Irenaeus and Peshitta?

[judge]

distazo and Stephen,

Thank you both for answers. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

It's the Greeks who called Aramaic 'Syriac'

Yes, I am aware of it. Paul Younan explained this many times here in the forum.

The question is: is it possible to know if the syriac/aramaic version used by Irenaeus is the Peshitta? (I'm very sorry dear distazo, English is not my first language, then I must have expressed myself badly in the first post).

I suppose we would have to see the variants. The OS only containd material from the 4 gospels and some of Acts, so material from say th Pauline epistles might tend to point to the peshitta.
The problem here is that scholars and laymen alike are pretty much closed to the idea that the peshitta existed at that time and so people like Barbara Aland go to quite convoluted and unnecesarily complicated arguments to explain evidence of , asy. Pauline epistles at an early time.
Get this! Rather than look to the simplest explanation. That the peshitta is the origin of early syriac/aramaic versions of Pauline epistles, they hypothesise the existence of an "Old Syriac" version of Paul epistles which was somehow lost... <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
They would rather fantasise that a Vetus Syra (old Syriac) version existed and was lost than just accept they used the peshitta (which we know exists,,,,cos we still use it to ths day).
Peshitta priority is the future.