The manuscript we have is in Greek. This is the only factual thing that exists in the argument. As you said earlier, it could be (solution x) but you can't say that to the exclusion of the possibility of error. The next issue is the verbiage used in any proposed original. That is the heart of this claim to begin with. Whether you establish that it is probable that it was written in Aramaic prior, that does not resolve the issue of the language used. Only an original manuscript can resolve that. Absent that, the Greek language must stand. Again, forest vs. tree.
I have no aversion to examining possibility. That is one thing. The aversion I have is to making statements of fact where no facts are establishable. The specific here is the notion that there may have been a prior Aramaic text. This is not proven; but, a possibility -unlikely however it may be. The question then begged is the big picture - the language of the prior text. This is not a given. Nor can it be handled as such. And absent the original text, the Greek must stand on it's own. That is the sticking point on the other side. This whole notion comes up as a matter of wishful and hopeful thinking that they can justify saying whatever they will about the prior text without it being present.
As a matter of Principle this is the stand that must be made. And this is the danger that arises when people start toying around with assuming facts instead of discovering them.