I think another way to look at the text is through the lens of the Documentary Hypothesis. This "encounter" was in Gen. 34. That whole chapter is a J text intrusion on a E discussion. Gen 33 is all E; and the first few verses of Gen 35 is E. So why is this story being dropped into the text? The J text moves from Dinah to Joseph (E contributes to the Jospeh story). I think when you step back and look at these sorts of details the alleged rape seems more and more like the issue was intermarriage. In that period the girl marrying at 12 would not be unusual, sadly. Older men falling in love with younger women is an old story too. Add up all the arguments and it does seem like the rape interpretation is a priestly intrusion in a story about primitive tribal thinking. The priestly interpretation is meant to reinforce obedience; where the love story interpretation suggests free thinking rejection of tribalism. All of which is really to say that I agree with Richard Friedman that all we can know for sure is the family disapporoved, but of what we cannot be sure.
I think another way to look at the text is through the lens of the Documentary Hypothesis. This "encounter" was in Gen. 34. That whole chapter is a J text intrusion on a E discussion. Gen 33 is all E; and the first few verses of Gen 35 is E. So why is this story being dropped into the text? The J text moves from Dinah to Joseph (E contributes to the Jospeh story). I think when you step back and look at these sorts of details the alleged rape seems more and more like the issue was intermarriage. In that period the girl marrying at 12 would not be unusual, sadly. Older men falling in love with younger women is an old story too. Add up all the arguments and it does seem like the rape interpretation is a priestly intrusion in a story about primitive tribal thinking. The priestly interpretation is meant to reinforce obedience; where the love story interpretation suggests free thinking rejection of tribalism. All of which is really to say that I agree with Richard Friedman that all we can know for sure is the family disapporoved, but of what we cannot be sure.