This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've made a couple of edits to this new article, including having to remove a whole section that was just full of misconceptions about Syriac. I felt it necessary to flag up factual inaccuracies in this article before going on to weed them out. For example, the article perpetuates the misconception that the Peshitta is a single composition rather than having testaments of very different origin. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is not finished. I wrote only about New Testament because it is field of my interest. The same problem we have in the article Coptic versions of the Bible. I hope someone, who know subject will finish these articles, but if not I will. I prefer gradual editing with gradual improvements. Limitations were made from the point of vieuw of Greek language. It was about usufullness of Syriac translation in reconstruction original Greek text of the New Testament. Perhaps it was not good place for it. Can you explain your point of vieuw? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I can understand that the article is incomplete, but it was full of factual inaccuracies. It started by saying that the Diatessaron 'survived to the present day', which it hasn't. The 'Limitations of Syriac' section just didn't make sense. Of course, Syriac and Greek are very different languages, and every translation has to make minor alterations in the text (most of which are of negligible importance). The section on the rendering names offers some correct information, but offers no coherent synthesis. Overall, there are just too many mistakes for the article to stand without a warning to the reader. At some point, I'll try to make some sense of it. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In Greek language, unlike in Syriac, was possible to use almost every order of words, although there were some preferences, f.e. (Mark 1:9):
εις τον Ιορδανην υπο Ιωανου – Koine Greek
υπο Ιωανου εις τον Ιορδανην – Byzantine Greek Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see any point to that remark. Any translation work will need to make certain changes, including word order. Do you wish to suggest that Syriac is somehow deficient in conveying the semantics of the original? I think you'll need to have very good evidence for such a statement. Anyway, "b-Yordnan men Yohannan" is the Syriac and we change the word order in the same way and make sense, same with English. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)