Talk:Peshitta

Merge
I have suggested and tagged that the article Pshitta should be merged with this article. I reckon that 'Peshitta' is the better name for the merged article in an English-language encyclopedia.

Excuse me Gareth...for some reason, when I loaded the page, the 'e' in Peshitta was conspicuously absent and I had previously been struck by the reference to 'straight'...that said and I hope it wasn't intended as the gendered discourse that it seemed but I would not be surprised which is why I'm bothering to comment at all, I would certainly appreciate scholarly attention from someone who is able to give articles the scholarly and theological attention that they deserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.235.9 (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no disagreement, I intend to start copying material from 'Pshitta' into 'Peshitta', and reordering/rewriting to make a clean, readable article. If everyone is happy with this, particularly contributors to 'Pshitta', I intend to turn 'Pshitta' into a redirect to 'Peshitta'.
 * Gareth Hughes 11:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The merge and rewrite has been completed. I hope that everyone is happy with the way it looks. I've attempted to make this article follow a more academic tone. I realise that there is a popular stream of literature about Aramaic primacy (which has its own page) and the language of Jesus, but I felt that this should be relegated to an alternative POV within a more mainstream article. I am still sceptical about a couple of the links here.
 * Gareth Hughes 12:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed another external link to an Aramaic primacy site. The idea of Aramaic primacy is important to some, and just plain trendy to others; it has very little academic support. There are quite a few external links to sites that support Aramaic primacy (I discover a new one every week!). There are more links to these sites than there are links to sites that support the academic consensus. I shall keep on removing links to these sites until someone puts forward a good reason why yet another one should be added here. Gareth Hughes 11:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retention of 'Hebrew' Aramaic passage in the book of Daniel
Is the book of Daniel in the Peshitta the same version as in the 'Hebrew' version? I understand that in the 'Hebrew' Bible the introduction is in Hebrew and the larger part of the book is in Aramaic. Meursault2004 14:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. Have a look at the article on Aramaic language to see more of the history of the language. Biblical Aramaic is a bit of an odd language: it is based on the Imperial Aramaic of the Persian (Achaemenid) Empire, but its vocalisation (or pointing) reflects the later state of Masoretic pronunciation. The Peshitta is written in Middle Syriac, and, although its Old Testament is based on the Jewish Targums, translation between two very different Aramaics still has to take place. Gareth Hughes 10:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. Many thanks for your explanation! Meursault2004 16:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delisted GA
This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 09:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In particular, I notice the New Testasment section contains lengthy discussion that appears to be arguing for the supremacy of the Peshitta but includes no reference to historical or scholarly writings. Extended arguments perhaps don't belong in an encyclopedia?

Unsourced simplified standpoints
There are not many inline sources given in this article. This complicates checking some statements, which for me appears a bit simplified. Two instances:
 * 1) The question of whether the targumim or Septuaginta texts form the base for the Peshitta Old Testament.  Our text claims that formerly Targum was thought to be the basis, but nowadays scolars agree that Septuaginta was.  However, our text also claims that there are some language and context similarities between the targumim and the Peshitta.  This is more compatible with the thought that both sets of texts were employed to some extent.  It would be rather nice to be able to see how our sources treat this.
 * 2) The question of the primacy of the Greek or the Aramaic text. Our article in several instances present matters as if only two possibilities would exist: Either all four gospels are based on Greek original, or all four of them are based on Aramaic ones.  Now, the opinion mostly seen among the history of religion scolars is that Mark was originally written in Aramaic, but the other three in Greek.  (This is e.g. claimed in Nationalencyklopedin.)  This would again make other solutions possible here, as the Mark in the Peshitta being at least partly based directly on an Aramaic source, but the others being translated.  (Of course, there are also other possibilities, e.g., that an original Aramaic Mark was translated into Greek, and later re-translated into Aramaic.)  Again, it would be nice to be able to go to the article sources, and see how they discuss the various possibilities. JoergenB (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peshitta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525185517/http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol8No2/HV8N2Juckel.html to http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/vol8no2/HV8N2Juckel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

urmia
What is the sense in having a link to an srticle about Lake Urmia when the paragraph is about the Urmia BIBLE. None. 71.178.191.144 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Link to Lake Urmia is removed, with a note that the connection is being questioned. JohnThorne (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it also standard for churches not in Roman Catholic communion?
Is it also standard for churches not in Roman Catholic communion? E.g, Assyrian Church, and some of the St. Thomas churches in India? I'm referring to, "...in the Syriac tradition, Including the Maronite Church,[1] the Chaldean Catholic Church,[2] and the Syriac Catholic Church.[3]" Acwilson9 (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Peshitta is inherently the standard Bible of any church whose liturgical language is Syriac, including churches outside of Roman Catholicism. It seems the user who listed those churches in the lead was very particular about which ones he included. I am of the opinion that listing specific churches in the lead is redundant, as it can be seen from the article "Syriac tradition" (where the sentence originally ended) which churches are included, and so use the Peshitta. Parabellus (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Typo, possibly in cited ref?
In the lead, quoting Metzger: That it was not Rubbula has been proved by Voobus's researches.

Is "Rubbula" a typo? Might it be "Rabbula"? See Rabbula Gospels. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)