Many (πολλοὶ) narratives about Jesus had already been written in Luke's day (Lk 1:1). Matthew and Mark were certainly earlier, but does the word πολλοὶ imply that other Gospels have been lost?
Regarding Aramaic: I has been a custom to assume no Hebrew was spoken in Galilee. That is contrary to the facts. (The idea was developed by Jews in Babylon (Babylonian Talmud) and I think unduly expanded by Dalman and his followers.
While there were Aramaic loanwords in the Hebrew of the first century, it was still Hebrew and alive. In Galilee they pronounced certain consonants differently, yet it was Hebrew, too.
Just like German speakers use many English terms and idioms in daily language, and increasingly so, people still speak German with one another.
Matthew wrote the Logia in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. Mark wrote for an eastern Greek-speaking audience with an Aramaic background. He was in the land of Babylon with Shimon. There was the greatest Jewish Diaspora.
Eusebius invented the story about Simon (and Mark) in Rome. Neither Paul nor Luke nor the synagogues there no anything about him being there.
I've seen a few scholars make this argument about the use of Hebrew in NT times, but I'm not yet persuaded, primarily due to the prevalence of so many Aramaic words and names in the NT, such as: Raca (Mt 5:22), Mammon (Mt 6:24), Hosanna (Mt 21:9), Gethsemane (Mt 26:36), Barabbas (Mt 27:16), Golgotha (Mt 27:33), Boanerges (Mk 3:17), Talitha cumi (Mk 5:41), Ephphatha (Mk 7:34), Abba (Mk 14:36), Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani (Mk 15:34), Cephas (Jn 1:42), Rabboni (Jn 20:16), Tabitha (Acts 9:40), Maranatha (1Cor 16:22), etc.
Gethsemane and Hosanna are Hebrew words. Abba, korban, mammon as well being used in the Hebrew of the first century and long before.
Why did Mark write Elōi (for Aramaic Elahi) against Matthew's Eli?
He was in the East (with Simon), not in Rome (as a forger Eusebius convinced the churches). From the Syrian Antioch to the Mesopotamian Babylon they spoke Aramaic (Syriac).
The Bar Kokhbah letters and the Jerusalem Talmud of the 2nd century are mostly written in s colloquial Hebrew.
It was the Eastern Babylonian Jews (Babylonian Talmud) who pushed their Aramaic after the fall of the City and its Temple.
Mark wrote his text most likely in Antioch or duribg his time with Cephah in the Babylon region (from where that one wrote his letter greeting the Eastern (Anatolyan) provinces.
The extant medieval Hebrew text of Matthew (despite its signs of some textual corruption) shows numerous examples of original Hebrew sayings.
Dalman a.o. were with great certainty wrong with their assessment. So were the Babylonian rabbis (and they probably knew it, too).
I looked into some of your examples and am still not persuaded. Some of these words are clearly Aramaic (such as Mt 6:24 μαμωνᾷ, which corresponds to the Aramaic ממונא). This word appears over a 100 times in the Targums, and never in the Hebrew OT. The Eli, Eli of Mt 27:46 sounds Hebrew, but is followed up with the Aramaic "sabachthani." (compare the Hebrew MT of Ps 22:1 עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי with the Aramaic שׁבקתני). This is likely due to the close relationship of Hebrew and Aramaic along with the fact that many OT passages were known in Hebrew. So, even on the Joanna ossuary, we find both Hebrew and Aramaic mixed together (with "the high priest" being the Hebrew phrase). This, I believe, explains much of the overlap in some of the other words which were used both in Hebrew and Aramaic.
If I open a complete German dictionary these days I find thousands of English terms and idioms, hundreds of them being used by old and young in the most common German conversation. (I remember my grandmother - she died more than 22 years ago with 99 years - did so when I was still little. And she hadn't had one single English lesson on her whole life. Her great-grandchild who is my daughter of 24 years uses an Engkish term in every second sentence when she speaks English.
Aramaic had been the lingua franca of the East for hundreds of years. Greek did only in part replace that common language (which was in many respects even closer to Hebrew than English is to German).
The Hebrew Matthew with many verybenlightening examples convinced me of its original Hebrew form. (The extant few manuscripts are medieval and show some corruption. They were handed down by rabbis who were not exactly fond of the material they preserved in order to counter its arguments. And still!)
I should add that in my view, Hebrew was in use among first century Jews (both in Judea and Galilee), however it was a secondary language that was primiarily used in religious contexts, such as in the synagogues, temple liturgy, etc.
Great thoughts. Well argued.
Regarding Aramaic: I has been a custom to assume no Hebrew was spoken in Galilee. That is contrary to the facts. (The idea was developed by Jews in Babylon (Babylonian Talmud) and I think unduly expanded by Dalman and his followers.
While there were Aramaic loanwords in the Hebrew of the first century, it was still Hebrew and alive. In Galilee they pronounced certain consonants differently, yet it was Hebrew, too.
Just like German speakers use many English terms and idioms in daily language, and increasingly so, people still speak German with one another.
Matthew wrote the Logia in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. Mark wrote for an eastern Greek-speaking audience with an Aramaic background. He was in the land of Babylon with Shimon. There was the greatest Jewish Diaspora.
Eusebius invented the story about Simon (and Mark) in Rome. Neither Paul nor Luke nor the synagogues there no anything about him being there.
I've seen a few scholars make this argument about the use of Hebrew in NT times, but I'm not yet persuaded, primarily due to the prevalence of so many Aramaic words and names in the NT, such as: Raca (Mt 5:22), Mammon (Mt 6:24), Hosanna (Mt 21:9), Gethsemane (Mt 26:36), Barabbas (Mt 27:16), Golgotha (Mt 27:33), Boanerges (Mk 3:17), Talitha cumi (Mk 5:41), Ephphatha (Mk 7:34), Abba (Mk 14:36), Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani (Mk 15:34), Cephas (Jn 1:42), Rabboni (Jn 20:16), Tabitha (Acts 9:40), Maranatha (1Cor 16:22), etc.
Gethsemane and Hosanna are Hebrew words. Abba, korban, mammon as well being used in the Hebrew of the first century and long before.
Why did Mark write Elōi (for Aramaic Elahi) against Matthew's Eli?
He was in the East (with Simon), not in Rome (as a forger Eusebius convinced the churches). From the Syrian Antioch to the Mesopotamian Babylon they spoke Aramaic (Syriac).
The Bar Kokhbah letters and the Jerusalem Talmud of the 2nd century are mostly written in s colloquial Hebrew.
It was the Eastern Babylonian Jews (Babylonian Talmud) who pushed their Aramaic after the fall of the City and its Temple.
Mark wrote his text most likely in Antioch or duribg his time with Cephah in the Babylon region (from where that one wrote his letter greeting the Eastern (Anatolyan) provinces.
The extant medieval Hebrew text of Matthew (despite its signs of some textual corruption) shows numerous examples of original Hebrew sayings.
Dalman a.o. were with great certainty wrong with their assessment. So were the Babylonian rabbis (and they probably knew it, too).
I looked into some of your examples and am still not persuaded. Some of these words are clearly Aramaic (such as Mt 6:24 μαμωνᾷ, which corresponds to the Aramaic ממונא). This word appears over a 100 times in the Targums, and never in the Hebrew OT. The Eli, Eli of Mt 27:46 sounds Hebrew, but is followed up with the Aramaic "sabachthani." (compare the Hebrew MT of Ps 22:1 עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי with the Aramaic שׁבקתני). This is likely due to the close relationship of Hebrew and Aramaic along with the fact that many OT passages were known in Hebrew. So, even on the Joanna ossuary, we find both Hebrew and Aramaic mixed together (with "the high priest" being the Hebrew phrase). This, I believe, explains much of the overlap in some of the other words which were used both in Hebrew and Aramaic.
I understand your concern and caution.
If I open a complete German dictionary these days I find thousands of English terms and idioms, hundreds of them being used by old and young in the most common German conversation. (I remember my grandmother - she died more than 22 years ago with 99 years - did so when I was still little. And she hadn't had one single English lesson on her whole life. Her great-grandchild who is my daughter of 24 years uses an Engkish term in every second sentence when she speaks English.
Aramaic had been the lingua franca of the East for hundreds of years. Greek did only in part replace that common language (which was in many respects even closer to Hebrew than English is to German).
The Hebrew Matthew with many verybenlightening examples convinced me of its original Hebrew form. (The extant few manuscripts are medieval and show some corruption. They were handed down by rabbis who were not exactly fond of the material they preserved in order to counter its arguments. And still!)
Sorry the spelling. Should probably wear glasses some day. Of course, when she speaks German I wanted to say.
I should add that in my view, Hebrew was in use among first century Jews (both in Judea and Galilee), however it was a secondary language that was primiarily used in religious contexts, such as in the synagogues, temple liturgy, etc.