He would also accept the arguments for a late date and Edessene provenance, and most certainly those for the homogeneity of the Peshitta. But he is not convinced by his arguments concerning a Jewish community whose nature dictated the type of version made. Weitzman has most valuably pointed the way to further Peshitta debate including political, social, commercial and sectarian elements on and beyond the eastern periphery of the Roman empire rather than ended it. Interpretational influence in the transmission as well as the construction process of the version are not fairly to be classified simply as inner Syriac corruption. Finally, while Weitzman is right to emphasise the role of Timothy the Great in the consolidation of Peshitta text tradition, more weight needs to be given to the textual authority of the Upper Monastery in Mosul, which heavily influenced liturgical and NT as well as Peshitta text.
Attention needs to be given to the basis as well as the context for text consolidation.
A comprehensive bibliography containing all the footnote references has, regrettably, not been provided. The real regret, however, is that we cannot now continue the discussion with Michael Weitzman in person, as in the past we did with so much pleasure because of the intellectual courtesy and vivacity with which he presented his detailed and wide-ranging knowledge.