About Luke 16:19-31 II century interpolation

[judge]

The dialect of the Peshitta is all wrong,

Can you exaplain what you mean. If the peshitta is in a slightly different eastern dialect at some points, does that mean we call it a translation?
I would have thought a translation is from one language to another.

If this were genuinely of first century Palestinian origin, we would expect it to be in a variation of Judean Aramaic. There were small differences between the Galilean and Judean dialects, but the Peshitta is in Syriac, another dialect entirely. So we cannot rely on the Peshitta as being any kind of original.

Parts of the peshitta, at least, might not be from Palestine. Being from palestine is also,not necessarily a part of a peshitta primacy approach. Luke probably was not, others may have been, but perhaps they had left there many years before they wrote?
But even if it is to be of palestinian origin, it seems to be splitting hairs.
If an englishman wrote in the english version of the english language would it be that much different to an American version?

Peshitta primacists claim that it has come down "without change or revision". Merely having some dialectical adjustments seems to satisfy that criterion. Wouldn't you say?

I do not claim that none of the arguments for Peshitta primacy hold up. that wouldn't be intellectually honest. I'm simply saying that many of the arguments that I formerly relied on turned out to be less reliable than I had thought.
For instance, some have pointed out that the Greek Revelation says "I am the Alpha and the O" not actually "I am the Alpha and the Omega." The argument is that this is derived from the appearance of the Estrangela script for "taw." This argument fails to recognize that omicron and omega were both known simply as "o" until the third century.

Revelation is not part of the peshitta.

It does not *necessarily* mean that the Peshitta is a translation, but it does suggest that it is more heavily redacted, and so further removed from the source material.

If homogenity is the only evidence of redaction, then I dont think it is enough. The homogenity may just point to the peshitta being the original (albeit with slight dialectical adjustments).
The evidence that the OT was redacted are fairly convincing but they dont rely on homgenity.