Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Someone needs to add a Wikipedia article on Aramaic Primacy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
For those that don't know, <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- w --> is an open source encyclopedia on the net, and an invaluable, editable tool on the net.

Currently, there is no article on "Aramaic Primacy" yet. Someone should make one. Also, there is a short article on the Peshitta claiming it was written by Rabbula. Certainly an update of that article is due by one of the experts here.

The main criteria for writing articles is to use the "neutral point of view" but view details yourselves for those who are best qualified to edit articles of relevance to people on <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- w -->.
I put a note already to point people to this website and the free e-book on Chris' website.
I started a stub article on "Aramaic Primacy."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

However, it has been classified as needing work on the "neutral point of view." Part of the problem is that I can't find websites or arguments that can be linked that represent a contrary point of view to balance the article.

Perhaps listing some of the Church Fathers who made statements about the language would help. I'd need references, but I think Origen made comments about believing some of the NT was originally written in Greek.
I'm not sure if I inspired the changes, but someone has been changing articles such as ones on "Bible" and "New Testament" at Wikipedia and are violating the principles of NPOV (Neutral Point of View). It is enough for those articles to state that there is a minority opinion that the NT was originally written in Aramaic, and then have a link to the Aramaic Primacy article.

The point of such open source encylcopedias is to state the opinions of every side of contentious issues, not to say that "X is a fact" even if it is.

The "Aramaic Primacy" article is currently an example of how to write and acknowledge both points of view. It is not to give every argument and persuade by itself. The Peshitta and Rabbulas articles could actually use some updates to acknowledge how the Aramaic Primacy opinion disagrees with parts of what is stated.
Dear, carltonh
how can we post the article in the Wikipedia, who should we contact to?
I think that akhan Paul Younan is good enough to express the views of the COE concerning the PeshittA and PeshittO. The people need to know the difference.
Please people do not put so much pressure on Paul. I shall go there and add info on Rabulla from my book, which was taken from info paul gave originally to us.


It is done:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... _of_Edessa</a><!-- m -->

It would be helpful if you would read the Neutral Point of View article <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->. Your addition is not in the proper form, but can be modified to be so. It is important to not use Wikipedia to argue for or against views, but merely state the outline of the views along with external links for more info.
Do you mean to say that no facts are allowed? I don't understand the neutral POV, so here's what we can do. Edit it to be whatever you like. As long as you keep the points that Meph da evan is Old Syriac and that Peshitta is used by both major Churches even after the split, I will be happy <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Chris, let him do what he wants.