Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 2 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-22 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | Journal of Hebrew scriptures |
| Volume | 12 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2012 |
Bibliographical note
Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Female slave vs female slave: המאand החפש in the Hebrew Bible'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver