An evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek language criteria in historical

Filología Neotestamentaria - Vol. XXV - 2012, pp. 37-55Facultad de Filosofía y Letras - Universidad de Córdoba (España)

An evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek language criteria in historical

Jesus research: a sociolinguistics study of Mark 14,32-65

HUGHSON ONG

Did Jesus ever speak in Greek? This is the question I have sought to answer in this paper. Using M. Casey’s Aramaic and S.E. Porter’s Greek hypotheses as my starting point, I attempt to show based on sociolinguistic principles that Jesus must have been fluent and would have used Greek and Aramaic in his daily conversations with various audiences in different lin-guistic situations and contexts. Specifically, I show that the sociolinguistic situation in the three chronological episodes of Mark 14,32-65 necessitates a code-switch on Jesus’ part by virtue of his multilingual environment.

1. Introduction

There is a very high probability that Jesus was multilingual1, since ancient Palestine and its neighbors were multilingual societies2. But a critical issue concerns the particular language Jesus would have used predominantly, especially in his teachings and conversation with his au-dience. This language issue is important as it relates to the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings (and actions) found in the Gospel accounts3. Even more

1 For an extensive argument on Jesus being a multilingual, see S.E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (New York 2004) 89-99, 126-80. A wealth of sources regarding the bilingualism and mul-tilingualism of ancient Palestine and ancient literacy can also be found in this volume. See Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 90, n. 67; 131-33, n. 8-11; 164-65, n. 104; 166, n. 106.

2 For a quick survey on ancient Palestine being a multilingual society, see L. Rydbeck, “The Language of the New Testament”, TynBul 49 (1967) 361-68; see also J.A. Fitzmyer, “Languages of Palestine”, CBQ 32 (1970) 501-31; J.C. James, The Language of Palestine and Adjacent Regions (Edinburgh 1920). See also S.E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Voice (Studies in Biblical Greek 1; New York 32003) 111-56; S.E. Porter, “Introduction: The Greek of the New Testament as a Disputed Area of Research”, in S.E. Porter (ed.), The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays (JSNTSup 60; Sheffield 1991) 11-38.

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 Millenium”, Word & World 29 (2009) 122.

38 Hughson Ong

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 ongoing discussion of the issue, recent surveys and discus-sions 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 meth-odological orientation as a distinguishing feature to previous quests6. My interest in this topic has prompted me to look into the debate between two prominent 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 useful auxiliary tool and/or correc-tive criterion to authenticate Jesus’ sayings and actions recorded in the Gospels. I show in three chronological episodes in Mark’s Gospel that the sociolinguistic situation would require Jesus to switch between languages

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 Sourcesof Mark’s Gospel (Cambridge 1998) esp. 65-68, 76-78; cf. Casey, “An Aramaic Approach”, 275-78.

8 A linguistically sound methodology such as this appears to be a more objective ap-proach that can answer C.S. Rodd’s objection against Casey of deliberately selecting four passages where his method can be effectively applied, to which Casey has responded in the affirmative. See Casey, “An Aramaic Approach”, 277.

39An evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek language criteria in historical...

in order to accommodate to his audience and to establish or affirm his social identity, perhaps as the Messiah. I begin with a brief background of the debate between Casey’s Aramaic hypothesis and Porter’s Greek hy-potheses, highlighting their main arguments.9 Next, I discuss the various social factors involved in code-switching, a typical linguistic phenomenon in a multilingual society. This section is followed by an evaluative analy-sis of a tripartite pericope in Mark 14,32-65, commencing with Jesus’ prayer at Gethsemane, to his betrayal by Judas, and ending with his trial before the Sanhedrin10. Thereafter, I give my concluding remarks. A few assumptions need mention before proceeding. First, I take the final text as it appears in the NT as my starting point. Second, I take the position that an “authentic saying [or action]” can only at best be defined as “one [in] which we have good reason to believe is as close to something that Jesus said [or did]”11. And third, I have only selected Casey’s work to be representative of the Aramaic hypothesis, for I believe his enormous work is more than adequate and is one that is most relevant for the purposes of this study. In the case of the Greek hypothesis, there is not a doubt that Porter’s work remains to be a novel one, at least in using it in “the most robust fashion”12.

9 I have not taken into account in this study that Jesus might have known and spoken Hebrew in liturgical contexts and perhaps Latin as well. See Porter, The Criteria for Au-thenticity, 131-32.

10 In choosing this particular pericope, I take my cue from Casey’s claim that Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic based on the recorded Aramaic words Abba in Mark 14,36 and Rabbi in Mark 14,45, and from Jesus’ messianic claim “son of man” in Mark 14,62; in particular, from the following argument:

Mark’s use of Aramaic words suggests that everyone knew that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, for these Aramaic words must be explained. That can be done by supposing that Jesus spoke the lingua franca of Jews in Israel during his ministry, and that some words were left in the original tongue by the translators. (See Casey, Aramaic Sources, 65; cf. Casey, “In Which Language”, 327.)

I have to agree with Casey that these Aramaic words must be explained in light of the surrounding Greek texts, although, that Jesus spoke the Aramaic lingua franca of Jews in Israel may not necessarily be an accurate presumption or, at least, the best method forward as Casey has suggested. On the contrary, it is possible that Jesus could have spoken the Greek lingua franca, such that these Aramaic short utterances are only instances of code-switch-ing. It is most likely that Greek became the lingua franca of ancient Palestine and eventu-ally displaced Aramaic in the eastern Mediterranean as a result of the massive hellenization program of Alexander the Great and his successors. A large number of studies support this theory. See Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 135, n. 18-20. See also n. 28 below.

11 E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadephia 1985) 357, n. 30. Even here the best that we can offer is the ipsissima vox (voice) of Jesus and certainly not his ipsissima verba (actual words).

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.

40

2. Background of the Languages Jesus Spoke

a) Casey’s Aramaic HypothesisOriginating 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

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 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 read “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 Litera-ture (Chicago 32000) 367.

Hughson Ong

41

adequately 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 tar-gums and fragments of 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; cf. Luke 22,47-48), Pascha (Mark 14,12, 14)21, and the incident between Titus and Josephus, where the latter was commanded to negoti-ate 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 recognize seriously the multilingual environment of first-century Palestine, the widespread acknowledgement that Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient 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.

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 of 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”, 328.23 This has led scholars to bifurcate an Aramaic-speaking Palestine and a Greek-

speaking Mediterranean. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity, 129-30.

An evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek language criteria in historical...

42

b) Porter’s Greek HypothesisThe 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.

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

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. 32.27 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.

Hughson Ong

43

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.

But before moving on, I provide three good reasons why such a contemporary model can be applied to the first-century sociolinguistic setting. The first reason is that the social use of language is part of a society’s culture, which enables people to observe and predict with rea-sonable accuracy what an individual is likely to do or say in a linguistic situation, as well as to interpret it35. This leads to my second reason

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 decades or so, 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.

35 Cf. Cotterell, “The Nicodemus Conversation”, 237.


44

that, as an individual who has resided in two multilingual societies for a considerable period of time, I have observed that language seems to function quite similarly and constantly in these two culturally different societies36. For instance, whereas I normally speak a mixed language at home both in the Philippines37, it is incumbent for me to switch to another language outside of home, either to accommodate to others or because the sociolinguistic situation necessitates the use of the society’s lingua franca38. The last reason is that sociolinguistics has the right tools and concepts to reconstruct the actual sociolinguistic situation in the absence of much historical data, since its theories are based on relatively constant and consistent patterns of language communication observed in various societies39. For instance, aspects of describing whether a social occasion is formal or informal apply cross-culturally40. Three fields of disciplines —sociology, social psychology, and anthropology— have all shown that the native tongue is typically used in family or intimate social settings, while the second language is used in a more public and formal situation.41

36 I was born, raised, and educated in the Philippines until my family and I moved in to Canada in 2007.

37 Three kinds of choices, code-switching, code-mixing, and variation within a single code, are available to a language user that operates in a continuum. Code-mixing, where words (borrowing), phrases, or larger units of one language is used while speaking in an-other language, and which is very difficult to differentiate from the other two, more or less describes the typical linguistic scenario at home. See R.W. Fasold, The Sociolinguistics of Society (Oxford 2001) 181.

38 Even for a monolingual, the “informal type” of language used at home can be con-trasted with the more “formal or reserved type” of language used outside of the home. Another is switching between standard and vernacular forms of English, such as the inclu-sion or omission of the verb “to be” in a particular linguistic situation. For an example, see J. Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (New York 2001) 373-74. This phenomenon is called diglossia “where two varieties of language exist side by side throughout the com-munity, with each having a definite role to play”. See C.A. Ferguson, “Diglossia”, Word 15 (1959) 325-40.

39 These general patterns in the relationship between language and society are called sociolinguistic universals. See Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 376-80.

40 J. T. Irvine gives four aspects of formality that apply cross-culturally, which one normally considers when describing social occasions as formal or informal. These are: (1) increased code-structuring (extra rules or conventions to the codes that organize behavior in a social setting); (2) code consistency (greater consistency of the use of code and be-havioral rules in formal situations); (3) invoking positional identities (involves the social identities of the participants); and (4) emergence of a central situational focus (a main focus of attention in a more formal gathering). J.T. Irvine, “Formality and Informality in Communicative Events”, in J. Baugh ‒ J. Sherzer (eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics (Englewood Cliffs 1984) 214-18.

41 For more details on this, see H. Ong, “Language Choice in Ancient Palestine: A Sociolinguistics Study Based on Four ‘I Have Come” Sayings”, Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 1 (2012): 63-101.

Hughson Ong

45

3. Language Use in a Multilingual Society

Depending on the social context, individuals can ask for or give in-formation to their conversation partners by exploiting either similar or different language styles “for the satisfaction of needs, attainment of goals or consensual validation of attitudes and values”42. Jesus used the com-mands “Go, call your husband and come back” (John 4,16) and “Go, wash in the Pool of Siloam” (John 9,7a) with different goals and intentions, even though both are similarly imperatival statements that use the verb ὑπάγω. The former was probably employed to invoke a response from the Samaritan woman, whereas the latter was a straightforward command—the command was at once carried out to completion (John 9,7b). As we will see shortly, an utterance often gives information and conveys feelings simultaneously43. Following this basic principle, sociolinguists typically seek to investigate three major areas of interests.

First, sociolinguists investigate different types of linguistic symbols (e.g. vocabulary, grammar, language choice and styles) that are used to express and reflect social factors44. Second, the participants, the social setting, as well as the topic and purpose of interaction are also matters of extreme importance to sociolinguists. “And the reasons for the choice of one dialect [or language] rather than another involve the same kind of considerations”45. Accordingly, in any multilingual society there are a variety of codes46 that are being used that form a kind of “repertoire” of available options for an individual47. This leads to the third area of interest by sociolinguists — code-switching48.

42 H. Tajfel, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Cambridge 1982) 15.43 I have used utterance here as “any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after

which there is silence on the part of the person.” Lyons, Introduction, 172.44 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 4.45 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 6.46 The term “code” is taken from information theory, and it “can be used to refer to any

kind of system that two or more people employ for communication”. Sociolinguists find the term more neutral in comparison to the terms dialect, language, or style. Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 88.

47 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 7.48 Code-switching is a linguistic phenomenon of selecting a particular language or

code for conversation even within short utterances. Wardhaugh, An Introduction to So-ciolinguistics, 101. Some sociolinguists make a distinction between code-switching (actual spoken languages) and code-mixing (formal linguistic properties of said language-contact phenomena). While I do not make this distinction here as many sociolinguists do not, code-switching should be differentiated from lexical borrowing, pidgins (contact language) and creoles (“normal” language), calques (translation), and language interference (language transfer). For a brief introduction to these various linguistic phenomena, see Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 61-65.


46

a) Code-switchingCode-switching is the norm for any multilingual society, since users

command several varieties of codes49. Gal says, “code-switching is a con-versational strategy used to establish, cross or destroy group boundaries; to create, evoke or change interpersonal relations with their rights and obligations”50. Therefore, sociolinguists look for factors that govern the choice of a particular code on a particular occasion. In other words, why would a language user switch from language A to language B? Wardhaugh provides several reasons, such as solidarity with and accommodation to listeners, choice of topic, and perceived social and cultural distance that constitute some of the social motivations and reasons for code-switching, and says that speakers switch codes either consciously or unconsciously51. The study of Henri Tajfel on the concept of social identity, for instance, demonstrates that the reason why people prefer a positive to a negative self-image is that social identity is attached to the value and emotional significance of a person’s membership in a community52. The apparently indignant attitude and antagonistic response of Jesus when dealing with the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in contrast to his own disciples and the public may signal the way he wanted various social groups to view him (see Matthew 9, 23). People also switch codes because they want to accommodate themselves to the expectation that others have of them, the needs of their audience, or the social norm of a community53. Street and Giles’s Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)54

49 This claim is accurate, for sociolinguistic theories are based on and gleaned from experimental observations.

50 S. Gal, “The Political Economy of Code Choice”, in M. Heller (ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives (Berlin 1988) 247; cf. Holmes, An Intro-duction to Sociolinguistics, 231.

51 Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 104. See also R. Finlayson ‒ K. Calteaux ‒ C. Myers-Scotton, “Orderly Mixing and Accommodation in South African Code-Switching”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (1998) 403, who show that code-switching establishes equality and creates flexibility and openness.

52 See H. Tajfel, Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology (Cambridge 1981) 45; Tajfel, Social Identity, esp. 2, 15-36, 66-77, 85-91. Cf. J.C. Turner, “Social Comparison and Social Identity”, European Journal of Psychology 5 (1975) 5-34; A. Bell, “Language Style as Audience Design”, Language in Society 13 (1984) 145-204, esp. 166-67. For a brief overview of its historical development, see M.A. Hogg, “From I to We: Social Identity and the Collective Self”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4 (2000) 81-97.

53 See Finlayson ‒ Slabbert, “‘I’ll Meet You Half-Way with Language’”, in M. Pütz, Lan-guage Choices: Conditions, Constraints, and Consequences (Philadelphia 1997) 381-421.

54 Accommodation Theory was developed by Howard Giles in the 1970s. For further reading of Giles, see H. Giles ‒ R. Street, “Speech Accommodation Theory: A Social Cogni-tive Approach to Language and Speech Behavior”, in M.E. Roloff ‒ C.R. Berger (eds.), Social Cognition and Communication (Beverly Hills 1982) 193-226; Giles ‒ Coupland, Language, 60-92; H. Giles ‒ P.F. Powesland, Speech Style and Social Evaluation (London 1975).

Hughson Ong

47

explores some of the cognitive reasons for code-switching during social interaction and observes that language users have the normal tendency to either converge or diverge their speech to that of their conversation partners depending on what they want to achieve in a social situation55. A convergence behavior happens when a person sacrifices something to gain social approval56. Alternatively, a divergence behavior occurs when one wants to be judged negatively, and the behavior is seen to be breaking away from the group’s behavior57. An obvious example of such convergent and divergent behaviors can be seen in Jesus’ apparently antagonistic at-titude to the Pharisees which may indicate that he wanted to dissociate from their group by refusing to accommodate to them in any manner (e.g. Luke 20,1-8; Matt 21,23-27; Mark 11,23-37). From these principles, it can be seen that code-switching not only shows one to be a cooperative person, but it also reduces possibilities of situational conflicts58.

There are two types of code-switching. Situational code-switching oc-curs when a language user switches codes with reference to their social situation. An example of such would be when there is a sudden arrival of a new person in the social scene59. On the other hand, when a code-switch is required because of a change in the topic of discussion, this phenom-enon is called metaphorical code-switching. One very interesting point to note here is that “some topics may be discussed in either code, but the choice of code adds a distinct flavor to what is said about the topic”60. Correspondingly, even though there is no topic change involved and the

55 Giles ‒ Coupland, Language, 60-1; cf. R.B. Le Page, “The Evolution of a Sociolinguistic Theory of Language”, in F. Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Oxford 1997) 28.

56 Evidence for people’s motivations in “converging” to another group is convincing within the domain of language and dialect choice. On language and dialect assimilation of immigrant groups in foreign dominant cultures, see J.A. Fishman, Language Loyalty in the United States: The Maintenance and Perpetuation of Non-English Mother Tongues by American Ethnic and Religious Groups (The Hague 1966); D.M. Taylor ‒ L.M. Simard ‒ D. Papineau, “Perceptions of Cultural Differences and Language Use: A Field Study in a Bilingual Environment”, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 10 (1978) 181-191.

57 Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 114; cf. Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 232-33. For a list of the types of situations where people accentuate their differences between themselves and others, see Street and Giles, “Speech Accommodation Theory”, 208.

58 Finlayson ‒ Calteaux ‒ Myers-Scotton, “Orderly Mixing and Accommodation”, 417.59 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 35.60 Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 104, 108. Finlayson and Slabbert

also point out that “all code choices can be explained to indicate the set of rights and obliga-tions that he/she wishes to be in force during the exchange”, and Myers-Scotton asserts that code choices are discourse strategies. Finlayson ‒ Slabbert, “‘I’ll Meet You Half-Way with Language’”, 413; C. Myers-Scotton, Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa (Oxford 1993) 57.


48

participants are proficient in either codes, code-switching within a short utterance may still happen61.

In sum, sociolinguists are interested in analyzing social factors that affect people’s linguistic choices, which are influenced by a consciousness of their social identity and motivated by their desire or purpose to accom-modate to their listeners. These social factors can be generally grouped into the following components: (1) the participants: who is speaking and who are they speaking to; (2) the social context: where are they speaking; (3) the topic: what is being talked about; and (4) the function: why are they speaking62. Subsequently, they can be analyzed and evaluated using four different social dimension scales, any or all of which can be relevant to account for the code choice of a language user in a particular situa-tion63.

Code switches motivated by social identity (or the relationship between participants of more or less “equal” status) move along the social distance scale. This scale evaluates the intimacy or distance of the participants’ relationship. An all too common example of this is readily seen in new immigrants may use brief phrases or even a few words to signal their soli-darity with the addressee or native group64. Friendly relations also move along in this social distance dimension. If the social situation involves a more formal relation between participants, the code-switch engages the status scale, which evaluates the superior or subordinate status between participants65. Using “titles,” such as Sir, Mr., Mrs., or Dr. to address a conversation partner may signal an “uneven” status between the partici-pants66. In a formal transaction67, one that relates to the social setting/

61 See C. Pfaff, “Constraints on Language Mixing”, Language in Society 55 (1979) 291-318 for examples of this kind of code-switching among Spanish-English bilinguals. See also Labov, “The Notion of ‘System’ in Creole Studies”, in D.H. Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (Cambridge 1971) 457.

62 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 4.63 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 25–26. Code-switching within short

utterances can typically refer to code-mixing or intra-sentential code-switching. For an excellent study of the three patterns of intra-sentential code-switching—alternation, inser-tion, and congruent lexicalization, see P. Muysken, “Code-Switching Processes: Alternation, Insertion, Congruent Lexicalization”, in Pütz, Language Choices, 361-80.

64 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 35.65 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 36.66 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 9. Even in a society like Sweden, where

egalitarianism is consistently stressed and remains to be a dominant ideology, the use of the proper form of the second-person singular form of address, du (informal) and ni (formal), such as in asking the question “What do you want?” is a highly complex and sensitive matter for the Swedish. C.B. Paulston indicates in a list that in 11 out of 13 instances the use of du is inappropriate in light of the speaker-addressee relationship. See Paulston, “Pronouns of Address in Swedish: Social Class Semantics and a Changing System”, in Baugh ‒ Sherzer,

Hughson Ong

49

context or type of interaction, the code choice is assessed using the for-mality scale68. Such a transaction is often seen when a person is situated, for example, in a bank manager’s office, at a ritual service in the church, in an academic or professional conference, or in a law court. Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14,53-65; Matt 26,57-68; Luke 22,67-71; John 18,19-24; 14,61-63) and Pilate (Mark 15,2-5; Matt 27,11-14; Luke 23,2-4; John 18,29-38) can be an example of this kind of formal setting.

The functional scale comes in two types. The referential scale assesses whether an utterance has high or low information content, whereas the affective scale evaluates the level of its affective content69. When Jesus gave the injunction “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12,17)70, his use of a command reveals a high information content but a low affective content. Both the essential information and the specific course of action are clear; however, the response was perhaps antagonistic (cf. Mark 12,15). By contrast, Jesus’ statement “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Mark 14,34) may have puzzled his disciples, but would certainly have a high affective content.

Integrating the aforesaid theories into these social scales I now turn to evaluate our three chronological episodes in Mark 14,32-65. I follow these two simple steps. First, the participants are evaluated by means of the social distance or status scale, the social context or setting by the for-mality scale, and the purpose or topic of conversation by the functional scale. The levels of information and affective content in the functional scale are analyzed by the theories of social identity and accommodation as discussed above. And second, I determine the type of code-switch and

Language in Use, 268-91, esp. 271-72. Cf. the German use of “Wie heißt du?” (informal between friends) and “Wie heißen Sie?” (formal between an older person and a younger person).

67 While the word “formality” may readily or easily be understood by anyone, what has been meant by formality is more complex in sociolinguistic terms. J. T. Irvine sum-marizes three typical senses of the word: (1) properties of a communicative code (e.g. extra rules that deviates from a norm); (2) properties of the social setting in which the code is used (characteristics of a social situation); or (3) properties of the analyst’s description (technical mode of description by the analyst). See Irvine, “Formality and Informality in Communicative Events”, 211-28, esp. 212-13. I have referred to the second sense of meaning in this paper. Further, there are four aspects of formality that apply cross-culturally, which one normally considers when describing social occasions as formal or informal. These are: (1) increased code-structuring; (2) code consistency; (3) invoking positional identities; and (4) emergence of a central situational focus.

68 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 10.69 Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 10.70 This is the only instance in Mark that was highlighted red by the Jesus Seminar. R.W.

Funk and R.W. Hoover, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus: New Translation and Commentary (New York 1993) 102.


50

71 The meaning, as well as the function of this Aramaic word here is disputed. As such, there are numerous scholarly opinions as to whether this word should still be transliterated here if it simply means “father”. Nevertheless, the vocative form here and Paul’s mention of the word in Rom 8:15-16 is perhaps distinctive and may suggest that Jesus’ style of address to his father has a deep imprint among his contemporaries. For a good discussion of the various positions on this issue, see C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (Word Biblical Commentary 34b; Nashville 2001) 412-13.

the likelihood of the language Jesus would have spoken in the various instances where code-switching could have occurred.

4. Analysis of Mark 14:32–65

This pericope contains three chronological episodes that occurred immediately after Jesus’ last supper with the Twelve (14,12-31). The duration of these three episodes probably lasted for several hours before Jesus was taken from the Sanhedrin to Pilate (15,1). In these episodes, Jesus grieved for his upcoming betrayal by his own disciple and suffering in the hands of the Jewish leaders. He prayed feverishly to the Father for deliverance, endured the mockery and persecution of the people, and acknowledged his identity as the Messiah. In each of these episodes, he interacted with different groups and types of people, traveled from one location to another, and had different topics of conversation with his audiences. As a multilingual, Jesus must have switched codes in between these various events. Let us first look at the episode at Gethsemane with his disciples. (See Appendix 1 for a summary analysis of these episodes.)

a) Mark 14,32-42 — Jesus’ Prayer at GethsemaneIn this episode, the participants, social setting, and Jesus’ purpose/

topic of conversation with the disciples and the Father are relatively consistent. However, we can observe from vv. 32-36 that the number of participants in conversation with Jesus decreases from the Eleven, to the Three, and finally to just Jesus and the Father. Similarly, Jesus inter-acted with these three sets of audiences in three different but proximate places, while his message to each of them proceeds from somewhat being vague (or incomplete) to being explicit. This process appears to be twice repeated in vv. 37-41. We can speculate that Jesus must have thought that the people who are closest to him are the only ones who would truly understand his inmost pain, or at least, they are the ones with whom he would have been comfortable to share it. This is probably evident in his use of the Aramaic vocative αββα at v. 3671. By only being able to tell his disciples to stay at Place 1, and then expressing his deep sorrow to the Three at Place 2, it is only to the Father at Place 3 that he can honestly say

Hughson Ong

51

that he wanted his sorrow to be taken away (see Appendix 1). The dra-matic change of participants, the highly intimate (cf. the emphatic πατήρ μου in Matt 26,39) and superior-subordinate relationship72 between the Father and Jesus, as well as the high information and affective content of Jesus’ words here are noticeable. Jesus exemplifies a convergence behavior and a positive identity, when he steadfastly yields to the Father (οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω) despite the imminent suffering he is about to face. This is an instance where code-switching can happen. There are two possibilities. Jesus could have spoken in Greek by virtue of the change of participants from the Three to the Father. However, the highly intimate interaction with the Father (but notice a superior-subordinate relation as well) and strong affective content of Jesus’ words seem to be the most salient factor and would suggest that Aramaic was spoken, especially since the native tongue is used in affective situations. Moreover, the transition at vv. 42 and 43 with the arrival of Judas and the crowd points more plausibly to Aramaic as the language he used in his conversation with the disciples, as well as the Father. This being the case, we may deduce that Aramaic was the “internal” language between Jesus and his disciples.

b) Mark 14,43-52 — Jesus’ Betrayal and ArrestThe sudden arrival of Judas with the crowd is a strong indication that

an immediate situational code-switching should have happened. Although the social setting probably remained at Place 2, where Jesus found his slumbering disciples for the third time, Jesus’ audience shifted from his private disciples to the public crowd. Moreover, after the pronouncement of his betrayal, the topic of conversation also changed from his personal grief to his defense of his arrest by the crowd. Interestingly, Judas’s ad-dress to Jesus as ῥαββί may indicate that their “internal” language was indeed Aramaic or that he accommodated to “converge” (notice the ac-companying “kiss”) initially to the situation as he heard Jesus speaking in Aramaic with the other disciples upon his arrival, and to show (perhaps superficially) his subordinate status73. Nonetheless, Jesus’ return address to Judas as ἑταῖρος (friend/companion; Matt 26,50) or mere “Judas” (Luke 22,48) perhaps implies that Jesus tried to display a fairly distant relationship between them on that occasion74. All these might suggest

72 The word αββα “combines aspects of supernatural authority and care for his people”. See Louw and Nida, Lexicon, I, 139.

73 The word ῥαββί refers to “a Jewish teacher and scholar recognized for his expertise in interpreting the Jewish Scriptures”. See Louw and Nida, Lexicon, I, 415.

74 The word ἑταῖρος denotes a person’s association with another but not involving personal affection, and is contrasted to φίλος (friend), which is a more affectionate term between friends. See Louw and Nida, Lexicon, I, 447.


52

that Greek must have been the language Jesus spoke to address the crowd in this episode. Although the setting at Place 2 is somewhat informal, the presence of the public crowd and the high information content (but low affective content) of Jesus’ message in vv. 48-49 through the use of an interrogative statement and the pronouncement of the fulfillment of Scripture should point to the use of Greek instead of Aramaic75. Even if the crowd was comprised of purely Aramaic speakers (which is un-likely)76, the mixed groups of participants, the singular topic about the reason for the arrest77, and the shift away from an in-group conversation in this social situation would certainly entail a code-switch.

Furthermore, it is also significant to compare Jesus’ “explicit” first pronouncement (vv. 41-42) with his “implicit” second pronouncement (vv. 48-59) of the betrayal of the Son. This may indicate that Jesus spoke about the same topic (i.e., his messiahship) in two different ways and codes depending on his audience and the social setting. Notice his third and most explicit pronouncement as the Son of Man at v. 62 before an even larger crowd and in a more formal setting (cf. his short answer at 15,2 when Pilate asked if he was the king of the Jews; not the Messiah). Here we may deduce that Greek was the language used by Jesus in a more “public” setting in order to accommodate to his listeners.

c) Mark 14,53-65 — Jesus’ Trial before the SanhedrinFrom Gethsemane, Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin assembly,

which is definitely a formal social setting being the highest court of justice in Jesus’ time. In addition to all the people who went along with

75 In functional linguistics, an interrogative statement, specifically a yes/no interroga-tive, elicits an interpersonal meaning as the speaker negotiates and demands information from the audience through the Finite (the “question” verb at the beginning of the state-ment; e.g. has, have, and the various auxiliary verbs) that signals polarity (yes or no). This interrogative statement of Jesus might even be a “queclarative” one, whereby a declarative sentence is the truly intended choice. For a brief introduction to this topic, see G. Thomp-son, Introducing Functional Grammar (London 2004) 45-80.

76 The ὄχλος (crowd) might have been composed of either only the delegation (i.e., the temple slaves and guards) from the Sanhedrin, a crowd or temple delegates accompanied by some Roman soldiers, or a large public crowd (a rabble or a hastily gathered mob) that was always hostile to Jesus. John 18,3 seems to indicate, however, that the crowd was accompanied by some Roman soldiers (armed with swords and clubs), and J. Brooks is probably correct that it is unlikely for the Sanhedrin to have deployed only its own delegates for “the delicate task of arresting a popular teacher”. See J.A. Brooks, Mark (The New American Commentary; Nashville 2001) 236-37; cf. R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids 2002) 592-93.

77 Cf. this episode with the preceding one, when Jesus had various conversation topics with his disciples in Mark 14:32-42.

Hughson Ong

53

Jesus, the Jewish leaders and some false witnesses were present. The topic in focus was Jesus’ messiahship, and the agenda of the Sanhedrin was to coerce admission on Jesus’ part. Yet despite numerous attempts by false witnesses and the high priest’s questions, Jesus refused to reply (v. 61). This silence on Jesus’ part is a divergence behavior. Perhaps portraying a positive identity was the least of all things that Jesus would have intended before the high priest. Simply put, he refused to accommodate to the high priest’s contemptuous questions. Eventually, however, Jesus said ἐγώ εἰμί and spelled out his true identity before the people in the Sanhedrin as-sembly, perhaps in fulfillment of the Scriptures (v. 49) and in submission to the Father (v. 36). Based on these social factors, especially the social setting, it is very likely that Jesus would have continued using Greek be-fore the Sanhedrin.

Perhaps it is also arguably evident that Jesus’ triple pronouncements of his social (and true) identity (vv. 41, 49, 62; cf. 15,2) serve as a thematic feature that links these three episodes together. Was Jesus self-conscious that he was the Messiah78? It is plausible to think that he was based on these episodes79. In these three episodes, Jesus had neither kept this iden-tity in secret to his own disciples nor to the crowd and the Sanhedrin assembly. The use of the emphatic first-person ἐγώ εἰμί and equating it with υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου at v. 62 indicates a clear depiction of his social identity; nevertheless, this similar thematic utterance in each episode ap-pears to evoke a low affective content.

5. Conclusion

My analysis of these three chronological episodes reveals that Jesus probably would have used Greek as a “contact” language in his daily pub-lic encounters with people, and Aramaic as an “internal” language with his own disciples and the Father. While this cannot be conclusive due to

78 Historical Jesus studies in recent years have seen a revival of discussions on Jesus’ messianic consciousness, and there has been a notable increase of scholars who are willing to attribute messianic consciousness to the historical Jesus. See Powell, ““Things That Mat-ter””, 126. For those who have argued for a messianic consciousness on Jesus’ part, see M. Hengel ‒ A.M. Schwemer, Jesus und Das Judentum (Tübingen 2007); R. Leivestad, Jesus in His Own Perspective: An Examination of His Sayings, Actions, and Eschatological Titles (Minneapolis 1987); M. Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (New York 2004); N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London 1996).

79 For a discussion of some of the relevant issues here, see W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh 1991) II, 594-601; the essays in S.E. Porter, The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids 2007) 117-230.


54

the brevity of the passage analyzed, one can continue to use this code-switching theory throughout the Gospel narratives to arrive at a more assured conclusion. By examining this particular nature of language in a multilingual society, I am extending the argument that Jesus could and should have been productively fluent in both Aramaic and Greek, in order to perform and fulfill his earthly mission. I believe that these kinds of sociolinguistic studies can serve as an auxiliary criterion in the authentication of Jesus’ sayings (and actions). If the sociolinguistic situ-ation in a particular or a series of Gospel episode(s) would necessitate a code-switch by an individual who lived in a multilingual environment, it is very likely that Jesus would have used Greek and Aramaic in different social situations and contexts. As such, any sayings (or actions) of Jesus that do not show Aramaic features should not be at once adjudicated as inauthentic. It is very plausible that some of the Jesus’ saying traditions in the Gospels may have been preserved in Greek, if Jesus himself spoke Greek.

Appendix A

A summary analysis of the social factors in Mark 14,32-65that shows possible instances of code-switching

MARK 14,32-42 PARTICIPANTS SOCIAL SETTING PURPOSE/TOPIC INSTANCES OF & REASON(S) FOR

CODE-SWITCHING

V. 32 The Eleven and Jesus

Place 1: Gethse-mane/Mt. of Olives

Instruction to stay put

# of participants in decreas-ing order; three proximate places from a more general

to specific description; a vague topic to an explicit

one

Vv. 33-34 (cf. Luke 22,39-40)

The Three and Jesus

Place 2: A specific place in Gethse-

mane not far from and visible to where the others disciples

were

Instruction to stay put and to stay

awake; Jesus express-es his deep sorrow

Vv. 35-36 (cf. Luke 22,41; Matt

26,39)

Jesus and the Father

Place 3: A stone’s throw away from

Place 2

Jesus’ plea to his Abba Father to take

away his sorrow

Jesus’ use of αββα (cf. Mattthew’s use of πατήρ

μου)

Vv. 37-38 (cf. Matt 26,40)

Jesus and Simon Peter (but he came

to the disciples)

Place 2a (perhaps only at the spot

where Simon was)

Command to Simon to stay awake and

pray

V. 39 Jesus and the Father

Place 3 Jesus’ plea to the Father to take away

his sorrow

V. 40 (cf. Matt 26,43)

The Eleven and Jesus

Place 2 The disciples unable to respond to Jesus

Hughson Ong

55

Vv. 41-42 (cf. Luke 22,45-46; Matt 26,45-46)

The Eleven and Jesus

Place 2 Jesus’ reprimand of their slumber and (first) pronounce-

ment of the betrayal of the “Son of Man”

to his disciples

Jesus’ (first) pronouncement of his social identity to his

disciples

MARK 14,43-51

Vv. 43-46 (cf. Luke 22,47-49; Matt 26,47-50)

The Eleven and Jesus; the arrival of Judas and the

crowd

Place 2 Judas’s kiss and Rabbi address; The betrayal and arrest

of Jesus by Judas and the crowd

Judas’s sudden arrival with a crowd and his use of ῥαββί

to address Jesus; Jesus’ address to Judas as “Judas”

or “Friend”

Vv. 47-51 (cf. Matt 26,53-54)

The Eleven, Jesus, Judas and the

Crowd

Place 2 Jesus’ (first) defense of his arrest and (sec-ond) pronouncement of the fulfillment of

Scripture to his disci-ples and the crowd

Jesus (second) pronounce-ment of the Scripture’s fulfillment to the crowd

MARK 14:53–65

Vv. 53-65 The arresting crowd, high priest, chief priests, elders and scribes, false witnesses; Peter and the guards

The Sanhedrin Jesus’ compulsion to admit as the Christ; Jesus’ initial silence and eventual admit-tance through the

phrase “I am” and his (third) pronounce-ment of the “Son of Man” sitting at the right hand of God

and coming with the clouds

The appearance before the Sanhedrin; Jesus’ silence and (third and explicit)

pronouncement of his social identity to all the people in

the Sanhedrin

Hughson [email protected]


An evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek language criteria in historical

Documents

Transcript of An evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek language criteria in historical