42 Hughson T. Ong Mediterranean world23, and most importantly, the oversimplification of the criterion to reject any text as inauthentic based on the absence of Aramaic features. That the NT was transmitted in Greek remains to be a task to deal with in explaining how it relates to the multilingualism of first-century Palestine. b) Porter’s Greek Hypothesis The criticisms raised against the Aramaic hypothesis constitute the core argument of the Greek hypothesis. Since first-century Palestine was multilingual and Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire24, the linguistic environment was certainly more complex than one could imag- ine25. One also finds the same kinds and amount of literary, inscriptional, and papyri evidences, which are in or translated into Greek in Palestine26. Porter’s Criterion of Greek Language and Its Context is the first of three Greek-language criteria introduced into the historical Jesus research and is based on a characterization of multilingualism. Diachronically, a multilingual person would have at least a native and a second language that serve as his linguistic repertoire. Synchronically, the distinction is made between one’s capacity to use a particular language actively (or productively) or passively (or receptively). The alternate use between languages (code-switching) concerns issues related to group formation and social identity. 23 This has led scholars to bifurcate an Aramaic-speaking Palestine and a Greek- speaking Mediterranean. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 129-30. 24 There were about five to six million Jews living in the Diaspora during the first century. Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 34. This was largely a result of Alexander’s dream to propagate Greek culture in every city he came in contact with, including Pales- tine. This Hellenism program in the hands of Alexander’s successors continued even after his death. L.R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students (Downers Grove 2002) 75-109, esp. 75-76. On the part of the Jews, their very identity was clearly dependent on a separation from the larger community, but this did not last long and soon they “left behind Aramaic for the language of the Greek”. J.S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove 1999) 216. For more information on the movement of Hellenism in the east, see the essays found in A. Kuhrt ‒ S.M. Sherwin-White, Hellenism in the East: The Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander (Berkeley 1987). 25 Porter is convinced that Jews, especially Jewish teachers, in the eastern Mediterranean (incl. Palestine and Galilean region) would have spoken Greek from simple communication to extended discourse. See Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek”, TynBul 44 (1993) 199- 235 (expanded in Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament, 139-71); Porter, “Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee”, in Chilton ‒ Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus, 123-54; Porter, “The Greek Language of the New Testament”, in Porter, Handbook to Exegesis, 99-130; cf. Porter, “The Role of Greek Language Criteria”, 377. 26 See Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 140-1, n. 32.