Says who?
Ummmmm... I think both dear Quentin's and your own assertions... along with many scholars... dear Terry (peace to you!). Although, none of these are my source; rather, that would be what I received from my Lord himself.
Greek was the international language of the Roman Empire, and was spoken publicly in the majority of Roman provinces.
Yes. But my Lord didn't speak publicly to the Romans, dear one. And while it is true that many Jews spoke Greek, many did not. And most of the Greek-speaking Jews also spoke Aramaic ("Hebrew").
Aramaic was the native language of most Jews living in Judea, Galilee and Babylon.
Yep. The first two being where my Lord spoke most often...
But Aramaic was typically restricted to communication among family members behind closed doors.
Ummmmm... which is primarily the way... and place... my Lord spoke to Matthew, Peter (Mark's father, who gave Mark his account), and Lazarus ("John")... as well as many of those who provided an "eyewitness" account for Luke (who wasn't present at all).
In public they spoke Greek.
First, I would say, as you did: says who? Second, apparently the Hebrew (Aramaic) speaking widows with whom the Greek (Hellenic) speaking widows took issue weren't aware of this.
The same was true of Latin - it was spoken within the homes of native Romans, but they spoke Greek in public discourse, even on the streets of Rome.
Now, this I agree with, but only because apparently the Romans initially embraced the Greek language and culture, even mimicking their gods. And while I agree that a good many Jews spoke Greek (partially due to the Septuagint), that was mainly the more "educated" among them. My Lord didn't primarily go to these, however, but to the poor, downtrodden, sick... and un/less educated...
Additionally, Galilee was not the small town rural backwater that Victorian scholars imagined. Galilee was heavily Hellenized.
They were surrounded by several major Greek speaking cities, and nearly all of their commerce depended on the Greek speaking communities and Greek speaking merchants in the region.
I do not dispute that; however, you actually have recorded phrases (i.e., "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani", etc.), which, if you are correct, my Lord could have just as well stated in Greek.
In the case of Jesus, any public speaker at the time would have delivered his discourses in Greek, not Aramaic.
His larger public discourses, perhaps. It would have depended upon the audience. What you miss, however, is WHO the gospels and letters were written BY... and TO.
Several members of Jesus' inner circle went by their Greek names, and Jesus himself (according to the Gospel of John) spent as much as two years traveling in the Greek Decapolis bordering Galilee.
You are a bit in error, here. Simon, the son of Jonah was given the Aramaic name "Kehpha", which, in Greek is "Kephas" (English, Cephas)... which means "piece of rock" or... petros. Peter. Matthew... is the English rendering of the Greek Matthaion... which comes from the HEBREW... "Matithjah". He was also known as "Levi", which is HEBREW. John's name was also Hebrew (Jahchanan). The names (and most of the other words) were translated TO Greek when COPIES of the originals were made FOR the Greek-speaking Jews. Since all of Paul's (?) letters were in Greek (because HE was an apostle to the nations... as well as to the Jews ABROAD - most of whom spoke Greek), the gospel accounts were copied into that language.
The internal evidence in the Gospels also suggests that many of the statements attributed to Jesus were originally composed in Greek
and the Gospels go out of their way to point out the few times that Jesus actually spoke Aramaic in public.
Actually, the evidence shows otherwise: excluding Luke's accounts, perhaps, that they were first written in Aramaic and when being translated, certain phrases remained in the original language. But, I will give you a chance to back your assertion up: what internal evidence?
When Jesus quoted the Jewish Scriptures he quoted the Greek translation word-for-word (except when he quoted the book of Job, which was arguably an inferior translation).
Yes! Because that was the "Bible" of the day, the Septuagint! But... who did he quote it TO?? Certainly not those who put faith in him but to those who not only opposed him but sought to put him to death. To the "amhararets", however, and his disciples... he spoke in the tongue of Abraham... to the extent those understood that tongue (as it had been diluted by Chaldean and Assyrian).
Among the Jews, the majority of the population was scattered all over the Roman world, and Greek was their first language.
My Lord did not go to... or speak to these, dear Terry. He sent his apostles out for THAT purpose ("You will be witnesses of me in all Judea and Samaria... and to the distant parts of the world.")
Aramaic was only the first language of Jews in Judea, Galilee and Babylon. Everywhere else they spoke Greek in public and private conversations, and even used a Greek translation of the Scriptures.
But we're talking about my Lord's words, are we not, and those HE spoke to, yes? And he spoke to the Jews that HE taught in their original language. You know... like, say, Caesar Chavez would have talked to those in the fields? While some knew English, ALL knew Spanish. And what he wanted to say to them made more sense and had MUCH greater impact when he said it to them in Spanish and when he did in English.
So it is not surprising that the Gospels were written in Greek.
Excluding Luke, however, they weren't. Nor was the Revelation. Which is WHY they're not as easily discernable as some would think they should be. Because something got LOST... in the translations. The Greeks did not believe in one God, Terry, or a whole lot of things the Hebrews did... and so the translations make some things SEEM confusing... when they really are not. Not if you understand Hebrew (Aramaic). Sort of like the difference between American and Japanese humor: what's funny to them is not so much to us... and vice versa.
There was a rumor for a while that Matthew may have been composed in Aramaic, but there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate that view, and it has been abandoned by modern academic consensus.
And of course, they know, right? You surprise me, Terry: on the one hand we're not to put a shred of belief in what folks have to say on things relating to God and the Bible, yet... we're supposed to believe what they say. Wouldn't it be better to simply get it from the horse's mouth? ASK him: "Hey, Lord, what language did you use when speaking to the people?" Then just put faith in what he tells you. It really is that simple... albeit, you have to (1) believe he exists, (2) believe he'll answer, and (3) pay attention when he does. Those parts apparently aren't so easy for some.
The only reason anyone believed it in the first place is that a single fragment of a 2nd century Christian writing mentioned that Matthew wrote an account of the life of Christ in Hebrew.
Ahhhh, so it's okay to believe all the other "fragments" but not that one? And this fragment predates the canonization of the Bible? I get it: you won't believe it until, say, the Vatican opens all of its hidden vaults and brings out all of the stuff... codexes, fragments, papyruses, etc.... that it has hidden there... and unless and until they do... what scholars have been ABLE to review is the "truth"? What will you do, dear Terry, when say, 10, 20, or so years from now another "fragment" turns up? Will you do as the WTBTS does and say, "Oh, well, see, that was the truth AT THE TIME, but we now have NEW light on the matter?"
Use your common sense, dear one. THINK about who my Lord publicly spoke to and what was said to the particular audience... and why. I live in Oakland, CA, where there is huge population of English-speaking Hispanics. HUGE. Yet, SPANISH is the language spoken at virtually every Hispanic event held. Sure, a few words of English here and there for the "kids." But native tongue is virtually ALWAYS used when one wants to reach the HEART of a people. Sure, my Lord may have spoken Greek to those who he knew could/would not accept his messages; but he spoke to "Israel" in the tongue of Abraham, dear one. I promise you.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA