Jack Kilmon writes:
<< I do not see this demarcation between a Jerusalem group and a Galilean
< group since his Galilean Talmuddaya appear to have quartered themselves
< in the upper city/Essene Quarter of Jerusalem post crucifixion. Neither do
< I believe his brother just showed up on the doorstep afterward.>
Neither do I. I see him as an established leader within a group of
disciples, who established himself as Jesus successor (perhaps in a similar
way to that in which the khalifs succeeded Mohammed) in Jerusalem. What's the
evidence which places them in a particular part of the city?
< I also do not believe that the Lukan and Matthean scribes utilized
< the same Q document. I think Luke was Aramaic competent and used
< my putative AA while Matthew used a Greek Q.>
Different versions of Q could be expected, as the document was still
evolving, and as it was a sayings collection rather than a 'holy writing'
communites may have felt free to add and adapt to meet their own needs. It
was a multilingual situation, so translation could be expected. As it happens
my wife comes from a country where there are three million people (at least
there are when they're all in the country) and sixteen languages. People jump
freely from one to another, sometimes in mid-sentence, and in that sort of
context everything does get translated, whether orally or in writing. Why do
you think Luke used Aramaic while Matthew used Greek?