Well all the above seems to be a very wordy, and often obscurantist, expansion of your own repeated phrase "Some argue yes, others argue no".
Is there anything in this world you can think of where some people "argue no", regardless of whatever the evidence is?
Lot's of religious people "argue no" to evolution. And for those who have finally been forced to accept that Man evolved from earlier non-human animals, they invariably "argue no" to the Big Bang occurring for entirely natural reasons of physics ... a disembodied intelligence had to be responsible instead.
But they can cite no evidence to "argue no" for such beliefs, right? Well, actually no! Not at all. They can cite mountains of what they claims to be evidence against evolution and against a natural process of the Big Bang. Science may be unimpressed by their claimed "evidence", but they will just reply that many scientists do agree with them (who these "scientists" actually are is another matter), and that if scientists do disagree with them then it's just one opinion against another, sort of, just a matter of anyone’s opinion.
I was summarizing an impossible condition (the nature of the question) that I myself cannot outright answer without at once admitting complete capability of error.
These are among some of the heated topics, and involve quite heavy amounts of material upon the subject.
It can be all hot air and simple to anyone of us not within the political circle of the historical field's on-going feud over the matter, but it never-the-less is the case for the field.
I find both answers arguable (of that particular question) and I also have to keep in mind that we have stacks of texts from the era which we have not yet made our way through the restoration period, let alone the editing stage.
And yet, I cannot rest upon this as a reason to side a position either.
Afaik, it is a fact that these NT remnants have been found in Egypt, and not in Judea. If that is the fact, then in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary there appears to be no reason to think they were written elsewhere. Afaik - there is actually no evidence that the Jesus story was originally written or told in Judea ... is there?
As far as Eight-bits comment about finding books in Cambridge but not automatically concluding they must have been written there -we all know perfectly well that in modern times books can be written and printed in any country, and put on sale in a different country. There are numerous well known and very obvious reasons for that. But that is no sort of valid analogy to finding 4th century copies of gospels only in Egypt and not ever where they were supposed to have originated in Judea.
There may once have been copies in Judea. And perhaps they did not survive. That’s obviously possible. All sorts of scenarios are “possible”. But a rational argument has to rest on the known “facts”. And IF the known fact here is that all these NT remnants have been found in Egypt, and that none have been found in Judea, then in the absence of any other information (such as a known and proven practice of habitually transporting all such written material from Judea to Egypt), then on the face of things the most likely conclusion is that what has been found in Egypt probably originated in Egypt and not in Judea.
I say no, but the answer incredibly well depends upon what the conversation is accepting as evidence.
There have been very interesting arguments in a variety of manners which argue for the implication of a Hebrew text; to include mentions of citations in commentators, as well as form of prose, grammar, and idiom in Mark.
I think the appropriate answer is that it is possible that some text was written in Hebrew for at least some small sectarian outcast of Hebrews who had some need to bother to write something down for themselves instead of just repeating it as normal, but I don't think we can
easily argue that the four canonical texts were originally in the Hebrew language.
I don't think that, unfortunately, informs us very well as to which culture authored them.
All cultures in contact with the use of Alexandria still more-or-less stand capable of authorship, and that does not unfortunately refine the search very much.
For even Judea was, from the inception of Alexandria, a geographical strategic interest of link to Alexandria, for every side of the great city was protected save for the way through Judea, but Judeans were...well...crazy, and Alexander chose not to lose troops but to reach agreements with Judea politically.
And there is also Onias the IV (ousted High Priest-to-be) built a Hebrew holy Temple in Egypt he had envisioned as replacing Jerusalem's.
The point being that Judea shows no lack of cultural familiarity with Egypt, so we cannot so easily dismiss their hand being involved in some manner even in Alexandria.
We cannot draw a line to them very easily either, however; though the postulation can be made logically, and has been through paleography.
However, I would argue just the opposite by the use of paleography for some of the texts.
I think one of the cautions in this is to resist the enticement to treat all four texts as one unit; that what is true for one is true for all.
We should keep in mind that their unity is an invention of a much later convention, and not inherent in their origin.
