How established is Aramaic Primacy?

[Andrej]

i think this is getting a little off topic. As i said, Aramaic Primacy has a lot of substance, i am just wondering what you think how well presented this substance is.

On the other hand all of the Greek words for "wicked" look very different from the Greek word used for "righteous". It is unlikely that an Aramaic translator would make that mistake.

Not to say that i believe in Greek primacy or anything, but it may be entirely possible that an Aramaic copyist caused the change. Meaning, an Aramaic writer that copied the Aramaic NT from Aramaic to Aramaic may have misread that word, or may have (consciously or subconsciously) thought that it must be a mistake, and corrected it (since "righteous" makes much more immediate sense in the context). There is no reason for us to think that greek writers have less reading skills than Aramaic ones.
There would still be the question as to why there are no variations in the other Aramaic manuscripts, meaning all Aramaic manuscriupts would have to stem from one bad copy. Konwing some of the Peshitta history, that is making the above scenario somewhat unlikely.