An Evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek Language Criteria... 41 addressed by Porter with reference to problems concerning translational theories17. More recently, however, Casey, promoting this criterion in Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel, argues that Aramaic was the lingua franca of Jesus’ social environment18; consequently, he posits that Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic on the basis of the Aramaic targums and fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls19. His argument is anchored in, among others, some extant Aramaic temple inscriptions and the three Aramaic letters of Gamaliel (T.San II.6//pT.San I,2,18d,12–19//bT.San 11b) to Jewish communities20, the evidence of original Aramaic words, such as Abba (Mark 14,36), sabachthani (Mark 15,34), Rabbi (Mark 14,45), Pascha (Mark 14,12, 14)21, and the incident between Titus and Josephus, where the latter was commanded to negotiate with the Jews “in the[ir] native tongue” (B.J. V, 360-1; cf. B.J. VI, 96; C. Ap. 1, 49)22. There have been many criticisms raised against this criterion and perhaps the most important ones are the failure to consider seriously the multilingual environment of first-century Palestine, the widespread acknowledgement that Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient only one of the many contextual meanings of the word ἐπιβαλὼν in the NT. In fact, the Louw-Nida Lexicon gives “to think about seriously” as the meaning of the word in Mark 14,72. See J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York 21987) II, 97. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether there is a need to infer that a Markan (Aramaic) source reads “And he began to weep”. Evidence of the variant reading of ἤρξατο κλαίειν (beginning to weep) is readily found in (PTebt 50, 12 [112/111 B.C.]; Diogen. Cyn. in Diog. L. 6, 27 [3 B.C.E.]). The BDAG lexicon gives the meaning “to begin” or “to reflect or think of it”. For further details, see F.W. Danker ‒ W. Bauer ‒ W. Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago 32000) 367. 17 See Porter, “The Role of Greek Language Criteria”, 365-68; Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 93-95. Translational theory is an important issue in biblical studies, since it is typical for two different languages to have different lexical categories and boundaries asso- ciated with a translational equivalent. See J. Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge 1968) 426, 450-1. Moreover, the use of a language is beyond the mere equation of two words from two different languages, since language use is based on a social activity governed by cultural norms. See Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (Studies in Biblical Greek 6; New York 1996) 50. 18 Casey, Aramaic Sources, 255. Casey proposes a secure method for the retroversion of the Greek of the NT into the original Aramaic based on evidence of the use of Aramaic in the Dead Sea Scrolls, inscriptional evidence, and even the nature of translational theories in first-century Palestine. 19 Casey, “In Which Language”, 326, 327; Casey, “An Aramaic Approach”, 275-76; Casey, Aramaic Sources, esp. 253-55. 20 Casey, “In Which Language”, 326. For a brief historical background of these letters, see S. Schechter ‒ W. Bacher, “Gamaliel I”. No Pages. Online: http://www.jewishencyclope- dia.com/articles/6494-gamaliel-i#172, esp. lines 1‒17. 21 Casey, “In Which Language”, 327. 22 Casey, “In Which Language”, 328.