In article ,
David Rance writes:
| On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| | Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly not
| | mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a separate
| | language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What branch
| | of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?
|
| Well, I have never heard THAT before! All of the references I have
| seen give New Testament Aramaic and Old Testament Hebrew the sort of
| relationship that modern German and Old Norse have. I.e. a sort of
| avuncular relationship, not even a direct one - let alone calling
| Aramaic merely a dialect of Hebrew!
|
| "Son"/"sohn" means "son" in both German and Old Norse.
|
| But that was just the point I was making, Nick. "Bar" means "son of" in
| both Aramaic and Hebrew. It was Bluebell that said that, 'The term bar
| nasha does not actually mean " Son of man" it means " I think " " this
| one thinks" in the normal parlance of the language.'

My knowledge of Hebrew is minimal, and mine of Aramaic is less, so
I can't say one way or the other. But your statement that Aramaic
is only a dialect of Hebrew is wrong, as is your assumption that
"bar nasha" necessarily means the same in the two languages.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.