An Evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek Language Criteria... 43 Porter examines eight Gospel episodes27 using register analysis, with the goal of determining whether each episode has a claim to recording the Greek words of Jesus28. So his thesis goes, “If one can show that the linguistic situation —in the light of its participants, their origins, the context of discussion and the theme—warrants the use of Greek, one can legitimately argue for the probability that this conversation of Jesus took place in Greek”29. Since its introduction in 2000, scholars have responded in several different ways to these new criteria30. Whereas some have welcomed them as new ways of looking at the state of historical Jesus research31, others have rejected them on the basis of the traditional notion of Jesus as an exclusively Aramaic user32. Still others note that the criteria are still contingent on the traditional criteria33. Gleaning from the arguments of and evidence presented by both hy- potheses, there is every possibility that Jesus could have used both Ara- maic and Greek in daily conversations. Whereas Casey argues that Jesus spoke and taught mostly, if not exclusively, in Aramaic, Porter argues Jesus would have taught in Greek on occasion. But the question is on what occasions and in what circumstances. An answer to this question can be derived from using sociolinguistics principles to examine the functions of language in a multilingual community34. 27 Matt 8,5-13//John 4,46-54; John 4,4-26; Mark 2,13-14//Matt 9,9//Luke 5,27-28; Mark 7,25-30//Matt 15,21-28; Mark 12,13-17//Matt 22,16-22//Luke 20,20-26; Mark 8,27-30//Matt 16,13-20//Luke 9,18-21; Mark 15,2-5//Matt 27,11-14; Luke 23,2-4 //John 18,29-38; John 12,20-28 28 Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 127. 29 Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 158. 30 See Porter, “The Role of Greek Language Criteria”, 362-63, esp. n. 10. 31 H.W. Shin, Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem in Historical Jesus Research: The Search for Valid Criteria (Leuven 2004) 186-87; S. McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco 2005) 45. 32 J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids 2003) 83. 33 M.F. Bird, “The Criterion of Greek Language and Context: A Response to Stanley E. Porter”, JSHJ 4 (2006) 55-67. See Porter’s response in S.E. Porter, “The Criterion of Greek Language and Its Context: A Further Response”, JSHJ 4 (2006) 69-74. 34 In the past two or so decades, there has been a significant call by some modern linguistics scholars to bridge the gap between biblical exegesis and sociolinguistics. The profound weakness of Noam Chomsky’s generative grammar (i.e., grammar as independent of semantics) and James Barr’s devastating critique of the word-centered approach to bibli- cal exegesis that dominated the nineteenth and twentieth century paved the way for modern linguistic approaches to find its place in biblical studies. Modern linguistics recognizes that meaning is derived not simply from a word or even the aggregated meanings of words, but from the complex assembly of discourse and sociological context. See P. Cotterell, “The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal”, ExpTim (1985) 237-42; P. Cotterell, “Sociolinguistics and Biblical Interpretation”, Vox Evangelica 16 (1986) 61-76; J.P. Louw (ed.), Sociolinguistics and Communication (UBS Monograph Series 1; London 1986). See also a review of Sociolinguistics and Communication by Porter, “Sociolinguistics and Com- munication”, JETS 30 (1987) 487-88.