Therefore, the social notion is

that the sexual aggression against the male gender seems difficult because males are inclined to

be active while females are passive in the sexual act. In this sense, women cannot rape a men.

By the same token, the question that arises here is how to see the encounter of Joseph and

the wife of Potiphar as a rape case? And is Joseph a victim of a female rapist? The literature on

Genesis 39 is somewhat overwhelming in proportion. So much has been written on the topic of

Joseph’s temptation, and his experience in general, but scholars rarely see the case of Joseph as a

sexual assault. The main reason for this, I suppose, is because of the patriarchal bias that does not

allow a man to be seen as weak and frail, a patriarchal understanding in which the male figure is

protected at all cost. Despite this, as I mentioned above, feminists argue that “date rape,” or what



is know as seduction, is indeed a form of rape, and therefore the account of Joseph seems to

present this notion. As feminist scholars argue, the use of provocative language carried a sexual

insinuation. It is in the spectrum of seduction where the victims are moved to go against their

will.

Moreover, feminist scholars seem to suggest that Potiphar's wife exemplifies the Foreign

Woman’s negativity because her status as the dangerous seductress “has fatal consequences” for

her male victim. However, scholars who attempt to deconstruct the notion of women being the

weaker sex aim to argue that the character of Potiphar’s wife uses her sexuality as a weapon to

prevent the household’s passing from man to man (from Potiphar to Joseph) rather than from

man to woman (from Potiphar to Potiphar's wife). In this sense, scholars understand that the lack

of a proper name for Mrs. Potiphar can be understood as an indicator that she does not possess

her own body. Rather she is a possession of Mr. Potiphar. Laura E. Donaldson argues that it is

precisely this potential in the form of controlling the household of her husband that Joseph

threatens.19 Thus, Mrs. Potiphar aims to use her own sexuality as a weapon to control her

household.

Nonconsensual Sex: Ammon and Tamar

The statistics show that any woman is a natural target for a would-be rapist, and therefore

the chances are that a rape victim will be of the same class and race as her attacker at least

between 70 and 90 percent of the time.20 The biblical account of Amnon and Tamar is not far

from that reality. Ammon and Tamar indeed are half-siblings and they are both the children of

King David. Now, the house of David is surrounded for the second time by a terrible crime that

never gets solved. The context of 2 Samuel 13 is the prophecy in chapter 12:11, when the 19 Laura E. Donaldson, “Cyborgs, Ciphers, and Sexuality: Re-Theorizing Literary and Biblical Character,” (Semeia 63, 81-96), (ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCOhost, 1993), (accessed November 25, 2015), p. 91 20 Ibid, Susan Brownmiller, p. 354



prophet Nathan said to David: “raise up evil against him out of his own house.” Richard M.

Davidson compared the intercourse between David and Bathsheba In 2 Samuel 12 to that

between an adult and a minor whose consent is of no consequence and concludes that Bathsheba

was a victim of David’s “power rape.”21 Therefore, scholars seem to agree that 2 Samuel 13 is

the fulfillment of God’s punishment for David’s crime. The passage here is divided into two

sections: Ammon and Tamar (v. 1-20) and Absalom’s murder of Ammon (v. 21-39). Thus, I will

only examine the first section.

According to McKenzie, Ammon was David’s firstborn son and perhaps the crown

prince.22 It is not clear how the succession line was granted in David’s kingship; however,

Ammon seems to be the first in line. Yet, Ammon character seems to have led an ungodly life.

As Mathew Henry points out, “if Amnon had not forsaken God, he would never have been given

up to these vile affections [towards Tamar].”23 The text is not clear about how long it took for

Ammon to arrange his evil plan in order to rape Tamar. Hence, the story opens with the

affirmation that David’s son Ammon is in love with Absalom’s beautiful sister Tamar but cannot

see a way to satisfy his passion. As a result, his cousin Jonadab helps him stage a deception that

will bring Tamar into Ammon’s room. When she arrives, Ammon carries the deception further

so that he and Tamar are left alone. Despite her protests, he rapes her, and then commands his

servant to eject Tamar from his house.

The progression of rape in the case of Tamar is very clear to any reader from the

beginning of the tale. In fact, the immediate context of the events surrounding this incident

banished both Absalom and Amnon from the throne. Unlike the case of Joseph, Tamar is being 21 Richard M. Davidson, “Did David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” Journal of Adventist Theological Society 17 (2006), p. 81-95 22 Steven McKenzie, King David: A Biography, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 161 23 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible, (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), p. 350



unwillingly forced to have sexual intercourse. That unwilling sexual interaction goes against all

canons of love and consenting to the act of sex. In this tale, Tamar’s sexual assault seems to be

insignificant for the biblical writer, David, and Absalom. She is surrounded by a male’s power

domination, and Tamar herself unwilling becomes a statistic in the realm of David. Yet, the tale

seems to give some sort of agency to her, even though she ends up without retribution. Scholars

such as John Mauchline and Schwartz seems to agree that the rape of Tamar by her brother

Ammon is an echo of David’s forcible taking of Bathsheba, concluding that the madness with

which Amnon is associated arcs backwards to encompass David as well.24

Beyond the above paragraph, the most horrible aspect of the tale is that YHWH is silent,

and therefore we might ask ourselves if there is a God of justice in this text. Some might even

ask why this text was included in the Bible, since there is nothing to celebrate about this rape of a

young woman by her own brother. There is an abuse of power in this story that makes it almost

impossible to read without being irritated. In fact, we witness a lack of respect for the female

gender, which is the power dynamic behind this text.

The Aggressors: Mrs. Potiphar and Ammon

Scholars have noticed similar characteristics between those who attempt a crime sexual

assault. They have identified three different patterns: the anger rapist (feels anger and rage

towards the victims), the power rapist (feels the need to control the victims), and the sadistic

rapist (uses violent force as a form of eroticism).25 There is a connection between the narrative of

Genesis 39 and 2 Samuel. In fact, Mrs. Potiphar and Ammon fulfill the characteristics of a

person who is attempting a sexual assault. However, most rapists do not rape out of sexual desire 24 Alexander Izuchukwu Abasili, “Was it rape?: the David and Bathsheba pericope re-examined,” Vetus Testamentum 61, no. 1: 1-15, 2011), ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 25, 2015). 25 Gregg Barak, Violence and Nonviolence: Pathways to Understanding, (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2003), p. 70



or to achieve sexual satisfaction. Their aim is to satisfy non-sexual needs, especially the

necessity of power and control.

As we see, 2 Samuel 13 opens with the affirmation that Ammon is in love with his half-

sister Tamar. However, as the tale unfolds, we notice that Ammon was ויצר (to bind) to the point

of falling sick for her. The Hebrew term ויצר is use in the Qal Imperfect, indicating an obsessive

or compulsive desire for someone. This might show that Ammon’s mental illness is a correlate to

his obsessive desire for Tamar. At the same time, Mrs. Potiphar is not far from this obsessive

compulsion, which leads her to be blind in such away that she is incapable of measuring the

consequence of her own actions. The text (Gen. 39:7) indicates the uses of ותשא (to cast, looked,

desire) in the Qal Imperfect showing an obsessive desire that implies the notion of sexual desire.

The NAS translated Gen. 39:7 as “look with desire” while the KJV translates it as “cast her

eyes.” Both Ammon and Mrs. Potiphar are driven mad by pent-up sexual desire. It is here where

any obsessive man or woman encounters the danger of becoming a sexual aggressor. While they

have different fates, in both accounts, Joseph and Tamar are the objects of this intense desire and

are brought into close proximity to the desiring subject.

In 2 Sam. 13:12 the use of ענה in the Piel Imperfect means “humble,” “afflict” or

“humiliate.” Mary Ann Bader argues that the stem ענה occurs in the Piel some fifty-four times,

41% of which can be found in the Pentateuch, while six are found in the books of Samuel. 26 The

word is also used to describe what a man can do to a woman sexually. In the Piel, the use of the

term ענה has sexual connotations: Gen. 34:2, Deut. 21:14, 22:24 and 29, Judg. 19:24 and 20:5,

and so on. Scholars have argued that this term indicates, “physical or psychic force is used” in

the case of sexual assault; the ענה refers to the subduing of a woman sexually. Frank M. Yamada

26 Mary Ann Bader, Sexual Violation in the Hebrew Bible: A multi-Methodological Study of Genesis 34 and 2 Samuel 13, (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2008), p. 15 – 7



mentions that the term ענה appears in all the three texts that where scholars have traditionally

understood as rape (Gen. 34, Judg. 19, and 2 Sam. 13).27 In the case of Gen. 34:2, the difficulty

rests in how to translate the term ויענה because of the wide semantic range and the negative

connotations that it carries. Despite the extensive semantic range, there is no doubt that when

used in situations referring to sexual assault the term has a negative meaning—specifically

rape.28 The attitude of Ammon in 2 Samuel 13:15 is more in line with the reaction that

sociological studies have revealed rapists have towards their victims.

What is remarkable here is the narrator’s description of Ammon’s physical overpowering

of Tamar: “And being stronger than her, he seized her and lay with her” (13:14). For sure in both

biblical accounts the aggressors are described as attempting to seduce their victims by force. For

example, the term used in Gen. 39:12 תפש that indicates that Joseph was taken by force is in the

Qal Imperfect. Bader also argues that anything but mutuality is describe in verse 12. She states

that Mrs. Potiphar was sexually harassing Joseph and that he was not willing to participate in a

sexual liaison with her.29 Shimon Bakon states that Joseph was protesting too much, saying out

loud the reasons he must not succumb to the advances of Potiphar’s wife in order to convince

himself.30 Matthew Henry says that Potiphar’s wife showed that her heart was fully set to do

evil.31 James L. Kugel, however, seems to have a different opinion. He suggests that Mr. and

Mrs. Potiphar might have plotted against Joseph so that he could accept Mrs. Potiphar’s

27 Frank M. Yamada, Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of the Three Rape Narratives, (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2008), p. 7 28 Ellen J. Van Wolde, “Does ‘inna Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word,” VT 52 (2002): 528-44 29 Ibid, Mary Ann Bader, p. 18 30 Simon Bakon, “Subtleties in the Story of Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 41, no. 3 (July 2013): 171-174. ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 25, 2015), p. 172 31 Ibid, Matthew Henry, p. 350



request.32 Kugel also suggests that Mrs. Potiphar probably had made up some excuse in order to

be left alone at home that day. But the question is what about Joseph? If Joseph knew the danger

of being alone with his master’s wife, why did he then stay at home? This question might not

have an answer at first but it seems very alarming for anyone, and as a result Kugel seems to

indicate that Joseph is not so innocent after all, because he also was at the house that day.

In 2 Sam. 13:11, the used of the term חזק is a Hiphil Imperfect that brings the same notion

of sexual harassment. In both passages, the main characters have been taken against their own

will. Tamar, on her end, is attempting to negate Ammon’s intentions. Again she says:

“No, my brother!” ל־אחי

“Do not rape me” אל־תענני

“For such a thing is not done in Israel” כי לא־יעשה כן בישראל

“Do not do this disgraceful thing” שהאל־תע את־הנבלה הזאת

Yamada agues that Tamar uses the language of family (ל־אחי) to confront her aggressor

with the reality that Tamar is his sister. She is trying to make Ammon reevaluate his suggestions,

which seems to suggest that Tamar is an honorable woman. Yamada also argues that “[Tamar]

responds to his double imperative with two negative commands [אל־תענני and אל־ את־הנבלה הזאת

However, Ammon forsakes Tamar’s commands. Then, knowing that she would have 33”.[תעשה

no result in her attempt to stop Ammon, she turns to advise him to talk to the King. This

suggestion indicates that Tamar is trying to escape from her fate, “[the king] will not withhold

me” (v. 13b). In this it seems Tamar is appealing to the highest justices, King David. In other

words, her intention is to resolve this situation in a proper away so that it could not end up being

32 James L. Kugel, “Joseph and His Brothers,” in How to Read The Bible, (New York, NY: Free Press, 2007), p. 180-1 33 Ibid, Frank M. Yamada, p. 115



an illegal matter because the Covenant laws prohibit such a crime. According to Deuteronomy

22:28-29, the sexual abuse of a virgin woman must be taken seriously:

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

The text clearly states that “the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver” to her

father and become her husband. The Covenant codes states that the man lost the right to divorce

the women he raped. As a note, this passage clearly advocates that the term תפש involved the

element of nonconsensual sex or being taken by force. Clearly, Ammon knew about this law

code and he still defied the law itself. At the same time, Ammon acted as a person who is

deceptive and impulsive, refusing to listen to reason and wisdom. His actions made of him an

easy target for the evil’s plans. Yamada also indicates in her footnote, “Tamar’s suggestion is

framed within a context of potential rape, her response to this point has been well articulated

with the framework of a ‘wisdom argument.’”34 Tamar might not have had the physical strength

to escape from this horrible situation, but however her wisdom was remarkable. She reasons with

her aggressor hoping that he might change his mind. As we know, both victims try to resist their

aggressors’ insinuations.

Furthermore, Mark Gray argues that 2 Sam. 13.7-15 also ends with the Qal Imperative

again issued in a context of what he calls “rushed thoughtlessness.”35 He describes this ,לכי

pericope as being framed by identical verb forms as in 2 Samuel 12. Gray points out that it is

important to notice that the subject giving the order changes from the king, in whom is invested

legitimate royal authority, to Ammon, in whom it is not. The power dynamic shifts from a king 34 Ibid. p. 117 note 27 35 Mark Gray, “Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13.7-15: The Rape of Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor,” (Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament 77, 1998, 39-54), ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 28, 2015), p. 43



to his subject, Ammon. We can then infer that David is struggling with controlling his

household. Therefore, Gray mentions that “in the light of this it may be inferred that at one level

this text is concerned with Ammon’s dynastic ambitions and, more generally, the struggle for

power within David's royal family.” 36 Perhaps we can understand now why Ammon refused to

ask David for Tamar’s hand. Hence, the question that is being raised is who in David’s house has

the right to rule: David “The King,” Ammon “The Firstborn” or Absalom “The Secondborn?”

Rape Victims are Silenced: Joseph and Tamar

Those who have faced a situation of sexual assault or rape are often silenced by many

factors, and they often have to manage it on their own. To this, Brownmiller argues that when a

victim survives the physical trauma of rape, his/her emotional reaction may take many forms:

she/he may cry, scream or tremble; she/he may be rigidly composed; she/he may smile

inappropriately or tell the story with bursts of laughter. On one hand, there is no uniform

response to a rape, or a uniform time for recovery. On the other hand, it has been well-accepted

that many victims of rape do not report the assault. Rape, as it historically has been understood,

include four basic elements: (1) vaginal intercourse; (2) it is between a man and a woman who is

not his wife; (3) it is achieved by force or a threat of severe bodily harm; and (4) it is without

consent. All four elements negatively affect the way in which to address a case of rape. In fact,

they lay out a “rape script” against the crime itself. These contribute to the silence of the victims

because they see themselves as having no support from a legal point of view. However, this so-

called “silence reaction to rape” occurs when victims do not report the crime to anyone; even

more, she or he has not yet dealt with the feelings and reactions of the incident. Brownmiller has

a different take on this “silence reaction.” She points out,

36 Ibid, p. 43



While men successfully convinced each other and us that women cry rape with ease and glee, the reality of rape is that victimized women have always been reluctant to report the crime and seek legal justice—because of the shame of public exposure, because of that complex double standard that makes a female feel culpable, even responsible, for any act of sexual aggression committed against her, because of possible retribution from the assailant (once a woman has been raped, the threat of a return engagement understandably looms large), and because women have been presented with sufficient evidence to come to the realistic conclusion that their accounts are received with a harsh cynicism that forms the first line of male defense.37

As I see it, both Joseph and Tamar’s reactions are the same as those of anyone who has dealt

with an incident of this magnitude. The connection that sticks out while closely reading both

accounts is how each aggressor humiliates their victims. As we read, the text shows that Joseph

fled out from the hands of Mrs. Potiphar leaving behind his בגד, “garment” (v. 12) while Tamar

left without her, וכתנת הפסים אשר עליה קרעה, “and tore her garment of diverse colors” (v. 19).

Thus, in each scene both victims are humiliated to the extent of uncovering their nakedness.

Unlike Tamar’s account, Joseph does not aim to defend himself or accuse Mrs. Potiphar’s

actions. His silence somehow is reproduced by the vulnerability of the male body and the

humiliation of running away naked. This, as the Hebrew Bible indicates, is the most terrible

offense for a male dignity. Yet, the “Naked Narrative” in the Bible is a prohibition of Covenant

Laws. The male body must never be seen uncovered. For example, the instances the passages

where the Hebrew Bible mentions a naked body are often follow an immediate curse, either by

God or the naked person (Gen. 3; 9:20-27). In this passage, Noah curses his son Ham because

Ham saw him naked.38 As scholars suggest, the primary points of connection between Noah's

nakedness and the legislation regarding incest in Leviticus is the use of the phrase “uncovering

37 Ibid, Susan Brownmiller, p. 387 38 The NRSV notes that Ham might be guilty of being involve in a homosexual incent (?) with his Father, Noah. The text indicates, “When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son bad one to him…” (Gen. 9:24). If this is the case in this passage then Noah is a victim of a sexual assault committed by his own son. This is, perhaps, as many other instances a taboo of the biblical narrative where the silence is the most common source of male-victim rape.



nakedness” or “seeing nakedness.” I must mention that for the priestly writer, nakedness is a

subtle term, not always to be associated with a sexual framework. However, in the case of Tamar

and Joseph, it is associated within such a frame.

Furthermore, the fact that Joseph kept his silence to the end seems very difficult to

understand. The text indicates that Joseph ran away without his garment while Mrs. Potiphar

cried out loud saying that Joseph had attempted to humiliate her. In fact, Potiphar’s wife accuses

Joseph of trying to rape her. She used the Hebrew term צחק (to mock, sport, and laugh) in the

Piel Imperfect. After this event, Joseph’s master believed the accusation and sends him into

prison. Mr. Potiphar, it is likely, chose that prison because it was the worst punishment for

Joseph’s actions. However, the narrative demonstrates that the fate of Joseph’s imprisonment

shifts from tragedy to success. Somehow, Joseph himself had come to a philosophic acceptance

of his fate for crossing the forbidden barrier, which I cannot comprehend. The issue here is that

Joseph pleas neither guilty nor innocent, instead, he keeps silent and accepts his fate.

Unlike Joseph, Tamar is more outspoken. First, as I stated in the previous section, Tamar

confronted her aggressor twice before he committed the assault, and even afterward she aims to

bring sense to Ammon actions (v. 13). If this is not enough evidence, Tamar goes to Absalom

and accuses Ammon of raping her, although Absalom forces her to kept silence. Again, Tamar as

a wise woman never silences herself. Rather, she is forced by her brother to keep silent. Alice A.

Keefe mentions that Tamar is “sandwiched” between her two brothers; all of them are caught up

in a “web of familial relationships of love, hate, and power” that eventually will destroy them.39

It seems possible that Tamar’s silence is also associated with David’s right to rule his house.

One God and the two fates: how to see the divine agent as a righteous God?

39 Alice A. Keefe, “Rapes of Women/Wars of Men,” Semeia 61, 79-97, ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 28, 2015), p. 87



Prophetic judgment and royal succession shape the meaning of Tamar’s account. As we

know, the rape of Tamar finds its large literary context within the events of chapters 12 and 14.

As I already stated, this unit is charged with a divine punishment for David because he is guilty

of committing adultery with Bathsheba and murdering Uriah. The consequences of David’s

actions result in YHWH’s explicit judgment. However, in the case of Joseph there is no aim to

adjudicate this assertion. The Divine agent is punishing neither Joseph nor Mr. Potiphar, rather it

is Joseph’s fate that leads him to this situation. But the question that one may ask for both

accounts is how to see the divine agent as a righteous God? How to witness justice when

everyone is silent—including YWHW—, and why the narratives of Tamar and Joseph move

toward excessive sexual violence?

On the one hand, the tale of Joseph concludes affirming that ויהי יהוה את־יוסף, “And God

was with Joseph” (Gen. 39:23). In this sense, the fate of Joseph is set to have a successful life

because he overcomes “temptation.” On the other hand, this is not the case of Tamar. She has no

happy ending. Tamar is condemned for life, and perhaps would never find a husband to care for

her. She is submerged into a male power dynamic. The writer, on his part, takes Tamar out of the

scene in a wandering state, ותשם ידה על־ראשה ותלך הלוך הוזעק, “and laid her hand on her head, and

went on crying” (2 Sam. 13:19). The question that any reader may ask here is where is God?

Why did God not prevent this crime? Perhaps it is necessary to push beyond the assumption that

“God is always in control of our fate.” Sometimes, we often repeat to ourselves the same

expression “nothing would happen,” meaning that somehow God is our insurance policy.

Furthermore, the fate of Tamar can be summarized by saying that Tamar, at the request

of her father, goes from the place of safety to the danger zone (Ammon’s house), where she is

deprived of her humanity and rejected to a state of wandering homelessness until she finally



finds what seems to be a safe zone (David’s house). But that place comes with a big price: her

own silence. Then, one can understand that women are condemned to have unsuccessful lives.

When seeing both accounts as parallel, I can say that females seem to not overcome tragedies as

males do. They are not set to have a successful life.

By the same token, the act of rape itself and the post-rape responses of David and

Potiphar, lead to a misunderstanding of justice. Both David and Potiphar seem to not have taken

any side in their own matter. The silence of David and Potiphar indicates that they are in fact not

in control of their own houses. Of course, David and Potiphar are tied up by the love for each

aggressor (Ammon and Mrs. Potiphar). Robert Barron argues that David’s silence of Ammon’s

plans making him complicit in his son’s crime.40 If one reads between the lines we can discover

that David, perhaps, tries to cover Ammon’s crime. The text indicates, “[David] became very

angry, but he would not punish his son Ammon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn”

(vv. 21). It seems that David’s love for Ammon made him blind, and therefore makes him a bad

parent. In my judgment of this passage I can say that David acted wrongly. Yes, letting children

get away with out punishment makes them an easy target for evil to control them. Ammon got

away from his crime. But David’s lack of parenting creates another problem among his sons.

Absalom rises against his brother in order to “bring justice” to Tamar. However, I question the

fact that Absalom waited two years to act in revenge towards Ammon. The text is not clear, but

one could assume that his “vengeance” has nothing to do with Tamar’s rape.

Conclusion

The lack of attention granted to male rape victims is alarming, and perhaps challenging to

those who would aim to investigate this issue further. My ambition in writing this paper has

40 Robert Barron, 2 Samuel, (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2015), p. 125



been: first, to bring male sexual victimization out of the margins, and to give a face to those few

footnotes in an article or book publication. The sexual assaults of men are real and it happens

more often that what we can describe. Secondly, I wanted to demonstrate that male sexual

assaults challenge our understanding of the conceptualization of rape. And finally, I want to

show my face as part as those few footnotes, as a victim of rape myself.

Further, this paper reveals that there is an indirect but significant difference between the

Hebrew-biblical concept חזק and the contemporary notion of “rape.” As I mentioned, “rape” in

the modern sense denotes, among other things, the abuse of another through engaging in a non-

consensual sexual act that is perpetrated by the use of intimidation, domination, subjugation

and/or violence. As I demonstrated, both accounts are structured in the same way. In fact, each

victim has similar responses to their aggressors. However, a major distinction that I encounter

between the accounts is the males have a divine support that aims them to overcome tragedies

and turn their fates into success stories. This divine aid is not seemed in females’ tragedies. As I

stated early, females seems to be condemn forever.

Beyond the paragraph above, it is clear that the above reading of Genesis 39 and 2

Samuel 13 suggests that, as far as the notion of rape is concerned, Joseph and Tamar are victims

of their own fates one which they cannot escape from. By the same token, the behavior of both

men and women in a pre-rape and post-rape situation is a critical area that deserves more study

and we must engage the conversation by discussing both male and female sexual assault equally.

Moreover, as Bennett Capers states in his article, “Real Rape Too,” I aim to conclude

that, aside from a few exceptions, scholars have also acquiesced in the silence around males’

sexual assault and incestuous rape. For example, the discussion among scholars is driven by the

notion that males are the perpetrator and females are the victims of a sexual assault or rape, but



there is no mention of males being the victims of a rape crime. Capers states that the leading

casebook on sexuality and the law, Sexuality, Gender, and the Law, similarly discusses female-

victim rape but not male-victim rape, and other law books repeat the same silence. Therefore, our

task must be to open the table for discussion and allow each victim, regardless their gender, race,

and social status, to speak their story. The Church must not acquiesce to silence or look

elsewhere. In fact, we, as people of God, are called to free the oppressed among us.

Documents

RAPE CULTURE: MALES AND FEMALES SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF JOSEPH AND TAMAR Genesis 39 \u0026 II Samuel 13:1 – 22