Major elements of Peshitta studies
Early date of Peshitta supports early date of Greek pure Bible readings - the Peshitta generally supports the Byzantine over the Alexandrian
Hortians had to try to change the date of the Peshitta from 2nd century to 4th century
Hort tried to claim a [URL="https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.406/post-2042[/URL] (or two) that would also be in league with the phantom Syrian (Lucian, Byzantine Greek) recension
Burgon gave an incredible double decimation of the Hortian nonsense, ahistorical and a special classical ad hominem section as well.
Oxford Debate of 1897 focused largely on Peshitta date
(It is hard to determine definitively when the Peshitta was translated from the Greek from 150-350 AD)
The missing five books are a strong indication closer to the 2nd century.
Also the fact that the OT is thought to be quite early, perhaps 2nd century
Confluence with Greek manuscripts - 75-80% - my study using omission variants from the Magic Marker page on textualcriticism forum
Peshitta has some important corruptions (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:16, omissions in Pericope Adulterae, Acts 8:37, heavenly witnesses)
Peshitta can be said to be on a "good line" of manuscripts .. up to a point.
Aramiac primacy approach - some good points (belief in Bible, arguments support early date for Peshitta)
Five books (2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation) only came to the Syriac later (Philoxenian, Harklean updates)
Philoxenian, Harklean updates helped bring some more pure Greek readings into the text.
Aramaic primacy has many fundamental, conceptual errors, they really are fighting the Alexandrian corruptions, and their text is far superior to Alex.
The internal translations within the text of Aramaic and Hebrew words, explained in the Greek and Latin manuscripts, shows the text was not written in the Semitic language. Rather Greek (and Mark may have Latin elements).
The differences between the western and eastern Peshitta mss (beyond the canon issue) are relatively small
The Diatessaron Gospel harmony originally may have been Syriac, and is thought to be an early Syriac edition, 2nd century.
The two "Old Syriac" manuscripts (Curetonian, Sinaitic) are interesting junque manuscript curiosities. They are highlighted by confused textual critics in much the same way as their blindness latches on toVaticanus veneration.
There are early Syriac writers like Ephrem and Aphraates who are studied historically and textually.
The Aramaic primacists can be helpful on the scholarship of the issues above.