Women at Work in the Deuteronomistic History - International Voices ...

THE CHALLENGE OF STUDYING WORKING WOMEN | 25
What are the reasons for positing a difference between both lexemes? The
first reason, although a minor one, is the economy of words of the Bible. Why
add “person” when the participle is enough? Secondly, Naomi Steinberg’s work
on הנמלא, הנמלא השׁא and תמה־תשׁא (all terms usually translated “widow”)
makes me think that, eventually, a different meaning or at least a clearer
gradation will be discovered for other constructions. 14 Finally, once the
suspicion that there is a difference is on one’s mind, one notices certain trends. I
am aware of the danger of circular reasoning here, and thus, to be on the safer
side, I call them only “trends” and submit my hypotheses hoping for further
discussion and, eventually, for a clearer understanding. Seven examples follow,
not all equally weighty, on these forms:
SEVEN CASES OF SYNTACTICAL VARIATION
הנוז השׁא and הנוז — “Loose Women” and “Prostitutes” 15
• Legal material uses הנוז (a harlot’s wage or a dog’s price as vow
payments to the temple, Deut 23:19). 16
• Pay for sex. The term “wages” (ןנתא) only appears associated with a
הנוז, never with הנוז השׁא or with any other professional, male or female.
• As term of comparison, הנוז appears in stories or proverbs comparing
with another person/s, except for the “הנוז השׁא’s forehead” comparison of Jer
3:3.
14 Naomi Steinberg proves that these three terms denote women whose husbands are dead, yet they
convey different categories of “widows.” Naomi Steinberg, “Romancing the Widow: The Economic
Distinctions between the ´almānâ, the ´iššâ-´almānâ and the ´ēšet-hammēt,” in God's Word for Our
World: Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries, Volume I (ed. J. Harold Ellens, Deborah
L. Ellens, Rolf P. Knierim, and Isaac Kalimi; 2 volumes; JSOTSup; London: T&T Clark, 2004, 327–
46. The version quoted here is from Women and Property in Ancient Near Eastern and
Mediterranean Societies: Conference Proceedings, Center for Hellenistic Studies, Harvard
University. Edited by Deborah Lyons & Raymond Westbrook. Center for Hellenic Studies, Trustees
for Harvard University, 2005, n. p. Cited 25 Nov 2010. Online: http://www.chs.harvard
.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=1219.
15 These points and most of the texts mentioned here are further studied in chapter 7, so here only an
outline of my arguments is offered. The term appears both with full and defective spelling; in all
DtrH instances it is fully spelled, except for both occurrences in 1 Kings. In general I have used the
full spelling in order to differentiate the participle from the stem.
16 The only other lexemes for female occupations in the legal corpora are: i. those for slaves,
including sabbatical rest, manumission of debt slaves, non-manumission of slave-wives, etc.; the
right to eat during the land’s sabbath (Lev 25:6); sex with a slave (Lev 19:20); and ii. terms such as
השׁדק, תובא and others of (male and female) functionaries of forbidden non-Yahwistic practices
(Deut 23:18; Lev 19:31; 20:6, etc.).