On the Incoherence of Aramaic Primacy II

[judge]

On the Incoherence of Aramaic Primacy II

Aramaic Primacy, formerly known as ???translation Greek theory,??? appears convincing.

Yes it does.

Its basic assumptions are simple: (a) the earliest Christians used Aramaic to advance the Christian movement in and outside Judea

Even the greek version of the gospel have Jesus and the very earliest christians speaking Aramaic.
For goodness sakes what else can be assumed about the earliest christians but that they spoke Aramaic?

(b) composing books in Aramaic was common in Judaism and Christianity

Aramaic primacy has no need to assume this was true or not true.
We do know however that around this time (more or less)both jews and chritians used aramaic as a written language. See the dss or the odes of Solomon

© every word in the Greek Gospels, written in koine Greek, is a translation of the Aramaic originals.

This is not an assumption! It is what Aramaic primacy wishes to show by looking to evidence.

The scope of this essay is limited to assumption ©. Aramaic primacy???s general methodology used to prove its case includes (1) locating a piece of composition within the Greek NT that ???looks Semitic??? and/or corresponds to Semitic syntax, deeming it evidence of translation (2) locating an alleged Aramaicism in the Greek Gospels that seems corrupted, deeming it as evidence of mistranslation. I will show that every word in the Greek gospels cannot stem from an Aramaic original because the former contains Greek idioms and formalities of speech that have no counterpart in the Aramaic language.

What you need to do is to explain why this would mean that these instances cannot have come from Aramaic.
No where in this post do you do that. If you want to argue that something cannot have come from aramaic then you need to explain why it cannot have come from aramaic. You may not realise it but nothing you have posted does anything to show this.