Although I'm not sure that they lost their portion due to the massacre since the tribe of Simon did get a portion.

Good point. I'm recalling DH's interpretation of someone's commentary, so, accuracy not guaranteed.

There had been some speculation about an actual tribe of Jews found in Ethiopia about 25 years ago who had been cut off from the rest of the world for over 1000 years possibly being one of the lost tribes, but I don't know whether that was ever resolved.

They are officially recognized as Jews (whatever that means) but I don't know about the lost tribe angle. I read a review of something ( Aross the [Something] River I wanna say) that mentions some people living on the Indian subcontinent that go out of their way to make bread (they usually eat rice and not bread) every Spring so they can eat unleavened bread, also specualated to be a Lost tribe, but I just read the review and not the book so I don't really know.

Anyway, to be a little more on-topic, from what I understand, which, as noted above, may not be that correct, the traditional explanation for Rachel smuggling the idols away from Laban is that she was saving him from his idolatry. I think Diamant's version (with the women's religion not really being Jacob's religion, as such) is a bigger change from "canon" than the "rape".

Surely that could be clearer. Need more coffee.

---

There had been some speculation about an actual tribe of Jews found in Ethiopia about 25 years ago who had been cut off from the rest of the world for over 1000 years possibly being one of the lost tribes, but I don't know whether that was ever resolved.

I know they have done Y chromosome analysis on Africans (I can't specifically remember if they were in Ethiopia or not), where they had the the same specific markers modern day Kohaines do (but not other modern day Jewish people). So, they wouldn't be lost tribes, per se. Years ago, I remember hearing some theory some [Celts or Brits, I disremember] are a lost tribe. When Werenro was introduced in The Red Tent, it brought it to mind.

---

WRT the Levites not having an inheritance among the tribes of Israel, and without going so far as to pick up the Bible and actually check facts, the story as I remember it is almost as lovely as the massacre at Schechem. During the Israelite's sojourn in the wilderness, Balaam of Peor (he of the ass) had the bright idea of tempting the Israelites away from the Almighty with Moabite women. When this idea began to work, the tribes assembled to address the issue. While they were talking, a few Israelites came into the encampment with Moabites on their arm, and a handful of Levites, zealous for the Lord, slew them where they stood. Because of this, God's anger was appeased and he accepted the tribe of Levi as substitutes for all the firstborn sons (human or animal) that were his due. The Levites were to be his portion, to serve him in perpetuity, and he was to be their portion, in lieu of the acreage all the other tribes received.

---

Sigh.

That sounds right, Mark Eddy. I'm gonna quit trying to remember things, I'm not very good at it.

---

In fact, I find myself believing Dinah/Diamant's story on such a deep level that I want it to be true, even if it (probably, strictly) isn't.

I cried when I finished this book. Even though I was relieved Dinah's long struggle was over, I didn't want to stop hearing her voice.

The ending knocked me out. Perhaps ‘tis one of the most lovely endings I’ve ever read. I loved that Dinah blessed me, the reader, with shade and sweet water, and thanked me for attending to her tale.

---

The ending was good, I was pleased that she found peace and joy in her life. Still, I only finished it because I would have felt like a complete poseur for talking about it in here.

For me, the theme seemed to be "a woman's life is hard, but there are joys." And I know that story. The vision of life in Egypt was fascinating, because I've always been interested in Ancient Egypt, but I didn't feel like I learned anything new or that Dinah gained any insights beyond the usual a woman learns as she goes through life.

It may be something that I've suspected about myself before. I have no real sense of myself as being part of a universal sisterhood of women. I've even been accused of not liking women very much. Red Tent was a good story beautifully told, but I felt no resonance in it for me.

---

Hmm. I didn't feel a lot of resonance with Dinah, either, but I wasn't really aware of a lack of resonance. I mean, I didn't feel like I was being hit over the head with a sisters-across-time anvil or anything. I really like stories that change the POV of a known story ( Grendel, Wicked, etc.), though I didn't really know Dinah's story before reading The Red Tent , there was enough that was familiar to ring those bells for me.

---

-t- you were right. Apparently Simon didn't get a portion in Israel and neither did Levi, so what you said earlier about them losing portions because of the Shechem massacre was true.

ION, I finished the book. Will write more later.

---

Later:

First a preface to my comments. As we discussed earlier, today's Jews (of which I am one) consider themselves to be direct descendants of the 12 tribes of Jacob. Consequently, I view many of the individuals who make up the characters in The Red Tent through the rose-colored glasses of family. When I read this book, I found myself having to remind myself that the book is speculative fiction and not meant to me taken as historical fact. It helped that many of the things Diamante writes about contradict their account in the bible (i.e. the 14 years of Jacob's combined labor for Rachel/Leah to 14 months, and the birth of Naphtali to Leah and not Bilhah.) Also I think she alleges that Jacob changed his name to Israel to avoid the infamy of the massacre but the bible mentions his name change after the fight with the Angel in Genesis 32 which was prior to the story of Dinah. So it wasn't too difficult to take the factual accuracy of The Red Tent with a grain of salt.

WRT, the story, I was fascinated by the descriptive naarative for the way of life in that time period: the humanizing of 4 women sharing 1 husband; the relationships between them and their staggered children and the patriarch; the rituals to the various gods and goddesses of the time; the way the characters amassed wealth and prestige.

It was also interesting to see a different take on the events of the bible, not just the rape/seduction of Dinah, but also Jacob's relationship with Laban, the fight with the Angel, the meeting up with Esau, and Joseph's story from sale as slave to vizier of Egypt. In the bible you get a whole bunch of so-and-so beget so-and-sos with regard to Jacob's and Esau's families and it's nice to see those names become actual people with actual stories.

I liked the way Dinah isn't part of the story until after the events of Shechem unfold. Really Dinah is just a device to tell Jacob's story of his wives and children for the first half of the book, which was nice, but it didn't give much depth to Dinah as a character until she first meets her cousin Tobeah (sp?) and experiences anger, frustration and loss.

I did find the characterizations in the book fairly two dimensional. I agree with someone who said upthread that it seemed like men were vilified in the book. But I was okay with that. Books by men often unfairly objectify women, and I see this as sort of the converse. If anything though, I think characters like Jacob and Joseph were made too perfect in the beginning and then made too flawed in the end. I didn't really see any character as "real" until after the massacre and Dinah moved to Egypt.

You know, it's for books like these that I'm glad we do this book club because I'd have never picked this book up on my own.

---

Hm, no resonance or especial fondness of any characters here. I think I liked this book because it was beautifully written. I respond when the author has made me "see" the characters.

I really have no excuse at all for being stalled at the gates of Part II. Except that I'm lazy and distracted by other books and hey, shiny things!

---