The Emphatic Article ה and the Origin of Nomina Sacra

[Secret Alias]

There might be the odd chance that someone with greater knowledge than me might read this and give me some insight - the 'missing link' I am looking for - to complete my paper. That's why I am positing it here. I know there is a far greater likelihood I get some stupid comment that has nothing to do with any of this which will make me regret putting this out there. In the odd chance that an expert in Aramaic reads this and comes up with some example I haven't thought of ...

I demonstrated that Samaritan Aramaic appropriates the Hebrew איש as a reference to the divine Man. The Samaritan Targum calls the man who wrestles with Jacob אישה. Similarly, where Exodus 23:1 reads “as for this Moses the man (משה האיש) that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him,” the Samaritan Targum renders “Moses the man” as “the Man Moses” (אישה משה). It isn’t so much the inversion of word order that interests us here but what Tal refers to as “Hebrew loan with Aramaic marker of determination.” In Aramaic, the definite article, also called the emphatic or determinative state, is a suffixed -a (usually א but can also be ה). It is the equivalent of the prefixed ה in Biblical Hebrew. In the Samaritan Targum’s use of אישה, the ה suffix added to the Hebrew loan word is used to designate a ‘special kind of איש’ – an angel or divine emissary. In virtually every place in the Pentateuch in which Philo understands there to be Man the divine Logos, the Samaritan Targum has אישה.

What’s interesting is that אישה isn’t the only divine name that the Samaritans preserve with the Aramaic emphatic article. It is well known that observant Jews avoid profaning the divine name Yahweh by employing in its place השמ = ‘the Name.’ The Samaritans however, in keeping with what we saw with אישה, use שמה which is pronounced shema (rather than sheme i.e. ‘His name.’ Much controversy swirled in Jewish witnesses to this practice because they were convinced that שמה wasn’t a reverential substitute for Yahweh but a second god that was dear to the Samaritan community. שמה was referenced as ‘Ashema’ in rabbinic literature and likened to the second power reverenced by Samaritans. Ibn Ezra writes that the Samaritans reworded the opening verse of the Bible to read, “In the beginning Ashima created heaven and earth” rather than God. The re-interpretation is as old as earliest Christianity and the Disputation between Jason and Papiscus and made its way to the earliest Church Fathers.

It would seem we have one of two possibilities to consider – namely that the rabbinic testimonials are reporting on the Samaritan reverence of the second power in heaven or – as modern Samaritans would have it – they are misunderstanding or misrepresentations of Samaritan monotheistic practices. Either way, the emphatic article ה was used to distinguish ‘divine nouns’ from ordinary nouns. This is the same function that the overbar serves in nomina sacra. It would seem we have our precursor for the overbar that transformed ις into ι̅ς̅ – that is, a nomina sacra. While I have found no other examples of an overbar functioning in this manner, it would appear, given the mirroring of texts and terminology, אישה is the Samaritan Aramaic equivalent of ι̅ς̅.

[Secret Alias]

From the professor just now:

Your supposition is right . אישה seems to be an aramaized Hebrew word. And indeed, it is used in the Aramaic emphatic state when special persons are involved. Nevertheless, it is also used when no supernatural powers are meant. Such is Deut 27:15 (var.). As for שמה and השם, they are a kind of pluralis majestatis, attributed exclusively to God (I don’t remember who claimed once that it is rather a generalized vocative).

The "your supposition is right" is not related to my theory but another question.

[mlinssen]

There might be the odd chance that someone with greater knowledge than me might read this and give me some insight - the 'missing link' I am looking for - to complete my paper. That's why I am positing it here. I know there is a far greater likelihood I get some stupid comment that has nothing to do with any of this which will make me regret putting this out there. In the odd chance that an expert in Aramaic reads this and comes up with some example I haven't thought of ...

(...)

Either way, the emphatic article ה was used to distinguish ‘divine nouns’ from ordinary nouns. This is the same function that the overbar serves in nomina sacra. It would seem we have our precursor for the overbar that transformed ις into ι̅ς̅ – that is, a nomina sacra. While I have found no other examples of an overbar functioning in this manner, it would appear, given the mirroring of texts and terminology, אישה is the Samaritan Aramaic equivalent of ι̅ς̅.

https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum- ... &tla=C5875

ϣⲏⲙ S CF13748 Subst. m.

Scriptorium tag: N
Known entity types:
1. (En) sign, omen (?)
(Fr) oracle
(De) Zeichen, Omen

I recognised the word of course, it's shem in Coptic.
Not to be confused with the exact same word that means little.
No shema or anything the like, alas

Not very useful to your case I think, although I am of course very enthusiastic about Samaritan origins for anything behind IS.
The anti-Judean/-Judaic stance is perfectly legit from a Samarian / Samaritan perspective. North and South - every single country on the face of the earth like has their own version of it

[Secret Alias]

Case in point. Being a pessimist makes life bearable it seems. Thanks for the blah blah blah.

[mlinssen]

Case in point. Being a pessimist makes life bearable it seems. Thanks for the blah blah blah.

You're welcome! Your dreams always come true, it's called self-fulfilling prophecy I believe.
Seriously though, I thought your nonsense was deserving of some counter nonsense for a change, they're always so lonely out here

I'm glad I could make your day!

[Secret Alias]

Alright. Well I will stop posting here. Do me a favor though post a selfie so I can see how ugliness motivates stupidity please. Another one of my theories.

[Secret Alias]

I close with this email I received from Florentin:

The definite article (in Samaritan Aramaic) is “common” in the sense that it usually denotes something known (contrary to eastern dialects) but rare.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Is this paper gonna go to a peer reviewed journal? Just curious.

[Secret Alias]

With any luck.

With footnotes and everything.

[jjirah]

Hi...I Am new to this site...I just clicked on this link because it came up in in my first "forays"...I Am not an educated "intellectual"...but I Am willing to learn...what is the exact point that you are trying to establish her?...do not the "Gnostics" have a problem with Moses, Jacob, and the Jewish teachings?...when Moses "broke" the Word of God, wasn't Moses behaving like Jesus?...I Am sorry, but I Am just trying to determine the Reason for the correct grammar and understanding that you are asking for. Peace -john...P.S....this is basically a test on my "baptism" here on this site