[dsc]

"Why write in a language (Aramaic) no one read in?"

Somebody must have, or it wouldn't have a written form. Further, if you're taking notes and preparing a manuscript, it's quite natural to do it in your own native language.

If I were writing something for a Japanese audience, I'd prepare it in English first.

Actually, though, since the Apostles were all Jews, I find the argument for Hebrew originals to be more compelling.

[Destro]

Aramaic was not a literary language. It was used for book keeping and the like as far as I recall. Hebrew was also not used widely by the population beyond religion.

The Gospels were designed for wide spread distribution and would have been written in Greek for the purpose. Even if Hebrew/Aramaic was used as the language of the "rough draft first copies" - the intent was to translate it into Greek regardless. I am willing to accept that the "authors" may have "bullet pointed" in Hebrew/Aramaic but only to help in the writting/translating the Gospels in Greek.

Having the Gospels in Greek does not mean they were not intended for a Jewish audience. In fact having the Gospels in Greek would have allowed a greater diffusion of the Gospels among Jews, the only language most Jews could read-even if they spoke Hebrew/Aramiac. Yes it possible to read only in a language other than your own while you can only speak your native tongue and not be able to read in it. Modern India is such an example.