Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

CONCUBINE

A female whose status in relation to her sole legitimate sexual partner, a nonslave male, is something other than primary wife. Heb. pîlegeš seems clearly to be a word of non-Semitic origin. Consequently, attempts to compare the term with alleged parallel statuses in the cultures represented by those languages are of dubious value. The fact that there are clear cognates in Greek (pallakís/pallakḗ) and Latin (paelex) suggests that the word is Indo-european in origin, borrowed into all three languages from an as yet unevidenced source language (e.g., Philistine).

Some scholars maintain that the word originally was applied to non-Israelite women. The view that a pîlegeš was the female partner in a matrilocal, so-called sadīqa or beena marriage, has been largely abandoned. This view was based on the premises that matrilocal residence is an indicator of matriarchy, a less-evolved form of social organization than patriarchy, and everywhere preceded patriarchy, and was posited by analogy with alleged pre-Islamic connubial customs. The biblical texts typically cited in support of this view (Judg. 8:29-31; 19:1-30) have been successfully explained otherwise.

Live debate remains about whether concubines were of slave or “free” status. Scholars have noted that Bilhah is termed both a slave (e.g., Gen. 29:29; 30:3) and a concubine (35:22). Similarly, Gideon/Jerubbaal’s unnamed concubine (Judg. 8:31) is also referred to as his slave (9:18). The Levite of Judg. 19–20 once refers to his concubine as a slave (19:19), but contextual considerations point toward understanding this as an instance of deferential speech. Scholars who affirm that concubines were slaves generally understand Exod. 21:7-11 as regulating men’s treatment of their concubines even though pîlegeš is nowhere used in these verses.

Scholars who assert that concubines were not slaves generally center their argument on marriage terminology, noting that the language used to describe a concubine’s marital status parallels the language used of “free” wives. Both are taken (lāqaḥ) by their prospective marriage partners (e.g., Judg. 19:1; Gen. 26:34), and a concubine’s partner enters into a son-in-law/father-in-law relationship with her father (Judg. 19:4-5). Keturah is explicitly both wife (Gen. 25:1) and concubine (1 Chr. 1:32). Also, 2 Sam. 20:3 applies the term “widowhood” (ʾalmānûṯ) to 10 of David’s concubines. Some scholars speculate that concubines were of a lower status than primary wives because no brideprice (mōhar) was paid for them, or they brought no dowry (šillûḥîm), or both, but no biblical text either confirms or denies these speculations.

Sons of concubines inherited paternal land at the father’s discretion (compare Gen. 25:6, where the sons of Abraham’s concubines are given gifts but no property, with the tradition that the four sons of Bilhah and Zilpah — Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher — were allotted land by their father Jacob/Israel). Concubines were part of the inheritance that was passed down to sons (Gen. 35:22; 2 Sam. 3:8; 16:22; 1 Kgs. 2:17-22; cf. 2 Sam. 12:8, where issues of inheritance and intercourse with concubines are juxtaposed).

To infer typical Israelite family structure from, e.g., portrayals of Jacob’s household in Genesis, implicitly fails to take formal and functional considerations seriously. The fact that the word pîlegeš is nowhere mentioned in the legal collections of Exodus and Deuteronomy, nor in the lists of proscribed sexual relationships in Lev. 18, 20, , should further caution against too quickly positing that this form of connubial arrangement was widely practiced. Various factors lead to the conclusion that kings in ancient Israel had concubines, but beyond that it is difficult to say.

Bibliography. M. Bal, Death and Dissymmetry (Chicago, 1988); L. M. Epstein, “The Institution of Concubinage Among the Jews,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 6 (1934-35): 153-88; D. R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage (New York, 1953); J. Morgenstern, “Beena Marriage (Matriarchat) in Ancient Israel and its Historical Implications,” ZAW 47 (1929): 91-110; “Additional Note on ‘Beena Marriage (Matriarchat) in Ancient Israel,’ ” ZAW 49 (1931): 46-58; E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (London, 1944); C. Rabin, “The Origin of the Hebrew Word Pīlegeš,” JJS 25 (1974): 353-64.

Peggy L. Day

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

CONCUBINE

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)