38 Hughson T. Ong of Jesus’ sayings (and actions) found in the Gospel accounts3. Even more significant is the question that, since the NT was transmitted in Greek, what are we to do with the few Aramaic words and putative Aramaic features in the Gospels, especially considering the fact that Jesus’ native tongue was most likely Aramaic4. Surprisingly, however, while one may expect a lively discussion of the issue, recent surveys and discussions in historical Jesus research do not even mention it5. This is despite the fact that the so-called Third Quest has laid claims to a new methodological orientation as a distinguishing feature of previous quests6. My interest in this topic has prompted me to look into the debate between two promi- nent scholars, Maurice Casey and Stanley Porter7. I investigate in this article the nature of how language functions in a multilingual society8, in order to spark a fresh discussion on how such a linguistic criterion might serve as a auxiliary tool and/or corrective criterion to the recorded Jesus’ sayings and actions in the Gospels. I show 3 The criteria of authenticating Jesus’ sayings and actions is a sub-discipline of the Historical Jesus studies, which originally was a sub-discipline of NT studies but has later developed into a distinct field of enquiry. M.A. Powell, ““Things That Matter”: Historical Jesus Studies in the New Millennium”, Word & World 29 (2009) 122. 4 Aramaic was the language of the Jews upon their return from the exile in sixth cen- tury B.C.E. M.O. Wise, “Languages of Palestine”, in J.B. Green ‒ S. McKnight ‒ I.H. Marshall (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove 1992) 437; cf. M. Casey, “An Aramaic Approach to the Synoptic Gospels”, ExpTim 110 (1999) 275. 5 I see this language issue neither in Powell’s article (2009) nor in the introductory chapter of Beilby and Eddy’s book (2009). See Powell, ““Things That Matter””, 121-28; J.K. Beilby and P.R. Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove 2009) 9-54. As a matter of fact, Porter already gave this same remark in 2000. See Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 22. 6 This claim was made by N.T. Wright who appears to be the first one to coin the term Third Quest. See S. Neill and N.T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861- 1986 (Oxford 21988) 379-403; cf. N.T. Wright, “Towards a Third ‘Quest’?”, ARC 10 (1982) 20-7. However, quite a number of scholars have rejected the term, arguing for either a continuity or revival of the quest, rather than a demarcation of distinct chronological stages of the quest from Reimarus to the present. For example, see D.C. Allison, “The Secularizing of the Historical Jesus”, Perspectives in Religious Studies (2000) 141-45; M. Bockmuehl, “This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah”, ExpTim 106 (1995) 6; T. Holmén, “A Theologically Disinterested Quest?”, ST 55 (2001) 189; Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 56; J.H.P. Reumann, “Jesus and Christology”, in E.J. Epp ‒ G.W. MacRae (eds.), The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (Philadephia 1989) 502; W.R. Telford, “Major Trends and Inter- pretive Issues in the Study of Jesus”, in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the Current State of Research (Leiden 1994) 55-61. 7 For more details of the debate, see Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 164-80; S.E. Porter, “Jesus and the Use of Greek: A Response to Maurice Casey” BBR 10 (2000) 71-87; M. Casey, “In Which Language Did Jesus Teach”, ExpTim 108 (1997) 326-28; M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (Cambridge 1998) esp. 65-68, 76-78; cf. Casey, “An Aramaic Approach”, 275-78.