To use the expression "the language Jesus spoke" is to imply that a Jesus actually existed and said things quoted. But the best current scholarship today demonstrates persuasively that no walking, talking Jesus ever existed (never mind was executed extra-judicially). If any did, nothing he said found its way into the New Testament.
Certainly, neither Paul writing in the 50s, nor the Roman church elders who wrote 1 Clements in the 60s had heard of a Jesus ever saying anything noteworthy, despite that backup from that quarter would have enormously eased their own arguments. The anonymous author of "Mark" writing in the 70s evidently confabulated a Jesus to mouth Paul's opinions (as found in his letters) to silence quarrelsome opposition. Amazingly, "Mark" seems to have had little more than Paul to draw on, even then. Every scrap else written down seems to have been torched by his time.
It is particularly interesting that (the anonymous forger of the book of) "John" chose to scrub the "camel" line from his personal canon.
There is not so much as a hint of actual evidence that there was ever any such thing as a Q source, nor M, L, or J; nor any "oral traditions". All are figments of the bubbling "biblical scholar" imagination. The dozens of other gospels left out of the canon, and the even more numerous forged Pauline letters, a few adopted as canon, illustrate how wholesale fabrication was the normal mode of literary production in the early Church. What the anonymous authors of "Matthew" wrote not found in "Mark", of "Luke" that wasn't in either, and of "John" that wasn't in any, is very evidently their personal opinions on what their private Jesuses should have said. ("John" even invented from whole cloth an entire disciple, Lazarus, as his own Jesus's favorite that the other gospels have as at most a wholly hypothetical figure.)
If you are curious about the scholarship, you could start at "Why Invent the Jesus" on YT. Literally none of it has even been replied to, never mind refuted, in any peer-reviewed medium.