The sidelining of nonSyriac Aramaic

The Near East which adopted Arabic had, beforehand, spoken Aramaics. It's commonly mooted around Christian circles that "Aramaic" was "the language of Jesus". This is true inasmuch as Jesus was a Galilean where (before the Revolt) Hebrew wasn't a spoken language. Leaving aside to what extent Qumran and the Shephelah, and parts of Jerusalem of course, were all keeping Hebrew current, as we'll read in Mishnah.

My issue with the general, not to say vulgate, Christian opinion is that Jesus as a Galilean should have been speaking a precursor of a Palaestinian Aramaic. We actually have quite a bit of Christian Pal[a]estinian Aramaic in writing, albeit biblical and patristic rather than, oh, contemporary literature. Christian Aramaeans by the seventh-century AD corresponded in Edessene Syriac, as when Ishoʿyahb III was writing to Jerusalem.

Anyway they'd all end up in Araby. But how?

The first Arabic Christian bibles cluster in the Jerusalem region and the later/ʿAbbasid eighth century AD. The Jews were probably at least targumising their own scriptures around this time (before Saadya). The Had-Qnoma came to claim that Mar Johanan himself had commissioned an Arabic Bible: which might be a Gospel (harmony?) although Genesis is noted as a point of controversy, so - perhaps a lectionary with bits and pieces.

One factor in the Malkiya was that these Arabophones, not being of the Church of the East, and also being closer to Constantinople (over the ninth century, starting to Make Rome Great Again), had taken notice of the Peshitta / Masoretic commonalities. Some parallels were (and are) innocuous to the Divine Oeconomia. Other parallels work against us - Agapius and Theodore Abu Qurra called out the (shorter) Masoretic chronology, in particular. And as sometimes modern Protestants have adopted LXX here; back then, Elias of Nisibin, an Oriental himself, came to accept this Melkite argument even against his own Bible. Some Muslims like Abu'l-Fida followed, of interest just for their interest in abrogated kutub.

I'd pondered if anyone here had bothered with the local Palaestinian Aramaic tradition but, it seems not. There exist Arabic / Greek multilinguals touching upon Aramaic, foremost Russian State Library 432. This Aramaic was Syriac.

I conclude that the Melkites of Jerusalem read Syriac and Greek, and ʿAbbasi-era Arabic. The Melkites under Islam ignored Palaestinian Aramaic, shunting this aside. And nobody in the Had-Qnoma ever touched the stuff; Mar John in particular being a Syriac man.

As for modern claims that the Syrian villages which have preserved Aramaic might speak descendents of ancient non-Syriac dialects; I don't know. If so these villages did not contribute to any independent Christian literacy. Where they own Bibles they are Syriac Bibles or VERY recent translations.