40 Hughson T. Ong Porter’s work remains to be a novel one, at least in using it in “the most robust fashion”12. 2. Background of the Languages Jesus Spoke a) Casey’s Aramaic Hypothesis Originating in the seventeenth century and popularized in the mid- twentieth century13, the Criterion of Semitic Language Phenomena, which came in two distinct forms14, contends that the larger the amount of Semitic (Aramaic) features in a particular passage (e.g. various cus- toms and practices, geographical features, and beliefs characteristics of first-century Palestine, as well as inscriptional evidence), the higher is its likelihood to be an authentic saying, since Jesus was an Aramaic speaker who is familiar with that environment15. For this reason, throughout most of the twentieth century discussions were focused on alleged “mistransla- tions” of the Greek of the NT16, although this, at least to me, has been 12 But Porter also mentions the widespread recognition of Greek as the language of Jesus and the early church since the nineteenth century. See S.E. Porter, “The Role of Greek Language Criteria”, in T. Holmén ‒ S.E. Porter, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus Research (Leiden 2009) 361, 370-6. 13 J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York 1955) 25-26; J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (New York 1971) 3-37; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (New York 1960) esp. 107-15; T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content (Cambridge 1963) 45-86; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts with an Appendix on the Son of Man (Oxford 31967); J.A. Fitzmyer, “Methodology in the Study of the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus’ Sayings in the New Testament”, in J. Dupont (ed.), Jesus Aux Origines De La Christologie (Louvain 1975) 73-102; C.A. Evans, “Life of Jesus”, in S.E. Porter, Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (Leiden 1997) 427-75; B. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Own Interpretation of Isaiah (London 1984) 57-147. Three stages in the development of the Semitic criteria are significant — Translational Literalism, Paraphrase and Environment, and Revivalism. See Porter, “The Role of Greek Language Criteria”, 364-70. 14 The major form draws on particular grammatical and linguistic Aramaic features in the Greek of the NT, whereas the minor form refers to various environmental features in the texts that are said to point to original Palestinian traditions. See Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 89-90. 15 See Casey, “An Aramaic Approach”, 275-78; Casey, “In Which Language”, 326-28; Casey, Aramaic Sources. That Jesus was an exclusively Aramaic speaker has been the belief in some scholarly circles since the rise of form and later redaction criticism. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 93 16 For example, Casey claims a mistranslation of ἐπιβαλὼν (to throw) in Mark 14,72 due to a misreading of yrX for yrX “began” and that the meaning “to throw” is only to be found in Syriac, an Aramaic dialect spoken later than Jesus’ time. See Casey, Aramaic Sources, 107; Casey, “An Aramaic Approach”, 276. He points out that the translation “And throwing, he wept” is “just as much nonsense as it is in English”, and instead suggests “And he began to weep”. But perhaps Casey has failed to recognize that “throwing” is