Peshitta was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: August 9, 2006
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
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)