“read some of the scholarly literature supporting this view”
I looked at the Peshitta chapter in

Arthur Voobus, _Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac_ (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Subsidia Tome 3) (1951), 219pp., 46-60

and didn’t notice any good arguments for an “early fifth century” date for the NT Peshitta.
Perhaps another item in
** you do not have permission to see this link **
would have something.

“hard to believe that anybody seriously thinks that the Diatesseron was untangled to come up with the Peshitta’s 4 gospels”
“Me too”
What do you think came first: Tatian’s Diatesseron in Aramaic, or the Peshitta’s 4 gospels?

“Probably 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation”
How come those ‘Western Five’ were left out of the NT Peshitta? (the canon got closed before any of those books gained acceptance?)

“Vööbus… is not a believer in Peshitta primacy. He believes it is a translation from the Greek, as did Michaelis”
On what basis/ grounds? (“scholarly consensus”?)

“I do have a healthy respect for a scholarly consensus unless and until I hear good arguments against it”
If portions of the Greek NT had syntactical features similar to the LXX’s ‘translation Greek,’ would that be evidence that those Greek NT passages were translated from a semitic language?

“I am not a specialist in Syriac versions of the New Testament”
Are you a specialist in any NT fields, and if so, which?

“That’s your argument for the version of Isaiah 42,2 quoted by Mt 12,19 first appearing in an Aramaic original of Matthew’s gospel and only subsequently being translated into a Greek version?”
Not that I know of.

“There’s no debate about whether or not Jesus spoke Aramaic”
Is there any debate about what language his 12 students: spoke? wrote in?

“That the prayer can thus be retro-translated into a simple but elegant Aramaic or Hebrew version should not be surprising”
Which Lord’s Prayer do you consider more elegant:
the Greek version, or the Aramaic version?

“his book. What does he say?”
I looked thru Vööbus’s book, and just now read the concluding, summarizing chapter “New Light on Old Textual Problems,” and didn’t see any arguments for any of the Aramaic versions being derived from Greek.

While looking for a Mark item, I came across

Johann David Michaelis, _Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (and a Dissertation on the origin and composition of the three first gospels)_ as translated by Herbert Marsh, 4 vols., vol. 2 part 1 (1802), 40+
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Peshito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read; that of Luther, though in some respects inferior to his translation of the Old Testament, holding the second rank. Of all the Syriac authors, with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephrem and BarHebræus, its language is the most elegant and pure, not loaded with foreign words, like the Philoxenian version, and other later writings, and discovers the hand of a master, in rendering those passages, where the two idioms deviate from each other. It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original; and this excellence of style must be ascribed to its antiquity, and to its being written in a city that was the residence of Syrian kings. See Rom. ix. 20. xiii. 1. Heb. vii. 3. 8. Acts v. 37. xix. 39. xxii. 3. xxvii. 3. compared with the first section of the Curæ in Act. Apost. Syr. where I have pointed out the excellent manner in which the the Syriac translator has rendered the Greek phrases, and in the third and sixth section of the Curæ other examples are quoted.

It is true that the Syriac version, like all human productions, is not destitute of faults, and, what is not to be regarded as a blemish, differs frequently from the modern modes of explanation : but I know of none that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence, in cases of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray a weakness and ignorance in the translator; and though in many other translations the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must be ever read with profound veneration.

Several explanations that were necessary for a Greek reader are omitted in the Syriac version, as being useless to a native Syrian: for instance, those of Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani, Matth. xxvii. 46. Ephphatha, Mark vii. 34. Siloam, John ix. 7. Tabitha, Acts ix. 36. Talitha kumi, Mark v. 41. Corban, Mark vii. 11. and Messias, John iv. 25. However, it is uncertain whether this omission is to be attributed to the ancient translator, or to subsequent transcribers. See the Curæ, p. 60.

The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine is so great, as to justify in some respects the assertion, that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spake. The dialect of Jerusalem was East-Aramæan, or, as we call it, Chaldee, and according to this dialect are written the Aramæan words that are found in the Greek Testament, for instance Acts i. 19. 1 Cor. xvi. 22. The Syriac New Testament is written in the same language, but in a different dialect. In Galilee, though West-Aramæan was spoken, that is the dialect of Syria on this side the Euphrates, and of Mesopotamia, yet it was extremely corrupted, as may be gathered from the writings of the Sabii. The Syriac New Testament was certainly not written in this corrupt dialect, but in the purest Mesopotamian: and it is probable that Christ, though educated at Nazareth, used not the dialect of that country, but that of Judæa, which was spoken by Joseph and Mary: at least … and other Aramæan expressions, are not Galilæan but pure Chaldee. The difference between the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode of pronouncing, and if a proper use had been made of this advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages would be made clear, if the words were still on record which Jesus spake with his disciples in the Aramæan language, whether the dialect be called Syriac or Chaldee. But the translator appears not to have been fortunate in rendering passages of this nature, of which I will produce a single instance, Matth. xxviii. 1. … If this had been translated …, every Syrian would have immediately understood it, and it would have naturally led to the explanation that I have given of it in the fifth section of the fourth chapter. But it is translated …, where he has preserved only one half of the Aramæan idiom: and I have frequently observed that, where it is almost unavoidable to render a Syriasm of the original by the same turn of phrase in the version, the translator has retained it, but where it was less obvious, he was not so fortunate as to make the discovery. This circumstance alone affords sufficient evidence, that the Syriac version was not written by one of Christ’s immediate disciples.

We discover sometimes in the Syriac version, a Paronomasia, which was a favourite figure of the Oriental writers: for instance Acts ii. 30. where … is translated …, in reference to the following …, though the same Greek word, in other places, is rendered by … See also Cor. ix. 13. … and …

The mode adopted by the Syriac translator, with respect to the quotations from the Old Testament, deserves a more accurate inquiry than I have had leisure to make. But I have observed, 1. that he discovers sometimes an acquaintance with the Hebrew text: 2. that the quotations, except in the epistle to the Hebrews, correspond not to the text of the Syriac Old Testament in such a manner, as to justify the supposition that they were taken from it.

In the Curæ, in Act. Apost. § vi. p. 73, 74. I have taken notice of certain traces in the Syriac version, which lead to the supposition of its having been made by a native Jew. To the reasons alleged in that treatise, which I submit to the determination of my readers, I will add, that the Syriac translator appears to have been so well acquainted with Palestine, that he must at least have visited that country, for he has frequently restored geographical names in the Greek Testament to their true Oriental orthography. Capernaum is written in the Syriac Testament … , that is, the village of Nahum; Bethania, is written … ; Bethphage is written … , which perfectly corresponds to its situation, for … , in Arabic, signifies ‘a valley between two opposite mountains,’ an etymology which alone removes a contradiction which was supposed to exist between the New Testament and the Talmud^d ; and Bethesda, John v. 2. is written … , which is probably conformable to the derivation, whether we translate it ‘place of favour,’ or ‘place of the conflux of waters.’

[d: The Talmudists describe Bethphage as being close to Jerusalem, the Evangelists as being fifteen stadia distant from it. This is no contradiction, because Bethphage signifies the valley between Jerusalem and the mount of Olives, at well as the town which lay on the other side of the mount.]

The Syriac version therefore is the surest, and indeed the only guide, in discovering the etymology of geographical names, for the Arabic versions are too modern, and in other translations it was impossible to preserve the orthography of the East.

But this praise of the Syriac version I will not carry so far as to suppose that the translator was never mistaken, nor contend that his explanation of the garden and house Gethsemane (… or …), Matth. xxvii. 36. viz. … is to be preferred to another etymology, since an inhabitant of Edessa might be well acquainted with Judæa in general, without knowing the origin of the name of a summer-house in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Agreeably to the practice of the Syrians in translating from Greek authors, he has sometimes retained the Greek orthography, and for …, has used … though it was written in Hebrew … See the Syriac Grammar, §63. He has often followed the same rule with respect to the names of persons, of which …, 2 Cor. ii. 32. is an instance; and his etymology of Barabbas, Matth. xxvii. 16. …, is different from the Hebrew, as Jerome relates in his remark on this passage, that he is called in the Hebrew Gospel, filius magistri eorum, which would be .: but if the Syriac translator was mistaken, it was no dishonour to be ignorant in regard to the name of a malefactor.

Simon, in his Hist. Crit. des Vers, ch. xv. has treated of the use of the Syriac version, and has taken from it some useful extracts. John Fr. Bernd has written a treatise, entitled Schediasma de primariis versionis Syriacæ virtutibus, Halæ 1732, but the author was at that time not possessed of the Oriental literature, which he has displayed in some later writings: Gutbier, in his preface to his Syriac Testament, has also made remarks on this subject, but they are made for the most part without judgement.

Beside the critical use of the Syriac version, which will be examined in the following section, it leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient, for instance Matth. vi. 7. John xvi. 2. Rom. ix. 22. xiii. 3. and confirms some ancient rites, in which we are deeply interested, such as the celebration of Sunday, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And in discovering either the meaning of an unusual word, or the unusual meaning of a common word, where no assistance can be had from the Greek authors, the Syriac version may be of singular service, as the translator was probably acquainted with the language of common life, as well as with the language of books, and is at least of equal authority with a Greek lexicon of later ages.

Latin translations have been added to the Syriac version, in order to render its use more general, but as they are very erroneous, they cannot be consulted with safety, without attending at the same time to the Syriac text.

SECT. IX.
Critical use of the Syriac version.

THE chief advantage to be derived from the Syriac version is, in applying it to the purposes of criticism. Its high antiquity, and frequent deviation from the common reading, in passages of importance, must recommend the use of it to every critic, who in general will find himself rewarded for his trouble. Examples may be seen in Mill’s Prolegomena, § 1246-1257, and still more in the seventh section of the Curæ, where I have constantly marked the rarity of the quoted reading. Those readings, which I have marked as rare, are of two kinds; either such as are found only in one, two, or three manuscripts, of which I have given, in the eleventh section of the Curæ, an alphabetical list, as far as regards the Acts of the Apostles; or such as have been hitherto found in no manuscript, whether this arises from their not existing in any manuscript, or from a negligent examination of them, a misfortune which has likewise been the fate of the Syriac version.

The difference between the Syriac version, and the greatest part of the Greek manuscripts, is no ground for condemning the former. It is natural to suppose, from its great antiquity, that it must deviate in many cases from the Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which were written above four hundred years later, and are mostly the produce of countries remote from Syria. They were probably taken neither from the same copy, nor from the same edition, and length of time must have rendered the difference still greater. But on the other hand, we must not suppose that every reading is genuine, where the Syriac version differs from the later manuscripts, because the ancient Greek copy, that was used by the Syriac translator, had undoubtedly its faults, the version itself has not descended unaltered to the present age, and our printed editions are extremely faulty. It is almost impossible therefore to give general rules on this subject, as it is often difficult to determine whether this difference must be ascribed to an error in the ancient Greek manuscript, from which the Syrian translated, to a corruption of the Syriac text, or a corruption of the Greek manuscripts that are now extant. This point being once determined, we should make a greater progress in the criticism of the New Testament.

In using the Syriac version, we must never forget that our present editions are very imperfect, and not conclude, that every reading of the Syriac printed text was the reading of the Greek manuscripts of the first century. Mark xiii. 37. we find …, but we cannot certainly infer from this expression, that the reading in the Greek manuscript, used by the Syriac translator, was …, since it is possible that the present Syriac word is an erratum for …, the reading of the Philoxenian version. Here though we may conjecture that the old Greek manuscript had the above reading, yet as the erratum in the Syriac is so easy, we can make no certain conclusion till it be ratified by the authority of some Greek manuscript. The critic must perform what the editors have neglected, and above all things endeavour to render the Syriac text as correct as possible. For this purpose, if he has no Syriac manuscripts in his possession, he may have recourse to the Persic version in the Gospels, and to the Erpenian Arabic version, in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, as recommended in my father’s treatise De var. lect. Nov. Test. caute colligendis, § 66. 72. 77. In the fifth and sixth sections of the Curæ, I have attempted to follow his example, but till we have more knowledge of the old Syriac manuscripts, we shall arrive at no certainty. In using the common editions of the Syriac Testament, those of Gutbier and Schaaf, the various readings printed at the end must always be examined, because they shew the difference between those and the more ancient editions, a caution which is the more necessary, as the later editors have had the imprudence to interpolate whole passages in the Syriac text, namely the beginning of John viii. Acts viii. 37. 1 John v. 7, &c.
…
the Codex Cantabrigiensis, which has a great affinity to the Syriac version….

“I like the Greek, but the Aramaic is more interesting. Any retro-translation opens up options and possibilities”

transliterations + translations: Hebrews 7:1-2

The bottom line is that in the original Aramaic for Hebrews 7:1-2, “Mlki-Zdq” got expounded as the partially-similar “Mlka d’Kanutha,” while in contrast,
the Greek version has the transliteration “Melchisedek,” which it translates as the very-dissimilar “basileus dikaiosyne.”
Also, in the original Aramaic, “Mlk Shlim” was expounded as the largely similar “Mlka d’Shlma,” while in contrast,
the Greek version has the part-translation, part-transliteration “basileus Salem,” which it fully-translates as “basileus eirene.”

We start with some Aramaic vocabulary.
Mlki-Zdq — King-Righteous, i.e. “Righteous King,” or: “King (of) Righteousness” [could it be ‘my righteous king’?]
(Incidentally, “zadiqa” means “righteous/ just, a righteous/ just man,” and “Zaduqia” are Sadducees.)
Mlk-Shlim — king (of) peace
d’mlka — of the kings
Mlka-d’Kanutha — king of righteousness
Mlk-Shlim — king (of) peace
Mlka-d’Shlma — king of peace

Hebrews 7:1-2 (based on Etheridge + Khabouris, from dukhrana.com)
1. For this Mlki-Zdq is Mlk-Shlim, the priest of Allaha the Most High.
And he met Abraham when he returned from the slaughter d’mlka [of the kings], and blessed him.
2. And to him Abraham separated the tenth from everything that he had with him.
Now his name, being expounded, (is) the Mlka-d’Kanutha;
and again, Mlk-Shlim, which is, Mlka-d’Shlma.

Note how in the original Aramaic, there’s 6 instances of “mlk”/king, and 3 instances of words having the letters “shlm”/ peace, as the author of Hebrews expresses things slightly differently (in different Aramaic dialects?).

We now take a look at the Greek transliterations and translations of the passage.

Hebrews 7:1-2 (hybrid of DLNT + MOUNCE; the bracketed “his name” is the DLNT’s)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For this Melchisedek [Melchizedek], basileus-Salem [king _of_ Salem], priest _of_ the Most-High God, remains _a_ priest perpetually–
the _one_ having met Abraham returning from the defeat _of_ the basileus [kings] and having eulogeo [blessed] him;
_to_ whom also Abraham divided dekatos [_a_ tenth] from everything;
_who is_ first ([his name] hermeneuo [being translated]), basileus-dikaiosyne [king _of_ righteousness];
and then also basileus-Salem [king _of_ Salem], which is basileus-eirene [king _of_ peace];

transliterations of the Greek transliterations:
Melchisedek: 1 instance
Salem: 2 instances

transliterations of the Greek translations:
basileus (5 instances; translates the Aramaic mlk/ ‘king’)
dikaiosyne (translates the Aramaic d’kanutha/ ‘of righteousness’)
eirene (1 instance; translates the Aramaic shlma/ ‘peace’)

“Luke actually does have an answer to this problem, not one that would satisfy modern genetics, but good enough for Luke: ὡς ἐνομίζετο. As was customarily thought. Joseph adopted Jesus according to custom/law (νόμος). That’s all that matters to him”
So in Mt’s geneology, Mary’s husband Joseph is the 14th?

“myself included, think Luke 1-2 may have been a later addition to Luke’s gospel”
Arguments for thinking that Luke 1-2 was “a later addition to Luke’s gospel”?

“I’m aware of a few Aramaic (and Greek) attempts make Matthew’s genealogy into that of Mary, and her (adopted) father also named Joseph, but they strain credulity”
What flaws do you see in the attempt I presented?

“Is everyone on the Internet crazy?”
No.

“And, if so”
Not applicable.
My response to Dr. Ehrman is below. How would you respond to him?

_Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)_ by Bart D. Ehrman (2009), 292pp., 51

3. _Why does Matthew quote the wrong prophet?_
When Matthew indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he notes (as by now we expect of him) that this was in fulfillment of Scripture: “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, And they took the thirty pieces of silver … and they gave them for the potter’s field” (Mathew 27:9-10). The problem is that this prophecy is not found in Jeremiah. It appears to be a loose quotation of Zechariah 11:3.

////////////////////////////
For Mt 27:9-10, Greek manuscripts have the erroneous addition that Jeremiah said a particular remark, when there’s no Old Testament evidence that Jeremiah said that. The Aramaic original leaves unspecified the name of the prophet, avoiding an unnecessary contradiction: (based on Younan) “Then the thing was fulfilled which was spoken of by the prophet who said, “I took the thirty (pieces) of silver, the price of the precious one which (those) from the sons of Israel agreed upon.”

Did Matt 27:9 originally have:
“Jeremiah”?
“I took”? “they took”?

Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatessaron:
lack the erroneous “Jeremiah”;
have “I took.”

Matthew 27:9 (Aramaic–>Dutch; using google translate–>English)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Then what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled when he said, “And I took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of the Precious One, which those of the sons of Israel had agreed to,
by the prophet – this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT, and TR reads, “through the prophet Jeremiah,” which is false, for the thirty pieces of silver are a prophecy of the prophet Zechariah (Zech 11:12). In Jer. 18: 1-3…. In Jer. 32:6-15
….
I took – this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: ‘they took’.

Diatessaron 51:13 (Aramaic–>Arabic–>English)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therein was fulfilled the saying in the prophet which said, I took thirty pieces of money, the price of the precious one, which was fixed by the children of Israel; and I paid them for the plain of the potter, as the Lord commanded me.

“What flaws do you see in the attempt I presented?”
“Soon after the genealogy, Matthew has the angel Gabriel address Joseph, Mary’s betrothed, as ‘son of David,'”
So Mary’s husband Joseph _wasn’t_ a “son of David”?

“force meanings on the text that no one would ever imagine if they were not looking for a way to resolve such theological problems”
So the Aramaic ‘gbra’ _doesn’t_ mean father/guardian?

“In text criticism, the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”

“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Do you think Mark 7:26 originally had “Greek”?

Mark 7 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet.
26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

///////////////////
corruption in calling someone Greek at Mk 7:25-28, leading to a contradiction with Mt 15:21+

In Mark 7:25-28, the Aramaic Peshitta reads,
(based on Younan)
“For immediately a certain woman whose daughter had an unclean rukha [spirit] heard about him [Yeshua], and she came (and) fell before his feet. Now that woman was kanapta [a heathen/ pagan/ foreigner] from Phoenicia in Syria, and was entreating him to cast out the shada [shade/devil] from her daughter. . . . . even the dogs eat from under the tables the crumbs of the children.'”

Greek manuscripts erroneously say the woman was Greek. This sets up an unnecessary contradiction with Mt 15:21+, where she is called a Canaanite:
“And Yeshua went out from there and came to the border of Tsur and of Tsidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from those borders came out while crying and saying, ‘Have mercy on me mari [my lord], the Son of Dawid. My daughter is seriously vexed by a shada. . . . even the dogs eat from the crumbs which fall from the tables of their masters and live.'”

“So the Aramaic ‘gbra’ _doesn’t_ mean father/guardian?”
“Sure, it could mean that”

“So Mary’s husband Joseph _wasn’t_ a ‘son of David’?”
“According to Mt 1,16.20 he was”
The Greek Mt 1:16 has a mistranslation from the original Aramaic.

According to Luke’s genealogy, Joseph the husband of Mary was a descendant of King David.
Therefore it was appropriate for an angel to call Joseph the husband of Mary a son of David.

“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Do you think Acts 8:27 originally said “eunuch”?

Acts 8:27 (Berean Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And having risen up, he went. And behold, an Ethiopian eunuch, a potentate of Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship.

////////////////////
mistranslation for Acts 8:27

The Greek manuscripts have a mistranslation for Acts 8:27, which when translated better reads:
(based on Younan)
“And he [i.e. Pileepos/ Philip] arose (and) went and met a certain mahaymina [believer] who had come from Cush, an official of Qandeq, the malkta [queen] of the Cushites, and he was an authority over all her treasures. And he had come to worship in Urishlim.”

Re: MHYMNA, it can mean either ‘believer’ or ‘eunuch’– or many similar things. The Greek versions mistranslate this as ‘eunuch’ instead of the more contextually correct ‘believer.’–Paul Younan.
The Ethiopian _believer_ was intending to worship in Jerusalem, presumably in the temple there– which eunuchs were prohibited from doing by Deut 23:2. Cf. Mt 19:12.