There is a certain purity (and quite right too you might add) that anyone studying the NT, historical Jesus, and Chrsitian origins really ought to know Greek. Then Hebrew perhaps. Aramaic or Latin or Coptic might come in third. But should not the purity applied to learning Greek be applied more broadly? I mean if commonly cited and discussed texts such as Daniel, 1 Enoch, Dead Sea Scrolls, Thomas etc. are to be commonly cited and discussed and if NT/Christian origins scholars are writing lengthy sections or articles on these texts, should it be stressed that not only should knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew and Coptic be crucial but also Ge'ez/Ethiopic (if a text such as 1 Enoch is being discussed). I know from experience (rather experiencing someone else's experience - you can try and guess who I am talking about) that the son of man problem would require knowledge of several languages, including Ge'ez/Ethiopic yet plenty of people are prepared to discuss the problem (me included - I'm telling myself off, don't worry).
Now I have virtually no idea of the range of languages people have but I haven't met many people who read Ge'ez/Ethiopic (I don't) and I keep being told that not many NT/HJ/CO scholars know Aramaic. How many read Coptic?
Now I know life is too short for most to learn every language and write meaningfully on various themes of the NT or explanations of Christian origins and that frequently you just have to rely on what experts are saying in other fields, but, and this might just be me misunderstanding the situation, is this not a problem given the importance of some of these texts for the study of Christian origins?