I misread the title, and was ready to rush to the aid of the Semitists, but then I felt this question might have also benefited from another methodology adding itself on.
As fdb has shown, the OP bears an assumption about historical-Jesus, and which languages are in consideration. And there's some risk that we come to the text with the popular conception of Jesus as a Jewish rabbi whose scripture is in Hebrew but whose ministry was in Aramaic and who is recorded in Greek.
It's a popular conception for good reasons, one with highly-researched scholarly conceptions standing in its corner behind it, but that's an immense topic and I will try to marshall a new answer that lets the OP's assumptions stand and then looks at what they bring out from the text.
Before asking this of Matthew 6:13, we should start with the places where the echoes are in Aramaic or Hebrew since those will in process be likely to offer stronger possibilities for Matthew's and his audience's relationship to those languages. And I say possibilities not clues because this approach hopes to inform historians of what is in the text.
It bears disclosure that by this approach we first encounter Jesus as a speaking-character in Matthew whose dialogue is nearly all presented as fluent Greek. He is shown outfangling the scribes and the Pharisees with subtle phrasing matching subtle ideas. He isn't the waiter in a famous seaside hotel. He isn't a Scythian police officer.
Excluding names, there are about a dozen places where the NT uses Aramaic or Semitic words and phrases. 5 are in Mark, 5 are in Matthew. Luke has 2. Only one of those overlaps and it's in a different form (Ἠλί, Ἠλί, λεμὰ σαβαχθανί).
Brief discussion of two of these will be enough to show the main considerations for Matthew 6:13
=================================
Ταλιθὰ κούμ
Matthew doesn't include Mark 5:41's "Talitha koum!" and we must assume Matthew 9:18-26 is the same girl with the same interruption from the same bleeding woman.
A literary approach of this type is firstly concerned with what the echoes are doing in their new home.
Ταλιθὰ κούμ can be taken to suggest Jesus is bilingual but speaks Greek most of the time in his ministry, and Mark and Matthew are presenting a record or witness and that this testimony requires subtitles in just a few places where Jesus switched languages.
Or alternatively Aramaic or Hebrew might be the first language and the apostles use it/them for vividness. If Mark's audience are mostly Greek, the Aramaic phrases might be chosen because there couldn't be found an adequate Greek gloss for them, or to remind the reader/listener the events take place in a certain province where different norms apply. If Matthew's audience are mostly Jewish, the use of Aramaic or especially any local dialect-markers if these can be found might help to situate Jesus in the prophetically-expected location.
That tries to extenuate the two apostles, in case it reveals difference, but it's equally conceivable they are taking essentially the same approach, or that in their time these phrases were commemorated in Church ritual.
=================================
Ἠλί, Ἠλί, λεμὰ σαβαχθανί; (Matthew 27:46) / / Ἐλωΐ, Ἐλωΐ, λαμὰ σαβαχθανί. (Mark 15:34)
This is more useful and more complicated because (1) it's quoting Psalm 22:1a and (2) the verb σαβαχθανί only exists in Aramaic (and Chaldean?) (Meyer), but the other words also exist in Hebrew.
And from Expositors:- "the earliest evangelic report might be an important clue. This Resch finds in the reading of Codex [157], which gives the words in Hebrew."
Mark's Ἐλωΐ might be closer to the Aramaic (אלהי), and Matthew's Ἠλί to the Hebrew (אלי).
There aren't enough words to determine which (if either) is the first language. We can't tell what overlap there was between the spoken languages.
What can be said?:-
- the only place Mark and Matthew overlap is at a climax
- it's more like a word-for-word quotation than an echo
- it's unlikely Mark and Matthew have a textual variant in their books of Psalms, at the one place they both quote, so we can assume the differences are differences of translation or transliteration
- it either wasn't possible or wasn't important for the two apostles to maintain consistency with each other. Perhaps reader-understanding is the priority
- it's potentially of philological interest that the people in the crowd could mishear Eloi as Elijah's name. A single vowel-sound isn't enough to compare Jesus' dialect with that of the crowd but taken as artifice it may set up a tragedy-of-miscomprehension or emphasize privacy between the Son and the Father
The LXX now can be brought in. If it can't be it will be anyway. The Greek OT would have primacy for anyone in Mark's audience, for recalling or referring back to Psalm 22. Matthew's audience would be more likely than Mark's to refer to the MT but the fact of the LXX's production implies many Jews wanted one as well. Conjecturally, a reason for having it both languages might be to make sharing or explaining the stories easier. We don't know what proportion of people were bilingual, but we know from our own time that by human faculties and endeavour it can become very high.
LXX: Ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου, πρόσχες μοι·ἱνατί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
The interpolation of πρόσχες μοι might be evidence that Jesus is quoting MT without LXX inbetween. The commentaries on Biblehub don't remark on this though. It occurs it might be formulaic when addressing God, or it might be that ἐγκατέλιπές needs clarification, as a more physical idea when the agent, the one leaving behind, has only just been introduced, or it might be redundant/a glitchy scribe.
According to Strongs, Eloi is 'elahh with pronominal suffix. So (please correct me if I'm wrong) the idea expressed in Gk:μου was present in the Aramaic or Hebrew. And it's perhaps a little clunky if it's splitting a suffix out into an extra word - lessening the verbal impact (which I submit can still be well felt by us in English) including by breaking up the metre when the L - L - L alliteration is lost. Reduplication of deities' names in older pagan Greek-language hymns and prayers might be worth looking for. Θεέ isn't common but Matthew uses it in his translation and for the LXX the same repetition Θεέ Θεέ might better have kept the original idiom... and perhaps a momentary sense of our detachment from the divine, the sense we're witnessing something beyond our comprehension - if the use of an unfamiliar idiom is an artifice.
That opens yet another possibility: that Mark and Matthew would normally use the LXX but they know it just doesn't have the same ring as the Aramaic or Hebrew.
But we'll discount the possibility that they might have translated the LXX back into Hebrew.
=================================
Gradually approaching Matthew 6:13
More questions are opening than answers. But hopefully this lends the OP a flimsy shortcut through 'Markan Priority' and 'Historical Jesus', whilst pinching just enough critical tools on the way to try and test Matthew 13:16 for a presence of Hebrew or Aramaic echoes.
Although the evidence of two passages isn't at all a strong base-plank, I submit it's enough to support this conjecture:-
That when Matthew and Mark use Aramaic or Hebrew there's a fair chance they're also quoting the Old Testament, and so their selection between Aramaic or Hebrew will be a question of style rather than substance.
==
That can be set out more carefully. On this hypothesis the following phrases are treated as colloquialisms or flavour:-
Ταλιθὰ κούμ (Mk) ; Ἐφφαθά (Mk) ; Ἀββά (Mk) ; Ρακά (Mt) ; Μαμωνάς (Mt) ; Κορβάν (Mt); Ὡσαννά (Mk, Psalm 118:25)
And this is the only one that it's useful to consider in more depth, as the exposition of an important idea in another language:-
Ἠλί, Ἠλί, λεμὰ σαβαχθανί (Psalm 2:1, Mt+Mk)
==
This is only by appeal to complexity. It can't be excluded that a single-word echo is sometimes enough to change the meaning of a whole passage.
The fact they only do it once, and of the same OT verse strongly suggests that this isn't a go-to device for exposition. Usually they translate. Which we can identify with: having 20+ different English bibles in regular academic use!
=================================
Matthew 6:13 - πονηρός
If those hypotheses can stand to this point, I feel able to contend that Mark and Matthew only bring their knowledge of Aramaic and Hebrew into direct contact with the reader at one and the same point: Ἠλί, Ἠλί, λεμὰ σαβαχθανί
The rest of the time they are translating.
How they translate πονηρός needs to be decided in context of the passage, which the OP was already well engaged with, and which we can engage in via this site and books.
As has been partly shown in passing, they almost certainly juggled more than one strategy, including:-
Matthew 6:13 isn't the first two (notwithstanding there is the same concept to be found in the Psalms). We can't tell the second two apart with certainty. We can't tell if the second two are present with certainty, since there isn't a glossary in the back of the gospel.
For πονηρός (Strongs) the Hebrew term underneath would be רַע (ra).
And of course this debate about πονηρός would never have arisen if רַע couldn't be found as both abstract evil and an evil one.
Meanwhile, this is exactly the sort of subtle distinction that translators have to sacrifice. Whatever language the original idea was in, the translator works in the new language. They decided it was do-able.
And although we now pass to the Greek-language leg of this, it bears repeating: English grammar has fewer moving parts and one way it achieves clarity is by forcing the nouns to have either a the or an a.
A Greek translator from Hebrew has the same challenge we do: that Hebrew's articles don't map across 1:1. And the language they're attempting to map into lacks an explicit indefinite article. They arrive on English-speakers' bookshelves with a distinction between the definite and the indefinite that is lower down in their pecking-order of syntactic features, and so more likely to give way to the markers of other constructions.
In conclusion, a qualified no. But there have been many assumptions, I am sure some mistakes, and a literary approach may be seeking different things from that no.
