THE CRITERION OF GREEK LANGUAGE AND CONTEXT: A RESPONSE TO STANLEY E.

PORTER
Michael F. Bird
Highland Theological College Dingwall, Scotland, UK
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Vol. 4.1 pp. 55-67 DOI: 10.1177/1476869006061778 2006 SAGE Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi http://JSHJ.sagepub.com

ABSTRACT This essay examines Stanley E. Porters proposed new criterion of authenticity, the criterion of Greek language and context. This criterion attempts to recover the Greek words of Jesus embedded in the Gospels. Porter presents a robust case for a multilingual Palestinian environment and highlights the value of language tools for historical-Jesus study. Despite this, Porters proposed new criterion is questionable for several reasons. (1) The character of the Jesus tradition is not conducive to a recovery of the purported Greek words of Jesus; (2) the extent that Greek was spoken in Galilee remains debatable; (3) Porter risks the fallacy of moving from the general to the particular; (4) the Greek-speaking background of Jesus dialogue partners does not require that conversations transpired in Greek; and (5) Porter remains dependent upon additional criteria to establish the authenticity of a given logion or pericope.

Key words: criteria of authenticity, criterion of Greek language and context, New Testament Greek

Introduction Recently Stanley E. Porter has advocated that Jesus may have taught in Greek on several occasions with the result that there is a possibility if not a likelihood that we have some of the actual words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels.1 In
1. Stanley E. Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?, TynBul 44 (1993), pp. 199-235 (223); idem, Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee, in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS, 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 123-54 (148). See also Robert W. Funk and Roy W. Hoover, If Jesus could speak Greek, some parts of the oral tradition of sayings and parables preserved in the gospels may actually have originated with him (The Five Gospels [San Francisco: Harper, 1997], p. 28). Robert W. Funk writes, Greek was probably his [Jesus] second language, learned from the pagan environment that surrounded him in Galilee, especially in Sepphoris, a hellenistic city located only four miles from his village (Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium [San Francisco: Harper, 1996], pp. 34, 79).

56

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

light of that Porter suggests in a subsequent study the use of three new criteria in historical-Jesus study including the criterion of Greek language and its context, the criterion of Greek textual variance and the criterion of discourse features.2 It is the criterion of Greek language and its context that I wish to evaluate in this study. In this new criterion Porter is attempting to use Greek in a manner analogous to how others have used the criterion of Semitic language in order to establish the authenticity of certain sayings and actions of Jesus. Porter states that:
The purpose of this Greek-language criterion is to determine if there are denable characteristic features of various episodes that point to a Greek-language based unity between the participants, the events depicted, and concepts discussed. That is, on the basis of the events depicted and words recorded by the participants, the question is asked whether the probability would be greater that Greek would have been the language of communication used between Jesus and his conversation partners, or not.3

Porters proposal is certainly ambitious and if he is correct the implications would be extraordinarily signicant for historical-Jesus studies. If one could detect and establish authentic Greek sayings of Jesus in the Greek New Testament, then Porter has potentially opened up a whole new and uncharted eld of Jesus research. The teachings of Jesus and transmission of the tradition would require reappraisal in light of such a hypothesis. Despite that, many reviewers have not found Porters arguments to be entirely persuasive.4 However, most of the criticisms have been exceedingly brief and failed to completely engage Porter at the key junctures of his proposal. For instance, P. M. Caseys critique of Porters contention that Jesus frequently conversed in Greek appears to consist predominantly of asserting the superiority of his own thesis of an Aramaic approach to the Gospels in conjunction with making several ad hominem remarks against Porter.5 Therefore, the aim of this study will be to offer a more thorough (and hopefully more irenic) evaluation of Porters criterion of Greek language and context. I will endeavour to demonstrate that, despite some genuine insights, Porter has not produced a criterion of authenticity suitable for use in historicalJesus studies.
2. Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (JSNTSup, 191; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 2000). 3. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 142-43. 4. J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered. I. Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 83; reviews by David C. Sim, AusBR 50 (2002), pp. 88-89; Darrell L. Bock, BibSac159 (2002), pp. 125-27; Scot McKnight, TrinJ 23 (2002), pp. 120-24; Richard B. Vinson, JBL 120 (2001), pp. 769-71; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, BI 9 (2001), pp. 410-13; Harold W. Attridge, CBQ 63 (2001), pp. 761-63. 5. P.M. Casey, In Which Language Did Jesus Teach? ExpTim 108 (1997), pp. 326-28. For Porters response, see Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 164-80; idem, Jesus and the Use of Greek: A Response to Maurice Casey, BBR 10 (2000), pp. 71-87.

Bird The Criterion of Greek Language and Context

57

Outline of Porters Argument for the Criterion of Greek Language The criterion that Porter proposes operates in four key steps: (1) A description of the linguistic character of Palestine with specic emphasis on the widespread use of Greek. (2) An examination of the backgrounds of participants in a given pericope. (3) Analysis of the context and themes of discussion in a pericope. (4) A concluding determination as to whether or not the pericope in question has a claim to recording the Greek words of Jesus.6 Porters development of the criterion of Greek language and context is predicated on his arguments for the prevalence of Greek in Palestine and Galilee in the rst century. Porter acknowledges that while it is likely that Jesus primary language was Aramaic such a conclusion is arrived at by logical and historical inference. He contends that there are only several odd references to Jesus using Aramaic; much of the documentary evidence for Aramaic is of literary quality (sometimes late and possibly even Hebrew) and inscriptional evidence consists principally of names.7 Porter next evaluates the possibility that a form of Mishnaic Hebrew was prevalent in rst-century Palestine. Although this view has some credence, Porter endorses Fitzmyers conclusion that there is little evidence for colloquial Hebrew and only a few Hebrew inscriptions are extant in Palestine.8 This brings Porter to the topic of how widely Greek was spoken in Palestine and hence by Jesus. He sums up the evidence for this proposal as follows:
The argument for this position rests rmly on the role of Greek as the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, the linguistic and cultural character of lower Galilee during the rst century, the linguistic fact that the New Testament has been transmitted in Greek from its earliest documents, a diversity of epigraphic evidence, signicant literary evidence, and several signicant contexts in the Gospels that give plausibility to this hypothesis.9

Porter goes on to claim that in Palestine, Greek was a prestige language which means that it dominated the political, educational and economic forces. Consequently, there would have been cultural, social and especially linguistic pressure to learn Greek in order to communicate broadly within the social structure.10 Porter then combs through geographical, papyrological, numismatic,

6. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 127-28. 7. Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?, pp. 201-202; idem, Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee, pp. 124-26. 8. Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?, p. 203; idem, Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee, pp. 127-28. 9. Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?, p. 204; idem, Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee, p. 128; Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 140-41. 10. Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?, pp. 208-209; idem, Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee, p. 133.

58

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

epigraphic, and literary evidence for the widespread use of Greek in lower Palestine and Galilee.11 He argues that there are several episodes in the Gospels where Jesus may have spoken Greek: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Jesus discussion with Greeks (Jn 12.20-28). Jesus meeting with a centurion (Mt. 8.5-13; Lk. 7.1-10; Jn 4.46-54). Jesus conversation with a Samaritan woman (Jn 4.4-26). The call of Levi/Matthew (Mk 2.13-14 = Mt. 9.9; Lk. 5.27-28). Jesus encounter with the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman (Mk 7.2430 = Mt. 15.21-28). The dispute about paying taxes to Caesar with the Herodians and Pharisees (Mk 12.13-17 = Mt. 22.16-22; Lk. 20.20-26). Jesus talks with his disciples at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8.27-30 = Mt. 16.13-20; Lk. 9.18-21). Jesus trial before Pilate (Mk 15.2-5; Mt. 27.11-14; Lk. 23.2-5; Jn 18.29-38).12 More recently he has added a ninth, Jesus cleansing of the ten lepers (Lk. 17.11-19).13

Porter believes that in the above episodes the criterion of Greek language and context may be of use.14 The rst phase in Porters criterion is to examine the participants and their background in a given episode. He states, this criterion attempts to establish on the basis of the linguistic background and origin of Jesus conversational partners whether it is plausible that they and Jesus spoke Greek.15 In the case of Jesus dialogue with the Pharisees and Herodians in the Temple (Mk 12.13-17; Mt. 22.16-22; cf. Lk. 20.20-26) Porter theorizes that the exchange arguably took place in Greek. If members of the Pharisaic group were from outside Palestine (like Paul) they would have predominantly and perhaps even exclusively spoken Greek. The Herodians as part of the retinue or household of the Romanized Herods may well have spoken Greek too. Roman ofcials were unlikely to speak Aramaic and probably knew Greek. Thus, Jesus encounter with the centurion/royal ofcial (Mt. 8.5-13/Lk. 7.1-10; Jn 4.46-54) potentially transpired in Greek.

11. Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?, pp. 209-23; idem, Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee, pp. 134-47; idem, Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 140-41. 12. Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?, pp. 224-35; idem, Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee, pp. 149-53; idem, Criteria for Authenticity, p. 158. 13. Stanley E. Porter, Luke 17.11-19 and the Criteria for Authenticity Revisited, JSHJ 1 (2003), pp. 201-24. 14. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 158-59. 15. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, p. 154.

Bird The Criterion of Greek Language and Context

59

The second phase of Porters argument is to study the context and theme of discussion in various instances to see if speaking Greek ts the linguistic scenario. He offers the example of a Jew speaking about Roman law, which would be more appropriate in Greek than Aramaic.16 Finally, the third phase consists of determining the words of Jesus by applying several of the more traditional criteria such as multiple-attestation, embarrassment, and dissimilarity.17

The Problems with the Criterion of Greek Language Before embarking on a systematic critique of Porters position it is necessary to highlight the strengths of his argument. First, Porter presents what is arguably the most compelling case to date for a multilingual language milieu in rst-century Palestine. His command of primary and secondary literature is commendable. Second, Porter is remarkably restrained in the number of episodes where he thinks Jesus may have spoken in Greek. This goes to show that Porter has not imposed his thesis of Jesus teaching in Greek across the breadth of the Gospel but is relatively careful and cautious in the selection of units where he nds evidence for it occurring. Third, I agree with Porter that the preservation of an authentic Greek utterance of Jesus in the tradition of Jesus reply to Pilate su\ le&geij (you say so)18 is highly plausible,19 though far from established. Fourth, he attempts to bring some refreshing ideas to the often stale discussion of criteria of authenticity. These notwithstanding, there are several features of this proposed criterion which warrant criticism.

16. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, p. 155. 17. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 157-58. 18. Mk 15.2 (= Mt. 27.11; Lk. 23.3); Jn 18.33-34, 37. 19. I concur with Porter on the authenticity of the logion for several reasons: (1) The saying is multiply-attested in Mark and John. (2) The context of a trial before a Roman Prefect is certainly a situation that would call for use of an international lingua franca like Greek. (3) The reply is simple and concise and easily transmitted and memorized. (4) The reply is also vague, enigmatic and lacks any sign of christological embellishment, which means that the early church probably did not create it. Three further points are noteworthy. First, one is able to make this point independently of Porters Greek criterion of authenticity. We can agree with Porter without necessarily getting there via the same route. Second, we do not know for sure what language the trial took place in or if translators were used for its duration. We know even less of Pilates facility in Greek. For all we know Pilate may have spoken only Latin and used an Aramaic or Greek translator during legal proceedings. Third, one should be cognizant of the fact that the authenticity of the trial narratives are themselves disputed and this warrants engagement with other studies before nally pronouncing a verdict on their authenticity.

60

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

The Character of the Jesus Tradition and the Purpose of the Gospels do not Lend Themselves to the Recovery of the Greek Words of Jesus Porters primary contention lies in establishing the plausibility of Jesus speaking Greek in several episodes recounted in the Gospels within a cumulative case for authenticity. Porter seems to apply this criterion, on the one hand, to argue that if the event occurred it plausibly occurred in Greek. Additionally, Porter also regards the criterion of Greek language and context as contributing to a process to authenticate the words and actions of Jesus.20 Very few scholars would doubt that Jesus probably knew some Greek and he might have conversed in Greek on occasion. The problem lies in demonstrating that it did happen, asserting that these words were preserved in the transmission process, and they are now retrievable from the Gospel manuscripts as they are. In contrast, I submit that the character of the Jesus tradition and the literary intention of the Evangelists render this task impossible from the outset. Beneath the Gospels stands a traditioning process that I regard as conservative in its handling of the Jesus tradition.21 Nonetheless, the handlers of the tradition did not attempt to consciously preserve the ipsissima verba of Jesus with all but a few exceptions. The translation of Jesus sayings from Aramaic to Greek in early tradition or by the Evangelists themselves entails the conscious abandonment, by linguistic necessity, of the ipsissima verba of Jesus in favour of an ipsissima vox. The abbreviation, interpretation and translation of the words and deeds of Jesus imply that the Gospels bequeath to us salient summaries, reports and digests of Jesus teachings delivered through the interpretive grid of the Evangelists. The Gospels constitute the memory of Jesus interpreted and applied to the context of Christians living in the Graeco-Roman world. The intentionality of the Gospels and the shape of the Jesus tradition rule out prima facie the type of search for the Greek utterances of Jesus that Porter aspires to extract from the Gospel texts. One must reckon also with the possibility and implications of linguistic variation within the transmission of the Jesus tradition. If Aramaic sayings were translated into Greek for Greek-speaking audiences then, by analogy, it remains possible that Greek sayings (if they existed) were translated into Aramaic for Aramaic-speaking audiences. After this time such sayings would then have been translated back into Greek during the composition of the Gospels or even earlier. If that is so, then a trajectory of the transmission of Jesus Greek sayings running, Greek Aramaic Greek is entirely comprehensible. Thus, any

20. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 127, 159. 21. Michael F. Bird, The Purpose and Preservation of the Jesus Tradition: Moderate Evidence for a Conserving Force in its Transmission, BBR 15.2 (2005), pp. 161-85; idem, The Formation of the Gospels in the Setting of Early Christianity: The Jesus Tradition as Corporate Memory, WTJ 67.1 (2005), pp. 113-34.

Bird The Criterion of Greek Language and Context

61

purported Greek saying of Jesus may have been laundered through this process of translation and re-translation. Given the necessary adaptation and width of linguistic variation involved in translation, one would wonder if it is still possible to uncover an authentic and unadapted Greek logion of Jesus. Without discounting the possibility that Greek sayings were transmitted and preserved in Greek, and Aramaic sayings were transmitted and preserved in Aramaic, the fact that a saying appears in the same language that Jesus uttered it (Aramaic or Greek) does not guarantee that it is essentially a pure saying. The purpose of the Gospels is not to preserve the authentic Greek words of Jesus, but rather, it is to tell the story of Jesus for Greek readers in the GraecoRoman world. Greek is utilized as the medium not so much because of the sources, but rather because of the readers. The Greek of the Gospels is employed for its impact in reception rather than for the preservation of the words of Jesus. I do not think that Porter would contest this point, but its implication needs to be thought through more carefully with respect to his thesis. The Extent that Greek was Spoken in Galilee Remains Open to Question Porter does not deny that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but he seriously overestimates the Hellenization of Galilee in his attempt to argue for the strong usage of Greek in Galilee. The cultural disposition, linguistic character and ethnic demographics of Galilee are all disputed.22 Martin Hengels assertion that all Judaism of the rst century is a form of Hellenistic Judaism is well noted. However, Hengel did not take that to mean that Judea and Galilee ceased to be distinctly Jewish.23 Several scholars have gone on to argue that Galilee was highly cosmopolitan, Hellenized and urbanized.24 In contrast, there has been a signicant increase in the number of publications urging that Galilee remained essentially Jewish in its religion, private space, culture and demographics substantiated by literary and archaeological evidence.25 Sepphoris and Tiberias were only in their infancy of
22. Cf. Mark Rapinchuk, The Galilee and Jesus in Recent Research, CBR 2 (2004), pp. 197-222. 23. Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism. I. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p. 104. 24. Cf. Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988); J. Andrew Overman, Who Were the First Urban Christians? Urbanization in Galilee in the First Century, in J. David Lull (ed.), SBL 1988 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 160-68; Howard Clark Kee, Early Christianity in the Galilee: Reassessing the Evidence from the Gospels, in Lee I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 3-22; James F. Strange, FirstCentury Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts, in Eugene H. Lovering, Jr (ed.), SBL 1994 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), pp. 81-90. 25. Geza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1983), pp. 4-14; San Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E to 135 C.E: A Study of

62

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Hellenization in the rst century. In fact, Sepphoris lacks the usual features of a Hellenistic city with no hippodrome, no amphitheatre, no odeon, nymphaeum, arches, stadium, pagan temples or gymnasium.26 The dating of the theatre is ambiguous and it could date from the early rst-century to early second-century CE.27 In truth there is a paucity of evidence upon which to determine the linguistic currency of these cities.28 Most international trade by-passed Galilee since the international routes of the Via Maris and the Kings Highway did not intersect Galilee.29 Moreover, as far as we know Jesus consciously avoided these major population centres and as a rural Galilean Jesus probably interacted predominantly with other Aramaic-speaking Jews.30 A caveat of course is that usage of Greek is not antithetical to Jewishness and there is no doubt that Greek was used in Galilee. Still, it appears that in light of recent studies which reinforce the Jewishness of Galilee that Porters assertion about the widespread usage of Greek in Galilee is somewhat overstated. Porter Risks Committing the Fallacy of Moving from the General to the Particular A major problem in Porters argument is the logical move from afrming that a sizable number of Jews in Palestine spoke Greek31 to one particular Jew (i.e. Jesus) spoke Greek. One should not presume to think that by mapping the
Second Temple Judaism (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980); idem, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); idem, Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays (WUNT, 125; Tbingen: MohrSiebeck, 2000); Eric M. Meyers, Jesus and his Galilean Context, in Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough (eds.), Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 57-66; Jonathan L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence (Harrisburg: TPI, 2000); Mark A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (SNTSMS, 118; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Craig A. Evans, Archaeology and the Historical Jesus: Recent Developments, in Society of Biblical Literature Forum (December 2004), www.sble-site.org/ Article.aspx?ArticleID+35. 26. Mark Chancey, The Cultural Milieu of Ancient Sepphoris, NTS 47 (2001), pp. 12547 (136). 27. Cf. Meyers, Jesus and his Galilean Context, p. 64; Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, p. 119; Chancey, Myth, p. 75. 28. Chancey, Myth, pp. 77-78, 180. 29. Chancey, Myth, p. 169. 30. As to why Jesus avoided cities such as Sepphoris, E.P. Sanders writes: The most likely explanation is simply that the world Jesus knew was that of the small towns and villages of Galilee, and he directed his mission to the men and women who shared that world with him (Jesus Relation to Sepphoris, in Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers and Zeev Weiss [eds.], Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraums, 1996], pp. 75-79 [77]). 31. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, p. 141.

Bird The Criterion of Greek Language and Context

63

social, economic or linguistic world of rst-century Galilee one has thereby plotted the social, economic or linguistic contours of Jesus. There is the danger of painting a landscape of Galilee and Palestine and trying to tell people that it is in fact a portrait of the historical Jesus. One may grant that given the linguistic and cultural milieu of Galilee it is highly possible that Jesus spoke Greek at certain times. But possibility is all that we are left with since we simply lack the evidence to prove that he spoke Greek let alone when he spoke Greek, how well he spoke Greek, who he spoke Greek to, and what he exactly said. It seems unlikely that we know enough of Jesus education and linguistic ability to be able to make this sort of judgment. Arguments for the Greek-speaking Background of Participants does not Establish that any Given Conversation Transpired in Greek The step Porter makes in analysing the participants and their backgrounds loads the dice substantially in his favour. Given his argument for the widespread use of Greek in Palestine one could potentially argue that every conceivable context in the Gospels is a potential circumstance for Jesus speaking Greek. Even in Jerusalem where, following Hengels estimate, only 1015 per cent of the population spoke Greek as their rst language, one could easily envisage Jesus engaging in Greek there.32 Thus, in order to demonstrate that a conversation or discourse took place what one needs to do is to place Jesus in a location where Greek is known to have been used or else have him encounter someone who belonged to an ethnic group known to have used Greek. If this is a step in an argument used to infer that an exchange took place in Greek then the outcome seems predetermined. I know of no location and no ethnic group in Palestine that was not affected in some way by Hellenism in the rst century. This means that no matter what incident or pericope that Porter examines he can easily nd evidence for Greek background in either the ethnicity of the person that engages Jesus or from the location when such an event allegedly took place. In all fairness, Porter does not use the criterion this way and he narrows down the eld by looking at the participants and their backgrounds as well as the context and theme of discussion in a given pericope. My point is that the same arguments could be applied to almost any incident recounted in the Gospels to the same effect, namely, to show that Jesus spoke Greek on a given occasion. For example, when discussing the lepers of Luke 17, Porter points out the pervasive contact Hellenistic culture had with Samaria, the inuence of GraecoRoman religion on the Samaritans and the widespread use of Greek as indicated by Samaritan authors who wrote in Greek (e.g. Pseudo-Eupolemus). He surmises,

32. Martin Hengel with Roland Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM Press, 1991), p. 55.

64

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Thus we can conclude that the Samaritanslike the rest of those in Judea and Galileehad been a multilingual people since the third century BCE.33 No-one is disputing that Greek was spoken in Samaria, but how does that establish that these particular lepers spoke Greek? Some would also argue that many of the locations that Jesus is depicted as visiting in the Gospels are the creations of the Evangelists. The stopover points in the Lucan travel narrative, the Marcan crossings of the Sea of Galilee, the Johannine journeys to Jerusalem for festivals, the brief expeditions into Tyre/ Sidon and the Decapolis are all integrated into the theological framework of the Evangelists. I would reject the view that these movements are exclusively theological inventions of the Evangelists since the itinerant nature of Jesus ministry would require him to travel to various areas broadcasting his message of the kingdom, and movements across political borders was necessary to avoid arrest. It is entirely plausible that the journeys have a historical character but have been adapted to suit the theological interests of the Evangelists. That being said, one must still reckon with the theological signicance that the Evangelists attribute to certain geographic centres as well as the possibility at least that many of Jesus sayings initially circulated without reference to where they were spoken and that a geographic context was provided by the Evangelists. The encounters between Jesus and non-Jews recorded in the Gospels have options available other than a Greek-speaking Jesus. For instance, the use of bilingual interpreters among his disciples (e.g., Peter, Philip, Levi and Andrew) is a possibility to be canvassed. Likewise, the prospect that some non-Jews (e.g., Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman) knew enough Aramaic to hold a basic conversation with Jesus cannot be discounted. Porter consciously plays down the role that intermediaries have in several stories. Porters acknowledgment that we frequently know too little of Jesus disputants to be able to make an informed decision as to what language they knew needs to be prosecuted further.34 This caution should be applied not only to a few limited instances, but also to the entire tradition. Whether it is Pilate, the Herodians, Samaritans, unnamed ofcials, or anonymous foreigners, we do not know for sure the linguistic capacity of those involved let alone whether they exercised any facility in Greek with Jesus. The use of Greek in such episodes is a real possibility, but nothing more than that. On the point of context and theme of discussion, Porter seems to assume that some topics are more congruent to discussion in one language than others. This reminds me of a scene in Bertolt Brechts play Life of Galileo where one character laments that having a scientic disputation in a language other than Latin

33. 34.

Porter, Luke 17.11-19, p. 218 (see pp. 213-19 for argument). Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, p. 154.

Bird The Criterion of Greek Language and Context

65

means that the conversation would be less brilliant.35 In one sense, Porter is right: some topics are more conveniently discussed in a particular language. For instance, it is certainly preferable (according to Muslim theologians at least) to discuss matters pertaining to the Koran in Arabic rather than in English. Yet that in no way determines that a discussion of the Koran must take place in Arabic any more than a discussion of Plato must take place in Greek or of Moses in Hebrew. To cite Porters own examples, there is no reason why one should presume that a discussion on Roman law had to take place in Greek (in fact one would think that Latin would be more appropriate).36 Whatever the limitations of the technical vocabulary of Aramaic for discussing Roman law, any language that deals with elements of law, crime, punishment, magistrates and justice is able to draw upon corresponding concepts in a mental register in which analogous terms can be used. On another occasion Porter suggests that the context of discussion in Jesus encounter with the lepers in Luke 17 t within this linguistic scenario of Greek dialogue.37 The use of the plural i9ereu=sin(priests) in Lk. 17.14 rather than the singular i9ereu&j (priest) is supposedly evidence of this since here (as opposed to Lk. 5.14 where a healed leper is sent to the priest singular) the plural reects recognition that there was diversity in the group with different lepers going to different priests. This in turn justied use of the common language. The use of the word sw&zw (heal/save) is particularly tting for those disenfranchised and marginalized. Additionally, the use a)llogenh\j (foreigner) is an apt Jewish designation of Samaritans. Again, what is to say that Luke or a pre-Lucan redactor has either invented or redacted this story to give it a plausible linguistic scenario? How does linguistic realism prove historical reality? To be sure, linguistic realism is consistent with historical reality, but it cannot establish historical reality on its own. An additional point to note is that we have evidence in the Gospels to afrm that Jesus uttered some clauses in Aramaic,38 but we have no such parallel for Greek sayings. There is no point in the Jesus tradition where it is reported, And he said to them in Greek. That should put us on the back foot before accepting the possibility of multiple Greek sayings of Jesus being preserved in the Gospels. Given also Porters critique of the criterion of Semitic language,39 one must ask why similar criticisms do not apply to Porters criterion of Greek language. Just as the Aramaic-speaking church may have shaped Aramaic traditions, the same

35. p. 39. 36. 37. 38. 39.

Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo (ed. and trans. John Willett; London: Methuen, 1980), Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, p. 155. Porter, Luke 17.11-19, p. 219. Mk 5.41; 7.34; 15.34; Mt. 27.46. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 89-99.

66

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

could be said of elements of the Greek-speaking church. Thus, any criterion of authenticity based upon language must reckon with the insurmountable problem that the language of the early church (Greek or Aramaic) has both carried and shaped the Jesus tradition. Appeals to Greek language may escape the problem of conceptual transference between languages, but it still takes us no further in distinguishing between the Greek words of Jesus and the Greek words of the early church. That is not to discount all appeals to language in discussions of authenticity, but it means that language criteria cannot on their own establish authenticity. The Dependence of the Criterion of Greek Language upon Other Criteria of Authenticity At the outset of his argument Porter states his intention to establish these new criteria on their own grounds, without prejudging the results or depending too much upon other criteria that might call into question or jeopardize their ndings.40 According to Porter, these other criteria may be called upon for reinforcing the case for authenticity. He adds that these other criteria are not a necessity.41 The reason for this is that Porter contends that if the linguistic situation of a given pericope warranted the use of Greek then one can legitimately postulate the probability that the conversation took place in Greek. There are several logic leaps in Porters suggestion here. That a conversation warranted Greek is controversial enough let alone implying from that premise that it actually took place in Greek. What is more, Porter moves from possibility, to probability and to authenticity with little argumentation. Accordingly, his invocation of the other criteria is far more important to the integrity of his argument than he recognizes. It is the use of the other criteria of authenticity that rescues Porters criterion of Greek language and its context from his own subjective views as to which conversations warranted Greek. Yet if Porter is reliant upon the other criteria, even if secondarily, then one must ask whether he has really formulated a new independent criterion of authenticity.

Conclusion Did Jesus speak Greek? In my estimation he probably had some facility in Greek and he may well have spoken in Greek during one or more of the instances that Porter suggests. However, one cannot use the Gospels to identify authentic Greek utterances of Jesus; neither can it be established for certain that Jesus did speak Greek on any one particular occasion. The conclusion of Fitzmyer is entirely appropriate:
40. 41. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, p. 126; see also pp. 143, 163. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity, pp. 143, 158.

Bird The Criterion of Greek Language and Context

So the answer to the question, Did Jesus speak Greek? is yes, on some occasions, but we have no real record of it. Did Jesus teach and preach in Greek? That is unlikely; but if he did, there is no way to sort out what he might have taught in Greek from what we have inherited in the Greek tradition of the Gospels.42

67

The primary failure of Porters ambitious proposal is his attempt to demonstrate something for which the evidence will only ever be indirect, ambiguous, hypothetical, and even questionable, viz., that Jesus spoke Greek, and then to use Greek as a criterion of authenticity. The project unfortunately fails, not from lack of effort, but simply because the nature of the evidence renders such an attempt impossible. On a positive side Porter has urged a serious reappraisal of the use of language tools for study of the historical Jesus, and this is a point well worth digesting. Furthermore, the entire volume Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research is a tour de force and compulsory reading for anyone studying or participating in historical-Jesus research. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced of the utility of Porters criterion of Greek language and context and I do not anticipate that it will garner support in historical-Jesus research.

42.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Did Jesus Speak Greek?, BAR 18 (1992), pp. 58-63, 76-77 (63).