Female slave vs female slave: ʼmh and s pḥh in the HB
This study of אָמָה and שִׁפְחָה shows that there is no inherent distinction in meaning between the two terms, due to the intertwining of context of use and text genre. Both are used for slave wives in Genesis, in legislation contexts, in deferential language by women, in property lists, and in rela...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publié: |
2012
|
| Dans: |
The journal of Hebrew scriptures
Année: 2012, Volume: 12, Pages: 1-21 |
| Classifications IxTheo: | HB Ancien Testament |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | This study of אָמָה and שִׁפְחָה shows that there is no inherent distinction in meaning between the two terms, due to the intertwining of context of use and text genre. Both are used for slave wives in Genesis, in legislation contexts, in deferential language by women, in property lists, and in relation to the master or mistress. Yet patterns of use occur. אָמָה predominates in legislation and marriage contexts; and שִׁפְחָה predominates in Genesis and when generally designating female slaves. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1203-1542 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: The journal of Hebrew scriptures
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5508/jhs.2012.v12.a2 |