the title of son of man,

[gbausc]

Shlama Zion,

Joseph Fitzmyer neglects to account for two verses in The NT where The Peshitta uses Barah d'enasha and the Greek has the anarthrous (no def. articles) "uios anthropou" . Those verses are John 5:27 and Hebrews 2:6. Where did the Peshitta get the full form Barah d'enasha in those places ?

This sort of disparity is better explained by Peshitta primacy
than Greek primacy. There are many other examples I could show in Aramaic-Greek word comparisons in which the Greek NT, as in The LXX, has less info. than the corresponding Aramaic text; For instance , in the Gospel of Luke, The Critical Greek text has 88 occurences of the name Ihsous (Jesus), while The Peshitta has 175 !
Did a translator double the number he found in The Greek text, or did a translator drop 50% he found in the Aramaic original ? Which is more likely- to add 100% of these names into a translation or to drop 50% in a translation where the grammatical sense is not altered ?
I have found many such examples, though not as extreme as this.
The LXX demonstrates the same relationship toward The Hebrew OT as The Greek NT bears toward the Peshitta NT .

"Bar Nasha" has the same meaning as "Bar Nash". One is the emphatic form and the other an absolute; both mean "a man". When has it ever been otherwise ? Joseph seems to have made a dogmatic conclusion based on what he admits is speculation. The facts can as easily (better, in my opinion) be explained by viewing the Greek as a translation of The Peshitta.

Burktha w'shlama,

Dave Bauscher