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...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
The National Library of Canada
2012
|
| En: |
The journal of Hebrew scriptures
Año: 2012, Volumen: 12, Páginas: 1-21 |
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | HB Antiguo Testamento |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Sumario: | 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 |
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: The journal of Hebrew scriptures
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5508/jhs.2012.v12.a2 |