Aramaic Primacy in the East

[Andrej]

Just no longer use the wording: "Aramaic primacy". This theory is not holdable. Peshitta is not the original. Though, I believe closer to the original than the Greek. Peshitta is clearly harmonized using the Syriac dialect.
Many of Jesus proverbs, only work in either Hebrew or in Galilean wording. And are lost (wordplays e.g.) when we use a Syriac lexicon.

I never believed that the Peshitta always preserves the words in their original dialect and language, but it makes a lot of sense that the NT would be written in Syriac, which would have been a very modern and poetic version of Aramaic that could be understood by an international audience including the many Jews in the Diaspora, but also the non-semitic Aramaic speakers. Even if Jesus spoke Galilean at all times, which I would doubt, the NT would still make a lot more sense as an Aramaic document. Jesus' proverbs are lost in the Greek just as much, if not more so. This does not mean that this helps us determine the original language of the NT.

If we look at the narrative, even the words based on the Greek text that sought to establish the Aramaic even guessed the text of the Peshitta. The dialect is quite close to the Jewish Aramaic dialects as well. To me Syriac seems to be more of a "high society" dialect, but they adapted it because it simply fits well.

And the Aramaic fragments in the NT usually fit well into the Syriac dialect (e.g. Maranatha). Plus, the Greek variants we see as split words also fit to the Peshitta. Even Latin and Greek tradition in my view testifies to the Aramaic originals of Paul and Matthew. The Peshitta is a majority text that has variants from all textual families and as such explains the mans versions very well. We also know that Syriac was the common Aramaic liturgical language in Israel at least a few centuries later, but before Islam destroyed the region. Why would they use Syriac in Israel, the jewish and christian heartland, if that was not an ancient tradition?

A Hebrew original seems quite unlikely, except maybe for Matthew, and would not have yielded a Greek counterpart as easily. Since I have never been a dogmatic and always assumed that Aramaic, Latin and Greek texts were produced in the 1st century, I never saw any reason to abandon my conviction of the Peshitta text as the most original NT. Personally I do assume that Acts 20:28 and Heb. 2:9 were changed in the eastern version, but these details are not really the problem.

Where exactly do you know of a text in the Peshitta that cannot have been from the 1st century? Is theology the real problem? Because I don't see what you believe the Peshitta lacks.