HoW TAMAR’S VEIL BECAME JoSEPH’S CoAT 171 details, the evidence that the insertion of the Tamar and Judah story was part of a larger editorial project does appear sound. Thus, there are not only clear connections between the Tamar and Amnon story and the Tamar and Judah story, but there are also indica- tions that the insertion of the Tamar and Judah story into the Joseph saga has resulted in further editorial activity in this broader Joseph narrative. Indications of influence do not end there, however, as there is also evidence of direct connections between the Tamar and Amnon story of Samuel and the non-Tamar-and-Judah portions of the Joseph narrative. G. Auld has observed some striking connections in this re- gard. For instance, in Genesis 34 the rape of Dinah by Shechem is de- scribed in terms identical to those describing the rape of Tamar by Amnon in 2 Samuel 13. In both cases, the act is a “folly” (hlbn) that should not “be done” (hX[y) in Israel (larXyb; Gen 34,7; 2 Sam 13,12). Both acts are also further described as a “disgrace” (hprx; Gen 34,14; 2 Sam 13,13). Even the language used to describe the assault is iden- tical; both Amnon and Shechem are said to have committed their as- saults using the phrases “he forced her” (hn[yw) and “he bedded her” (hta bkXyw) (Gen 34,2; 2 Sam 13,14). So many lexical commonalities in such a short space strongly suggest some sort of literary connection between the two accounts. Even more pertinent for present purposes are Auld’s observations concerning Genesis 37. The verb “to hate” (anX) appears several times in both the Joseph story (Gen 37,4.5.8) and the Tamar and Amnon story (2 Sam 13,15 [2x].22). The verb used in Gen 37,34 to describe Jacob’s “mourning” (lbath) is rare in the Pentateuch but common in Samuel, including 2 Sam 13,37. To these instances Auld adds several other suggestive parallels between the broader Joseph and Samuel narratives 26 — including the fact that the only two places in which one encounters the phrase ~ysp(h) tntk are in Genesis 37 and 2 Samuel 13. Assessing the various possibilities, Auld concludes, like Rendsburg and Ho above, that the direction of dependence is from the Samuel narratives to the Genesis stories, but he suggests that one should go even further and concludes that one should “interpret all these stories” [i.e., the Joseph narrative] “as reworkings of stories in Samuel” 27. While I would hesitate to go so far as to argue that the Joseph sto- ries originated from reworkings of Samuel material, I do think that 26 For a full list, see AuLD, “Tamar between David, Judah, and Joseph”, 214-217. 27 AuLD, “Tamar between David, Judah, and Joseph”, 221.