It has become fashionable in some circles to deny the possibility that the gospel has an Aramaic underpinning. However I can't go along with that. It's not that I find the use of Aramaic words in Mark all that convincing. Nor can I deny that there is a strange obsession with Latin terminology in the existing narrative. Indeed the reason I believe that there was an original Aramaic gospel doesn't come down to a single argument or only one consideration. There are a multitude of factors, perhaps the strongest being that I can't make sense of Christianity from the existing Greek narratives.
Let me give the reader just one example. I don't understand the interest in the Cross. I can't get my head around that one at all. But I may have found my solution in the Aramaic term nir which has a surprising history. I think it means both fire and cross and it explains why the two terms are linked - i.e. the baptism of fire. More to follow. In the meantime here is the appropriate page from Jastrow.
Stephan Huller has had a life long interest in religion and spirituality 
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."