The Gospels were written when the good news was being told to the Greel-speaking Gentiles (ansd that includes Rome, as even Italy south of Rome was a Greek colony), and the Epistles before them were written for the Greeks and Greek-speaking hellenized Jews of Asia Minor who spoke Greek as their mother tongue.
There was no group at that time in Israel of any significance that the Epistles or the Gospels would have been written to or for in Aramaic, let alone Hebrew (Matthew's alleged Gospel notwithstanding). By the time the NT books were written (70 to 100 AD) the Church in Israel was finished.
Thus, any translation into Greek of what Christ said in Aramaic or Hebrew was done by the authors of the New Testament, whom you believe to have written God's words and not their own, and therefore could not make a mistake; and if they quoted from the Septuagint, including situations found only in the so-called "Apocrypha," then your argument is with the inspired men, for they considered the Septuagint Scripture, and worthy of being in the Scripture, without distinguishing the "other books" as only profitable.
My Bible has all of the Synoptics being written before 70, but in any event, I don't see how it could be true that the Church in Israel was finished. In the broad sense, all of the Gospels were written to all believers. In the narrow view, the "alleged" Gospel of Matthew you speak of was written specifically to the Jews. (What would Gentiles do with multiple references to "Son of David"?) I think the Gospels were well balanced.
Thus, any translation into Greek of what Christ said in Aramaic or Hebrew was done by the authors of the New Testament, whom you believe to have written God's words and not their own, and therefore could not make a mistake; and if they quoted from the Septuagint, including situations found only in the so-called "Apocrypha," then your argument is with the inspired men, ...
Well, I don't think I've ever said that everything in the Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonicals, or whatever one wishes to call them) is automatically wrong. I just don't think they were inspired as individual works. That by itself would be enough to exclude them from scripture. (This is my understanding of Luther's position.) I'm not aware of any references to situations found only in the Apocrypha, but if there were, then depending on the context they could have been perfectly true. So as far as I know, I wouldn't have any cause to argue with any of the authors.