No doubt.
Hebrew was the language spoken by the ancient Israelites, and in which were composed nearly all of the books of the Old Testament. The name Hebrew as applied to the language is quite recent in Biblical usage, occurring for the first time in the Greek prologue of Ecclesiasticus, about 130 B.C.In New-Testament usage the current Aramaic of the time is frequently called Hebrew (hebrais dialektos, Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), not in the strict sense of the word, but because it was the dialect in use among the Jews of Palestine. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07176a.htm]
Well, why would the Romans use Aramaic? They dealt with the Jewish upper class and priesthood who knew Aramaic. The lower classes would know Aramaic, but also be at least conversant in Greek, the lingua franca of the time and place.
Bottom line is that there were three different languages used on the plague above Jesus. There is no disagreement between the Matthew, Luke, and John. It was that each was giving what was written in three different languages.
It doesn't say that anywhere, and your identification of who used what language only applies to Luke, because he wrote all of his Gospel in Greek.
Every time I am asked that question it arises from a faulty perception that the three disagree in what was written. The do not. You can try to obfuscate any which way you want but the fact remains that I know what the reason for asking the question was.
You give me unsubstiated claims; I give you reasons why they would not be true and you claim that I obfuscate? Show me where I am wrong from Scripture.
Sigh,,,,,,,do you not read my posts?
Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew
I’m not sure why you have such a hard time with this. Is it because you so desperately want there to be a contradiction?