We know that the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek, albeit based on oral sources which were predominantly of the Galilean accent of Judean Palestinian Aramaic. The Aramaic Peshitta is composed in Classical Syriac Aramaic, in a form which did not exist in the first century, but had emerged starting in the second and third centuries and indeed the New Testament translation of the Peshitta was completed in the Fourth Century, where it replaced a more complicated translation, which in turn supplanted the third century Vetus Syra translation of the Four Gospels*, which replaced the dull Diatessaron, a Gospel Harmony, as they are so called (I would prefer Gospel Cacophony), in which the four canonical Gospels are mashed together, destroying their unique individual beauty in pursuit of a superficial and insubstantial consistency that destroys the actual underlying coherence of the four Gospels, this particular mashing done by Tatian, who later became the leader of a heretical Gnostic sect related to the Severians.
Nonetheless you are correct in saying the Peshitta can be extremely useful for exploring what the New Testament looks like in an Aramaic dialect, and one of my favorite traditional English translations, the Murdoch Bible, is a translation of the Western (Syriac Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Maronite Catholic, and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church**) Peshitta New Testament, also including the extra books from the Athanasian Bible missing from the original edition, still used by the East Syriac churches (Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic and Syro Malabar Catholic), which were translated by St. Thomas of Harqel as part of the later Harklean Bible (these include Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2 Peter). There is also the Etheridge Bible, which includes only those books in the Peshitta, and also makes a point of not translating the book titles or proper names from Syriac but merely Romanizing Classical Syriac, although his choice to Romanize the word for God from the triconsonantal stem ALH as Aloha I find amusing - it could well be accurate, but today the West Syriacs say Aloho due to having dropped the vowell A, retaining only the consonantal A, or Alep (don’t ask me how A can be a consonant, but I believe this feature is common to all the Semitic languages including Hebrew), whereas the East Syriacs say Alaha (note the similarity to the Arabic word for God, Allah, which is not a proper name for the Islamic deity no matter how much the radical Saudi, Qatari, Afghan and Iranian mullahs, muftis and ayatollahs wish this was the case), despite retaining a consonantal “o”.
*The Vetus Latina the Vetus Latina Bible (which was a complete translation of the Septuagint and most, perhaps all, of the canonical New Testament) follows the Western Text Type, whereas the Peshitta is much closer to the Byzantine Text Type (not unlike the Vulgate, which is also close to the Byzantine text, and which replaced the Vetus Latina except for some liturgical uses, such as the hymn “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” , which is rendered with less elegance in the Vulgate as “Gloria in Altissimus Deo.”
**The Mar Thoma Syrian Church is a Protestant church which was created with the assistance of the British East India Company using the funds of the Indian Orthodox Church, which had been deposited with them, but which they refused to release except to one bishop who had been converted to Reformed theology, but this church is now in communion with the small Malankara Independent Syrian Church, a Syriac Orthodox jurisdiction in India not in communion with the Indian Orthodox or Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, and I am not sure if any of the other Oriental Orthodox are in communion with them, but since the Mar Thoma Syrian Church is part of the Anglican Communion, and since the Malankara Independent Syrian Church is in full communion with them, and worships using the Syriac Orthodox liturgy and follows Oriental Orthodox theology, I suppose you could say it is the only case of an Orthodox Church in communion with the Anglican Communion.
As far as your overall argument concerning St. Luke presenting the genealogy of St. Joseph, and St. Matthew presenting the genealogy of our most blessed Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, I have seen this before, and it seems plausible, but I personally haven’t probed into it too deeply because personally, it doesn’t matter that much to me, except as an annoyance when atheists occasionally confront us with this apparent inconsistency, as if it discredits the entirety of the Gospel even in what I suggest is the exceedingly unlikely event that an error was made, but certainly that possibility did not greatly trouble the Church Fathers, with many of them sharing your opinion
@EclipseEventSigns , although some did take the view that there was an error but it was inconsequential, in the same way that the minor differences in wording in how the four evangelists recalled certain events are inconsequential, for that matter, between how the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) record the Words of Institution at the Last Supper, vs. how St. Paul records them in 1 Corinthians 11. I myself shy away from this latter approach in that I am uncomfortable saying that Scripture contains a contradiction regarding something as important as the geneaology of Christ, whereas the minor differences in wording in other events in the Gospels actually add credibility, since with all real world events with multiple independent witnesses who have not spoken with each other in an effort to harmonize (and thus potentially corrupt) their recollection of events, there will be minor differences between the recollections, whereas if multiple people collude to fabricate a story, these subtle differences will be suspiciously absent.
In addition, the minor differences in recollection we see in the four Gospels and St. Paul by no means indicate actual contradiction in any material sense, and are therefore not a threat to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, whereas the idea that one of the two geneaologies in Matthew and Luke is simply wrong does contradict Biblical Inerrancy, at a minimum suggesting serious textual corruption. And it seems so obvious that one of them, likely that of St. Matthew, is that of the Theotokos, as you say, and the other of her elderly and continent husband St. Joseph, the Adoptive Father of our Lord, who raised the Only Begotten Son and Word of God in His Incarnation as the Son of Man, teaching Him carpentry and ensuring his safety, even enduring hardship in the form of exile to Egypt to prevent Him from being killed by King Herod in His infancy, as happened to the Holy Innocents of Ramallah.
I do disagree however on point 5, that St. Mary had a guardian named Joseph, since by all accounts she was young when she was married to St. Joseph, who was elderly and had been married previously, and was a widower by all historical accounts (thus explaining the brothers of our Lord such as St. James the Just, since as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley agreed, and as the Fathers of the Early Church agreed, she was a perpetual Virgin, remaining a virgin miraculously even after giving birth, and it would have been inconceivable for St. Joseph to have carnal knowledge of the Mother of God), it seems probable that at least her parents St. Joachim and Anna were still alive.
Additionally, hagiographies, which are well accepted, suggest that St. Mary in her youth was involved in some consecrated function at the Temple in Jerusalem, and this makes sense given her royal bloodline.
Likewise, this would explain why St. Joseph was likely betrothed to her by arrangement, since both were descendants of King David and therefore had an aristocratic standing.
This stands in interesting opposition to most of the disciples, who were fishermen who were unknown and of a low social class, and one of them, St. John the Beloved Disciple, was also quite young, perhaps a teenager, before they were glorified by our Lord (I suspect of the Twelve, that St. Matthew the Evangelist, due to his literacy, and Judas Iscariot, who would also have been literate since he was the treasurer, would have had the highest social standing). Ironically St. Paul the Apostle, when he was persecuting Christians as Saul, before his conversion on the Road to Damascus, was the most well-respected of any of them among the Jews, but he accounted this for dung.
But this follows what our Lord said, that he who is humble will be exalted, which happened to Him and to most of the Apostles, and he who exalts himself will be humiliated, which would have happened to St. Paul had he not humbled himself and instead remained Saul, the arrogant, self-righteous Pharisee who persecuted Christians, but he let Christ our God transform Him into Paul, the humble, pious and geniunely righteous Christian who was a leader and guardian of the Gentile Christians, rejecting Pharisaical Judaism, and who received a crown of martyrdom when beheaded in the persecutions initiated by Nero. Conversely, Judas Iscariot continued to swell inwardly in pride, as he fervently sought the monetary gain and praise and exaltation from the Jews for betraying our Lord, but when he found it, the fruits of his betrayal had a taste too bitter even for his hypocritical palette, and he hanged himself. This brings to mind what CS Lewis wrote about Hell in the Great Divorce and elsewhere.
