Stanley E. Porter - Criteria For Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research - Previous Discussion and New Proposals

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
191
Executive Editor
Stanley E. Porter
Editorial Board
Elizabeth A. Castelli, Kathleen E. Corly, David Catchpole,
R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl,
Robert Fowler, George H. Guthrie, Robert Jewett, Robert W. Wall
Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank
The Criteria for Authenticity
in Historical-Jesus Research
Previous Discussion and New Proposals
Stanley E. Porter
Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Supplement Series 191
This monograph is dedicated to my loving mother,
Lorraine De Haan Porter
Copyright © 2000 Sheffield Academic Press
Published by
Sheffield Academic Press Ltd
Mansion House
19KingfieldRoad
Sheffield SI 19AS
England
Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

and
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain
by Bookcraft Ltd
Midsomer Norton, Somerset
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library
ISBN 1 84127 089 X

CONTENTS
List of Tables 7
Preface 9
Abbreviations 12
INTRODUCTION 17
Parti
PREVIOUS DISCUSSION
Chapter 1
THE 'THIRD QUEST' FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS
AND THE CRITERIA FOR AUTHENTICITY 28
Chapter 2
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRITERIA FOR
AUTHENTICITY AND THE RISE OF FORM
(AND REDACTION) CRITICISM 63
Chapter 3
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CRITERIA
FOR AUTHENTICITY 103
Part II
NEW PROPOSALS
Chapter 4
THE CRITERION OF GREEK LANGUAGE AND ITS CONTEXT 126
Excursus: A Response to Maurice Casey on the
Languages of Jesus 164
6 The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research
Chapter 5
THE CRITERION OF GREEK TEXTUAL VARIANCE 181
Excursus: Corrections to Two Recent Papers 208
Chapter 6
THE CRITERION OF DISCOURSE FEATURES 210
CONCLUSION 238
Bibliography 243
Index of References 287
Index of Authors 291
LIST OF TABLES
1. Timeline of the Quest for the Historical Jesus 60
2. The Rise of the Criteria and the Development of Form and

Redaction Criticism in 'Quests' for the Historical Jesus 102
3. Mt. 15.21-28 = Mk 7.25-30 196
4. Mt. 22.16-22 = Mk 12.13-17 = Lk. 20.20-26 198
5. Mt. 16.13-20 = Mk 8.27-30 = Lk. 9.18-21 201
6. Mt. 27.11-14 = Mk 15.2-5 = Lk. 23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-38 203

PREFACE
This book began as a lengthy essay, some of which was delivered at the
Symposium on The Historical Jesus' on 1 April 1999 as part of the
650th anniversary celebration of the founding of Charles University
in Prague. This Symposium was held in conjunction with the celebra-
tion of the founding of the Centre for Biblical Studies by the Come-
nius Protestant Theological Faculty, Charles University, the Institute for
Classical Antiquity, and the Czech Academy of Sciences. A shorter
form of the essay upon which this monograph is based, and which
prompted this more detailed and extended discussion, is to be published
in Petr Pokorny and Jiri Mrazek (eds.), The Historical Jesus in Recent
Discussion (JSNTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcom-
ing). An earlier draft of the excursus of Chapter 4 has also been ac-
cepted for publication in the Bulletin for Biblical Research, and will
appear in volume 10 in 2000. Professor Pokorny has reminded me, as
well as the others who were in attendance at this Symposium, of the
tremendous significance of the fact that such a Centre for Biblical Stud-
ies has been founded in Charles University. What he held before 1989
as only a private dream, and one that he never expected to see realized
in his lifetime (and probably did not dare to breathe to others), has now
been brought to fruition by the Czech Academy of Sciences giving its
formal and tangible support to a centre for the academic study of theol-
ogy. This Centre was inconceivable under the previous, oppressive
regime. I believe that I represent the opinion of all of those involved in
the Symposium, as well as numerous academics elsewhere, in wishing
the Centre tremendous success in the years ahead as it helps to chart the
course of theological discussion and education in the Czech Republic
for the twenty-first century.
I wish to thank Professor Dr Petr Pokorny for the invitation to deliver
the original paper at this stimulating and satisfying Symposium. I wish
also to thank his colleagues in the Protestant Theological Faculty for
their work and effort in the planning of this occasion. This Symposium,
one of several that took place at this time of celebration, was held in
conjunction with commemoration of the eightieth anniversary of the
founding of the Faculty, in 1919. I was honoured to be a guest at this
moving commendatory celebration also. The formalized scholarly, aca-
demic and social links between the Protestant Theological Faculty and
Roehampton Institute London (now the University of Surrey Roehamp-
ton) have helped to make these mutually enjoyed occasions possible.
All of those who have helped to maintain these associations, including
Peter Stephens and the International Office at the Protestant Theolog-
ical Faculty, deserve thanks for their efforts.
The context of the Symposium provided much stimulation for further
thought on this topic, and this monograph is the inadequate result. The
manuscript has since gone through several stages of development, as
well as alteration of my perspective at several significant points. I trust
that it is now a better piece of work than it was originally, and one that
makes a contribution to the debate in historical-Jesus research. If there
is merit in what I say, at least some of the credit must go to a number of
those who heard, read and responded to it at earlier stages. I wish first of
all to thank my fellow speakers at the Symposium for their stimulating
and insightful papers, as well as their questions and comments on my
paper. These include not only Professor Pokorny, but Professor Dr Her-
mann Lichtenburger of the University of Tubingen, Professor Dr Markus
Wolter of the University of Bonn, Dr Anders Ekenberg of Uppsala
University, Sweden, and Professor J. Keith Elliott of the University of
Leeds. Those in attendance as well helped all of us to think more clearly
about the topic of the Symposium and our individual contributions to it.
I wish to note especially Dr Peter Balla of the Karoli Caspar Reformed
University of Budapest, Professor Dr Peter Pilhofer of the University of
Greifswald, Germany, and Dr Moises Mayordomo of the University of
Bern, Switzerland. Several times throughout the Symposium we were
able to engage in discussion of the papers, but several more casual social
occasions led to exploration of a variety of other issues and topics (in-
cluding the piano playing of Glenn Gould, a subject of great interest to
me). The conversations and times of sociability that we were able to
enjoy outside of the Symposium proper helped to make the occasion
even more satisfying. As usual, Professor Pokorny and his wife were
instrumental in these rewarding sociable times, with their invitation to
several of us to enjoy an evening in their home.
Preface 11
The fuller draft of the paper that I delivered at the Symposium was
presented at the Biblical Studies Research Cluster of the Centre for
Advanced Theological Research at Roehampton Institute London. The
paper benefited immensely from the insightful comments of those who
were present, and, I hope, will lead to further exploration of this topic,
of which this monograph is only the beginning. This is the first of my
authored books to be devoted to questions regarding the historical Jesus.
I am not intending it to be my last effort in this area—in fact, it has
generated much creative discussion among my colleagues regarding fur-
ther areas of exploration. In particular regarding this volume, I wish to
thank my colleagues, Mr Arthur Gibson, Professor Craig Evans, Mr
Brook Pearson, Dr Anthony Cross, Cynthia Westfall, and Mr Matthew
Brook O'Donnell, for their trenchant observations, willingness to tackle
this subject in new and different ways, and general scholarly support
(including pointing out helpful bibliography). Matt especially has de-
voted serious further effort to refining my arguments and presentation,
and I look forward to working on further projects on this topic with
him. It will come as no surprise to those who know him to discover that
the tables at the end of Chapters 1 and 2 and the tables in Chapter 4
came about as a result of his gentle prodding, as well as industry. I am
pleased that the debate over various elements of the programme of his-
torical-Jesus research has led several of us in the Centre for Advanced
Theological Research now of the University of Surrey Roehampton
toward formal plans to explore further dimensions of this topic.
As always, my wife, Wendy, my co-worker and a scholar in her own
right, but more importantly my friend and companion, has been my
greatest support and help in the development of this monograph during
a time of exceptional busyness and transition. Her attention to the detail
of this monograph has been invaluable.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992)
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AJP American Journal of Philology
ANRW Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg
und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur
Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1972-)
ASNU Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
ATR Anglican Theological Review
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrage
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BENT Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BEvT Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie
BHT Beitrage zur historischen Theologie
Bib Biblica
BibSem The Biblical Seminar
BIS Biblical Interpretation Series
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BLG Biblical Languages: Greek
BNTC Black's New Testament Commentaries
BR Biblical Research
BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
ConBNT Coniectanea biblica, New Testament
CR Currents in Research
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
Abbreviations 13
CSR Christian Scholar's Review

CThL Crown Theological Library
CTL Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics
CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly
DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement
DID Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
EB Etudes bibliques
EFN Estudios de Filologfa Neotestamentaria
EILS Explorations in Language Study
ELS English Language Series
EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
EvT Evangelische Theologie
ExpTim Expository Times
FN Filologia neotestamentaria
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship
GNS Good News Studies
GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HNTC Harper's New Testament Commentaries
HTS Harvard Theological Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IBS Irish Biblical Studies
ICC International Critical Commentary
IE] Israel Exploration Journal
IRT Issues in Religion and Theology
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBLMS Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
JBR Journal of Bible and Religion
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JR Journal of Religion
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement
Series
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement
Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KD Kerygma und Dogma

LCL Loeb Classical Library
LJ Lives of Jesus
LLL Longman Linguistics Library
LSLS Language in Social Life Series
MeyerK H.A.W. Meyer (ed.), Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber
das Neue Testament
Neot Neotestamentica
NewDocs New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (1976-)
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements
NTG New Testament Guides
NIL New Testament Library
NTOA Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus
NTS New Testament Studies
NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies
OBS Oxford Bible Series
QD Quaestiones disputatae
RB Revue biblique
RevQ Revue de Qumran
RGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
RILP Roehampton Institute London Papers
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
SBG Studies in Biblical Greek
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SD Studies and Documents
SHJ Studying the Historical Jesus
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament
SNTG Studies in New Testament Greek
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SNTU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt
SNTW Studies of the New Testament and its World
SP Sacra Pagina
ST Studia theologica
THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TMEA Travaux et memoires: Etudes anciennes
Abbreviations 15
TRu Theologische Rundschau

TTL Theological Translation Library
TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
UBSMS United Bible Societies Monograph Series
UTb Uni-Taschenbu'cher
VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZA W Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
INTRODUCTION
The Purpose and Approach of this Study

Books on the historical Jesus abound. More books on this topic are being
written all of the time and there is no perceivable sense of this trend
abating.1 One does not have to be particularly astute or involved in this
subject to realize that Jesus research has become a growth industry in
its own right (in fact, this was the case for most of the twentieth cen-
tury, if not the one before as well), with many scholars taking up the
challenge of writing another book or article on what Jesus may have
said and done, or not. Many of these volumes make noteworthy contri-
butions to scholarship—especially regarding scholarly understanding of
particular passages or pericopes—and raise interesting issues regarding
the historical Jesus. Many of these issues merit more significant extend-
ed discussion. This volume is not a book on the historical Jesus in this
sense, however. In other words, in this monograph, I do not attempt to
write a life of Jesus or even, on any significant scale, establish what the
historical Jesus may have said or done. I am certainly concerned with
such issues, as the ensuing chapters will make clear, but only within the
confines of a small area of the discussion, and that related to the use of
the Greek language as providing the basis for new criteria for estab-
lishing authentic sayings of Jesus. Neither do I attempt to outline a com-
plete programme that shows how one might proceed to such a task as
writing a life of Jesus. (I leave it to others to debate the merits of such a
task.) Nevertheless, the criteria that are developed in this volume are
designed to be suggestive of how and where further research could be
undertaken by those who utilize such methods. I do not pretend to have
1. A very useful bibliography is to be found in C.A. Evans, Life of Jesus Re-

search: An Annotated Bibliography (NTTS, 24; Leiden: EJ. Brill, rev. edn, 1996).
When citing works that originally appeared in languages other than English,
when there is an English translation known to me I cite its page numbers, rather
than the original, except where a point regarding the translation is being made.
treated exhaustively the several passages to which these criteria might

apply, or to have uncovered the full range of passages that might poten-
tially be involved in such a discussion. Those tasks remain for further
research.
To the contrary, this volume has quite narrow aims and intentions.
These revolve primarily around certain fixed questions of method in re-
cent historical-Jesus research, specifically those questions related to the
so-called criteria for authenticity. Not formally labelled as criteria in
much of the discussion of the historical Jesus throughout the first half
of the twentieth century, their use nevertheless goes back to many of
the formative thinkers regarding this topic, and has been continued in
current research to varying degrees. The history of Jesus-research is cur-
rently dominated by a number of figures who have made significant con-
tributions to the larger discussion. Several of the most recent and influ-
ential are E.P. Sanders, John Meier, and Tom Wright.2 They follow in a
long line of others who have preceded them in discussion, however.
The two arguably most well known are Albert Schweitzer and Rudolf
Bultmann.3 In several ways, Schweitzer and Bultmann strike me as two
of the most potentially misunderstood yet fundamentally important bib-
lical scholars of the twentieth century. Sometimes Schweitzer is treated
as if he were something other than a seminal figure in New Testament
2. See E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1985); idem, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane/
Penguin, 1993); J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3
vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991-); and N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Vic-
tory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). This does not include those mem-
bers of the Jesus Seminar, such as J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a
Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992) and
MJ. Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press
International, 1994), esp. pp. 18-43.1 am only incidentally concerned with the Jesus
Seminar in this volume, as will become apparent. There are many assessments of
the results of the Jesus Seminar now being written. For a recent attempt, see M.A.
Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from
Galilee (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), pp. 65-81, followed
by discussion of Crossan (pp. 83-99) and Borg (pp. 101-12). Since I live in the UK,
I am in no position to judge the grass roots impact of the Jesus Seminar especially
on North America, but my impression is that it has proved far more stimulating to a
small group of scholars than it has to the public that it sought to influence.
3. On these two seminal figures, among many studies, see J.C. O'Neill, The
Bible's Authority: A Portrait Gallery of Thinkers from Lessing to Bultmann (Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), pp. 248-65, 284-309.
Introduction 19
studies, and is seen as more of a descriptive nay-sayer, who brought the

so-called 'old quest' to an abrupt halt. I attempt to qualify this picture
in Chapter 1, regarding research on the historical Jesus.4 Likewise, Bult-
mann is sometimes caricatured as merely a creature of his time, gov-
erned and controlled by the mechanistic and post-Enlightenment world
of the nineteenth century, with the implication that his work is now dated
and irredeemably flawed by this fact. His work on Jesus is sometimes
consequently seen as having little resulting interest today, except as a
chronicle of its time. There is of course the obvious sense in which
every person is bound by his or her own time (how is it even possible to
think of someone being outside of one's own time?), but Bultmann's
sincere struggle to come to terms with experience within a theological
context can only be commended, and seen as an example of intellectual
honesty that others could benefit from by emulating.5 Nevertheless,
4. It is true that Schweitzer, who held earned doctorates in theology, philoso-

phy and medicine, was expert in academic areas other than biblical studies (e.g. his
work on Bach is one of the two fundamental modern interpretations of the great
composer; see his J.S. Bach [Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1951 (1908); ET J.S.
Bach (trans. E. Newman; 2 vols.; Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1911)]; and his work
on Kantian philosophy is still highly regarded; see his Die Religibnsphilosophie
Kants [Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1899]), and this says nothing of his Nobel-prize
winning humanitarian work. Nevertheless, his work in New Testament deserves
further recognition than it has recently received. This includes not only his Von
Reimarus zu Wrede: Fine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1906; 2nd edn, 1910; 6th edn, 1951; ET The Quest of the Historical Jesus:
A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede [trans. W. Montgomery;
London: A. & C. Black, 1910]) and his Das Messianitats- und Leidensgeheimnis:
Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901; 3rd edn, 1956; ET The
Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus' Messiahship and Passion
[trans. W. Lowrie; London: A. & C. Black, 1925]), both of which are discussed in
Chapter 1, but also his still important and useful Geschichte der paulinischen For-
schung (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911; ET Paul and his Interpreters: A Critical
History [trans. W. Montgomery; London: A. & C. Black, 1912]) and his Die Mystik
des Apostels Paulus (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930; ET The Mysticism of Paul the
Apostle [trans. W. Montgomery; London: A. & C. Black, 1931]), among several
others.
5. See, e.g., R. Bultmann 'Neues Testament und Mythologie: Das Problem der
Entmythologisierung der neutestamentlichen Verkiindigung', in H.W. Bartsch (ed.),
Kerygma undMythos: Fin theologisches Gesprdch (Hamburg: H. Reich, 1948; 2nd
edn, 1951), pp. 15-48; ET 'New Testament and Mythology: The Mythological Ele-
ment in the Message of the New Testament and the Problem of its Re-Inter-
pretation', in H.W. Bartsch (ed.), Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate (trans.
these two figures still rightly loom large on the landscape of much
contemporary biblical studies, not least in their work in the area of his-
torical-Jesus research. Both were truly great men, who excelled in much
beyond the narrow confines of this area. Such prominence can too often
result in what might be called the star factor. The star factor is not con-
fined to those in Hollywood or politics, but is also, unfortunately, some-
thing by which even those in academic disciplines, such as biblical
studies, can be afflicted. In disciplines that pride themselves on being
academically and intellectually rigorous in their approach, it is regret-
table to find that simply invoking a name can often result in a lack of
such critical analysis with regard to the nature and extent of their con-
tribution. This is often the fault not of those such as a Schweitzer and a
Bultmann, but of those who have misread or misappropriated their work,
or used it as a short-cut to understanding of the subject at hand. Such
appears to be the case with respect to some of the contributions in his-
torical-Jesus research. Thus, in a very real sense, before I can put for-
ward my proposals regarding how one might utilize knowledge of the
Greek language in the first century as a criterion in historical-Jesus
research, there is some ground-clearing that must take place. Some of
this involves Schweitzer and Bultmann, but it encompasses much more
than them as well. It requires a re-examination of a number of the facts
and trends that have come to be normative and determinative for cur-
rent historical-Jesus research. Not all of these trends and movements are
well grounded, or at the very least they often mask some of the assump-
tions that drive their investigations, especially in terms of the criteria
for authenticity.
Discussion of these criteria relies upon some knowledge of the histori-
cal background and context in which their development has taken place.
R.H. Fuller; London: SPCK, 1953; 2nd edn, 1964), pp. 1-44. Much of his scholar-
ship still rewards serious consideration, including, I suggest, his Die Geschichte der
synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT, 29; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921;
2nd edn, 1931; 6th edn, 1957; ET History of the Synoptic Tradition [trans. J. Marsh;
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963; 2nd edn, 1968]), which will be discussed especially
in Chapter 2, his Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948;
7th edn ed. O. Merk, 1977; ET Theology of the New Testament [2 vols.; trans.
K. Grobel; London: SCM Press; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951, 1955]),
and his Das Evangelium des Johannes (MeyerK; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-
recht, 1947; 2nd edn, 1964; supplement 1966; ET The Gospel of John: A Com-
mentary [trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971]), among many
others, some of which are treated in this volume.
Introduction 21
That is what I concentrate upon in Part 1 of this study. The survey is not
meant to be more than a thumbnail sketch of the history of research.
Recent research into the historical Jesus has begun to speak more inten-
sively about a 'third quest'. This follows on from two previous ones, the
first in the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the twentieth,
and the second beginning in the 1950s, with an intervening period in
which the quest was said to be non-existent, or at least stagnant. I begin
with discussion of what it means when certain scholars invoke this 'third
quest' as defining their interpretive task, especially in terms of the cri-
teria that they use for establishing the authenticity of sayings of Jesus.
This initial analysis leads me to survey briefly the history of historical-
Jesus research. I end up questioning the entire system of characterizing
and labelling the various quests as distinctive periods in historical-Jesus
research, in the light of the range of research represented over the last
100 or so years (Chapter 1). I then attempt to isolate and define the
major criteria for authenticity, and their relationship to the development
of New Testament form criticism in the first half of the twentieth cen-
tury, as well as redaction criticism in the second half (Chapter 2). As
might be expected, it is in Chapter 2 that the criterion of Semitic (Ara-
maic) language and Palestinian environment is briefly scrutinized. Many
scholars have examined the history of discussion of historical-Jesus re-
search, and even more scholars have written firmly within the various
supposed epochs of the several quests. Far fewer, it turns out, have been
as concerned with the criteria for authenticity, at least until very re-
cently. Two especially noteworthy major recent attempts—one by an
American scholar, John Meier, and the other by a German scholar, Gerd
Theissen (with compatriots)6—to define and re-define these criteria have
been made. They merit special attention, if for no other reason than to
see that not as much progress has been made in this discussion as one
might have thought or hoped for (Chapter 3).
6. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 167-95; G. Theissen, 'Historical Scepticism and

the Criteria of Jesus Research or My Attempt to Leap across Lessing's Yawning
Gulf, SJT49 (1996), pp. 147-76; G. Theissen and A. Merz, Der historische Jesus:
Ein Lehrbuch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996; ET The Historical Jesus:
A Comprehensive Guide [trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press; Minneapolis: For-
tress Press, 1998]), esp. pp. 115-18; G. Theissen and D. Winter, Die Kriterienfrage
in der Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitatskriterium (NTOA,
34; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), esp.
pp. 175-232.
As a result of the tracing of this historical background into the quests

for the historical Jesus especially in terms of the criteria for authen-
ticity, several shortcomings in method emerge. Although several vol-
umes could easily be written to address these issues, I choose instead to
focus upon discussion of criteria related to matters of language in Jesus
research. It may come as a surprise to some that discussion of the issues
of Jesus' use of Aramaic, Greek and possibly Hebrew have lagged be-
hind other areas of study regarding the historical Jesus, especially when
the so-called Aramaic language hypothesis has been so widely and thor-
oughly used in New Testament studies for over 100 years.7 In the last
few years, however, there have been several publications that have ad-
dressed many of these issues, often from differing and even conflicting
standpoints. I must confess that much of my interest in historical-Jesus
research stems from work on the use of Greek in Palestine and sur-
rounding areas in the first century. This has raised the eyebrows of at
least one contemporary scholar, whose response to some of my work I
analyse in the second part of this study. In the second part of this vol-
ume, I scrutinize some of this recent work on the language of Jesus as a
prelude to developing several new criteria that attempt to address some
of these issues and to move forward discussion of the criteria.
These three criteria have been labelled below as the criterion of Greek
language and its context (Chapter 4), the criterion of textual variance
(Chapter 5), and the criterion of discourse features (Chapter 6). The cri-
terion of Greek language and its context reiterates and, I hope, expands
and contextualizes work by myself and others on the Greek of the New
Testament, and possibly of Jesus, and integrates it into discussion of
questions of authenticity with regard to the sayings of the historical
Jesus. Discussion of the possible use of Greek by Jesus is an area that
was once a fruitful domain of scholarly interest, but has in recent years
been greatly overshadowed by the pursuit of Aramaic language studies.
This section attempts to begin to redress this balance, not by excluding
7. One cannot help but note that my article on language is the only one in the
recent volume that surveys the state of historical-Jesus research: 'Jesus and the Use
of Greek in Galilee', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical
Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS, 19; Leiden: EJ. Brill,
1994), pp. 123-54.1 am currently working on a volume, The Language of Jesus and
his Contemporaries (SHJ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, in preparation), which will sur-
vey the multilingualism of Palestine in the first century, providing reference to and
examples of numerous primary texts.
Introduction 23
discussion of Aramaic as a language of Jesus, but by attempting to factor

his possible use of Greek into the equation. The criterion of textual vari-
ance is a modification and expansion of recent work by myself and a col-
league on textual variants in the words of Jesus.8 Again, although much
historical-Jesus research is concerned with determining what Jesus may
have said or whether he said something that approximates what is
recorded in the Gospels (the so-called ipsissima vox)—and this often
suffices as 'authentic' Jesus material9—little of it is concerned with the
actual wording that he may have used (the ipsissima verbd) (since it is
maintained by many of these scholars that the words were uttered in
Aramaic, but are now found in Greek Gospels). In many instances, this
wording, as now recorded in the Gospels, evidences variation in the
textual tradition. This criterion begins from this recognition and attempts
to construct a criterion that will appreciate the similarities and differ-
ences in the Greek textual tradition of the words of Jesus. The third cri-
terion attempts to transform a major area of recent scholarly research,
discourse analysis or textlinguistics,10 into a usable tool for historical-
Jesus research. One must be careful in attempting such integration, be-
cause a new or un(der)-utilized method runs the risk of alienating poten-
tial users by its introduction of strange or technical vocabulary,11 as well
8. My colleague, Matthew Brook O'Donnell, and I have written The Implica-

tions of Textual Variants for Authenticating the Words of Jesus', in B. Chilton and
C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS, 28.1; Leiden: EJ.
Brill, 1998), pp. 97-133; cf. also our 'The Implications of Textual Variants for Au-
thenticating the Activities of Jesus', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authen-
ticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), pp. 121-51.
9. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 201.
10. The literature in this field is growing immensely, including work that is
applying it to New Testament studies. Some of these works are noted in Chapter 6.
For an introductory survey of the topic from a New Testament perspective, see S.E.
Porter, 'Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey',
in S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Bib-
lical Greek (JSNTSup, 113; SNTG, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), pp. 14-35.
11. There is a regrettable tendency among New Testament scholars to shun the
use of technical vocabulary from other disciplines. This strikes me as strange for
several reasons. The first is that New Testament studies itself certainly has its own
technical vocabulary, including the use of words from a variety of languages (e.g.
note even in English-language scholarship the contrast made between Geschichte
and Historic, the numerous geschichtliches that we throw around, and the ever-
useful Sitz im Leberi). The second is that the learning of technical vocabulary must
surely be a matter of the will, rather than one of inherent difficulty. Today, virtually
as by appearing to utilize data that are not accessible or recognized by

all within the field. I have attempted to avoid these problems by defin-
ing all relevant terms and utilizing data gathered by previous scholars
who have been engaged in compatible and related, though fundamen-
tally different, research. In each of these three chapters of Part 2, I
attempt to develop a criterion that can stand independently of others,
yet that is compatible in its formulation and utilization with the widely
recognized criteria discussed in the first part of this study. My hope is
that, by the suggestion and preliminary development of these criteria,
there can be an opening up of discussion of the whole realm of criteria
that are often invoked in historical-Jesus research.
Several further methodological points must also be mentioned here.
This study functions within the boundaries of much, if not most, con-
ventional historical-Jesus research, as it is currently being practised. In
other words, I do not raise for serious discussion, although I do mention
in passing, the kinds of issues that are suggested by Luke Johnson and
others in their recent work on how the Jesus of the Church relates to the
Jesus of the Gospels and the supposed historical Jesus.12 Many have
acknowledged the strength of the arguments that Johnson has put for-
ward, but without wishing to concede the nature of their more narrowly
confined historical task.13 The result in many circles has been to con-
every schoolchild has a mastery of a great deal of technical vocabulary regarding

computers that would have been completely alien even a decade ago (and is still
alien to many of these children's parents!). The third is that technical vocabulary is
simply a necessary part of any discipline, and reflects one's knowledge of it. D.A.
Black has recently noted the irony of the situation if one were to take an automobile
to a mechanic and the mechanic were not to have technical names for the parts, but
to point and call them 'whatchamacallits', 'doodads', 'thingamabobs', 'doohickeys'
or 'gizmos' (It's Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate
Greek [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998], p. 19). Few would want to take a
car to such a mechanic.
12. L.T. Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus
and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996); cf.
H. Schwarz, Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). An insightful set of
reviews of Johnson's book, with Johnson's and others' responses, is found in BBR1
(1997), pp. 225-57. Cf. also R. Morgan, 'The Historical Jesus and the Theology of
the New Testament', in L.D. Hurst and N.T. Wright (eds.), The Glory of Christ in
the New Testament: Studies in Christology (Festschrift G.B. Caird; Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1987), pp. 187-206.
13. See, e.g., B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and
Restoration (AGJU, 39; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), p. 1 n. 1.
Introduction 25
tinue historical-Jesus research in virtually the same mode and vein as

before. This is not the place to discuss these issues, but it seems to me
that if Johnson is right—and some scholars wish to acknowledge that
much of what he says is along the right lines, while continuing their
work unaltered—then business cannot continue as usual. This volume
takes as a working assumption the methods of historical-Jesus research
as currently practised, bracketing out the question for the time being of
the validity of this assumption. It is also worth noting that much, though
certainly not all, of the recent discussion of the criteria for authenticity
in historical-Jesus research has been developed in North America. As a
result, I tend to concentrate upon the secondary literature in English,
without, I hope, neglecting much of importance in other language tradi-
tions. Any attempt at a thorough or complete survey of the available
literature on this topic would result in a much, much larger book, but
one that would not, I hope, result in significantly different results. With
such a wealth of material available, I have nevertheless had to be highly
selective. It may not appear that I have been so, when the size of the an-
notations are considered. But much of the popular-level writing has been
excluded from the analysis, unless there is an important reason for in-
cluding it, such as its containing a discussion not found elsewhere, or
having a provenness that can only come through years of use by sub-
sequent scholars.
The study of the historical Jesus is clearly one that has interested
many scholars for much of this past century, and more. One of the sur-
prising results of my investigation is how, in some ways, much of that
study, at least in so far as criteria for authenticity are concerned, has not
moved forward at the same pace as other dimensions of the research, or
as other areas of New Testament studies as a whole. My hope is that my
survey of this research will provide some impetus for opening up this
discussion once again. However, a more important goal is to inject
some new life into the discussion by taking a different approach alto-
gether than has usually been taken. I attempt to do this by discussing
the possible use of Greek by Jesus as providing a new set of criteria for
discussing the authenticity of certain of his sayings. This is very much a
work in progress, for which I assert very few, if any, final conclusions,
but which I hope will prompt others to enter the discussion and debate.
Parti
PREVIOUS DISCUSSION
Chapter 1
THE 'THIRD QUEST' FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS

AND THE CRITERIA FOR AUTHENTICITY
1. Introduction
In his lengthy supplementary chapter to Stephen Neill's classic work on
interpretation of the New Testament, originally published in 1964 and
revised and expanded for publication in 1988, Tom Wright labels what
he sees as the latest developments in historical-Jesus research as a 'third
quest'.1 When Neill wrote the first edition of the book 25 years earlier,
Jesus research, Wright says, was just getting under way, but now, forti-
fied by Jewish material and using historical methods, This movement
of scholarship has become so pronounced that it is not fanciful to talk in
terms of a "Third Quest"' .2 One scholar goes so far as to say recently
that The twentieth century will be remembered for two world wars, but
in New Testament studies for no less than three quests of the historical
Jesus'.3 The comment by Wright, subject to numerous qualifications
(and hyperbolically characterized by Rosner), as will be shown below,
appears to be the earliest reference in the secondary scholarly literature
to a 'third quest' of the historical Jesus, following on from a previous
two quests.4 A label such as this might not, at first glance, appear to be
that significant, and far from determinative for the course of a disci-
1. S. Neill and T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1988 [1964]), pp. 379-403.
2. Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, p. 379.
3. B.S. Rosner, 'Looking Back on the 20th Century 1. New Testament Studies',
ExpTim 110 (1999), pp. 316-20 (317).
4. Contra M.A. Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modem Historians
View the Man from Galilee (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998),
who makes the apparently mistaken statement on p. 22 that 'N.T. Wright coined the
term Third Quest in 1992' (in his 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', ABD 3 [1992],
pp. 796-802).
1. The'Third Quest'for the Historical}esus 29
pline. However, Wright's and others' use of such terminology, as well

as the surrounding discourse in which it is embedded, implies a number
of issues regarding the previous history of discussion of Jesus, and what
Wright sees as the course to pursue for further work regarding this sup-
posed 'third quest'. Since the term 'third quest' appears to be Wright's,
I will concentrate below on his arguments for the appropriateness of this
label, after turning to related issues of importance regarding the other
quests for the historical Jesus raised by such analysis.
This is not the place to offer a full and complete history of the de-
velopment of historical-Jesus research. Numerous accounts, with vary-
ing amounts of detail, are readily available elsewhere, with more of
them being written all the time as this topic continues to capture the
imagination of scholars and others alike.5 What I wish to present here in
this chapter is a basic summary of what seem to me to be the fundamen-
tal trends and movements in previous historical-Jesus research, which
will enable me to develop the context necessary for this monograph (see
the Excursus at the end of this chapter, for an encapsulation of what is
described in the discourse of this chapter).6 In other words, I wish briefly
5. Throughout this volume, I am deeply indebted to the useful bibliography of

C.A. Evans, Life of Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography (NTTS, 24; Leiden:
EJ. Brill, rev.edn, 1996); cf. also idem, Jesus (IBR Bibliographies, 5; Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1992), for a shorter form of much the same bibliography. The
larger bibliography surveys the material both by historical periods and by topics,
enabling ready access to discussion from a number of perspectives. Although there
is a fairly significant amount of duplication in the entries especially between the
two major sections, his entries total over 2000—even then he is not comprehensive,
since in the course of my research I have come across numerous other sources that
probably need to be included in such a tool. Other useful volumes are J. Reumann,
Jesus in the Church's Gospels: Modern Scholarship and the Earliest Sources (Phil-
adelphia: Fortress Press, 1968; London: SPCK, 1970), esp. pp. 492-513; and idem,
'Jesus and Christology', in EJ. Epp and G.W. MacRae (eds.), The New Testament
and its Modern Interpreters (The Bible and its Modern Interpreters; Atlanta: Schol-
ars Press, 1989), pp. 501-64, esp. pp. 525-64 for bibliography; and W.G. Kummel,
Dreissig Jahre Jesusforschung (1950-80) (BBB, 60; ed. H. Merklein; Bonn: Han-
stein, 1985); and for the years since, idem, 'Jesusforschung seit 1981', TRu 53
(1988), pp. 229-49; 54 (1989), pp. 1-53; 55 (1990), pp. 21-45; 56 (1991), pp. 27-53,
391-420. For selections from many of the major writers on the topic up to the 1960s,
see the useful collection of H.K. McArthur (ed.), In Search of the Historical Jesus
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969); and the representative articles in C.A.
Evans and S.E. Porter (eds.), The Historical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader (BibSem, 33;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
to show how it is that historical-Jesus research has progressed in order

to arrive at the place that it is today. I will concentrate on a few of the
basic facts and trends, as a necessary prelude to making new proposals
for its further development, especially in the area of criteria for authen-
6. Accounts of the history of discussion of the various so-called quests for the
historical Jesus are almost as plentiful as the reconstructed lives or portions of lives
of Jesus himself. Attempts include those of N.A. Dahl, 'Der historische Jesus als
geschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches Problem', KD 1 (1955), pp. 104-32;
ET The Problem of the Historical Jesus', inC.E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville (eds.),
Kerygma and History: A Symposium on the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (Nash-
ville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 138-71; repr. in N.A. Dahl, The Crucified Messiah
and Other Essays (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), pp. 48-89, 173-74, esp. pp. 50-
63; H.G. Wood, Jesus in the Twentieth Century (London: Lutterworth, 1960),
pp. 62-151; Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, pp. 252-312;
E. Trocme, Jesus de Nazareth vu par les temoins de sa vie (Neuchatel: Delachaux
& Niestle, 1972; ET Jesus and his Contemporaries [trans. R.A. Wilson; London:
SCMPress, 1973]), pp. 1-13; J. Roloff, 'Auf der Suche nach einem neuen Jesusbild:
Tendenzen und Aspekte der gegenwartigen Diskussion', TLZ 98 (1973), cols. 561-
72; I.H. Marshall, 1 Believe in the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977),
pp. 109-142; B.F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), pp. 25-
59; R. Morgan with J. Barton, Biblical Interpretation (OBS; Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1988), pp. 62-132 passim; Reumann, 'Jesus and Christology', esp.
pp. 501-508; C. Brown, 'Historical Jesus, Quest of, in J.B. Green, S. McKnight
and I.H. Marshall (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1992), pp. 326-41 (whose perspective perhaps comes the closest
to the one at which I have arrived); J.K. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study
(Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1993), esp. pp. 1-69, 89-124; B. Witherington, The Jesus
Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1995), esp. pp. 9-13; G. Theissen and D. Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der
Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitdtskriterium (NTOA, 34;
Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), pp. 1-8;
Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History, esp. pp. 12-23; and two fine summaries and
studies: C.J. den Heyer, Wie is Jezus? Balans van 150 jaar onderzoek naar Jesus
(Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Meinema, 1996; ET Jesus Matters: 150
Years of Research [trans. J. Bowden: London: SCM Press, 1996]) and H. Schwarz,
Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 7-71. Cf. also the selective but
insightful treatments of W.R. Telford, 'Major Trends and Interpretive Issues in the
Study of Jesus', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus:
Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS, 19; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994),
pp. 33-74, esp. pp. 55-61; and C.A. Evans, 'The Historical Jesus and Christian
Faith: A Critical Assessment of a Scholarly Problem', CSR 18 (1988), pp. 48-63;
idem, Jesus and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGJU, 25; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1995), pp. 1-13. On some of the earlier figures in this discussion, see J.C.
1. The 'Third Quest' for the Historical Jesus 31
ticity. In the course of my research, I have arrived at what appears to

me to be a different perspective on the course of research than is typ-
ically reflected in the scholarly discussion. Nevertheless, I believe that
this historical reconstruction is worth offering, because it brings clarity
to a number of issues often raised in the course of historical-Jesus re-
search, especially in terms of the development of the criteria for authen-
ticity. This reconstruction also casts some shadows on what are typi-
cally seen as clear lines of demarcation in historical-Jesus research.
This can only be a portrait drawn in outline, but the rough lines them-
selves reveal several dimensions that are worth noting and that some-
times get lost in the current debate.
2. The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Scholarship today typically, and almost unanimously, claims to find at
least three major periods in the quest for the historical Jesus, at least
two of these periods often being called quests in their own right.7 For
example, one often finds scenarios in which the 'first quest' or 'old
quest' is dated from the late eighteenth century. This 'first' or 'old
quest' is typically defined as being concerned with questions regarding
such issues as the historical or supernatural elements in the Gospels
concerning Jesus, the relation of the Synoptic Gospels to the Gospel of
John, the eschatological dimension of Jesus' life and teaching, and the
relation of Christology to the historical elements in the Gospel accounts.
The so-called 'no quest' period is virtually always tied to Albert Sch-
weitzer's8 and then Rudolf Bultmann's9 influence, during which the de-
O'Neill, The Bible's Authority: A Portrait Gallery of Thinkers from Lessing to Bult-
mann (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), passim, who discusses Herder, Lessing,
Strauss, Kahler, Harnack, Schweitzer and Bultmann, among others.
7. For a useful dissenting position, comparing the so-called 'first quest' with
that of recent work, see S.E. Fowl, 'Reconstructing and Deconstructing the Quest of
the Historical Jesus', SJT42 (1989), pp. 319-33, although I do not draw the bound-
aries in the same way that Fowl does.
8. A. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-
Forschung (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1906; 2nd edn, 1910; 6th edn, 1951; ET The
Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to
Wrede [trans. W. Montgomery; London: A. & C. Black, 1910]).
9. Among many important publications, several of which are discussed below,
seeR. Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926; 2nd edn, 1934; ET Jesus
and the Word [trans. L.P. Smith and E. Huntress; New York: Charles Scribner's
velopment of form criticism showed that all of the Gospels are influ-
enced by the later Church, and that a biography of Jesus following nine-
teenth-century presuppositions is impossible to write. With a famous
lecture in 1953 by Ernst Kasemann,10 the 'second' or 'new quest' of the
historical Jesus was supposedly inaugurated, which corresponded to the
development of redaction criticism.11 This brief summary leads to the
major question of this chapter—whether we have now entered a 'third
quest'. However, this broad summary of the course of historical-Jesus
research masks at least as much as it reveals. The actual story of re-
search into the life of Jesus, as evidenced by the history of publication
on the topic, indicates that this scenario is only partially true, and that
there is much more to be said when the full extent of the evidence is
examined. Before we can answer the question of whether we are in a
'third quest', we need to examine the nature of the supposed previous
quests, and even ask the question of whether these quests have really
existed in quite the way that they are often portrayed. Rather than cate-
gorize the history of this debate by periods or quests, however, I will
divide the course of debate into chronological periods, which I believe
are a more accurate and revealing way to characterize and classify the
discussion.
a. 1778-1906
The so-called 'first' or 'old quest' of the historical Jesus, from the late-
eighteenth to the earliest years of the twentieth centuries, is virtually
always described as being marked by numerous descriptions of Jesus in
terms of the highly romanticized sociopolitical issues of the day, as
well as reflecting post-Enlightenment critical scepticism. Thus, some
writers of the time were rationalistically optimistic in their treatments
Sons, 1934; London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935]).

10. E.Kasemann, 'Das Problemdeshistorischen Jesus', ZTK51 (1954), pp. 125-
53 (repr. in idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I [Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1960], pp. 187-214); ET The Problem of the Historical
Jesus', in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. W.J. Montague; SET, 41;
London: SCM Press, 1964; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 15-47.
11. The above discussion paraphrases and adapts the handy scheme presented
by Reumann, 'Jesus and Christology', p. 502, which seems to be widely recognized
in the discussion.
of the Gospel sources. Scholars such as J.G. Herder and H.E.G. Paulus
in their assessments combined rationalism, in particular a desire to ex-
plain the miraculous, with a romanticized idealism that one could recov-
er such non-supernatural material from all four of the Gospels.12 Others
during this period, however, practised a form of Jesus research that some
might be tempted to disparagingly call pre-critical, but which might be
better labelled traditional in its approach, often utilizing harmonization
of the Gospel accounts. Accounts of Jesus' life such as those by such
major scholars as Alfred Edersheim, Bernhard Weiss and William San-
day, often overlooked in current discussion in an apparent attempt to
find a consistent characterization for this so-called 'first quest', repre-
sent this approach (among other such writers).13 An examination of
these scholars' works, however, reveals that they are informed of the
critical issues of their day, and address these issues in their research,
without necessarily agreeing with them or capitulating to their method
—and this is perhaps the single most important reason for their neglect
in current scholarly discussion.
Those writers of this period, however, who have had the most endur-
ing impact—at least on the scholarly community—responded in more
pessimistic ways regarding the Gospels as sources for the life of Jesus.
12. See J.G. Herder, Vom Erloser der Menschen: Nach unsern drei ersten
Evangelien (Riga: Hartknoch, 1796); idem, Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland:
Nach Johannes Evangelium (Riga: Hartknoch, 1797); and H.E.G. Paulus, Das Leben
Jesu, als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums (2 vols.; Heidel-
berg: Winter, 1828).
13. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2 vols.; London:
Longmans, Green; New York: Randolph, 1883; 7th edn, 1892), a volume that obvi-
ously was popular in its day if the number of editions is any indication; B. Weiss,
Das Leben Jesu (2 vols.; Berlin: Wilhelm Herz, 1888); W. Sanday, Outlines of the
Life of Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), an expanded reprint of his 1899
article 'Jesus Christ', in J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898-1904), II, pp. 603-53; and his The Life of Christ in
Recent Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 1907), esp. pp. 37-118,
where he critically analyses the work of such German scholars as Schweitzer (see
below). It is worth noting the shift in approach from Sanday's earlier to his later
work, in the light of Schweitzer, recognizing the influence of German criticism,
even though he clearly does not accept many of its conclusions. Riches (Century of
New Testament Study, p. 27) notes that Sanday is 'sympathetic to Schweitzer' in
Life of Christ in Recent Research, but he does not note Sanday's earlier work.
This is even though these scholars remained optimistic about writing

accounts of the life of Jesus, ones that they often depicted as penetrating
to the essence of his being and purpose. A progression in thought can
be found among many of the major figures who took this approach. A
brief summary of the thrust of their work is instructive to a history of
discussion. Hermann Samuel Reimarus is usually seen as instigating
modern critical research about Jesus, with the publication of his frag-
ments in 1778 by the philosopher Gotthold Lessing. Reimarus made a
distinction between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels.
Much of the Gospel material, he claimed, was confessional and contra-
dicted the historical facts, and thus hid the fact that Jesus was a political
revolutionary.14 In some ways consistent with but in other ways depart-
ing from Reimarus was the work of David Friedrich Strauss. Also
responding to forms of the rationalism of his time, he was influenced by
Deism. As a result, he subjected the Gospels to critical scrutiny and
found that they portrayed a mythological Jesus.15 Ernest Renan, reject-
ing supernaturalism altogether, presented an altogether human and in
many ways sympathetic Jesus, in some ways mirroring his own per-
sonal life.16 Wilhelm Bousset, the notable history-of-religions scholar,
14. H.S. Reimarus, Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Junger: Noch ein Frag-
ment des Wolfenbuttelschen Ungenannten (Fragment 7; ed. G.E. Lessing; Braun-
schweig: n.p., 1778; ET Reimarus: Fragments [ed. C.H. Talbert; trans. R.S. Fraser;
LJ; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970; London: SCM Press, 1971]). This English
edition also contains a translation of §§38-40 (pp. 44-57) of D.F. Strauss, Hermann
Samuel Reimarus und seine Schutzschrift fiir die vernunftigen Verehrer Gottes
[Hermann Samuel Reimarus and his Apology} (Bonn: Strauss, 2nd edn, 1877
[1862]), with his own verdict on Reimarus's views, including comments on their
being time-bound, somewhat naive, and superseded. One wonders of whom this
could not be said, especially 100 years later.
15. D.F. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Tubingen: Osian-
der, 1835-36; 4th edn, 1840; ET The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined [3 vols.;
trans. G. Eliot; London: Chapman, 1846; repr. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972;
London: SCM Press, 1973]). Cf. also D.F. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu fur das deutsche
Volk bearbeitet (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1864; 3rd edn, 1874; ET A New Life of Jesus
[London: Williams & Norgate, 1865]); idem, Der Christus des Glaubens und der
Jesus der Geschichte: Eine Kritik des Schleiermacher'schen Lebens Jesu (Berlin:
Duncker, 1865; ET The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History: A Critique of
Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus [trans. L.E. Keck; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1977]).
16. E. Renan, La vie de Jesus (Paris: Levy, 1863; ET The Life of Jesus [London:
Triibner, 1864]).
gave his reading of Jesus as a somewhat confused visionary, a figure

found in other religious traditions.17 Although many other scholars and
their works of this time could be mentioned,18 a last work from the close
of this period is that of Adolf Harnack, a work said to 'represent the fine
flower of this enterprise' of historical-Jesus research.19 Harnack charac-
terized the teaching of Jesus in terms of romanticized humanistic values.
These included such things as the fatherhood of God and the infinite
value of the human soul, the commandment of love, and the power of
the gospel in relation to a variety of social problems of the day, such as
poverty.20
Although in later discussion of this so-called 'first quest' the focus is
usually upon the work of Reimarus, Strauss and Renan, the above brief
survey shows that there are many other works from the period worth
considering as well. Some of this work followed the tradition of Reim-
arus, Strauss and Renan, with its sceptical and rationalistic approach,
but some of this research did not attempt to distance itself from the
tradition of the Church, a feature that characterized many of these more
sceptical studies. Besides that, there is a considerable amount of diver-
sity even in the approaches of Reimarus, Strauss and Renan, as noted
above. In many ways, the work of Harnack is as descriptive of the
highly critical scholarly nineteenth-century approach as is to be found,
and as pivotal in the history of discussion as any other single work.
This is especially worth noting, since it comes from a scholar whose
work in many ways, especially on the development of Christianity, has
17. W. Bousset, Jesus (Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke, 1904; 3rd edn, Tubingen:

Mohr Siebeck, 3rd edn, 1907; ET Jesus [CThL; trans. J.P. Trevelyan; London:
Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam's Sons, 1906]); cf. idem, Kyrios Christos:
Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfdngen des Christentums bis Irenaeus
(FRLANT, 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913; 5th edn, 1964; ET Kyrios
Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to
Irenaeus [trans. J.E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970]).
18. See Evans, Life of Jesus Research, pp. 16-19, 251-55.
19. R.H. Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study: Some Trends in the Years
1941-1962(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962; London: SCM Press, rev.
edn, 1963), p. 34.
20. A. Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1900; ET
What is Christianity? [trans. T.B. Saunders; CThL; London: Williams & Norgate;
New York: Putnam's Sons, 1900; 3rd edn, 1904]).
continued to have importance for contemporary New Testament schol-

arship to a proportion not often found for scholars of this era.21 Although
later scholarship has called this the 'first' or 'old quest' of the historical
Jesus, and many of the most well-known works did have certain anti-
supernaturalist presuppositions in common, there is also a surprising
amount of diversity as well, with some of it not sharing in such nega-
tive presuppositions.
b. 1906-1953
The purported demise of the so-called 'first quest' for the historical
Jesus is typically attributed to the work of Albert Schweitzer and, to a
lesser and later extent, of Rudolf Bultmann.22 It is true that Schweitzer
had a major role to play in the re-thinking of the validity of the quest
that was based on a highly romanticized world-view. However, the pic-
ture is far more complex even than that. In many ways, it appears to be
the case that all that was really brought to an end by Schweitzer and
others was quests that remained optimistic of writing romanticized and
overly psychologized lives of Jesus along anti-supernatural lines (and
usually in German). Attempts to write lives of Jesus along more tradi-
21. This is not the place to chronicle Harnack's contribution to modern New
Testament scholarship, except to note the continuing importance of such a work as
his Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1902; 4th edn, 1924; ET The Mission and Expansion of
Christianity in the First Three Centuries [TTL; trans. J. Moffatt; 2 vols.; London:
Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam's Sons, 1908]), as well as his volumes on
Luke-Acts: Lukas der Arzt: Der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums und der Apos-
telgeschichte (BENT, 1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906; El Luke the Physician: The
Author of the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles [CThL; trans. J.R. Wilkin-
son; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam, 1907]), Die Apostelge-
schichte (BENT, 3; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1908; ET The Acts of the Apostles
[CThL; trans. J.R. Wilkinson; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam's
Sons, 1909]), and Zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen
Evangelien (BENT, 4; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1911; ET The Date of the Acts and of
the Synoptic Gospels [CThL; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam's
Sons, 1911]).
22. For a selective, yet balanced view of this period of Jesus research, see
Riches, Century of New Testament Study, pp. 14-30. W.P. Weaver's The Historical
Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950 (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Interna-
tional, 1999) arrived too late for my consideration.
1. The'Third Quest'for the Historical}esus 37
tional historical lines do not appear to have been curtailed, only made
more aware of the critical issues involved in such attempts, critical
issues usually directly addressed in such treatments.
Even for those scholars of the so-called first optimistic and romanti-
cized quest—if many of the diverse scholars mentioned above can be
conveniently lumped together for the purposes of discussion and cri-
tique—their efforts were brought to an end by a confluence of criticism
of such attempts. Not all of the criticism brought against the romanti-
cized quests was similarly conceived or addressed the same issues, since
much of it emerged over the course of about 15 or 20 years. Thus,
Martin Kahler, writing 15 years before Schweitzer, observed what he
saw as the discrepancy between nineteenth-century historical recon-
structions of Jesus and the Church's theological confession. As a result,
he argued that a biography could not be written of Jesus on the basis
of the information available. In fact, he called 'the entire Life-of-
Jesus movement' (as the 'first quest' came to be characterized) a 'blind
alley'.23 Pursuing a different line of thought, Johannes Weiss rejected
the social basis for analysing Jesus' preaching, and claimed that Jesus
preached an eschatological message, in which God's kingdom was
expected as imminent.24 Weiss's eschatological position had a major
impact upon contemporary and subsequent scholarship, which has
continued to debate the nature of the kingdom of God and the relation
of Jesus' teaching to it.25 William Wrede concurred in seeing Jesus as a
23. M. Kahler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, bibli-
sche Christus (Leipzig: Deichert, 1892; 2nd edn, 1896; repr. Theologische Biicherei,
2; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1956; ET The So-Called Historical Jesus and the
Historic, Biblical Christ [trans. C.E. Braaten; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964]),
esp. pp. 46-71 (46).
24. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1892; 2nd edn, 1900; ET Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God
[trans. R.H. Hiers and D.L. Holland; LJ; Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London:
SCM Press, 1971]).
25. The amount of secondary literature on the debate over the nature of the king-
dom, especially in its temporal dimension and its relation to the proclamation of
Jesus, is immense, and cannot be cited here. To be noted, however, is how this dis-
cussion has continued throughout the century, regardless of the so-called 'quest' of
the historical Jesus of the time. For a history of discussion, see W. Willis (ed.), The
Kingdom of God in 20th-century Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987);
and B. Chilton, The Kingdom of God in Recent Discussion', in Chilton and Evans
(eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 255-80. Among the most informative and
teacher, but also as a healer and exorcist, not as a messianic claimant.26

The most devastating and damaging blow to the 'first quest' was indeed
delivered by the great polymath Albert Schweitzer. As we have just
seen, however, many of Schweitzer's ideas had already been anticipated
by others. Much of the strength of his critique was instead provided by
his thorough, comprehensive and enthusiastic analysis of much of the
previous historical-Jesus research (at least that in the German-speaking
world, with reference to some work in French),27 categorizing and then
moving through many of the most important writers on the topic.28 In
some respects Schweitzer's most lasting comment is his noting that the
characterizations of Jesus often had an uncanny ability to look much
significant studies, besides those of Weiss and Schweitzer (see below), see C.H.
Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1935; New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, rev. edn, 1961), pp. 21-59 (on pp. 28-30 he makes his classic mis-
take regarding the verb c|)9dvo)); W.G. Kiimmel, Verheissung undErfullung (Zurich:
Zwingli-Verlag, 1956; ET Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of
Jesus [trans. D.M. Barton; London: SCM Press, 1957]); R. Schnackenburg, Gottes
Herrschaft und Reich (Freiburg: Herder, 1963; 4th edn, 1965; ET God's Rule and
Kingdom [trans. J. Murray; London: Burns & Gates, 1963; 2nd edn, 1968]);
N. Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM Press,
1963); G.E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964; London: SPCK, 1966); G.R. Beasley-Murray,
Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter: Paternoster
Press, 1986); B. Chilton, Pure Kingdom: Jesus' Vision of God (SHJ; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans; London: SPCK, 1996); and S. McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The
Teachings of Jesus in National Context (SHJ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp.
70-155. For a sample of shorter studies, see B. Chilton (ed.), The Kingdom of God
in the Teaching of Jesus (IRT, 5; Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SPCK,
1984).
26. W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag
mm Verstandnis des Markusevangeliums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1901; ET The Messianic Secret [trans. J.C.G. Greig; Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1971]).
27. See Brown, 'Historical Jesus, Quest of, p. 332.
28. At the time, Schweitzer's work was characterized by Sanday (Life of Christ
in Recent Research, p. 45) as 'one-sided, but he glories in his one-sidedness. He
takes the line that only by the pursuit of a relentless logic is it possible to arrive at
the truth. His own logic is relentless, and he does at least succeed in presenting that
side of the truth which he wishes to bring out in a very vivid and impressive
manner.'
1. The 'Third Quest'for the HistoricalJesus 39
like the characterize^.29 It is perhaps worth noting that, in many ways,

Schweitzer was also a part of the very quest that he so categorically dis-
missed. Previous to his critique of the movement, he had put forward
his own view of Jesus as a thoroughgoing or proleptic, but nevertheless
thwarted, eschatologist, with his beliefs rooted in Jewish apocalypti-
cism.30 In one sense, Schweitzer's own critique was as applicable to his
own work as to that of others, although he did not seem to realize this.
In another sense, as Brown states, Schweitzer 'presented a massive
critique of the views of the theological establishment, set out in such
a way as to show that all paths but Schweitzer's proved to be dead
ends'.31 Nevertheless, even though Kahler had already declared the
previous attempts a blind alley and Weiss led the way in suggesting the
eschatological viewpoint, it was Schweitzer's thorough and complete
dismissal of the previous research and his grounding of eschatology in
Jewish apocalypticism that has come to be identified with this position,
and much of the research on the historical Jesus in the first half of the
twentieth century.
The influence on subsequent scholarship of such critical study in the
early years of the twentieth century, however, was far more complex
29. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, esp. pp. 396-401.

30. See A. Schweitzer, Das Messianitdts- und Leidensgeheimnis: Eine Skizze
des Lebens Jesu (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901; 3rd edn, 1956; ET The Mystery of
the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus' Messiahship and Passion [trans.
W. Lowrie; London: A. & C. Black, 1925]). This proleptic eschatology has even
been discussed as providing a criterion for authenticity of the words of Jesus (see
R.N. Longenecker, 'Literary Criteria in Life of Jesus Research: An Evaluation and
Proposal', in G.F. Hawthorne [ed.], Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Inter-
pretation [Festschrift M.C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975], pp. 217-29,
esp. p. 220; S. McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels [Guides to New
Testament Exegesis; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988], pp. 61-62; Evans,
Life of Jesus Research, pp. 144-46). For a highly critical assessment of Schweitzer's
influence in this regard, see T.F. Glasson, 'Schweitzer's Influence: Blessing or
Bane?', JTS NS 28 (1977), pp. 289-302; repr. in Chilton (ed.), The Kingdom of God
in the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 107-20. In many ways Glasson has been Schweitzer's
biggest critic, although many of Glasson's works remain neglected. See also T.F.
Glasson, The Second Advent: The Origin of the New Testament Doctrine (London:
Epworth Press, 1945; 2nd edn, 1947); idem, His Appearing and his Kingdom: The
Christian Hope in the Light of its History (London: Epworth Press, 1953); idem,
Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology (London: SPCK, 1961).
31. Brown, 'Historical Jesus, Quest of, p. 332.
than is often apparently realized and certainly as often depicted.32 Rather

than following a single cause, the ensuing scholarly research was clearly
bifurcated, with some scholars accepting the demise of the nineteenth-
century quest for the historical Jesus (so-called Life-of-Jesus research),
but with many others rejecting such a pessimistic end to all such re-
search and continuing to engage in it. Thus, Walker baldly states, 'And
of course, there are many who have never abandoned the old quest'.33 A
significant number of scholars, especially in English-speaking cir-
cles, continued to believe that knowledge of the historical Jesus could,
through proper critical means, be found in the Gospels, perhaps at least
in part because Schweitzer's critique had not been directed at English-
language scholarship on Jesus. This English-language work was in sev-
eral respects a direct continuation of the approach of Sanday already
mentioned above.34 Sanday wrote both before and after the work of
Schweitzer, taking into account Schweitzer's perspective, but continu-
ing to engage in critical study of the life of Jesus, even if he and other
scholars did not as optimistically believe one could write the same
kinds of Life of Jesus argued for in the nineteenth century.35 This major
trend continued to varying degrees throughout the entire twentieth cen-
tury, and should not be neglected in any truly critical study of the
period (see below on the 'new quest' for the historical Jesus). Many of
the scholars who wrote about Jesus during this period continue to be
influential in other areas of New Testament scholarship, as well as in
other areas of study of the Gospels, with a few even playing crucial
roles in historical-Jesus research, such as the development of criteria for
authenticity, as subsequent discussion below will show. Scholars such
as A.C. Headlam, F.C. Burkitt, William Manson, A.M. Hunter, and Vin-
cent Taylor, among others, continued to write what amounted to critical
lives of Jesus, usually following a harmonistic and chronologically based
format.36 This means of investigating and writing about the life of Jesus
32. See Trocme, Jesus and his Contemporaries, pp. 1-2.

33. W.O. Walker, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Discussion of Method-
ology', ATR 51 (1969), pp. 38-56 (52); cf. also Brown, 'Historical Jesus, Quest of,
pp. 334-35.
34. As noted above, Sanday's earlier work appeared in 1899, and was reprinted
in book form in 1905, both before Schweitzer's work appeared, and his third
appeared in 1907, directly responding to Schweitzer.
35. See Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 5.
36. See A.C. Headlam, The Life and Teaching of Jesus the Christ (London: John
was far from being confined to English scholars, however. The French
scholars, M.-J. Lagrange and F.-M. Braun, also worked in this vein,37 as
did the American scholars, A.T. Robertson and E.J. Goodspeed,38 and
the Jewish scholar J. Klausner.39 It is all too easy to dismiss such stud-
ies as anachronistic, and they are for the most part now ignored in much
current discussion of historical-Jesus research. This is perhaps because
they are seen to utilize what many consider an outmoded historical
method. This method relies upon the Gospels as the primary sources for
the life of Jesus, even if they are used critically, rather than rigorously
applying the canons of higher criticism, and especially of form criti-
cism, which was developing at much the same time. Or perhaps it is
because they do not conveniently fit within the concise divisions of the
quests for the historical Jesus into a number of neatly labelled cate-
gories. An examination of the better examples of these works on Jesus,
however, shows that these scholars were well aware of the critical issues
Murray, 1923; 2nd edn, 1927); F.C. Burkitt, Jesus Christ: An Historical Outline
(London: Blackie, 1932); W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of
the Revelation of God in Christ with Special Reference to Form-Criticism (London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1943; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1946); A.M. Hunter,
The Work and Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950; London:
SCM Press, 1951); and V. Taylor, The Work and Words of Jesus (London: Macmil-
lan, 1950); idem, The Life and Ministry of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1954; Nash-
ville: Abingdon Press, 1955); cf. idem, Jesus and his Sacrifice: A Study of the
Passion-Sayings in the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1937). See also G. Ogg, The
Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1940), who obviously believes that reliable facts can be gleaned about the
life of Jesus from the Gospels, since he uses them to write a chronology.
37. M.-J. Lagrange, L'evangile de Jesus-Christ (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1928; ET The
Gospel of Jesus Christ [2 vols.; London: Burns, Gates & Washbourne, 1938]); P.M.
Braun, Jesus: Histoire et critique (Tournai: Casterman, 1947). Cf. also H. Daniel-
Rops, Jesus en son temps (Paris: Fayard, 1945; ET Jesus in his Time [trans. R.W.
Millar; London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1955; 2nd edn, 1956]).
38. A.T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Jesus: A Study of Development and
Struggle in the Messiah's Work (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908); and E.J.
Goodspeed, A Life of Jesus (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950).
39. J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching [Hebrew
1925] (trans. H. Danby; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1925), for whom over
half of the book is devoted to discussion of the sources and the historical period,
before considering Jesus' life and teaching.
at play and often devoted considerable attention to discussing them

They nevertheless thought that their historically based method was able
to penetrate the sources so as to be able to provide a reliable life of
Jesus. Again, as Walker states, 'It is highly significant, however, that
they seek to recover the historical Jesus through the general methods of
secular historiography and, at least in theory, are unwilling to allow
their theological convictions to govern their historical conclusions'.40
Others, such as the classicist T.R. Glover, T.W. Manson, C.H. Dodd,
C.J. Cadoux, G.S. Duncan, and H.A. Guy, again a significant group of
scholars (note the contributions of some of them, discussed later in this
chapter and in others below), relied upon the Gospels as the basis of
presenting the message and teaching of Jesus.41 Like those above who
40. Walker, 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', p. 52, who also attempts to develop
such a method. It would be invidious to mention a number of lesser examples that
fail to meet such exacting historical-critical standards, but there are a number that
one must be aware of in such a discussion.
41. See T.R. Glover, The Jesus of History (London: SCM Press, 1917); idem,
Jesus of Nazareth (York: William Sessions, 1912; repr. from idem, The Conflict of
Religions in the Early Roman Empire [London: Methuen, 1909], pp. 113-40); T.W.
Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1931; 2nd edn, 1935); idem, The Sayings of Jesus
(London: SCM Press, 1949 [first published in H.D.A. Major, T.W. Manson and CJ.
Wright, The Mission and Message of Jesus: An Exposition of the Gospels in the
Light of Modern Research (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1937), pp. 301-
639]); idem, 'The Life of Jesus: A Study of the Available Materials', ExpTim 53
(1942), pp. 248-51 and 'The Quest of the Historical Jesus—Continued', both in
idem, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (ed. M. Black; Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1962), pp. 13-27, 3-12 respectively; idem, The Servant-Messiah:
A Study of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1953); idem, 'The Life of Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present-day Research', in
W.D. Davies and D. Daube (eds.), The Background of the New Testament and its
Eschatology (Festschrift C.H. Dodd; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1954), pp. 211-21; C.H. Dodd, 'The Framework of the Gospel Narrative (1932)', in
idem, New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953), pp.
1-11; idem, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1936); idem, The Parables of the Kingdom', idem, The Founder of Chris-
tianity (New York: Macmillan, 1970; London: Collins, 1971); C.J. Cadoux, The
Historic Mission of Jesus: A Constructive Reexamination of the Eschatological
Teaching in the Synoptic Gospels (London: Lutterworth, 1941); G.S. Duncan, Jesus,
Son of Man: Studies Contributory to a Modern Portrait (London: Nisbet, 1947);
and H.A. Guy, The Life of Christ: Notes on the Narrative and Teaching in the
1. The 'Third Quest'for the HistoricalJesus 43
attempted to write a life of Jesus, these scholars were very familiar with
the issues in higher criticism related to the study of Jesus (and other
discussions of the ancient world), with some of them being significant
contributors to formation of such methods. For example, Glover used
the canons of classical historical scholarship in his presentation of Jesus
and his teaching within the ancient world. Manson utilized form criti-
cism, but without linking its results with determination of authenticity.
Dodd saw underlying the Gospel accounts an account of the life of
Jesus. And Cadoux explored Jesus' eschatological perspective in terms
of other Jewish teaching of the time. Thus, on the one hand distancing
himself from the efforts of the previous century, Duncan can state that
'Scholars no longer attempt to write a "Life of Jesus". The materials for
a biography do not exist',42 yet on the other hand, he can write what he
called a modern portrait of Jesus. Nevertheless, many of those men-
tioned above never reflected the severe lack of belief in the availability
of historical information regarding Jesus in the Gospels that came to
typify the attitude of many other of the prominent scholars of the day.43
To be fair, despite what must have been significant academic and intel-
lectual pressure, even in German scholarship of this time there were
those of this era who continued to have varying degrees of optimism
Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1957). See Wood, Jesus in the Twentieth Century,
pp. 111-30.
42. Duncan, Jesus, Son of Man, p. vii.
43. The social-gospel movement in the United States also produced during this
time some lives/teachings of Jesus, e.g., S. Matthews, The Social Teaching of Jesus:
An Essay in Christian Sociology (New York: Macmillan, 1902); SJ. Case, The
Historicity of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912; 2nd edn, 1928);
idem, Jesus: A New Biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927);
W. Rauschenbusch, A Theology of the Social Gospel (New York: Macmillan,
1922); F.G. Peabody, The Social Teaching of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1924). These lives tended to resemble the position taken by
Harnack, with its emphasis upon romanticized and idealistic notions about human
character. Nevertheless, they were efforts to write accounts of the lives and teach-
ings of Jesus, which persisted well into the 1920s, and later with such popular treat-
ments as H.E. Fosdick, The Man from Nazareth as his Contemporaries Saw Him
(New York: Harper, 1949). Cf. R.A. Harrisville, 'Representative American Lives of
Jesus', in C.E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville (eds.), The Historical Jesus and the
Kerygmatic Christ: Essays on the New Quest of the Historical Jesus (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1964), pp. 172-96.
regarding one's ability to discover the original teaching or facts re-

garding Jesus. These scholars included a number of highly significant
scholars in various dimensions of Jesus research (several of which are
mentioned in subsequent chapters), including Heinrich Soden, Adolf
Schlatter, Joachim Jeremias, Ethelbert Stauffer, Leonhard Goppelt, and
even, at the beginning of the supposed period in question, K.L. Schmidt
and Martin Dibelius.44 There was also a joint project by a number of
German and English scholars, sponsored by the World Council of
Churches, that resulted in a volume entitled Mysterium Christi.45 In the
44. H.F. Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs,
2ndedn, 1909); A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag,
1921; 2nd edn, 1923; ET The History of the Christ: The Foundation for New Testa-
ment Theology [trans. AJ. Kostenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997]);
J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Gb'ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1935; 3rd edn, 1960; ET The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [trans. A. Ehrhardt; Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1955]); idem, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1947;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 10th edn, 1984; ET The Parables of Jesus
[trans. S.H.Hooke; London: SCM Press, 3rd edn, 1972]); idem, The Prayers of Jesus
(trans. J. Bowden, C. Burchard and J. Reumann; SBT, 2.6; London: SCM Press,
1967) (which consists of selections from Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen
Theologie und Zeitgeschichte [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966]); idem,
Neutestamentliche Theologie. I. Die Verkiindigung Jesu (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn,
1971; ET New Testament Theology. I. The Proclamation of Jesus [trans. J. Bowden;
NIL; London: SCM Press; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971]), a fitting
contrast to Bultmann's theology, in that this volume is devoted to Jesus, whereas
Bultmann only devoted the first 32 pages in his Theology of the New Testament (see
below); E. Stauffer, Jesus: Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern: Francke, 1957; ET Jesus
and his Story [trans. R. Winstone and C. Winston; London: SCM Press; New York:
Knopf, I960]); idem, 'Jesus, Geschichte und Verkiindigung', ANW 2.25.1, pp. 3-
130; L. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I. Jesu Wirken in seiner theolo-
gischen Bedeutung (ed. J. Roloff; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975; ET
Theology of the New Testament. I. The Ministry of Jesus in its Theological Sig-
nificance [trans. J.E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981]), esp. pp. 251-81,
where similar comments as are made regarding Jeremias's theology also apply here;
K.L. Schmidt, 'JesusChristus', RGG, III (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2nd edn, 1929),
cols. 110-51; and M. Dibelius, Jesus (Sammlung Goschen; Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
1939; ET Jesus [trans. C.B. Hedrick and F.C. Grant; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1949; London: SCM Press, 1963]).
45. G.K.A. Bell and A. Deissmann (eds.), Mysterium Christi: Christological
Studies by British and German Theologians (London: Longmans, Green; Berlin:
Furche-Verlag, 1930), which contains a range of essays on the topic, with various
approaches, by such scholars as Deissmann, G. Kittel, C.H. Dodd, E.C. Hoskyns,
light of the role that Dibelius played with Bultmann in the development
of form criticism (see Chapter 2), it is perhaps surprising that he and
Bultmann came to very different conclusions regarding what one could
know of Jesus through the Gospel sources. A recognition of the issues
involved, as well as the diversity of opinion evidenced in the work
during this period, is found in the comments of no less a scholar than
Goodspeed. In 1950, apparently recognizing the situation that I have
depicted above, he stated that ' "The life of Jesus cannot be written".
This has long been a commonplace with historians and biographers...
And yet what life has been so often written?' He himself then goes on
to offer his 'sketch' of the ministry of Jesus.46
In many circles, especially German ones, however, as a result of the
work of Schweitzer and others, there was indeed both a serious damp-
ening of the optimism that often accompanied the romanticized 'first
quest' and the establishment of the belief that Jesus was seen to be an/
the eschatological prophet. This model apparently dominated German
depictions of Jesus for the first half of the twentieth century. The results
of such an orientation were found in the work of scholars such as Bult-
mann, who were highly sceptical of attempts to find the historical Jesus
in documents produced by Christian faith—at least in the terms of the
romanticized notions of the nineteenth century. This has become known
in many circles as the 'no-quest' period,47 but in the light of the number
of lives of various sorts that were written during this time elsewhere,
several of which have been noted above, it is questionable whether this
label should really be used, since it was far from a period of no quest-
ing. One may well note that numerous presuppositions held by a num-
ber of the scholars of the time regarding this task were altered from
those of before, but attempts to write even if modified lives of Jesus
still abounded. In retrospect, this negative 'no-quest' position has come
to be used to characterize most, if not all, historical-Jesus research dur-
ing this period—probably wrongly in the light of the evidence to be
found in scholarly production during this time. Bultmann is all too well
known for his statement that 'I think that we can now know almost noth-
and H. Sasse, among others. Form criticism is only mentioned once (on p. 71 of
Hoskyns's essay).
46. Goodspeed, Life of Jesus, pp. 11, 12.
47. See Reumann, 'Jesus and Christology', p. 502.
ing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Chris-
tian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and
often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist'.48 Never-
theless, this did not prevent even Bultmann from producing a book on
Jesus. I think the key to understanding Bultmann's statement is his rejec-
tion of trying to find the deep-seated personality of Jesus in the Gos-
pels, something that was sought by many of the lives written in the
nineteenth century,49 although he then goes much further in another
48. Bultmann, Jesus, p. 8; cf. his comments at the outset of his Theologie des
Neuen Testaments (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948; 7th edn ed. O. Merk, 1977; ET
Theology of the New Testament [2 vols.; trans. K. Grobel; London: SCM Press;
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951,1955), I, p. 3: The message of Jesus is a
presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that
theology itself... But Christian faith did not exist until there was a Christian keryg-
ma... He was first so proclaimed in the kerygma of the earliest Church, not in the
message of the historical Jesus, even though that Church frequently introduced into
its account of Jesus' message, motifs of its own proclamation.' His programme was
directly pursued by R.H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus: An Exam-
ination of the Presuppositions of New Testament Theology (SBT, 12; London: SCM
Press, 1954). 'Minimalist' interpretations of Jesus (though certainly not necessarily
short treatments!) written during this period that reflect this more negative perspec-
tive include M. Goguel, La vie de Jesus (Paris: Payot, 1932; ET The Life of Jesus
[trans. O. Wyon; London: George Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan, 1933]);
A. Loisy, La naissance du christianisme (Paris: Nourry, 1933; ET The Birth of the
Christian Religion [trans. L.P. Jacks; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1948]),
pp. 61-87; R.H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hod-
der & Stoughton; New York: Harper, 1935); idem, The Gospel Message ofSt Mark
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950); and N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of
Jesus (NTL; London: SCM Press; New York: Harper & Row, 1967); among others.
The number of volumes written does not appear to be as many as those written by
scholars with other presuppositions—but this is understandable in the light of the
assumptions of the method. For a moderating and enlightening view of Bultmann
and his programme, see J.K. Riches, Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism
(London: Darton, Longman & Todd; New York: Seabury, 1980), pp. 44-61; and on
other writers of this time, see Wood, Jesus in the Twentieth Century, pp. 96-110.
49. Bultmann, Jesus, pp. 6, 8. In responding to his critics in 1962, Bultmann
attempts to clarify his position, when he says that 'from the discrepancy which I
emphasize between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the kerygma it does not at
all follow that I destroy continuity between the historical Jesus and the primitive
Christian proclamation' (R. Bultmann, Das Verhaltnis der urchristlichen Christus-
botschaft zum historischen Jesus [Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften phil.-hist. Klasse; Heidelberg: Winter, 1960; 3rd edn, 1962]; ET
direction in his own characterization. He and others also argued for an

eschatological Jesus. These factors indicate that Bultmann and others
were rejecting what they saw as unrealistic methods, both rationalistic
and romanticized, from the nineteenth century as much as anything. In
this sense, the rubric 'no quest' describes an abandonment in some, per-
haps mostly German, circles of the agenda of some nineteenth-century
questing after Jesus, but it can hardly be used as an adequate label for
the entire period of research on Jesus in the first half of the twentieth
century.
c. 1953-1988
The analysis that I am offering of a much more multi-faceted develop-
ment of historical-Jesus research perhaps makes it more understandable
how it was that Bultmann's student, Ernst Kasemann, could appear to
some to rejuvenate debate regarding the historical Jesus by means of his
1953 lecture. As will be seen in the next chapter, Kasemann, using very
similar methods as those of Bultmann and others instrumental in the
development of form criticism, asked again whether there was not still
historical information about Jesus that could be gleaned from the Gospel
sources.50 However, Kasemann had a clear approach in mind when he
issued this challenge, looking to form criticism, which he saw as a par-
ticularly German type of critical method, as the only proper means of
investigating the life of Jesus. Many of the scholars mentioned above
had never quit asking Kasemann's question, and using historical meth-
ods to answer it, as noted above, but they had not all used form criti-
The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus', in Braaten and Har-
risville [eds.], The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, pp. 15-42 [18]).
50. Kasemann, 'Problem of the Historical Jesus', pp. 15-47. Cf. Kasemann's
own earlier essay, which is in some ways part of the more sceptical, earlier period
in German scholarship: 'Zum Thema der Nichtobjektivierbarkeit', EvT 12 (1952-
53), pp. 455-66 (repr. in idem, Exegetische Versuche and Besinnungen, I, pp. 224-
36); ET 'Is the Gospel Objective?', in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes,
pp. 48-62. Kasemann himself did not pursue further the agenda that he set down in
his 'Problem of the Historical Jesus': see his 'Die neue Jesus-Frage', in J. Dupont
(ed.), Jesus aux origines de la christologie (BETL, 40; Gembloux: Duculot, 1975;
Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2nd edn, 1989), pp. 47-57. For a different
reading of the role of Kasemann, see Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in
der Jesusforschung, p. 5.
cism, even as this interpretive tool became more widely known. Con-
firmation for the perspective that I have taken in this chapter comes, of
all places, from Kasemann himself. In an essay by Kasemann that de-
serves to be better known in this discussion, in a section noteworthily
entitled The Continuation of the Old Type of "Life of Jesus" Study', he
states the following: The old type of "Life of Jesus" study still blooms
richly, if somewhat autumnally, wherever dialectical theology, thor-
ough-going eschatology and the form-critical method—that strange, pe-
culiarly German combination of questionings, rejected for the most part
on the rest of the European continent—have not succeeded in penetrat-
ing'.51 Kasemann's called-for peculiarly German form-critical investi-
gation has been seen by some scholars to mark the beginning of what
has been called a 'new' or 'second quest' of historical-Jesus research.52
51. E. Kasemann, 'Sackgassen im Streit um den historischen Jesus', in idem,

Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, II (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1964; 2nd edn, 1965), pp. 31-68; ET 'Blind Alleys in the "Jesus of History"
Controversy', in idem, New Testament Questions of Today (trans. WJ. Montague;
London: SCM Press, 1969), pp. 23-65 (24). The major writer of this old-fashioned
life of Jesus that Kasemann singles out for criticism, however, is not an English-
speaking scholar, but the German scholar Joachim Jeremias, in particular in his
'Der gegenwartige Stand der Debatte um das Problem des historischen Jesus', in
H. Ristow and K. Matthiae (eds.), Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische
Christus: Beitrdge zum Christusverstdndnis in Forschung und Verkundigung
(Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960), pp. 12-25; ET 'The Present Position in
the Controversy Concerning the Problem of the Historical Jesus', ExpTim 69 (1957-
58), pp. 333-39.
52. For an early accounting of this so-called 'new quest' (and the work that gave
this movement its name), see J.M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus
(SBT, 25; London: SCM Press, 1959; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979). Much
like today regarding the supposed 'third quest', some were not convinced then. See,
e.g., V.A. Harvey and S.M. Ogden, 'How New is the "New Quest of the Historical
Jesus"?', in Braaten and Harrisville (eds.), The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic
Christ, pp. 197-242; Walker, 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', p. 51, who calls the
'new quest' a 'halfway house' between scepticism and uncritical naivete; cf.
F. Hahn, 'MethodologischeUberlegungenzur Ruckfrage nach Jesus', in K. Kertelge
(ed.), Ruckfrage nach Jesus: Zur Methodik und Bedeutung der Frage nach dem
historischen Jesus (QD, 63; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 11-77; ET 'Methodolog-
ical Reflections on the Historical Investigation of Jesus', in F. Hahn, Historical
Investigation and New Testament Faith: Two Essays (trans. R. Maddox; Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 35-105; J.I.H. McDonald, 'New Quest—Dead End?
So What about the Historical Jesus', in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Biblica 1978.
II. Papers on the Gospels. Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies
In the light of my above historical survey of Jesus research in the first

half of the twentieth century, essentially confirmed by Kasemann (see
the Excursus at the end of this chapter for a graphic display of this re-
search), Kasemann's perspective seems to be in many ways nothing
more than a rallying call for a particularly German type of scholarship
for investigating the life of Jesus. Kasemann's published lecture of 1953
seems in retrospect merely to have given permission for some German
scholars, especially those most heavily influenced by the German re-
search in the first half of the century, to re-enter what was in fact already
an ongoing discussion of the historical Jesus—but to do so by using
form criticism.
On the basis of the survey offered above, there is no doubt that the
terms and methods of discussion of the historical Jesus had continued to
develop throughout the first half of the century, so that Morton Enslin
can state with regard to the orientation of the supposed 'old' or 'first
quest' that 'This book is in no sense a Life of Jesus. To write such is
impossible... We simply do not have the materials'—even though he
then proceeds to write about Jesus as prophet.53 But as Kasemann was
forced to admit, this is only part of the story. There were many who had
written accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus in the first half of the
century, and they were now joined more actively by German scholars.
In continuity with the ongoing quest for the historical Jesus that had
never really ceased (as we have already seen above), a number of the
most prominent New Testament scholars, both German and otherwise,
have gone on to make various types of contributions to and identified
their work with the debate over the last 50 or so years of the twentieth
century (often called the 'new' or 'second quest'), arguing for various
results in the light of this supposed re-opening of the question of the
historical Jesus. What is often cited as probably the classic treatment of
Jesus written during this period is that by Giinther Bornkamm,54 but
(JSNTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 151-70.

53. M.S. Enslin, The Prophet from Nazareth (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961),
p.l.
54. G. Bornkamm, Jesus von Nazareth (Urban-Bucher, 19; Stuttgart: W. Kohl-
hammer, 1956; 10th edn, 1975; ET Jesus of Nazareth [trans. I. McLuskey and
F. McLuskey with J.M. Robinson; London: Hodder & Stoughton, I960]). Marshall
has noted that in substance Bornkamm's volume is very similar to the earlier one of
Dibelius, the difference being that Bornkamm's life of Jesus was written by a stu-
dent of Bultmann (Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, p. 131).
there have been other particularly noteworthy contributions as well.

The range of acceptance and scepticism with regard to the reliability of
the Gospel tradition is manifestly large, with the major recognizable dif-
ference in the last half of the century from the first half being that both
sides and the middle at least appear to be part of the same general
debate. However, within this broad range, there are still a number of
perceivable differences in the treatments, especially on the basis of
whether they utilize form criticism or not, and hence whether they con-
form to the expectations of the 'new' or 'second quest' as defined by
German scholarship.55 Nevertheless, there has been no sign of interest
55. Other treatments include: H. Conzelmann, 'Jesus Christus', RGG, III (Tubin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 3rd edn, 1959), cols. 619-53; ET Jesus (trans. J.R. Lord; Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1973); idem, 'Zur methode der Leben-Jesu-Forschung',
ZTK 56 (1959), pp. 2-13; ET 'The Method of the Life-of-Jesus Research', in
Braaten and Harrisville (eds.), The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, pp.
54-68; W. Grundmann, Die Geschichte Jesu Christi (Berlin: Evangelische Verlag-
sanstalt, 1956; 2nd edn, 1959); E. Fuchs, Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus
(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960; El Studies of the Historical Jesus (trans. A. Scobie;
SBT, 42; London: SCM Press, 1964); H. Zahrnt, Es begann mit Jesus von Naza-
reth: Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1960; ET The His-
torical Jesus [trans. J.S. Bowden; London: Collins; New York: Harper & Row,
1963]), esp. pp. 43-54; H. Ristow and K. Matthiae (eds.), Der historische Jesus und
der kerygmatische Christus: Beitrdge zum Christusverstdndnis in Forschung und
Verkiindigung (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962), with essays by J. Jere-
mias, W.G. Kummel, H. Conzelmann, B. Reicke, R. Bultmann, O. Cullmann,
G. Bornkamm, W. Michaelis, H. Schiirmann, and E. Fuchs; J. Knox, The Church
and the Reality of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1962; London: Collins,
1963); E.C. Colwell, Jesus and the Gospel (New York: Oxford University Press,
1963); J.A. Baird, The Justice of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1963); idem, Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus (NTL;
Philadelphia: Westminster Press; London: SCM Press, 1969); H. Anderson, Jesus
and Christian Origins: A Commentary on Modern Viewpoints (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1964); O. Betz, Was Wissen w/r von Jesus? (Stuttgart: Kreuz,
1965; ET What Do We Know about Jesus? [trans. M. Kohl; London: SCM Press,
1968]); W. Neil, The Life and Teaching of Jesus (London: Hodder & Stoughton;
Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1965); C.K. Barrett, Jesus and the Gospel Tradition (Lon-
don: SPCK, 1967); D. Flusser, Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddocumenten
(Rowohlts Monographien, 140; Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1968; ET Jesus [in collabo-
ration with R.S. Notley; New York: Herder & Herder, 1969; Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, rev. edn, 1997]); E. Schweizer, Jesus Christus im vielfdltigen Zeugnis des
Neuen Testaments (Munich: Siebenstern, 1968; ET Jesus [trans. D.E. Green; Lon-
don: SCM Press; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1971]); Reumann, Jesus in the Church's
in this discussion of the life of Jesus flagging, and indeed many signs of
its further flourishing.56 In the next chapter, some of the dimensions of
this characterization of the 'new' or 'second quest' will be scrutinized
in more detail, especially regarding the development and use of the
criteria for authenticity.
d. 1988-Present
The question here, however, is whether more recent developments merit
the term 'third quest' as Wright uses it. Before attempting to answer
that question, one cannot help but note that there is a great deal of
Gospels, passim; H. Braun, Jesus: Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit (Berlin:
Kreuz-Verlag, 1969); H.C. Kee, Jesus in History: An Approach to the Study of the
Gospels (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970; 2nd edn, 1977); L.E. Keck,
A Future for the Historical Jesus: The Place of Jesus in Preaching and Theology
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971; London: SCM Press, 1972); S. Schulz, 'Die
neue Frage nach dem historischen Jesus', in H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke (eds.),
Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen
Testament (Festschrift O. Cullmann; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag; Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1972), pp. 33-42; idem, 'Der historische Jesus: Bilanz der Fragen
und Losungen', in G. Strecker (ed.), Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie
(Festschrift H. Conzelmann; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), pp. 3-25; G. Vermes,
Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins; Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1973); G. Aulen, Jesus i nutida historisk forskning (Stock-
holm: Verbum, 1973; 2nd edn, 1974; ET Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research
[trans. I.H. Hjelm; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976]); Trocme, Jesus and his
Contemporaries, passim; C.L. Mitton, Jesus: The Fact behind the Faith (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973; London: Mowbrays, 1975); W. Kasper, Jesus der Chris-
tus (Mainz: Matthias-Grunewald Verlag, 1974; ET Jesus the Christ [trans. V. Green;
London: Burns & Gates; New York: Paulist Press, 1976]), esp. pp. 26-40; G.N.
Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (SNTSMS, 27; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1974); idem, The Gospels and Jesus (OBS; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1989); Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, passim;
R.H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus' Teachings (Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster Press, 1978; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, rev. edn, 1994);
H. Carpenter, Jesus (Past Masters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), esp. pp.
1-20; J.R. Michaels, Servant and Son: Jesus in Parable and Gospel (Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1981); J. Marsh, Jesus in his Lifetime (London: Sidgwick & Jackson,
1981); Riches, Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism, passim; G. O'Collins,
Interpreting Jesus (Geoffrey Chapman Theology Library; London: Chapman, 1983);
J.S. Bowden, Jesus: The Unanswered Questions (London: SCM Press, 1988); among
many others, several more of which are cited below and in subsequent chapters.
56. See Evans, Life of Jesus Research, pp. 16-109.
evidence that there has always been just one multi-faceted quest for the
historical Jesus. This quest has certainly undergone development in a
number of ways and in different circles, though not all in the same way
or to the same degree. As the above survey of research shows, this
cannot be denied. However, this quest is also unified by a fundamental
underlying attempt to discover the proper means to be able to speak of
the historical Jesus. This unbroken line of scholarly investigation reveals
more than a century of ongoing research, one that cannot be easily dis-
missed. If anything, utilizing the signposts of such figures as Reimarus,
Schweitzer, Bultmann and Kasemann shows only that the tripartite char-
acterization of the quests for the historical Jesus so often cited by schol-
ars has perhaps more of a basis in German scholarship, or perhaps even
one kind of German scholarship, than it does in being a fair general
characterization of the diverse and multi-faceted quest as it has been
practised by a wider range of scholars worldwide. As Banks so aptly
stated nearly 20 years ago, 'Despite Schweitzer's strictures, there has
been an unbroken interest in the "quest for the historical Jesus" in
Anglo-Saxon circles, while the return of concern among German schol-
ars, first heralded in Ernst Kasemann's well-known essay, has now
proceeded for more than twenty-five years'.57
As a result of this smoothing out of the divides between the several
epochs in the quest for the historical Jesus, it should not come as a sur-
prise that the kind of radical division that Wright's statements above
anticipate between the so-called 'second' and 'third quests' is, to my
mind, simply not to be found. In none of the four important works that
had formed the high point of the 'third quest' to the point of his writing,
according to Wright, had the term 'third quest' even been used.58 He
57. R.J. Banks, 'Setting "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" in a Broader
Framework', in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives: Studies of
History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, II (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 61-
82 (61).
58. These four include: Meyer, The Aims of Jesus', A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the
Constraints of History (London: Gerald Duckworth; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1982); MJ. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus
(Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984; repr. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press
International, 1998), and E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) (J.D.G. Dunn, 'Can the Third Quest Hope to
Succeed?', in B. Chilton andC.A. Evans [eds.], Authenticating the Activities of Jesus
[NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998], pp. 31-48, esp. p. 35, attributes the begin-
ning of the 'third quest' to Sanders). In subsequent work, Wright has engaged in
describes four distinguishing features of this 'third quest' in relation to

the 'second quest' (or the 'new quest'): (1) locating Jesus firmly in terms
of his Jewish background, (2) asking the question of why Jesus was cru-
cified rather than simply noting the fact that he was, (3) integrating po-
litical and theological issues rather than distinguishing them, and (4)
bringing together scholars with various backgrounds.59 As a result of
Wright's and others' scholarly work, after roughly ten years it is fairly
common to see and hear reference to the 'third quest' in both the schol-
arly and more popular discussion.60 Clearly not all have been convinced
by these supposed distinguishing features of this 'third quest',
however.61 At the time of the publication of Wright's revision of Neill's
book, in a review, I noted my scepticism over the term, seeing much
greater continuity between the supposed 'second' and 'third quests' than
what appears to be his own form of historical revisionism, reading his 'third quest'
back even much earlier. In his Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1996), he cites 20 scholars as particularly important to the 'third quest' from
the year 1965 to the present, although most date to the 1970s and 1980s (p. 84)!
This seems to be more than a slightly hyperbolic view of the so-called 'third quest'.
Nevertheless, it helps to establish my point that there is little in this 'third quest'
that cannot be seen in continuity with previous questing after the historical Jesus.
59. Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, pp. 397-98. See also
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 89-121, where these are reiterated and
expanded to include the questions of what Jesus' aims were and of the origins of the
Church.
60. Besides Wright, see Evans, Life of Jesus Research, p. 3; M.J. Borg, Jesus
in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994),
p. ix; Witherington, The Jesus Quest; J. Beker, Jesus von Nazaret (Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1995), esp. pp. 10-11; Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der
Jesusforschung, pp. 1-8; B. Chilton, 'Assessing Progress in the Third Quest', in B.
Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS, 28.1;
Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), pp. 15-25; P. Pokorny, Jesus in the Eyes of his Followers:
Newly Discovered Manuscripts and Old Christian Confessions (Dead Sea Scrolls
and Christian Origins Library; North Richland Hills, TX: Bibal Press, 1998), pp.
14-21;L.M. McDonald and S.E. Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, forthcoming 2000), Chapter 4; among many others.
61. For example, in their surveys of the state of research: Reumann, 'Jesus and
Christology', esp. p. 502; Telford, 'Major Trends and Interpretive Issues', pp. 55-
61; M. Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 6; R.H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah:
A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 13.
Wright seems to have recognized.62 This is even though his formulation

is in terms of the 'third quest' clearly building upon the 'second'—for
example, in being concerned to join the kerygma to its historical con-
text, and relying upon the crucifixion as a datum in the discussion. I
would say that all four of the distinguishing features that Wright de-
scribes have in fact been part of the ongoing quest in various ways
apparently almost since its inception. In his recent introduction to the
New Testament, the late Raymond Brown notes that recent develop-
ments in historical-Jesus research (he does not refer to a 'third quest')
are distinguished by two tendencies. One of these, 'the most conserva-
tive one', he says, is focused upon 'the study of christology', rather than
being research into the historical Jesus; the other is the Jesus Semi-
nar, with its sceptical and (what he perhaps mistakenly calls) a priori
approach (he also treats a number of individual scholars as well, for
their particular contributions to recent Jesus research).63 In other words,
62. See S.E. Porter, review of The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-
1986, by Neill and Wright, in JETS 35 (1992), pp. 546-47.
63. See R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; New York:
Doubleday, 1997), pp. 818-30, in an appendix to his volume (quotation p. 819). The
individual scholars he cites as reflecting these trends (and who might be considered
part of the so-called 'third quest') include Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (noted above
by Wright); and idem, Historical Figure of Jesus\ G. Theissen, Der Schatten des
Galilders: Historische Jesusforschung in erzahlender Form (Munich: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag, 1986; ET The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the Historical Jesus
in Narrative Form [trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987]); R.A.
Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
11987); idem, Socialogy and the jesus movement ((New york: Crossed, 1989);
E. Schiissler Fiorenza, Jesus: Miriam's Child and Sophia's Prophet (New York:
Continuum, 1994); and J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus
(3 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991-). Other works that would probably
fall within the ambit of the 'third quest' (as well as perhaps Brown's strictures) not
yet mentioned in this chapter include J.H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism: New
Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (ABRL; New York: Doubleday,
1988) (cf. his The Historical Jesus in Light of Writings Contemporaneous with
Him', ANRW 2.25.1, pp. 451-76); P. Stuhlmacher, Jesus von Nazareth—Christus
des Glaubens (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1988; ET Jesus of Nazareth—-Christ of
Faith [trans. S.S. Schatzmann; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993]); I.M. Zeitlin,
Jesus and the Judaism of his Time (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988); H.C. Kee, What
Can We Know about Jesus? (Understanding Jesus Today; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990); M. de Jonge, Jesus, the Servant-Messiah (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1991); idem, God's Final Envoy: Early Christology and Jesus'
1. The 'Third Quest'for the Historical}esus 55
Brown sees greater continuity, with some admitted developments, be-

tween today's kind of questing after the historical Jesus and the pre-
vious questing. For him, there is no need to posit a 'third quest', espe-
cially since much of the recent research, according to him, is not what
he would see as historical-Jesus research anyway.
3. Conclusion
On the basis of the sketch of historical-Jesus research offered above,
and confirmed by what Wright and Brown have presented (summarized
briefly in section 2, above), there is little substantive basis for desig-
nating a new epoch in historical-Jesus research. The quest that is said
by some to have begun in the 1980s (inconsistently elongated by Wright
to the 1960s) seems to be merely a continuation of that said by some to
have begun in the 1950s—with some fine-tunings and adjustments in
terms of how much credence is given to parts of the body of evidence,
and who is included in the discussion. Thus, in a particularly note-
worthy example, Eduard Schweizer can write one life of Jesus during
the so-called 'new' or 'second quest', and write another book on Jesus
during the supposed 'third quest' in which he uses essentially the same
criteria as he used before.64 As Stein states, The same historical-critical
method remains foundational for many of the researchers' involved in
the so-called 'third quest'.65 What's more important to note, in antici-
pation of what will be presented in Chapter 2, below, is that this histor-
ical method goes even further back, at least to the time of the so-called
Own View of his Mission (SHJ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); B. Witherington,
III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991); B. Chilton, The
Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992); G. Vermes, The Reli-
gion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); W.E. Phipps, The Wis-
dom and Wit of Rabbi Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993);
E. Schweizer, Jesus: The Parable of God. What Do We Really Know about Jesus?
(Alison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1994; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997); Evans, Jesus
and his Contemporaries', B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple,
Purity, and Restoration (AGJU, 39; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997); Chilton and Evans
(eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus, passim; Chilton and Evans (eds.), Authen-
ticating the Activities of Jesus, passim', among many others.
64. Cf. Schweizer, Jesus, esp. pp. 10-11, where he invokes the criterion of dis-
similarity; and Jesus: The Parable of God, esp. pp. 20-23, where he briefly describes
a number of criteria.
65. Stein, Jesus the Messiah, p. 13.
'no-quest' period, if not earlier to the time of the 'old' or 'first quest'.
One cannot help but question the advisability of referring to anything
other than a single multi-faceted quest of the historical Jesus, with vari-
ous modifications and adjustments in approach, some of them perhaps
influenced by method and others perhaps by personality or nationality.
There is, to my mind, no clear way to characterize a given epoch in a
singular and uniform way, and there is certainly no clearly discernible
or definable break between epochs that anyone can turn to, as Wright's
shifting boundaries between the so-called 'second' and 'third quests' so
well illustrate.
As a specific case in point, with regard to the topic of this mono-
graph, incisive discussion of the criteria used to assess the authenticity
of any of the words or actions of Jesus—something that one would have
thought crucial to the more buoyantly optimistic recent agenda—is lack-
ing.66 As will be shown in Chapter 2, these criteria were primarily devel-
oped in the early to middle parts of this century, as part of the rise of
66. Some scholars wish to abandon the term 'criterion', replacing it with 'index'.
See Meyer, Aims of Jesus, p. 86; McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels,
pp. 66-69; cf. also R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung
der Evangelien-Uberlieferung (WUNT, 2.7; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981; 4th
edn, 1994), pp. 86-87, who sees 'criterion' as addressing absolute questions regard-
ing whether something is actual, while 'index' appreciates the influence of various
factors that might push a judgment in one direction or another. Riesner also raises
the question of what is meant by the term 'authenticity' (Echtheit), and realizes that
it involves degrees, rather than absolutes. I am sympathetic with this attempt to use
a more modest term than 'criteria', since 'index' more fully conveys that probabil-
ities, not certainties, are being discussed. However, I retain the traditional terminol-
ogy, because it is not entirely clear that criteria is not the right word for what many
scholars are attempting, that is, they are arguing for a greater degree of certainty
than such criteria (analysed below) can provide. I attempt to use the language of
probability whenever possible and appropriate, nevertheless, recognizing that much
more work needs to be done on the logical, historical, theological and linguistic
dimensions of this topic. For initial attempts in some of these areas, see A. Gibson,
Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981);
S.C. Goetz and C.L. Blomberg, 'The Burden of Proof, JSNT 11 (1981), pp. 39-63;
L.T. Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and
the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996); Schwarz,
Christology, pp. 75-336; A.R. Cross, 'Historical Methodology and New Testament
Study', Themelios 22.3 (1997), pp. 28-51; and now J.D. Crossan, L.T. Johnson and
W.H. Kelber, The Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict (Harrisburg, PA: Trin-
ity Press International, 1999).
form criticism, and continued even with the advent of redaction criti-
cism.67 In the light of the discussion of this chapter, over whether his-
torical-Jesus research has entered a new era, one could reasonably
expect to be able to find some definitive statements regarding these
criteria in terms of the supposed newest quest. However, Wright does
not mention them at all in his earlier work that surveys recent develop-
ments in New Testament research, and in his later work on the histori-
cal Jesus he seems consciously to abandon them. Instead of what he
calls the 'old' and 'so-called' criterion of dissimilarity (see below and
Chapter 2, for definition of this criterion), which he says can only be
applied with caution,68 he substitutes what appears to be the exact
opposite criterion (a criterion of similarity/continuity?), in which Jesus
is the central figure that unifies Judaism and the early Church.69 Brown
mentions criteria only to say that scholars are 'divided about the real
value of the criteria for discerning the historical Jesus'. He then also
gives the example of the criterion of dissimilarity, which he defines as
eliminating as authentic any saying or event that can be derived from
Judaism or early Christianity. This criterion leaves what he calls a 'mon-
strosity: a Jesus who never said, thought, or did anything that other
Jews said, thought, or did, and a Jesus who had no connection or rela-
tionship to what his followers said, thought, or did in reference to him
after he died'.70 If these statements and characterizations are accurate
(see Chapter 2, however, for a moderating analysis), it is not surprising
that utilization of the same criteria that originated with the rise of form
criticism during the so-called 'no quest', but that then were developed
further during the so-called 'new quest' and the rise of redaction criti-
cism, gave little hope for authenticating new data for discussion in a
newly self-conscious historical approach, such as the 'new quest' was
seeking to be. Nevertheless, these criteria are the ones that are still
67. W.G. Doty, 'The Discipline and Literature of New Testament Form Criti-
cism', ATR 51 (1969), pp. 257-321, esp. p. 315: The whole movement which has
just been the focus of attention in biblical studies, the movement James M. Robin-
son entitled "The New Quest of the Historical Jesus", comes directly out of the
form-critical method'.
68. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 86. One cannot help but note that
without an explicit formulation by Wright of what a criterion is, there is bound to
be some equivocation in his rejection of one and substitution of another.
69. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 125-31, esp. p. 128. Cf. idem, The
New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992), pp. 81-120.
70. Brown, Introduction, p. 827.
being used even during the so-called 'third quest', as will be shown in
Chapters 2 and 3.
Despite these discouraging features, however, there has been a re-
examination of the criteria for authenticity in certain circles over the
last 10 to 15 years. These circles seem to be English-speaking ones for
the most part, with the important caveat that some of the most signifi-
cant very recent work has been by several German scholars.71 With
recent reassessment of the criteria for authenticity, and the new criteria
that have emerged, one can perhaps now hear scholars stating that we
are poised to enter a 'new' (even a 'third') 'quest' for the historical
Jesus. This assumes, however, that the new criteria are genuinely inno-
vative and lead to new insights, rather than simply recapitulating the
previous results and methods. As Gerd Theissen states, 'The altered
presuppositions of the "third quest" [note my reservations above, how-
ever] require a reformulation of method',72 especially, one might think,
in the area of criteria for authenticity. My purpose in the rest of this
71. See Chapter 3, below, for analysis of these recent attempts. The major fig-
ures include Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 167-95; and G. Theissen, 'Historical Scep-
ticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research or My Attempt to Leap across Lessing's
Yawning Gulf, SJT 49 (1996), pp. 147-76; G. Theissen and A. Merz, Der his-
torische Jesus: Bin Lehrbuch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996; ET The
Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998]), esp. pp. 115-18; Theissen and Winter, Die
Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, esp. pp. 175-232. See also R.S. Barbour, Tra-
ditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels (Studies in Creative Criticism, 4; London:
SPCK, 1972); E. Schillebeeckx, Jezus, het verhaal van een levende (Bloemendaal:
Nelissen, 1974; ET Jesus: An Experiment in Christology [trans. H. Hoskins; New
York: Seabury, 1979]), pp. 81-100; R.H. Stein, The "Criteria" for Authenticity',
in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History
and Tradition in the Four Gospels, I (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 225-63;
D. Polkow, 'Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research', in K.H. Richards
(ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 26; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 336-56; C.A. Evans, 'Authenticity Criteria in Life of
Jesus Research', CSR 19 (1989), pp. 6-31; refined and updated in idem, Jesus and
his Contemporaries, pp. 13-26; idem, Life of Jesus Research, pp. 127-46, with
bibliography; idem, 'Life of Jesus', in S.E. Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis of
the New Testament (NTTS, 25; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), pp. 427-75, esp. pp. 441-
46.
72. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 116, on the basis of comments
in what is now published in Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesus-
forschung, pp. 28-174.
monograph is, within the established framework of historical-Jesus re-

search as recounted above in this chapter, first, to trace briefly the devel-
opment of the criteria for authenticity in Chapter 2; secondly, to discuss
several recent innovations regarding the criteria, and their attempt at a
shift in emphasis, in Chapter 3; and, thirdly, to suggest and define three
new criteria that logically grow out of these recent developments in
Chapters 4-6. Only once we have reached the end of Part 2, with its
discussion of the three new criteria, will be be able to determine
whether we have truly entered a new era in historical-Jesus research.
Table 1. Timeline of the Quest for the Historical Jesus

The following table lays out much of the information presented above in a chrono-
logical fashion. The first column lists in chronological order a selection of the major
authors who have written important works on the historical Jesus, with a date usu-
ally for their major or first contribution listed. The second column lists the defining
scholars who are often cited as marking the turning points in the various so-called
quests of the historical Jesus, with the date of this contribution listed. The third
column provides the labels and dates of these supposed quests and non-quests.
Other scholars will want to add other contributors (or subtract some) from this list.
It is meant to be descriptive and hence illustrative, not definitive.
Scholar Turning Point 'Quest'
H.S. Reimarus (1778) H.S. Reimarus (1778) 'Old' or 'First Quest'

J.G. Herder (1796) (1778-1906)
H.E.G.Paulus(1828)
D.F. Strauss (1835-36)
E.Renan(1863)
A.Edersheim(1883)
M.Kahler(1882)
B.Weiss (1888)
J.Weiss (1892)
A. Harnack (1900)
A. Schweitzer (1901)
W. Wrede (1901)
W. Sanday (1899)
W. Bousset (1904)
A. Schweitzer (1906) 'No Quest' (1906-1953)
A.T. Robertson (1908)
H.F. Soden (1909)
T.R. Glover (1917)
A. Schlatter (1921)
A.C. Headlam (1923)
J. Klausner (1925)
R. Bultmann (1926)
M.-J. Lagrange (1928)
K.L. Schmidt (1929)
G. Bell and A. Deissmann
(1930)
T.W.Manson(1931)
F.C. Burkitt (1932)
M. Goguel (1932)
C.H. Dodd (1932)
1. The 'Third Quest'for the Historical Jesus 61

A. Loisy (1933)
R.H.Lightfoot(1935)
J. Jeremias (1935)
M. Dibelius (1939)
G.0gg(1940)
CJ. Cadoux (1941)
W. Manson (1943)
H. Daniel-Rops (1945)
F.-M. Braun (1947)
G.S. Duncan (1947)
A.M. Hunter (1950)
V.Taylor (1950)
EJ.Goodspeed(1950)
E. Kasemann (1953) 'New' or 'Second Quest'
N. Dahl (1955) (1953-88?)
G. Bornkamm (1956)
W. Grundmann (1956)
H.A. Guy (1957)
E. Stauffer(1957)
H.Zahrnt(1960)
H.G. Wood (1960)
M. Enslin (1961)
B. Gerhardsson (1961)
J. Knox (1962)
E.G. Colwell (1963)
J.A.Baird(1963)
H. Anderson (1964)
O.Betz(1965)
W. Neil (1965)
N. Perrin (1967)
C.K. Barrett (1967)
D.Flusser(1968)
J. Reumann (1968)
E. Schweizer(1968)
H.K.McArthur(1969)
H. Braun (1969)
H. Riesenfeld(1970)
H.C. Kee (1970)
L.E. Keck (1971)
E. Trocme (1972)
S. Schulz (1972)
G. Vermes (1973)
G. Aulen (1973)

C.L. Mitton (1973)
E. Schillebeeckx (1974)
G.N. Stanton (1974)
W. Kasper (1974)
L. Goppelt (1975)
I.H. Marshall (1977)
R.H. Stein (1978)
B.F.Meyer (1979)
J. Riches (1980)
H. Carpenter (1980)
R. Riesner (1981)
J. Marsh (1981)
A.E. Harvey (1982)
G. O'Collins (1983)
B. Chilton (1984)
E.P. Sanders (1985)
J.H. Charlesworth (1988) N.T. Wright (1988) Third Quest' (1988?-)
P. Stuhlmacher(1988)
I.M. Zeitlin (1988)
J.S. Bowden (1988)
G. Theissen (1986)
J.P.Meier (1991)
M.DeJonge(1991)
J.D. Crossan (1992)
M.J. Borg (1984)
W.E. Phipps (1993)
M. Bockmuehl (1994)
S. Byrskog (1994)
J. Beker (1995)
C.A. Evans (1995)
B. Witherington (1995)
N.T. Wright (1996)
L.T. Johnson (1996)
P. Pokorny (1998)
H. Schwarz (1998)
Chapter 2
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRITERIA FOR AUTHENTICITY

AND THE RISE OF FORM (AND REDACTION) CRITICISM
1. Introduction
In this chapter, I turn to a historically based discussion of development
of the criteria for authenticity in historical-Jesus research.1 Here I wish
1. Few discussions of the criteria for authenticity place that discussion in a

historical context. For those who come close, see E. Schillebeeckx, Jezus, het ver-
haal van een levende (Bloemendaal: Nelissen, 1974; El Jesus: An Experiment in
Christology [New York: Seabury, 1979]), pp. 62-100, with useful bibliography on
pp. 88-90; F. Lentzen-Deis, 'Kriterien fur die historische Beurteilung der Jesusiiber-
lieferung in den Evangelien', in K. Kertelge (ed.), Ruckfrage nach Jesus: ZurMeth-
odik und Bedeutung der Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (QD, 63; Freiburg:
Herder, 1974), pp. 78-117, esp. pp. 81-93; M.E. Boring, The Historical-Critical
Method's "Criteria of Authenticity": The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test
Case', Semeia 44 (1988), pp. 9-44, esp. pp. 9-12, but who actually treats the criteria
in what he says has become a traditional order (p. 12 n. 8); and G. Theissen and
D. Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkriterium zum
Plausibilitatskriterium (NTOA, 34; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck &Ruprecht, 1997), esp. pp. 1-174. Cf. H.W.E. Turner, Historicity and the
Gospels: A Sketch of Historical Method and its Application to the Gospels (London:
Mowbrays, 1963), pp. 58-108. For synoptic rather than historical discussions of the
criteria, see W.O. Walker, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Discussion of
Methodology', ATR 51 (1969), pp. 38-56; NJ. McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria
and Mark 7:1-23', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 431-60; R.S. Barbour, Traditio-Historical
Criticism of the Gospels (Studies in Creative Criticism, 4; London: SPCK, 1972); F.
Mussner, 'Methodologie der Frage nach dem historischen Jesus', in Kertelge (ed.),
Ruckfrage nach Jesus, pp. 118-47; repr. in F. Mussner, Jesus von Nazareth im
Umfeld Israels und der Urkirche: Gesammelte Aufsatze (ed. M. Theobald; WUNT,
111; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), pp. 13-42; R.H. Stein, The "Criteria" for
Authenticity', in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives: Studies
of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, I (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp.
225-63; R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ur-sprung der
simply to trace the basic outline of the narrative, but even this brief nar-
rative may be more complex than some realize. As mentioned above in
Chapter 1, the rise of New Testament form criticism especially in Ger-
many of the 1920s,2 within the course of the further and ongoing devel-
Evangelien-Uberlieferung (WUNT, 2.7; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981; 4th edn,

1994), pp. 87-96; D. Polkow, 'Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research',
inK.H. Richards (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers (SBLSP,
26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 336-56; S. McKnight, Interpreting the Synop-
tic Gospels (Guides to New Testament Exegesis; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1988), pp. 59-69; J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3
vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991-), I, pp. 167-95, with useful bibliog-
raphy on pp. 186-87 n. 7; C.A. Evans, Life of Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibli-
ography (NTTS, 24; Leiden: EJ. Brill, rev. edn, 1996), pp. 127-46; idem, Jesus and
his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGJU, 25; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1995), pp.
13-26 (these reflect his earlier article, 'Authenticity Criteria in Life of Jesus Re-
search', CSR 19 [1989], pp. 6-31); idem, 'Life of Jesus', in S.E. Porter (ed.), Hand-
book to Exegesis of the New Testament (NTTS, 25; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), pp.
427-75, esp. pp. 441-46. See also the handy chronologically arranged collection of
secondary literature up to the 1960s in H.K. Me Arthur (ed.), In Search of the His-
torical Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969).
2. The classic works of form criticism include K.L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der
Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur altesten Jesusiiberlieferung
(Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919); M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums
(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1919; 2nd edn, 1933; 6th edn, ed. G. Bornkamm, 1971;
ET From Tradition to Gospel [trans. B. Woolf; London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson,
1934]); idem, Gospel Criticism and Christology (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson,
1935); R.Bultmmn,Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT, 29; Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921; 2nd edn, 1931; 6th edn, 1957; ET History
of the Synoptic Tradition [trans. J. Marsh; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963; 2nd edn,
1968]); idem, The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem', JR 6 (1926), pp. 337-
62; repr. in S. Ogden (ed.), Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bult-
mann (New York: Meridian, 1960; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961), pp. 35-
54; and V. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan,
1933; 2nd edn, 1935). Early and important summaries of the method are W.K.L.
Clarke, New Testament Problems: Essays—Reviews—Interpretations (London:
SPCK, 1929), pp. 18-30; E.B. Redlich, Form Criticism: Its Value and Limitations
(Studies in Theology; London: Gerald Duckworth, 1939). It must not be overlooked
that there were a number of important works that anticipated form criticism of the
Gospels. They include W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zu-
eglich ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis des Markusevangeliums (Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1901; ET The Messianic Secret [trans. J.C.G. Greig; Cambridge:
J. Clarke, 1971]); J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1903);
idem, Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1904); idem, Das Evangelium
2. Historical Development of the Criteria for Authenticity 65
opment of post-Enlightenment higher criticism,3 took place in conjunc-

tion with the development of supposed criteria regarding authenticity of
the Jesus tradition. As will be noted further below, this is not to deny
that there were antecedent criteria suggested, dating all the way back to
the Enlightenment, and before, but the most important and sustained
discussion of the criteria seems to have coincided with the development
of form criticism. This growth is also often linked to the so-called 'no-
quest' period in historical-Jesus research. As a result, the criteria to a
large extent reflect the modes of thought that were typical of those who
developed form criticism, one of the most important and enduring criti-
cal methods to be utilized in New Testament studies. This link between
form criticism and historical-Jesus research is perfectly understandable.
As a result of the scepticism engendered in some circles by those typi-
cally identified as part of the 'no quest' period (and who were at the
heart of developing form criticism), the burden was placed upon those
who wished to distinguish tradition and its development within the early
Church from the purported authentic words and actions of Jesus. A num-
ber of tenets came to be identified with form criticism, as it developed
and continued to be utilized.4 For example, form criticism was con-
cerned with the definition and study of literary forms or types apart
Lucae (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1904); and E. Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen

zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1913; repr. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956), esp. pp. 277-308.
3. This is not the place to discuss the entire rise and development of historical
criticism. For a brief and informative guide, see E. Krentz, The Historical-Critical
Method (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). For brief overviews of the his-
torical development of form criticism, see W.G. Kiimmel, Das Neue Testament:
Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme (Munich: Alber, 1958; rev. edn, 1970;
ET The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems [trans.
S.M. Gilmour and H.C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972]), esp. pp. 325-40;
E.V. McKnight, What is Form Criticism? (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1969), esp. pp. 57-78; W.G. Doty, The Discipline and Literature of New Testa-
ment Form Criticism', ATR 51 (1969), pp. 257-321, esp. pp. 260-85 for bibliog-
raphy, and pp. 285-319 for discussion; N. Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?
(GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 13-21; and E.E.
Ellis, The Historical Jesus and the Gospels', in J. Adna, S.J. Hafemann and
O. Hofius (eds.), Evangelium Schriftauslegung Kirche: Festschrift fur Peter Stuhl-
macherzum 65. Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), pp. 94-
106.
from their context as now found in the Gospels. This was in an effort to
recover their pre-Gospel use in the life of the early Church, and, to a
lesser extent, their possible setting in the life of Jesus. Form criticism
emphasized that the early Church had a formative influence upon the
4. Overviews and assessments of form criticism in terms of its categories and

major tenets abound. Among the many, especially since Doty's article ('Discipline
and Literature'), see K. Koch, Was ist Formgeschichte? Neue Wege der Bibelex-
egese (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964; 2nd edn, 1967; ET The
Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method [trans. S.M. Cupitt;
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969); H. Zimmermann, Neutestamentliche
Methodenlehre: Darstellung der historisch-kritischen Methode (Stuttgart: Katholis-
che Bibelwerk, 1967; 2nd edn, 1968), esp. pp. 129-76; G.N. Stanton, 'Form Criti-
cism Revisited', in M.D. Hooker and C. Hickling (eds.), What about the New
Testament? Essays in Honour of Christopher Evans (London: SCM Press, 1975),
pp. 13-27;E.E. Ellis, 'New Directions in Form Criticism', in G. Strecker (ed.), Jesus
Christus in Historic und Theologie (Festschrift H. Conzelmann; Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1975), pp. 299-315; repr. in E.E. Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early
Christianity (WUNT, 18; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1978; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1980), pp. 237-53; idem, 'Gospels Criticism: A Perspective on the State of
the Art', in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), The Gospel and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1991), pp. 26-52, esp. pp. 37-41 (originally published in P. Stuhlmacher
[ed.], Das Evangelium und die Evangelien [WUNT, 28; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1983]), pp. 27-54; S.H. Travis, 'Form Criticism', in I.H. Marshall (ed.), New Tes-
tament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Exeter: Paternoster Press;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 153-64; R.F. Collins, Introduction to the New
Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), pp. 156-95; H. Conzelmann and
A. Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 8th
edn, 1985; ET Interpreting the New Testament: An Introduction to the Principles
and Methods of New Testament Exegesis [trans. S.S. Schatzmann; Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1988]), pp. 59-82; R.H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 161-228; C.L. Blomberg, The His-
torical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987), pp. 20-35;
C.M. Tuckett, Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation (London:
SPCK, 1987), pp. 95-115; McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 71-82;
E.V. McKnight, 'Form and Redaction Criticism', in EJ. Epp and G.W. MacRae
(eds.), The New Testament and its Modern Interpreters (The Bible and its Mod-
ern Interpreters; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 149-74, esp. pp. 150-53; E.P.
Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press;
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), pp. 123-97, who also include a his-
torical survey on pp. 123-37; D.L. Bock, 'Form Criticism', in D.A. Black and D.S.
Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 1991), pp. 175-96; N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God
(London: SPCK, 1992), pp. 418-35; B. Chilton, 'Traditio-Historical Criticism and
formulation and development of tradition about Jesus, and that any given
pericope had to be considered in terms of its literary form and the
placement and use of that form within the early Church.5 Redaction
criticism then came into its own in the 1950s6 as a natural extension of
Study of Jesus', in J.B. Green (ed.), Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for
Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), pp. 37-
60, esp. pp. 39-42; and C.A. Evans, 'Source, Form and Redacton Criticism: The
"Traditional" Methods of Synoptic Interpretation', in S.E. Porter and D. Tombs
(eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study (JSNTSup, 120; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1995), pp. 17-45, esp. pp. 27-32; idem, 'Life of Jesus', pp. 433-37. Despite the crit-
icism of such people as H. Palmer, The Logic of Gospel Criticism: An Account of
the Methods and Arguments Used by Textual, Documentary, Source, and Form
Critics of the New Testament (London: Macmillan; New York: St Martin's, 1968),
esp. pp. 175-94; E. Giittgemanns, Offene Fragen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeli-
ums: Eine methodologische Skizze der Grundlagenproblematik der Form- und
Redaktionsgeschichte (BEvT, 54; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1970; 2nd edn,
1971; ET Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological
Sketch of the Fundamental Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism [trans.
W.G. Doty; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1979]); K. Berger, Exegese des Neuen
Testaments: Neue Wege vom Text zur Auslegung (UTb, 658; Heidelberg: Quelle &
Meyer, 1977); idem, 'Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament', ANRW
2.25.2, pp. 1031-1432; idem, Einfuhrung in die Formgeschichte (UTb, 1444;
Tubingen: Franke, 1987); G. Theissen, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: Bin Beit-
rag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien (SNT, 8;
Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1974; ET The Miracle Stories of Early Christian Tradition
[trans. F. McDonagh; SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983]), esp. pp. 1-27, form criticism still seems to be alive and well, despite ac-
knowledgment of its weaknesses and its need for modifications (see McKnight,
'Form and Redaction Criticism', pp. 166-67).
5. See Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, p. 123.
6. The major works often cited as marking the instigation of redaction criti-
cism include G. Bornkamm, 'Die Sturmstillung im Matthausevangelium', Wort und
Dienst: Jahrbuch der Theologischen Schule Bethel NS 1 (1948), pp. 49-54; repr. in
G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H.J. Held, Uberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthaus-
evangelium (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960; ET Tradition and In-
terpretation in Matthew [trans. P. Scott; NTL; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1963]), pp. 52-57, along with another article by Bornkamm
('EnderwartungundKirche im Matthausevangelium', in W.D. Davies and D. Daube
[eds.], The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology: Studies in
Honour ofC.H. Dodd [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954], pp. 222-60)
and the 1955 and 1957 dissertations of his students, Barth and Held; H. Conzel-
mann, Die Mine der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (BHT, 17; Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1953; 2nd edn, 1957; 4th edn, 1962; ET The Theology of St Luke
form criticism7—with emphasis upon the individual Gospel writers as

interpreters and shapers of tradition.8 This new criticism (often linked
with the so-called 'new' or 'second quest') did not significantly alter
the development of the criteria for authenticity, except perhaps to see
them become even more firmly entrenched. Many of the same scholars
[trans. G. Buswell; New York: Harper & Brothers; London: Faber & Faber, I960]);
W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evan-
geliums (FRLANT, 67; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956; 2nd edn, 1959;
ET Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel [trans.
J. Boyceef al; Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1969]); and E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu:
Eine Erkldrung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin:
Alfred Topelmann, 1966; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2nd edn, 1968). Precursors of
redaction criticism are often seen in Wrede, Messianic Secret', R.H. Lightfoot,
History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton; New York:
Harper, 1935); idem, Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1938); idem, The Gospel Message of St Mark (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1950); N.B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (London:
Tyndale Press, 1944; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958); A.M. Farrer, A Study in
St Mark (London: Dacre Press, 1951); idem, St Matthew and St Mark (London:
Dacre Press, 1954); and J.M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (SBT, 21;
London: SCM Press, 1957).
7. The final section of Bultmann's History of the Synoptic Tradition is entitled
'Die Redaktion des Erzahlungsstoffes und die Komposition der Evangelien' (Ger-
man pp. 362-92; English pp. 337-67). Sanders and Davies (Studying the Synoptic
Gospels, pp. 201-202) see this section as inspiring Bultmann's pupils in their
development of redaction criticism.
8. For discussion and assessment of redaction criticism, among many sources
(here not noting those that simply apply redaction criticism), see H. Flender, Heil
und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas (BEvT, 41; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag,
1965; ET St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History [trans. R.H. and I. Fuller;
London: SPCK, 1967]); Zimmermann, Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre, pp. 214-
30; J. Rohde, Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode: Einfuhrung und Sichtung des
Forschungestandes (Hamburg: Furche Verlag, 1966; rev. edn, 1968; ET Rediscov-
ering the Teaching of the Evangelists [trans. D.M. Barton; NTL; London: SCM
Press, 1968]); R.H. Stein, 'What Is RedaktionsgeschichteT, JBL 88 (1969), pp. 45-
56; idem, Synoptic Problem, pp. 231-72; Perrin, Redaction Criticism, esp. pp. 25-
39;I.H. Marshall, Luke .'Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1970);
M.D. Hooker, 'In his Own Image?', in Hooker and Hickling (eds.), What about the
New Testament?, pp. 28-44; S.S. Smalley, 'Redaction Criticism', in Marshall (ed.),
New Testament Interpretation, pp. 181-95; Collins, Introduction to the New Testa-
ment, pp. 196-230; D.A. Carson, 'Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Ille-
gitimacy of a Literary Tool', in D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge (eds.), Scripture
and Truth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 119-42; Blomberg, Historical
who were involved in development of form and redaction criticism

were also those involved in development and refinement of the criteria
for authenticity, although others were involved as well. In the light of
this climate (see the Excursus, below, for a graphic display of the devel-
opment of the major criteria for authenticity in relation to form and
redaction criticism, and the so-called 'quests' for the historical Jesus), I
turn now to a historically based discussion of the development of the
criteria for authenticity. In this study, I have selected those criteria that
seem to have been the most important in historical-Jesus research, and
trace the development of each from a roughly chronological standpoint.
2. The Criteria for Authenticity and their Development

In this section, I will treat the major criteria often utilized and discussed
in various other works on the historical Jesus. The number treated is a
necessarily limited selection from the vast variety suggested and treated
by other scholars. In his treatment of the topic, Polkow examines five
previous treatments of the criteria for authenticity, and compiles a mas-
ter list of 25 such criteria. He then formulates various combinations of
these criteria, in an attempt to arrive at a manageable group for discus-
sion.9 Evans characterizes Polkow's treatment as 'finely nuanced', but
Reliability of the Gospels, pp. 35-43; Tuckett, Reading the New Testament, pp. 116-
35; Me Knight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 83-95; Me Knight, 'Form and
Redaction Criticism', pp. 153-64; Sanders and Da vies, Studying the Synoptic
Gospels, pp. 201-98; G.R. Osborne, 'Redaction Criticism', in Black and Dockery
(eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, pp. 199-224; G.P. Corrington,
'Redaction Criticism', in S.R. Haynes and S.L. McKenzie (eds.), To Each its Own
Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application (Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 87-99; J.R. Donahue, 'Redaction
Criticism: Has the Hauptstrasse Become a SackgasseT, in E.S. Malbon and E.V.
McKnight (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (JSNTSup,
109; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 27-57; Evans, 'Source, Form and Redaction
Criticism', pp. 33-37; idem, 'Life of Jesus', pp. 437-41. Several of these assess-
ments see more modern methods developing out of redaction criticism, such as var-
ious types of literary criticism. On this, see especially S.D. Moore, Literary Criticism
and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989), esp. pp. 56-58.
9. Polkow, 'Method and Criteria', pp. 338, 342. Polkow analyses the work of
Walker, 'Questfor the Historical Jesus'; McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria'; Stein,
' "Criteria" for Authenticity'; J. Breech, The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice
of the Authentic Man (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 9, 22-26, 66-85; and
then goes on to elucidate this statement by (rightly) saying that it is 'at

times "hair-splitting"'.10 As Polkow's own study shows by his attempt
to lump together various criteria, there simply are not that many criteria,
and one soon realizes that the same criterion is frequently called by
several different names, depending upon the scholar who is using and
labelling it. Rather than attempt such a dissection, here I trace the his-
torical development of the major criteria for authenticity that have en-
tered into and endured in the discussion of the historical Jesus, and
offer a brief critique of each one. The notes in this chapter should pro-
vide enough documentation for those wishing to pursue both the propo-
nents and the criticisms in more detail.
a. Criterion of Double Dissimilarity

As noted above in defining form criticism, the development of the form-
critical framework soon meant that any tradition that could be shown to
go back to the early Church was surely open to question regarding its
authenticity as originating with Jesus and his first followers; likewise, if
the early Church could not be relied upon, neither could the Jewish con-
text of early Christianity to provide genuinely authentic Jesus material.
As a result, the criterion of dissimilarity, or, better, double dissimilar-
ity,11 as it was originally and has usually been formulated, was devel-
oped and began to be utilized. At least, that is how the criterion is typi-
cally described with regard to its origins and utilization. This criterion
has a long and enduring history, at least from the rise of form criticism
through to the current reign of redaction criticism.12 As might be ex-
pected in the light of the development of form criticism, one of the early
and (what has become) most important formulations of this criterion
Boring, 'Criteria of Authenticity'. Cf. F.G. Downing, The Church and Jesus: A
Study in History, Philosophy and Theology (SET, 10; London: SCM Press, 1968),
pp. 93-131, who also includes a very large number (counting them is made difficult
by the fact that they are not clearly differentiated as to whether they are all criteria),
but does not attempt to coordinate them.
10. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries, p. 13 n. 34.
11. Schillebeeckx (Jesus, p. 92) calls it the 'principle of dual irreducibility'; he
generally endorses it within its limits (noted below).
12. A lengthy history of this criterion, which goes all the way back to Renais-
sance humanism in their discussion and proceeds to the present, is to be found in
Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. 28-174; cf. pp.
270-316, where they provide excerpts from those who have formulated and com-
mented upon the criterion of dissimilarity, from 1521 to 1995.
came from Rudolf Bultmann in his History of the Synoptic Tradition.

However, the following casual formulation of this criterion is made only
incidentally regarding similitudes: 'We can only count on possessing a
genuine similitude of Jesus where, on the one hand, expression is given
to the contrast between Jewish morality and piety and the distinctive
eschatological temper which characterized the preaching of Jesus; and
where on the other hand we find no specifically Christian features'.13
Elsewhere in the same book, Bultmann admits that some of Jesus' state-
ments resembled Jewish wisdom.14 This latter statement would appear
to be in direct contradiction with the statement regarding similitudes,
and would thus apparently call into question whether he meant for his
statement regarding similitudes to have any general application beyond
the immediate context in which the formulation was made, that is, as the
concluding statement to the section on similitudes and similar forms. In
the light of what has happened in the development of the criteria for
authenticity, however, such a question is now strictly academic. The re-
ality is that what began as a casual and qualified statement by Bultmann
13. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 205. CJ. den Heyer (Wie is Jems? Balans
van!50jaaronderzoeknaar Jesus [Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Meine-
ma, 1996; ET Jesus Matters: 150 Years of Research (trans. J. Bowden: London:
SCM Press, 1996)], pp. 132-33, 188) uses this statement to represent what he calls a
'minimal' approach to criteria. Bultmann was not the first to think in terms of some-
thing like this criterion, however, as Boring ('Criteria of Authenticity', p. 17)
makes clear, but Bultmann has undoubtedly been the most influential. For earlier
formulations, see W. Heitmuller, Jesus (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1913),pp. 34-35 (to
whom Bultmann dedicated his Synoptic Tradition)', and P.W. Schmiedel, 'Gospels',
in T.K. Cheyne and J.S. Black (eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary
of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archaeology, Geography and
Natural History of the Bible (4 vols.; London: A. & C. Black, 1899-1907), II, cols.
1761-898, esp. cols. 1847, and 1881-83, where he defines his nine 'foundation-pil-
lars for a truly scientific Life of Jesus' (col. 1881), which were unlikely to have
been created by the post-Easter Church (about Jesus in general: Mk 10.17-18; Mt.
12.31-32; Mk 3.21; Mk 13.32; Mk 15.34 = Mt. 27.46; on the miracles of Jesus: Mk
8.12 = Mt. 12.38 = Lk. 11.29; Mk 6.5-6; Mk 8.14-21; Mt. 11.5 = Lk. 7.22). Cf. also
his P.W. Schmiedel, Das vierte Evangelium gegenuber den drei ersten (Tubingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1906; ET The Johannine Writings [trans. M.A. Canney; London: A. &
C. Black, 1908]), pp. 25-30. See F.F. Bruce, Tradition Old and New (Exeter:
Paternoster Press, 1970), p. 48.
14. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 101 -108.
with regard to only one literary form-critical type, the similitude,15 was
nevertheless soon made into a more absolute criterion by others who
utilized it.
In his so-called clarion call to re-open investigation of the historical
Jesus, Ernst Kasemann actually goes further than Bultmann in the way
in which he stringently formulates this criterion of dissimilarity:
We can only sketch in a few bold strokes the embarrassment of critical
research. It lies in this; while the historical credibility of the Synoptic tra-
dition has become doubtful all along the line, yet at the same time we are
still short of one essential requisite for the identification of the authentic
Jesus material, namely, a conspectus of the very earliest stage of primi-
tive Christian history; and also there is an almost complete lack of satis-
factory and water-tight criteria for this material. In only one case do we
have more or less ground under our feet; when there are no grounds either
for deriving a tradition from Judaism or for ascribing it to primitive
Christianity...1^
This statement is an important part of Kasemann's outlining of an appro-

priate method for a return to historical-Jesus research. The statement
appears to be anything but optimistic about the possibility of a quest for
the historical Jesus—apart from this lone double-edged criterion of dif-
ference. Thus, this major criterion was at first incidentally formulated
by Bultmann as part of his development of form criticism, and during
the period of supposedly highest scepticism in Jesus research (the so-
called 'no-quest' period). It was in fact fully integrated into the quest
15. Boring ('Criteria of Authenticity', p. 17) provides an alternative translation

of Bultmann's statement regarding similitudes, emphasizing that Bultmann was
speaking in terms of probabilities, not laying down an absolute and exclusive prin-
ciple. However, the German seems more absolute in its formulation: 4Wo der
Gegensatz zur jiidischen Moral und Frommigkeit und die spezifisch eschatologische
Stimmung, die das Charakteristikum der Verkundigung Jesu bilden, zum Ausdruck
kommt, und wo sich andrerseits keine spezifisch christlichen Ziige finden, darf man
am ehesten urteilen, ein echtes Gleichnis Jesu zu besitzen' (Bultmann, Synoptische
Tradition, p. 222).
16. E. Kasemann, 'Das Problem des historischen Jesus', ZTK 51 (1954), pp.
125-53 (repr. in idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I [Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1960], pp. 187-214); ET The Problem of the His-
torical Jesus', in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. W.J. Montague;
SBT, 41; London: SCM Press, 1964; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 15-47
(36-37) (italics mine). See also O. Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte: Heilsgeschicht-
liche Existenz im Neuen Testament (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965; ET Salvation in
History [NIL; trans. S.G. Sowers; London: SCM Press, 1967]), p. 189.
through Kasemann's highly sceptical extension and clear solidification

of it, coincidental with the inauguration of the so-called 'new' or 'sec-
ond quest'. Kasemann as much as admits to the limitations imposed by
this criterion when he states, regarding his attempt at analysis of Jesus,
'in so doing we must realize beforehand that we shall not, from this
angle of vision, gain any clear view of the connecting link between
Jesus, his Palestinian environment and his later community'.17
For many recent interpreters, however, the essential formulation of
the criterion of double dissimilarity is to be found in Norman Perrin's
now classic work on redaction criticism. Perrin's formulation appears
to reflect the decisive orientation of Kasemann, since he clearly begins
from the presumption of inauthenticity: 'material may be ascribed to
Jesus only if it can be shown to be distinctive of him, which usually
will mean dissimilar to known tendencies in Judaism before him or the
church after him'.18 This represents a significant shift, certainly from
Bultmann, in both its widespread and encompassing applicability and
its negativity. In other words, the only authentic Jesus material is that
which meets both parts of this criterion. Nevertheless, no less a scholar
than Martin Hengel uses this very criterion of double dissimilarity in
his important study of Jesus as a charismatic leader, when he attempts
to establish the authenticity of Mt. 8.22, 'let the dead bury the dead'.
According to Hengel, the saying 'is in fact hardly one that can stem
from the tradition either of the Jewish or of the later community'.19 This
is as clear an affirmation of the use of the principle as I have found.
Despite how firmly entrenched it appears to be, there have been
several noteworthy points of reconsideration of this criterion. The first
17. Kasemann, 'Problem of the Historical Jesus', p. 37.

18. Perrin, Redaction Criticism, p. 71; cf. idem, Rediscovering the Teaching of
Jesus (NTL; London: SCM Press; New York: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 39-43, for
what has become a classic formulation of the criteria, especially by a redaction
critic. See also H. Zahrnt, Es begann mil Jesus von Nazareth: Die Frage nach dem
historischen Jesus (Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1960; ET The Historical Jesus [trans. J.S.
Bowden; London: Collins; New York: Harper & Row, 1963]), p. 107; Turner,
Historicity and the Gospels, pp. 73-75; D.L. Mealand, The Dissimilarity Test', SJT
31 (1978), pp. 41-50; Walker, 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', pp. 46-47; McEleney,
'Authenticating Criteria', pp. 440-42; Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic
Gospels, pp. 304-23 (who divide the criterion into its two parts).
19. M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1968; ET The
Charismatic Leader and his Followers [trans. J.C.G. Greig; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1981; repr. 1996]), p. 5 (the translation is admittedly awkward).
is that it has been argued that this criterion cannot be used in a negative
way to delimit the authentic Jesus material, as tempting a possibility as
that might at first seem to be. That is, critics say, if a saying does not
meet this criterion, the saying is not thereby proven to be inauthentic,
since it is impossible to prove a negative such as this. This procedure
only shows that this criterion cannot be used to argue for the saying's
authenticity.20 A further criticism is that this criterion, by its very nature
and formulation, cannot address questions of the specific words of Jesus,
but only the content of his teaching in comparison with that of Judaism
and the early Church.21 Another point is that this criterion depends upon
a highly and, in fact, exhaustive detailed knowledge of both Judaism
and the early Church. This is a knowledge that scholarship arguably still
does not possess to the degree that is required to make sure pronounce-
ments using this criterion.22 One needs only to compare how much
more is now known of Judaism contemporary with Jesus after discov-
ery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls than was known before to
appreciate the strength of this criticism.23 The major reconsideration of
20. See, e.g., R.H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (Lon-
don: Gerald Duckworth, 1966), pp. 96-97, an excellent brief summary of the crite-
ria; C.F.D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London: SCM Press,
1967), pp. 70-72; R.T. France, 'The Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus', in
C. Brown (ed.), History, Criticism and Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1977), pp. 101-43, esp. pp. 110-14, in direct response to Perrin.
21. D. Luhrmann, 'Die Frage nach Kriterien fiir urspningliche Jesusworte: Eine
Problemskizze', in J. Dupont (ed.), Jesus aux origines de la christologie (BETL,
40; Gembloux: Duculot, 1975; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2nd edn,
1989), pp. 59-72, esp. pp. 62-65.
22. Barbour, Traditio-Historical Criticism, p. 7.
23. As mere samples of recent work on Judaism, see R.A. Kraft and G.W.E.
Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (The Bible and its
Modern Interpreters; Atlanta: Scholars Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986);
G. Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought 300B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (Minneapo-
lis: Fortress Press, 1991); E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66
CE (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992); J.D.G.
Dunn, 'Jesus and Factionalism in Early Judaism', in J.H. Charlesworth and L.L.
Johns (eds.), Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious
Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), pp. 156-75. G.N. Stanton ('Jesus of
Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet who Deceived God's People?', in J.B.
Green and M. Turner [eds.], Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the His-
torical Jesus and New Testament Christology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle:
Paternoster Press, 1994], pp. 164-80, esp. pp. 164-65) states how little is known of
this criterion, in some circles, however, has been in terms of the re-
newed acceptance and affirmation of Jesus' Jewish background.24 This
recognition of his Jewish background has led to a revision of the crite-
rion's double dissimilarity to a singular dissimilarity with developments
in the early Church. It may be true that this double criterion arrives at a
'critically assured minimum' of authentic Jesus tradition (at least, so the
claim goes),25 but it is thought by many scholars to be odd that Jesus,
himself a Jew, should be said to be speaking authentically only when he
does not reflect his genuine and authentic background.26 As a result,
a number of scholars have endorsed the single dissimilarity criterion of
difference from developments in the early Church. As noted above,
Bultmann himself left this form of the criterion open as a possibility,
with his recognition of similarities between Jesus' teaching and Jewish
wisdom. However, it subsequently was solidified by other scholars into
its double form, especially by those identified with the so-called 'new'
or 'second quest'. Ben Meyer is apparently one of the earliest to have
the first-century sabbath observance, noting that Reimarus's and Strauss's positions
on this issue still define the terms of the debate.
24. See Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 6.
25. See N. Dahl, 'Der historische Jesus als geschichtswissenschaftliches und
theologisches Problem', KD 1 (1955), pp. 104-32; ET The Problem of the Histori-
cal Jesus', in C.E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville (eds.), Kerygma and History: A
Symposium on the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962),
pp. 138-71; repr. in N.A. Dahl, The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays (Min-
neapolis: Augsburg, 1974), pp. 48-89, 173-74 (71), who attempts to come to terms
with this criterion through the 'cross-section method' (p. 68)—see under multiple
attestation, below (responded to by F. Mussner, 'Der "historische" Jesus', TTZ69
[1960], pp. 321-37; repr. in Mussner, Jesus von Nazareth, pp.43-61, esp. pp. 53-55).
Cf. Boring, 'Criteria of Authenticity', p. 21. See also H.K. McArthur, The Burden
of Proof in Historical Jesus Research', ExpTim 82 (1970-71), pp. 116-19, esp.
p. 117; and M.D. Hooker, 'Christology and Methodology', NTS 17 (1970), pp. 480-
87; idem, 'On Using the Wrong Tool', Theology 75 (1972), pp. 570-81, who from
the first to the second article grows in her scepticism regarding the use of the cri-
terion of dissimilarity, as well as that of coherence.
26. There is the further difficulty of what it would be like for a person such as
Jesus to use language that was uniquely his, and unknown to his contemporaries
and followers. It is possible that he would not have been understood in any capac-
ity. The result of such analysis is that the authentic Jesus becomes the incompre-
hensible Jesus. This criticism is raised by Barbour, Traditio-Historical Criticism,
p. 8, prompted by a comment by D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic
Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956), p. 388, regarding Jesus' use of amen.
clearly argued that this criterion, especially in its double form, errs in
its excess, by asking too much of the criterion, especially in its relation
to Judaism.27 This criterion has been further and more rigorously criti-
cized recently by Tom Holmen, who has shown through examination of
Mt. 5.33-37 (prohibition of oaths), Mt. 5.38-48 = Lk. 6.27-36 (command
to love one's enemy), and Mk 7.15 (on defilement), both that there are
logical problems with the double dissimilarity criterion, and that the
dissimilarity from Judaism criterion of itself does not add anything to
the search for authenticity. In fact, he argues that it in principle has
'nothing to do with the question of authenticity'.28
The result of this brief survey and assessment of the criterion of
double dissimilarity, however, is that the criterion of dissimilarity from
developments in the early Church remains essentially intact.29 Similarly
—and this is perhaps the more important point—the general concept in
which recognizable dissimilarities between Gospel traditions pointing
to distinctive discontinuities are not easily explained by a single contin-
uous tradition, but require the positing of an earlier and potentially au-
thentic source, also remains intact. As a result, this criterion in this type
of formulation is still widely used in historical-Jesus research.30
27. B.F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), p. 86. See also
B. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture
of his Time (GNS, 8; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984), pp. 86-87; E.P.
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1985), pp. 16-17; and J.H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism: New Light from
Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1989), pp. 5-
6. It must be granted, however, that some of the characterization of this criterion is
in terms of a stereotyped absolute not endorsed or followed by those who actually
employ it.
28. T. Holmen, 'Doubts about Double Dissimilarity: Restructuring the Main Cri-
terion of Jesus-of-History Research', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authen-
ticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS, 28.1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), pp. 47-80. A
lengthier and more detailed critique of this criterion is now to be found in Theissen
and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. 175-232, which book
will be examined in Chapter 3, below, in conjunction with Theissen's new criterion
of historical plausibility, since that is the context in which the critique is offered.
29. Note, however, J.D.G. Dunn's incisive comments on this criterion in terms
of the Church. He notes that we do have evidence of how the early Church faith-
fully handled Jesus traditions in the Synoptic material ('Can the Third Quest Hope
to Succeed?', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans [eds.], Authenticating the Activities of
Jesus [NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998], pp. 31-48, esp. p. 40).
30. Besides those advocates noted above, as a small selection of those who dis-
b. Criterion of Least Distinctiveness

Many of the other criteria for authenticity seem to have been developed
in terms of dimensions of the form-critical agenda. This involved posi-
tioning the various traditions regarding Jesus in terms of their similari-
ties to and differences from their backgrounds (either Jewish or in the
early Church), and placing the burden of proof upon those who wished
to establish the authenticity of a given saying or action. One criterion
that seems to have entered the discussion almost from the outset of
development of form criticism is the criterion of least distinct!veness.
For example, Martin Dibelius and Bultmann, followed by Vincent Tay-
lor—several of the major early conceptualizers and advocates of form
criticism—were also apparently among the earliest proponents of this
criterion. They seem to have meant by this criterion that one begins by
identifying a literary type or form (crucial to form criticism itself), and
delimiting its particular 'laws' of style, such as the use of pronounce-
ments by Jesus, a particular structure surrounding an account of a mira-
cle of Jesus, or the like. One can then distinguish an original from a
secondary tradition by noting the changes in the form. In particular,
these changes include the additions and stylistic developments that are
typical of secondary traditions.31 In an important article, which seems to
emphasize this criterion as central to the form-critical task, Bultmann
states, 'Whenever narratives pass from mouth to mouth the central point
of the narrative and general structure are well preserved; but in the
cuss this criterion, see S. Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority (ConBNT, 10;
Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1978), pp. 6-7; Stein, ' "Criteria" for Authenticity', p. 243;
Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, pp. 89-91; MJ. Borg, Jesus a New Vision: Spirit, Cul-
ture, and the Life of Disciple ship (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1987),
p. 101; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, pp. 16-18; Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 171-74;
Evans, Life of Jesus Research, pp. 136-38; idem, Jesus and his Contemporaries, pp.
19-21. Cf., however, D.R. Catchpole, Tradition History', in Marshall (ed.), New
Testament Interpretation, pp. 165-80, esp. pp. 174-76.
31. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, pp. 6-7; Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition,
p. 6; Taylor, Formation of the Gospel Tradition, pp. 26-27. This criterion functions
similarly in many ways to the apparently opposite criterion of vividness of narra-
tion, in which concrete and lively details have often been interpreted as indicators
of eyewitness reporting. See Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 180-82, who notes that
Taylor (The Gospel According to St Mark [London: Macmillan; New York:
St Martin's, 2nd edn, 1966], pp. 135-49) used this criterion. Meier categorizes it
as one of his dubious criteria (see Chapter 3, below, for discussion of 'dubious'
criteria).
incidental details changes take place, for imagination paints such details
with increasing distinctiveness'.32 The changes typically cited include
traditions becoming longer and more detailed, the elimination of Semit-
isms (see below on the criterion of Semitic language phenomena), the
use of direct discourse, and conflation and hence growth of traditions.33
For example, Lk. 3.7-18 might be cited as an example where many of
these features are present, such as direct discourse, later Christian addi-
tions (e.g. 'with the Holy Spirit' in v. 16), and the combination of Q
material with other traditions.34
This criterion has been critically addressed in two major ways. One is
the increasing realization that any general patterns for the transmission
of traditions in ancient oral cultures is far more complex than the early
form critics seemed to think. In other words, the kinds and degrees of
change are far more convoluted, rather than being linear and always
progressing from simple to complex structures, as the form critics posit-
ed.35 This has been shown especially clearly through extensive recent
research on epic poetry, both ancient and modern.36 The second form of
criticism has directly addressed the patterns of change observable in the
Gospel material itself. The most decisive work in this regard has been
done by E.P. Sanders. In his Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, a phe-
nomenal work for the industry alone that it represents, to say nothing of
the significance of its results, Sanders assesses the various 'laws' of
change proposed by form critics in Gospels research. Sanders takes each
of the supposed tendencies in turn—increasing length, increasing detail,
diminishing Semitisms, utilization of direct discourse, and the tendency
to conflation—and examines the evidence from the post-canonical tra-
dition and the Synoptic Gospels. As he concisely states in his conclu-
sions,
32. Bultmann, 'New Approach to the Synoptic Problem', pp. 41-42. See also
Walker, 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', pp. 44-46; McEleney, 'Authenticating
Criteria', pp. 436-37; Stein,' "Criteria" for Authenticity', pp. 238-40.
33. See Boring, 'Criteria of Authenticity', p. 16.
34. This example is used, and explained, by Collins, Introduction to the New
Testament, pp. 189-92.
35. C.L. Blomberg, 'Historical Criticism of the New Testament', in D.S. Dock-
ery, K.A. Mathews and R.B. Sloan (eds.), Foundations for Biblical Interpretation
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), pp. 414-33, esp. pp. 421-22.
36. See G.S. Kirk, Homer and the Epic (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1965), esp. pp. 1-32; and A.B. Lord, Epic Singers and Oral Tradition (Myth
and Poetics; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), esp. pp. 19-22.
there are no hard and fast laws of the development of the Synoptic tradi-
tion. On all counts the tradition developed in opposite directions. It
became both longer and shorter, both more and less detailed, and both
more and less Semitic. Even the tendency to use direct discourse for indi-
rect, which was uniform in the post-canonical material which we studied,
was not uniform in the Synoptics themselves. For this reason, dogmatic
statements that a certain characteristic proves a certain passage to be
earlier than another are never justified?1
In support of his case, he marshals a wealth of statistical information

that merits further examination.38 Since it faces nearly insuperable dif-
ficulties in the light of Sanders's research, this criterion of least distinc-
tiveness is not nearly so widely used as it once was in historical-Jesus
research.
c. Criterion of Coherence or Consistency

Another criterion that developed similarly to those above is what has
been called the criterion of coherence or consistency.39 This criterion
37. E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS, 9; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), passim, quotation p. 272 (emphasis
his); cf. also G. Theissen, Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Bin
Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (NTOA, 8; Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1989; ET The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History
in the Synoptic Tradition [trans. L.M. Maloney; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992]),
esp. p. 5.
38. Sanders (Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 7) also notes the relation
of his findings to the question of the solution of the Synoptic problem. He notes that
much work in defence of Markan priority is based upon challengeable assumptions
of form criticism. See also L.R. Keylock, 'Bultmann's Law of Increasing Distinct-
ness', in G.F. Hawthorne (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpreta-
tion (Festschrift M.C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 193-210, who
is critical of Sanders's method, but in general agrees with his results.
39. It might well be argued that coherence and consistency are two very different
concepts, since two or more things may cohere without necessarily being consis-
tent. Things may also cohere without necessarily being historical, such as a well-
constructed novel (Turner, Historicity and the Gospels, p. 68). See also E.D. Hirsch,
Jr, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), esp. p. 236,
who establishes criteria for establishing a probable reading of a text: legitimacy,
correspondence, generic appropriateness, and plausibility or coherence, the last of
which 'gives significance to all the rest'. Thus, coherence is seen to be something
different from consistency. Nevertheless, this is how the terms appear to be used in
the discussion of the criteria for authenticity, and they will be used here. There is
states that material that coheres or is consistent with previously estab-

lished authentic material should also be regarded as authentic. This
criterion apparently stems from Bultmann and his form-critical work on
the logia of Jesus, especially in terms of Jesus' eschatological perspec-
tive, since this is one of the few widely agreed upon points around
which authentic Jesus material could be said to cohere.40 In the light of
the importance of eschatology in historical-Jesus research, it is not sur-
prising that this criterion was further developed by such parables schol-
ars as C.H. Dodd and Joachim Jeremias,41 and has continued to be
also a linguistic distinction made in discourse analysis between coherence and

cohesion: 'cohesion is a property of the text, and...coherence is a facet of the
reader's evaluation of a text. In other words, cohesion is objective, capable in prin-
ciple of automatic recognition, while coherence is subjective and judgements con-
cerning it may vary from reader to reader' (M. Hoey, Patterns of Lexis in Text
[Describing English Language; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991], p. 12; on
coherence, see D. Nunan, Introducing Discourse Analysis [Penguin English Applied
Linguistics; Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1993], pp. 59-64). A concept similar
to cohesion is described by W. Iser, Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie dsthetischer
Wirkung (Munich: Fink, 1976; ET The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Re-
sponse [trans. D.H. Wilson; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978]),
p. 15, who speaks of the value of a work being measured by 'the harmony of its
elements'. A welcome attempt to integrate literary conceptions into authenticity
criteria (and for whom I am grateful for reminding me of the work of Hirsch and
Iser) is the excellent book by A.P. Winton, The Proverbs of Jesus: Issues of History
and Rhetoric (JSNTSup, 35; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), esp. pp. 109-125, but
where he makes an important distinction regarding the 'mythology of coherence'.
He sees it as 'indispensible to historical study, but when applied to the reported
speech of an individual, it seems inevitably to distort' (p. 120). Cf. G. Theissen,
'Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research or My Attempt to Leap
across Lessing's Yawning Gulf, SJT 49 (1996), pp. 147-76, esp. p. 56 n. 10, who
notes that concepts of coherence change, on the basis of time. See also discussion
of the criterion of Semitic language phenomena, below, where coherence is also
used. Cohesion will be further discussed in Chapter 6, below, when discourse anal-
ysis is introduced.
40. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 105; cf. idem, Theologie des Neuen Testa-
ments (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948; 7th edn, ed. D. Merk, 1977; ET Theology of
the New Testament [2 vols.; trans. K. Grobel; London: SCM Press; New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951,1955]), I, pp. 4-11.
41. C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1935; New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, rev. edn, 1961), esp. p. 1; J. Jeremias, Die Gleich-
nisse Jesu (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1947; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
10th edn, 1984; ET The Parables of Jesus [trans. S.H. Hooke; London: SCM Press,
utilized by, among others, Perrin and Charles Carlston.42 One can see
the apparent logic of this criterion and how it might be utilized, espe-
cially in parable study, where the eschatological dimension has also fig-
ured large in research. For example, Carlston begins with Jesus' eschato-
logically based call for repentance as 'authentic', so that an authentic
parable, such as the parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15.11-32), will
cohere with this position and the conditions during Jesus' ministry.43 In
some circles, there has been much optimistic use of this criterion, be-
cause it holds out the promise of expanding the body of authentic Jesus
material by establishing coherence with that material already adjudged
to be authentic on the basis of other criteria.
This criterion is not nearly as well regarded as others, however, and
this attitude is fairly easy to understand on the basis of how the criterion
is formulated and what it assumes. Morna Hooker has pointed out how
much interpretive subjectivity is involved in such a criterion, especially
when it comes to defining and utilizing such nebulous and potentially
subjective concepts as coherence.44 Furthermore, this criterion must, at
least in part, assume its very conclusions. That is, it must first—by some
other criterion—establish what is authentic before being able to test co-
herence or consistency.45 In other words, this is not a primary criterion
by which one can attempt to discover authentic Jesus material, but only
a secondary criterion by which one can build upon that material which
has been established through other means. As has been noted so far in
the course of investigating the criteria for authenticity, it is not entirely
clear whether there is a fundamental criterion that will allow the estab-
lishment of unassailable material for comparison, since each of them
3rd edn, 1972]), p. 11; idem, Neutestamentliche Theologie. I. Die Verkundigung

Jesu (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971; ET New Testament Theology. I. The Procla-
mation of Jesus [trans. J. Bowden; NTL; London: SCM Press; New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1971]), p. 30.
42. Perrin, Redaction Criticism, p. 71; idem, Rediscovering the Teaching of
Jesus, p. 43; C.E. Carlston, 'A Positive Criterion of Authenticity?', BR 1 (1962),
pp. 33-44. See also Walker, 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', pp. 49-50; McEleney,
'Authenticating Criteria', pp. 443-44; Stein, '"Criteria" for Authenticity', pp. 250-
51.
43. Carlston, 'Positive Criterion of Authenticity?', p. 34.
44. Hooker, 'Christology and Methodology', pp. 482-83; idem, 'Using the
Wrong Tool', pp. 576-77.
45. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. 17-19.
seems subject to valid criticism.46 There is the further problem of the

reliance of this criterion on such concepts as Jesus as an eschatological
prophet. This appears to be more of an agreed assumption that grew out
of discussion at the turn of the century, as noted in Chapter 1, rather
than a datum that has emerged on the basis of rigorous criteria. At best,
this criterion can add to what has already been determined as authentic,
but only if one can first establish this authentic tradition. At worst, one
is left with disagreements regarding the extents of determining legiti-
mate coherence, since in the largest sense, one could argue, everything
in the Gospel accounts already coheres at least enough to render a plau-
sible narrative.
d. Criterion of Multiple Attestation or Cross-Section Method

Several other criteria were first developed in English-language Gospel
scholarship. Rather than taking the negative and minimalistic approach
that characterizes several of the criteria discussed above (e.g. double dis-
similarity), these criteria began with a more optimistic view of recov-
ering authentic tradition, seeking to find authenticity in tradition that
was multiply attested.47 It is also noteworthy that even though this cri-
terion of multiple attestation, or the cross-section method, was first de-
veloped outside the parameters of German scholarship and before form
criticism had been fully articulated, it was later completely integrated
into this critical sphere, and many of its utilizers were influential in
form-critical and later redaction-critical research. The multiply attested
tradition of this criterion was first defined in terms of comparing inde-
pendently attested traditions, such as Mark, Q, M (material unique to
Matthew), or L (material unique to Luke), which is what is meant by tak-
ing a cross-section of the tradition. Later, in the light of further form-
critical research, this criterion was also defined in terms of multiple
literary forms (for example, sayings found in two or more forms within
the tradition, such as parables, miracle stories, etc.). The history of each
form of this criterion is worth recounting briefly.
46. See R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; New York:
Doubleday, 1997), p. 827; cf. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, pp. 86-87; Theissen and
Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 201. Many others could also
be cited who make similar criticisms.
47. This is treated as two separate criteria in, e.g., Stein, ' "Criteria" for Authen-
ticity', pp. 229-33; Boring, 'Criteria of Authenticity', pp. 12-14.
The first criterion, of multiple attestation of independent traditions,

was first developed by F.C. Burkitt,48 many years before he wrote his
work on the life of Jesus.49 His description of his process of discovery
gives insight into the development of this pre-form critical criterion. As
he states,
We need, therefore, a kind of starting-point for the consideration of our
Lord's doctrine, some external test that will give us a general assurance
that the Saying we have before us is really from Him, and is not the half-
conscious product of one school of His followers. Where shall we find
such a test?
It appeared to me that the starting-point we require may be found in
those Sayings which have a real double attestation. The main documents
out of which the Synoptic Gospels are compiled are (1) the Gospel of
Mark, and (2) the lost common origin of the non-Marcan portions of
Matthew and Luke, i.e. the source called Q. Where Q and Mark appear
to report the same saying, we have the nearest approach that we can hope
to get to the common tradition of the earliest Christian society about our
Lord's words. What we glean in this way will indicate the general im-
pression His teaching made upon His disciples.50
As a result, Burkitt claimed to identify 31 independently attested say-
ings found in Mark and Q. This theory was then extended with develop-
ment in Synoptic Gospel studies of the four-source hypothesis, adding
independent traditions M and L.51 This criterion has found further en-
48. F.C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1906; 3rd edn, 1911), esp. pp. 147-68. Some of those who have adopted this
criterion include: T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and
Content (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931; 2nd edn, 1935), pp. 10-11;
Dodd, Parables, pp. 26-27; J. Jeremias, 'Kennzeichen der ipsissima vox Jesu', in
Synoptische Studien: Alfred Wikenhauser zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 22.
Februar 1953 dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schulern (Munich: Zink,
1954), pp. 86-93; ET 'Characteristics of the Ipsissima Vox Jesu\ in idem, The
Prayers of Jesus (SET, 2.6; London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 108-115; Dahl,
'Problem of the Historical Jesus', p. 68; H.K. McArthur, 'Basic Issues, A Survey of
Recent Gospel Research', in idem (ed.), In Search of the Historical Jesus, pp. 139-
44, esp. pp. 139-40, who thinks it is the most valuable of the criteria; Walker,
'Quest for the Historical Jesus', pp. 41-42; McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria', pp.
433-35; Stein, '"Criteria" for Authenticity', pp. 229-32; Meier, Marginal Jew, I,
pp. 174-75.
49. F.C. Burkitt, Jesus Christ: An Historical Outline (London: Blackie, 1932).
50. Burkitt, Gospel History, p. 147.
51. See B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmil-
hancement, at least in some scholars' eyes, by inclusion of the Gospel

of John and/or agrapha of Jesus,52 and by integration of other textual
discoveries made throughout this century, including the Gospel of
Thomas and other apocryphal gospel sources, such as the Gospel of
Ian, 1926), esp. pp. 223-70; cf. idem, 'St Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q', and
'The Literary Evolution of the Gospels', in W. Sanday (ed.), Studies in the Synoptic
Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), pp. 165-83, 209-27 respectively. Streeter
has been followed by many scholars since, so that his is the predominant (but far
from the consensus) position on the Gospel sources. This certainly is not the place
to debate Synoptic origins, but several important works should be mentioned. In
defence of the position of Markan priority, among many works, see G.M. Styler,
The Priority of Mark', in C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (BNTC;
London: A. & C. Black, 3rd edn, 1981; HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1982),
pp. 285-316. Defences of Q abound in recent research. See, e.g., J.S. Kloppenborg,
The Formation ofQ: Trajectories in Ancient Christian Wisdom Collections (Studies
in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987); R.A. Piper (ed.),
The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (NovTSup, 75; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1995); C.M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996); and P. Vassiliadis, AOFOIIHIOY: Studies in Q
(University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and
Judaism; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999).
52. McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria', p. 434; Stein, ' "Criteria" for Authen-
ticity', p. 230; cf. R.P. Martin, The New Quest of the Historical Jesus', in C.F.H.
Henry (ed.), Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord (London: Tyndale Press, 1966),
pp. 23-45, esp. pp. 43-44. The history of the discussion of the agrapha is an intrigu-
ing one. This history can be traced in the following sources, among others: J.H.
Ropes, 'Agrapha', in J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898-1904), V, pp. 343-52; A. Resch, Agrapha: Ausser-
canonische Schriftfragmenta (TU, 15.3-4; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 2nd edn, 1906);
B. Jackson, Twenty-Five Agrapha or Extra-Canonical Sayings of our Lord (Lon-
don: SPCK, 1900); M.R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1924), pp. 33-37; R. Dunkerley, The Unwritten Gospel: Ana and
Agrapha of Jesus (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1925), passim', J. Jeremias,
Unbekannte Jesusworte(Gutersloh: C.Bertelsmann, 2nd edn, 1951; Gutersloh: Gerd
Mohn, 3rd edn, 1963; ET Unknown Sayings of Jesus [trans. R.H. Fuller; London:
SPCK, 1957; 2nd edn, 1964]); cf. idem, 'Isolated Sayings of the Lord', in
E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (eds.), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (2 vols.;
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1959; ET New Testament Apocrypha [trans. R.McL.
Wilson; London: Lutterworth; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963]), I, pp. 85-
90; O. Hofius,' "Unknown Sayings of Jesus"', in Stuhlmacher (ed.), Gospel and the
Gospels, pp. 336-60 (originally 4 "Unbekannte Jesusworte"', in Stuhlmacher [ed.],
Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, pp. 355-82); W.D. Stoker, Extracanonical
Sayings of Jesus (SBLRBS, 18; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Meier, Marginal
Peter, etc.53 An example that illustrates the use of multiple sources

is Jesus' statement on divorce, found in three independent traditions:
(1) Mk 10.2-12 = Mt. 19.3-12; (2) Q (Mt. 5.32 = Lk. 16.18); and (3) 1
Cor. 7.10-11.54
The second and related form of this criterion, multiple forms, was
developed by Dodd. He claimed that material found in two or more
forms of the Jesus tradition (such as aphorisms, parables, poetical say-
ings, dialogues, miracle stories, etc.) is early and may also have repre-
sented early, authentic tradition. Dodd finds, for example, multiple
forms attesting to such things as Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of God,
thus establishing the authenticity of this tradition that Jesus was pro-
claiming a realized kingdom (e.g. Mt. 5.17; 9.37-38; 13.16-17; Mk 2.18-
20; 4.26-29; Lk. 11.14-22; Jn 4.35).55 This form of the criterion, though
Jew, I, pp. 112-41; J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1993), pp. 26-30. See the study of the issues in J.H. Charlesworth and C.A.
Evans, 'Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels', in Chilton and Evans
(eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 479-533, esp. pp. 483-91.
53. The widespread use of apocryphal gospels in research on Jesus distinguishes
the Jesus Seminar. The literature on this topic is growing immensely, and will not
be surveyed here. See RJ. Miller (ed.), The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars
Version (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1992; 2nd edn, 1994; San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 3rd edn, 1994). In support of the use of these sources for his-
torical-Jesus research, see D.R. Cartlidge and D.L. Dungan, Documents for the
Study of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: Collins, 1980); J.M.
Robinson, The Study of the Historical Jesus after Nag Hammadi', Semeia 44
(1988), pp. 45-55; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Devel-
opment (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International; London: SCM Press, 1990); J.D.
Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), pp. 434-43; a method criticized by Evans,
Jesus and his Contemporaries, pp. 16-17. See the study of the issues in selected
essays in D. Wenham (ed.), Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the
Gospels, V (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); F. Neirynck, The Apocryphal Gospels
and the Gospel of Mark', in J.-M. Sevrin (ed.), The New Testament in Early Chris-
tianity (BETL, 86; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1989), pp. 123-75;
repr. in F. Neirynck, Evangelica II: 1982-1991 Collected Essays (BETL, 99; Leu-
ven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1991), pp. 715-72; and Charlesworth and
Evans, 'Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels', pp. 491-532.
54. Cited in McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria', p. 433.
55. Dodd, Parables, pp. 26-29; idem, History and the Gospel (London: Nisbet,
1938), pp. 91-102, a method he attributes to E. Hoskyns and N. Davey, The Riddle
of the New Testament (London: Faber & Faber, 1931), pp. 162-207.
used by some scholars,56 has been relatively neglected compared to

some of the other criteria.57
This criterion in both of its forms, however, has been, where not
rejected, at least highly qualified. The reasons for this are several. One
is that this criterion, despite its attention to either recognized sources
(Mark, Q, M, L) or various literary forms (aphorisms, parables, etc.),
fails to provide a criterion that determines specific words of Jesus. Like
many of the criteria in historical-Jesus research, it is apparently better at
establishing general motifs in the teaching of Jesus,58 as Burkitt admit-
ted at the outset. This limitation is especially clear when the criterion
examines individual literary forms, where the argument is made that
authentic material is reflected in the fact that Jesus spoke about a cer-
tain subject in various ways. As in the example above, Dodd thought
that he had proved the authenticity of Jesus' teaching of a realized king-
dom of God, but he could not go so far as to argue for the specific
wording that Jesus would have used to proclaim this kingdom, only that
he did so. A further criticism of Dodd in his approach has been that he
is not always clear what constitutes a literary form that is brought into
his analysis.59 In conjunction with this, the criticism has also been made
that this criterion judges whether one can use particular sources in his-
torical-Jesus research (since they have parallel material), but does not
evaluate the reliability of the sources themselves.60 Further, the point
has been raised that multiply attested tradition points to an earlier stage
in the tradition, but it does not necessarily indicate authenticity, which
56. Some of those who support this criterion include J.M. Robinson, 'The For-
mal Structure of Jesus' Message', in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder (eds.), Current
Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper (London:
SCM Press; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 91-110, 273-84, esp. pp. 96-97;
E. Trocme, Jesus de Nazareth vu par les temoins de sa vie (Neuchatel: Delachaux
& Niestle, 1972; ET Jesus and his Contemporaries [trans. R.A. Wilson; London:
SCM Press, 1973]), passim, Walker, 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', pp. 42-43;
McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria', pp. 435-36; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, p. 87.
57. See Stein,' "Criteria" for Authenticity', pp. 232-33.
58. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 45-47; cf. Evans, Jesus and
his Contemporaries, pp. 15-18.
59. McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria', p. 435, citing from Dodd's History and
the Gospel his use of the pericope of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 7.53-8.11)
(p. 93), the saying in Lk. 10.18 (p. 96), and the incident with the Samaritan woman
(Jn 4.15) (p. 99).
must then be determined through other criteria.61 This criterion, espe-

cially the form that analyses sources, also assumes a particular solution
to the Synoptic problem (Markan priority), and the relation of these
sources. Some scholars would today not accept this once more widely
held solution, and as a result a number of alternatives continue to be
promoted and developed. Some scholars wish to dispense with Q as one
of the Gospel sources,62 others advocate revival of what has been called
the Griesbach hypothesis (Matthaean priority),63 and still others offer
61. Fuller, Critical Introduction, pp. 97-98.

62. Some of those who wish to 'dispense' with Q, thus eliminating one of the
major independent traditions include A.M. Farrer, 'On Dispensing with Q', in D.E.
Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957), pp. 55-88; idem, A Study in St Mark; idem, St
Matthew and St Mark; M.D. Goulder, Luke—A New Paradigm (2 vols.; JSNTSup,
20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) (on Goulder, see M.S. Goodacre, Goulder and the
Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm [JSNTSup, 133; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996]).
63. For some of those who wish to revive what is known as the Griesbach hy-
pothesis, see W.R. Farmer, 'An Historical Essay on the Humanity of Jesus Christ',
in W.R. Farmer, C.F.D.Moule and R.R. Niebuhr (eds.), Christian History and Inter-
pretation: Studies Presented toJohnKnox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1967), pp. 101-26, who links the historical-Jesus issues to his source view of the
Gospels; idem, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan;
London: Collier-Macmillan, 1964); idem, The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Rele-
vance of the Synoptic Problem (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press,
1994); W.R. Farmer (ed.), New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Confer-
ence and Beyond (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983); B. Orchard and
H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 1987); cf. H.-H. Stoldt, Geschichte und Kritik der Mark-
ushypothese (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977; ET History and Criticism
of the Marcan Hypothesis [trans. D.L. Niewyk; SNTW; Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980]). Two important assessments of
the Griesbach hypothesis are C.M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypoth-
esis: An Analysis and Appraisal (SNTSMS, 44; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983), and S.E. Johnson, The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism
(SBLMS, 41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), and the methodological issues raised
by F.G. Downing, 'Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem', JBL
107 (1988), pp. 69-85. These opinions have generated a number of colloquia on
their differing perspectives: e.g. see B. Corley (ed.), Colloquy on New Testament
Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (Macon, GA: Mercer Uni-
versity Press, 1983), pp. 29-194; C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Synoptic Studies: The Ample -
forth Conferences of 1982 and 1983 (JSNTSup, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984);
alternative competing hypotheses to account for Gospel origins,64 among

other possible solutions. One can see that if any of the alternatives to
Markan priority and the two- and four-source hypotheses proves cor-
rect, this criterion for authenticity would have serious difficulties being
D.L. Dungan (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels (BETL, 95; Leuven: Leuven
University Press/Peeters, 1990). For a collection of some of the major statements in
the debate, see A.J. Bellinzoni, Jr (ed.), The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Ap-
praisal (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985).
64. There have been other theories of Gospel independence as well, such as
J.M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (SNTSMS, 32; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1978). At one time lectionary hypotheses were also
fashionable: see P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the
Making of the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952); cf.
idem, According to Mark: A Running Commentary on the Oldest Gospel (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960); M.D. Goulder, The Evangelists'
Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Development of Scripture (London:
SPCK, 1978). These theories have not generally caught on. See the critiques in
C.H. Dodd, The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus', in A.J.B. Higgins
(ed.), New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson 1893—
1958 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 106-18 (repr. in C.H.
Dodd, More New Testament Studies [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968], pp. 11-29);
L.L. Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale
Press, 1964); idem, The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries', in R.T. France and
D. Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives: Studies in Midrash and Historiography,
III (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), pp. 129-56. Related to this discussion are various
theories of Gospel transmission that rely upon Jewish practice of the time: see
H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings', in K. Aland (ed.), Studia
Evangelica (TU, 73; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958); repr. with other essays in
H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition (trans. E.M. Rowley and R.A. Kraft; Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970), pp. 1-29; B. Gerhardsson,
Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic
Judaism and Early Christianity (ASNU, 22; trans. E.J. Sharpe; Lund: C.W.K.
Gleerup, 1961); idem, Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (ConBNT,
20; trans. E.J. Sharpe; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1964); both of Gerhardsson's vol-
umes are republished, with a new 'Preface' (Biblical Resource Series; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove Booksellers, 1998), pp. ix-xxii, where he
responds to his critics; idem, 'Der Weg der Evangelientradition', in Stuhlmacher
(ed.), Evangelium und die Evangelien, pp. 79-102; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer,
pp. 97-498; idem, 'Judische Elementarbildung und Evangelienliberlieferung', in
France and Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives, I, pp. 209-23; idem, 'Jesus as
Preacher and Teacher', in H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tra-
dition (JSNTSup, 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 185-210; and S. Byrskog,
Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel,
sustained in its present form. In other words, a competing hypothesis

for the origin of the Gospels leaves this criterion without an adequate
foundational assumption for those advocating such a hypothesis in order
to use it, and no foundation if the model of Synoptic relations were to
be significantly altered.
e. Criterion of Semitic Language Phenomena

A last criterion to mention here, more because of its longevity than its
explanatory power, is that of Semitic (Aramaic) language phenomena
and/or Palestinian environmental features. The first sub-section refers to
particular grammatical features in the Greek of the New Testament that
are thought to be directly traceable to a Semitic, and most likely, Ara-
maic origin. The second refers to various environmental features of
Palestine that are mentioned, often inadvertently, in the Gospels and are
said to point to origin of the tradition in Palestine.65 These environmen-
tal features would include reference to various practices, customs, geo-
graphical features, or beliefs that are thought to have been characteristic
of first-century Palestine. The idea is that many of these would probably
have only been known to or by someone who had firsthand acquain-
tance with that environment. The presumption with each of these sub-
Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community (ConBNT, 24; Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell, 1994). For an assessment of this perspective, see W.D. Davies, 'Reflec-
tions on a Scandinavian Approach to "The Gospel Tradition" ', in Neotestamentica
et Patristica: Eine Freudesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr Oscar Cullmann zu seinem
60. Geburtstag uberreicht (NovTSup, 6; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1962), pp. 14-34 (repr.
in W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1964], pp. 464-80); Sanders, Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradi-
tion, pp. 26-29, 294-96; P.H. Davids, The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty
Years after Gerhardsson', in France and Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives, I, pp.
75-99. Related is the theory of oral transmission of B.F. Westcott, An Introduction
to the Study of the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1851; 8th edn, 1895), pp. 165-212,
developed by B. Chilton, Profiles of a Rabbi: Synoptic Opportunities in Reading
about Jesus (BJS, 177; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), esp. pp. 3-45. A very recent
study of the Synoptic problem is D.L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem:
The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (ABRL;
New York: Doubleday, 1999).
65. See, e.g., J. Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1947;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 10th edn, 1984; ET The Parables of Jesus
[trans. S.H. Hooke; London: SCM Press, 3rd edn, 1972]), esp. pp. 48-66; and the
recent work by Theissen, Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien; ET
The Gospels in Context.
sections is that a larger number of Semitic or Palestinian environmental

features in a given passage is more likely to indicate authentic tradition
regarding Jesus, because he spoke a Semitic language (Aramaic, and
possibly Hebrew) and lived in Palestine. These features are treated as
separate items in several discussions of criteria, but are placed together
in others.661 place them together here for the purposes of categorization,
while concentrating almost exclusively on the discussion of language.
This issue of language is often intertwined with two other questions—
one regarding the nature of the Greek of the New Testament, and the
other the larger topic of the languages of Palestine, including not only
Aramaic and Greek, but Hebrew and even Latin.67 These issues will only
be touched upon here as they impinge upon the issue of the use of
Semitic languages as a criterion for authenticity in historical-Jesus re-
search (a more detailed discussion of some of these issues is to be found
in Chapter 4).
Discussion of the Aramaic features of the language of Jesus as found
in the Gospels goes back to the seventeenth century, at least, with
heightened discussion beginning in the eighteenth century and proceed-
ing more or less continuously to the present. In terms of Jesus research
of the last 100 years, major proponents of the theory that one can retro-
vert to Jesus' original Aramaic through translational difficulties in
Greek, such as A. Meyer and Dalman,68 were early on thoroughly as-
66. Those who separate them include Stein, '"Criteria" for Authenticity',
pp. 233-38; Boring, 'Criteria of Authenticity', pp. 14-16; Meier, Marginal Jew, I,
pp. 178-80; among others. Those who conflate them include Fuller, Critical Intro-
duction, pp. 95, 97; Schillebeeckx, Jesus, pp. 98-99; Evans, Jesus and his Con-
temporaries, pp. 22-23; among others. Cf. Polkow, 'Method and Criteria', pp. 352-
55, who divides even further, between Palestinian context and style.
67. On both the issue of the nature of the Greek of the New Testament and the
larger issue of the languages of Palestine, see S.E. Porter, 'Introduction: The Greek
of the New Testament as a Disputed Area of Research', in idem (ed.), The Lan-
guage of the New Testament: Classic Essays (JSNTSup, 60; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1991), pp. 11-38, where fuller bibliography can be found, and the rest of the vol-
ume's essays by proponents of various hypotheses. For a recent summary, see
L. Rydbeck, 'The Language of the New Testament', TynBul 49.2 (1998), pp. 361-
68.
68. A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache: Das galildische Aramaisch in seiner Bedeu-
tung fiir die Erkldrung der Reden Jesu und der Evangelien uberhaupt (Freiburg:
Mohr Siebeck, 1896); G. Dalman, Grammatik des judisch-paldstinischen Arama-
isch (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1894; 2nd edn, 1905; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaft-
liche Buchgesellschaft, 1960); idem, Die Worte Jesu: Mil Berucksichtigung des
sessed by Schweitzer.69 Since then, others who have made a significant

contribution by addressing the question of the Aramaic features of the
language in which Jesus may have spoken70 include such scholars as:
C.F. Burney, who chronicled the poetic features of Jesus' language, see-
ing them as reflecting Semitic poetry;71 Charles Torrey, who posited that
translational difficulties revealed not flaws but the translators' attempts
to maintain the sense of the original;72 and Jeremias, who in building
nachkanonischen judischen Schrifttums und der aramaistischen Sprache erortert

(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1898; rev. edn, 1930; ET The Words of Jesus: Considered
in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language [trans.
D.M. Kay; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909]); idem, Jesus-Jeschua: Die drei Spra-
chen Jesu, Jesus in der Synagoge, auf dem Berge beim Passahmahl, am Kreuz
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1922; ET Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels [trans. P.P.
Levertoff; London: SPCK, 1929]).
69. A. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-
Forschung (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1906; 2nd edn, 1910; 6th edn, 1951; ET The
Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to
Wrede [trans. W. Montgomery; London: A. & C. Black, 1910]), pp. 270-93, who
chronicles the debate to that time.
70. I use 'may' because there has been debate over the dialect of Aramaic that
Jesus spoke, so some of the features often cited may not apply to that dialect. For a
summary of this discussion, see L.T. Stuckenbruck, 'An Approach to the New
Testament through Aramaic Sources: The Recent Methodological Debate', JSP 8
(1991), pp. 3-29. After recounting the history of discussion over the last 100 years,
he shows that three major positions have been advanced: those following Dalman
and his advocacy of a form of Aramaic related to the Targum Onqelos (Words
of Jesus, p. 82), those following P.E. Kahle and his advocacy of the Aramaic of the
Cairo Geniza and Qumran Aramaic (The Cairo Geniza [Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
2nd edn, 1959], esp. pp. 195-200), and those following J.A. Fitzmyer and his en-
dorsement of Palestinian Aramaic of the Roman period, including that of Qumran
and of other documents (The Study of the Aramaic Background of the New Tes-
tament', The Phases of the Aramaic Language', and The Contribution of Qumran
Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament', all in his A Wandering Aramean:
Collected Aramaic Essays [SBLMS, 25; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979], pp.
1-27, 57-84 and 85-113; repr. in The Semitic Background of the New Testament
[Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove Book-
sellers, 1997], with corrections). For collections of such Aramaic texts, see J.A.
Fitzmyer and DJ. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Biblica et
Orientalia, 34; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978); K. Beyer, Die aramdische
Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
71. C.F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925); cf.
his The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922).
72. C.C. Torrey, The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels',
upon Burney's research was perhaps the first to make widespread use of
Semitic or Aramaic criteria in establishing authentic sayings of Jesus,
as evidenced especially in his Parables of Jesus and his The Eucharis-
tic Words of Jesus, and later in his New Testament Theology.13 Since
Jeremias, invoking Semitic criteria has been widespread, and is to be
found in numerous commentaries, as well as in the work of other such
scholars as T.W. Manson, Matthew Black, Fitzmyer, Dunn, Chilton,
Evans, and now Maurice Casey, among many others right up to the
present.74
There have been several important trends in this discussion that are
worth noting in the light of the topic of this monograph. One is that
many of the early disputants, such as Dalman, discussed Aramaic in
terms of the surrounding Greek milieu.75 Although recognition of the
in D.G. Lyon and G.F. Moore (eds.), Studies in the History of Religions (Festschrift
C.H. Toy; New York: Macmillan, 1912), pp. 269-317; idem, Our Translated Gos-
pels: Some of the Evidence (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916);
idem, The Four Gospels: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1958).
73. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, pp. 25-26; idem, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1935; 4th edn, 1967; ET The Eucharistic
Words of Jesus [London: SCM Press, 1966]); idem, 'Characteristics of the Ipsissima
Vox Jesu', pp. 108-15; idem, New Testament Theology, esp. pp. 3-37. Cf. also
Dodd, History and the Gospel, pp. 89-90.
74. Manson, Teaching of Jesus, pp. 45-86; idem, The Sayings of Jesus (London:
SCM Press, 1937); M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946; 2nd edn, 1954; 3rd edn, 1967; repr. with 'Intro-
duction: An Aramaic Approach Thirty Years Later', by C.A. Evans, pp. v-xxv;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998); JA. Fitzmyer, 'Methodology in the Study of
the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus' Sayings in the New Testament', in Dupont (ed.),
Jesus aux origines de la christologie, pp. 73-102; rev. in his A Wandering Aramean,
pp. 1-27; J.D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus: The Impact of Scholarship on
our Understanding of How Christianity Began (London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 3;
Chilton, Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, esp. pp. 57-147; C.A. Evans, 'Life of Jesus',
in Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis, pp. 427-75, esp. pp. 447-55; M. Casey, Ara-
maic Sources of Mark's Gospel (SNTSMS, 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998); idem, 'An Aramaic Approach to the Synoptic Gospels', ExpTim 110.7
(1999), pp. 275-78. It is institutionalized as a part of the history of New Testament
scholarship in A.M. Hunter, Interpreting the New Testament 1900-1950 (London:
SCM Press, 1951), pp. 26-33. See also Walker, 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', pp.
43-44; McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria', pp. 438-40; Stein, '"Criteria" for
Authenticity', pp. 236-38.
75. One feature to notice is the changing opinion of J. Wellhausen on the rela-
multilingual environment of Palestine has remained important for some

scholars engaged in such discussion (such as Fitzmyer, who treats the
four possible languages of Palestine—Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and
Latin),76 the later tendency has been to bifurcate discussion. The con-
centration since the rise of form and later redaction criticism has been
on Jesus as a Semitic (Aramaic) language user. This has been almost to
the exclusion in some circles of acknowledgment of even the possibility
of Jesus as a Greek language user. It is only recently that discussion
of Jesus' possible use of Greek has been seriously re-introduced, with
much resistance to such a proposal in some circles.77 A more recent
trend has been the development of more explicit criteria by which one
can determine Semitic features in the Greek of the Gospels. Discussion
throughout most of the twentieth century was to varying degrees con-
centrated on perceived oddities in the Greek of the New Testament or
what were contended to be mistranslations;78 however, much of this
tionship between the Aramaic and Greek backgrounds of the New Testament, from
the first to the second editions of his Einleitung in die drei erste Evangelien (Berlin:
G. Reimer, 1905; 2nd edn, 1911), (1st edn) pp. 7-43, (2nd edn) pp. 7-32, placing
more stress in the latter on the Gospels in their relation to the Koine than he had
before.
76. See J.A. Fitzmyer, The Languages of Palestine in the First Century AD',
CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 501-31; repr. with revisions and additions in Porter (ed.), Lan-
guage of the New Testament, pp. 126-62.
77. Recent work that has attempted to re-open the discussion includes Meier,
Marginal Jew, I, pp. 255-68; S.E. Porter, 'Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee', in
Chilton and Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 123-54; idem, 'Did
Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', TynBul 44.2 (1993), pp. 199-235; repr. in idem, Stud-
ies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (SBG, 6; New York: Peter
Lang, 1996), pp. 139-71. The response has been varied, as discussion in this and
subsequent chapters shows.
78. Besides those already mentioned above, such as A. Meyer, Wellhausen,
Dalman, Burney, Torrey, Black and Fitzmyer, others who give serious attention to
translation as an indicator of Aramaic background, and related factors, include
E. Nestle, Philologica Sacra: Bemerkungen uber die Urgestalt der Evangelien und
Apostelgeschichte (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1896); F. Blass, Philology of the
Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1898); M. Wilcox, 'Jesus in the Light of his Jewish
Environment', ANRW2.25.1, pp. 131-95; idem, 'Semitisms in the New Testament',
ANRW 2.25.2, pp. 978-1029; idem, The Aramaic Background of the New Testa-
ment', in D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums
in their Historical Context (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 362-
78; F. Zimmermann, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels (New York: Ktav,
examination has neglected a number of crucial linguistic factors regard-

ing translation between Greek and Aramaic. Lincoln Hurst has argued
that these factors include the failure to appreciate the polyseinous
nature of words within languages.79 Thus, there is often, if not usually,
no iconicity between lexical items in two different languages. Hence
one-for-one translation (or retroversion from Greek to Aramaic), so
often relied upon in studies of the Aramaic background of the New Tes-
tament, is rendered a near impossibility. The factor of diachronic lin-
guistic development (that is, how a language changes over time) is also
not often taken into account in such discussions. This results in inappro-
priate comparisons of languages from differing time periods, and failing
to note the possibility of various types of diachronic linguistic change.
There is the further problem of failure to appreciate the various ways
and means by which translations are made, and their varying purposes.
In fact, translation theory has been one area in which there has been
much recent development, much of it surprisingly almost completely
ignored by biblical scholars, who are nevertheless often involved in
translation.80 Even such an advocate of the Aramaic source hypothesis
1979), esp. pp. 3-23; and G. Schwarz, 'Und Jesu Sprach': Untersuchungen zur
aramdischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu (BWANT, 118; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,
2nd edn, 1987). This viewpoint is also reflected in a number of commentaries.
79. See L.D. Hurst, 'The Neglected Role of Semantics in the Search for the
Aramaic Words of Jesus', JSNT 28 (1986), pp. 63-80; repr. in C.A. Evans and S.E.
Porter (eds.), The Historical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader (BibSem, 33; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 219-36. Hurst also realizes the importance of
various linguistic levels or styles and the potential of semantic field theory. As a
result, he offers a translation model based upon the theory of Eugene A. Nida (e.g.
Nida and C.R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation [Helps for Trans-
lators; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1969]). Other work in translation theory reflecting this
perspective includes: E.A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating with Special
Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: EJ.
Brill, 1964); E.A. Nida, Language Structure and Translation: Essays by Eugene A.
Nida (ed. A.S. Dil; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975); J. De Waard and
E.A. Nida, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Trans-
lating (Nashville: Nelson, 1986); P.C. Stine (ed.), Issues in Bible Translation
(UBSMS, 3; London: United Bible Societies, 1988); P.A. Soukup and R. Hodgson
(eds.), From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for Communicating the Scrip-
tures in New Media (New York: American Bible Society; Kansas City: Sheed &
Ward, 1997); among others.
80. For a sample of recent work in translation theory, much of which recognizes
the importance of translating in terms of an entire discourse, see D. Crystal, 'Some
as Matthew Black recognizes the limitations of the method. He admits

that only in the words of Jesus can translation from Aramaic be con-
sidered, but that even in the parables of Jesus, long considered as
providing the basis of authentic material (see above, and Chapters 5 and
6, below), 'it cannot, I think, be sufficiently emphasized that in the
majority of the longer connected parables, for example in Q, the
"translation" is not literal but literary; in other words, it is doubtful if it
can be justly described as translation at all in some cases, even where
the evidence points to the existence and use of an Aramaic source'.81
The failure to be able to show that what are considered the earliest texts
in the Synoptic tradition, such as the Lord's prayer, the sermon on the
mount, or Q, are translations from Aramaic originals has prompted Hans
Dieter Betz to conclude that Tor simple historical reasons, the Aramaic
hypothesis is presently in trouble'.82
More recent discussion has attempted to salvage this criterion and to
be more explicit in this regard. There have been two recent develop-
ments along these lines worth noting. The first is that of Casey. Casey's
major argument is that the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, including
that of targums, now provides sufficient evidence for the kind of Ara-
maic in use in Palestine in the first century to be able to reconstruct
underlying Aramaic substrata at several places in Mark's Gospel (9.11-
13; 2.23-3.6; 10.35-45; 14.12-26). Many will undoubtedly welcome the
confidence with which Casey speaks of performing this task of retro-
Current Trends in Translation Theory', The Bible Translator 27 (1976), pp. 322-29;
S, Bassnett, Translation Studies (New Accents; London: Routledge, rev. edn, 1991
[1980]); B. Hatim and I. Mason, Discourse and the Translator (LSLS; London:
Longman, 1990); R.T. Bell, Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice (Ap-
plied Linguistics and Language Study; London: Longman, 1991); P. Newmark,
About Translation (Multilingual Matters, 74; Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991);
L. Venuti (ed.), Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology (London:
Routledge, 1992); P. Zlateva (ed.), Translation as Social Action: Russian and
Bulgarian Perspectives (Translation Studies; London: Routledge, 1993); B. Hatim
and I. Mason, The Translator as Communicator (London: Routledge, 1997);
S. Bassnett and H. Trivedi (eds.), Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice
(Translation Studies; London: Routledge, 1999).
81. Black, Aramaic Approach, p. 274.
82. H.D. Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum "Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew" in
Light of Present Scholarship', ST 45 (1991), pp. 83-110; repr. in idem,Antike und
Christentum: Gesammelte Aufsatze IV (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 1-31
(13).
version. However, there are a number of problems with his theory and
method. Casey recognizes that translational issues must be considered,
but even though he includes Hurst's important article in his bibliogra-
phy, he does not use it in discussing matters of translation.83 His dis-
cussion is essentially confined to citing a number of examples of the
types of changes that occur in the receptor language when translation
is performed. These examples are drawn from a range of theoretical
sources but without serious attention to translational theory. In defining
his method of approach, Casey claims that before the discovery of the
Aramaic Scrolls the two best works on the Aramaic hypothesis were
those of A. Meyer and M. Black.84 Nevertheless, he recognizes the
shortcomings of Black's method, especially in terms of the limited
Aramaic evidence available to him—a fault Casey attempts to correct
by using the Dead Sea Scrolls, among other sources.85 Even so, the
amount of Galilean Aramaic available for his reconstruction is admit-
tedly quite small. Thus, it comes as somewhat of a surprise, as well as a
disappointment, when Casey introduces his seven-part method, which
looks much like the criteria used by Meyer and Black much earlier in
the twentieth century: 'We select for this purpose passages which show
some signs of having been translated literally', beginning with passages
with purported mistakes in the Greek.86 The next step is to 'begin the
detailed work of making up a possible Aramaic substratum', using the
Aramaic texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.87 The rest of his procedural steps
are essentially confined to refining this reconstructed Aramaic text from
what he calls a first-century Jewish perspective.88 This procedure begs
many important questions, several of which are addressed further in
Chapter 4, below. In terms of verification, how does one recognize a
mistranslation into Greek, how does one check the Aramaic reconstruc-
tion, how does one assess idiomatic features of this Aramaic, and, per-
haps most importantly, how does one have any confidence that working
back from such a fragile first step can result in anything but a tissue of
fragile speculation? For Casey, the first-century Jewish perspective is
83. Casey, Aramaic Sources, pp. 93-106.

84. Casey, Aramaic Sources, p. 253.
85. Casey, Aramaic Sources, pp. 29-33. For a summary of such criticism of
Black, see Evans, 'Introduction', to Black, Aramaic Approach, pp. vi-ix.
86. Casey, Aramaic Sources, p. 107.
87. Casey, Aramaic Sources, p. 108 (italics mine).
88. Casey, Aramaic Sources, pp. 109-10.
an Aramaic-speaking one, a perspective that I will attempt to refine in

Chapter 4. However, when Casey actually undertakes to examine spe-
cific passages, it looks as if he departs from even his own tenuous and
questionable procedures. At the outset of three out of four of his chap-
ters utilizing his method, he begins with his Aramaic reconstruction, and
then attempts to justify it throughout the rest of the chapter, apparently
the reverse of the method he proposes. It appears that not much has
advanced in use of the Aramaic hypothesis in the last 100 years, at least
in so far as the approach of Casey is concerned. In fact, in several ways,
Casey's method appears to have left behind the careful and relatively
cautious method of many of his predecessors, including Black.
A second approach also relies upon the targums, but is much more
modest in its claims and goals. Chilton has argued for two criteria for
determining whether the words of Jesus reflect a Semitic (Aramaic tar-
gums) source: what he calls dictional and thematic coherence.89 As he
states regarding what is meant by dictional coherence, this means 'a
substantive verbal similarity,90 not only in respect of a few words'.
However, as he notes, 'naturally we are only concerned with cases in
which Jesus' sayings contain dictional elements which are peculiar to
the Targum', and in particular those that contain dominical references
to Isaiah. As to thematic coherence, as Chilton admits, 'the judgment of
thematic similarity is rather more subjective than the observation of
verbal agreement'. Regarding his findings, Chilton is quite modest in
his claims: The evidence permits only of the conclusion that some in-
terpretative traditions, later incorporated in the Targum [of Isaiah], had
a formative influence on the wording of some of the sayings of Jesus'.91
In the light of the admitted limitations of Chilton's method in terms of
scope (it is confined to places where there is possible coherence of the
words of Jesus with the targums, leaving any other sayings of Jesus
outside of consideration) and acknowledged subjectivity, it is interest-
ing to note that Evans has attempted to expand Chilton's criteria to
89. Chilton, Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, pp. 70-71, 90-137.
90. Whether the word coherence is the right term for what is being advocated
here is arguable, certainly in the light of Chilton's own definition. Coherence would
seem to imply the factor of intelligibility, whereas here he is simply referring to
verbal similarity, which in itself says nothing of intelligibility. This merits further
discussion.
91. Chilton, Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, p. 70 for all quotations above.
include a third criterion of exegetical coherence.92 Evans defines this as

a further refinement of thematic coherence, in which there are 'points of
agreement between Jesus' or the evangelist's understanding of a pas-
sage and the way it is understood by the meturgeman—the Aramaic
translator/interpreter. The agreement lies not so much in theme but in a
particular point of interpretation' of Scripture.93 Again, obvious limita-
tions of this third criterion involve what is meant by points of agree-
ment and its confinement to places where Scripture is being interpreted.
Despite the above criticisms as well as recent developments, there is
still divided opinion on the strength of the Semitic language criterion.
Evans, as might be expected from his attempt to extend Chilton's cri-
terion of coherence, wishes to maintain it as providing confirmation and
support for other criteria,94 but Meier categorizes it as a dubious or
secondary criterion.95 Meier's reasoning is that the criterion, as used by
Jeremias to the present, does nothing more than place the tradition in
Palestine and possibly in the Aramaic-speaking church, but it cannot be
any more specific than this.96 Even Chilton tacitly admits to such a gen-
eralized use of the criterion when he states that 'the citations of the
Targum to Isaiah in the New Testament record of Jesus' words make
better sense as traditional elements in the dominical sayings than as
redactional innovations'.97 Further, to claim that a saying of Jesus has a
92. C.A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Back-
ground of John's Prologue (JSNTSup, 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 18-27;
idem, ' "Do This and You Will Live": Targumic Coherence in Luke 10:25-28',
in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration
(AGJU, 39; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 377-93, esp. pp. 378-81; and idem, 'From
Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament', in C.C. Broyles
and C.A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an
Interpretive Tradition (2 vols.; VTSup, 70.1-2; Formation and Interpretation of Old
Testament Literature, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), II, pp. 651-91, esp. pp. 667-74.
The third criterion, exegetical coherence, is only specifically mentioned by name in
Evans, 'From Gospel to Gospel', II, p. 670; idem, 'Introduction', to Black, Aramaic
Approach, pp. xii-xiii, xv-xvii. Evans gives examples of all three of the criteria.
93. Evans, 'Introduction', to Black, Aramaic Approach, p. xii.
94. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries, p. 23.
95. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 179-80; also Schillebeeckx, Jesus, pp. 98-99.
See also Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 333-34.
96. See Sanders, Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, pp. 297-300.
97. Chilton, Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, pp. 89-90.
distinctive Aramaic character to it that coheres with what Jesus would

have said already implies that one has a clear idea of what Jesus said.
As already noted above, Sanders has shown that there are no general
rules by which one can determine whether Semitisms increase or de-
crease in the development of tradition, making it difficult to use retro-
version as a means of establishing early tradition.98 The proposals of
Chilton and Evans might be seen as a way forward in this discussion,
and in certain ways they are, because of their breaking free of depen-
dence upon highly debatable judgments regarding translation and retro-
version. However, here is another sense in which their proposals subor-
dinate this form of the Semitic hypothesis to a subsidiary role, focused
upon a rather narrow part of the tradition. This criterion is also now
clearly dependent upon the criterion of coherence, with all of its short-
comings. These shortcomings include: the inability to establish the ear-
liness and reliability of the targumic traditions as providing the bedrock
material with which the Jesus tradition may or may not cohere," prob-
lems related to conceptual transference between languages, and the
problem that coherence implies more than simply correlation, but an
abstract idealization that is inappropriate for judging a report of the
thoughts and words of a given individual.100 A last objection is that the
linguistic environment of Palestine was far more complex than this sce-
nario seems to assume. That is, this criterion seems to assume that the
early Church, including Jesus, was almost exclusively Aramaic speak-
ing, and that environment alone is the possible source of parallels.
98. Sanders, Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, pp. 190-255.

99. Chilton (Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, pp. 40-48; cf. idem, The Glory of
Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Tar gum [JSOTSup, 23;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982]) admits that the targumic material is actually later
than the material in the New Testament, but his hypothesis depends upon being able
to determine which strands are as early as the time of Jesus. Of course, if one is to
use a criterion of coherence to determine this, that is, the early targumic material is
similar to Jesus material (or other purportedly early material), then one runs the risk
of creating a circular argument, in which one is using the Jesus material and the
targumic material to 'prove' each other's earliness and presumed authenticity. See
also S. Kaufman, 'On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronol-
ogy', JSNT23 (1985), pp. 117-24; idem, 'Dating the Language of the Palestinian
Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century CE Texts', in Beattie and
McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible, pp. 118-41.
100. See Winton, Proverbs of Jesus, pp. 119-21.
3. Conclusion
Much more could be, and has been, said about the rise of form criticism
and redaction criticism and the development of the criteria for authen-
ticity. The above criteria are those that have figured most prominently
in a wide range of discussion, from early in the twentieth century to
recent research. Rather than treat each criterion in a synchronic fashion,
as is the case in the vast majority of recent treatments of this subject, I
have opted for a diachronic approach. This diachronic analysis has al-
lowed the development of the criteria to be placed within the concep-
tual framework of the rise especially of form criticism (but also in rela-
tion to redaction criticism), and with regard to the various proponents
of these positions.
A number of further observations can be made about this develop-
ment. The first is the surprising amount of continuity in the develop-
ment of these criteria. This continuity is seen in a number of ways. One
is to observe the proponents of the various criteria in terms of the kind
of approach taken to the quest for the historical Jesus noted in Chapter
1, above. There does not seem to be an appreciable difference in their
approaches. In other words, one might take a more conservative or tra-
ditional approach to the possibility of recovering authentic material
about Jesus, such as does Dodd, or take a more progressive approach
that disparages such a quest, as does Bultmann, and yet still be actively
involved in developing and modifying the criteria for authenticity. Like-
wise, there does not appear to be a significant difference regarding the
'period' of quest that is involved and the approach one takes to criteria.
The classic example must surely be the development of the criterion of
double dissimilarity, noted above. A casual statement by Bultmann re-
garding one form of Gospel literature, the similitude, perhaps not even
reflecting Bultmann's own priorities regarding criteria (see his stronger
dependence upon the criterion of least distinctiveness), becomes a much
stronger and more rigidly defined statement in Kasemann, which is fur-
ther strengthened by Perrin. This correlates with the kinds of comments
observed in the previous chapter, where, almost regardless of the ap-
proach one takes to the quest or the 'period' in which one writes, there
is often difficulty in distinguishing the process and the results found
from one discussion of Jesus to another. Thus Dibelius, a contemporary
of Bultmann, can write during the so-called 'second' quest a life that is
much more similar to that of Bornkamm; and a number of scholars
during both periods can proclaim their scepticism that there are the
materials to write any life of Jesus, while many others are doing that
very thing. As Doty rightly says in conjunction with the analysis above,
'it must be noted that no one of the so-called New Questers proceeded
without a firm training in form critical discipline, nor would any of them
deny its continuing importance'.101 The same appears to be the case for
many in the supposed 'third quest' as well, even with the rise of redac-
tion criticism. In any event, there is a tremendous continuity with regard
to the criteria, despite the quest or critical mode in fashion.
A further observation is that the criteria seem to reflect the presup-
positions of the time to a large extent. For example, the criterion of
double dissimilarity clearly emerges from the assumptions at the outset
of the development of form criticism, with its emphasis upon the forma-
tive role of the early Church regarding dominical tradition. This results
in a criterion that, from the outset, is suspicious of any saying of Jesus
that seems to reflect what that early Church may have thought and said.
Similarly, the nineteenth-century romanticized view of Jesus as a Jewish
peasant is to be found in the emphasis placed upon the criterion of the
Semitic or Aramaic phenomena in the Gospels, even after new evidence
regarding the use of Greek was entered into the scholarly debate.
Finally, one can comment with regards to the nature of the criticism
of these criteria. On the one hand, there is certainly a commendable em-
phasis by a number of scholars upon developing these criteria, taking
the earlier comments of such scholars as Bultmann and attempting to
shape them into useful tools for historical-Jesus research. Although a
number of other criteria have been discussed in certain circles, the ones
selected above are the ones that keep returning for further refinement
and discussion in the secondary literature. On the other hand, there is
currently a surprisingly small amount of stringent internal criticism of
these criteria. The range of the criticism seems to exist fairly strictly
within the parameters of what are the agreed grounds for discussion.
Subsequent chapters in this monograph attempt to break this deadlock
first by offering an analysis of several recent proposals, and then in Part
2 by introducing three new criteria for consideration.
101. Doty, 'Discipline and Literature', p. 316. See also D.G.A. Calvert, 'An
Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words of Jesus', NTS
18 (1971-72), pp. 209-19, esp. p. 219.
Table 2. The Rise of the Criteria and the Development of Form

and Redaction Criticism in 'Quests' for the Historical Jesus
This table lays out in chronological order the approximate dates for instigation and
initial development of the major criteria for authenticity discussed above, as well as
several supposedly new criteria discussed in Chapter 3, below. Alongside these are
the dates of the major initial developments of form and redaction criticism, and the
dates of the supposed 'quests' for the historical Jesus.
Criteria Criticism 'Quest'
Preliminary Criteria Higher Criticism 'Old' or 'First Quest'

(Post-Enlightenment) (1778-1906)
Criterion of Multiple Attestation/ 'No Quest'

Cross-Section Method (1906-) (1906-1953)
Criterion of Double Dissimilarity

(1913-)
Criterion of Least Distinctiveness Form Criticism
(1919-) (1919-21)
Criterion of Coherence/
Consistency
(1921-)
Criterion of Semitic Language

Phenomena (1925-)
Redaction Criticism
(1948-56)
Criterion of Embarrassment 'New' or 'Second
(1953-) Quest' (1953-88?)
Criterion of Rejection and

Execution (1985-)
Third Quest'
(1988?-)
Criterion of Historical Plausibility
(1997-)
Chapter 3
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CRITERIA FOR AUTHENTICITY
1. Introduction
The previous two chapters have discussed two major topics—first, the
history of historical-Jesus research and, secondly, the major contours in
discussion of the criteria for authenticity throughout their development
and well into what some have (and I suggest incorrectly) called the
'second' and 'third quests' of the historical Jesus. However, within the
last 10 to 15 years or so, there has been renewed discussion of the
criteria in some circles. This renewed discussion is not simply in terms
of analysing and re-analysing the traditional criteria, which is what so
much of the work of the last 50 years has been, but in terms of intro-
ducing new criteria, elevating some of the older ones, and demoting still
others. There have been two recent treatments that I wish to examine
here, the first because of the apparent influence its proponent has had on
a number of other recent historical-Jesus scholars, and the second be-
cause of its advocate's attempt to shift the focus of discussion and
debate. I will summarize the arguments marshalled by the proponents
of these renewed discussions, and then draw out what I see as their sig-
nificance for further historical-Jesus research. As I have argued in Chap-
ter 1, if there were to be a genuine 'third quest' of the historical Jesus, it
would need to involve a thorough and complete re-assessment of the
criteria for authenticity. The two major assessments that I have in mind
here are the following: that by John Meier in the first volume of his
monumental study of the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew,1 and that by
Gerd Theissen, who, along with Annette Merz and Dagmar Winter, has
focused upon critical assessment of the criterion of dissimilarity as im-
1. J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols.;

ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991-), I, pp. 167-95.
petus for introducing a new criterion of historical plausibility.2 There

are, to be sure, other attempts at developing new criteria for authentic-
ity, but I will analyse these two (see the excursus at the end of Chapter
2, above, for inclusion of these recent efforts in a graphic display of the
history of the criteria for authenticity).3
2. John Meier's Primary and Secondary Criteria for Authenticity

What many consider the most important re-assessment of the criteria
for authenticity that has taken place during the period hailed as the
2. G. Theissen, 'Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research or

My Attempt to Leap across Lessing's Yawning Gulf, SJT 49 (1996), pp. 147-76;
G. Theissen and D. Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom Dif-
fer enzkriterium zum Plausibilitdtskriterium (NTOA, 34; Freiburg: Universitatsver-
lag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1997); G. Theissen and A. Merz, Der his-
torische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996; ET The
Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998]), esp. pp. 115-18. Cf. the useful review in
J. Roloff, 'G. Theissen and D. Winter, The Question of Criteria in Jesus Research:
From Dissimilarity to Plausibility', Review of Theological Literature 1 (1999),
pp. 54-58.
3. M.E. Boring ('The Historical-Critical Method's "Criteria of Authenticity":
The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case', Semeia 44 [1988], pp. 9-44, here
pp. 14-15) refers to Vernon K. Robbins's 'Pragmatic Relations as a Criterion for
Authentic Sayings', Forum 1.3 (1985), pp. 35-63, as providing a new criterion for
linguistic discussion, but he does not include it in his own praxis. It does not seem
to have caught on in other circles either. Evans does not cite it in his recent biblio-
graphy, C.A. Evans, Life of Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography (NTTS,
24; Leiden: E.J. Brill, rev. edn, 1996). There are reasons for scepticism regarding
Robbins's approach. The first is that he admits that it brings together many of the
traditional criteria, along with some other hermeneutical stances (p. 37). A second
is that he relies upon the category of syllogism, thus requiring that he engage in a
major interpretive exercise to formulate the syllogism that he then analyses for
authenticity. A third is that Robbins appears to rely upon a particular view of early
Christianity, emphasizing the personal over the spiritual fields of discourse, and the
personal being closest to authentic when it emphasizes the state of hunger, weeping,
abuse and oppression (heavy shades of the nineteenth-century romanticism). A fourth
is that Robbins in fact relies quite heavily upon the criterion of least to growing dis-
tinctiveness, already analysed in Chapter 2, above. Finally, Robbins's criterion de-
scribes what are called fields of discourse, that is, specific types of subject matter,
but does not provide a means of adjudicating the actual words of Jesus. He contin-
ues in a similar vein in V.K. Robbins, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse:
Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996).
3. Recent Developments in the Criteria for Authenticity 105
'third quest' appeared in the first volume of Meier's A Marginal Jew,

his massive (and ongoing) re-examination of most dimensions of the life
of Jesus. It is fitting that at the outset of his projected three-volume
study he lays out what he considers the criteria by which one can deter-
mine what words or actions come from Jesus. This assessment has been
followed by a number of scholars, and has recently been heralded by
several other 'third-quest' scholars as the most rigorous treatment of the
criteria to date.4
For Meier, there are two sets of criteria: primary criteria, and sec-
ondary or dubious criteria.5 The primary criteria include: the criterion
of discontinuity, the criterion of multiple attestation, the criterion of
coherence (these three criteria discussed in Chapter 2, above), and two
others not so far discussed, the criterion of embarrassment and the cri-
terion of rejection and execution.6 He demotes to the position of sec-
ondary or dubious criteria the criterion of traces of Aramaic, the crite-
rion of Palestinian environment (both discussed in Chapter 2, above,
under the same heading), the criterion of vividness of narration, the cri-
terion of the tendencies of the developing Synoptic tradition (discussed
4. Several scholars who have essentially followed Meier include E. Schweizer,

Jesus: The Parable of God. What Do We Really Know about Jesus? (Alison Park,
PA: Pickwick, 1994; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), pp. 20-21; CA. Evans, Jesus
and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGJU, 25; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1995), pp. 13-26, who calls Meier's the best treatment; idem, Life of Jesus Re-
search, pp. 127-46; idem, 'Life of Jesus', in S.E. Porter (ed), Handbook to Exegesis
of the New Testament (NTTS, 25; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 427-66, esp. pp.
441-46; and S. McKnight, 'Public Declaration or Final Judgment? Matthew 10:26-
27 = Luke 12:2-3 as a Case of Creative Redaction', in B. Chilton and CA. Evans
(eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS, 28.1; Leiden- E.J. Brill, 1998),
pp. 363-83, esp. p. 378, who does similarly.
5. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 167-95. However, one must note that Meier's
treatment is in many respects foreshadowed by several other scholars, including
E. Schillebeeckx (Jezus, het verhaal van een levende [Bloemendaal: Nelissen, 1974;
ET Jesus: An Experiment in Christology [trans. H. Hoskins; New York: Seabury,
1979], pp. 88-100), who divides the criteria into valid and invalid criteria; and
D. Polkow, 'Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research', in K.H. Richards
(ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 26; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 336-56, esp. p. 342. Polkow's treatment also falls roughly
within the period of the so-called 'third quest', but has perhaps drawn a few too
many fine distinctions, especially over the labels of various criteria (see Evans, Jesus
and his Contemporaries, p. 13 n. 34).
6. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 168-77.
in Chapter 2 in relation to the criterion of least distinctiveness, but also

see below), and the criterion of historical presumption.7 Even though
his differentiating of the two categories of criteria is not unique to him,
Meier has drawn attention to the importance of distinguishing between
those criteria that he believes are more and less useful for historical-
Jesus research on the basis of their logic and application. Since several
of the primary criteria advocated by Meier have already been discussed
in Chapter 2, these will not be discussed further here. Instead, I wish to
examine what Meier says about the criteria of embarrassment and of
rejection and execution. Along with his distinguishing primary and sec-
ondary criteria, these two further criteria, which are not as essentially a
part of the history of discussion of the criteria for authenticity as those
treated in Chapter 2, give Meier's treatment a different kind of empha-
sis than the work of many previous scholars. His criteria have a much
more positive or maximal cast to them.8
a. The Criterion of Embarrassment (or Movement against the Redac-

tional Tendency)
The criterion of embarrassment, as Meier and others call it, has been
known by a number of different names,9 and has had several different
7. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 178-83. Cf. Polkow, 'Method and Criteria',
p. 342, who designates preliminary (discounting redaction, discounting tradition),
primary (dissimilarity, coherence, multiple attestation), and secondary (Palestinian
context, style, scholarly consensus) criteria.
8. See C.J. den Heyer, Wie is Jezus? Balans van 150 jaar onderzoek naar
Jesus (Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Meinema, 1996; ET Jesus Matters:
150 Years of Research [trans. J. Bowden: London: SCM Press, 1996]), pp. 132-33,
for the language of minimal and maximal criteria.
9. See Polkow, 'Method and Criteria', p. 341, who cites such criteria as dis-
similarity, modification, execution, embarrassment, incongruity, theological diver-
gency and hermeneutic potential as all 'basically variations on an old and familiar
theme'. This is probably spreading the net a bit too wide, but see below. Meier
(Marginal Jew, I, p. 168) attributes the term criterion of 'embarrassment' to Schille-
beeckx, but gives no specific reference (it is presumably Jesus, pp. 91-92, although
Schillebeeckx does not use the term 'embarrassment' here in the English version).
This criterion perhaps had its earliest formulation by P.W. Schmiedel, 'Gospels', in
T.K. Cheyne and J.S. Black (eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of
the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archaeology, Geography and
Natural History of the Bible (4 vols.; London: A. & C. Black, 1899-1907), II, cols.
1761-898, esp. cols. 1881-83, according to I.H. Marshall, / Believe in the Historical
Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 205-206, 213. Meier (Marginal Jew, I,
modifications upon it. Despite these various incarnations, it has not been
nearly as prevalent in discussion of the criteria as have some others, until
its recent rejuvenation by Meier and a few other historical-Jesus schol-
ars.10 As this criterion has come to be known and to function, it does
not go back to the rise of form criticism. It is usually seen to originate
with the so-called 'new' or 'second quest' for the historical Jesus, in par-
ticular in the formulation by Ernst Kasemann in his 1953 lecture on the
historical Jesus. In that lecture, in an almost casual added comment
(already cited in part in Chapter 2, above), he says that In only one
case do we have more or less safe ground under our feet; when there
are no grounds either for deriving a tradition from Judaism or for ascrib-
ing it to primitive Christianity [this is the criterion of double dissimi-
larity, discussed in Chapter 2, above], and especially when Jewish
Christianity has mitigated or modified the received tradition, as having
found it too bold for its taste'.11
This statement has been developed in two major, yet distinctly differ-
ent directions, depending upon whether one places emphasis upon the
redaction of the tradition or the relation of the Church to the tradition.12
One of the two formulations speaks of the criterion of divergent pat-
terns from the redaction. As Calvert says, 'the inclusion of material
which does not especially serve [the Gospel writer's] purpose may well
be taken as a testimony to the authenticity of that material, or at least to
the inclusion of it in the tradition of the Church in such a clear and con-
p. 187 n. 9) notes that this criterion is also known as 'modification' or 'tendencies

of the developing Synoptic tradition'. He claims to take what is best from that cri-
terion in his criterion of embarrassment, since he categorizes 'tendencies of the
developing Synoptic tradition' as a secondary criterion. For the criterion of modifi-
cation, he cites W.O. Walker, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Discussion of
Methodology', ATR 51 (1969), pp. 38-56, esp. p. 48; and Boring, 'Criteria of Au-
thenticity', p. 21.
10. See Polkow, 'Method and Criteria', p. 338.
11. E. Kasemann, 'Das Problemdes historischen Jesus\ZTK51 (1954), pp. 125-
53 (repr. in idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I [Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1960], pp. 187-214); ET The Problem of the Historical Jesus',
in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. W.J. Montague; SET, 41; London:
SCM Press, 1964; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 15-47 (37) (italics mine).
12. See R.H. Stein, The "Criteria" for Authenticity', in R.T. France and
D. Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the
Four Gospels, I (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 225-63, esp. pp. 245-48; Evans,
Life of Jesus Research, pp. 134-36; idem, Jesus and his Contemporaries, pp. 18-19.
sistent way that the evangelist was loath to omit it'.13 In this formula-
tion of the criterion, 'authenticity is supported when the tradition cannot
easily be explained as the creation of a given evangelist or his commu-
nity'.14 The emphasis is upon testing the tradition against the specific
redactional tendencies of the Gospel writer. This formulation is much
closer to the traditional criterion of developing tendencies of the Syn-
optic tradition. Meier dismisses this criterion as 'highly questionable'
on the basis of the work of E.P. Sanders, who has shown that 'the whole
attempt to formulate laws of the developing Synoptic tradition and then
to apply them to the earlier oral tradition is dubious'.15 However, there
is a second, and arguably more useful, formulation of the criterion,
13. D.G.A. Calvert, 'An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Au-
thentic Words of Jesus', NTS 18 (1971-72), pp. 209-19 (219); cf. C.F.D. Moule,
The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 56-76;
R.N. Longenecker, 'Literary Criteria in Life of Jesus Research: An Evaluation and
Proposal', in G.F. Hawthorne (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Inter-
pretation (Festschrift M.C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 217-29,
esp. pp. 225-29 (although some of the sources he cites are of questionable rele-
vance); Stein, ' "Criteria" for Authenticity', p. 248. This criterion has been utilized
by those of the so-called Scandinavian school of Jesus research, who have studied
the principles of transmission of the tradition in terms of Jesus' Jewish background.
See H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition (trans. E.M. Rowley and R.A. Kraft;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970), p. 72; B. Gerhards-
son, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rab-
binic Judaism and Early Christianity (ASNU, 22; trans. E.J. Sharpe; Lund: C.W.K.
Gleerup, 1961), esp. pp. 193-261; idem, Tradition and Transmission in Early
Christianity (ConBNT, 20; trans. E.J. Sharpe; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1964), esp.
pp. 37-40 (both of Gerhardsson's volumes repr. in Biblical Resource Series; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove Booksellers, 1998); R. Riesner, Jesus als
Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Uberlieferung (WUNT,
2.7; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981; 4th edn, 1994), pp. 97-498, on the Jesus tra-
dition and its transmission; idem, 'Judische Elementarbildung und Evangelieniiber-
lieferung', in France and Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives, I, pp. 209-23, esp.
pp. 209-11; idem, 'Jesus as Preacher and Teacher', in H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus
and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup, 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp.
185-210, esp. pp. 195-96, 203-208; and S. Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher:
Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the
Matthean Community (ConBNT, 24; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994), esp.
pp. 309-98.
14. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries, p. 18 n. 46.
15. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, p. 182, citing E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the
Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS, 9; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
which some have called the criterion of embarrassment, contradiction or

modification by Jewish Christianity. According to this criterion, 'authen-
ticity is supported when the tradition cannot easily be explained as the
creation of the Church in general'.16 According to Meier, tradition that
would have embarrassed or created some difficulty for the early Church,
but that has been left in at the risk of embarrassment, even if it has been
toned down, is presumably authentic. He cites as examples the baptism
of Jesus by John, and Jesus' statement in Mk 13.32 that he does not
know the day or hour of the end.17
Meier and others also recognize limitations to this criterion, however.
These include the fact that such clear-cut cases of embarrassment as
those noted just above are few in the Gospels, and, perhaps more impor-
tantly for historical-Jesus research, not sufficient to get anything close
to a full, complete or even representative picture of Jesus.18 It would
indeed be an odd portrait of Jesus, if all that he is recorded as doing or
saying were things embarrassing to the early Church. Another limita-
tion of this criterion is that determining what might have been embar-
rassing to the early Church is also very difficult. This is due especially
to the lack of detailed evidence for the thought of the early Church, apart
from that found in the New Testament. An example that Meier gives is
Jesus' supposed words of dereliction on the cross, Ps. 22.1. Meier argues
that these were not words of dereliction at all, even though many in the
early Church, including the authors of Luke's and John's Gospels, may
have taken them in that way.19 Meier also recognizes that this criterion
of embarrassment must also be used in conjunction with others, al-
though he does not expand on what he means by that statement.20 As
we have seen in Chapter 2, however, a similar statement could be made
for virtually every one of the criteria for authenticity. Virtually every
one of the criteria that still seems to have validity has the limitation that
16. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries, p. 18 n. 46. See also N. Perrin, Redis-
covering the Teaching of Jesus (NTL; London: SCM Press; New York: Harper
& Row, 1967), p. 39; Walker, 'Quest for the Historical Jesus', pp. 48-49; N.J.
McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 431-60,
esp. pp. 442-43; Stein, '"Criteria" for Authenticity', p. 246; B.F. Meyer, The Aims
of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), p. 86.
17. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, p. 169.
19. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, p. 170. Cf. I.E. Schmidt, 'Cry of Dereliction or Cry
of Judgment? Mark 15:34', BBR 4 (1994), pp. 145-53.
there is a perceivable gap between what the criterion seems to establish

and what can be grounded in the life of Jesus, so that a given criterion
cannot provide an absolute bedrock for grounding the traditions of the
historical Jesus, but is in some way dependent upon other criteria used
in conjunction. One cannot help but note that this may well create a
vicious circular argument, in which various criteria, each one in itself
insufficient to establish the reliability or authenticity of the Jesus tradi-
tion, are used to support other criteria.21 Lastly, a criticism that Meier
does not note, but that Polkow does, is that in some ways—despite
Meier's efforts to avoid such a similarity by taking a more positive
view towards the tradition—this criterion is a specific form of the crite-
rion of double dissimilarity.22 In other words, the point of embarrass-
ment is reached when what Jesus is saying or doing does not fit with
what the early Church, its authors, or even Jews of the time would have
recognized as 'acceptable' behaviour or words for the eschatological
prophet. Thus, this criterion may not be as fundamental or well ground-
ed as Meier has suggested.
b. The Criterion of Rejection and Execution

The second criterion of Meier that merits discussion here is that of
rejection and execution,23 or, according to Evans's terminology, histori-
cal coherence.24 For both Meier and Evans, this is the most important of
all of the criteria in historical-Jesus research. Like the criterion of
21. This is not the only area of New Testament studies that utilizes such argu-
mentation, in which the sum of a number of inconclusive arguments is asserted to
be decisive. It is often found in discussions of authorship of the Pauline letters as
well. Nevertheless, because it is widespread does not make it a stronger argument.
22. Polkow, 'Method and Criteria', p. 341.
23. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, p. 177, with reference to Schilleebeeckx, Jesus,
p. 97. Anticipating him also is Walker, 'Quest of the Historical Jesus', p. 55; A.P.
Winton, The Proverbs of Jesus: Issues of History and Rhetoric (JSNTSup, 35;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), esp. p. 123.
24. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries, pp. 13-15. It must be noted that
Evans's criterion of historical coherence is not simply to be equated with the crite-
rion of coherence or consistency often cited in historical-Jesus research, since his
use of it implies motivation for historical correlations (see discussion in Chapter 2,
above). As noted in Chapter 2, if this is the proper term for it, the traditional cri-
terion of coherence must rely on other criteria, to build up a core of authentic Jesus
tradition. See Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 176-77, who places it in the category of
secondary criteria.
embarrassment, however, it too has not figured largely in the history of

scholarly discussion of the criteria. Again, tracing its history and devel-
opment depends upon which other criteria one thinks it is most closely
related to.25 Evans looks to E.P. Sanders's discussion of the actions of
Jesus, in which authentic tradition regarding Jesus' actions must explain
why Jesus attracted sufficient attention from authorities so that he was
finally executed.26 Hence, Evans gives this criterion priority, since he
too wishes to begin with what he considers to be essential facts about
Jesus as the backbone of historical-Jesus research, against which other
actions and the sayings can be judged.27 As a starting point in this quest,
Evans agrees with Sanders's eight 'almost indisputable' facts regarding
Jesus, give or take a couple.28 Meier, on the other hand, does not see
25. Polkow ('Method and Criteria', p. 341) places execution under the criterion
of dissimilarity, along with modification, embarrassment, incongruity, theological
divergency and hermeneutic potential. Here he is clearly too broad in his catego-
rization. He also sees the criterion of execution as the result of the data gathered by
other criteria, such as dissimilarity, modification, embarrassment, incongruity and
hermeneutic potential (p. 340).
26. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries, p. 13, citing E.P. Sanders, Jesus and
Judaism (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 7.
27. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries, p. 14. Evans notes that the original
contexts of Jesus' sayings are now lost, and there are no reliable extra-canonical
sources for finding them, as there are reliable extra-biblical sources regarding a
number of facts regarding the world in which Jesus acted.
28. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries, p. 15, citing Sanders, Jesus and Ju-
daism, p. 11. The eight facts of Sanders cited by Evans are that (1) Jesus was bap-
tized by John the Baptist, (2) he was a Galilean who preached and healed, (3) he
called disciples and spoke of twelve of them, (4) he confined his activity to Israel,
(5) he engaged in a controversy about the Temple, (6) he was crucified outside Jeru-
salem by the Roman authorities, (7) his followers continued as an identifiable
movement after his death, and (8) some Jews persecuted some members of this new
movement. To these Evans adds that Jesus was probably viewed as a prophet by the
populace, he often spoke of the kingdom of God, he criticized the ruling priests as
part of his Temple controversy, and he was crucified as 'king of the Jews' by the
Romans. See also now C.A. Evans, 'Authenticating the Activities of Jesus', in
B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS,
28.2; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), pp. 3-29, esp. pp. 3-5, where he expands his list on
the basis of subsequent work by Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus [London:
Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993], esp. pp. 10-11) and N.T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory
of God [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996], esp. pp. 147-48), noting the summaries
found in M.A. Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modem Historians View
this criterion as having priority, but instead being 'notably different from
the [other authentic] criteria' ,29 Its difference lies in the fact that it does
not speak directly to whether Jesus actually said or did anything specifi-
cally. Instead, according to Meier, it points interpreters to the 'historical
fact that Jesus met a violent end at the hands of Jewish and Roman
officials and then asks us what historical words and deeds of Jesus can
explain his trial and crucifixion.. .'30
It seems clear to me that this criterion of rejection and execution is
being used in two very different, and arguably incompatible, ways by
Evans and Meier. Evans treats it as the fundamental criterion for his-
torical-Jesus research, and uses it in a very specific and precise way—
he assumes the fact of Jesus' execution at the hands of the Jewish and
Roman authorities, builds this fact into a network of what he would see
as coherent facts, and argues that any specific action or word of Jesus
that is coherent with this historical scenario is potentially authentic.
Meier treats this criterion as an unspecific stipulation, not useful for
adjudicating individual actions and words but as a means of drawing
attention to Jesus' violent death, and actions compatible with this. It is
not clear to me whether those on either side of this difference of defi-
nition and utilization realize the fundamental antipathy that has been
created.31 It may well be that such categorical distinctions are incom-
patible, at least as they are currently being defined. The point that Meier
and Evans both seem to be noting, however, is that this criterion moves
away from the criterion of dissimilarity. It clearly enshrines a principle
of similarity (and what they call coherence), once one can agree on cer-
tain common basic facts (even if these may have to be established by
going outside of the Gospels, to the surrounding historical milieu).
the Man from Galilee (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), pp.
117,154-55.
31. I note again the major difficulties with defining the concept of coherence
(see Chapter 2, above). By invocation of this concept, one could well maintain that
everything in the Gospels is authentic, since the Gospels themselves form arguably
coherent narratives—at least that is how they have often been interpreted. See also
M.D. Hooker, 'Christology and Methodology', NTS 17 (1970), pp. 480-87, esp. pp.
482-83; idem, 4On Using the Wrong Tool', Theology 75 (1972), pp. 570-81, esp.
pp. 576-77, who discusses the subjective and problematic nature of the concept of
coherence.
This brief discussion of Meier's two further criteria—especially that

of rejection and execution with its emphasis upon making connections
as a means of establishing authentic Jesus tradition—provides a suitable
transition to the work of Theissen.
3. Gerd Theissen and the Criterion of Historical Plausibility

The change from the view of Polkow, who places the criterion of exe-
cution in the category of a criterion of dissimilarity,32 to that of Meier
and Evans, who place it in the category of a positive criterion,33 repre-
sents what appears to be a major shift in perspective in a relatively small
period of time. The challenge of this potential shift in perspective re-
garding the criteria for authenticity has recently been taken up by Theis-
sen. In his first publication on the issue, Theissen addressed the question
of Lessing's ditch. He argued that there was a means of traversing the
ditch—it was not by leaping across but by jumping in and swimming
across, using a set of four criteria based upon the traditional ones.34 This
proposal has been further developed in monograph form encouraged by
and in conjunction with the work of his student, Winter. This has re-
sulted in a major assessment of the criterion of dissimilarity and the pro-
posal for a new criterion of historical plausibility.35 This proposal has
been popularized by Theissen and Merz in a German and English-trans-
lated handbook on the historical Jesus for students.36 The theoretical
discussion of the criteria is apparently primarily the work of Theissen,
since he is primarily responsible for sections 1, 3 and 4 of the volume
with Winter. Section 1 offers an assessment of previous criteria and sec-
tion 3 develops the criterion of historical plausibility.371 wish to con-
32. Polkow, 'Method and Criteria', p. 341.

33. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, p. 177; Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries,
pp. 13-15.
34. Theissen, 'Historical Scepticism', esp. p. 153, for a graphic display of his
'lifebelt' of criteria.
35. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, esp. pp.
175-232.1 will utilize primarily this volume, since this represents Theissen's fullest
statement, although I will also utilize the article and the student handbook, which
provide useful summaries of various dimensions of Theissen's work.
36. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, pp. 115-18.
37. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. ix-x.
However, Theissen admits in 'Historical Scepticism', p. 152, that many of the ideas
come from Winter's dissertation, which is the basis of section 2 of the monograph.
centrate upon his criterion of historical plausibility, since it offers an

attempt at a new step forward in the discussion of the criteria for
authenticity in historical-Jesus research. However, in order to discuss
his new criterion of plausibility, it will be necessary to place Theissen's
proposal in the context of the critique he offers of the other criteria.
a. The Major Criteria in Historical-Jesus Research

As a prelude to his introduction of a new criterion, Theissen briefly sur-
veys and offers a critique of what he sees as the three major criteria:
source-based theories of multiple attestation, dissimilarity, and coher-
ence. His criticisms of them are telling (as noted in Chapter 2, above).
For example, he argues that the criterion of multiple attestation is not a
real criterion, since, as was also noted in Chapter 2, it can only be used
in conjunction with other criteria. The sources can be evaluated as
to whether they can be brought to bear with each other to authenticate
words or actions, but the criterion itself does not reveal whether these
sources are reliable—that must be determined by the other criteria.38
Likewise, the criterion of coherence is also dependent upon other crite-
ria to establish the authentic tradition against which the material being
evaluated is tested. In fact, according to Theissen, the criterion of coher-
ence is based on the criterion of dissimilarity.39
As a result of this assessment, Theissen notes that the criterion of dis-
similarity is in fact the only real criterion used in historical-Jesus re-
search.40 However, again as noted above, the criterion of dissimilarity is
not really a single criterion, but what Theissen calls essentially two
different criteria. One criterion relates to the dissimilarity between Jesus
aiid the later Church, and the other relates to the dissimilarity between
Jesus and Jewish thought.41 Nevertheless, in Theissen's mind, both of
these criteria that make up the criterion of dissimilarity result from
38. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. 12-16;
Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 115.
40. Further evidence for this distinction can be found even in the way that the
criteria are categorized, such as by Calvert, 'Distinguishing the Authentic Words of
Jesus', p. 211; Polkow, 'Method and Criteria', esp. p. 342.
Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 115; Theissen, 'Historical Scepticism',
pp. 159-62.
theological and historical motives.42 The criterion regarding Jesus and

the later Church is, in his words, 'dogmatics disguised'.43 By this he
means that the agenda of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Life-of-
Jesus research—emphasizing the differences between Jesus and the doc-
uments of the Church—is preserved in this criterion, even though that
quest itself is no longer followed. The criterion regarding Jesus and
Jewish thought, again reflecting traditional ecclesiastical positions, sup-
presses or underestimates Jesus' connection with Judaism, which, ac-
cording to Theissen, has resulted in the emergence of an anti-Jewish
portrait of Jesus. There is the further difficulty, so Theissen maintains,
that the criterion of dissimilarity is not workable, since 'negative histor-
ical generalizations can hardly be verified, as we do not know all the
sources, but have only a random selection'.44 There is the further diffi-
culty that 'it is almost impossible to establish complete originality',45
especially for a human being, which this criterion seems to demand. As
a result, Theissen says that he rejects the criteria for research into the
historical Jesus, calling them 'one-sided'. He boldly concludes: There
are no reliable criteria for separating authentic from inauthentic Jesus
tradition. Neither the criterion of difference or [sic] the criterion of co-
herence can fulfil this task.'46
As noted above, Theissen's description is perhaps a better description
of much German use of the criterion of double dissimilarity than it is of
some later modified forms of the criterion, which recognize that Jesus
must be seen as firmly placed within his Jewish context.47 The revision
of this criterion began with Kasemann and has continued to the present,
as Theissen himself recognizes.48 Nevertheless, Theissen's overall point
of criticism, as noted above, appears to be valid that the criterion argues
43. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 115; cf. Theissen and Winter,
Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 23.
46. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 115.
47. A recent exponent of this position is T. Holmen, 'Doubts about Double
Dissimilarity: Restructuring the Main Criterion of Jesus-of-History Research', in
Chilton and Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus, pp. 47-80.
48. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. 6, 24-
25, 175; Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 116.
for a unique minimum and tends to equate this with the limits of au-
thenticity. His dismissal of these three traditional criteria, including the
central criterion of dissimilarity, leads Theissen to offer his new pro-
posal.
b. The Criterion of Historical Plausibility

In response to the elimination of the standard criteria, including the
criterion of double dissimilarity, Theissen posits a new criterion, which
he calls the criterion of historical plausibility.49 Like the criterion of
double dissimilarity, this criterion is also two-sided: in terms of Jesus'
relation to Judaism one speaks of a plausibility of context, and in terms
of Jesus' relation to Christianity one speaks of a plausibility of conse-
quence.50 What authenticity means for Theissen is determined in terms
of probabilities. This important methodological point regarding proba-
bility, rather than the kind of disjunction emphasized by the criterion of
double dissimilarity, is discussed in some detail by Theissen.51 Reject-
ing Ranke's idea that one can know history 'as it actually happened'
(wie es eigentlich gewesen), Theissen emphasizes that one must assess
plausible scenarios. That is, one creates a complex picture of Jesus,
which cannot be rejected apart from creating a more plausible sce-
nario.52 This is one of the most important insights, it seems to me, that
49. This criterion is not really new to Theissen, as is made clear by examining
McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria', pp. 445-48, who defines the 'criterion of his-
torical presumption', citing others that he claims have a similar perspective. This
criterion is rejected by Meier, Marginal Jew, I, p. 183, as a secondary or dubious
criterion.
It is noteworthy how little theoretical discussion there is to draw upon from New
Testament scholars, however. One of the few sources of substance is J.K. Riches
and A. Millar, 'Conceptual Change in the Synoptic Tradition', in A.E. Harvey (ed.),
Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study (London: SPCK, 1985), pp. 37-60.
52. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. 206,
207. Theissen draws here on I. Lakatos, 'Falsification and the Methodology of
Scientific Research Programmes', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism
and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the
Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Volume 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970), pp. 91-196, esp. p. 119: 'Contrary to naive falsificationism, no exper-
iment, experimental report, observation statement or well-corroborated low-level
falsifying hypothesis alone can lead to falsification. There is no falsification before
the emergence of a better theory' (italics in the original).
Theissen develops in his book, and is worth considering for any similar
attempt at explanation of data.
In order to create this kind of a complex picture of Jesus, under the
umbrella of his criterion of plausibility with its two manifestations,
Theissen posits the use of other sub-criteria.53 He begins with the cri-
terion of plausibility of consequence in Christianity. This plausibility of
consequence is posited as a criterion to replace that of the criterion of
dissimilarity from the early Church. There are two sub-criteria invoked
at this point—resistance to the redactional tendency and source coher-
ence. These may at first seem to be in opposition. Theissen does not see
it this way, however, arguing that 'Coherence and opposition to the ten-
dency are complementary criteria for the plausibility of historical influ-
ence'.54 Resistance or opposition to the tendency refers to elements of
the tradition that go against its general trend of development within the
early Church. This sub-criterion is virtually identical to that of resis-
tance to the redactional tendency, already discussed above (with the
same attendant shortcomings). Two potential problems with this sub-
criterion are raised and addressed by Theissen.55 One is that of places
where there are parts of the tradition that seem to be at odds with the
general picture of Jesus. He believes that these too can be evaluated in
a positive light. As he states, Tor some inconsistencies are historical
relics which have been preserved despite powerful tendencies to revere
Jesus (e.g. his baptism by John, his conflict with his family, the charge
of being in league with the devil, the betrayal and flight of the disciples,
the crucifixion)'.56 The second is the recognition that there was an inher-
ent plurality to early Christianity, which resulted in different develop-
ments.57
The second sub-criterion of the criterion of plausibility of conse-
quence in Christianity is that of source coherence. Theissen believes
53. Note how these criteria have developed from what Theissen describes in
'Historical Scepticism', esp. pp. 156-62,166-70.
54. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 116.
56. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 117. In Theissen and Winter,
Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 178, reference is made to W. Marxsen,
Anfangsprobleme der Christologie (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1960; ET The Begin-
nings of Christology: A Study in its Problems [Facet Books, Biblical Series, 22;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969; 2nd edn, 1979]), p. 15 (German); and Schille-
beeckx, Jesus, p. 81.
that, if sources independent of each other reveal the same things, there
is a chance we are dealing with authentic tradition. The reasoning is that,
if there are multiple independent sources attesting to the same tradition,
the tradition itself must be older than its sources and may well reflect the
influence of Jesus. Theissen goes on to break down this criterion into
three further sub-parts. Theissen wishes to distinguish between a corre-
spondence in content and genuine multiple attestation. As he states,
'two clearly different sayings can fit together well in terms of content,
but each may only be attested once. Multiple attestations of substantial
motifs and subjects in independent streams of tradition (in Q, Mark,
Matt.8, Luke8, Thomas and John) are therefore an important criterion.'58
Thus, he re-introduces what is known as the cross-section argument
(Querschnittsbeweis).59 He further re-introduces the sub-criterion of
multiple attestation in differing literary forms,60 in which tradition in
different literary forms and genres may have been influenced by the his-
torical Jesus. The third sub-criterion is that of multiple attestation of the
same tradition, but in variant forms independent of each other. Thus,
Theissen concludes regarding this criterion of plausibility of historical
development that it makes use of three traditional criteria: dissimilarity,
58. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 116. Matt.8 and Luke8 represent
Matthew's and Luke's special material, usually referred to as M and L.
59. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 181,
where reference is made to N.A. Dahl, 'Der historische Jesus als geschichts-wis-
senschaftliches und theologisches Problem', KD 1 (1955), pp. 104-32, here p. 117;
ET The Problem of the Historical Jesus', in C.E. Braaten and R.A. Harrisville
(eds.), Kerygma and History: A Symposium on the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 138-71; repr. in N.A. Dahl, The Crucified
Messiah and Other Essays (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), pp. 48-89,173-74, here
p. 68; G. Schille, 'Bin neuer Zugang zu Jesus? Das traditionsgeschichtliche
Kriterium', Zeichen der Zeit 40 (1986), pp. 247-53, here p. 250; F. Mussner,
'Methodologie der Frage nach dem historischen Jesus', in K. Kertelge (ed.), RUck-
frage nach Jesus (QD, 63; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 118-47, here pp. 134-35;
repr. in F. Mussner, Jesus von Nazareth im Urnfeld Israels und der Urkirche (ed.
M. Theobald; WUNT, 111; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), pp. 13-42, here pp. 29-
30. Theissen and Merz (The Historical Jesus, p. 116) make reference to H. Schlir-
mann, 'Kritische Jesuserkenntnis: Zur kritischen Handhabung des "Unahnlichkeits-
kriteriums" ', in idem, Jesus—Gestalt und Geheimnis: Gesammelte Beitrdge
(Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1994), pp. 420-34, here p. 425.
60. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. 181-82,
where reference is made to C.H. Dodd, History and the Gospel (London: Nisbet,
1938), pp. 91-102.
coherence and multiple attestation, although for each he attempts to

define and utilize them in a positive rather than a negative way. This cri-
terion has apparently been further refined and expanded in Theissen's
handbook, where he expands what is meant by tradition to include motifs
and subject-matter, as well as traditions. He is able, through this expan-
sion, to include actions and sayings in his discussion, whereas in his
monograph he tends to deal with sayings when he is dealing with source
coherence.61
The second plank of Theissen's two-part criterion of historical plau-
sibility consists of the criterion of plausibility of historical context in
relation to Judaism of the time of Jesus. This criterion also consists of
two sub-criteria. The first sub-criterion is that of conformity to context,
and the second is that of contextual individuality. Again, as in his dis-
cussion of the first plank, what appears at first thought to be a contra-
diction in formulation is necesssary, in Theissen's mind, to establish his
criterion. The first sub-criterion, that of conformity to context, is for-
mulated by him in this way: 'the better a tradition suits its concrete
Jewish Palestinian and Galilean context the more its claim to authen-
ticity'.62 Here it is not difficult for him to marshal a number of exam-
ples, including those related to sabbath, purity and the Temple. He con-
cludes by stating that 'fundamentally each historical portrait is only
understandable in the context of its own world'.63 This appears to be a
formulation in direct conflict with the traditional criterion of double
dissimilarity, with its differentiation between Jesus and Judaism. How-
ever, the second sub-criterion is introduced by Theissen to deal with the
issue of individuality. This sub-criterion is that of contextual individual-
ism, in which individual characteristics of Jesus are introduced.64 These
include such things as how he compares with other charismatics of his
age, indicators of his specialness such as his use of amen, and the fact
61. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 117, where reference is made to
E. Fuchs, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1956)', in idem, Studies of the His-
toricalJesus (trans. A. Scobie; SBT, 42; London: SCM Press, 1964), pp. 11-31,
here p. 21; first published as 'Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus', ZTK 53
(1956), pp. 210-29; repr. in idem, Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (Tubin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960), pp. 143-67, here pp. 154-55.
62. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 183; cf.
Theissen, 'Historical Scepticism', pp. 166-68.
cf. Theissen, 'Historical Scepticism', pp. 168-70.
that his individual complexity cannot derive from a single tradition.

Even when Jesus looks to be different from this environment, this dif-
ference, Theissen believes, must be demonstrable as growing plausibly
from the context. This is where the individuality and uniqueness of Jesus
come from. This difference does not consist of his complete originality,
but of the way he stands out from his environment.
Theissen thus draws his discussion together by claiming that overall
historical plausibility is the result of the joining together of consequen-
tial and contextual plausibility, and of the uniqueness of the historical
figure of Jesus. By this, he seems to mean that behind this profile of the
unique features of Jesus—which are established through contrast with
his context by means of his breaking away from direct causality—is his
Jewishness. Theissen provides a small chart that attempts to show that
Judaism developed through the historical context of Jesus into Chris-
tianity, but that this was not a single stream of development.65
In conclusion, Theissen believes that historical-Jesus research should
not be oriented to theological goals.66 Similarly, the goal is not to recon-
struct individual sayings, but rather to take what is known to create a
complex portrait of the person of Jesus himself. To do this, one must
weigh probabilities, and it is here that the criteria must play their roles.
To summarize, Theissen notes that the criterion of Jewish contextual
plausibility has two aspects. The first is that what Jesus has done and
said must be consonant with Judaism of the first half of the first century
in Galilee, and the second that what Jesus has done and said must be
recognizable as those actions and words of an individual reflecting the
Judaism of that time. Likewise, the criterion of consequent historical
plausibility has two aspects as well. The first is that the ways in which
the Jesus tradition differs from the early Christian sources, as it is part
of the developing tradition, can lay claim in different ways to historical
plausibility. The second is that the coherence of individual elements of
independent, different traditions, sources and literary forms within the
Jesus tradition can also create historical plausibility.67 Theissen displays
this schema in a chart that illustrates four partial criteria that con-

66. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 215,
where reference is made to Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, pp. 333-34.
stitute the criterion of plausibility. The plausibility of context and plau-

sibility of influence interact with the factors of both coherence/agree-
ment and incoherence/disagreement to create four sub-criteria: source
coherence, adverse tendencies, context correspondence and contextual
individuality.68
Theissen is to be highly commended for attempting to shift the
criteria for authenticity from what he sees as the overly negative and
minimalistic criterion of double dissimilarity to one that takes a more
positive view of the tradition in its multifariousness. He has also raised
several important questions of method, regarding how one weighs evi-
dence and creates models for analysis of data. When one looks more
closely at his programme for historical-Jesus research, however, one
sees that there is a shift in emphasis rather than a genuine shift in
method. Several notes of reservation must be noted in this regard. The
first is Theissen's continued fundamental reliance upon the traditional
criteria. The same criticisms that have been marshalled regarding these
in Chapter 2 and above, as well as Theissen's own criticisms of them,
would still seem to have significant force. For example, it is unclear
why the criterion of multiple attestation, which has been criticized for
only being able to evaluate the sources and not their reliability, in this
new framework becomes more trustworthy. Similarly, the criterion of
coherence is used somewhat ambiguously by Theissen. In some re-
spects, this criterion appears to be a rejuvenation of the traditional cri-
terion of coherence, criticized in Chapter 2 for relying upon previously
established tradition. This shortcoming is not overcome by Theissen's
positing it as a sub-criterion. In other respects, however, this new crite-
rion of coherence appears to be similar to the criterion of historical co-
herence as developed above by Evans, although Theissen does not
directly link the use of the criterion with such key events as the exe-
cution of Jesus. Much of Theissen's reaction against the criterion of dis-
similarity is against the double form, which, as noted in Chapter 2, has
already come under serious attack. Nevertheless, he ends up preserving
the criterion of double dissimilarity, even if it is in a modified form.
This leads to a second criticism, with regard to how Theissen uses
both coherence and dissimilarity. In his discussion, it is difficult to see
when it is appropriate to invoke one, and when the other, without lead-
ing to unreconcilable conflict in determining whether the tradition is reli-
68. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, p. 217; cf.
able or authentic. Theissen regularly invokes the concept of plausibility,

and in many ways he is on firm ground for doing so in the light of recent
discussion of scientific method. However, he leaves the discussion un-
clear exactly what plausibility means in this context, and, perhaps more
importantly, how plausibility works in relation to judging both coherent
and dissimilar traditions.
A final criticism is with regard to Theissen's concept of a complex
portrait of Jesus. This seems to be a realistic and necessary distinction
to make in the sense that the Jesus of history was undoubtedly a much
more complex figure than a simple analysis of individual sayings or
parts of sayings could reveal. However, if this complex portrait is based
upon the criteria noted above, then it will remain within the limitations
that Theissen wishes to escape. In Theissen's conclusion, the criterion
of historical plausibility is used as a means of mediating for the other
criteria, but it is these criteria that have been used to adjudicate the tra-
dition. In other words, one must establish authentic sayings apart from
the criterion of plausibility (that is, on the basis of the traditional crite-
ria) in order to use this supposed new criterion. This makes the criterion
a potentially useful guide, but somewhat redundant and not free from the
errors of its sub-criteria, including still that of dissimilarity. The final
result is that it is clear that the criterion of dissimilarity has persisted in
historical-Jesus research, and that other criteria, even that of historical
plausibility, have yet to alter the fundamental shape of the criteria sig-
nificantly.69
4. Conclusion
An examination of the history of discussion of the criteria for authen-
ticity, and of two important recent attempts to re-assess these criteria,
shows that despite several significant, and useful, efforts to re-evaluate
the criteria, there are a number of consistent and persistent conclusions
that keep emerging. One is the fundamental importance of the criterion
of dissimilarity for historical-Jesus research. Another is the significance
given to building an interpretive structure around this criterion. The
overall tendency of use of the criteria in the history of historical-Jesus
research has been a recent shift in emphasis from the more minimalistic
conclusions drawn from form (and redaction) criticism to a more pos-
69. See Holmen, 'Doubts about Double Dissimilarity', pp. 73-74 n. 106.
itive analysis appreciating Jesus' Jewish background and strongly em-

phasizing historical coherence with this factor when assessing his words
and actions. However, the criterion of dissimilarity still persists in recent
historical-Jesus research, in at least two forms. One is simply as a major
criterion still invoked and utilized in the discussion, as is evidenced even
in the work of Theissen analysed above. Another is as a focal point for
other criteria. Although not to the same extent in Theissen, in the work
of others, including that of Meier, the criterion of dissimilarity still
stands as an important criterion for historical-Jesus research. Alongside
it, scholars have introduced other criteria, including several that pur-
portedly have a more positive orientation to the tradition, such as that of
historical coherence. How these criteria now work together, a question
that Theissen explicitly addresses but that Meier does not, is still left
unresolved. In other words, the criteria for authenticity have essentially
moved along a consistent trajectory of continuous development. There
have been several new ideas introduced into the discussion, but few
major methodological shifts from this singular orientation. The rest of
this volume is dedicated to introducing three new criteria in an attempt
to see if such a shift can at least begin to be made.
Part II
NEW PROPOSALS
Chapter 4
THE CRITERION OF GREEK LANGUAGE AND ITS CONTEXT
1. Introduction
The revisionist spirit has come to the fore in recent work on the criteria
for authenticity, especially as seen in the recent work of Meier and
Theissen discussed in Chapter 3, above. Despite these and several other
major efforts, the criteria remain much the same. Thus, I would like to
suggest that other criteria can and should be entered into the discussion.
I have tried to be fair in my criticism of the criteria that have been
developed in historical-Jesus research over most of this century. How-
ever, the end result has been, in my estimation, negative in many re-
spects. One of the possible, and perhaps in many ways most logical and
necessary, results would be to abandon the search for criteria altogether
and to re-evaluate the way in which historical-Jesus research is con-
ducted. I have sympathy for those who argue in this way. However,
before the entire enterprise is finally abandoned, perhaps it is worth in-
troducing several more criteria that may break the deadlock we have
noted above. As an attempt in this regard, I wish to introduce three new
criteria for authenticity focused around the Greek language: the crite-
rion of Greek language and its context (this chapter), the criterion of
Greek textual variance (Chapter 5), and the criterion of discourse fea-
tures (Chapter 6). What distinguishes these criteria is their attention to
matters of Greek language and sound linguistic methodology. These will
be explained as they are introduced and utilized in this and subsequent
chapters, but without detailed reference to the findings of scholars using
other criteria regarding these same passages. My desire is for these new
criteria to be established on their own grounds, without prejudging the
results or depending too much upon other criteria that might call into
question or jeopardize their findings. The ensuing proposals are de-
signed to take us further than the most recent discussion, but not neces-
sarily to suggest final solutions. The results are tentative and meant to
be suggestive of areas of further historical-Jesus research.
4. The Criterion of Greek Language and its Context 127
2. Aramaic and Greek as the Languages of Jesus: Recent Discussion

One of the traditional criteria for authenticity has been that of Semitic
(Aramaic) language phenomena and Palestinian environment, as intro-
duced and analysed in Chapter 2. As a result of the heavy emphasis of
the supposed 'third quest' of the historical Jesus on the Jewishness of
Jesus, it might seem that this criterion would come back into strong
favour. In some ways, as noted in Chapter 2, there is an ongoing strug-
gle regarding this criterion, with Meier placing it in the category of those
of dubious value, and Evans wishing to retain it for its supportive func-
tion.1 Holmen's recent discussion of the criterion of double dissimi-
larity suggests that Meier is perhaps rejecting the criterion of Semitic
language phenomena, at least in part, because of his rejection of the
criterion of double dissimilarity itself. This is even though he accepts
the criterion of discontinuity, a revised form of the criterion of dissim-
ilarity.2 With renewed emphasis upon the Jewishness of Jesus, Meier's
position might seem to be in tension with rejection of the criterion of
Semitic language phenomena. Nevertheless, both Evans and Meier agree
that this criterion cannot establish authenticity, but can be, at best, only
supportive of other criteria.
I believe, however, that there are other linguistic criteria that can be
used in attempting to authenticate the words (and actions) of Jesus, and
that these can draw upon the use of the Greek language and its context
(for my response to recent arguments against such a position, and mate-
rial assumed in the discussion within the body of this chapter, see the
Excursus at the end of this chapter). This criterion has three stages to its
utilization. The criterion first examines an episode's participants and
their backgrounds, then analyses the context and theme of discussion,
and concludes with determination of whether the episode has a claim to
recording the Greek words of Jesus. This criterion begins, however,
1. J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols.; ABRL;
New York: Doubleday, 1991-), I, pp. 179-80; C.A. Evans, Jesus and his Contem-
poraries: Comparative Studies (AGJU, 25; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1995), p. 23.
2. T. Holmen, 'Doubts about Double Dissimilarity: Restructuring the Main Cri-
terion of Jesus-of-History Research', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authen-
ticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS, 28.1; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), pp. 47-80, esp.
pp. 74-80.
with informed re-examination in linguistic terms of what one means by

Jesus' Jewishness. This kind of investigation is not usually undertaken
in detail by those invoking this Jewish background for Jesus.3 For exam-
ple, even Theissen in his desire to introduce the criterion of historical
plausibility, with continuity seen between Jesus and his Jewish back-
ground, does not go into requisite detail on what this Jewishness means.4
One of the major reasons for continued use of the Semitic (Aramaic)
language and Palestinian environment criterion, and one that made it
useful to the criterion of dissimilarity, was that Jesus was, following this
criterion, seen to be dissimilar from the traditions of the early Church.
The early Church clearly was a Greek-speaking church, as evidenced,
so the sub-text of this theory goes, by the fact that the writings of the
New Testament are all in Greek, and the early Church fathers all wrote
in Greek, as well (e.g. Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd ofHer-
mas, 1 Clement, Epistle to Diognetus, Ignatius, Polycarp).5 The result is
a disjunction that goes back at least to the early part of the twentieth
century, as noted in Chapter 2. This situation was probably encouraged
3. For example, in his survey of the state of research, B.B. Scott does not treat
the linguistic issues ('From Reimarus to Crossan: Stages in a Quest', CR 2 [1994],
pp. 253-80, esp. pp. 258-72).
4. G. Theissen and D. Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom
Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitdtskriterium (NTOA, 34; Freiburg: Universitats-
verlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997); G. Theissen and A. Merz, Der
historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996; ET
The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM
Press, 1998]), esp. pp. 115-18. One of the few to do so is W.S. Vorster, Speaking
of Jesus: Essays on Biblical Language, Gospel Narrative and the Historical Jesus
(NovTSup, 92; ed. I.E. Botha; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1999), pp. 285-99, esp. p. 288
(revised from Hervormde Teologiese Studies 47.1 [1991], pp. 121-35).
5. I resist the urge to enter here into discussion of the reasons for the early
separation between Christianity and Judaism. An examination of both ancient and
modern views of this question, with our own proposal for the reasons for an early
separation, are found in S.E. Porter and B.W.R. Pearson, 'Why the Split? Christians
and Jews by the Fourth Century', JGRChJ 1 (2000), forthcoming. An examination
of the perspectives of Christians, Jews and Romans in the ancient world on this
topic is found in Porter and Pearson, 'Ancient Understandings of the Christian-
Jewish Split', in S.E. Porter and B.W.R. Pearson (eds.), Christian-Jewish Relations
through the Centuries (JSNTSup, 192; RILP, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
forthcoming 2000). On language issues, see A. Vogtle, 'Die griechische Sprache
und ihre Bedeutung fur die GeschichtedesUrchristentums',inH. Gundert (ed.), Der
Lebenswert des Griechischen (Karlsruhe: Badenia, 1973), pp. 77-93.
by the untimely deaths of several strong advocates6 of seeing the Greek

of the New Testament in the context of the then recently discovered
papyri and similar texts.7 This disjunction between the supposed Ara-
maic-speaking early Church located in Palestine and the next generation
6. With the deaths of such scholars as the lesser known but very important
Albeit Thumb in 1915, James HopeMoultonin 1917, and Adolf Deissmann in 1937,
the field was left to Semitic-language advocates, who promoted the disjunction be-
tween the supposed Aramaic-speaking early Church and the Greek-speaking Chris-
tians of the next generation (see M. Reiser, Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums
im Licht der hellenistischen Volksliteratur [WUNT, 2.11; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1984], p. 2). Deissmann was one of the first to realize fully the relevance of the
papyri for study of the vocabulary of the Greek of the New Testament, noted in his
Bibelstudien (Marburg: Elwert, 1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (Marburg: Elwert,
1897), translated together as Bible Studies (trans. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1901), and 'Hellenistisches Griechisch', in A. Hauck (ed.), Realencyklopadie
fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, VII (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 3rd edn,
1899), pp. 627-39 (ET in S.E. Porter [ed.], The Language of the New Testament:
Classic Essays [JSNTSup,60; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], pp. 39-59), and devel-
oped in Licht vom Osten (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1908; 4th edn, 1923; ET Light
from the Ancient East [trans. L.R.M. Strachan; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910;
4th edn, 1927]) and Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future (trans.
L.R.M. Strachan; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908). Moulton was one of the
first to appreciate the relevance of the papyri for study of the syntax of the Greek of
the New Testament, noted in his 'Grammatical Notes from the Papyri', Classical
Review 15 (1901), pp. 31-39, 434-42; 18 (1904), pp. 106-12, 151-55; developed in
his 'Notes from the Papyri', Expositor Sixth Series 3 (1901), pp. 271-82; 7 (1903),
pp. 104-21; 8 (1903), pp. 423-39; 'Characteristics of New Testament Greek',
Expositor Sixth Series 9 (1904), pp. 67-75, 215-25, 310-20, 359-68, 461-72; 10
(1904), pp. 24-34, 168-74, 276-83, 353-64, 440-50; and Prolegomena, to A Gram-
mar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906; 3rd edn, 1908); and
summarized in his The Science of Language and the Study of the New Testament
(Inaugural Lecture; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1906) and 'New Tes-
tament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery', in H.B. Swete (ed.), Essays on
Some Biblical Questions of the Day: By Members of the University of Cambridge
(London: Macmillan, 1909), pp. 461-505 (repr. in Porter [ed.], Language of the New
Testament, pp. 60-97); among other works. Moulton and G. Milligan also produced
The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-
Literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914-29) (which included much
information previously published in Expositor). Both Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp.
63-85; Light from the Ancient East, pp. 1-145; Philology, pp. 39-65) and Moulton
(Prolegomena, pp. 4-8; 'New Testament Greek'; Science) recognized the multilin-
gual context in which the New Testament was written. Thumb did important work
on the Greek dialects, and the history of Greek, including the Koine, in such works
of Greek-speaking Christians in the greater Mediterranean world has

persisted in New Testament scholarship. This is despite a significant
body of scholarship throughout the century that has resisted such a sim-
plistic bifurcation.8
as Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Indogermanische Bibliothek; Heidelberg:

Winter, 1909); Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beitrdge zur
Geschichte und Beurteilung der KOINH (Strassburg: Trubner, 1901). These and
other works by these three scholars and others are discussed in S.E. Porter,
'Introduction: The Greek of the New Testament as a Disputed Area of Research', in
idem (ed.), Language of the New Testament, pp. 11-38, esp. pp. 12-17; repr. with
corrections and additions in idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and
Practice (SBG, 6; New York: Peter Lang, 1996), pp. 75-99, esp. pp. 76-80. See also
F.-M. Abel, Grammaire du grec biblique: Suivie d'un choix de papyrus (EB; Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1927).
7. One must not think, however, that it was only with discovery of the papyri
that the view that the Greek of the New Testament reflected the Greek of the
Graeco-Roman world was first proposed. The papyrologists had been anticipated by
almost 50 years by E. Masson in the preface to his translation of Winer's grammar
('Translator's Prolegomena', to G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the New Testament
Diction [trans. E. Masson; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1859; 6th edn, 1866], pp. i-x,
esp. pp. iii-viii; noted in J.R. Harris, 'The So-Called Biblical Greek', ExpTim 25
[1913], pp. 54-55), and by J.B. Lightfoot in lectures delivered in 1863 (recounted in
Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 242).
8. A number of scholars early in the century supported Deissmann and Moul-
ton's perspective, a viewpoint recently revived with some vigour. Early advocates
include: H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According
to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909); L. Radermacher,
Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusam-
menhang mil der Volkssprache (HNT, 1; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911; 2nd edn,
1925); AT. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914; Nashville: Broadman,
4th edn, 1934); G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents: Their Origin and
Early History (London: Macmillan, 1913), pp. 35-80; idem, 'The Grammar of the
Greek New Testament', ExpTim 31 (1919-20), pp. 420-24; idem, Here and There
among the Papyri (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1922); H.G. Meecham, Light from
Ancient Letters: Private Correspondence in the Non-Literary Papyri of Oxyrhynchus
of the First Four Centuries, and its Bearing on New Testament Language and
Thought (London: Allen & Unwin, 1923); E.J. Goodspeed, 'The Original Language
of the New Testament', in idem, New Chapters in New Testament Study (New York:
Macmillan, 1937), pp. 127-68; E.C. Colwell, The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A
Study of its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1931); idem, 'The Greek Language', in G. Buttrick (ed.), The Inter-
preter's Dictionary of the Bible, II (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 479-87.
The linguistic picture of the early Church, however, is certainly far

more complex than has often been appreciated in recent research and
writing. In Roman Palestine of the first century CE, Jesus, as well as
many of his closest followers, who also came from Galilee, was proba-
bly multilingual. He spoke Aramaic to be sure, and Greek to be almost
as sure, and possibly even Hebrew.9 (There is no significant evidence of
More recent advocates include: H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament. I.

History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1982), pp. 103-113; M. Silva, 'Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek',
Bib 61 (1980), pp. 198-219 (repr. in Porter [ed.], Language of the New Testament,
pp. 205-226); S.E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with
Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG, 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989), pp. 111-61.
This does not include such extra-biblical Greek scholars as P.W. Costas, An Outline
of the History of the Greek Language, with Particular Emphasis on the Koine and
the Subsequent Periods (Chicago: Ukrainian Society of Sciences of America, 1936;
repr. Chicago: Ares, 1979), esp. pp. 27-71; R. Browning, Medieval and Modern
Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1983), pp. 19-52; L. Ryd-
beck, Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und Neues Testament: Zur Beur-
teilung der sprachlichen Niveauunterschiede im nachklassischen Griechisch
(Uppsala: University of Uppsala; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1967), esp. pp.
187-99 (ET in Porter [ed.], Language of the New Testament, pp. 191-204); G.H.R.
Horsley, 'Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible', Bib 65 (1984),
pp. 393-403; idem, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. V. Linguistic
Essays (New South Wales, Australia: Macquarie University, 1989), esp. pp. 23-26;
and G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (LLL; Lon-
don: Longman, 1997), esp. pp. 92-95.
9. Major advocates of the use of Hebrew in first-century Palestine, a subject of
considerable debate that lies outside the scope of this volume, include M.H. Segal,
'Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic', JQR 20
(1908), pp. 670-700, 734-37; idem, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1927), pp. 5-19; W. Chomsky, 'What Was the Jewish Vernacular
during the Second Commonwealth?', JQR 42 (1951-52), pp. 193-212; H. Birke-
land, The Language of Jesus (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-
Akademi I. II. Historish-Filosofisk Klasse I; Oslo: Dybwad, 1954), esp. pp. 1-40;
E.Y. Kutscher, 'Hebrew Language: Mishnaic', EncJud, XVI, cols. 1592-93; idem,
A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. R. Kutscher; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1982), pp.
15-20; G.A. Rendsburg, The Galilean Background of Mishnaic Hebrew', in L.I.
Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Semi-
nary of America; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 225-40;
and M. Hadas-Lebel, Histoire de la langue hebraique: Des origines a I'epoque de
la Mishna (Paris: Peeters, 1995). Advocates among biblical scholars of at least the
possibility of Jesus' use of Hebrew include: T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus:
Studies of its Form and Content (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931;
Jesus' ability to speak Latin, the 'official' language of the empire.)10 In

discussing multilingualism, it is often useful to differentiate levels of
linguistic competence. This factor is closely linked to the issue of liter-
acy. According to recent estimates, probably only 20 to 30 per cent of
the males in a given Hellenistic city, at the most, would have been able
to read and write (perhaps a higher percentage could read some). There
was probably a much lower percentage among those in the rural areas.
Literacy in the ancient world was directly related to levels of education,
access to which was primarily focused on the city, and tended to favour
males, especially those with economic resources.11 Multilingualism is
2nd edn, 1935), pp. 45-50; J.M. Grintz, 'Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Lan-
guage in the Last Days of the Second Temple', JBL 79 (1960), pp. 32-47; J.A.
Emerton, 'Did Jesus Speak Hebrew?', JTS NS 12 (1961), pp. 189-202; idem, 'The
Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the First Century AD and the Language of Jesus',
JTS NS 24 (1973), pp. 1-23; R.H. Gundry, 'The Language Milieu of First-Century
Palestine: Its Bearing on the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition', JBL 83 (1964),
pp. 404-408; J. Barr, 'Which Language Did Jesus Speak?—Some Remarks of a
Semitist', BJRL 53 (1970), pp. 9-29; idem, 'Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the
Hellenistic Age', in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History
of Judaism. II. The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989),
pp. 79-114, esp. p. 113; C. Rabin, 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century', in
S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT, 1.2;
Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 1007-1039; M.O.
Wise, 'Languages of Palestine', in J.B. Green, S. McKnight and I.H. Marshall (eds.),
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992),
pp. 434-44, esp. pp. 435-37, 441.
10. On the use of Latin, see J.A. Fitzmyer, 'The Languages of Palestine in the
First Century AD', CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 501-31; repr. with corrections and additions
in Porter (ed.), Language of the New Testament, pp. 126-62, esp. pp. 129-33; and
A. Millard, 'Latin in First-Century Palestine', in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff
(eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical Epigraphic, and Semitic Stud-
ies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp.
451-58.
11. W.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1989), esp. pp. 116-46 on the Hellenistic era (see p. 141 for the statistics cited
above). Harris uses a range of evidence, including papyri, noting that inscriptions,
the traditional source, cannot always be relied upon because of the role that social
status and related factors played in their construction and the ability to read them
(pp. 221-22). Not all would agree with Harris's statistics, but virtually all are agreed
that the ancient world was predominantly, though certainly far from exclusively, an
oral culture. See PJ. Achtemeier, 'Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and
the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 3-27; F.D.
also a complex subject, for which there are many fuzzy boundaries to
the categories.12 One way of characterizing multilingualism is in terms
of diachronic categories, such as first language versus second or ac-
quired languages. There are often difficulties surrounding the age of
acquisition and possible attrition of the first language.13 Another way is
to describe one's multilingual ability in synchronic terms. Here one dis-
tinguishes between active or productive and passive or receptive multi-
lingualism, while realizing that the scale is a cline or continuum, rather
than a disjunction. Active multilingualism involves the ability to under-
stand and to express oneself in a language, whereas passive multilin-
gualism involves being able to understand but not to express oneself in
a language.14 There are also numerous sociolinguistic issues connected
with when and how one switches from one language to another (code
Gilliard, 'More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non Omne Verbum Sonabaf', JBL 112
(1993), pp. 689-94; and C.W. Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the
Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians
(JSNTSup, 172; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 11-28. A critique
of some recent theories of orality is offered by L.W. Hurtado, 'Greco-Roman Tex-
tuality and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Assessment of Werner Kelber's The Oral
and the Written Gospel9, BBR 1 (1997), pp. 91-106.
12. For a brief summary, see B. Spolsky, 'Bilingualism', in F.J. Newmeyer (ed.),
Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. IV. Language: The Socio-Cultural Context
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 100-18; and representative
statements by J.A. Fishman, G. Sankoff, R.F. Salisbury, N. Denison and A.P.
Sorensen, Jr, in J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books, 1972), pp. 13-93.
13. On these issues, see P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.), Language Acquisi-
tion: Studies in First Language Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2nd edn, 1986); W. Klein, Second Language Acquisition (CTL; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986); L. Loveday, The Sociolinguistics of Learning
and Using a Non-Native Language (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982); H.W. Seliger
and R.M. Vago (eds.), First Language Attrition (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991); K. Hyltenstam and L.K. Obler (eds.), Bilingualism across the Life-
span: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity, and Loss (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1989).
14. See H. Baetens Beardsmore, Bilingualism: Basic Principles (Multilingual
Matters, 1; Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1982; 2nd edn, 1986), esp. pp. 1-42, for
useful definitions of a range of categories in bilingualism; cf. also F. Grosjean, Life
with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1982); J.F. Hamers and M.H.A. Blanc, Bilingualite et bilinguisme
(Brussels: Pierre Mardaga, 1983; ET Bilinguality and Bilingualism [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989]).
switching),15 and how languages are important for group formation,

identity, and acceptance.16
According to the description above, Jesus would probably be best de-
scribed as productively multilingual in Greek and Aramaic, and possi-
bly Hebrew, though only Aramaic would have been his first language,
and Greek and Hebrew being second or acquired languages.17 If Hebrew
were mostly confined to use in liturgical contexts (although it may have
extended beyond this use in certain circles), it may have been that Jesus
was only passively multilingual in Hebrew. He may also have been pas-
sively multilingual in Latin, although if he had any knowledge of Latin
at all it is likely that it was confined to recognition of a few common
words. This depiction reflects the linguistic realities of the Mediterra-
nean world of Roman times, including that of the eastern Mediterra-
nean, and is supported by widespread and significant literary, epigraphic
15. Code switching, a very important topic in sociolinguistics, especially when

multilingualism is involved, is discussed in W. Downes, Language and Society
(London: Fontana, 1984), pp. 65-71; R. Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Socio-
linguistics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986; 2nd edn, 1992), pp. 103-16; J. Holmes,
An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (London: Longman, 1992), pp. 41-53, with
useful examples; S. Romaine, Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolin-
guistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 55-64. In biblical studies, it is
discussed in J.M. Watt, Code-Switching in Luke and Acts (Berkeley Insights in
Linguistics and Semiotics, 31; New York: Peter Lang, 1997); cf. S.E. Porter (ed.),
Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Greek (JSNTSup, 193; SNTG, 6;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcoming 2000), Part 1.
16. See D. Sharp, Language in Bilingual Communities (EILS; London: Edward
Arnold, 1973).
17. Studies on bilingualism with regard to Greek and the New Testament in-
clude Silva, 'Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek', pp. 23-26;
Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 154-56, with extensive references to secondary literature.
We have no way of knowing whether Jesus could read or write Greek or Aramaic.
Meier (Marginal Jew, I, pp. 268-78) thinks that Jesus was literate in Semitic lan-
guages. Jesus' multilingualism was very different from that of Paul, who clearly
was a first-language speaker of Greek and literate in it. His point in Phil. 3.5 seems
to be that he also spoke a Semitic language—probably Aramaic as a first language,
as well as Hebrew acquired in Pharisaical training. On this passage, see M. Hengel,
4
Der vorchristliche Paulus', in M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das
antike Judentum (WUNT, 58; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), pp. 177-291; ET The
Pre-Christian Paul (with R. Deines; trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press; Phil-
adelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), esp. pp. 34-37. On Paul's linguistic
ability, see U. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums
(Stuttgart: Teubner, 3rd edn, 1912; repr. 1995), pp. 232-33.
and other evidence. As a result of the conquests of Alexander III ('the

Great'), and the rule of the Hellenistic kings (the Diadochi and their
successors), the Graeco-Roman world was one in which Greek became
the language of trade, commerce and communication among the now
joined (if not always united) people groups.18 In other words, Greek was
the lingua franca19 for the eastern Mediterranean, displacing Aramaic.20
18. Important and linguistically informed histories of Greek, including its devel-
opment into the Graeco-Roman period, are to be found in Thumb, Die griechische
Sprache, esp. pp. 161-201; A. Meillet, Apergu d'une histoire de la langue grecque
(Paris: Hachette, 3rd edn, 1930), esp. pp. 245-54; Costas, Outline of the History of
the Greek Language, esp. pp. 27-71; E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik (2 vols.;
Munich: Beck, 1939,1950), I, pp. 16-31; A. Debrunner, Geschichte der griechischen
Sprache. II. Grundfragen und Grundziige des nachklassischen Griechisch (ed.
A. Scherer; Sammlung Goschen, 114/114a; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2nd edn, 1969);
Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, pp. 19-52; idem, 'Von der Koine bis zu
den Anfangen des modernen Griechisch', in H.-G. Nesselrath (ed.), Einleitung in
die griechische Philologie (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1997), pp. 156-68; J. Humbert,
Histoire de la langue grecque (Que sais-je?, 1483; Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, 1972); G. Thomson, The Greek Language (Cambridge: Heffer, 1972), pp.
31-37; L.R. Palmer, The Greek Language (London: Faber & Faber, 1980), pp. 3-198;
A. Lopez Eire, 'Del atico a la koine9, Emerita 49 (1981), pp. 377-92; Horrocks,
Greek, esp. pp. 3-127, the last undoubtedly now being the best work on the subject.
Several useful collections of essays on the subject are C. Brixhe (ed.), La koine
grecque antique (3 vols.; TMEA, 10, 14, 17; Nancy: Presses Universitaires de
Nancy, 1993-98). Specific treatments of the dialects and phonology are not men-
tioned here, but the subject merits examination. For a summary of the issues applied
to New Testament studies, see S.E. Porter, 'The Greek Language of the New Tes-
tament', in idem (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (NTTS, 25;
Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), pp. 99-130, esp. pp. 99-104; and L. Rydbeck, The Lan-
guage of the New Testament', TynBul 49.2 (1998), pp. 361-68.
19. A lingua franca is a common variety of language used for commercial and
other functional purposes, where a language is needed to facilitate communication
between people who often do not share the same first language, and hence where
some will be non-native speakers of it. See R.A. Hudson, Sociolinguistics (CTL;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1996), p. 7; Holmes, Introduc-
tion to Sociolinguistics, pp. 85-89.
20. Of course, even with the sudden onslaught of Alexander, the linguistic shift
from Aramaic to Greek did not occur overnight. The transition was a gradual one
throughout the Hellenistic period, in many ways working from the top socio-eco-
nomic levels down. But, as the evidence indicates, the transformation eventually
was effected, so that Greek became the lingua franca. On the movement of Hel-
lenism in the east, see the collection of essays in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White
(eds.), Hellenism in the East (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1987).
As Barr points out, Greek came to encompass 'a wider world, in fact,
than that which Aramaic had made accessible under the Persians'.21 The
Hellenistic conquerors brought with them and imposed not only their
language, but also their culture and various social and political insti-
tutions, which served as a major unifying factor for this Hellenistic
world.22 Later, the Romans preserved and extended much of this cul-
ture. The imposed their administrative structure upon a territory in which
Greek still remained and was extended as the lingua franca with even
more and more people speaking it as a first language,23 but also within
which there were various local languages that were to varying degrees
still used.24 Palestine appears to be one of these types of linguistic
regions.25 Besides the use of Greek as the lingua franca, there was con-
21. Barr, 'Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek', p. 101.

22. On Alexander and his legacy, see C.B. Welles, Alexander and the Hel-
lenistic World (Toronto: Hakkert, 1970); M. Gary, The Legacy of Alexander: A His-
tory of the Greek World from 323 to 146 B.C. (New York: Dial, 1932); W. Tarn and
G.T. Griffith, Hellenistic Civilisation (London: Edward Arnold, 1927; 3rd edn,
1952).
23. On the coming of the Romans, especially in the east, see M. Gary, A History
of Rome down to the Reign of Constantine (London: Macmillan, 1935; 2nd edn,
1954); A.H.M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1937); idem, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1940); M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire
(2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926; 2nd edn rev. P.M. Fraser, 1957); EJ.
Owens, The City in the Greek and Roman World (London: Routledge, 1991).
24. There have been a number of interesting studies of the relation of Greek to
particular regions and indigenous languages (on Semitisms in Greek, see below).
As a sample, besides sections in volumes mentioned above, see Thumb, Die grie-
chische Sprache, pp. 167-69; C. Brixhe, Essai sur le Grec Anatolien: Au debut de
noire ere (TMEA, 1; Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1984); E. Gibson,
The 'Christians for Christians' Inscriptions ofPhrygia (HTS, 32; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1978); cf. R. MacMullen, 'Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire', AJP
87 (1966); repr. in idem, Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 32-40, 282-86. On such issues, see
C.J. Hemer, 'Reflections on the Nature of New Testament Greek Vocabulary',
TynBul 38 (1987), pp. 65-92, esp. pp. 68-75.
25. The largest body of such Greek linguistic information comes from the papyri
of Egypt. It has been argued by some that the Greek of the Egyptian papyri was
influenced by various other languages, including Semitic languages, and therefore
is not an accurate representation of Hellenistic Greek. This has been argued by, e.g.,
L.-Th. Lefort, Tour une grammaire des LXX', Museon 41 (1928), pp. 152-60;
J. Vergote, 'Grec biblique', in DBSup, III, cols. 1353-60; and especially F. Gignac,
tinued use of Aramaic, the language of the Jews since their exile in the
sixth century BCE (Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Babylonian
and later Persian worlds of their times),26 and possibly even of Hebrew
in some circles for religious or liturgical purposes.27 This type of
The Language of the Non-Literary Papyri', in D.H. Samuel (ed.), Proceedings of

the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology (Toronto: Hakkert, 1970), pp.
139-52; idem, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods
(2 vols.; Milan: Cisalpino, 1976, 1981), I, pp. 46-48; idem, The Papyri and the
Greek Language', Yale Classical Studies 28 (1985), pp. 155-65, esp. pp. 157-58.
This theory has been ably refuted by S.-T. Teodorsson, who claims that no other kind
of Greek has ever been found in Egypt, indicating that there was no previous 'pure'
Greek, no evidence of the kind of creolization process argued for above, and no
evidence of this Greek being considered as in any way departing from the acceptable
norms of Hellenistic Greek. See his The Phonology of Ptolemiac Koine (Gothen-
burg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1977), pp. 25-35; cf. idem, 'Phonological
Variation in Classical Attic and the Development of Koine', Glotta 57 (1979), pp.
61-75; S.G. Kapsomenos, 'Das Griechische in Agypten', Museum Helveticum 10
(1953), pp. 248-63; P. Muysken, Are Creoles a Special Type of Language?', in FJ.
Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. II. Linguistic Theory: Exten-
sions and Implications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 285-
301. This analysis of the linguistic situation of Egypt can perhaps be confirmed also
through the exchange of papyri between Egypt and Palestine attested in the Zenon
archive (V. Tcherikover, 'Palestine under the Ptolemies [A Contribution to the
Study of the Zenon Papyri]', Mizraim 4-5 [1937], pp. 9-90; C. Orrieux, Lespapyrus
de Zenon: L'horizon d'un grec en Egypte au Hie siecle avant J.C. [Paris: Macula,
1983]), and the Greek papyri that have now been found outside of Egypt (see H.M.
Cotton, W.E.H. Cockle and F.G.B. Millar, The Papyrology of the Roman Near
East: A Survey', JRS 85 [1995], pp. 214-35), all with recognizably similar gram-
matical structure (on the grammar of the papyri of Palestine and environs, see
N. Lewis, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters:
Greek Papyri [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusa-
lem, Shrine of the Book, 1989], pp. 13-19; although Lewis's work on Semitisms
needs to be re-assessed, as noted in S.E. Porter, The Greek Papyri of the Judaean
Desert and the World of the Roman East', in S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans [eds.], The
Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After [JSPSup, 26; RILP, 3;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], pp. 293-311, esp. p. 304 n. 53).
26. See Wise, 'Languages of Palestine', p. 437.
27. For brief introductions to the history of the Jews, see A.R.C. Leaney, The
Jewish and Christian World 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1984); P. Schafer, The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of
Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest (Luxembourg: Harwood,
1995); J.H. Hayes andS.R. Mandell, The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity from
Alexander to Bar Kochba (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998).
linguistic scenario is accurate for Jews as well as for other people

groups distributed throughout the Graeco-Roman world (at least three
out of four Jews lived outside of Palestine).28
28. See W.A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1983), p. 34. It is worth noting that, on the basis of Jewish settlement pat-
terns, the vast majority of Jews of the ancient Graeco-Roman world were Greek-
speaking as their first language, regardless of whether they also acquired the ability
to speak Aramaic or Hebrew. See V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the
Jews (trans. S. Applebaum; 1959; repr. New York: Atheneum, 1975), p. 347: 'the
Jews outside Palestine spoke, wrote, and generally thought in Greek', citing a vari-
ety of evidence in support, including Philo, Conf. Ling. 129, who refers to Greek as
'our language' (pp. 524-25); J.N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much
Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (NovTSup, 19; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1968), pp. 77-96; E.G. Polome, 'The Linguistic Situation in the Western
Provinces of the Roman Empire', ANRW 2.29.2, pp. 509-53, esp. p. 515; and
P. Wexler, 'Recovering the Dialects and Sociology of Judeo-Greek in Non-Hellenic
Europe', in J.A. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages
(Contributions to the Sociology of Jewish Languages, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985),
pp. 227-40, esp. p. 227, where he notes that The Jews became the carriers of Greek
language and culture in diverse parts of the world'; contra Watt, Code-Switching in
Luke and Acts, p. 5; cf. B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 'On the Jews': Legit-
imizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). The
development of the Septuagint is one of the key pieces of evidence in this regard,
parts of which have now, of course, been found in Palestine as well. Besides the
Minor Prophets scroll (E. Tov [ed.], The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll [DJD, 8;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990]), note also 4QLXXLeva, 4QLXXLevb, 4QLXXNum,
4QLXXDeut, 7QLXXExod and 7QEpistJer, besides a number of other Greek docu-
ments in Cave 7, the identification of which remains highly problematic. See S.E.
Porter, 'Why so Many Holes in the Papyrological Evidence for the Greek New Tes-
tament?', in K. van Kampen and S. McKendrick (eds.), The Bible as Book: The
Transmission of the Greek Text (London: British Library Publications; Grand
Haven, MI: Scriptorium, forthcoming 2000). On modern theories of the origin of the
Septuagint, see S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1968), pp. 59-73, who notes the consensus view that the Greek translation
of the Law was made to 'meet the needs of the Egyptian Jewish communities
who could no longer understand Hebrew' (p. 59); M. Miiller, The First Bible of the
Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (JSOTSup, 206; Copenhagen International Sem-
inar, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 36-41. However, the trans-
lators may not have always understood what they were translating, indicating some
of the linguistic barriers of the time: see E. Tov, 'Did the Septuagint Translators
Always Understand their Hebrew Text?', in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De
Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday
(Ontario: Benben, 1984), pp. 53-70; cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in
This is not the place to cite in detail the extensive evidence now avail-
able to illustrate the use of Aramaic in Palestine, or, and more impor-
tantly here, the use of Greek in Palestine, and by Jews. Nor is it the
place to raise the related question of Semitisms and Semitic influence
on the Greek of the New Testament.29 It is perhaps sufficient here merely
to mention the kinds of evidence available to establish the use of these
languages. The use of Aramaic rests upon the fact that the language of
the Jews upon their return by the Persians from exile is found not only
in the Aramaic portions of the biblical writings of Daniel and Ezra, but
also in the Aramaic words in the New Testament30 and in a variety of
extra-biblical texts written in Aramaic, such as 1 Enoch. Aramaic is
also found in a large amount of inscriptional, ossuary, epistolary, papy-
rological and literary evidence, especially that from Qumran and other
Judaean Desert sites such as Murabba'at, Masada and Nahal Hever, and
evidenced in the targums and later rabbinic literature. Much of this
Ancient Biblical Translations (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in

Gottingen I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Un-
ternehmens, 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). The ancient tradition
(Ep. Arist. 32, 39, 46, 47-50) has 72 Palestinian Jewish elders performing the trans-
lation. This may simply be ancient Jewish apologetic for the translation, but it also
probably reflects linguistic realities regarding linguistic competence. On the Letter
ofAristeas, see Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, pp. 39-58.
29. The question of Semitisms in the Greek of the New Testament has been
debated for years, often unproductively because of a failure to distinguish linguistic
issues clearly (see Chapter 2, above). See Silva, 'Bilingualism and the Character of
Palestinian Greek', pp. 205-27; Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 111-61, where a distinc-
tion is made between levels of Semitic influence: (1) direct translation, (2) inter-
vention, when a form that cannot reasonably be formed or paralleled in Greek is
attributable to the influence of a Semitic construction, and (3) enhancement, when a
rarely used construction paralleled in Greek has its frequency of occurrence greatly
increased due to association with a Semitic language (p. 118). Only the second, in-
tervention, should be counted as a Semitism in the New Testament. On language
contact, see the classic study by U. Weinreich, Languages in Contact: Findings and
Problems (Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York, 1; New York: Lin-
guistic Circle of New York, 1953).
30. For example, the use of such words as amen, rabbi, abba, and other words
in such places as Mk 5.41; 7.34; 15.34 = Mt. 27.46. J. Jeremias (Neutestamentliche
Theologie. I. Die Verkiindigung Jesu [Gtitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971; ET New Testa-
ment Theology. I. The Proclamation of Jesus (NTL; trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM
Press; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971)], pp. 4-6) counts a total of 26
Aramaic words in all used in the Gospels.
evidence has only come to light in the last 60 or so years.31 Often

overlooked, however, is the fact that there is a similar kind and proba-
bly an even larger quantity of evidence for the use of Greek in Roman
Palestine, including Galilee. The arguments for the use of Greek in
Palestine are based upon the role of Greek as the lingua franca of the
Roman empire, the specific Hellenized linguistic and cultural character
of lower Galilee surrounded by the cities of the Decapolis, and the
linguistic fact that the New Testament has been transmitted in Greek
from its earliest documents. There is also a range of inscriptional
evidence (e.g. Jewish funerary inscriptions), numerous Greek papyri,
and significant literary evidence, including Jewish books being written
in or translated into Greek in Palestine.32 From this range of evidence
31. Surveys and selections of this evidence may be found in J.A. Fitzmyer and
DJ. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Biblica et Orientalia, 34;
Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978); K. Beyer, Die aramdische Texte vom Toten
Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984); Fitzmyer, 'Languages of Pal-
estine', pp. 147-58; idem, 'The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of
the New Testament', NTS 20 (1973-74), pp. 383-407; repr. in idem, A Wandering
Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 85-
113 (repr. in The Semitic Background of the New Testament [Biblical Resource
Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove Booksellers, 1997], with cor-
rections); E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3
vols.; rev. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87),
II, pp. 20-26; and E.M. Meyers and J.F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early
Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 73-78.
32. Surveys and selections of this evidence may be found in P. Benoit, J.T.
Milik and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les grottes de Murabba'at (DID, 2; Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1961), nos. 89-155 (pp. 212-67), 164 (pp. 275-77); Sevenster, Do You
Know Greek?', M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung
unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung Palastinas bis zur Mine des 2Jh.s v. Chr.
(WUNT, 10; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969; 2nd edn, 1973; ET Judaism and Hel-
lenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period
[2 vols.; trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974]),
I, pp. 58-106; idem with C. Markschies, 'Zum Problem der "Hellenisierung" Judaas
im 1. Jahrhundert nach Christus'; ET The 'Hellenization' of Judaea in the First
Century after Christ (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity
Press International, 1989), esp. pp. 7-18; Fitzmyer, 'Languages of Palestine', pp.
134-47; B.Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Cincin-
nati: Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), esp. pp. 259-306;
Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, pp. 78-88; Lewis, Documents from the Bar
Kokhba Period; Schurer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 29-80 (although he is
sceptical regarding the use of Greek), III.l, pp. 517-21, 528-31; P.W. van der Horst,
the logical conclusion can be drawn that in fact a sizeable number of

Jews in Palestine used Greek.33
3. The Criterion of Greek Language and its Context

With the discussion above and that to be found in the Excursus of this
chapter as a foundation, I here attempt to define and exemplify a crite-
rion of Greek language and its context to be used in historical-Jesus
research. In dealing with questions of language, the approach of Chilton
and Evans and the emphasis of Theissen upon probability provide, I
think, serious improvements over other methods. Chilton and Evans
Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funer-

ary Epigraphy (300 BCE-700 CE) (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theol-
ogy, 2; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991); G.E. Sterling, 'Recluse or Representative?
Philo and Greek-Speaking Judaism beyond Alexandria', in E.H. Lovering, Jr (ed.),
Society of Biblical Literature 1995 Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 34; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1995), pp. 595-616; H.M. Cotton and A. Yardeni (eds.), Aramaic, Hebrew
and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites (DJD, 27; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 133-279.
33. Further attestation includes Acts 6.1, which makes a linguistic distinction
between Jews in Jerusalem who spoke Aramaic and those who spoke Greek. Appar-
ently, before the third century CE, terms such as 'EAAriviaiai and 'Eppaioi were
virtually exclusively linguistic terms referring to language competence. In the Acts
context, distinguishing those outside Palestine as Greek speakers would not have
been necessary, but assumed, but apparently there was a significant part of the Jew-
ish population that spoke mostly Greek even of those resident in Jerusalem. This
view was proposed by C.F.D. Moule ('Once More, Who were the Hellenists?',
ExpTim 70 [1958-59], pp. 100-102), further endorsed by Fitzmyer ('Languages of
Palestine', p. 144), Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism, I, pp. 2, 58; 'Zwischen Jesus
und Paulus', ZTK 72 [1975], pp. 151-206; ET in idem, Between Jesus and Paul-
Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity [trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: For-
tress Press, 1983], pp. 1-29, esp. pp. 8-9 with notes; with Markschies, 'Helleniza-
tion' of Judaea, pp. 7-8 with notes; with Deines, Pre-Christian Paul, pp. 54-55)
and C.C. Hill (Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest
Church [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992], pp. 22-24), and most recently support-
ed by H.A. Brehm ('The Meaning of 'EMjiviarns in Acts in Light of a Diachronic
Analysis of eMnviêw', in S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson [eds.], Discourse Analysis
and Other Topics in Biblical Greek [JSNTSup, 113; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995],
pp. 180-99). See also M. Hengel, 'Jerusalem als jiidische und hellenistische Stadt',
in B. Funck (ed.), Hellenismus: Beitrage zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und
politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters (Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1996), pp. 269-306.
helpfully differentiate dimensions of comparison,34 and Theissen em-

phasizes how probability theory requires that a scenario found to be
inadequate (such as the Aramaic hypothesis) must be replaced by a more
plausible hypothesis.35 In terms of developing a linguistic criterion re-
garding the Greek language, units for analysis—whether these involve
activities of Jesus or words of Jesus, or both—are here examined in the
light of the multilingual and hence multifarious cultural contexts of the
Gospels (as defined above)36 to see whether units of analysis display
plausible correlation between the participants and their language or ac-
tions. It is considered established on the basis of the above discussion
and the Excursus of this chapter that Jesus could have spoken Greek—
the question is whether he did on a given occasion. The purpose of this
Greek-language criterion is to determine if there are definable and char-
acteristic features of various episodes that point to a Greek-language
based unity between the participants, the events depicted, and concepts
discussed. That is, on the basis of the events depicted and words record-
34. B. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted
Scripture of his Time (GNS, 8; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984), pp. 70-71,
90-137; C.A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Back-
ground of John's Prologue (JSNTSup, 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 18-27;
idem, ' "Do This and You Will Live": Targumic Coherence in Luke 10:25-28',
in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration
(AGJU, 39; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), pp. 377-93; idem, 'From Gospel to Gospel:
The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament', in C.C. Broyles and C.A. Evans
(eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradi-
tion (2 vols.; VTSup, 70.1-2; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Lit-
erature, 1; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), II, pp. 651-91, esp. pp. 667-74; idem, 'Intro-
duction', pp. xii-xiii, xv-xvii, in M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels
and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946; 2nd edn, 1954; 3rd edn, 1967; repr. with
'Introduction: An Aramaic Approach Thirty Years Later,' by C.A. Evans, pp. v-
xxv; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998).
35. Theissen and Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung, pp. 206-
209. For an attempt to distinguish levels of probability in historical-Jesus research,
see E.P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM
Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), esp. pp. 312, 313.
36. See H.D. Betz, 'Wellhausen' s Dictum "Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew"
in Light of Present Scholarship', ST 45 (1991), pp. 83-110; repr. in idem, Antike
und Christentum: Gesammelte Aufsatze IV (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 1-
31, here p. 13. I avoid using the term Sitz im Leben in describing this criterion,
since that term already has numerous misleading connotations from its use in form
criticism.
ed by the participants, the question is asked whether the probability

would be greater that Greek would have been the language of commu-
nication used between Jesus and his conversation partners, or not.37 This
Greek linguistic criterion seems to work best in terms of beginning with
the actions and moving to the words of Jesus, and proceeds through the
three phases noted above.
Three caveats must be registered, however, regarding this criterion,
and the others discussed in subsequent chapters as well. The first is that
these criteria are developed as independently of the traditional criteria
for authenticity as is possible. This is not necessarily because of the
problems with these criteria (as noted in Chapters 2 and 3), but so as to
develop these new language-based criteria on their own terms. The tra-
ditional criteria will only be introduced as a means of reinforcing the
findings of these Greek-language criteria, but the strength of the results
is dependent upon these new criteria and their interrelationships in the
first instance. The second caveat is that there is a conscious restraint
from the consultation of a wide range of secondary literature on the pas-
sages discussed in this and the following chapters, especially literature
that addresses issues of authenticity with regard to the Jesus tradition.
The reason for this restraint is that I am attempting to develop these
criteria with as little outside influence and interference from other cri-
teria as possible, especially as such influences might be masked in dis-
cussion of other issues in the secondary literature. The third caveat is
with regard to what is meant by authenticity. The use of this term could
raise a number of excruciating problems of definition. It will suffice to
say that I use the term as it has been used in previous historical-Jesus
research, as noted in Chapters 1-3 above—that is, as indicating an ear-
lier tradition that has definable hallmarks that indicate that it might well
37. This is not the place to debate some of the issues connected with theories of
scientific discovery and model building. Some of those writers who have influenced
my thinking in this area (without all agreeing at every point) are I. Lakatos, 'Fal-
sification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', in I. Lakatos
and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of
the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Volume 4
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 91-196, esp. pp. 118-22;
T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (International Encyclopedia of
Unified Science; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962; 2nd edn, 1970), esp.
pp. 66-76, 111-35; and K.R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of
Scientific Knowledge (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963; 4th edn, 1972), esp.
pp. 3-30, 33-65.
have originated with Jesus, or at least it comes as close to this as we can

reasonably find using the means at our disposal.38 In other words, the
criteria indicate episodes where the probability is that the material could
have originated with Jesus, but without necessarily hoping for or achiev-
ing absolute certainty. This definition will not satisfy all involved in the
debate, but is as far as criteria of this sort seem so far to be able to
progress.
a. Participants and their Background

In determining whether in a given instance Jesus may have spoken
Greek, and whether a particular Gospel records Jesus' words on that
occasion, one must first note the participants in the dialogue. Then one
must determine, on the basis of their particular background and region
of origin, the level of probability that Greek would have been the lin-
guistic medium for those involved in the incident. In other words, in a
given context one must determine the likelihood of whether Jesus would
have spoken Greek, by determining the probability of his conversation
partners speaking Greek.39 The range of linguistic competence in Greek
runs the gamut from their incapacity (in a relatively small percentage of
instances)40 to their being able to speak only Greek, with all points of
38. See E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1985), p. 357 n. 30: The word "authenticity" is used as a convenient
short term. An "authentic" saying is one which we have good reason to believe is as
close to something that Jesus said as we can hope for.'
39. This formulation attempts to come to terms with the requirements laid down
by Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum', esp. p. 16. See the Excursus, below.
40. It is often stated that those in a rural context of the eastern Mediterranean, in
particular Palestine, would have only known their native language, such as Aramaic
for Jews (see Schurer, History of the Jewish People, II, p. 74; R.A. Horsley, Archae-
ology, History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis
[Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996], pp. 170-71; among many
others). The evidence, however, is that even where native languages persisted, Greek
was known, even if those in rural contexts did not fully adapt to Hellenistic culture.
For example, the Roman empire and influence had already extended eastward to the
border of Parthia by the beginning of the Imperial period, and continued to extend
eastward. See F. Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC-AD 337 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 437-88. An excellent example of the nature of
this influence is the bilingual Asoka inscription (250 BCE), from northern India (the
easternmost Greek inscription ever found), edited and discussed most recently in
L. Rydbeck, 'EYLEBEIAN EAEI5EN TOII ANOPQnOII', in T. Fornberg and
D. Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situ-
probability in between. If it can be determined that Jesus' listeners

would have been barely able to speak Greek, it is less likely that the
conversation took place in Greek than if they would have been expected
to speak in Greek.
In Jerusalem, what I consider to be a conservative estimate by Martin
Hengel is that 10-15 per cent of the Jews who lived there spoke Greek
as their first language.41 As a result, it is less likely that in a given
instance Jesus would have spoken Greek to Jews from Jerusalem, and
more likely that he would have spoken Aramaic. With Jews from out-
side of Palestine and from areas of high probability regarding the speak-
ing of Greek, even if now in Jerusalem, it is very likely that Jesus would
have spoken with them in Greek. A possible instance of this situation
might be recorded in Mk 12.13-17 = Mt. 22.16-22 = Lk. 20.20-26, where
Jesus is speaking with Pharisees and Herodians in Jerusalem (Luke does
ational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartmen (Oslo: Scandinavian University

Press, 1995), pp. 592-96. From a slightly later period is Dura-Europos. See G.D.
Kilpatrick, 'Dura-Europos: The Parchments and the Papyri', GRBS 5 (1964), pp.
215-25. See also B. Lifshitz, 'L'hellenisation des Juifs de Palestine: A propos des
inscriptions de Besara (Beth-Shearim)', RB 72 (1965), pp. 520-38, esp. p. 523 ('Or
precisement, cet aspect des inscriptions et surtout des epitaphes greco-juives montre
que la langue grecque etait parlee par un nombre considerable de Juifs habitant les
bourgadeset les villages, et non pas seulement par les citadins ou les gens eduques')
and p. 538 ('La langue grecque et la culture hellenique avaient penetre dans toutes
les communautes juives de 1'Orient grec'); Palmer, Greek Language, pp. 175-76;
Horrocks, Greek, pp. 63-64; and the evidence in Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?,
pp. 96-175. Confusion of language and culture is a problem in Jones, The Greek
City, pp. 289-95; recognized and corrected in D. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of
Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine (ABRL;
New York: Doubleday, 1992; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 22; cf. E.S.
Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998), who notes that the use of Greek did not mean
cultural subordination. Instead he believes that the Jews appropriated Greek culture.
Here is the final paragraph of his book: The world of Greek culture was not an
alien one to Hellenistic Jews. They thrived within it and they made its conventions
their own. They engaged in Hellenic discourse but addressed their message to fel-
low Jews. Their free adaptation of the Scriptures, imaginative fictions, and light-
hearted recreations of Hellenistic history gave readers pride in Jewish heritage and
amusement in its novel reformulation' (p. 297).
41. Hengel with Deines, Pre-Christian Paul, p. 55; cf. Hengel with Markschies,
'Hellenization' of Judaea, p. 10, where the figure of 10-20 per cent is used.
not specify who Jesus' conversational partners are).42 Like Paul, the
Pharisees here may have included Jews from outside Palestine (note
that Jews from outside of Palestine predominantly spoke Greek, many
if not most of them probably exclusively).43 However, this would not
necessarily be required for them to speak Greek.44 The Herodians were
probably supporters or followers of (or from the household of) the
Herods, here during Antipas's time, and may well have spoken only
Greek, as did the Romanized Herods.45
42. G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua: Die drei Sprachen Jesu, Jesus in der Syna-
gogue, aufdem Berge beim Passahmahl, am Kreuz (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1922;
ET Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels [trans. P.P. Levertoff; London: SPCK,
1929]), p. 2; W.E. Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels: An Introduction to the
Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 439-41;
F.F. Bruce, 'Render to Caesar', in E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and
the Politics of his Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 249-63,
where the relation of the passage to P. Egerton 2 and Gos. Thorn. 100 is discussed.
Vincent Taylor speculates that the involvement of the Herodians 'may indicate that
the story belongs to the Galilean period' (The Gospel According to St Mark [Lon-
don: Macmillan, 1959], p. 478), but that speculation is unnecessary in the light of
the differentiations made here.
43. As noted above, the strength of Paul's claim in Phil. 3.5 is that he was a Jew
from outside of Palestine who could also speak a Semitic language. See T. Rajak,
Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983; Phil-
adelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 53, who says that in the first century CE the two
obvious sources of Greek speech in Jerusalem were the Herodian court and Dias-
pora Jews, and that these to some extent overlapped.
44. See Hengel with Markschies, 'Hellenization' of Judaea, p. 37, citing B.Z.
Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962),
p. 48: 'Certainly the leading Pharisees studied Greek, even when they attempted to
discourage its dissemination among the people'.
45. Although Herod the Great's specific education is unknown (Kokkinos thinks
he was taught Greek at Marisa or Ascalon), he seems to have mastered Greek, and
demanded Greek culture and paideia to surround him. Not only did he mint only
Greek coins (eliminating the bilingual coins of his predecessors, the Hasmoneans),
but he had inscriptions written that referred to himself as a 'lover of Romans' and
'lover of Caesar' (IG III, nos. 550, 551), and was instructed in philosophy and
rhetoric by Nicolaus of Damascus (F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der greichischen
Historiker [3 vols. and 16 parts; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954-69], Ha, no. 90, frag. 135
[p. 422]), the former tutor of the children of Cleopatra and Antony (see Schiirer, His-
tory of the Jewish People, I, pp. 28-34). Herod wrote his own memoirs (Josephus,
Ant. 174), probably in Greek. He also ensured that his children and grandchildren
received a Roman education (Josephus, Ant. 15.342-43; 16.6, 203, 242-43; 17.20-
Among Roman officials, Aramaic was virtually unknown (as were al-
most all native languages of the Roman territories among Romans).46
Thus, if a conversation took place between Jesus and a Roman official,
it is highly likely that they would have spoken in Greek.47 There may be
two examples to include here: one is Jesus' conversation with the
centurion (EKai6vTap%o<;) in Capernaum in Galilee about an ill servant
), recorded in Mt. 8.5-13.48 Luke 7.1-10 and Jn 4.46-54, however,
21, 52-53, 94; 18.143; 19.360), which would have meant an education in the Greek
language, so that they were said to be 'thoroughly conversant with Hellenic culture'
(Josephus, Life 359 [LCL]). Herod and his family also promoted Hellenistic culture
(paideia), architecture and sport, among other things. On the Hellenistic dimension
of Herod, as well as his children, see M. Grant, Herod the Great (London: Wei-
denfeld & Nicolson, 1971), pp. 115-21; H. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (SNTSMS, 17;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), pp. 5-17 (cf. pp. 18-19); Rajak,
Josephus, pp. 53-55; Hengel with Markschies, 'Hellenization' of Judaea, pp. 32-39;
N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (JSPSup,
30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), esp. pp. 122-27. On Greek in Roman
education, see H.I. Marrou, Histoire de Veducation dans I'antiquite (Paris: Seuil,
3rd edn, 1948; ET/4 History of Education in Antiquity [trans. G. Lamb; London:
Sheed & Ward, 1956]), pp. 255-73. On the Herodians, and the uncertainty regard-
ing who they were, and when they existed, see L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to
Hadrian (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992; London: SCM Press, 1994), pp.
501-502; W.L. Knox, The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. I. St Mark (ed. H. Chad-
wick; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), pp. 9-10; Hoehner, Herod
Antipas, pp. 331-39, who notes the Herodians' antipathy to the Pharisees and possi-
ble relation to the Sadducees; P. Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of
the Romans (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), pp. 259-60, who
believes that the Herodians originated with Herod the Great; and M. Casey, Ara-
maic Sources of Mark's Gospel (SNTSMS, 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998), pp. 186-89. Cf. R.H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Liter-
ary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 442; and W.D. Davies
and D.C. Allison, Jr, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel Accord-
ing to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-97), III, p. 212
n. 19, who list alternative views.
46. See Marrou, History of Education, p. 256.
47. The question of an interpreter must always be taken into account. This is
addressed below, in the Excursus.
48. S.E. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', TynBul 44.2 (1993), pp. 199-
235, esp. pp. 228-29; idem, 'Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee', in B. Chilton
and C.A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of
Current Research (NTTS, 19; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 123-54, esp. pp. 151-52;
idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 165-66. On the meaning of eKaiov-
lapôg, see the discussion in E.-J. Vledder, Conflict in the Miracle Stories: A
have significant variations in what are usually considered parallel ac-

counts of the same episode. Luke 7.3 has 'elders of the Jews' coming as
emissaries to Jesus, and Jn 4.46 refers to a fkxaiXiicoc; in Cana of Gali-
lee who has an ill son. The significant differences in the Johannine pas-
sage may well indicate a tradition independent of that of the Synoptics
that should be given consideration.49 The paoiUicoq, like the eKcrcov-
Tapxoq, is either a commander of a troop of soldiers serving under
Herod Antipas, who had non-Jewish Roman auxiliary troops under his
command, or even a Roman officer—in any event, he was almost as-
suredly not Jewish.50 Regarding the Matthaean and Lukan accounts,
there are several common features to them. They both retain Jesus'
commendation of the eKaiovTapôq as a man demonstrating faith not
found in Israel, and they see him as a Gentile,51 and presumably a Greek
Socio-Exegetical Study of Matthew 8 and 9 (JSNTSup, 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-

demic Press, 1996), p. 179 n. 46.
49. See R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (MeyerK; Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947; 2nd edn, 1964, supplement 1966; ET The Gospel of
John: A Commentary [trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971]),
p. 204. There has been much scepticism regarding the use of Johannine tradition in
historical-Jesus research. Much of this, though certainly not all, has been related to
the symbolic character of some language of the Fourth Gospel. This factor must be
taken into account, but does not seem to be of relevance to the examples from John's
Gospel cited in this study, except as noted below. To some extent, however, the
criteria being developed here attempt to move beyond facile generalizations about
the differences between the Synoptic Gospels and John by introducing sociolinguis-
tically based criteria. On the literary character of John's Gospel, see R.A. Culpepper,
Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1983), esp. pp. 180-98. The case for independence of the Johannine tradition
is made by C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1963), pp. 188-95; and summarized in terms of Synoptic
relations in D.L. Bock, Luke (2 vols.; Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, 3A, B; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994, 1996), 1, pp. 630-33.
See Chapter 5, below, on the history of discussion of the independence of Johan-
nine tradition, when discussing Jn 18.29-38 in relation to the Synoptic accounts.
50. On the eKorcovtapxoq and paaiXiKoq, see A.H. Mead, 'The ftaoiXiKOc; in
John 4.46-53', JSNT 23 (1985), pp. 69-72 (repr. in C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter [eds.],
New Testament Backgrounds: A Sheffield Reader [BibSem, 43; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997], pp. 203-206); cf. Schurer, History of the Jewish People, I,
pp. 362-67.
51. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, p. 19. According to Vledder (Conflict in the
Miracle Stories, pp. 180-81), the sense of the episode comes from the centurion
being a Gentile in a Jewish societal context.
speaker, rather than an Aramaic speaker. Commentators are divided on

which version is primary, but there is reason to think that Matthew's is,
with the centurion coming directly to Jesus.52 This reasoning includes
the fact that in Matthew, the most 'Jewish' of the Gospels,53 the reten-
tion of the direct communication with a Gentile is more unusual than
Jesus communicating with Jews. In the Lukan account, however, the
intermediaries give an independent testimony to the Gentile's humility,
integrity and hence faith.54 The other incident of Jesus speaking with a
Roman official involves Jesus' trial before the prefect Pilate in Jeru-
salem, recorded in Mk 15.2-5 = Mt. 27.11-14 = Lk. 23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-
38.55 There is no interpreter mentioned in the account, which is exactly
52. See R.AJ. Gagnon, The Shape of Matthew's Q Text of the Centurion at
Capernaum: Did it Mention Delegations?', NTS 40 (1994), pp. 133-42.
53. See R.T. France, Matthew—Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter: Paternoster
Press, 1989), pp. 108-19.
54. See R.P. Martin, The Pericope of the Healing of the "Centurion's" Servant/
Son (Matt 8:5-13 par. Luke 7:1-10): Some Exegetical Notes', in R.A. Guelich (ed.),
Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E.
Ladd (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 14-22, here pp. 17-18; R.AJ. Gagnon,
'Statistical Analysis and the Case of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:3-7a', CBQ
55 (1993), pp. 709-31; idem, 'Luke's Motives for Redaction in the Account of the
Double Delegation in Luke 7:1-10', NovT36 (1994), pp. 122-45; D.R. Catchpole,
The Centurion's Faith and its Function in Q', in F. Van Segbroeck, C.M. Tuckett,
G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans
Neirynck (3 vols.; BETL, 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992), I,
pp. 517-40, esp. pp. 528-32; repr. in D.R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1993), pp. 280-308, esp. pp. 293-98; and the earlier study, A. Har-
nack, Spriiche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite Quelle des Matthaus und Lukas (BENT,
2; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1907; ET The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source ofSt
Matthew and St Luke [trans. J.R. Wilkinson; CThL; London: Williams & Norgate;
New York: Putnam's Sons 1908]), pp. 74-77.
55. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', pp. 224-26; idem, 'Jesus and the
Use of Greek', pp. 152-53; idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 162-63;
cf. A. Roberts, Greek: The Language of Christ and his Apostles (London: Long-
mans, Green, 1888), p. 165; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, p. 6; Manson, Teaching of
Jesus, p. 46; Birkeland, Language of Jesus, p. 17; Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?,
p. 26; Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum', p. 15; among others. Cf. A.N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Sarum Lectures, 1960-61;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 24-27, for an analysis of Pilate's interrogation
of Jesus in terms of what might have been expected from a Roman official at
the time. On Pilate, see H.K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation
(SNTSMS, 100; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), esp. pp. 105-16.
what one might have expected in a juridical context with a Roman

provincial authority (see discussion in the Excursus, below). From what
has been said above regarding linguistic competence, there is the further
plausibility that the Jewish leaders, including those of the Sanhedrin,
would have been able to speak Greek, especially since they had regular
and frequent contact with the Roman administration.56
In other regions of Palestine, the probability of Jesus speaking Greek
would have varied. For example, along the coast of Palestine and in Gal-
ilee (as noted above), especially in the surrounding cities of the Decapo-
lis, the use of Greek would have been relatively high, even among Jews,
and certainly among non-Jews and Roman officials. Examples of Jesus
probably speaking Greek in such a context are three. One is Jesus'
conversation, in the region of Tyre in Mk 7.25-30,57 or Tyre and Sidon
in Mt. 15.21-28, with a woman who has a sick daughter.58 In Mk 7.26,
she is emphatically called a eA,A,r\vi<;, a o\)po(j)oiviKiaaa TCO yevei.59 In
Mt. 15.22, she is called a xavavoda. The Syrophoenicians (as distin-
guished from other Phoenician groups) can probably be identified with
what are traditionally called the Canaanites, and hence these are parallel
accounts involving a Gentile woman.60 Nevertheless, the differences as
56. Even one as sceptical of our knowledge of who spoke Greek in Palestine as
Horsley concedes that the upper class of Jews, of whom many of the Sanhedrin
would have been members, would have done so (Archaeology, p. 229). The pace of
the trial narrative, in which conversation is held between combinations of four par-
ties—Pilate, Jesus, the Jewish leaders, and the crowd—also mitigates against an
interpreter (or would it require several interpreters?) being involved. See Roberts,
Greek, pp. 161-62.
57. Many early manuscripts read 'Tyre and Sidon', including K A B /1» 13
Majority text. This may be assimilation to Mk 7.31 and Mt. 15.21, however. See
G. Dalman, One und Wege Jesu (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 3rd edn, 1924; ET Sacred
Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels [trans. P.P. Levertoff;
London: SPCK, 1935]), pp. 198-200.
58. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', pp. 226-27'; idem, 'Jesus and the
Use of Greek', pp. 149-50; idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament, p. 164. Bundy
(Jesus and the First Three Gospels, p. 278) notes that the 'majority of critics have
accepted [Jesus'] journey [north to Tyre] as historical'.
59. SeeR.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 379-80; D. Rhoads, 'Jesus and the Syrophoenician
Woman in Mark', JAAR 62 (1994), pp. 343-75, esp. p. 351.
60. SeeH.B. Swete, The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan, 1898),
p. 156-57; C.S. Mann, Mark (AB, 27; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), pp. 320;
R. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC, 34A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. 385; G. Sch-
noted above probably also indicate that these accounts are from inde-
pendent sources (see Chapter 5, for further discussion of the indepen-
dence of the accounts).61 What had once been an indigenously Semitic-
speaking area had long been under significant Hellenistic influence and
antagonistic to the Jews (see Josephus, Apion 1.69-72). The area evi-
denced widespread use of Greek, eradicating virtually all signs of the
indigenous language.62 The account in Mark's Gospel, referring to her
as a Greek woman, makes it clear so that the reader knows that the
woman was a Greek-speaker despite her birth; otherwise the reference
is unnecessary and gratuitous.63
The second example is the approach near Bethany of 'certain Greeks'
(eAAr|VEc; nvec;) to Philip, who went to Andrew, with requests for Jesus,
recorded in Jn 12.20-28.64 The use of eM,r|ve<; here almost certainly
refers to Greek-speaking Gentiles (rather than Greeks themselves; cf.
Acts 6.1).65 Though near Bethany, those approaching were probably
warz, 'ITPOOOINIKIIIA—XANANAIA (Markus 7.26/Matthaus 15.22)\NTS 30

(1984), pp. 626-28.
61. Taylor, Mark, p. 347; Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, pp. 542-43.
62. Millar, Roman Near East, pp. 264-95.
63. G. Theissen, 'Lokal- und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der syro-
phonischen Frau (Mk 7:24-30)', ZNW75 (1984), pp. 202-25; repr. in idem, Lokal-
kolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
synoptischen Tradition (NTOA, 8; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989; ET
The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition [trans.
L.M. Maloney; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992]), pp. 61-80, esp. pp. 66-70: 'We
can presume at least that the Syrophoenician woman knew Greek, but probably also
that she was thoroughly integrated in Greek culture' (p. 69); F. Dufton, The Syro-
phoenician Woman and her Dogs', ExpTim 100 (1988-89), p. 417; Gundry, Mark,
p. 375; D.A. Hagner, Matthew (2 vols.; WBC, 33A, B; Dallas: Word Books, 1993,
1995), I, p. 441: 'almost certainly the conversation between her and Jesus would
have been held in Greek'.
64. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', pp. 227-28; idem, 'Jesus and the
Use of Greek', pp. 150-51; idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 164-65.
It is unclear that Jesus actually spoke with the Greeks, but if they did, Greek would
apparently have been the language they used.
65. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John (London: SPCK; Philadel-
phia: Westminster, 2nd edn, 1978 [1955]), p. 421; contra J.A.T. Robinson, The
Destination and Purpose of St John' s Gospel', NTS 6 (1960), pp. 117-31, here p. 120
(repr. in J.A.T. Robinson, Twelve New Testament Studies [SET, 34; London: SCM
Press, 1962], pp. 107-25, here p. Ill), who thinks they are Greek-speaking Jews;
from a Greek-speaking area such as the Decapolis. This makes sense in

the light of their approaching Philip and Andrew, two disciples who
had Greek names, and who (along with Peter, apparently; cf. Jn 1.44)
were from Bethsaida in Gaulinitis. Gaulinitis was not technically in Gal-
ilee, but close enough so that it was quite possibly referred to as being
in Galilee, especially after 66-70 CE.66 Among Jesus' disciples, not
only Andrew and Philip had Greek names, but the names of Simon,
Bartholomew and Thaddaeus may well have derived from Greek or
gone easily into Greek.67 This scenario of Greek speaking is consonant
also with the fact that several of Jesus' disciples were fishermen, which
would have required that they conduct much of their business of selling
fish in Greek.68 The account does not say whether Jesus actually spoke
to these Greeks. Dalman thought that these Greek-speakers went to the
disciples because Jesus was not identified with the Greek-speaking
Jews, not necessarily because Jesus could not speak Greek.69 The narra-
tive itself gives no indication why the Greeks did not approach Jesus
directly. The reasons could have been related to Jesus' perceived status,
since Jesus' response gives no indication that he could not communi-
cate with them.70 The people involved in such a conversation all had the
indicative background and origins for such a conversation to have taken
place in Greek.
The third example for consideration in this category is Jesus' conver-
sation with the Samaritan woman in Jn 4.4-26.71 Samaria had been a
D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 435-36.
66. See Barrett, John, p. 421; cf. Carson, John, p. 436.
67. See Hengel with Markschies, 'Hellenization' of Judaea, pp. 16-17; idem
with Deines, Pre-Christian Paul, pp. 55-56. Mark 3.16 and Lk. 6.14 say that Simon
was given the Greek name Peter (Tcexpoq), but Jn 1.42 says that Jesus gave him the
name Cephas.
68. See J.A.L. Lee, 'Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark's Gospel',
NovT21 (1985), pp. 1-36, esp. p. 6.
69. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, p. 5. Cf. Bultmann, John, p. 423, who 'spiritualizes'
the episode.
70. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, pp. 25-26; Roberts, Greek, pp. 157-59.
Most scholars are sceptical that Jesus spoke with the Greeks, however. See L.L.
Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971),
p. 592; although R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB, 29, 29A;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), I, pp. 466-67, is open to it.
71. Roberts, Greek, pp. 145-47.
multilingual area since the third century BCE, with Greek used espe-
cially for the purposes of a lingua franca, that is, for economic and
administrative, rather than religious, purposes.72
Of course, there is the possibility that a conversation of Jesus may
have occurred outside the person's place of origin. In such instances,
identification of the person (by name and other instructive factors) may
well give indications of the linguistic context. In the light of the Greek
names of many of Jesus' disciples, including Peter, and their origins
near Galilee,73 it is also plausible that Jesus' conversation with them in
or around one of the ancient highly Hellenized cities of the north, Cae-
sarea Philippi,74 occurred in Greek, as recorded in Mk 8.27-30 = Mt.
16.13-20 = Lk. 9.18-21 (Luke does not mention the location).75 Cae-
sarea Philippi, earlier known as Panias because of the grotto dedicated
to Pan, had been rebuilt both by Herod the Great and especially by
Philip. It was predominantly a non-Jewish city (Josephus, Life 13),
72. Hengel with Markschies, 'Hellenization' of Judaea, p. 8; cf. Millar, Roman

Near East, p. 341. This is not to say that Greek was not used in this region for reli-
gious purposes, however. The Isis and Serapis cult flourished there until it was
replaced by the cult of Kore in Roman times. SEG VIII no. 95 has a dedicatory
inscription to Serapis and Isis (201 BCE) and SEG VIII no. 96 has a list of priests of
Zeus Olympius (second century BCE). NewDocs I (1976), no. 68 has a third- or
fourth-century CE inscription to Kore, with a history of the religious environment
given there.
73. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, p. 5; Hengel with Markschies, 'Hellenization' of
Judaea, pp. 16-17; idem with Deines, Pre-Christian Paul, pp. 55-56.
74. See Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, pp. 202-204; Tcherikover, Hellenistic
Civilization, p. 101; Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, I, pp. 169-71; Hengel
with Markschies, (Hellenization' of Judaea, pp. 14-15; NewDocs 1 (1976), no. 67,
for the bilingual (Greek and Aramaic) inscription to the God in Dan; and R.C. Gregg
and D. Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights: Greek and
Other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Eras (South Florida Studies in the
History of Judaism, 140; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 280-83, for the latest
archaeological findings.
75. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', pp. 229-35; idem, Studies in the
Greek New Testament, pp. 166-71; G.R. Selby, Jesus, Aramaic and Greek (Don-
caster: Brynmill Press, 1989), p. 54. Taylor (Mark, p. 374) notes that the place
should be taken seriously, since Mark rarely gives place names. It is possible that
this episode continues in Mk 8.31-33 = Mt. 16.21-23 = Lk. 9.22, but both Mark and
Matthew possibly indicate a break in the narrative (KQI fjpâio and and TOTE
fjpâio). Luke continues the account simply with a participle (eirccov), but he has
not given any indication of location at the beginning of the episode.
where Titus and Vespasian rested during the Jewish War. For mid-level
officials, such as local Jewish tax collectors, there is a fairly equal
weighting on either side whether Jesus would have spoken Greek or
Aramaic. For example, whether Jesus spoke to Levi/Matthew in Greek
or Aramaic would probably have depended on a number of other con-
textual factors, such as their location near Capernaum in Galilee, as
seen in Mk 2.13-14 = Mt. 9.9 = Lk. 5.27-2S76 (see below). This is
because conversation in either language was probably possible.
This first phase of this criterion attempts to establish on the basis of
the linguistic background and origin of Jesus' conversational partners
whether it is plausible that they and Jesus spoke Greek. In some in-
stances, which might be suggestive for the use of Greek, we know too
little about Jesus' disputants. For example, in Mk 5.1-20 = Lk. 8.26-39
= Mt. 8.28-34, Jesus speaks with the demon-possessed man in either
Gerasa or Gadara, both in the eastern part of the Decapolis. Both cities
were thoroughly Hellenized,77 but we know next to nothing about the
demon-possessed man (or those with whom he may have spoken: Mk
5.17 = Mt. 8.34 = Lk. 8.36-37). The linguistic situation can get even
more complex. For example, if there was a mixed audience, in which
language did Jesus speak? In Mk 3.8 = Mt. 4.25 = Lk. 6.17, a mixed
crowd is gathered,78 but Jesus specifically addresses his disciples in Mt.
5.1.79 One simply cannot tell what language or languages might have
been used. There may even have been code-switching in such an inci-
dent. Nevertheless, this framework establishes the broad parameters in
which determination of the probabilities of whether Jesus spoke Greek
on a particular occasion must be made. The result of this survey is that
there are eight episodes in the Gospels that might well indicate on the
basis of the participants and their origins that Greek was spoken when
they conversed with Jesus.
76. See Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels, pp. 142-43, who notes the
lack of connectedness of this episode; cf. Schurer, History of the Jewish People, I,
p. 374.
77. See Schurer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 149-55,132-36.
78. See A.W. Argyle, 'Did Jesus Speak Greek?', ExpTim 67 (1955-56), pp. 92-
93, esp. p. 93.
79. Among other examples, Roberts (Greek, pp. 145-57) argues that the Sermon
on the Mount (cf. also Lk. 6) was originally spoken in Greek. Whereas one could
possibly compare the sermonic traditions in Matthew and Luke, the context of
participants does not clearly point in that direction.
b. Context and Theme of Discussion

The second phase of this criterion enters into the equation the context
and theme of discussion. Not only is the probability of the participants
being able to speak Greek necessary, but the context and theme of their
discussion must fit within this linguistic scenario as well. Context of
discussion includes a variety of public and personal factors (including
issues of theology, politics, etc.). Intimate conversations between Jesus
and, for example, a Jewish woman from Jerusalem about purity laws
might well be presumed to be in Aramaic. But a conversation with a
Samaritan woman, who was at the least sceptical about a Jew speaking
with her at all (Jn 4.4-26),80 could easily have treated mundane issues,
such as the drawing of water, in Greek (even if these mundane issues
were given symbolic value by either Jesus or the Gospel author, and
understood that way by the Gospel's readers).81 It is, therefore, entirely
plausible that Jesus' discussion with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite
Gentile woman in Tyre (or Sidon) would be in Greek (Mk 7.25-30 =
Mt. 15.21-28). The same would seem to hold for Jesus' discussion with
'certain Greeks' (Jn 12.20-28), if indeed he actually spoke to them. A
public discussion with a Roman official about Roman law also might
well be presumed to be in Greek. Similarly, a discussion with a centu-
rion in Capernaum about his personal affairs would probably be in
Greek (Mt. 8.5-13), as would a discussion with a commander in Cana
(Jn 4.46-54). In a more formal context, Jesus' interrogation by Pilate
over whether he was the king of the Jews, a political question for the
Roman official over Jesus' guilt or innocence in Roman law,82 would
probably have been in Greek as well (Mk 15.2-5 = Mt. 27.11-14 = Lk.
23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-38). A discussion with a Jew about Roman law might
also be in Greek. This is due to the nature of the topic, in which there
are limitations on technical vocabulary in Aramaic for discussion, as
well as the topic being one linked with the Romans rather than Ju-
daism.83
80. Brown, John, I, pp. 175-76, on the attitude of the woman.

81. Barrett, John, p. 228.
82. So virtually all commentators, often citing the titulus in support. For recent
discussion, see J.B. Green, The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in
the Passion Narrative (WUNT, 2.33; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), p. 288;
W. Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Ver-
lagsanstalt, 1998), p. 472.
83. The number of Greek loanwords that appear in Aramaic (discussed above)
The most difficulty in determining the language used for discussion is

caused by theological content. Since so much of Jesus' teaching seems
to relate to the Old Testament, it would seem logical to think that this
teaching, especially to a Jewish audience, would be in Aramaic. How-
ever, the fact that the vast majority of quotations of the Old Testament
in the Gospels, including those reportedly uttered by Jesus, follow the
Septuagint must be noted at this point.84 In the light of the widespread
use of Greek in Palestine even by Jews, as well as the use of Greek by
Jews from outside of Palestine, and the evidence for the use of the Greek
version of the Jewish Scriptures even in Palestine (all noted above), it
is not so easy to dismiss the use of the Septuagint by Jesus as simply
the result of the Gospel writers or later redaction. Many Jews, even of
Palestine, may well have known their Scriptures only or predominantly
in Greek (especially those who only knew Greek).85 Hence, Jesus' dis-
cussion with his disciples in Caesarea Philippi over a range of theo-
logical matters might also have taken place in Greek (Mk 8.27-30 = Mt.
16.13-20 = Lk. 9.18-21). In the light of Jesus' discussion with the Phar-
isees and Herodians taking place over the picture and the inscription on
a Roman coin, it is likely that this discussion involved the use of Greek
as well (Mk 12.13-17 = Mt. 22.16-22 = Lk. 20.20-26).86 The possibility
of Jesus speaking with Levi/Matthew87 in Greek in the region of Galilee
is also possible, but the language is confined to only two words,
attests to the apparent belief by Aramaic language users that their vocabulary was in
need of additional words to suit their communicative purposes. Cf. Barr, 'Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek', p. 86 on Hebrew in this regard.
84. For recent discussion, with implications for Synoptic source criticism, see
D.S. New, Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two-Docu-
ment Hypothesis (SBLSCS, 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), p. 123.
85. See Millar, Roman Near East, p. 352.
86. It is unclear whether the coin had Greek or Latin writing on it. For Greek,
see Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, p. 2 and n. 6; for Latin, the more likely choice, see
H.St.J. Hart, 'The Coin of "Render unto Caesar..." (A Note on Some Aspects of
Mark 12:13-17; Matt. 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26)', in Bammel and Moule (eds.),
Jesus and the Politics of his Day, pp. 241-48, with photographs on p. 246; followed
by Davies and Allison, Matthew, III, p. 216. The language of the coin does not
affect the analysis offered here, due to the nature of the use of Greek as the lingua
franca of the eastern Mediterranean of the Roman empire, and the use of Latin
primarily for official matters (including most coinage) and by the army.
87. On the equation of Matthew and Levi, see Hagner, Matthew, I, pp. 237-38.
rendering the specific content in relation to the context fairly minimal

(Mk 2.13-14 = Mt. 9.9 = Lk. 5.27-28).
This phase of this criterion is concerned to establish a plausible the-
matic linkage between the subject matter of Jesus' conversation and the
use of Greek to express such themes. Further, the appropriateness of
such a discussion taking place in Greek must be seen to exist between
the context of discussion and the theme. The eight episodes noted above
seem to fulfil this dimension of the criterion as well, in that their subject
matter is suitable to a context in which Greek was used as the linguistic
medium for the discussion.
c. Determination of the Words of Jesus

The third phase of this criterion actually attempts to determine whether
the Greek words that Jesus is recorded as using have any claim to au-
thenticity. The discussion over Semitisms (Aramaisms), especially the
question of translation from Aramaic into Greek and back, has shown
how unreliable such a criterion is. This is so much so that one often
cannot determine whether any particular Greek wording or phrases, even
those that are awkward in Greek (and may well reflect Semitic inter-
ference),88 had their origins in Aramaic. At this point, this new criterion
for authenticity is reinforced if several of the traditional criteria dis-
cussed in Chapters 2 and 3, above, are also seen to be relevant. These
would include the criterion of multiple independent traditions (see Chap-
ter 5, below, on textual variance), as well as if what is preserved in the
words falls within the purview of the criteria of embarrassment (it is
unlikely that the Church created statements by Jesus or depicted him in
actions that were an embarrassment to it, or that went against the
88. In one episode, in which Jesus is reported to be in the Decapolis, he heals a

man by using the word ephphatha (Mk 7.31-37, esp. v. 34; not recorded in Mt.
15.29-31). One wonders if the word ephphatha, either Aramaic or Hebrew, is men-
tioned specifically here because the author realized that the reader (or hearer) would
not have expected the use of a Semitic language in this Greek-speaking context. Of
course, we do not know anything about the deaf man, and his use of language. On
ephphatha, see the summary of discussion in Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, pp. 395-96,
with bibliography on pp. 389-90. A similar episode might be found in Mk 5.21-43,
esp. v. 41, where Jesus utters talitha koum (not found in Mt. 9.25 or Lk. 8.54). One
might object that this occurs in the house of a synagogue ruler named Jairus. How-
ever, there were Greek-speaking synagogues (note the Theodotus inscription, below),
and this one is located in Galilee, which at least raises the possibility of the lin-
guistic situation being more complex than first glance would indicate.
redactional tendency), of dissimilarity (the single dissimilarity criterion

allows for statements that do not reflect the beliefs of the early Church
to be authentic), and of execution (Jesus may well have said things in
Greek that contributed to his execution by the Romans). However, this
use of other criteria is not a necessity. If one can show that the lin-
guistic situation—in the light of its participants, their origins, the con-
text 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.
With regard to the eight episodes in which Greek might have been
used, in seven of them words of Jesus are recorded (the exception is Jn
12.20-28), although not in all of the Gospel accounts. These passages
include the following:
1. Mt. 8.5-13 = Jn 4.46-54: Jesus' conversation with the centu-
rion or commander (but the Johannine account diverges in
terms of wording)
2. Jn 4.4-26: Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman89
3. Mk 2.13-14 = Mt. 9.9 = Lk. 5.27-28: Jesus' calling of Levi/
Matthew
4. Mk 7.25-30 = Mt. 15.21-28: Jesus' conversation with the Sy-
rophoenician or Canaanite woman
5. Mk 12.13-17 = Mt. 22.16-22 = Lk. 20.20-26: Jesus' conversa-
tion with the Pharisees and Herodians over the Roman coin of
Caesar
6. Mk 8.27-30 = Mt. 16.13-20 = Lk. 9.18-21: Jesus' conversation
with his disciples at Caesarea Philippi
7. Mk 15.2-5 = Mt. 27.11-14 = Lk. 23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-38: Jesus'
trial before Pilate.
A feature to note in virtually all of these episodes is that the words of
Jesus are often very short and to the point. This feature perhaps shows
resistance by redactors to expatiate upon Jesus' teaching in these
Greek-language contexts. One can also note that, in certain of the epis-
odes, the words of Jesus common to two or more sources are confined
to a few short verses. One notes the following instances of Jesus' words
in five of the episodes noted above: Jesus' calling of Levi/Matthew con-
89. There may be an instance of code-switching from Greek to Aramaic when

the disciples appear, as part of a strategy by the disciples to distinguish themselves
from a Samaritan woman. See Watt, Code-Switching in Luke and Acts, pp. 35-51.
sists of two overlapping words in Mk 2.14 = Mt. 9.9 = Lk. 5.27; Jesus'
conversation with the centurion is confined to Mt. 8.7, 13, with Johan-
nine-sounding language in Jn 4.48; Jesus' conversation with the Gentile
woman in Mk 7.27, 29 = Mt. 15.26, 28 is confined to two verses; Jesus'
conversation with the Pharisees and Herodians over the coin is found in
Mk 12.15, 16, 17 = Mt. 22.19, 20, 21 = Lk. 20.24, 25; and Jesus' trial
before Pilate has only a single verse with the words of Jesus in the Syn-
optic Gospels: Mk 15.2 = Mt. 27.11 = Lk. 23.3 (= Jn 18.37, with John's
account having a greater number of words recorded—see Chapter 5,
below). The other two episodes have a mix of shorter and longer state-
ments. Jesus' conversation with his disciples at Caesarea Philippi has
short statements in Mk 8.27, 29 and Lk. 9.18, 19, and both short state-
ments and an extended statement in Mt. 16.13, 15, 17-19. Jesus' conver-
sation with the Samaritan woman in Jn 4.4-26 also has a mix of shorter
(vv. 7, 16, 26) and longer (vv. 10, 13-14, 17-18, 21-24) statements.
In the next chapter, a further criterion will be introduced and applied
to these episodes in order to be more precise regarding passages that
may contain authentic words of Jesus in Greek. However, in support of
the above analysis, traditional criteria can be invoked at this point, in-
cluding especially that of historical plausibility in terms of the linguistic
context. In each of these episodes, a case has been made that it is his-
torically plausible on the linguistic and contextual bases established
above to argue that Jesus spoke in Greek. In that sense, all seven of
these episodes are seen to be historically plausible as authentic to the
Jesus tradition, at least in so far as the conversation taking place in
Greek is concerned.
One is not confined to using only this criterion, however. In the light
of the other traditional criteria, one could argue that, as a minimum,
there is reasonably high probability of authenticity in Greek for the
short statements by Jesus in the following four episodes. (1) The first is
Jesus' conversation with his disciples at Caesarea Philippi. As noted
above, this conversation takes place between Jesus and his disciples,
several of whom had Greek names and many of whom came from Gal-
ilee, a region of relatively high Hellenistic influence, in the vicinity of a
highly hellenized city of the north. Their topic of conversation is of a
theological sort, with Jesus asking his disciples ilva |ne Jteyouaiv oi
dv0pco7coi eivai; (Mk 8.27 = Mt. 16.13 = Lk. 9.18, essentially the same
wording in each Gospel—see Chapter 5, for further discussion), and
then essentially repeating the question (Mk 8.29 = Mt. 16.15 = Lk. 9.20).
The disciples give various answers to the first question, and in response
to the second Peter affirms that Jesus is the Christ, at which point he
tells them to tell no one. It is only in Matthew's Gospel that Peter's con-
fession elicits a lengthier response by Jesus that is cited in the Gospel:
The traditional criteria that support the probability of authenticity on

the basis of the criterion of Greek language and its context are several.
One of these is multiple attestation, with Matthew having a good chance
of priority, and hence independence, at least in Mt. 16.17-19. The argu-
ments for Matthaean independence in 16.17-19 include, among several
others, the wordplay revolving around the giving of Peter's name, the
use of the word eKKAriaia, language regarding heaven and Hades (plus
other Semitic wording and phrasing), and possibly the implications of
the use of the perfect passive periphrastic construction and the language
of binding and loosing.90 A further traditional criterion is that of embar-
rassment or of moving against the redactional tendency. This criterion
can be divided into its two potentially complementary dimensions at
this point. The point of embarrassment includes the closing command
of the episode to tell no one that he is the Christ. The movement against
the redactional tendency, in terms of Matthaean independence, includes
(as already noted above) the introduction of a number of words or gram-
matical features not characteristic of Matthew, such as the word
90. See Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', p. 230; cf. idem, 'Vague Verbs,
Periphrastics, and Matthew 16:19', FN 1 (1988), pp. 154-73, esp. pp. 171-72; repr.
in idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 103-23, esp. pp. 121-23; O. Cull-
mann, Petrus: Junger—Apostel—Martyrer (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2nd
edn, 1961; Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study
[trans. F.V. Filson; London: SCM Press, 1962]), pp. 176-217 (although Mt. 16.17-
19 need not have originated in a passion context: see R.H. Gundry, The Narrative
Framework of Matthew XVI.17-19: A Critique of Professor Cullmann's Hypoth-
esis', NovT 1 [1964], pp. 1-9); M. Wilcox, 'Peter and the Rock: A Fresh Look at
Matthew 16:17-19', NTS 22 (1975), pp. 73-88; Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, pp.
602-43 (at least regarding vv. 17-19); Hagner, Matthew, II, pp. 465-66.
aia, the perfect passive periphrastic construction (cf. Mt. 18.18), and
the language of binding and loosing.91 The last traditional criterion to
note is that of historical plausibility, especially in terms of the setting in
the life of Jesus and his disciples. In other words, it is historically plau-
sible that Jesus would discuss such issues as his perceived identity, as
seen by others and by his closest followers, in the course of his ministry,
especially before turning towards Jerusalem.92 There are also features
of the longer passage in Matthew that indicate a Jewish background
(the criterion of Semitic language phenomena), but also authenticity in
Greek, such as the wordplay on Peter's name, and invoking the con-
cepts of binding and loosing.93 This treatment illustrates how this new
Greek language criterion can be used, especially in relation to the tra-
ditional criteria.
Three further episodes are worth considering as having reasonably
high probability of authenticity. (2) The second episode is Jesus' trial
before Pilate. The criteria of multiple attestation (see above and Chapter
5, below, for further discussion of this criterion in relation to this epi-
sode), of moving against the redactional tendency,94 of historical plausi-
bility, and of execution or historical consequence95—a noteworthily
91. On both dimensions, see the evidence and sources cited in Porter, 'Vague
Verbs', pp. 168-69, 155-62; idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 118-20,
104-12.
92. Whether one believes that Jesus had messianic consciousness or not, it is
still historically plausible to think that he asked the question of what others thought
of him. On some of the issues, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, pp. 594-601.
93. See Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', pp. 230-31, 232-35; idem,
Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 167-68, 169-71, 121-23; following B.F.
Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), pp. 185-97; cf. also Davies
and Allison, Matthew, II, pp. 608-15; Hagner, Matthew, II, pp. 465-66.
94. The criterion of movement against the redactional tendency includes the use
of specific language not found elsewhere in the Gospels, as noted and discussed in
Chapter 5, below.
95. From the episode, it is clear that Jesus' agreement with Pilate that he is king
of the Jews (Mk 15.9, 12 follow on from a positive response in 15.2; Lk. 23.11
depends on a positive response in Lk. 23.3; and Jn 18.39 depends on a positive
answer in 18.37) contributes directly to the historical consequence of his execution.
Some scholars have wished either to deny or to downplay as passively affirmative
Jesus' response to Pilate, but this does not seem to be the best interpretation. See
J. Irmscher, 'It) A^yeig (Mk. 15,2—Mt. 27,11—Lk. 23,3)', Studii Clasice 2 (1960),
pp. 151-58, who surveys scholarly opinion; D.R. Catchpole, The Answer of Jesus
to Caiaphas (Matt, xxvi.64)', NTS 17 (1970-71), pp. 213-26; and, most recently,
wide range and number of criteria—would all seem to have relevance

here in support of Jesus uttering any statements he made in Greek. (3)
The third episode is Jesus' conversation with the centurion or comman-
der. The criteria of importance for establishing this probability are those
of multiple attestation (see above), of embarrassment or of movement
against the redactional tendency,96 and of historical plausibility. (4) The
fourth and final episode with reasonably high probability of authenticity
is Jesus' conversation with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite woman.
The criteria of importance here include those of multiple attestation
(see above, and Chapter 5), of embarrassment or movement against the
redactional tendency,97 and of historical plausibility.
There is reasonable probability that there are authentic words of Jesus
in two further passages worth noting. (1) The first episode is the con-
versation with the Pharisees and Herodians over Caesar's coin. Here the
criteria of direct relevance are those of possible multiple attestation (see
Chapter 5, below), of embarrassment or of movement against the redac-
tional tendency,98 of execution or historical consequence, and of histor-
ical plausibility. (2) The second episode is the calling of Levi. The
criteria of importance here are those of embarrassment,99 and of histori-
cal plausibility.
R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (2 vols.;
ABRL; New York: Doubleday; London: Chapman, 1994), I, pp. 488-93, 733.
96. The criterion of embarrassment or of movement against the redactional ten-
dency is seen in Jesus' commendation of a non-Jew for faith not seen in Israel,
possibly implying Jesus' omplicity with the Romans.
97. The criterion of embarrassment or movement against the redactional ten-
dency is seen in Jesus seemingly being bested in the conversation with the woman.
See M.D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (BNTC; Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1991), p. 182.
98. The criterion of embarrassment or movement against the redactional ten-
dency includes the apparent colusion of Jesus with Roman authorities and
institutions, and denying Jewish institutions. See Hooker, Mark, p. 280; L.T. John-
son, The Gospel of Luke (SP, 3; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 311-
12, who cites the evidence from Josephus on how controversial taxation in Judaea
under Quirinius was (Josephus, Ant. 18.1-10, 23-25; 20.102; War 2.117-18; 253-
58).
99. The criterion of embarrassment is seen in Jesus' association with and yet
apparent non-judgment of a person employed in a profession that falls between the
Jewish and Roman worlds, appreciated by neither. See Vledder, Conflict in the Mir-
acle Stories, pp. 204-12.
There is some probability that there are authentic words of Jesus in

one further passage, Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman.
The criteria of embarrassment or of movement against the redactional
tendency,100 and of historical plausibility are useful in this context.
However, questions regarding John's Gospel and its use of highly sym-
bolic language, as noted above, make it impossible to say more than
that the scene is a probable though far from certain one in which Greek
would have been used.101 This is not to say that other episodes in the
Gospels do not contain authentic Greek words of Jesus (or that other
episodes might also have taken place in Greek that this criterion cannot
address), only that this point cannot be argued here on the basis of this
criterion, without further confirmatory support from other criteria.
4. Conclusion
This criterion of Greek language constitutes an important means of
beginning discussion of whether the Greek words of Jesus in a passage
are authentic, but it cannot on its own determine whether the words
recorded are the exact words of Jesus (see Chapter 5, below, on the cri-
terion of Greek textual variance). This, therefore, is a general criterion
that delimits episodes that capture the authentic flavour of the words of
Jesus, not a specific criterion that establishes the actual wording. Never-
theless, this criterion can expand the perspective for discussion of the
criteria in an attempt to determine the weight of probability that Jesus
spoke Greek on a given occasion, and that the words recorded were in
fact something similar to those in the Gospel accounts. This criterion
does not need to rely upon any of the traditional criteria, so long as the
separate phases of the criterion are satisfied, to create the reasonable pre-
sumption that Jesus may have spoken in Greek on a particular occasion.
However, if these same words are further supported by several of the
traditional criteria, such as being recorded in multiple independent tra-
ditions or forms, there is further support for the presumption that Jesus,
in fact, may well have uttered the words recorded. It is also to be noted
that this criterion does not work in the negative, that is, just because
100. The criterion of embarrassment or of movement against the redactional ten-

dency is seen in Jesus being depicted as being exhausted and in need of physical
refreshment.
101. On the literary character of this passage, see W. Munro, The Pharisee and
the Samaritan in John: Polar or Parallel?', CBQ 51 (1995), pp. 710-28.
words or actions of Jesus cannot be shown by this criterion to have

originated in Greek does not mean that they did not, and certainly does
not prove that the words were uttered in Aramaic. It simply shows that
this criterion cannot be used to argue that the words were spoken in
Greek. The corrective value of this criterion for historical-Jesus re-
search is that we should not reject any words or episode as inauthentic,
or as the creation of a later Greek-speaking Church, simply because
they appear to have been spoken in Greek or were spoken in a Greek-
speaking environment, or were spoken to those who appear to have
been themselves Greek-speaking. The linguistic environment of Roman
Palestine during the first century was much more complex, and allows
for the possibility that Jesus himself may well have spoken Greek on
occasion.
EXCURSUS: A RESPONSE TO MAURICE CASEY

102
ON THE LANGUAGES OF JESus
On the basis of the data presented above in section 2, and the use of the traditional
criteria for authenticity (including multiple attestation and dissimilarity to redac-
tional tendencies—both of these are treated in Chapters 2 and 3, above), I have
previously discussed several passages where I thought that Jesus possibly spoke
Greek. These passages included the following: Mk 7.25-30; Jn 12.20-28; Mt. 8.5-13
= Lk. 7.2-10; and Mt. 16.13-20 = Mk 8.27-30 = Lk. 9.18-21. From this discussion, I
showed that we may well have the words of Jesus recorded in his conversation with
Pilate in Mk 15.2 (= Mt. 27.11; Lk. 23.3; Jn 18.33), o\) Xeyeiq 'you say'.103 A
number of major scholars in the first half of the twentieth century recognized the
multilingual linguistic environment of Roman Palestine.104 Perhaps more impor-
102. This Excursus, along with some earlier material in this chapter, is an expanded and
developed form of an article to appear as 'Jesus and the Use of Greek: A Response to
Maurice Casey', BBR 10 (2000).
103. This opinion has been published, in different forms, in Porter, 'Jesus and the Use
of Greek', pp. 123-54; idem, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', pp. 199-235; idem, Studies
in the Greek New Testament, pp. 139-71; idem, 'Greek Language of the New Testament',
pp. 110-12; and L.M. McDonald and S.E. Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred
Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, forthcoming 2000), chap. 3; and is to be developed
further in S.E. Porter, The Language of Jesus and his Contemporaries (SHJ; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, forthcoming).
104. Besides Deissmann and Moulton, noted above, those in the first half of the century
emphasizing the multilingual environment include T.K. Abbott, Essays, Chiefly on the
Original Texts of the Old and New Testaments (London: Longmans, Green, 1891), esp. pp.
tantly for the topic that is being discussed here in this Excursus, however, numerous
scholars in the second half of the twentieth century,105 despite the strength of the
Aramaic hypothesis, have entertained the same idea—that Roman Palestine's lin-
guistic environment was probably multilingual (with Greek and Aramaic, if not also
129-82; Milligan, New Testament Documents, pp. 36-43; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, pp. 1-37;
Vergote, 'Grec Biblique', cols. 1366-67; and Black, Aramaic Approach, p. 16.
105. In the second half of the century, among others, see Birkeland, Language of Jesus;
M. Smith, 'Aramaic Studies and the Study of the New Testament\JBR 26 (1958), pp. 304-
13; Emerton, 'Did Jesus Speak Hebrew?', pp. 189-202; Gundry, 'Language Milieu of First-
Century Palestine', pp. 405-407; S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the
Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II-IV Centuries C.E. (New York: Feldheim,
2nd edn, 1965); idem, 'How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?', in A. Altmann (ed.), Bib-
lical and Other Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 123-41;
Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?; Barr, 'Which Language Did Jesus Speak?', pp. 9-10;
Fitzmyer, 'Languages of Palestine', pp. 126-62; idem, 'Did Jesus Speak Greek?', BARev
18.5 (1992), pp. 58-77; K. Treu, 'Die Bedeutung des Griechischen fur die Juden im
romischen Reich', Kairos 15 (1973), pp. 123-44; H. Leclercq, 'Note sur le grec neo-tes-
tamentaire et la position du grec en Palestine au premier siecle', Les etudes classiques 42
(1974), pp. 243-55; P. Lapide, 'Insights from Qumran into the Languages of Jesus', RevQ 8
(1975), pp. 483-86; Silva, 'Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek', pp. 206-
10; Rabin, 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century', pp. 1007-39; G. Mussies, 'Greek in
Palestine and the Diaspora', in Safrai and Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First
Century, pp. 1040-64; idem, 'Greek as the Vehicle of Early Christianity', NTS 29 (1983),
pp. 356-69; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism; idem, Between Jesus and Paul, pp. 1-29; idem
with Markschies, 'Hellenization' of Judaea, esp. pp. 7-18; S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexan-
der the Great to Hadrian 323 BCE to 135 CE: A Study of Second Temple Judaism (Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980; repr.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), pp. 139-41; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, pp. 73-78;
R. Schmitt, 'Die Sprachverhaltnisse in den 6'stlichen Provinzen des romischen Reiches',
ANRW 2.29.2, pp. 554-86; Rajak, Josephus, pp. 46-64; B. Spolsky, 'Jewish Multilin-
gualism in the First Century: An Essay in Historical Sociolinguistics', in Fishman (ed.),
Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages, pp. 35-50, esp. pp. 40-41; idem, 'Diglossia
in Hebrew in the Late Second Temple Period', Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10.1 (1991),
pp. 85-104, esp. p. 95; B. Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1986), p. 50; Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, pp. 6-26;
Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 255-68; Vorster, Speaking of Jesus, pp. 21-36 (revised from
Neot 24.2 [1990], pp. 215-28), p. 295; H.C. Kee, 'Early Christianity in the Galilee: Re-
assessing the Evidence from the Gospels', in Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity,
pp. 3-22, esp. pp. 20-22; J.W. Voelz, The Linguistic Milieu of the Early Church', CTQ
56.2-3 (1992), pp. 81-97; Millar, Roman Near East, p. 352; R.A. Horsley, Galilee: History,
Politics, People (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), pp. 249-51;
M. Adinolfi, 'L'ellenizzazione della Palestina', in M. Adinolfi and P. Kaswalder (eds.),
Entrarono a Cafarnao: Lettura interdisciplinare di Me 1. Studi in onore di P. Virginio
Ravanelli (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 44; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press,
1997), pp. 29-35; C.A. Evans, 'Life of Jesus', in Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis, pp.
Hebrew), and, therefore, that Jesus may have spoken Greek at least on occasion.106
Nevertheless, in two recent works, Maurice Casey strongly disagrees with my find-
ings on several accounts.107 His arguments deserve a response.
One of the first points to notice is that Casey mis-characterizes my position.
Regarding the question of the language in which Jesus taught, after rightly noting
that most opt for Aramaic, Casey states that 'those particularly expert in Greek or
Hebrew have argued that he taught primarily in the one or the other. Recently,
Professor S.E. Porter has reopened the question with a vigorous restatement of the
view that Jesus taught in Greek. A regrettable feature of Professor Porter's work is
that he downplays or even omits important Aramaic evidence.'108 I explicitly reject
the disjunction betwen Greek and Aramaic into which Casey tries to force me, a
disjunction that seems so vital to the case that he is making in his monograph (see
Chapter 2, above). The question, to my mind, is not whether Jesus taught in Ara-
maic or Greek, but whether there is evidence that he also taught in Greek, without
necessarily downgrading the fact that he undoubtedly taught in Aramaic. In one
article I state:
Regarding the question of the languages Jesus may have known and used in his itiner-
ant ministry, current scholarly opinion follows the conclusion of Dalman, who stated
that, though Jesus may have known Hebrew, and probably spoke Greek (N.B.), he
427-75, esp. p. 447. This is not to say that there have not been those who have disputed this
linguistic situation. This survey is meant to show the range of those who see a similar lin-
guistic context, even if they do not draw the same conclusions regarding the language of
Jesus that I do.
106. Those emphasizing that Jesus may have spoken Greek include Roberts, Greek,
passim, idem, A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Christ (Paisley: Alexander
Gardner, 1893); S.W. Patterson, 'What Language Did Jesus Speak?', The Classical Out-
look 23 (1946), pp. 65-67; G. Bardy, La question des langues dans I'eglise ancienne
(Etudes de theologie historique, 1; Paris: Beauchesne, 1948); T. Nicklin, Gospel Glean-
ings: Critical and Historical Notes on the Gospels (London: Longmans, Green, 1950), pp.
290-300; A.W. Argyle, 'Did Jesus Speak Greek?', ExpTim 67 (1955-56), pp. 92-93, 383;
idem, 'Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times', NTS 20 (1974), pp.
87-89; N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1965), pp. 174-88; idem, 'The Language of the New Testament', in M. Black and H.H.
Rowley (eds.), Peake's Commentary on the Bible (London: Nelson, 1962), pp. 659-62;
among his other writings; P.E. Hughes, 'The Languages Spoken by Jesus', in R.N. Lon-
genecker and M.C. Tenney (eds.), New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 127-43; Selby, Jesus, Aramaic and Greek, passim', J.M.
Ross, 'Jesus's Knowledge of Greek', IBS 12 (1990), pp. 41-47.
107. M. Casey, 'In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', ExpTim 108.11 (1997), pp.
326-28 (328); the bulk of this article is repeated in his Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel,
esp. pp. 65-68, 76-78; cf. idem, 'An Aramaic Approach to the Synoptic Gospels', ExpTim
110.7 (1999), pp. 275-78.
108. Casey, 'In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', p. 326; cf. idem, Aramaic Sources,
p. 63.
certainly taught in Aramaic. With this conclusion long maintained, it might seem
unnecessary to undertake again an investigation of this topic, except for the fact that it
is still not commonly recognized just how strong the probability—even likelihood—is
that Jesus not only had sufficient linguistic competence to converse with others in
Greek but also even to teach in Greek during his ministry.110
Not only that, but along with Casey I recognize that, 'Although it was once
thought by some scholars that Aramaic had entered a period of decline in the two
centuries on either side of Christ's birth, in the last fifty years many important dis-
coveries have confirmed the significant place of the Aramaic language'.111 After
recognizing some limitations to the Aramaic evidence, I conclude that 'Neverthe-
less, this [the Aramaic] theory has many important supporters and almost assuredly
will continue to dominate scholarly discussion'.112
After making the above cited statements, Casey then gives evidence for the use
of Aramaic, much if not most of which is listed in my articles, and summatively
mentioned above. On the evidence from the Gospels, I agree again that there is evi-
dence that Jesus taught in Aramaic, although Casey's evidence is less substantial
than he seems to think. That Jesus is recorded as using Aramaic in prayer or on the
cross, that Jesus gave Aramaic epithets to his inner group of disciples, and that his
disciples are recorded as occasionally using Aramaic words (all examples that Casey
cites) says nothing about the language in which Jesus taught. Of the examples he
notes, only Jesus' use of 'son of man' seems germane.113
109. In a footnote, I cite Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, pp. 1-37, along with others who discuss
the language options.
110. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', pp. 199-200; idem, Studies in the Greek
New Testament, pp. 139-40; cf. idem, 'Jesus and the Use of Greek', p. 123, for a shorter,
though similar, statement, and p. 124, for much the same statement.
111. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', pp. 200-201; idem, Studies in the Greek
New Testament, p. 140; cf. idem, 'Jesus and the Use of Greek', pp. 124-25. Cf. Casey, 'In
Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', p. 326; idem, Aramaic Sources, esp. pp. 76-81.
112. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', p. 202; idem, Studies in the Greek New
Testament, p. 141; cf. idem, 'Jesus and the Use of Greek', pp. 125-26. At this point I offer a
lengthy footnote giving a number of scholars who argue for the Aramaic hypothesis and
Jesus' use of the language. See Chapter 2, above, and the list of advocates above of the
multilingual environment of Palestine, most of whom accept Aramaic as one of the lan-
guages.
113. Casey, Tn Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', p. 327; cf. idem, Aramaic Sources,
pp. 65 and 111-21. Not all would agree even on 'son of man', despite the strong protes-
tations of others: Ross, 'Jesus's Knowledge of Greek', pp. 43-46. Note that there are sug-
gestive implications raised recently by C.F.D. Moule, ' "The Son of Man": Some of the
Facts', NTS 41 (1995), pp. 277-79, with his statements regarding the idiomatic Greek
nature of the Greek of 6 vibe, wv ctvOpokou Cf. C.C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision
and Interpretation (WUNT, 38; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), esp. pp. 173-74. The
adjectival attributive genitive pattern, of nomen rectum following the nomen regens with-
out repetition of the article, was very common in classical Greek (H.W. Smyth, Greek
Grammar [rev. G.M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929; rev. edn,
Even regarding this Aramaic material, however, with which I am in substantial

agreement, Casey has introduced several points that I must question. One is his use
of the term lingua franca. On the basis of the Temple inscription warning Gentiles
of the penalty for entry to the inner-court (found in OGIS II no. 598; SEG VIII no.
169; CIJ II no. 1400) being in Greek114 and the inscription on the shekel trumpets
being in Aramaic, and on the basis of Gamaliel purportedly writing three letters,
one to Galilee, in Aramaic, Casey claims to have shown that 'Aramaic was the lin-
gua franca of Israel'.115 Several comments must be made regarding his under-
standing of the concept of a lingua franca. Casey is probably right that the Temple
inscription was written primarily for Gentiles, but it may not have been written
exclusively for them, since the Romans regularly had edicts and similar pronounce-
ments written in Greek for the indigenous population. An example of this is the
unilingual (although there are signs that it was translated from Latin, as might be
expected) Greek decree of a Caesar forbidding the violation of sepulchres (SEG
VIII no. 13).116 This inscription most likely dates to the first century CE, and was
probably erected in Nazareth in Galilee, although both points are disputed. Perhaps
not a formal decree but a response by a Caesar to a question regarding these sepul-
chral violations, this decree would have applied as much to Jews as to anyone else.
It can be reasonably assumed that it would only have had significance if those who
1956], p. 294), the Greek of the Ptolemaic papyri (E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen
Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit [3 vols.; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1906-1934; 2nd edn of vol.
1, 1970], II.2, p. 143), and that of the New Testament, where it is the predominant form (F.
Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Chris-
tian Literature [trans. R.W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], §271). In
fact, there was an apparent increase in proportion of this attributive genitive pattern to a
ratio of two times as frequent as that of the next most common one in the Ptolemaic papyri.
This increase makes the idea of Semitic influence on the use of this pattern in the Greek of
the New Testament difficult to sustain. See S.E. Porter, 'The Adjectival Attributive Geni-
tive in the New Testament: A Grammatical Study', Trinity Journal NS 4 (1983), pp. 3-17,
esp. pp. 4-5. A linguistic approach to the 'son of man' problem has recently been proposed
by W. Schenk, Das biographische Ich-Idiom 'Menschensohn' in denfriihen Jesus-Biogra-
phien: Der Ausdruck, seine Codes und seine Rezeptionen in ihren Kotexten (FRLANT,
177; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997).
114. There is also the report by Josephus that the inscription was in Latin. See Josephus,
War 5.193-94; 6.124-25, where Titus says that the Jews erected the inscription; Ant.
15.417; cf. Ant. 12.145. The inscription (of which two instances have been found) is
conveniently published in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 80, and J. Finegan,
The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginnings of the Early
Church (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 119-20, who prints both
versions; cf. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, p. 222 n. 85; and P. Segal, 'The Penal-
ty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem', IEJ 39 (1989), pp. 79-84.
115. Casey, 'In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', p. 326; idem, Aramaic Sources,
p. 78; cf. p. 76.
116. For other editions, see van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, p. 159, with com-
mentary on p. 160; Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, pp. 117-18.
read it (or had it read to them) were able to understand Greek.117 Casey's further
argument that some inscriptions have survived in Aramaic proves nothing, since
some—if not more—have survived in Greek as well. However, his understanding
of a lingua franca is obviously limited. No one is disputing that Jews in Palestine
often had Aramaic as a first language and communicated with each other in Ara-
maic.118 At the time of the return from exile, it is true, Aramaic was the lingua
franca of the Persian empire, and the Jews had adopted this language for the obvi-
ous reasons of enabling them to communicate and do business with their overlords.
The extent of a people group, including the Jews, adopting the language of their
dominators (whether this is economically, politically or culturally dominant—they
often go together) is well illustrated by this point. However, by the time of the first
century, the lingua franca was Greek, even for many Jews in Palestine, and even if
they also used Aramaic to communicate with each other. I find it interesting, if not a
bit perplexing, that virtually all biblical scholars will accept that the Jews adopted
Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Persian empire, as their first language, with many
if not most Jews of the eastern Mediterranean speaking it in the fourth century BCE.
Many of these same scholars, however, will almost categorically reject the idea that
the Jews adopted Greek, the lingua franca of the Graeco-Roman world, as their lan-
guage, even though the social, political, cultural and, in particular, linguistic con-
texts were similar in so many ways, and the evidence is at least as conclusive.119
Further, Casey cites the fact that Josephus claims to have written his Jewish War
first in Aramaic, but needed assistance from Greek speakers when he wrote it in
Greek, as supposed evidence that 'Aramaic continued to be used in Israel for cen-
turies'.120 I am not disputing that Aramaic continued to be used in Palestine. These
statements by Josephus, however, are not as straightforward as Casey represents
them. Several issues merit brief discussion. Josephus states in Apion 1.50 that he
had assistance with rendering The Jewish War into Greek, and in War 1.3 that he
'translated' it (cf. Ant. 10.218).121 However, Josephus makes no comment on the
same process taking place with regard to his Antiquities of the Jews. In fact, he
states potentially contrary evidence. In Ant. 20.263-65, after admitting that his
Jewish knowledge outstripped that of others, he states,
117. See Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', p. 220; idem, Studies in the Greek
New Testament, pp. 158-59; idem, 'Jesus and the Use of Greek', p. 145.
118. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, p. 155. Nevertheless, Jews from outside of Palestine
almost assuredly spoke Greek probably as their first language, as noted above, so even
Casey's generalization about Jews in Palestine is subject to question.
119. For a clear statement of the linguistic situation, see Vorster, Speaking of Jesus,
p. 29.
120. Casey, In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', p. 326; idem, Aramaic Sources,
p. 78. That it was Hebrew instead of Aramaic is posited by Birkeland, Language of Jesus,
pp. 13-14.
121. The word often rendered 'translate' (uEiapdAAew) has a wide range of meanings,
from simply change or transform to translate. See Rajak, Josephus, p. 176.
I have also laboured strenuously to partake of the realm of Greek prose and poetry,
after having gained a knowledge of Greek grammar, although the habitual use of my
native tongue has prevented my attaining precision in the pronunciation. For our people
do not favour those persons who have mastered the speech of many nations, or who
adorn their style with smoothness of diction, because they consider that not only is such
skill common to ordinary freemen but that even slaves who so choose may acquire it...
Consequently, though many have laboriously undertaken this training, scarcely two or
three have succeeded... (LCL).122
This tangled statement raises a number of questions—was it or was it not easy to

learn Greek? Was it something that everyone could and did know, or was it not?123
Fitzmyer minimizes the significance of this as evidence for the Palestinian linguistic
milieu, since Josephus composed his writings in Rome.124 However, there is prob-
ably more to be learned from this statement than some have realized. Josephus says
that he went to Rome in 51 CE as an emissary (Life 11-13). Although some have
doubted that he knew Greek,125 it is more likely that he was selected for the trip
because he could speak Greek.126 In this respect, Josephus admits respecting the
historian Justus, author of a history of the Jewish wars against Vespasian (and
known only through what is said about him by Josephus), for his knowledge of
Greek, acquired in the Greek educational system in Tiberias (Life 34-42, 336-60;
cf. also 65, 88, 175-78, 186, 279, 390-93, 410). Further, it is not uncommon to find
ancient authors commenting on their literary inadequacies.127 As a result, Rajak
argues that it was not that Josephus did not have a knowledge of what she calls 'the
ordinary [Greek] language, spoken or written', but that Josephus had not been
122. As Louis Feldman reminds readers (L.H. Feldman [trans.], Josephus Jewish
Antiquities Book XX General Index [LCL, 456; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1965], pp. 139-40), 'there were many Jews, including rabbis, who knew the Greek lan-
guage and literature well'. The classic example, perhaps, is the statement in Rabbi Simeon,
son of Gamaliel I that, of his father's 1000 students at the begining of the second century,
500 studied Torah and 500 studied Greek wisdom (t. Sot. 15.8; b. Sot. 49b). Numerous loan
words from Greek have been found in Jewish writings, including over 1500 in the Talmud,
and Greek personal names were often found in Jewish writings. It is difficult to know how
much use of Greek these factors suggest. See Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp.
53-54, 73-74; Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, pp. 1-67. What is noteworthy is that
despite the two Jewish revolts in Palestine, which may well have turned Jews away from
Graeco-Roman culture, the evidence for Jewish loan words in Greek is apparently heaviest
in the third and fourth centuries CE.
123. See Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, pp. 61-76.
124. Fitzmyer, 'Languages of Palestine', p. 139.
125. See H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (1929; repr. New
York: Ktav, 1967), p. 102.
126. Barr, 'Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek', p. 113. After all, Juvenal called Rome 'a
Greek town' (3.61).
127. See Rajak, Josephus, pp. 47-48, who cites A. Postumius Albinus, rebuked by the
elder Cato for his undue modesty, according to Aulus Gellius (N.A. 11.8.2) and Polybius
(39.12). See also Cicero, Brut. 81; Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.7.2.
formally educated in the language and could not write the kind of Atticistic prose
that would have been desirable in Rome. This was probably due to the aversion of
some Jews of the time to this level of Greek education.128 Thus, regarding the Antiq-
uities of the Jews, Rajak believes that it may well have been possible by 80 or 90 CE
(after composition of The Jewish War) for Josephus to write a lengthy work such as
the Antiquities of the Jews in Greek.129 Regarding The Jewish War, Rajak raises the
question of whether there was in fact any resemblance between the Greek text that
we have (which she contends has no Semitisms)130 and the supposed original
Aramaic version. It may be that Josephus revised an earlier draft, which has now
disappeared without trace, since later Christians did not preserve the manuscript,
possibly because it was of minimal value compared to the Greek version.131 In other
words, one may view these statements of Josephus in very different ways than does
Casey.132
With regard to my arguments for the use of Greek, Casey cites one sentence in
one of my footnotes as indicating my belief that Jesus did not speak Aramaic. In the
midst of my presentation of the evidence for Aramaic, already noted above, I refer
to the fact that the position that Jesus' primary language was Aramaic is argued by
inference. In the footnote I state that 'Some may be surprised that I refer to the
"inference" that Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic. The confirmatory "proof often
marshalled that Jesus taught in Aramaic is the several quotations from Aramaic
cited in the Gospels. By this reasoning it is more plausible to argue that Jesus did
most of his teaching in Greek, since the Gospels are all Greek documents.'133 Of
course, taking only the last sentence out of context, and disregarding how it is used
by me, one could understand the opposite of what the context of my discussion in-
dicates. Casey makes further sweeping statements about my supposed failure to dif-
ferentiate material properly. When I refer to Galilee being 'completely surrounded
by hellenistic culture', he counters that 'This hellenistic culture was however Gen-
tile, and its presence in cities such as Tyre and Scythopolis is entirely consistent
with its rejection by Aramaic-speaking Jews'.134
128. Rajak, Josephus, pp. 51-52; and Wise, 'Languages of Palestine', p. 440. Cf.
P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, bis Works, and their
Importance (JSPSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), p. 62.
129. Rajak, Josephus, p. 233.
130. This reflects the view that the one supposed Semitism in Josephus (rcpocraOevai
meaning 'again') has been paralleled in non-Semitic Greek. For discussion, and bibliog-
raphy, see Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 119-20.
131. Rajak, Josephus, p. 176.
132. On the dangers of the use and abuse of Josephus in New Testament research, see
S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), pp. 7-34.
133. Porter, 'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', p. 201 n. 7; idem, Studies in the Greek
New Testament, p. 141; idem, 'Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee', p. 125 n. 9. The last
sentence is cited by Casey, 'In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', p. 327; idem, Aramaic
Sources, p. 65.
p. 66.
Several points may be made here. The first is that this rejection of Hellenistic
culture is not as complete as Casey would like us to suppose, since there has been a
range of evidence of various types of economic, linguistic and other forms of accul-
turation. Perhaps the most obvious are the Jewish funerary inscriptions in Greek.135
Casey, admitting that they date from the first to the sixth centuries, claims that I do
not draw the necessary conclusion regarding how many Jews in first-century Caper-
naum spoke Greek.136 There seems to be some confusion on Casey's part here. On
the one hand, he claims that in Galilee there was rejection of Hellenistic culture. On
the other hand, assuming that the use of Greek for funerary inscriptions admits of at
least some acceptance of Greek culture,137 Casey goes on to admit that such evi-
135. See van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, pp. 23-24: 'that Greek was indeed the
predominant language of the Jews becomes even more apparent when one looks at the
situation in Roman Palestine. There, too, the majority of the inscriptions are in Greek, not a
vast majority to be sure, but at least more than half of them (between 55 and 60%)... It is
only in Jerusalem that the number of Semitic epitaphs seems to equal approximately the
number of those in Greek. Of course these data shed significant light on the much discussed
problem of the hellenization of Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods... If even
rabbis and their families phrased their epitaphs in Greek, there is only one natural expla-
nation for that phenomenon: Greek was the language of their daily life.' See also HJ.
Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America,
1960; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rev. edn, 1995), pp. 75-92, esp. pp. 75-76. There have
been questions raised regarding the linguistic competence demonstrated by the inscriptions
in Palestine. Horsley (New Documents, p. 21) contends that the Greek epitaphs 'reveal only
a rudimentary ability in written Greek', but he does not think this necessarily indicates the
level of spoken Greek, which he believes was widespread at the time in Palestine. Lieber-
man (Greek in Jewish Palestine, p. 30), however, takes the rudimentary language to indi-
cate that these inscriptions represent the language spoken by the people and not just the
learned. Certainly when compared with the classical inscriptions the language appears to be
poor. But as van der Horst indicates (Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, p. 24), as poor as the Greek
is, it is no different from that of pagan non-literary sources of the time (see also Lifshitz,
'L'hellenisation des Juifs de Palestine', esp. p. 523). Also to be noted is the tomb of the
'Goliath' family, in which over half of the epitaphs are in Greek, much of the writing in
better-formed letters than those of the Aramaic inscriptions (see R. Hachlili, The Goliath
Family in Jericho: Funerary Inscriptions from a First Century A.D. Jewish Monumental
Tomb', BASOR 235 [1979], pp. 31-65; cf. NewDocs 6 [1980-81], no. 23). Further, van der
Horst notes that regional variation in the percentage of inscriptions in Greek (e.g. in Rome
78 per cent are in Greek but only 1 per cent are in Hebrew) seems to confirm his view that
Greek was actually used by those buried with Greek epitaphs: 'One should not assume that
they used Greek only on their tombstones as a kind of sacred language...for their sacred
language remained Hebrew, as is witnessed by the many Greek and Latin inscriptions
ending in the single Hebrew word shalom, or the expressions shalom 'al mishkavo or
shalom 'al Yisra'eV (Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, p. 23). Barr ('Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek',
pp. 102-103) cites occurrence of Greek personal names as indicative of the place of Greek.
p. 66.
137. Horsley (Archaeology, p. 170; idem, Galilee, pp. 247-49) also raises the legitimate
dence exists, but criticizes me for not specifying the number that used Greek. Since
my point is that some from that area, including possibly Jesus, used Greek, it
appears that Casey has made my case for me. I am not necessarily arguing that all
or even a vast majority of Jews used Greek, only that some did, as he seems to be
admitting. Casey does not mention the fact that all of the funerary inscriptions at
Beth She'arim (near Beth She'an/Scythopolis) from the first two centuries are in
Greek.138 Elsewhere he admits that the lingua franca of the eastern half of the
Roman empire was Greek.139 Surely, he does not mean to say the eastern half
except Galilee or Palestine, or does he? Whatever Casey may mean, his comment is
clearly out of keeping with recent research on Galilee.14° The latest work on mobil-
question of the relation of spoken to written Greek, as found in the inscriptions, and whether
the inscriptions can be taken as indicative of the language used by people. Despite these
reservations, Horsley still concludes that 'much of the population of Lower Galilee must
been [sic] able to communicate a bit in Greek' (Galilee, p. 249; but contra idem, Archae-
ology^. 171?).
138. Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, p. 85. Eighty per cent of the inscriptions there
from the first four centuries CE are in Greek (p. 101). One might well see a trend here that
Casey misses. The inscriptions from Beth She'arim are in M. Schwabe and B. Lifshitz
(eds.), Beth She 'arim. II. The Greek Inscriptions (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, for the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Univer-
sity, 1974), where there is further reference to other Palestinian inscriptions. Questions
have been raised about whether those buried at Beth She'arim were local or from the
Diaspora or whether many represented reinterment, and whether those buried included any
other than simply the higher social stratum. See Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, p. 145;
and Horsley, Galilee, p. 248. The linguistic features of the inscriptions would argue against
their being written only by the higher social stratum, and recent findings indicate that the
site, the central cemetery for all Jews, included those from both the Diaspora and Palestine.
Besides Schwabe and Lifshitz (eds.), Beth She'arim, pp. 201-206, see Z. Weiss, 'Social
Aspects of Burial in Beth She'arim: Archeological Finds and Talmudic Sources', in Levine
(ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, pp. 357-71, esp. pp. 366-67. However, the Greek
documents from Masada would tend to confirm the multilingual culture of Jews over a
range of socio-economic levels at the time. See H.M. Cotton and J. Geiger, Masada, The Y.
Yadin Excavations 1963-65. II. The Latin and Greek Documents (Jerusalem: Israel Explo-
ration Society, 1989), esp. pp. 9-10. See also Jewish funerary inscriptions from the first or
second centuries in Jerusalem (e.g. NewDocs 1 [1976], no. 70).
p. 67. Casey also admits that Greek was used throughout Israel (Aramaic Sources, pp. 73-
76).
140. Important recent studies to consider are Freyne, Galilee, passim; idem, 'The Geog-
raphy, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus', in Chilton
and Evans (ed.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 75-121; idem, 'Jesus and the Urban
Culture of Galilee', in Fornberg and Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts, pp. 597-622;
E.M. Meyers, The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Ju-
daism', ANRW 2.2.19, pp. 686-702; Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, A. Over-
man, 'Recent Advances in the Archaeology of the Galilee in the Roman Period', CR 1
(1993), pp. 35-58; Horsley, Archaeology, idem, Galilee; D.A. Fiensy, 'Jesus' Socioeco-
ity and modes of transportation indicates that lower Galilee was fully participatory
in the Roman world of its day, connected together by a complex trade network that
allowed movement of people and goods. Even if people maintained different private
beliefs, their public lives were already a part of this Roman world.141 Responding
directly to the kinds of claims that Casey makes, the archaeologist Meyers notes:
'While it is commonplace to assume that the cities of the Decapolis represented a
band of gentile cities that contained the extent and spread of Jewish culture, such
assumptions are quite misleading'. He goes on to note the complex interplay of
Judaism with various cities of the Decapolis, and cites other research that indicates
that there was 'a far greater economic exchange system at work between Jewish
areas and sites and the cities of the Decapolis than previously assumed'.142
Regarding multilingualism, Casey rejects my view that in Palestine the prestige
language was Greek. He states that
We may imagine this view being held at the court of Herod Antipas, and in a technical
sense among Aramaic-speaking Jews who used Greek for business purposes. Porter
gives us no reason to believe that this was the view of chief priests, scribes, Jewish
peasants, or the Jesus movement. In a sense, the prestige language was Hebrew, the
language of the Torah... From another perspective, instruction in the halakhah was given
to most Jews in Aramaic, into which the Torah was translated. This could be perceived
as the central factor, and peasants and craftsmen might operate only among Aramaic-
speaking Jews. From this perspective, politics, education and economics were run in
Aramaic. Fundamentally, therefore, Jewish people could take a different view of what a
prestige language was from that found in the multicultural research on which Porter
depends.143
nomic Background', in J.H. Charlesworth and L.L. Johns (eds.), Hillel and Jesus: Com-
parative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), pp.
225-55, esp. pp. 245-54, specifically on Jesus.
141. J.F. Strange, 'First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts', in D.R.
Edwards and C.T. McCollough (eds.), Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in
the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism,
143; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 39-48, esp. p. 47; cf. also D. Edwards, 'First Cen-
tury Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and Literary
Evidence', in D.J. Lull (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (SBLSP,
27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 169-82, esp. p. 171; idem, 'The Socio-Economic
and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent
Jesus Movement', in Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, pp. 53-73, esp. pp. 55-60.
142. E.M. Meyers, 'Jesus and his Galilean Context', in Edwards and McCollough (eds.),
Archaeology and the Galilee, pp. 57-66 (62).
p. 66. Casey does not mention what this 'multicultural research' is, but it can surely be of
no less inherent relevance than the few citations of work on multilingualism and of trans-
lation studies that he cites (Aramaic Sources, pp. 55, 93-106). Casey's reference to 'the
Aramaic into which the Torah was translated' reflects his apparent belief in the targumic
tradition already being firmly established by the time of the first century CE on the basis of
fragments of what appear to be targums being found at Qumran (Aramaic Sources, pp. 33-
The issue of prestige languages involves consideration of a range of social, eco-

nomic, linguistic and political issues, and is not nearly so straightforward a matter
of personal choice as Casey seems to imply.144 It is true that the hierarchy of lan-
guages in a multilingual environment and their relation to first and second lan-
guages may vary, as is the case between Egypt and Palestine.145 Further, one may
well admit that Hebrew would have been the prestige language for some, if not
many, Jews in a religious or liturgical context.146 These are not at issue here. The
issue is the relation of Greek and Aramaic, and their relation to the lingua franca. It
may be that there were some Jews who never had any contact with those other than
Aramaic-speaking Jews and may also have only spoken Aramaic (I am doubtful, but
include this for the sake of argument). Their speaking only Aramaic does not mean
that their language constituted the lingua franca, as defined above. However, what
was the situation for a number of craftsmen and others who did business with those
other than Jews in Palestine? Casey admits that some might have been in that sit-
uation, and even raises the question of whether Jesus would have known any Greek,
since his work as a craftsman may well have taken him to the Hellenistic city of
Sepphoris. However, Casey wishes to exclude the Jesus movement from those who
spoke Greek.147 On what basis? The Gospels depict a movement that travelled
fairly widely and extensively within Palestine, and had numerous contacts recorded
with those who were not Jewish, and not presumably Aramaic-speaking (since the
prestige language situation that Casey [wrongly, I think] posits would only apply to
Jews). Jews may have wished to take a view such as Casey's, but if they wished to
communicate in their line of work or for any other purpose with any one other than
Jews, they would have needed to know the prestige language, Greek. Jesus is de-
picted in the Gospels as such a person, since he was a carpenter or craftsman (Mk
35). Besides the Targum of Job (4QtgJob), Casey only seems to cite the fragmentary 4Q156
(=Lev. 16.12-21).
144. Others who have confused the issue of prestige languages include Meier, Marginal
Jew, I, pp. 291 n. 21, 294 n. 39; Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, pp. 156-58. On
prestige languages, where issues of society, power and economics are all brought to bear,
see E. Haugen, 'Problems of Bilingualism', Lingua 2 (1950), pp. 271-90, esp. p. 278; idem,
'Dialect, Language, Nation', American Anthropologist 68 (1966), pp. 922-35; repr. in Pride
and Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, pp. 97-111; Hudson, Sociolinguistics, pp. 31-34. The
related issue of diglossia is often introduced here (referring to C. Ferguson, 'Diglossia',
Word 15 [1959], pp. 325-40): e.g. Horsley, Archaeology, pp. 158-59; Watt, Code-Switch-
ing in Luke and Acts, pp. 47-48. For a discussion of the issues, and whether the term is best
applied to this linguistic situation, see the essays in Part 1 in Porter (ed.), Diglossia and
Other Topics.
145. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 154-55.
146. But cf. E.M. Meyers, 'Galilean Regionalism: A Reappraisal', in W.D. Green (ed.),
Approaches to Ancient Judaism. V. Studies in Judaism and its Greco-Roman Context
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 115-31, esp. p. 121, who thinks that Aramaic may have
become the 'surrogate holy language'.
147. Casey, 'In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', p. 328; idem, Aramaic Sources, pp.
66, 81-82.
6.3), economically a middle level vocation.148 From Nazareth, near Sepphoris, a

thoroughly Hellenized city, a man in his work would have needed to be involved in
reciprocal trade, which was widespread in that region.149 As Kee concludes in his
discussion of Jesus in Galilee, This means that for Jesus to have conversed with
inhabitants of cities in the Galilee, and especially of cities of the Decapolis and the
Phoenician region, he would have had to have known Greek, certainly at the con-
versational level'.15°
The last issue that Casey raises is that of interpreters. The first instance he cites is
that of Titus negotiating with those in Jerusalem. Casey questions my suggestion
that it is unknown whose fault it is that Titus was not understood when he addressed
the rebels, the situation requiring that Josephus speak in the 'native tongue' (Jose-
phus, War 5.360-61).151 Casey states that 'It is perfectly well known' whose defi-
ciency it was.152 Casey is correct that Titus was reportedly fluent in Greek
(Suetonius, Titus 3.2).153 That does not mean that the situation is as clear-cut as
Casey contends, since even if Aramaic was 'the lingua franca [sic—see above] of
Jerusalem Jews'154 he must contend further that none of those listening had any
knowledge whatsoever of Greek. Here is not the place to get involved in the recent
debate over the nature of the Jewish uprising and the social composition of the
rebels.155 It is sufficient to note, however, that the major groups of rebels repre-
sented those from both rural and urban settings, priestly and non-priestly classes,
and from all over Palestine (including also Idumaeans).156 Is Casey contending that
148. See Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 278-85.

149. See Edwards, 'First Century Urban/Rural Relations', pp. 172-76; idem, 'Socio-
Economic and Cultural Ethos', pp. 55-60; Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 278-85.
150. Kee, 'Early Christianity in the Galilee', p. 21. Cf. Overman, 'Archaeology of the
Galilee', p. 45: 'we find now that Greek was far more pervasive and influential than we
thought even a decade ago'.
151. Note that this is one of only two places in The Jewish War that Josephus refers to
his 'native tongue' (i\ Ttdipioc; yâaa), the other being 1.3, treated above. He also refers
to the 'Hebrew' in 6.97, but it is unclear whether this is the same language. Josephus in
Antiquities of the Jews refers to the 'tongue of the Hebrews' or 'language of the Hebrews'
or uses similar types of phrases in 1.34, 36, 117, 146, 204, 258, 333; 3.252; 6.22; 7.67;
9.290; 11.148, 286, and to Hebrew in 10.8 and 11.159. See Rajak, Josephus, pp. 230-31.
p. 67. But cf. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, pp. 63-65; Fitzmyer, 'Languages of Pal-
estine', p. 138, who recognize the difficulties in interpreting the situation.
153. A number of the emperors were known for their accomplishments in Greek, even if
they had to work hard to realize them. See Suetonius, Aug. 89; Claud. 42.
p. 67.
155. See J.S. McLaren, Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the
First Century CE (JSPSup, 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), esp. pp. 122-
78.
156. See D. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution: 6-74 C.E. A Political History Based on the
Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 94-149, who discusses the
none of the Jews in Jerusalem during the siege spoke Greek? The episode gives no
evidence of even a passive understanding of Greek. From the evidence, one cannot
determine whether at least some in Jerusalem during the revolt spoke Greek or not.
The situation was a highly politically charged one, where entering into direct com-
munication with the Romans, even if one spoke the same language, may have been
politically unwise.157 There is also the possibility of dialectal interference, and the
possibility that if Greek were being used it was being used by some for whom it
was a first and others a second or acquired language.158 A somewhat similar
incident is possibly recorded in Mk 15.34, where Jesus reportedly spoke Aramaic,
but was apparently misunderstood by those standing by.159 Does this mean that the
listeners did not speak or understand Aramaic (if we follow Casey's logic)? This is
certainly one interpretation, but not the only one. When one considers that some of
the Jewish rebels came from Galilee, where Greek was spoken, and some were
linked to rebels at Masada, where Greek documents have also been found dating to
major rebels or rebel groups and their possible origins and social levels: the Zealots, the
Sicarii, John of Gischala, the Idumaeans, and Simon Bar Giora. One must also not overlook
the importance of such evidence as the Theodotus inscription (SEG VIII no. 244; CIJII no.
1404), an inscription commemorating a Theodotus, son of Vettenos, a priest and head of
the synagogue, the son and grandson of the head of the synagogue, who himself built a
synagogue for the reading of the law and study of the commandments, found in Jerusalem
and probably erected before 70 CE. The inscription is discussed and plate reproduced in
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 439-41, with photograph between pp. 140-41;
and discussed in Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, pp. 131-33; and R. Riesner, 'Syna-
gogues in Jerusalem', in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting.
IV. Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1995), pp. 179-
211, esp. pp. 194-200. H.C. Kee (The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.',
NTS 36 [1990], pp. 1-24, esp. pp. 7-9; 'Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue: Prob-
lems and Progress', NTS 41 [1995], pp. 481-500, esp. pp. 482-84) has called the dating of
the Theodotus inscription into question. However, he has received virtually no support for
his position. The most serious responses on this point are found in Riesner (above); E.P.
Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press; Phil-
adelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 341-43 nn. 28, 29; K. Atkinson, 'On Fur-
ther Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue: Fact or Fiction?, NTS 43 (1997), pp. 491-
502; and P.W. van der Horst, 'Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship before 70
CE?', in S. Fine (ed.), Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural
Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 18-43, esp.
pp. 18-23. See also the Herodian inscription honouring a man named Paris who paid for
a stone pavement on or around the Temple, noted in B. Isaac, 'A Donation for Herod's
Temple in Jerusalem', IEJ 33 (1983), pp. 86-92.
157. Note that in the similar incident in Josephus, War 6.95, when Josephus addresses
those in the city in 'Hebrew' (War 6.97), he positions himself so that he can be heard by all
(not just John of Gischala) and earnestly appeals to them (War 9.97: rcoUd npoor\vu-
potei), indicating the emotional element involved in the confrontation.
158. See Hudson, Sociolinguistics, pp. 24-36.
159. On this topic from a linguistic perspective, see J.M. Watt, 'Of Gutturals and Gal-
ileans: The Two Slurs of Matthew 26.73', in Porter (ed.), Diglossia and Other Topics.
the rebellion, one cannot help but think that other factors besides linguistic compe-
tence entered into the scenario when Titus addressed the Jews in Jerusalem. The sit-
uation may well have involved conscious code-switching by the Jews in Jerusalem.
In other words, the rebels intentionally reverted to their 'private' language (unknown
to the Romans) and feigned inability to understand Greek in order to force the
Romans to deal with them on their own terms, that is, by translating into Aramaic,
something the Romans would have been loath to do. In any event, we cannot con-
clude from the episode, in which Titus's Greek was not understood but Josephus's
'native language' was, that no one in Jerusalem during the revolt could speak Greek.
Regarding Jesus' trial before Pilate, Casey criticizes me for not realizing that an
interpreter must have been present, since the Synoptic Gospels are 'uninterested in
interpreters' 16° and other documents do not mention interpreters. Casey is right that
there are a number of problems regarding the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' trial, but
it does not seem necessary to create more problems than there really are. For exam-
ple, in Josephus interpreters are specifically mentioned in War 6.96, 129 and 327,
indicating that at least some writers are interested in them and do mention them. I
may be wrong that there was no interpreter at the trial of Jesus, but I am not alone
in thinking that the scenario may be plausible as reported. The conclusion of H.I.
Marrou regarding Roman officials is as follows: 'in fact Roman officials could
understand Greek and speak it, and they found it better to do without interpreters,
so that, in the East, the cross-examination of witnesses, and the court proceedings
generally, were carried on in Greek'.161 To my suggestion that there is a possibility
that we may have some of the actual words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, a
conclusion that seems logically to follow from the evidence that I have mentioned
above, Casey says that it is a 'fundamentalist's dream', and 'ultraconservative as-
sumptions are required to carry it through'.162
Is it such a 'fundamentalist's dream'? Are ultraconservative or uncritical assump-
tions required to conclude in this way? Scholars other than simply myself might
well have something to say on these questions. As has recently been recognized by
one scholar, the 'problem of the language(s) Jesus spoke has to be raised anew in
the light of recent discoveries'.163 Certainly, Aramaic is thought to have been widely
pp. 67, 82.
161. Marrou, History of Education, p. 256, citing Valerius Maximus 8.7.6 and Sue-
tonius, Tib. 71. Cf. also Roberts, Greek, p. 165; Mussies, 'Greek in Palestine', p. 1056.
p. 67, where Casey changes 'ultraconservative' to 'uncritical'. Cf. however Casey's most
recent comments regarding finding the authentic words of Jesus in Mt. 11.4-6 = Lk. 7.22-
23: 'the process of reconstruction simply adds to the arguments for supposing that the words
of Jesus are genuine, by showing that they could be spoken and transmitted in the language
in which Jesus taught' ('Aramaic Approach', p. 277). Here it appears that Casey and I for
the most part simply disagree on what that language might have been, rather than that the
goal is a worthwhile one to pursue.
163. Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum', p. 11. I note that much of what Betz says clearly
used by Jesus, but The fact is that none of Jesus' sayings is transmitted in Ara-
maic'.164 More to the point, The Gospel writers take it as self-evident that Jesus and
his contemporaries spoke and taught in Greek. Even the author of Acts, the only
New Testament author to raise the language question, does not doubt Jesus' ability
or practice of speaking Greek.'165 And, indeed, there are Aramaic loanwords and
peculiar expressions in the Gospels, as well as place names and other proper names
that reflect Palestinian culture. However, 'we now also know that the New Testa-
ment sources, even the older ones, are not thoroughgoing translations from the
Aramaic... There is no reason, however, to assume that long stretches of texts have
been translated from the Aramaic. Most of even the oldest layers of the synoptic tra-
dition give the impression that they existed in Greek from the start.'166 This formu-
lation raises many questions, a few of which can be pursued here. For example, 'the
situation does mean, first of all, that the question of Jesus' language(s) cannot be
answered on the basis of the New Testament texts'; any estimation of Jesus' lan-
guage must 'be based on the linguistic environment of Palestine, and not the New
Testament'.167 The evidence indicates that the assumption of an Aramaic back-
ground must be re-assessed, in terms of seeing Palestine as bilingual or multilin-
gual.168 In fact, There was never an early Christian community that spoke only
Aramaic which was then succeeded by a Greek-speaking church'. Instead, there was
a complex multilingual environment, in which 'Anyone involved in teaching would
certainly have expected to be multilingual, at least to a degree'.169
Where does Jesus fit within this scenario? The 'evidence we now have is such that
a knowledge of Greek can no longer be denied to Jesus'.170 As a craftsman, who
did business in Galilee, Jesus would have needed to be able to converse in Greek.
This conclusion 'fits with the picture of the synoptic tradition, according to which
Jesus has no difficulty in conversing in Greek with the centurion from Capernaum,
Pilate or the Syro-Phoenician woman...' 171 Thus, the ' "roots of the 'Jewish-Chris-
tian/Hellenistic' or more precisely the Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian community
in which the message of Jesus was formulated in Greek for the first time clearly
extend back to the very earliest community in Jerusalem'".172 If it is true that the
Jesus tradition, at least in significant parts from the outset, existed in Greek, the
resonates with what I have published. I am only sorry that I did not know of his article ear-
lier. Casey did not apparently know of Betz's work either.
164. Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum', p. 12.
166. Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum', pp. 12, 13.
168. Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum', p. 14, citing Hengel with Markschies, 'Hellenization'
of Judaea, pp. 7-8.
172. Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum', p. 15, here quoting Hengel with Markschies, 'Hell-
enization' of Judaea, p. 18.
'question is, rather, whether the assumption of an Aramaic Vorlage should not be
given up altogether. It would be much more consistent with both the gospel tra-
dition and the multilinguistic culture to assume that Greek versions of Jesus' say-
ings existed from the beginning.'173
These preceding statements, made by no less than Hans Dieter Betz, provide a
suitable backdrop for continuing the discussion regarding the knowledge of Greek
in Palestine by Jews, including Jesus, and the use of Greek by him and his first and
subsequent followers.174 Casey has not adequately refuted the case that has been
made for the use of Greek, and a way forward would be to avoid unhelpful disjunc-
tive thinking, and to recognize and enter fully into the scholarly discussion the fac-
tor of the complex multilingual world of first-century Palestine. This discussion
provides a suitable foundation for developing a criterion for authenticity based upon
Greek language (see above in this chapter).
173. Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum', p. 16. Betz goes on to note that 'If at that time Ara-
maic versions of sayings of Jesus also existed, they have not been preserved. The existence
of Aramaic sayings of Jesus can be assumed, but without further evidence there is no way
to either prove or disprove such an assumption' (p. 16). However, one does not need to
conclude as a result that, if Jesus spoke Greek, he was a Cynic philosopher. See H.D. Betz,
'Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis', JR 74 (1994), pp. 453-75;
repr. in idem, Antike und Christentum, pp. 32-56, where he is critical of the hypothesis. See
now also D.E. Aune, 'Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some Critical Con-
siderations', in Charlesworth and Johns (eds.), Hillel and Jesus, pp. 176-92.
174. Betz ('Wellhausen's Dictum', p. 16) differentiates whether Jesus taught in Greek
from the question of whether he was able to speak Greek, concluding that one cannot be
certain whether Jesus taught in Greek, apart from considering whether Jesus' disciples spoke
Greek. At this point, he contends, the answer is unknown, but he advocates further critical
questioning. I am not as non-committal as Betz is at this point, in the light of the linguistic
milieu in Palestine, especially Galilee, that he outlines above.
Chapter 5
THE CRITERION OF GREEK TEXTUAL VARIANCE
1. Introduction
An area of noticeable neglect in recent study of the Jesus tradition is
that of textual variants. In two recent articles, my colleague, Matthew
Brook O'Donnell, and I have attempted to bring these back into the dis-
cussion, both for the words of Jesus and for the activities of Jesus.1
Much of the groundwork that is laid in these two articles, especially the
one on the words of Jesus, is relevant for the discussion of this mono-
graph, and in particular for this chapter. This material summarized here
to establish the context for establishment and development of this sec-
ond criterion. The criterion of Greek textual variance, as will be defined
below, is dependent upon broader concepts regarding textual variants in
manuscripts. In essence, the methods of textual criticism, so long ne-
glected in historical-Jesus research, suggest a method by which one can
utilize the traditions themselves as found in the Gospels to develop a
criterion for authenticity. Thus, it is the neglect of this dimension of tex-
tual study that must first be addressed, before the criterion can be fully
implemented. This criterion will then be employed to analyse a number
of select passages, already entered into discussion by the first criterion,
that of Greek language and its context (see Chapter 4, above), to see if
there is a basis for positing the authenticity of any of the specific words
of Jesus in the Gospels.
1. See S.E. Porter and M.B. O'Donnell, The Implications of Textual Variants
for Authenticating the Words of Jesus', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authen-
ticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS, 28.1; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), pp. 97-133 (used
in section 2, below); and S.E. Porter and M.B. O'Donnell, The Implications of
Textual Variants for Authenticating the Activities of Jesus', in B. Chilton and C.A.
Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1998), pp. 121-51. Numerous new textual variants were introduced into these two
articles, partly due to a computer glitch at the post-proofreading stage. See the Ex-
cursus at the end of this chapter for a list of corrections.
2. Textual Variants and the Words of Jesus

When various, specific passages are discussed in historical-Jesus re-
search, such as a kingdom saying or a parable or a pronouncement of
Jesus, reference is usually made to pertinent textual variants. For exam-
ple, in an article on Mt. 23.39 = Lk. 15.35b, Dale Allison notes in his
first footnote that there is variation in the wording in these verses, and
cites manuscript evidence to which he returns later in his article;2 and at
several places in his discussion of Mk 2.1-12, G.D. Kilpatrick brings
textual variants into his analysis.3 This is to be expected and desired in
exegetical work focusing upon the text of the New Testament. Almost
inevitably, since they are confined to individual passages, these com-
ments must be limited in what they say about a given variant, since the
variant is not seen within any larger context, such as the patterns of vari-
ants in a certain manuscript or in a single biblical book. However, if
dealing with pertinent variants in a single passage is important to doing
historical-Jesus research concerned with the words of Jesus, then it
would seem logical to think that exploration of the entire complex of
the words of Jesus with regard to their textual variants would also be
important. This study would certainly seem to have relevance for many
of the traditional criteria for authenticity, specifically that of multiple
attestation (is a saying, including particular words or phrases, found in
more than one independent source or tradition?).4 The criterion of mul-
tiple attestation, despite the criticisms levelled above in Chapter 2, has
a much closer relation to the actual wording of a Gospel text than do
others, such as historical coherence, for example. This criterion takes on
added significance when multiply attested sources indicate that the words
of Jesus were originally spoken in Greek (the criterion of Greek lan-
guage and its context). So far as it can be determined from the pertinent
secondary literature, however, this kind and degree of interest in the
actual wording (variant or otherwise) of the words of Jesus is not the
case among contemporary historical-Jesus scholars. Thus, before the
2. D.C. Allison, Jr, 'Matthew 23.39 = Luke 13.35B as a Conditional Prophecy',

JSNT 18 (1983), pp. 75-84; repr. in C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter (eds.), The His-
torical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader (BibSem, 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995), pp. 262-70.
3. G.D. Kilpatrick, 'Jesus, his Family and his Disciples', JSNT 15 (1982), pp.
3-19; repr. in Evans and Porter (eds.), The Historical Jesus, pp. 13-28.
4. See Chapter 2, above, for discussion of the criterion of multiple attestation.
5. The Criterion of Greek Textual Variance 183
two essays mentioned above were published, there was, to our knowl-
edge, no systematic or extended study of how any given variant is to be
seen within the context of all of the variants of the words of Jesus in the
Gospels.5
One of the few works to address systematically the question of tex-
tual criticism in Jesus research is Norman Perrin's Jesus and the Lan-
guage of the Kingdom. In it, he addresses the importance of textual crit-
icism as the first step in the hermeneutical process, by making a state-
ment that, I trust, most New Testament scholars would hold to be fun-
damental: 'we begin by establishing the text to be interpreted'.6 In his
volume, Perrin is concerned with language about the kingdom, and thus
proceeds to analyse previous work in this regard. In each instance, he
starts by summarizing what previous scholars have done in the area of
textual criticism, before analysing their use of historical criticism, in
order to get to his area of major interest, literary criticism. In the area of
parable research, he notes that work on textual criticism has been done,
seeing this as the best possible arena for viewing 'the problems and
possibilities' of the hermeneutical approach that he is advocating. He
first looks at the work of Joachim Jeremias, concluding that 'it is to
Jeremias above all others that we owe our present ability to reconstruct
the parables very much in the form in which Jesus told them'.7 Whereas
5. Three major sources were specifically consulted before arriving at this esti-
mation, and were not disputed by any other evidence subsequently discovered (we
would, of course, welcome discovering such a resource). These sources include the
extensive study of historical-Jesus research by C.A. Evans, Life of Jesus Research:
An Annotated Bibliography (NTTS, 24; Leiden: EJ. Brill, rev. edn, 1996);
F. Neirynck et al, The Gospel of Mark: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1990
(BETL, 102; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1992), esp. pp. 628-29; and
W.R. Telford, 'Major Trends and Interpretive Issues in the Study of Jesus', in
B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the
State of Current Research (NTTS, 19; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1994), pp. 33-74. Simi-
larly, a recent collection of essays extracted from the last 20 years or so of publica-
tion of a major journal in New Testament studies, JSNT, confirms this picture. There
are essays on topics and exegetical issues, and even a section on linguistic and
stylistic aspects of Jesus' teaching, but apart from one essay, all of these essays con-
fine themselves to a particular phrase or pericope. See Evans and Porter (eds.), The
Historical Jesus.
6. N. Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor
in New Testament Interpretation (NTL; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976), p. 2.
7. Perrin, Jesus and the Language, p. 101, citing J. Jeremias, The Parables of
Jeremias was, according to Perrin, the one to whom so much is owed in

this regard, the same he thinks cannot be said of subsequent interpreters.
Perrin concludes that, with regard to textual criticism of the parables,
the New Hermeneutic of Ernst Fuchs, Eta Linnemann and Eberhard
Jiingel 'has little to offer' ,8 since they simply follow the work of Jere-
mias, as did Robert Funk in his metaphorical interpretation,9 and Dan
Otto Via.10 It is with the work of John Dominic Crossan, according to
Perrin, that 'the most important work since Jeremias' has been done in
'establishing the text to be interpreted'.11
Two comments may be made about Perrin's work. The first is that,
on the basis of the research that is known to me, his work on textual
variants in terms of the parables and the kingdom of God is unique. For
example, two recent articles on the state of research regarding the para-
bles of Jesus and the kingdom of God in Jesus research do not even
mention textual criticism as an area of concern or importance for the
current study of the topic.12 The second comment is that, even with
Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2nd rev. edn, 1972), who, as seen in
Chapter 1, above, wrote during the so-called 'no quest' period. Note that Perrin is
also tacitly appealing to the criterion of Semitic language phenomena, since it is the
basis for much of Jeremias's work on parables in terms of the teaching of Jesus (see
Chapter 2, above).
8. Perrin, Jesus and the Language, p. 120, citing E. Fuchs, Studies of the His-
torical Jesus (trans. A. Scobie; SET, 42; London: SCM Press, 1964); E. Linne-
mann, Jesus of the Parables (trans. J. Sturdy; New York: Harper & Row, 1967 [=
Parables of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1966)]); and E. Jiingel, Paulus und Jesus
(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962).
9. Perrin, Jesus and the Language, p. 132, citing R.W. Funk, Language, Herme-
neutic, and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966).
10. Perrin, Jesus and the Language, p. 153, citing D.A. Via, Jr, The Parables:
Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967).
11. Perrin, Jesus and the Language, p. 166, citing J.D. Crossan, In Parables:
The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
12. See C.L. Blomberg, 'The Parables of Jesus: Current Trends and Needs in
Research', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 231-54;
B. Chilton, 'The Kingdom of God in Recent Discussion', in Chilton and Evans
(eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 255-80. The issue of textual variants is not
raised in two similar studies by Blomberg: 'New Horizons in Parable Research',
Trinity Journal 3 (1982), pp. 3-17; 'Interpreting the Parables of Jesus: Where Are
We and Where Do We Go from Here?', CBQ 53 (1991), pp. 50-78. Neither do
textual variants feature in any significant way in any of the selected essays in the
recent collection edited by Chilton: The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus
Perrin's concern, what he seems to mean by textual criticism is the mini-

malist agenda of establishing the parameters of the extent of Jesus'
words, such as whether he spoke Lk. 16.9-13 in the parable of the unjust
steward, not the particular wording and its variants within the parable
itself.
There are at least two major reasons why textual variants have been
neglected in historical-Jesus research. The first is that some of the prin-
ciples of textual criticism seem to move in the opposite direction from
the criteria used to establish authentic Jesus tradition, and hence the
methods may appear to be at odds. Several of the traditional criteria for
authenticity, as noted above in Chapter 2, are dependent upon similari-
ties—or even forms of harmonization—in traditions, such as the criteria
of multiple attestation and coherence. However, one of the assumptions
of much textual criticism is that later scribes are the ones who tended
towards conformity of traditions and harmonized them.13 As Epp says
in a recent summary of textual criticism, 'Subtle influences such as par-
allel passages, especially in the Synoptic Gospels...led scribes to con-
form the texts they were producing to those more familiar parallel forms
that were fixed in their minds'.14 As a result of this and other assump-
tions, Epp outlines 11 criteria of textual criticism regarding internal evi-
dence, showing 'scribal habits as they functioned in the copying pro-
(Issues in Religion and Theology, 5; Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SPCK,

1984). It must be stated, however, that Chilton does show serious concern for the
text when he studies individual pericopes in his God in Strength: Jesus' Announce-
ment of the Kingdom (SNTU, B.I; Freistadt: Plochl, 1979; repr. BibSem, 8; Shef-
field: JSOT Press, 1987), passim.
13. It must also be admitted that some of the criteria of textual criticism are in
conformity with several of the traditional criteria for authenticity in historical-Jesus
research, including adopting the shorter or shortest reading (the assumption being
that scribes tended to expand their texts—the criterion of least distinctiveness),
adopting a reading that uses Semitic forms of expression (the criterion of Semitic
language phenomena), and adopting a reading that does not conform with theology,
ideology or the context contemporary with that of the scribe (the criterion of double
dissimilarity). On the criteria, see EJ. Epp, Textual Criticism in the Exegesis of
the New Testament, with an Excursus on Canon', in S.E. Porter (ed.), Handbook to
Exegesis of the New Testament (NTTS, 25; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), pp. 45-97, esp.
pp. 62-63; cf. B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992),
pp. 197-98.
14. Epp, Textual Criticism in Exegesis', p. 60.
cess'.15 Most of these text-critical criteria are based on whether a variant

does or does not conform to a stated norm, with several emphasizing the
difference of the authentic variant from the later harmonized tradition.
These text-critical criteria include adopting the harder or hardest read-
ing in a variant unit, since 'Scribes tend to smooth or fix rough or dif-
ficult readings'.16 More specifically, three of these text-critical criteria
address the issue of conformity to a parallel. Number 8 states: 'A vari-
ant's lack of conformity to parallel passages or to extraneous items in
the context generally. Scribes tend, consciously or unconsciously, to
shape the text being copied to familiar parallel passages in the Synoptic
Gospels or to words or phrases just copied.'17 Criteria 9 and 10 are sim-
ilar with regard to Old Testament passages and liturgical forms and us-
ages. In other words, there is a distinct potential for conflict between at
least some of the criteria of textual criticism, which emphasize diversity
in traditions as indicating textual authenticity, and several of the tradi-
tional criteria for authenticity in historical-Jesus research.
A recent study by Craig Evans may well give further insight into a
potentially even more significant reason why it is that textual variants
have been neglected in recent historical-Jesus research. In his recent
study of issues regarding the life of Jesus in a handbook to exegesis,
Evans deals ably with source, form and redaction criticism, but does not
treat textual criticism. In his discussion of the practice of exegesis, how-
ever, Evans turns to linguistic aspects. He rightly states that 'Linguistic
study is closely tied to several, and perhaps in some cases all, of the
dimensions of Jesus research'. He also rightly notes that four languages
were used in Palestine (Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin, in their
order of usage among Jews), but states his judgment that Jesus' 'mother
tongue was Aramaic and that he could converse in Greek, but normally
did not teach in it'.18 He then goes on to give examples of linguistic
aspects of exegesis, virtually all of which reflect an Aramaic retro-
version, and how knowledge of Aramaic helps to understand a partic-
15. Epp, Textual Criticism in Exegesis', p. 61.

16. Epp, 'Textual Criticism in Exegesis', p. 63.
17. Epp, 'Textual Criticism in Exegesis', p. 63. Of 104 variant units in Mark
where the major manuscripts differ, there are only 13 instances where, in the Nestle-
Aland 27th edn, a reading from a parallel passage is adopted. See Porter and O'Don-
nell, 'Authenticating the Words of Jesus', p. 119.
18. C.A. Evans, 'Life of Jesus', in Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis, pp. 427-
75 (447).
ular passage in the Gospels. When Evans turns to Jesus' teaching, he

discusses three literary types: parables, noting how much Jesus' para-
bles have in common with those of the rabbis; proverbs, where he begins
with one that supposedly is found verbatim in the Babylonian Talmud
(b. Ber. 8b); and prayers, where further parallels with Jewish literature
are drawn.19 In other words, if Evans is at all representative of current
practice among scholars (my impression is that he pays much closer
attention to the text than do most), when the linguistic dimensions of
the words of Jesus are discussed among contemporary historical-Jesus
scholars, the tendency is to discuss the Aramaic words of Jesus, not the
Greek words. One can understand this tendency by observing Evans's
analysis. If Jesus taught in Aramaic, not Greek, textual criticism of the
Greek text can easily be dismissed or not even considered. Textual crit-
icism of the Greek text would be an exercise in a form of secondary crit-
icism, since, according to this view, textual criticism would be confined
at best to the study of variants in the translated words of Jesus, that is,
the concepts represented by the words in Greek, though originally de-
livered in Aramaic.
This position has become a widespread perspective since the rise of
the Aramaic language hypothesis, treated elsewhere in this monograph
(see Chapter 2, for a history of this discussion in terms of the criterion
of Semitic language phenomena; and Chapter 4, in terms of the issues
regarding Palestinian multilingualism). As noted in Chapter 4, early
research on the relation among the languages in use in Roman Palestine
recognized a complex multilingualism. However, this shifted to the clear
domination of the Aramaic hypothesis, that is, that Jesus' language was
primarily, if not exclusively, Aramaic. This view has persisted through-
out much, if not most, subsequent historical-Jesus research. As an illus-
tration that in many ways historical-Jesus research has not changed
through its supposed several quests, one can examine comments on the
relation of Aramaic to Greek. For example, during the supposed 'no-
quest' period, during which in fact much English-language scholarship
continued to examine the historical Jesus, T. W. Manson states this about
the relation between the languages with regard to retroversion, and
hence potential textual variants:
At this point a new problem—the linguistic—arises. Up to this point we
are dealing with Greek Gospels... But the mother-tongue of our Lord
19. Evans, 'Life of Jesus', pp. 455-60.

and the Apostles was not Greek but Galilean Aramaic, so that, even if we
could push the analysis of the Greek evidence to its farthest limit, we
should be left with the hazardous enterprise of retranslation in order to
get back to the ipsissima verba of Jesus; and, at the end, we should have
no certainty that anything more than an Aramaic Targum of the Greek had
been produced. More than that, it may be questioned whether the result
would be worth the labour involved.20
During the so-called 'second' and 'third quests', the Aramaic hypoth-
esis has remained firmly entrenched, even when typifying Jesus as a Gal-
ilean peasant.21 Thus, Funk et al. can state:
Accordingly, if Jesus spoke only w Aramaic, his original words have been
lost forever. The words of Jesus recorded in the gospels are thus at best a
translation from Aramaic into Greek or some other ancient tongue.22
In the most recent sustained effort in this regard, Maurice Casey

makes a concerted effort to make it worth the labour by laying down 'a
standard procedure for reconstructing Aramaic sources from the witness
of our Greek Gospels',23 which he then attempts to work out in four
subsequent chapters.
One can readily understand the current neglect of attention to variants
in the Greek words of Jesus in the Gospels. There has been a consistent
marginalization of Greek and elevation of Aramaic, despite the fact that
the evidence itself has not changed, only the ideological and method-
ological framework in which the evidence is treated. Some of the earli-
est scholars, who advocated consideration of Aramaic yet within a con-
text in which Greek also was seen to be important (e.g. Dalman), are
now marshalled as support for what amounts to an almost exclusive
Aramaic hypothesis.24 The result can only be that the Greek text of the
20. T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931; 2nd edn, 1935), pp. 10-11.
21. See J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
22. R.W. Funk et a/., The Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition (Sonoma, CA:
Polebridge Press, 1988), p. 2 (my emphasis).
23. M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (SNTSMS, 102; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 107. See Chapter 2, above, for an evaluation
of Casey's method and results; cf. Chapter 4 Excursus.
24. Besides those scholars noted above, in Chapter 2 with regard to the criterion
of Semitic language phenomena, and in Chapter 4 concerning recent proposals re-
garding the language of Jesus (e.g. Meyer, Nestle, Blass, Dalman, Burney, Manson,
Jeremias, Torrey, Black, Bardy,Fitzmyer,Lapide, Wilcox, Chilton, Evans, Wise and
New Testament, which has the textual variants, is reduced in signifi-

cance, since it is not the words of Jesus in this text that are being dis-
cussed, but the thoughts or reconstructed words of Jesus that lie behind
them.
In recent discussion, however, the Aramaic hypothesis has rightly
come into question among a number of scholars. As discussed espe-
cially in Chapter 2, above (see also Chapters 3 and 4), Meier has noted
that it does not suffice as an adequate criterion for distinguishing the
words of Jesus.25 There are three major reasons for this. The first is that
presumably others besides Jesus in the early Church also spoke Ara-
maic, so that even though Jesus may have said something in Aramaic,
so may any number of others. Thus, even those who claim that they can
retrovert into Aramaic from Greek may still be left without a basis for
authenticating words of Jesus, but only Aramaic words of the early
Church. The second criticism revolves around the question of retrover-
sion itself. Whether a saying does or does not go easily into Aramaic
actually says next to nothing about whether an Aramaic source lies
behind a statement of Jesus in Greek. This has been adequately argued
in the incisive essay by Lincoln Hurst. He demonstrates that translation
is a far more complex process than often realized, and rarely relies on
word for word equivalence between languages, so often used in Ara-
maic retro version.26 The third criticism, raised by Hans Dieter Betz,
involves simply the lack of direct and sustained evidence for Jesus' and
Casey), other advocates of the Aramaic hypothesis regarding the language of Jesus
include the following (the list must be selective in the light of the domination of this
theory for the last almost 70 years): P. Joiion, 'Quelques aramai'smes: Sous-jacent
au grec des Evangiles', RSR 17 (1927), pp. 210-29; F. Biichsel, 'Die griechische
Sprache der Juden in der Zeit der Septuaginta und des Neuen Testaments', ZAW60
(1944), pp. 132-49; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ (3 vols.; rev. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1973-87), II, pp. 20-28; L. Feldman, 'How Much Hellenism in Jewish Pales-
tine?', HUCA 57 (1986), pp. 83-111; G. Mussies, 'Languages (Greek)', ABD 4
(1992), pp. 195-203; L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 1992; London: SCM Press, 1994), pp. 156-58.
25. J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols.; ABRL;
New York: Doubleday, 1991-), I, pp. 178-79.
26. L.D. Hurst, The Neglected Role of Semantics in the Search for the Aramaic
Words of Jesus', JSNT28 (1986), pp. 63-80; repr. in Evans and Porter (eds.), The
Historical Jesus, pp. 219-36.
the early Church's use of Aramaic.27 The Aramaic hypothesis is further

threatened, of course, by the widespread and significant evidence that
Jesus himself may have used Greek in some of his teaching, and almost
assuredly in some conversation. It is often forgotten in recent discus-
sion of the Aramaic hypothesis that one of its most important early
advocates, Dalman himself, for example, categorically stated that:
We have a perfect right to assume that Pilate, in putting the question to
our Lord: 'Art though the King of the Jews?', did not need to use an
interpreter, and that our Lord answered him in the same language: Thou
sayest' (Mk. xv. 2 f.; Mt. xxvii. 11; Lk. xxiii. 3), even though the form
of the answer emanates less from the Greek than from the Semitic idiom
(cf. Mt. xxvi. 64).28
Thus, in the light of the weaknesses of the exclusively Aramaic hy-

pothesis, and the strength of the Greek hypothesis as noted in Chapter
4, above, the lack of attention to textual variants in the Greek Jesus tra-
dition is a serious shortcoming. The more it is realized that Jesus may
have spoken Greek, the more important becomes direct attention to his
reputed words—and their textual variants. More to the point for this
chapter is the role that textual variants might play in developing a crite-
rion for authenticity of these Greek words of Jesus.
3. The Criterion of Greek Textual Variance

and the Greek Words of Jesus
Once the criterion of Greek language is introduced, it becomes impor-
tant to determine not only whether Jesus may have said something like
such a statement (see the criterion of Greek language and its context, in
Chapter 4, above), but whether he possibly said the very words record-
ed. There is value for historical-Jesus research in being able to assess the
authenticity of the tenor of the words of Jesus (the so-called ipsissima
vox), obviously since this is the level on which the vast majority of
research has functioned for most of this century. However, it would
seem that if the criteria for authenticity are able to provide a more
27. H.D. Betz, 'Wellhausen's Dictum "Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew" in
Light of Present Scholarship', ST 45 (1991), pp. 83-110; repr. in idem.Antike und
Christentum: Gesammelte Aufsatze IV (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 1-31.
28. G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua: Die drei Sprachen Jesu, Jesus in der Synagogue,
aufdemBerge beim Passahmahl, am Kreuz (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1922; ET Jesus-
Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels [trans. P.P. Levertoff; London: SPCK, 1929]), p. 6.
precise tool, such that even the so-called ipsissima verba could be as-
sessed, then this level of analysis must be pursued as well.29 In order to
do that, assessment of the stability of the tradition is vital to such anal-
ysis. The criterion of Greek textual variance, a modification of attention
to textual variants, while it has value for the actions of Jesus, is more
relevant for determining whether the Gospels record authentic words in
the Jesus tradition (as that terminology is used in historical-Jesus re-
search). So much of the discussion regarding authenticating the actions
and words of Jesus has revolved around establishing whether Jesus may
have said or done something that approximates what is being discussed.
In such a context, variation of wording, even of an important word,
regarding an action or utterance of Jesus may not alter the general pic-
ture, especially if one is convinced that the original words uttered by
Jesus were in Aramaic. However, such a variant in the Greek words of
Jesus has far greater consequences, if Jesus himself could have uttered
them in Greek. Within a context where it is deemed probable that Jesus
spoke Greek, this criterion includes what is normally called textual criti-
cism. However, it extends the concept to include textual variance, that
is, variations in wording between traditions. This criterion posits that,
where there are two or more independent traditions with similar word-
ing, the level of variation is greater the further one is removed from the
common source. Conversely, the less variation points to stability and
probable preservation of the tradition, and hence the possibility that the
source is authentic to Jesus. It is, of course, only logical to assume that
the common source of two independent traditions is earlier than either
of them, and, in terms of the Jesus tradition in the Gospels, has a rea-
sonable claim to authenticity.
The criterion of Greek textual variance as defined above requires mul-
tiple traditions or multiple forms, which can be shown to be indepen-
29. See J.K. Riches, The Actual Words of Jesus', ABD 3 (1992), pp. 802-804,
esp. p. 802: The actual words of Jesus—or ipsissima verba—refers to the words
which Jesus actually spoke. This should be distinguished from the ipsissima vox
(the very voice), a term which can be applied to sayings which give the sense but
not the exact linguistic form of his actual utterances. In this sense, with a very few
exceptions (words like abba, ephphatha) we simply do not have such ipsissima
verba of Jesus. He spoke, in all probability, in Aramaic and the NT is written in
Greek... Thus the Greek sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels can at best give
the sense of what he said, not the actual form of words.' The intention of this chap-
ter is, of course, to move to what Riches states is desirable, attempting to overcome
the limitations he cites.
dent, but that have wording that is similar. The major limitations of the
criterion of multiple traditions or multiple forms—its failure to be able
to return to the original wording, but only deal with motifs (the major
shortcoming); the limitation on the usability of the sources; and even its
dependence on the Markan hypothesis—are for the most part overcome
by its utilization in a Greek language context, where translation or retro-
version is not a part of the interpretive or analytical process. Translation
or retroversion forces there to be a shift from the language of the Gos-
pel to a hypothetical source or tradition, trying to capture the ipsissima
vox of Jesus, but more likely confined, at best, to a conceptual correla-
tion. This new criterion of Greek textual variance builds upon—indeed,
perhaps it is better to say transforms—the criterion of multiple attesta-
tion into a useful tool within the Greek language context, by allowing
the use of multiple traditions or forms without the limitation of a par-
ticular source hypothesis and without the creation of an artificial lin-
guistic barrier. If the criterion of Greek language is fulfilled (as argued
in Chapter 4, above—or argued for the particular traditions on other
grounds),30 the sources of the traditions being discussed are seen to be
independent, and the specific wording of these independent traditions
corresponds to each other, there is a strong probability that these spe-
cific words are authentic to the Jesus tradition, as that concept is defined
in historical-Jesus research. However, there may be both textual vari-
ants and textual variance among the differing accounts, which affects
the level of confidence regarding the authenticity of the saying.
With regard to the passages that have been examined in Chapter 4,
there are four that qualify for further examination in the light of the
criterion of textual variance:31
30. I attempt to treat this criterion of textual variance as a separate criterion in

its own right, so however one arrives at the point of consideration of the Greek
wording is another matter than this criterion addresses.
31. The episode of the calling of Levi/Matthew (Mk 2.13-14 = Mt. 9.9 = Lk.
5.27-28), even though it has two words in common in the Synoptic accounts, is not
considered here, because the traditions do not seem to be independent. See W.E.
Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels: An Introduction to the Synoptic Tradi-
tion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 142-44. The episode of
Jesus' conversation with the centurion or commander (Mt. 8.5-13 = Jn 4.46-54)
does not have common wording in the words of Jesus, regardless of what one might
think of the independence of the traditions. The episode of Jesus' conversation with
the Samaritan woman (Jn 4.4-26) has only a single source.
1. Mk 7.25-30 = Mt. 15.21-28: Jesus' conversation with the Sy-

rophoenician or Canaanite woman
2. Mk 12.13-17 = Mt. 22.16-22 = Lk. 20.20-26: Jesus' conversa-
tion with the Pharisees and Herodians over the Roman coin of
Caesar
3. Mk 8.27-30 = Mt. 16.13-20 = Lk. 9.18-21: Jesus' conversation
with his disciples at Caesarea Philippi
4. Mk 15.2-5 = Mt. 27.11-14 = Lk. 23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-38: Jesus'
trial before Pilate.
There are two independent, yet related, stages to the utilization of this
criterion. As a first step in the process of testing these Greek words of
Jesus according to this criterion, any text-critical issues must be re-
solved, so that one is comparing decided texts with each other.32 It is at
this point that much previous historical-Jesus research has overlooked
variants that might well affect a given pericope. This situation is worth
32. Major works on the principles of New Testament textual criticism include
B.F. Westcott and FJ.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. II. Intro-
duction, Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrick-
son, 1988); E. Nestle, Einfuhrung in das griechische Neue Testament (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1899; ET Introduction to the Textual Criticism
of the Greek New Testament [trans. W. Edie; TTL; London: Williams & Norgate,
1901]); A.T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testa-
ment (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925); F.G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1926); J.H. Greenlee, Intro-
duction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964);
B. Aland and K. Aland, Der Text des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelge-
sellschaft, 2nd edn, 1981; ET The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the
Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism [trans.
E.F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1989]); L. Vaganay and C.-B.
Amphoux, Initiation a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament (Paris: Cerf, 2nd
edn, 1986; ETAn Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism [trans. J. Heimer-
dinger; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991]); Metzger, The Text of the
New Testament, passim. One also must note B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary
on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971; Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 2nd edn, 1994). Works on tex-
tual criticism of non-biblical sources that merit consideration as well include F.W.
Hall, A Companion to Classical Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913); R. Renehan,
Greek Textual Criticism: A Reader (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1969); M.L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek
and Latin Texts (Teubner Studienbticher, Philologie; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973).
There is a wealth of valuable literature on manuscripts from the ancient world.
serious attention, especially in the light of the dependence of most crit-

ical New Testament study on the eclectic Nestle-Aland text. This text
has a number of drawbacks, including its practice of not following
a single-text tradition, its apparent confusion regarding its use of the
papyri, and its dependence upon a potentially misleading manuscript
classification system.33 These limitations provide sufficient motivation
to explore further with reference to actual manuscripts the significant
variants in any given passage. Nevertheless, within the constrictions of
the eclectic text and its apparatus, just because a passage has a number
of textual variants does not mean that, in many instances, one cannot
judge between variants in order to establish with reasonable probability
the earliest reading of a text34 (see Chapter 6, below, on discourse fea-
tures as a criterion for authenticity). Where it is difficult to determine
the most plausible reading of a given text (whether due to internal or
external factors), this obviously lessens the probability that the wording
can be established by this criterion as authentic to Jesus.
If it can be shown that the text-critical issues can be decided satisfac-
torily, then one can move to the next stage of comparing traditions, to
determine textual variance. Textual variances are places where multiple
accounts (whether these be found in traditions or sources) have similar
wording, but wording which varies in some ways. Textual variances
clearly differ in their tendencies, but they all reveal that the tradition
has been altered at some stage in its transmission. The variations point
to attempts to harmonize disparate wording, in order to show Jesus as
saying the exact same thing in parallel accounts, or to smooth out awk-
ward constructions or avoid difficult or troublesome words or phrases.
An instance with significant variance would indicate that, on the basis
of multiple traditions and the Greek language criterion, Jesus may have
said something like this, but without verbal agreement, it cannot be de-
33. See S.E. Porter, 'Why so Many Holes in the Papyrological Evidence for the
Greek New Testament?', in K. van Kampen and S. McKendrick (eds.), The Bible as
Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (London: British Library Publications;
Grand Haven, MI: Scriptorium, forthcoming 2000).
34. Questions about the viability of using textual criticism to establish an origi-
nal text, and the relation between a canonical and original text, are raised by K.D.
Clarke, 'Original Text or Canonical Text? Questioning the Shape of the New Tes-
tament Text We Translate', in S.E. Porter and R.S. Hess (eds.), Translating the
Bible .'Problems and Prospects (JSNTSup, 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999), pp. 281-322.
termined exactly what he said. There are at least five major types of
variances in the words of Jesus: addition/insertion (add), where words
are added to a text; subtraction/omission (sub), where a word or more
is not included in a text; lexical differentiation/replacement (lex), where
differing lexical items are found in texts; morphological variance
(morph), where the morphology of a word in the tradition differs; and
syntactical word-order variation (synxWO), where the order of words,
phrases, or even clauses has been changed.35 Obviously, the strongest
probability of authenticity rests with independent traditions that record
the same statement of Jesus word for word, and the longer the passage
even the more likely (lessening the chance of accidental similarity for a
couple of words).
The various types of variance can compromise the reliability of the
findings, though not all in the same ways. A useful initial distinction is
to be made between content words and function words, that is, the dif-
ference between a noun or verb in a main clause, and such words as
'and' (Kai) or 'but' (8e). Function words include such words as con-
junctions, and other words that might be used to place a statement in its
larger context. In a given episode, these may well be changed by an
author, for example inserting 'for' (yap) instead of 'and' (KQI) or using
no conjunction. One need not necessarily dismiss the rest of the words
as inauthentic, however. The author may well have changed these func-
tion words in creating his narrative in order to make them fit better their
Gospel context, and indicate the nature of their relation to the secondary
material (see, for example, below on Mk 7.27). Content words are even
more complex. Here too a distinction should be made between types of
changes in content words. Radical changes in content, such that a deci-
sively different meaning is conveyed by a sentence (for example,
through change of lexical items), would in most instances compromise
the authenticity of the statement more than would a morphological
change (for example, the change of a verb from indicative to subjunc-
tive mood). Addition and subtraction, if they can be clearly differen-
tiated, may well point to an essential core of what was said, that is, by
shedding the additions to a tradition, or accepting only the text that is
left after subtractions from a tradition have occurred. Since, in dealing
with this Greek language criterion, we are not concerned with trans-
35. These are adapted from Porter and O'Donnell, 'Authenticating the Words of
Jesus', pp. 105-10, and are used below in the critical apparatus of the Synoptic
parallels presented with each of the episodes analysed.
lation from Aramaic into Greek (or retroversion), this criterion cannot
rely merely upon synonymous Greek words or those performing similar
functions to provide the same level of probability regarding authenticity
as the exact same wording would. In such an instance, where synony-
mous words or phrases are found, one cannot determine which is the
original and which is the paraphrase, or at least cannot use them togeth-
er to prove the authenticity of one or the other. If one has triple tradi-
tion, with two traditions agreed against the third, this criterion could
serve as one indicator to determine the probability of which reading is
authentic, especially if one can explain the origin of the variance in the
third.
In each of the following episodes, a Synoptic parallel of the passage,
but with only the spoken words of Jesus included, is presented. Along
with this is an abbreviated critical apparatus indicating the textual vari-
ants in the Nestle-Aland 27th edn, categorized according to the scheme
noted above. The parallels are presented in their typical Synoptic for-
mat, with Matthew, Mark, Luke and then John. However, the discus-
sion usually begins with Mark, and then treats Matthew and Luke, and
then John, according to the usual Synoptic discussions.
a. Mk 7.25-30 = Mt. 15.21-28: Jesus' Conversation with the Syro-

phoenician or Canaanite Woman
Table 3. Mt. 15.21-28 = Mk 7.25-30
Mt. 15.21-28 Mk 7.25-30

15.24
15.26
15.28 7.29
a
add D
" synxWO 544 KaXov eoTiv I lex D eêcmv I sub 1293 eoTiv
c
synxWO A W f!3 3ft KaXov EGTIV
The first episode is Jesus' conversation with the Syrophoenician or

Canaanite woman. This passage is often treated as a Markan episode,
since Matthew places the story in Mark's order. However, at only two
places in the stories are there significant verbal parallels, and these are
Jesus' parabolic words to the woman and her reply (Mk 7.27-28 = Mt.
15.26-27). Independence of the two accounts has already been discussed
in Chapter 4, in terms of how the woman is described. Bundy notes fur-
ther differences between the two accounts, however, drawing attention
to features peculiar to Matthew such as the different approach to whether
Jesus did or did not enter the region of Tyre and Sidon, Jesus' entering
the woman's house, Jesus' travelling without being known or recog-
nized, the heightened dramatic level of Matthew's recording of the
event, the role of the disciples in Matthew's account, and the Jewish ele-
ments of the Matthaean story (Old Testament language, the title 'son of
David' used of Jesus, and Jesus' use of Old Testament imagery with
sheep).36 There are also differences in development, with Matthew hav-
ing a longer section that establishes the setting and Mark having a fuller
description of the dialogue. On the basis of these differences, it is plausi-
ble that there are two independent accounts here, possibly a Markan and
a Q account of these events.37 If this independence of the two accounts
is accepted, a further analysis of the textual variance can be made.
There is one block of words of Jesus that overlaps between the two
Gospel accounts. There are surprisingly few textual variants in this
block of words. In Mt. 15.26 and Mk 7.27, there is the text-critical
question of whether one should read ecmv Ka?iov or KQÔV ecmv, a
slight alteration in word order. The former is certainly the better attest-
ed reading in Matthew,38 and virtually certainly the better attested read-
ing in Mark.39 There is also a slight shift in word order in the two
36. Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels, pp. 280-81.
37. See Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels, p. 280; F.W. Beare, The Ear-
liest Records of Jesus (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964), p. 132: 'Here we find for
the first time a story which is longer and more vivid in Matthew than in Mark. We
can hardly imagine that in this one instance Matthew has expanded his Marcan
source, after consistently abbreviating it up to this point. The explanation is rather
that he has had at his disposal a second account of the same incident, independently
transmitted, and has conflated this with the Marcan story.'
38. KaXov EGTIV is read in 544 and 1010. D has eêcmv, and 1293 has only
eaitv.
39. ecmv Kcdov is read in ft B D L A 0/1 565 700 892 1241 and 1424, with
ecmv read in A W/ 3 Majority text.
accounts between fkxXeiv Toiq K-uvapioiq and

with no textual variants noted in Nestle-Aland (27th edn). Apart from
these two instances, there is very little significant textual variance be-
tween the two blocks of wording. One is on firm ground in noting that
Jesus probably used the following words: o\)K40 EOTIV icaA,6v Axxjteiv
TOV dpTOV TC&V T£KVCOV KQl TOIQ KWCtpioiq paÊlV (or (3a)t£lV TOIC;
KwapioK;). The invariant words are virtually certainly to be considered
authentic by this criterion, with some uncertainty as to word order but
not content for the remaining words. Numerous scholars have noted the
parabolic nature of these words of Jesus. That they are appropriate to
the context of confrontation between a Jewish man and a Canaanite or
Syrophoenician woman is further confirmed by the use of the termi-
nology regarding dogs, here a term of derogation (cf. Phil. 3.2).41
b. Mk 12.13-17 = ML 22.16-22 = Lk. 20.20-26: Jesus' Conversation

with Pharisees and Herodians over the Roman Coin of Caesar
Table 4. Mt. 22.16-22 = Mk 12.13-17 = Lk. 20.20-26
Mt. 22.16-22 Mk 12.13-17 Lk. 20.20-26

22.18 12.15
22. 20.24
22.20 12.16
22.21 12.17 20.25
a
add D K A 0 565 700c 892 TCO
b
add $>45 N W 0 f 1 f 13 28 33 565 579 2542
c
lex D TO v6|iiojia
d
add D TO\)
e
add C * D L f l 3 892 1241 TCO
40. Mark 7.27 has the conjunction yap, probably included by the author to make
a logical transition from the previous words of Jesus that he records. These words
are not found in Matthew, and so no conjunction is necessary. On ydp, see S.E.
Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (BLG, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd
edn, 1994), pp. 207-208.
The second episode to consider is Jesus' conversation with the Phar-

isees and Herodians over the Roman coin (Mk 12.13-17 = Mt. 22.16-22
= Lk. 20.20-26). This is usually treated as a Markan episode almost
wholly taken over by Matthew and Luke.42 If that is so, then this epi-
sode would not qualify for assessment by this criterion, since there is
only a single source. However, there are some variances in the wording,
especially the words of Jesus, with Matthew and Luke agreeing against
Mark (Mt. 22.19 = Lk. 20.24 against Mk 12.15). These variences might
indicate that there were two independent traditions of this episode, with
Mark forming the basis, but with Matthew and Luke knowing the other
tradition. If that is the case, then this episode would qualify for assess-
ment by this criterion. I will proceed along those lines, recognizing that
most scholars would not agree on this point.43 In any event, there are a
number of textual variants in the pericopes, virtually all of them appar-
ently later attempts to harmonize the accounts.44
41. See P. Pokorny, 'From a Puppy to the Child: Problems of Contemporary

Biblical Exegesis Demonstrated from Mark 7.24-30/Matt 15.21-8', NTS 41 (1995),
pp. 321-37.
42. Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels, p. 440; Beare, Earliest Records
of Jesus, p. 212; T. Schramm, Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas: Eine literarkritische
und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SNTSMS, 14; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1971), pp. 168-70.
43. W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Jr (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew [3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1988-97], III, p. 210) dismiss the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against
Mark as 'insignificant', but do not offer an explanation of their origins. Cf. M.D.
Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (2 vols.; JSNTSup, 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1989), p. 696, who is not so quick to dismiss the differences. See also M.D. Goulder,
'Luke's Knowledge of Matthew', in G. Strecker (ed.), Minor Agreements: Sympo-
sium Gottingen 1991 (Gottinger theologische Arbeiten, 50; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 143-62. The minor agreements are a notorious problem in
source criticism of the Gospels. For a recent study, beside the collection of essays
noted above, see A. Ennulat, Die 'Minor Agreements': Untersuchungen iu einer
offenen Frage des synoptischen Problems (WUNT, 2.62; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1994), esp. pp. 269-73 on this episode.
44. For example, Lk. 20.23 has ii jne 7ceipd£etE in A C D W 0 ¥/ 3 Majority
text, with TJTTOKpuai in C, but K B L 0266vid/ 892 1241 1424 are without these
words; Mt. 22.21 adds the article TW before Kaiaapi in D K A 0 565 700C 892; and
Lk. 20.25 adds the same article in C* D L/13 892 1241, and the article TO-U before
Kaiaapog in D. Mark 12.15 also has wcoKpuai in $p45 N W 0/« 13 28 33 565 579
2542, which is probably too quickly dismissed by Nestle-Aland (27th edn), by not
If these objections regarding independent traditions are put aside and

the Synoptic accounts are examined, three blocks of words of Jesus are
worth considering. The first is the question Jesus asks his disputants,
the second is the wording regarding the coin and inscription, and the
third is Jesus' pronouncement. There is only agreement in two of the
sources in most instances. Matthew 22.18 andMk 12.15 agree that Jesus
asks the Pharisees and Herodians ii jie Tieipdêie;, but Luke records
neither who Jesus' specific disputants are nor this question. All three
Gospels agree that Jesus then asks to be shown a coin, but again there is
textual variance. Mark 12.15 and Lk. 20.24 use the term Denarius, while
Mt. 22.19 uses a general term for coin (v6|no|ia); and Mt. 22.19 and
Lk. 20.24 use two different forms of 8eiic\ro|ii, emSeiâie and 8eiâT8
respectively, while Mk 12.15 uses <|)8pco. The Gospels also all agree that
Jesus asks a question regarding the coin. However, Mt. 22.20 and Mk
12.16 have Tivoq r\ EIKCOV amrj Kai f] 87tiypa<j)f|;, while Lk. 20.24 has
tivoq 8^81 eiicova Kai 87uypa(|)f|v;. Lastly, the Gospels all agree that
Jesus gave instructions to those listening. Here all three Gospels do
generally agree regarding the wording, with a few minor exceptions.
Matthew 22.21 and Lk. 20.25 have connecting words (o\w and TOIVOV)
—which Mk 12.17 does not—but they are different ones. Matthew and
Luke also have similar textual variants, with the article added to Caesar
before the second reference in Matthew and both the second and first
references in Luke.45 The third variance is in word order, with Matthew
and Luke having a more usual Greek order of verb followed by object.46
The essential wording of Jesus' pronouncement is drcoSoTe id Kcdoa-
po<; Kaiaapi Kai id TO\) 08O\) TCO 6ecp (with Mark having TO Kaioapoq
etc.).
providing the manuscript evidence for the text they print without this word. A.W.
Argyle (' "Hypocrites" and the Aramaic Theory', ExpTim 75 [1963-64], pp. 113-
14; 'Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times', NTS 20 [1974],
pp. 87-89, esp. p. 89) argues that use of xmoKpiiriq in Mt. 6.2, 15, 16 indicates
authentic tradition. The use of the word alone, however, does not seem to be able to
show authentic tradition, since it may be argued that it is simply a loanword taken
over into Aramaic, not evidence of clear bilingualism. See G.H.R. Horsley, New
Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. V. Linguistic Essays (New South Wales,
Australia: Macquarie University, 1989), p. 21.
45. This evidence is limited and in the Western tradition (D, etc.), and so is
rightly dismissed.
46. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, pp. 292-95.
In other words, if we have grounds for arguing that this conversation

took place in Greek (the criterion developed in Chapter 4, above), and
if we have two independent traditions (an item of far less certainty), then
we have a reasonable knowledge of what those words may have been.
We know that Jesus probably asked a question about being tested, asked
for a coin, asked a question regarding the image and inscription on it,
and made a pronouncement regarding Caesar. However, we have less
foundation on the basis of the criterion of textual variance to say with
certainty what those actual words were, apart from in a few instances
of tripartite agreement as noted above, especially regarding Jesus' final
pronouncement.
c. Mk 8.27-30 = Mt. 16.13-20 = Lk. 9.18-21: Jesus' Conversation with

his Disciples at Caesarea Philippi
Table 5. Mt. 16.13-20 = Mk 8.27-30 = Lk. 9.18-21
Mt. 16. 13-20 Mk 8.27-30 Lk. 9.18-21

16.13 iiva []a [Xeyovaiv 8.27 Tiva jie A,eyovaiv oi 9.18 ilva jne
16.15 i)|aei(; Se Tiva JLLE 8.29 vjueic; 8e tiva jne 9.20 ujietc; 8e ilva
a
addDL0flf!3333ft]Li£
b synxWO «2 D 579 700 oi dvGpcojcoi AeyoDaiv elvai I synxWO «* oi avBpomot
eivai AeyoDaiv I synxWO f 1 A,eyoi)aiv elvai oi av6po)7roi
c
subD
d
lex L G fl f 13 33 565 700 892 1241 1424 Bdp Icovd
e
sub B EV oi)pavoi<; I sub 0281 f!3 565 579 oijpavoiq
f
add B2 C* C3 W f 13 2ft Kai Scoaco aoi I add 0 0281 1424 Soxxo Se aoi I synxW
D aoi Scoaco
8 morph K2 B2 C D fl f 13 33
h
morph 0 f 1
1
1
synxWO «* B L S fl 892 2542 oi o^Xoi Xeyouaw I lex A 579 1241 1424
The third episode for examination is Jesus' conversation with his

disciples at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8.27-30 = Mt. 16.13-20 = Lk. 9.18-
21). If the arguments for Matthaean independence presented in Chapter
4, above, are not accepted, then the material in this section derives from
a single source, Mark, and there are no multiply attested traditions to
compare. However, as noted above, there are significant reasons for
seeing at least parts of the Matthaean account as having priority, and
hence being independent of Mark, especially for Mt. 16.17-19. If the
arguments for Matthaean priority regarding this passage are accepted,
the criterion of multiple traditions still limits examination here to two
clusters of wording (but not Mt. 16.17-19).471 find those arguments for
Matthaean independence in this episode at least plausible,48 and will
proceed to examine the variance in the wording.
The first cluster of words has a number of textual variants, and the
second has none. The first cluster is Jesus' question to his disciples
regarding who he is (Mk 8.27 = Mt. 16.13 = Lk. 9.18). There are tex-
tual variants here in all three Gospels.49 Nevertheless, the core of the
question comes through: Tiva XeyoDaiv oi dv6p(07ioi/6%Xoi eivai;.
Matthew alone also has TOY wov TO\) dvGpcoTioi).50 The variance be-
tween dvGpomoi in Matthew and Mark and 6%Xoi in Luke is one of lex-
ical replacement, but not one of sense (there is also a change of word
order in some manucripts—see Table 5). Probably the word uttered
47. See Beare, Earliest Records of Jesus, p. 137; J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel
According to Luke (2 vols.; AB, 28, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981,
1985), I, pp. 770-71.
48. The arguments for independence, and even priority, of Matthew are pre-
sented in S.E. Porter, 'Vague Verbs, Periphrastics, and Matthew 16:19', FN 1
(1988), pp. 154-73, esp. pp. 171-72; repr. in idem, Studies in the Greek New
Testament: Theory and Practice (SBG, 6; New York: Peter Lang, 1996), pp. 103-
123, esp. pp. 121-23; following B.F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press,
1979), pp. 185-97.
49. For example, there are some alterations in word order in Mt. 16.13, espe-
cially in tf. See Table 5, above.
50. There are no significant textual variants in the other Gospels to harmonize
with this.
would have been dvOpomoi, following Matthaean or Markan priority,

but one cannot say for certain. The second cluster of words (Mk 8.29 =
Mt. 16.15 = Lk. 9.20) has all three Gospels agreeing that then Jesus
asked \)|uei<; SE ilva |ae JteyETE elvai;.
One can conclude on the basis of this criterion that, if we have inde-
pendent traditions in Matthew and Mark, it is probable that we have the
words of Jesus captured fairly certainly in the first question, and virtu-
ally certainly in the second. The block of words that Jesus speaks in Mt.
16.17-19 falls outside consideration by this criterion, since there is no
multiple attestation.
d. Mk 15.2-5 = Mt. 27.11-14 = Lk. 23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-38: Jesus' Trial

before Pilate
Table 6. Mt. 27.11-14 = Mk 15.2-5 = Lk. 23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-38
Jn 18.29-38
Mt.27.11-14 Mk 15.25 Lk23.2-4

27.11 oi) 15.2 oi) A-eyetg. 23.3 oi) Xeyeiq. 18.37 oi) Xeyeic; on
a
lex A C2 D5 W 0 087 fl f 13 33 3ft d<|>' eaDioi) I txt ^66 K B C* L N ¥ 0109 579
/844
b
sub ^66* «* Ds
c
synxWO ^60vid« A C3 N 0 ¥ 087 0109 fl f!3 33 3ft ooi eucov I ttr ^66 B C* Ds
LW
d
synxWO, sub Ds N 0 0109 0250 3ft ear] paaaeia
e
synxWO A Ds 0 0250 3ft dv oi eum fiycoviôvco I sub B* oi ejnoi
txt $p60vid $>90vid K B2 L W ¥ 0109 f 13 1 33 579 /844
f
add A 0 0109 0250 3ft eyco I m$>60vid « B Ds L W ^ fl f!3 3
The fourth and final episode to consider is Jesus' trial before Pilate
(Mk 15.2-5 = Mt. 27.11-14 = Lk. 23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-38). The question
of Pilate to Jesus and the answer of Jesus to Pilate are the only spoken
wording that is multiply attested in the tradition.51 The Gospels all agree
that Pilate's question was o\) el 6 fkxaiXE'uc; TCDV lo\)8aicov; (Mk 15.2 =
Mt. 27.11 = Lk. 23.3 = Jn 18.33), with no textual variants or variance in
wording. The non-Jewish phrasing 'of the Jews',52 in conjunction with
this criterion, indicates that this was probably Pilate's question to Jesus
(whether it was conveyed to Jesus by means of an interpreter or not!—
so on any account, we probably have the authentic words of Pilate).53
Similarly, Jesus' answer, o\) A,eyei(;, in the Synoptic Gospels given im-
mediately but in John's Gospel given after elucidation by Jesus and ex-
panded with OTI paaiXeix; ei|ii (Jn 18.36-37),54 has no textual variants
51. See J.A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John (ed. J.F. Coakley; London: SCM
Press, 1985; Oak Park, IL: Meyer-Stone, 1987), p. 259.
52. See C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 457; note that 'king of Israel' would have
been more Jewish phrasing. However, as R.H. Gundry points out (Mark: A Com-
mentary on his Apology for the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], p. 924),
Jews could use 'king of the Jews' in addressing Gentiles, as seen in Josephus, War
1.282; Ant. 14.36; 15.373, 409; 16.291, 311. The same wording, 'king of the Jews',
is found in the titulus placed by Pilate, mentioned in all four Gospels (Mk 15.26 =
Mt. 27.37 = Lk. 23.38 = Jn 19.19). On the titulus, see E. Bammel, 'The titulus9, in
E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his Day (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 353-64.
53. This might be thought to be a trivial example. However, when the problems
with determining the actual words of ancient figures are considered, the conclusion
is of greater importance than at first appears. The most well-known instance of this
difficulty in New Testament studies is perhaps the speeches in Acts, and their rela-
tion to the speeches of other ancients. On this subject, see S.E. Porter, 'Thucydides
1.22.1 and Speeches in Acts: Is there a Thucydidean View?', NovT 30 (1990), pp.
121-42; repr. in idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 173-93; cf. idem,
The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Theology (WUNT,
115; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), esp. pp. 98-171.
54. See P. Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1938), pp. 62-63; C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According
to StJohn (London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978 [1955]),
p. 537; G.R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC, 36; Dallas: Word Books, 1987), p. 329.
Cf. R.T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor: From Narrative Source
to Present Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 163-64. On the possible
meanings of Jesus' words, see R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes
(MeyerK; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947; 2nd edn, 1964; supplement
and no variance among the Gospel accounts (Mk 15.2 = Mt. 27.11 =
Lk. 23.3 = Jn 18.37). The words themselves, ai) Xeyeig, are only found
in these three places in the Synoptic Gospels, clearly indicating that they
are not a part of any of the Synoptic Gospels' redactional tendency. The
same two words appear also in Jn 8.33, 52, 9.17 and 14.9, but in these
Johannine instances they are used, not in a statement, but only in a ques-
tion, and all of these but 14.9 are not on the lips of Jesus.55
Scholarship on the relation between the Synoptic Gospels and John's
Gospel, especially in the Passion account, has tended to maintain the
independence of the Johannine account, even if, as in recent scholarship,
there is seen to be an interlocking of tradition at points.56 There is also a
1966; ET The Gospel of John: A Commentary [trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford:

Basil Blackwell, 1971]), p. 654.
55. These eight instances are the only ones in the entire New Testament with
these two word forms collocated. The plural, TJjuEiq A,£yeTe, is used in Lk. 22.70, its
only use in the Synoptic Gospels. The construction with an aorist verb form, a\)
einaq, appears only at Mt. 26.25, 64. On the meaning of such phrasing, see D.R.
Catchpole, The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt, xxvi.64)', NTS 17 (1970-71),
pp. 213-26; and R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the
Grave (2 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday; London: Chapman, 1994), I, pp. 488-
93, 733; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, III, pp. 581-82.
56. There has been much debate by scholars over the independence of the
Johannine account, especially whether John's Gospel has an independent Passion
tradition. The clear trend over the last 60 years has been to assert the independence
of John from the Synoptics. The history of discussion began with belief in the
dependence of John on the Synoptics (e.g. B.W. Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Re-
search and Debate: A Series of Essays on Problems Concerning the Origin and
Value of the Anonymous Writings Attributed to the Apostle John [London: T. Fisher
Unwin, 1919], pp. 356-84; B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins
[London: Macmillan, 1926], pp. 393-426), but the important work of Gardner-Smith
(Saint John, passim), followed by Bultmann (Gospel of John, passim) and C.H.
Dodd (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1963], esp. pp. 21-151), turned the tide significantly, if not irretrievably
(see D.A. Carson, 'Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?',
in R.T. France and D. Wenham [eds.], Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and
Traditon in the Four Gospels, II [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981], pp. 85-145).
Although there are those who continue to argue for dependence (e.g. Barrett, John,
esp. pp. 42-54; R.H. Lightfoot, St John's Gospel: A Commentary [ed. C.F. Evans;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956], pp. 26-42; F. Neirynck, 'John and the Synoptics:
Response to P. Borgen', in M. de Jonge [ed.], L'evangile de Jean: Sources,
redaction, theologie [BETL, 44; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977], pp. 73-106; repr. in
F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel Studies—Etudes d'evangile. Collected Essays [ed.
significant amount of research, recently re-articulated, that the Lukan

Passion account is also independent of that of Mark and Matthew.57 On
the basis of the multiple Passion traditions (at least two, if not three
F. Van Segbroeck; BETL, 60; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1982], pp.
365-400; T.L. Brodie, The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel: A Source-
Oriented Approach [New York: Oxford University Press, 1993]), those who have
argued for independence have continued to prevail (e.g. Robinson, Priority of John,
who builds on his earlier 'The New Look on the Fourth Gospel', in K. Aland [ed.],
Studia Evangelica [TU, 73; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958], pp. 338-50; repr. in
Robinson, Twelve New Testament Studies [SBT, 34; London: SCM Press, 1962],
pp. 94-106; D.M. Smith, Johannine Christianity: Essays on its Setting, Sources,
and Theology [Durham: University of South Carolina, 1984; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1987], pp. 95-172; P. Borgen, 'John and the Synoptics', in D. Dungan [ed.],
The Interrelations of the Gospel [BETL, 95; Leuven: Leuven University Press/
Peeters, 1990], pp. 408-37; idem, 'The Independence of the Gospel of John: Some
Observations', in F. Van Segbroeck, C.M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden
[eds.], The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck [3 vols.; BETL, 100;
Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992], III, pp. 1815-33; cf. on this
specific episode R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium [4 vols.; HTK, 4.1-4;
Freiburg: Herder, 1965-84; ET The Gospel According to St John (trans. K. Smyth; 3
vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1982)], III, pp. 247-48; R.E. Brown, The Gospel Ac-
cording to John [2 vols.; AB, 29, 29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970],
II, p. 861). A recent development, still endorsing Johannine independence, is to see
a variety of independent pre-Synoptic traditions available, which the Gospel writers,
including that of John's Gospel, might have used (e.g. M.E. Glasswell, 'The Re-
lationship between John and Mark', JSNT 23 [1985], pp. 99-115; B. Lindars, John
[NTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], pp. 27-29, 44; D.A. Carson, The Gospel
According to John [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991],
pp. 49-58). The most recent discussion, and one that sees John using Mark and Luke,
is found in M. Lang, Johannes und die Synoptiker: Eine redaktionsgeschichtlich
Analyse von Joh 18-20 vor dem markinischen und lukanischen Hintergrund
(FRLANT, 182; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). Surveys of research
include W.F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation
(rev. C.K. Barrett; London: Epworth Press, 1931; 4th edn, 1955), pp, 128-43;
R. Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and his Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary
Scholarship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975), pp. 54-65; G. Burge, Interpreting the
Gospel of John (Guides to New Testament Exegesis; Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1992), pp. 15-35, esp. pp. 27-28; and J.D. Dvorak, 'The Relationship be-
tween John and the Synoptic Gospels', JETS 41 (1998), pp. 201-13.
57. These include, e.g., V. Taylor, Behind the Third Gospel: A Study of the
Proto-Luke Hypothesis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926), pp. 52-54; idem, The Pas-
sion Narrative of St Luke (SNTSMS, 19; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1972), pp. 86-87 (excluding Lk. 23.3 = Mk 15.2); W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium
independent traditions), and this criterion, it is probable that these two

words, a\) A-eyeig, are authentic Greek words of Jesus.58
4. Conclusion
For this second criterion, that of textual variance, to be applied to the
words of Jesus, three other criteria or conditions must be operative. The
first is that of Greek language and its context, established in Chapter 4,
above, or a similar criterion. The second is that of multiple attestation,
in a revised form that selects those incidents where there is multiply
attested wording, ostensibly uttered in Greek. The third is that there
must be words of Jesus in common for analysis as to their textual vari-
ance. As a result of applying this criterion, the conclusion can be drawn
that there are almost certainly one, and quite possibly a total of four,
incidents in which the authentic words of Jesus are arguably preserved.
In all four of them, there is a context in which Greek would have been
the expected language of communication by Jesus and his conversa-
tional partners. In one of the episodes—Jesus' trial before Pilate—there
is clear multiple tradition that supports the Greek-language context. In
the other three episodes—Jesus' conversation with the Syrophoenician
or Canaanite woman, his conversation with the Pharisees and Herodians,
and his conversation with his disciples at Caesarea Philippi—there are
nach Lukas (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 6th edn, 1971), p. 421;
I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p.
852 (excluding Lk. 23.3 = Mk 15.2); and J.B. Green, The Death of Jesus: Tradition
and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative (WUNT, 2.33; Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1988), pp. 9-19 on the history of research and his method, and esp. pp. 77-
79, 102-104, 285-87 (cf. p. 327), where he argues that Luke almost assuredly had a
source separate from Mark in the Passion narrative, and that Luke knew and used
such a source specifically in Lk. 23.1-5 (= Mk 15.1b-5), since, apart from in Lk.
23.3, there are only six words shared by Luke and Mark. However, if v. 3 is
removed from the Lukan account, there is a serious break in the continuity of the
Lukan account. For a summary of the majority opinion, see Brown, Death of the
Messiah, I, pp. 737-43. Earlier in the century, and resisting the forces of form criti-
cism, a few scholars argued for clear earlier sources for the Markan account. See,
e.g., W.L. Knox, The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. I. St Mark (ed. H. Chadwick;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), esp. pp. 115-47.
58. Cf. the similar conclusion regarding the antiquity of the tradition (as well as
the independence of the Johannine tradition from that of Mark) in Brown, Death of
the Messiah, I, p. 727.
plausible arguments to be made for multiple tradition. In all four of the

incidents, there are words of Jesus to be analysed for their textual vari-
ance. Text-critical variants affect some of these words, and the failure
to have verbal parallels in all sources affects others. Once the texts to
be compared are established, one must consider the textual variances
between them in order to establish the probability of the words reflect-
ing the actual Greek words of Jesus. The results are that we have firm
evidence for the actual words of Jesus (and of Pilate) in Jesus' trial be-
fore Pilate. We probably have some of the actual words of Jesus in his
conversations with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite woman and with
his disciples in Caesarea Philippi. In Jesus' conversation with the Phar-
isees and Herodians we may know the content of Jesus' words, but we
cannot establish the exact wording to the same extent. These results are,
in some respects, minimal in that the number of words that meet this
criterion are not plentiful, but they are nevertheless significant. This cri-
terion is designed to go beyond simply noting that Jesus may have said
something in Greek in a given context, and to determine the authen-
ticity of specific words uttered. In that sense, any number of words, no
matter how small, that meet the criterion are noteworthy, and need to be
weighed in future discussion of the words of Jesus.
EXCURSUS: CORRECTIONS TO TWO RECENT PAPERS
Corrections to S.E. Porter and M.B. O'Donnell, The Implications of Textual Vari-
ants for Authenticating the Words of Jesus', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.),
Authenticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS, 28.1; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), pp. 97-
133.
p. 104, para. 2, line 13: for Larry read Lincoln
p. 110, para. 2, lines 9,12: for daKouq read daicoxx;
p. 125, Mk 2.19: for |ie6' edmwv read |ie6' eamcov
p. 125, Mk 2.22: for prêi 6 OK; TO\)<; read prêi 6 oivoq TO\)<;
p. 127, Mk 4.28: for ei read evca (twice)
p. 127, Mk 4.30: for rcapapoXfj read 7iapa(k>A,f\
p. 128, Mk 6.4: for earnou read eamoi) (twice)
p. 128, Mk 6.11: for 6 q read 6q
p. 128, Mk 7.8: for £VToXf)v read eviroXf\v
p. 131, Mk 9.43: for px-n9i\ai read pfcneiivai
p. 131, Mk 9.43: for yevevvav read yeevvav
p. 131, Mk 9.49: for 6\)oia read 0i)oia (three times)
p. 132, Mk 10.43: for ei read elvai
p. 132, Mk 12.7: for ei read eutav (twice)

p. 132, Mk 12.29: for rcdicov read
p. 132, Mk 13.7: for 0oeupeia0e read
Corrections to S.E. Porter and M.B. O'Donnell, 'The Implications of Textual Vari-
ants for Authenticating the Activities of Jesus', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.),
Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), pp.
121-51.
p. 122, para. 2, line 7 from bottom: for rj readf\Wev and for ei read
p. 122, para. 2, line 2 from bottom: for r| read
p. 123, para. 1, line 5: for 74224 read 14224
p. 123, note 1, line 3: for subject (S) predicate read subject (S), predicate
p. 130, note 15, line 3: for Testament, read Testament,
p. 130, note 18, line 2: for £i read
p. 131, list line 2 at 6.37: for ei read
p. 131, list line 10 at 11.14: for et read
p. 131, note 20, line 1: for 6 q read
p. 131, note 20, line 2: for ei read
p. 132, note 24, line 2: for et read
p. 140, para. 1, line 4: for ei read
p. 140, para. 3, line 2 from bottom: for r\ read
p. 144, Mk 2.19: for etaimnq read eurev amolc, (twice)
p. 148, Mk 7.17: for 01 readoiKov (twice)
p. 148, Mk 6.41: for TOIK; read wix; (twice)
p. 150, Mk 6.47: for nxo read fjv TO (twice)
p. 150, Mk 6.47: for fieacpifjc; read
p. 150, Mk 6.47: for ryiaKai read
p. 151, Mk 15.25: for n6e read fjv 5e (twice)
p. 151, Mk 11.13: for ncruiccov read
p. 151, Mk 11.13: for nKaipog read
Chapter 6
THE CRITERION OF DISCOURSE FEATURES
1. Introduction
The third and final criterion to discuss in this monograph is that of dis-
course features. Discourse analysis (or textlinguistics) is a fairly recent
development in the field of linguistics.1 In some ways, it is the multi-
disciplinary development in linguistics that corresponds with the (almost
inherently) multi-disciplinary nature of biblical studies. Drawing upon
the full resources of recent linguistic research, discourse analysis moves
beyond the earlier confinement of linguistics to units no larger than the
sentence, and considers larger units of material, up to and including
entire discourses.2 Discourse analysis is related to the field of stylistics,
1. For surveys of the major avenues of research, see D. Schiffrin, Approaches

to Discourse (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1994); and S.E. Porter, 'Discourse Analysis
and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey', in S.E. Porter and D.A.
Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (JSNTSup,
113; SNTG, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 14-35. Some of the
significant works on discourse analysis in New Testament studies that have appeared
since this article was written, and are not mentioned below in this chapter, include
H. Boers, The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul's Letters to the Galatians and
Romans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994); D. Hellholm, 'Substitutionelle Glieder-
ungsmerkmale und die Komposition des Matthausevangeliums', and F. Siegert, 'Die
Makrosyntax des Hebraerbrief s', both in T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm (eds.), Texts
and Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in
Honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), pp. 11-76 and
305-16, respectively; E.A. Nida, The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communi-
cation (Collection Traductologie; Brussels: Editions du Hansard, 1996); J. Holm-
strand, Markers and Meaning in Paul: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians
andGa/flrioiw(ConBNT,28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1997); cf. S.E. Porter
and J.T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and
Results (JSNTSup, 170; SNTG, 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
2. See Schiffrin, Approaches to Discourse, pp. 23-31. Introductions to dis-
6. The Criterion of Discourse Features 211
or the study of the definable and quantifiable linguistic tendencies and

characteristics that describe or define a given writer's use of language,
often in terms of a particular discourse or subject matter. Stylistics is an
area of investigation that is often mentioned as important in the stan-
dard textual-criticism handbooks, but has not figured into textual criti-
cism in a particularly rigorous way.3 The reasons for this are several.
One is the limitation of the way that most textual criticism is done, that
is, on an ad hoc and instance by instance basis that does not allow for
analysis of the larger patterns of linguistic usage that are so important
for stylistic study. Another is the limitations in the field of Stylistics
itself, especially as it has traditionally been practised in biblical studies.
Only within the last 40 years or so has Stylistics developed in its own
right into a discipline that is capable of appreciating differences between
authors and among works.4 Those who have used it in biblical studies,
course analysis abound. The best is probably still G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse
Analysis (CTL; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
3. See, e.g., B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992),
p. 210; K. Aland and B. Aland, Der Text des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1981; ET The Text of the New Testament: An Intro-
duction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual
Criticism [trans. E.F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1989]), p. 280.
The school of textual criticism that places most emphasis on stylistic features is that
of so-called thorough-going eclecticism. See J.K. Elliott, Thoroughgoing Eclecti-
cism in New Testament Textual Criticism', inB.D. Ehrman andM.W. Holmes (eds.),
The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status
Quaestionis (SD, 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 321-35, esp. p. 321; cf.
idem, Essays and Studies in New Testament Textual Criticism (EFN, 3; Cordoba:
Ediciones El Almendro, 1992).
4. Major linguistic works in Stylistics include T. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Lan-
guage (New York: Wiley, 1960); N.E. Enkvist, J. Spencer and MJ. Gregory, Lin-
guistics and Style (Language and Language Learning; Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1964); R. Fowler (ed.), Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Critical
Approaches to Literary Style (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966); D. Crystal
and D. Davy, Investigating English Style (ELS, 1; London: Longman, 1969); G.W.
Turner, Stylistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973); A. Cluysenaar, Intro-
duction to Literary Stylistics: A Discussion of Dominant Structures in Verse and
Prose (London: Batsford, 1976); I.R. Galperin, Stylistics (Moscow: Vyssaja Skola,
1977; 3rd edn, 1981); G.N. Leech and M.H. Short, Style in Fiction: A Linguistic
Introduction to English Fictional Prose (ELS, 13; London: Longman, 1981);
R. Bradford, Stylistics (New Critical Idiom; London: Routledge, 1997).
and the related area of classical studies, have lagged behind even this
slow progress.5 A last limitation has been in terms of the body of data
available for examination. Recent research, especially utilizing com-
puter technology, has resulted in the development of much larger cor-
pora that now are machine readable and retrievable.6 Along with this
increase in available data has come the realization, however, that cer-
tain corpora are simply too small for the kinds of lexical counting so
often done in some kinds of stylistic studies (with which New Testa-
ment scholars are often all too familiar).7 Nevertheless, the limitations
of stylistics, at least as utilized in New Testament studies, do not mean
5. Major works on style in Greek, some of which are not linguistically so

phisticated, include the following: J.D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (Oxford
Clarendon Press, 1952); K. Dover, The Evolution of Greek Prose Style (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997); E.A. Nida et al., Style and Discourse: With Special Refer-
ence to the Text of the Greek New Testament (Roggebaai, South Africa: Bible
Society, 1983); A.B. Spencer, Paul's Literary Style: A Stylistic and Historical Com-
parison of II Corinthians 11:16-12:13, Romans 8:9-39, and Philippians 3:2-4:13
(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984; 2nd edn, 1998). For a recent
assessment, see J.E. Botha, 'Style in the New Testament: The Need for Serious
Reconsideration', JSNT 43 (1991), pp. 71-87 (repr. in S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans
[eds.], New Testament Text and Language: A Sheffield Reader [BibSem, 44; Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], pp. 114-29). This list does not include
numerous studies that are focused primarily on questions of authorship (see note 7,
below). Perhaps the best study in this area is A. Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the
New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). Jesus' style has been occasionally
used as a criterion in historical-Jesus research, although the use has often been
linguistically rudimentary. See J. Jeremias, 'Kennzeichen der ipsissima vox Jesu',
in Synoptische Studien Alfred Wikenhauser zum siebzigsten Geburtstag darge-
bracht (Munich: Zink, 1954), pp. 86-93; ET 'Characteristics of the Ipsissima Vox
Jesu\ in idem, The Prayers of Jesus (SBT, 2.6; London: SCM Press, 1967), pp.
108-15; N.J. McEleney, 'Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23', CBQ 34 (1972),
pp. 431-60, esp. pp. 444-45.
6. See M.B. O'Donnell, The Use of Annotated Corpora for New Testament
Discourse Analysis: A Survey of Current Practice and Future Prospects', in Porter
and Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, pp. 71-117.
7. See M.B. O'Donnell, 'Linguistic Fingerprints or Style by Numbers: The
Use of Statistics in the Discussion of Authorship of New Testament Documents', in
S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical
Junctures (JSNTSup, 168; SNTG, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999),
pp. 206-62; cf. also W. Smith, 'Computers, Statistics and Disputed Authorship', in
J. Gibbons (ed.), Language and the Law (LSLS; London: Longman, 1994), pp. 374-
413.
that principles of discourse analysis cannot be applied to the New Tes-

tament, in particular to issues related to authenticating Jesus tradition.
To the contrary, the recent developments in discourse analysis, both of
non-biblical and of biblical texts, provide a foundation for developing a
principled means of advancing discussion of such issues.
2. Defining the Criterion of Discourse Features

How then is this criterion of discourse features to be defined and used
in terms of authenticating the words of Jesus? A recent development in
discourse studies has been the utilization of discourse analysis to ask
questions regarding authorship and authenticity of testimony taken down
by police. In a number of recent instances, discourse analysts have been
enlisted to examine what the police have purported to be the accurate,
and even verbatim, testimonies of suspects in crimes. However, linguis-
tic analysis has shown that the use of the language by the purported
criminal does not fit the profile of that kind of language user or of that
particular language user.8 In these instances, questions of authenticity
8. See, e.g., M. Coulthard, 'Powerful Evidence for the Defence: An Exercise

in Forensic Discourse Analysis', and 'Forensic Analysis of Personal Written Texts:
A Case Study', both in Gibbons (ed.), Language and the Law, pp. 414-27 and 362-
73 respectively; cf. M. Coulthard, 'On Beginning the Study of Forensic Texts:
Corpus Concordance Collocation', in M. Hoey (ed.), Data, Description, Discourse:
Papers on the English Language in Honour of John McH. Sinclair (London:
HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 86-97; idem, 'On the Use of Corpora in the Analysis of
Forensic Texts', Forensic Linguistics 1 (1994), pp. 27-43; idem, The Official
Version: Audience Manipulation in Police Records of Interviews with Suspects', in
C.R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in
Critical Discourse Analysis (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 166-78; H. Kniffka
with S. Blackwell and M. Coulthard (eds.), Recent Developments in Forensic
Linguistics (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996). The field of critical discourse analysis
has made an important contribution to this area of study, because of its concern for
power structures manipulated through discourse. For an introduction to critical
discourse analysis, see N. Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical
Study of Language (LSLS; London: Longman, 1995); the essays in Caldas-
Coulthard and Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices, esp. pp. 3-104; N. Fairclough
and R. Wodak, 'Critical Discourse Analysis', in TA. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as
Social Interaction. II. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (London:
Sage, 1997), pp. 258-84; and an application to New Testament studies, with
reservations, in S.E. Porter, 'Is Critical Discourse Analysis Critical? An Evaluation
have been very important, to say the least, since they have resulted in
convictions being overturned or miscarriages of justice being corrected.
In the light of these developments, along with the recognition that there
are a number of limitations in dealing with a 'purely epigraphic lan-
guage'9 such as ancient Greek (for example, the samples are not large,
there often is no other text available for comparison, and no analyst is a
native speaker of the language being examined), there is potential for
developing a method of discourse analysis that could be applied to
examination of an ancient document, such as the Greek New Testa-
ment, with questions of authenticity in mind.
There are several possible ways that the criterion of discourse features
could be used in historical-Jesus research. These uses would, first of all,
depend upon the model of discourse analysis employed. What is clearly
needed is both a model of discourse study that will provide for analysis
beyond the level of the sentence, in order to appreciate features of dis-
course, and one that will avoid the pitfalls of previous stylistic research.
The Hallidayan model of sociolinguistically based discourse analysis
provides at least potential for being such a model.10 A way to proceed
Using Philemon as a Test Case', in Porter and Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and
the New Testament, pp. 47-70.
9. The language is that of N.E. Collinge, 'Some Reflexions on Comparative
Historical Syntax', Archivum Linguisticum 12 (1960), pp. 79-101 (79). Some of
these problems are addressed in S.E. Porter, 'Studying Ancient Languages from a
Modern Linguistic Perspective: Essential Terms and Terminology', FN 2 (1989),
pp. 147-72; cf. also idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice
(SBG,6;New York: Peter Lang, 1996), pp. 7-20, esp. p. 19; and J.T. Reed, 'Modern
Linguistics and the New Testament: A Basic Guide to Theory, Terminology, and
Literature', in S.E. Porter and D. Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament
Study (JSNTSup, 120; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), pp. 222-65. See also D. Biber,
Variation across Speech and Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), who shows that many of the supposed differences between speech and
writing fall along a continuum, rather than being a disjunction, and thus can be
accommodated with proper methodology.
10. The Hallidayan bibliography is large. His most important works with bear-
ing on register and discourse analysis include M.A.K. Halliday, Explorations in the
Functions of Language (EILS; London: Arnold, 1973); idem, Language as Social
Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning (London: Arnold,
1978); idem, An Introduction to Functional Grammar (London: Arnold, 1985; 2nd
edn, 1994); and idem and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English (ELS, 9; London: Long-
man, 1976) and Halliday and Hasan, Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Lan-
guage in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin Uni-
would be, for each of the Gospels, to take the words of Jesus and isolate
them from the other words of the Gospel (narrative and authorial expo-
sition), and identify a number of linguistic features in these bodies of
material. On the basis of these findings, one could establish from the
narrative and expository material the linguistic tendencies of a given
Gospel writer. Against this one could then test the wording of a passage
purportedly uttered by Jesus. The results of such a comparison could
then be analysed in terms of the Hallidayan concept of register.11 Reg-
versity Press, 1985). See also M.A.K. Halliday and R.P. Fawcett (eds.), New Devel-
opments in Systemic Linguistics. I. Theory and Description (London: Pinter, 1987);
R.P. Fawcett and DJ. Young (eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. II.
Theory and Application (London: Pinter, 1988); M. Davies and L. Ravelli (eds.),
Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice (London: Pinter,
1992); M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (London: Routledge,
1994). Examples of a Hallidayan discourse model applied to the Greek New Testa-
ment, though none applied to authentication criteria in historical-Jesus research,
include J.T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis ofPhilippians: Method and Rhetoric in the
Debate over Literary Integrity (JSNTSup, 136; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1997), esp. pp. 16-122; idem, 'Discourse Analysis', in S.E. Porter (ed.), Handbook
to Exegesis of the New Testament (NTTS, 25; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), pp. 189-217;
G. Martin-Asensio, 'Foregrounding and its Relevance for Interpretation and Transla-
tion, with Acts 27 as a Case Study', in S.E. Porter and R.S. Hess (eds.), Translating
the Bible: Problems and Prospects (JSNTSup, 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999), pp. 189-223; idem, 'Participant Reference and Foregrounded Syntax
in the Stephen Episode', and T. Klutz, 'Naked and Wounded: Foregrounding,
Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13-20', both in Porter and Reed (eds.), Dis-
course Analysis and the New Testament, pp. 235-57 and 258-79, respectively; cf.
S.E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (BLG, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
2nd edn, 1994), esp. pp. 298-307. A full critique of Halliday's model is not made in
this chapter, but the above literature contains references to such discussion. Other
methods of discourse analysis have been applied to the Greek New Testament. See
P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), pp. 230-92. One of the most promis-
ing studies is L. Hartman, Text-Centered New Testament Studies: Text-Theoretical
Essays on Early Jewish and Early Christian Literature (ed. D. Hellholm; WUNT,
102; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), who utilizes the categories of E. Giilich and
W. Raible, Linguistische Textmodelle: Grundlagen und Moglichkeiten (UTb, 130;
Munich: Fink, 1977).
11. Recent studies on register include M. Ghadessy (ed.), Register Analysis: The-
ory and Practice (London: Pinter, 1993); D. Biber, Dimensions of Register Varia-
tion: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995); D. Biber and E. Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register
ister consists of the three features of the context of situation—the field,

tenor and mode of discourse—which categories are realized by the infor-
mational, interpersonal, and textual meta-functions of the semantic sys-
tem of the language.12 Register does not directly determine the specific
lexico-grammatical realizations that may be used in a given utterance,
but it constrains a number of semantic or functional components. Hal-
liday has applied his register analysis to a number of texts, including
some that are quite short (e.g. 1500 words),13 and contends that he is
able to establish the context of situation of the discourse on the basis of
analysis of linguistic features brought to the fore by register analysis.
One of the problems in much previous stylistic analysis has been that of
the sample size involved. Traditional discussions, such as those of
authorship of the Pauline letters, flounder on the fact that the kinds of
stylistic tests performed require much larger samples than are available
in the individual letters.14 The Hallidayan register analysis contends to
have overcome this limitation, because, according to Halliday's method,
sample size is not necessarily a determining factor.
In such analysis, the key would rest in providing criteria by which
one can determine the field, tenor and mode of a discourse, and being
able to express these in terms of specific linguistic features that could
(Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics; New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Applications of Hallidayan register to the Greek of the New Testament have been
few. Besides Reed (Discourse Analysis, pp. 34-122), one such set of studies is S.E.
Porter, 'Dialect and Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Theory', and idem,
'Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Application with Reference to Mark's
Gospel', in M.D. Carroll R. (ed.), Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contri-
butions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation (JSOTSup, 299; Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 190-208 and 209-29.
12. See Reed, Discourse Analysis, p. 61, for a graphic display of these relations.
The concept of context is a highly complex one. For a recent discussion of some of
its dimensions, see the essays in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking
Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (Studies in the Social and Cul-
tural Foundations of Language, 11; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
13. This is the approximate length of his selections from W. Golding's The Inher-
itors, used in Halliday, Explorations, pp. 135-38; cf. M.A.K. Halliday, 'The Con-
struction of Knowledge and Value in the Grammar of Scientific Discourse, with Ref-
erence to Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species', in Coulthard (ed.), Advances in
Written Text Analysis, pp. 136-56, where he analyses two excerpts from Darwin's
work of approximately 500 words each.
14. See O'Donnell, 'Linguistic Fingerprints or Style by Numbers', where he
analyses and criticizes such attempts.
distinguish one text from another analysed in this way. Then the com-
parison could be made between the significant linguistic features of the
narrative and the significant linguistic features of the words of Jesus in
a particular pericope. The field of discourse specifically examines the
subject matter and purpose of the discourse by examining lexical choice
and the transitivity network (how 'who does what to whom' is gram-
maticalized), the tenor of discourse by the participant structure and
interpersonal semantics (including personal reference, and mood and
modality), and the mode of discourse by the features of the text as text
(including channel of conveyance and theme, cohesion and information-
al structure). The major question here is whether any of these functions,
developed to describe differences in discourse (and possibly reconstruct-
ing the original context of situation),15 is sufficient for determination of
authenticity in an ancient text. Unlike with a modern text, the firm
points of comparison in the context of culture for an ancient text are
few and far between.16 If the linguistic tests are thought to be suffi-
ciently precise, it may not matter if material is compared across literary
types (e.g. narrative of the Gospel and expository words of Jesus); nev-
ertheless, it might still be appropriate to begin with similar literary
types (e.g. narrative of the Gospel and narrative words of Jesus, such as
a parable). If the words of Jesus are determined to be significantly dif-
ferent from those of the surrounding Gospel, and especially if these
words are consistent from one segment to another, then the presumption
is that the author, and by extension any later redactors, of the Gospel
have preserved the words of Jesus in an earlier form, ostensibly a form
that could well be authentic, rather than redacting them as the Gospel
was constructed and transmitted. In several ways, this criterion resem-
bles the traditional criterion of change against the redactional tendency
(see Chapter 3, above), arguing that wording not reflecting the style of
the Gospel's author, yet preserved in the tradition, has a greater proba-
bility of authenticity. However, as will be demonstrated below, this new
criterion of discourse features attempts to utilize, in a far more linguist! -
15. This is a potentially problematic issue for an ancient text. See Porter,
'Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Application with Reference to Mark's
Gospel'.
16. Note, e.g., that when dealing with the Gospels one has a single, anonymous
text for each author (apart from the possibility of combining Luke and Acts, two
anonymous writings), with little to no firm information regarding the date or prove-
nance of composition.
cally rigorous way, a variety of data, placing them in an appropriate dis-

course analytic framework. These data may be gathered from traditional
stylistic analysis (as is done below), or they may consist of new types
of data specially derived for a given analysis (a desideratum for future
research). Comparison of Synoptic parallels could also support the hy-
pothesis if they preserve similar wording against their Gospel contexts
(see Chapter 5, above, for the criterion of textual variance).
To test the sufficiency of this criterion fully, one would need to begin
with a complete analysis of a given Gospel, and of all of the passages
that contain the words of Jesus (in other words, a corpus similar to the
one needed for the study of textual variants and variance—see Chapter
5, above). A potential area of investigation might be a narrative parable
of Jesus, as compared to the Gospel in which it is found. However,
besides the difficulty of not having the database sufficiently developed
for comparison against an entire Gospel,17 there are other difficulties as
well in parable studies that merit brief mention.18 First concerns what
constitutes a parable. This has been debated among scholars, resulting
in various conclusions.19 Most would agree on the core parables, but the
edges are fragmented, introducing difficulties for any attempt at a
17. The data that could be used for such a project, and many others as well, is
being compiled by the Hellenistic Greek Text Annotation Project of the Centre for
Advanced Theological Research, University of Surrey Roehampton. Preliminary
findings growing from this project are scheduled to be published in S.E. Porter and
M.B. O'Donnell, The Words and Activities of Jesus: Textual Variants and Register
Analysis (Texts and Editions, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, forthcoming).
18. For a recent survey of parable research, see C.L. Blomberg, The Parables of
Jesus: Current Trends and Needs in Research', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.),
Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS,
19; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 231-54.
19. A sample of some lists of the parables is to be found in S. Goebel, Die
Parabeln Jesu; ET The Parables of Jesus: A Methodical Exposition (trans. Professo
Banks; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913), pp. 457-58; J. Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse
Jesu (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1947; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 10th
edn, 1984; ET The Parables of Jesus [trans. S.H. Hooke; London: SCM Press; New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 3rd edn, 1972]), pp. 247-48; P.B. Payne, The Au-
thenticity of the Parables of Jesus', in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.), Gospel
Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, II (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 329-44; C.L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), pp. 6-7; C.W. Hedrick, Parables as Poetic
Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 252-
53.
complete study. Second is that so few of the parables have multiple

forms for productive comparison. According to many scholars, only four
parables are found in two Gospels (those of the faithful and unfaithful
servants, children in the marketplace, two builders [only three or four
verses], and householder and the thief [only two verses]), and only three
parables are found in Matthew, Mark and Luke (those of the sower, the
wicked tenants [only two or three verses], and the mustard seed). The
third, and perhaps most important, concerns how the parables are viewed
by scholars. Blomberg lists as his first two (of ten) remaining questions
in parables research, first, that of the extent the Gospel writers have
redacted their material, and, secondly, the relation of the parables of the
Gospels to rabbinic parallels.20 In parables research, the tendencies are
for those who examine the Semitic (rabbinic) backgrounds of the para-
bles to look at conceptual (not verbal) and literary parallels.21 At the
same time, those who look to the Greek literary backgrounds tend to
examine the parables a-contextually, giving no literary context or com-
parative literary analysis, even if they examine the wording.22 Each of
20. Blomberg, 'Parables of Jesus', p. 253. Cf. C.A. Evans, 'Reconstructing

Jesus' Teaching: Problems and Possibilities', in J.H. Charles worth and L.L. Johns
(eds.), Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), pp. 397-426, who, in studying selected para-
bles, contends that 'the challenge faced by those engaged in Jesus research lies not
so much in the task of identifying tradition that originated with Jesus, but in ascer-
taining what the tradition originally meant' (p. 398).
21. See, e.g., C.A. Evans, 'Early Rabbinic Sources and Jesus Research', in B.
Chilton and C.A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (AGJU,
39; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 27-57, esp. pp. 44-50; idem, Noncanonical Writ-
ings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), pp.
227-31. Evans ('Early Rabbinic Sources', p. 49) notes 'significant common termi-
nology' between the parables of Jesus and of the rabbis. However, all of these fea-
tures either find parallels in contemporary and earlier Greek literature, or are not
linguistically distinct items, as some of his own examples show in 'Reconstructing
Jesus' Teaching: Problems and Possibilities', in Chilton and Evans, Jesus in Con-
text, pp. 145-76, esp. pp. 158-59, 167-68 (I wish to thank Craig Evans for drawing
my attention to these examples). Cf. W.O.E. Oesterley, The Gospel Parables in the
Light of their Jewish Background (London: SPCK, 1936), for a more detailed study
within this framework.
22. Hedrick (Parables as Poetic Fictions, passim) examines the periodic struc-
ture, assonance and consonance, and other literary features of parables, but does not
compare his findings with what might be found elsewhere in the Gospel. In fact, he
treats the Gospel writer as just one of the interpreters of the parables, followed by
these problems is to some extent overcome by this new authentication

criterion, however. This criterion is based upon comparing material of
similar literary type, whether labelled a parable or not, although ideally
the material should be suitable for analysis of Jesus' spoken words
against a Gospel narrative itself. If Halliday is correct, length of excerpt
is not in itself a limiting factor, especially if comparison is being done
in terms of an entire Gospel. Since comparison of a single episode is to
be against the whole of the Gospel, the particular placement of the
parable in its context may well prove to be less important.
In the light of requiring a larger sample in order to perform the analy-
sis noted above, I will instead attempt to test this criterion for authentic-
ity, that of discourse features, on another type of discourse, by utilizing
data gathered by other scholars in the course of their study of the pas-
sage. Nevertheless, if this attempt is at all successful, it is hoped that
larger stretches and other types of texts can soon be included in such
analysis.
3. Discourse Features of Mark 13

Instead of examining a parable, I will analyse in broad terms one large
episode in Mark's Gospel in comparison with the rest of the Gospel.
This will serve as a guide to determining the feasibility of this criterion
of discourse features. Mark 13.5-37 is the single largest discourse in
Mark's Gospel, but may not have been delivered as an entire discourse,
if it was delivered by Jesus at all.23 In analysing passages of this sort,
others, including modern interpreters. A similar perspective is found in R.W. Funk,

Parables and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1982), esp. pp. 19-28 (originally published as 'The Narrative Para-
bles: The Birth of a Language Tradition', St Andrew's Review [spring-summer
1974], pp. 299-323).
23. Discourse analysis is not a tool that can be used to determine textual
integrity, although it can provide a means of structuring evidence for those wishing
to argue for or against it. This is shown by Reed, Discourse Analysis, pp. 412-18. It
does not actually matter to what is being tested here whether the words in Mk 13.5-
37, if spoken by Jesus, were delivered at the same time or not. This criterion is
attempting to determine authenticity, not co-temporality. The range of critical opin-
ion on Mk 13 is usefully surveyed in G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last
Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1993), pp. 1-349. See also D.E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the
Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), esp. pp. 184-87;
recent work in computational stylistics has made some impressive gains

in terms of the statistical methods that can be used in future linguistic
research on the text of the New Testament.24 Despite the gains from a
statistical standpoint, the discourse framework in which such work is
G. Theissen, Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur

Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (NTOA, 8; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1989; ET The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the
Synoptic Tradition [trans. L.M. Maloney; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992]), esp.
pp. 125-65; M.D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (BNTC; Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 297-324; C.C. Black, 'An Oration at Olivet: Some
Rhetorical Dimensions of Mark 13', in D.F. Watson (ed.), Persuasive Artistry:
Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (JSNTSup, 50;
Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1991), pp. 66-92; A.Y. Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel:
Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 73-91; R.H.
Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1993), pp. 733-800; B.M.F. van lersel, Marcus, uitgelegd aan andere lezers
(Baarn: Gooi en Sticht; Kampen: Kok, 1997; ET Mark: A Reader-Response Com-
mentary [trans. W.H. Bisscheroux; JSNTSup, 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998]), pp. 387-412; and W.A. Such, The Abomination of Desolation in the
Gospel of Mark: Its Historical Reference in Mark 13:14 and its Impact in the
Gospel (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999). My examination of
Beasley-Murray's study, as well as a number of other analyses of this passage, indi-
cates that even those studies that examine the language of the passage are not
interested in developing a criterion for authenticity, even if they wish to maintain it.
Instead, such issues are decided on the basis of a number of other factors, such as
the nature of the teaching, especially regarding the future. I will therefore not engage
in detailed discussion with or respond to the wide range of critical opinion on this
passage, except as necessary.
24. For example, among recent studies, see D.L. Mealand, The Extent of the
Pauline Corpus: A Multivariate Approach', JSNT59 (1995), pp. 61-92; idem, 'Cor-
respondence Analysis of Luke', Literary and Linguistic Computing 10 (1995), pp.
171-82; idem, 'Measuring Genre Differences in Mark with Correspondence Analy-
sis', Literary and Linguistic Computing 12 (1997), pp. 227-45; A.J.M. Linmans,
Onderschikking in de synoptische evangelien: Syntaxis, discourse-functies en
stilometrie (Leiden: FSW, 1995); idem, 'Correspondence Analysis of the Synoptic
Gospels', Literary and Linguistic Computing 13 (1998), pp. 1-13. Linmans re-
sponds in his 1998 article to Mealand's latter 1995 article, stressing the role of
discourse types in accounting for differences between discourse units, and thus
mitigating Mealand's contention in his 1997 article that differences in variables are
reflected in genre types. Although Linmans argues for use of register analysis, he
does not perform such an analysis, merely specifying a number of discourse fea-
tures that merit further investigation. He also admits that the current electronic tools
are inadequate for the requirements.
done is still in its infancy, however, raising many intriguing questions

of how discourse segments relate to each other, the implications of
these relations for source theories, and the influence of discourse type
on stylistic variation. To this point, there are far more questions than
answers in statistically based approaches, however, especially with re-
gard to the issues that are raised in this monograph regarding issues of
authenticity. A sustained use of functional linguistics in such statistical
studies, noted as an appropriate way forward in some of this research, is
also lacking. In the light of serious disagreement regarding appropriate
statistical tests, and the lack of what I consider the requisite data for
such studies, I have avoided any type of sustained statistical analysis. In
approaching this discourse, therefore, I have begun my analysis with
the results of several standard studies of the Gospel of Mark, in partic-
ular those that have been concerned to analyse various linguistic fea-
tures of the text.25 None of these studies categorizes such features into
25. Major works on Markan style, not all of equal value for this study, include
J.C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Prob
lem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899; 2nd edn, 1909), passim; C.H. Turner, 'Marcan
Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel', JTS OS 25 (1924),
pp. 377-86; OS 26 (1924-25), pp. 12-20, 145-56, 225-40, 337-46; OS 27 (1926), pp.
58-62; OS 28 (1926-27), pp. 9-30, 349-62; OS 29 (1928), pp. 275-89, 346-61 (repr.
in J.K. Elliott [ed.], The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark: An Edition of
C.H. Turner's 'Notes on Marcan Usage' Together with Other Comparable Studies
[NovTSup, 71; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1993], pp. 3-146, with additional notes); J.C.
Doudna, The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (JBLMS, 12; Philadelphia: Society of
Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1961); J. Lambrecht, Die Redaktion der Markus-
Apokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (AnBib, 289; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967); A.J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan
Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark
(SNTSMS, 33; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), esp. pp. 139-76 for
classification of redaction and reconstruction of the Markan redacted text; E.C.
Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS, 51; Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1981); R.A. Martin, Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Studies in the
Bible and Early Christianity, 10; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987); D.B.
Peabody, Mark as Composer (New Gospel Studies, 1; Macon, GA: Mercer Univer-
sity Press/Peeters, 1987); F. Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study
of the Markan Redaction (BETL, 31; Leuven: Leuven University Press/ Peeters,
1988); K.D. Dyer, The Prophecy on the Mount: Mark 13 and the Gathering of the
New Community (International Theological Studies: Contributions of Baptist Schol-
ars, 2; Bern: Peter Lang, 1998), pp. 49-65, 67-92, 131-50, 293-310. Recent studies
of Mark have been critically analysed by F. Neirynck, 'The Redactional Text of
the three contextual functions of register that I have outlined above, but
they have provided the basic information, nonetheless. I have used this
procedure so as to avoid the charge of unfair subjectivity in the selec-
tion of tests and the assemblage of data for them, since ail of the mate-
rial has been suggested by others who do not have the same critical
framework in mind.26 My application of the concept of register, it
seems to me, allows for these data to be put to an extended conceptual
use not fully realized in this previous research. Rather than simply com-
paring each factor independently and as of equal weight with any other,
the register framework allows for a categorization of data in terms of
their major discourse functions. The results can then be compared in a
more meaningful way in terms of the discourse itself. As a result of this
study, several features of this discourse show that it has been left rela-
tively unedited by Mark, indicating that it came to him as an earlier
source, and hence it possibly represents authentic Jesus tradition. This
conclusion runs against much of the critical consensus regarding this
passage. The factors that I analyse here are merely a beginning of what
might be done in more detail on the Markan style of discourse in terms
of register and authenticity, and would need to be done in extending
and developing this criterion further.
Mark', ETL 57 (1981), pp. 144-62; repr. in idem, Evangelica: Gospel Studies-
Etudes d'evangile. Collected Essays (ed. F. Van Segbroeck; BETL, 60; Leuven:
Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1982), pp. 618-36; C.C. Black, The Disciples
According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate (JSNTSup, 27; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1989), esp. pp. 184-218 (pp. 205-12 devoted to Pryke), illustrating the
need to develop independent databases and criteria. Commentaries with useful
information on Markan style include H.B. Swete, The Gospel According to Mark
(London: Macmillan, 1898), pp. xliv-1; M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc
(EB; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1929), pp. Ixvii-lxxxiii; and V. Taylor, The Gospel Accord-
ing to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1959), pp. 44-54.
26. I am not alone in suggesting new approaches to Mark's Gospel, including
ch. 13. See C. Breytenbach, Nachfolge und Zukunftserwartung nach Markus: Eine
methodenkritische Studie (ATANT, 71; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984), esp.
pp. 85-132, 280-330; P.L. Danove, The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological
Study (BIS, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993); J.G. Cook, The Structure and Persuasive
Power of Mark: A Linguistic Approach (Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1995); and W. Schenk, The Testamental Disciple-Instruction of the Markan Jesus
(Mark 13): Levels of Communication and its Rhetorical Structures', in Porter and
Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, pp. 197-222, esp. pp. 211-
13 for a survey of research.
I will treat the three components of register and their functions in

terms of the mode and textual function, tenor and interpersonal func-
tion, and field and informational function. This provides a logical order
that allows for the proper categorization of the data and the drawing of
pertinent conclusions.
a. Mode of Discourse and Textual Function

With regard to textual features of discourse, I will concentrate on cohe-
sion, or the objective means by which the text displays its unity as a
whole.27 One of the noteworthy (and often commented upon) features
of Mark's Gospel is the use of the conjunction Kai ('and') to introduce
sections and sub-sections of the Gospel.28 For example, of the 88 sec-
tions in the Westcott-Hort edition of the Greek New Testament, accord-
ing to Hawkins, 80 sections begin with Kai, while 8e begins (postposi-
tively) 6, a much more frequent usage of Kai against 8e than in Matthew
and Luke.29 Mark apparently uses this conjunction as a means of unit-
ing together his episodes/pericopes and signalling when a new one
begins.30 Whether one accepts this feature of Markan syntax as simply a
feature of Koine Greek (perhaps enhanced in Markan usage), whether
one treats it as a distinctive characteristic of Markan style, or whether
one considers it a clear Semitism,31 a noteworthy feature of Mark 13 is
27. See Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, pp. 1-2.

28. Conjunctions are a common feature for analysis in studies of cohesion. See
Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, pp. 226-73; D. Schiffrin, Discourse
Markers (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 5; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1987), esp. pp. 128-90. See also S.H. Levinsohn, Textual Connections
in Acts (SBLMS, 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), esp. pp. 83-156; idem, Dis-
course Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook (Dallas: Summer Institute
of Linguistics, 1992), esp. pp. 13-30; and D.A. Black et al (eds.), Linguistics and
New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (Nashville: Broad-
man, 1992), where various essays touch on this topic. However, it has recently been
argued that lexis organizes text. See M. Hoey, Patterns of Lexis in Text (Describing
English Language; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). This theory requires
further testing on the Greek of the New Testament.
29. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 151. There are numerous internal uses of
conjunctive Kai as well. See Maloney, Semitic Interference, p. 66, who notes the
frequency of use of Kai over 5e throughout Mark's Gospel.
30. To use the functional language of Levinsohn (Discourse Features, pp. 13-
31), Mark's use of Kai usually seems to indicate continuity or points of departure.
31. On the use of conjunctive Kai as a feature of Greek, see S. Trenkner, Le style
Kai dans le recit attique oral (Cahiers, 1; Brussels: Editions de 1'Institut d'Etudes
significantly reduced use of introductory conjunctive Kod. According to

the sub-sections in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (27th edn),
Kod is used to open 114 of 143 sub-sections of Mark's Gospel, including
Mk 13.1 and 3, both narrative portions outside of the words of Jesus,
but is used in only one of nine sub-sections within vv. 5-37—at v. 21.32
In other words, roughly 80 per cent of all of the sub-sections of the Gos-
pel begin with Kai (that is, four out of five), while within Mk 13.5-37,
only about 11 per cent of the sections begin with Kai (the percentage of
the sub-sections of the Gospel as a whole beginning with Kai would
increase if Mk 13.5-37 were not entered into the calculation).33 Within
Mk 13.5-37, rather than Kai, two other linguistic features are apparently
used to create textual cohesion. One of these is conjunctive 8e, used in
vv. 9, 14, and 28, that is, in one out of three instances. Although the
sample is too small to speak definitively, the ratios for usage of Kai and
8e in Mark's Gospel are here apparently reversed. The other linguistic
feature of textual cohesion in the discourse is asyndeton. Six of 22
Polonaises en Belgique, 1948), esp. pp. 5-7 on the New Testament; E. Mayser,
Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit (3 vols.; Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1906-1934; 2nd edn of vol. 1, 1970), II.3, pp. 184-86; M. Reiser, Syntax
und Stil des Markusevangeliums im Licht der hellenistischen Volksliteratur
(WUNT, 2.11; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), pp. 99-137. On the use of Kai as a
characteristic of Markan style, see Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 150-52; Taylor,
Mark, pp. 48-49; and so many commentators. On the use of Kai as a Semitism, see
M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1946; 2nd edn, 1954; 3rd edn, 1967; repr. with 'Introduction: An Aramaic Approach
Thirty Years Later', by C.A. Evans, pp. v-xxv; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998),
pp. 61-69; Maloney, Semitic Interference, pp. 66-74; cf. S.P. Brock, review of
Aramaic Approach, by Black, in JTS NS 20 (1969), pp. 274-78.
32. Some later manuscripts do attempt to add Kai, however; see D at Mk 13.15.
33. This coincides with overall instances of Kai in Mark's Gospel. Chapter 13
has the lowest frequency per verse of use of Kai (1.1 per verse compared to a range
of 1.2 in ch. 15 to 2.0 in chs. 5 and 6), whether vv. l-5a are included or not (without
these verses the frequency is 1.0 per verse). Mark 13 also has the lowest frequency
of verse-initial Kai of any chapter in Mark's Gospel (0.35 per verse compared to
0.40 in ch. 10 to 0.83 in ch. 3), whether vv. l-5a are included or not (without these
verses the frequency is 0.31 per verse); this is roughly half that of the frequency of
verse-initial Kai for the entire Gospel (0.65 per verse). The frequency of Kai per
1000 words in the whole of Mark's Gospel is 84.45, with ch. 13 having a frequency
of only 59.42 per 1000 words. It is clearly of more significance for the textual com-
ponent of cohesion to examine uses of Kai that connect sub-sections of discourse,
than simply counting instances.
instances of Mark's instances of asyndeton—changed in Matthew and

Luke (if Markan priority is to be believed)34—occur in Mk 13.5-37
(vv. 6, 7, 8 [2x], 9, 34).35
Another textual feature is information flow. The vocabulary of a dis-
course is often analysed in an undifferentiated way. One of the advan-
tages of Hallidayan register analysis is that the choice of lexical items is
seen to contribute to different dimensions of the discourse. For the most
part, vocabulary is often treated as indicating the subject matter of the
discourse, which will be discussed briefly below regarding the field of
discourse. The choice of lexical items is also a means by which an author
structures and shapes the textual component, and directs the flow of
information. In terms of the characteristics of Markan vocabulary, by
which he creates the textual component of his discourse, one can see
some interesting patterns in Mark 13. The characteristic vocabulary of
an author is that set of lexical items that is regularly drawn upon to shape
the discourse and convey the flow of information. Of the 41 words that
Hawkins determines are characteristic of Mark's Gospel, there are only
four instances of these words occurring in the words of Jesus in Mk
13.5-37 (out of 357 uses of this characteristic vocabulary throughout the
Gospel).36 Whereas the characteristic vocabulary appears at a rate of
34. This follows the majority of thought in current Synoptic scholarship, but the
point is not dependent upon it and has value no matter what model of Synoptic ori-
gins one maintains (see Chapter 2, above, for discussion of the competing views).
One could simply rephrase and speak of the 6 of 22 instances of Mark's instances
of asyndeton that are not found in Matthew and Luke but occur in Mk 13.5-37.
Sensitive to the misuse of linguistic arguments in discussion of the Synoptic Gos-
pels is D.A. Black, 'Some Dissenting Notes on R. Stein's The Synoptic Problem
and Markan "Errors'", FN 1 (1988), pp. 95-101; idem, 'Discourse Analysis, Syn-
optic Criticism, and Markan Grammar: Some Methodological Considerations', in
Black etal. (eds.), Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation, pp. 90-98 (though
he is not without some of his own odd linguistic judgments).
35. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 137-38. On asyndeton, see Levinsohn, Dis-
course Features, pp. 49-68; on Markan asyndeton, see Maloney, Semitic Interfer-
ence, pp. 77-81, to some extent refuting Black, Aramaic Approach, pp. 55-61.
36. These include evayyeîov in Mk 13.10, ouTtco in 13.7, Tipcoi in 13.35 and
TOIO\)TO<; in 13.19. See Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 12-13. Pryke (Redactional
Style, pp. 136-38) presents a list of 140 Markan redactional vocabulary (1423 occur-
rences), but the list cannot be used, because, reflective of its problems, it includes
words that have a single occurrence, it includes syntactical units, and seems to be
determined on the basis of sometimes questionable and subjective syntactical anal-
ysis. For a reconsideration of some issues related to Markan vocabulary, see
roughly one in every 31 words over the entire Gospel (11,099 words in
Mk 1.1-16.8), these words only appear at the rate of roughly one in
every 132 words in Mk 13.5-37 (530 words). The characteristic vocab-
ulary is approximately more than four times as frequent in the Gospel
as it is in Mk 13.5-37. In other words, there appears to be a shift in the
information flow, since this Markan section must rely upon highly non-
characteristic vocabulary. There is also the use of what some have con-
sidered odd or unusual vocabulary and phrasing in Mk 13.5-37, which
has arguably been changed in the other Gospels.37 These odd or unusual
features are, by definition, ones that the author does not use elsewhere
to constitute the textual component of the discourse. For example, the
word 7cpo|iiEpijLivdT8 ('trouble') in 13.11 is not found elsewhere in the
New Testament, and changed to the unprefixed form in Mt. 10.19 and
Lk. 12.11; the articular prepositional phrase (6 eig TOV dypov) in 13.16
is changed to use of ev in Mt. 24.18 and Lk. 17.31; the phrase EGOVTOI
yap ai fpepai EKeivai \|/î\|/ic; in 13.19 is avoided in Mt. 24.21 and Lk.
21.23; and the pronouns oia...xoia'UTr| in 13.19 are not found else-
where in Mark, in the Matthaean parallel or in Daniel, to which is being
alluded.38 These odd features become components of the pattern of
information flow of Mk 13.5-37, avoided in the other Gospels, as well
as elsewhere in Mark.
Placing vocabulary analysis, as well as other factors, within this reg-
ister category helps to isolate their function within Mark's Gospel. Thus,
on the basis of the data gathered and analysed above, there are several
clear indications with regard to cohesion and information flow that Mk
13.5-37 is constructed at the textual level differently than the rest of
Mark's Gospel.
b. Tenor of Discourse and Interpersonal Function

The tenor of the discourse is concerned with the interpersonal relations
of the discourse. This includes how interpersonal relations are gram-
R. Mackowski, 'Some Colloquialisms in the Gospel According to Mark', in R.F.

Sutton, Jr (ed.), Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, SJ (Wau-
conda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1989), pp. 229-38.
37. This point as formulated is dependent upon Markan priority in Synoptic
origins; however, it is not necessarily such. One could simply note that in Mk 13.5-
37 certain less usual lexical and syntactical choices are made. On issues in lexi-
cography with regard to the Greek of the New Testament, see Porter, Studies in the
Greek New Testament, pp. 49-74.
38. See Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 133-34.
maticalized by such linguistic features as names and reduced forms,

such as pronouns, and how the actions of the participants are related to
reality (mood and modality).39 The tenor of this discourse can be anal-
ysed on several levels, including in terms of the interaction of Jesus and
his listeners, and in terms of the interaction of those depicted in the dis-
course itself. I will concentrate on the former here. Before Jesus' speech
itself begins (Mk 13.1-4), the directive focus of the discourse is moving
from the disciples to Jesus. The disciples address him with commands,
demanding information from him about the Temple and when its de-
struction will occur (vv. 1, 4), while Jesus simply uses a question and a
statement in return (v. 2), before he begins the discourse in v. 5. How-
ever, within the discourse itself, Jesus clearly is instigating and direct-
ing comments to his listeners by means of use of the imperative.40 As
Vorster states, 'It is remarkable that almost everything which is said to,
and thus about the four [disciples] to whom the speech is directed, is
done by way of imperatives...'41 Indeed, Mark 13 has a larger number
of imperatives than any other single chapter in Mark (21 in total and 19
in vv. 5-37 [1 per 1.7 verses], with the two in vv. 1 and 4 used by the
disciples).42 This is the case even though it is much smaller than several
other chapters that have large numbers of imperatives (e.g. Mark 9 has
11 imperatives in 50 verses [1 per 4.5 verses], ch. 10 has 15 in 52 verses
[1 per 3.5 verses], and ch. 14 has 18 in 65 verses [1 per 3.6 verses]).
The ratios indicate that the frequency of imperatives in Mk 13.5-37 is
39. On participant reference, see Levinsohn, Discourse Features, pp. 113-26;

Martin-Asensio, 'Participant Reference and Foregrounded Syntax', esp. p. 240; on
mood and modality, see S.E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testa-
ment, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG, 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989),
pp. 163-78; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, pp. 50-61.
40. On the directive function of the imperative form, see Porter, Verbal Aspect,
pp. 335-61; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, pp. 53-56.
41. W.S. Vorster, 'Literary Reflections on Mark 13:5-37: A Narrated Speech of
Jesus', in idem, Speaking of Jesus: Essays on Biblical Language, Gospel Narrative
and the Historical Jesus (NovTSup, 92; ed. I.E. Botha; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999),
pp. 395-413 (410) (revised from Neot 21.2 [1987], pp. 91-112). The use of the im-
perative pXeneTe (found in Mk 4.24 [= Lk. 8.18]; 12.36; 13.5 [= Mt. 24.4; Lk. 21.8],
9, 33) is cited by P. Vassiliadis to argue for a Markan sayings-of-Jesus source
(AOFOIIHZOY: Studies in Q [University of South Florida International Studies in
Formative Christianity and Judaism; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999], pp. 153-59).
42. The imperative in Mk 13.1 is i5e. On this form, see Doudna, Greek of the
Gospel of Mark, pp. 63-65.
roughly more than twice that of any other chapter in the Gospel. Mark
13.5-37, according to Dyer, also has 5.1 per cent of the total verses of
Mark's Gospel, but 13.6 per cent of the imperatives.43 In other words,
in this discourse, the frequency of imperatives, which were not neces-
sary to use (as evidenced by Jesus' mode of speaking with the disciples
before the discourse proper begins, and as his communication else-
where in the Gospel indicates), is out of keeping with Markan usage
elsewhere in the Gospel. Part of the result of this usage is a sense of
urgency created by the commanding posture of the discourse, in which
Jesus is seen to be the one who instigates directive pronouncement.
This is not a conversation or a dialogue, but a direct address.44 This
mode of discourse is not characteristic of how Jesus is elsewhere de-
picted as speaking in Mark's Gospel,45 however, and sets the depiction
of Jesus in relation to others into significant relief in Mark 13.
Mood is only one feature of the tenor of the discourse that could be
analysed. In itself, however, it is instructive for helping to isolate and
quantify a particular orientation to communication between Jesus and
his conversational partners that is not so readily found elsewhere in
Mark's Gospel.
c. Field of Discourse and Informational Function

The field of discourse is concerned with what the discourse is about,
that is, its subject matter, and the information conveyed. The recogni-
tion that syntax conveys meaning has been fully adopted by Hallidayan
linguistics,46 so much so that it has been institutionalized as part of the
43. Dyer, Prophecy on the Mount, p. 81 n. 49. Our statistics vary slightly, but
the point is the same. Dyer also notes that Mk 13.5-37 contains 22.6 per cent of the
future tense-form verbs in Mark's Gospel (26 out of 115 instances), even though it
contains only 5.1 per cent of the total words.
44. See Gundry, Mark, p. 752; contra Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, pp.
186-87, 399-400.
45. Note how typical it is for Jesus to begin his speaking in Mark's Gospel (in
passages longer than one verse that are not simple instructions) with questions that
lead directly to his statements (e.g. Mk 2.8-9, 19, 25; 3.24; 4.13, 21, 30; 7.18; 8.17;
10.18, 36; 12.24, 35). He virtually never is seen to follow a question with a com-
mand (or imperative) (except Mk 14.6). See Mk 4.3; 6.8; 8.15, 33; 9.39; 12.38,
where he begins with an imperative.
46. Although from a different framework, note the perspective in C. Ferris, The
Meaning of Syntax: A Study in the Adjectives of English (LLL; London: Longman,
1993), esp. p. 1-18.
analysis of informational structure. The development of the transitivity

network has been a means of quantifying who does what action to
whom, and how.47 Short of performing a complete analysis of the tran-
sitivity system in Mk 13.5-37 and the rest of the Gospel (something not
done by any of the studies I am relying upon), the following more tradi-
tional features merit attention.
The first feature is Markan syntactical style. Mark 13 does not con-
form to typical Markan stylistic syntactical features. Of 14 syntactical
features that are considered by Pryke to be guides to Mark the editor
and redactor's style,48 Mk 13.5-37 has only five instances of three of
these features.49 In other words, Mk 13.5-37 does not have a very large
number of the redactional features that are said to characterize Markan
style, but it has more of the style of non-Markan material, which must
have originated from earlier sources. This non-Markan material may of
course have come from a number of different sources, with the words
spoken by Jesus possibly being construed as authentic source material
by this criterion. These three Markan linguistic features include the
following. (1) The first is two uses of parenthetical clauses, in 13.10
and 14b, both instances of what Pryke calls catechetical, liturgical and
biblical usage.50 In Mk 13.10, the parenthetical statement—Kai eiq
rcdvTOTOeGvrj rcpcoTov 5ei KT|p\)x0fivai TO e-uayYeîov—is called b
Pryke 'a Marcan redactional passage which the evangelist believes ex-
47. See Halliday, Functional Grammar, pp. 144-57. The transitivity system
involves the question of voice, a problematic one in ancient Greek, especially for
the middle voice (see Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, pp. 62-73). A
useful exposition of the concept of transitivity will be found in G. Martin-Asensio,
Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles: A Functional-Gram-
matical Approach (JSNTSup; SNTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forth-
coming).
48. See Pryke, Redactional Style, pp. 32-135. His study is much more satisfac-
tory than that of Neirynck (Duality in Mark), since Pryke attempts to analyse the
relative frequencies of the syntactical tendencies, and account for redactional
influence.
49. Those features listed by Pryke that are not to be found in Mk 13.5-37
include: genitive absolute, participle as a main verb,rcoXXdaccusative, dpôuxxi +
infinitive, e\)0\x; and Kai e\)6\x;, TidXiv, 'redundant' participle, periphrastic tenses,
'impersonate', okrce + infinitive, and two or more participles before or after the
main verb.
50. Pryke, Redactional Style, p. 53; cf. Turner, 'Marcan Usage', JTSQS 26
(1924-25), pp. 145-46.
presses the mind of Christ, although it may not be His exact words. The
main reasons for regarding this verse as parenthetical and redactional
are the vocabulary and the fact that the poetry of the passage and its
main theme are interrupted by the parenthetical phrase...'51 In Mk
13.14b, the parenthetical statement is 6 dvayivcoaKcov voeiico, for which
there is a diversity of scholarly opinion on its origins.52 (2) The second
feature is two uses of Jieyco cm in 13.6 and 30. According to Pryke,
relying on the work of others before him, the author of the Gospel
avoids indirect speech and prefers direct speech, of which these are two
instances.53 (3) The last feature is the use of explanatory yap in 13.1 lb.54
If the first and second features are clearly redactional, as Pryke con-
tends, these two portions of verses in v.l 1 can perhaps be seen to have
been edited when the discourse was placed within its surrounding nar-
rative, without necessarily affecting one's view of the authenticity of
the remaining material. In any event, this leaves at most one supposed
Markan syntactical redactional feature unexplained within Mk 13.5-37,
the yap in 13.11—one at least arguably necessary to its discursive
nature. By this analysis, there is very little evidence of Markan syntac-
tical redaction of Mk 13.5-37.
Dyer has approached the issue of syntax from a different angle. In a
response to the challenges of stylometry, he has chronicled the instances
of unique clusters of three-word syntax sequences in Mark 13 and the
rest of the Gospel. In response to the work of Peabody, as well as noting
the features cited by Neirynck,55 Dyer has also plotted recurrent six-
51. Pryke, Redactional Style, p. 53, citing the vocabulary of eOvrj, Tcpco-cov, 5ei,
KT|pTjaaco, eiKxyyeîov.
52. Pryke, Redactional Style, p. 56. See Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, p. 78.
53. Pryke, Redactional Style, p. 73, citing Turner, 'Marcan Usage', JTS OS 28
(1926), pp. 9-15; J. Sundwall, 'Die Zusammensetzung des Markusevangeliums', in
Acta Academiae Aboensis, Humaniora, IX (Abo: Abo Academy, 1934), pp. 1-86,
here p. 8; M. Zerwick, Untersuchungen zum Markus-Stil: Ein Beitrag zur Durchar-
beitung des Neuen Testamentes (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937), pp. 4ff.,
45.
54. Pryke, Redactional Style, p. 126.
55. Peabody, Mark as Composer, passim', Neirynck, Duality in Mark, passim.
Dyer (Prophecy on the Mount) rightly draws attention to the shortcomings of the
work of Neirynck and Peabody. He notes that Neirynck provides abundant lists, but
does not answer the question of how these indicate redaction (p. 139). He notes that
Peabody has a mix of vocabulary and grammatical features in his lists (p. 147).
Neirynck's lists are a mix of features, all evidencing some form of duality, but this
word syntactical sequences in Mark's Gospel. According to him, unique

syntax ostensibly indicates 'distinctive traditions', whereas recurrent
syntax indicates 'inter-connected traditions or Markan redaction'.56 It is
not entirely clear, however, what linguistic status these three- and six-
word syntactical sequences have; much more research is necessary to
quantify what they might indicate. Dyer uses them in an attempt to
isolate redactional and non-redactional syntax within Mark 13, differen-
tiating the influence of the author on particular groups of verses. Thus,
his analysis of recurrent syntax shows a particularly high concentration
in Mk 13.24-27 (71.8 per cent recurrent syntax). What is worth noting
here, however, is that regarding his three-word syntactical sequences,
there is a larger percentage of unique syntax in Mk 13.3-37 (21.7 per
cent), especially vv. 14-23 (35.3 per cent), than there is in any other
section of the Gospel (other sections that are close are Mk 1.1-16 with
20.3 per cent and 10.32-34 20.5 per cent, but the latter may be too small
for meaningful calculation).57 As interesting as these indicators are, one
must be cautious in attributing more status to them than is warranted
at this stage in research, since there is no cross-correlation with other
Greek writers, or even detailed exploration of their meaning within
Mark's Gospel.
The second feature of the field of discourse is the subject matter. The
subject matter is usually indicated by the choice of vocabulary items. In
terms of the subject matter of this discourse, there has been much debate
over the origins of the apocalyptic imagery and thought, and whether it
is possible or likely that Jesus could have stated what he does about the
impending troubles, which seem so much like the destruction of Jerusa-
lem that occurred in 70 CE.58 In a brief study of the vocabulary of Mark
includes a wide range of features. Many, but not all, are found in Mk 13, while
others are not (2. Adverbs in 0ev; 12. Double statement; 14. Translation; 15. Sub-
stantive followed by apposition; 17. Series of three; 18. Correspondence in nar-
rative; 19. Exposition in discourse; 20. Narrative in discourse; 22. Request and
realization; 23. Direct discourse preceded by qualifying verb; 24. Quotation and
comment; 28. Sandwich arrangement). Many of the samples are clearly too small to
work with (e.g. 2; 24; 28), while most are probably too small. The same criticisms
can be made of Peabody's work as well.
56. Dyer, Prophecy on the Mount, p. 147.
58. Cf. T.R. Hatina, 'The Focus of Mark 13:24-27: The Parousia, or the Destruc-
tion of the Temple?', BBR 6 (1996), pp. 43-66; N.H. Taylor, 'Palestinian Chris-
tianity and the Caligula Crisis. Part II. The Markan Eschatological Discourse',
13, Perrin noted that 'of the 165 words in the Nestle text of Mark 13.5-
27, 35 (=21.2 per cent) do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel, and of
these 35 words 15 are to be found in the Book of Revelation'. Simi-
larly, 'investigation of the vocabulary of Mark 13.28-37 reveals a total
vocabulary of 79 words, of which 13 (= 16.4 per cent) do not occur
elsewhere in the Gospel. Of these 13 words only 2 are to be found again
in Revelation.'59 Although Perrin uses this evidence as it is to argue for
the secondary nature or inauthenticity of the discourse, this conclusion
does not necessarily follow, especially when the data are placed within
the larger Hallidayan framework. All that Perrin's findings tend to show
(the size of the chapter is too small to argue for far-reaching conclu-
sions) is that Mark 13 has a higher proportion of unique, and possibly
apocalyptic, vocabulary than elsewhere in the Gospel.60 These statistics
have been called into question by Dyer.61 He notes that Perrin, using
Morgenthaler, only counts a lexical item once, regardless of its number
of occurrences. When the total number of words is used in the calcula-
tions, the proportion of unique words falls. Dyer's recalculated figures
are that Mk 13.5-27 has 41 unique words out of 381 total words (= 10.8
per cent), and Mk 13.28-37 has 14 of 152 (= 11.7 per cent). To show
that these figures are not as distinctive as Perrin claimed, Dyer draws
parallels with Mark 4, the other major discourse of Jesus in Mark's
Gospel (with 493 words in vv. 3-32). According to Dyer, there are 60
unique words out of 493 words (= 12.2 per cent) in Mk 4.3-32. Dyer is
correct in noting that one cannot challenge the authenticity of Mark 13
simply on the basis of Perrin's statistics. His conclusion is that 'the vo-
cabulary of Mk 13 is no more distinctive than the other major discourse
JSNT 62 (1996), pp. 13-41; and the provocative integrative proposal of E. Adams,
'Historical Crisis and Cosmic Crisis in Mark 13 and Lucan's Civil War\ TynBul
48.2 (1997), pp. 329-44.
59. N. Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM
Press, 1963), p. 131, using R. Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wor-
schatzes (Zurich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1958), pp. 186-87. Cf. M.E. Boring, Sayings of
the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS, 46; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 186-95, esp. pp. 193-95, who cites
and expands on Perrin's statistics, citing more parallels with Revelation,
60. There is question whether the apocalyptic vocabulary shared by Mk 13 and
Revelation comes from Mark, Revelation, common apocalyptic tradition, or where.
See Dyer, Prophecy on the Mount, p. 77.
61. Dyer, Prophecy on the Mount, pp. 75-77.
in the Gospel, Mk 4\62 Although he uses this to argue against the

uniqueness of Mark 13, the evidence that he has gathered could also be
interpreted to show, at least in a limited way, that Mark 13 and Mark 4,
both with vocabulary distinct from that of the rest of the Gospel and
discourses of Jesus, are independent from the general subject matter of
the Gospel. The nature of the subject matter of Mark 13 is no doubt re-
sponsible in large part for various theories on the origins of this dis-
course prior to the Gospel's author receiving it.63
At this point in the investigation, and with the limited resources cur-
rently available, a Hallidayan register analysis does not look like it is
able to resolve this issue definitively. However, the data regarding syn-
tax and subject matter indicate that the field of discourse of Mark 13
also has a number of distinctive features when compared to the rest of
the Gospel.64
4. Conclusion
Scholarship is far from a consensus on the origin of the so-called apoc-
alyptic discourse of Mark 13.65 Nevertheless, the features analysed
above have been gathered from a number of standard treatments of
Markan linguistic features, and supplemented by several of my own.
When placed within a different conceptual model—that of Hallidayan
register analysis—they provide evidence for a possible way forward in
the debate over criteria. There is clear evidence in terms of all dimen-
sions of register—field, tenor and mode—that much of Mk 13.5-37
does not conform to the Markan register elsewhere. In other words, the
results here confirm that the context of situation out of which this dis-
course arose seems to be decidedly different from that of the Gospel as
a whole. So little is known of the origins of Mark's Gospel, or, more

63. The major theories have revolved around the apocalyptic dimension of the
discourse, and in particular whether a written source, often labelled the 'little apoca-
lypse', lies behind what is found in Mk 13.5-37. As Collins points out (Beginning of
the Gospel, pp. 81-88), there is no necessity to accept the 'little apocalypse' theory,
nor to deny the origins of the discourse with Jesus (pp. 88-91). Perhaps this new
criterion will add further evidence to the discussion.
64. See D. Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse
(Gospel Perspectives, 4; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), esp. pp. 359-64, 373-74.
65. See G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1986), pp. 322-23, for a survey of opinion.
particularly, of the individual discourses within it,66 that it is fruitless to

try to speculate on these matters here,67 except to recognize that the fea-
tures noted above point clearly toward an earlier origin of the discourse
than the Gospel itself. As noted above, discourse analysis cannot decide
textual integrity, but works from the premise of unity (or disunity). If
we take the discourse in Mark 13 as a unity—and that is the basis upon
which the analysis above has been made—the evidence points to Mark
having taken an earlier unitary tradition and placed it within his Gospel.
He has made only a few adaptations according to his style, but left
many if not most of the features of the earlier tradition untouched. If we
accept Markan priority in Synoptic source criticism, further support for
this hypothesis can be found in terms of how Matthew and Luke have
made further changes to this discourse. This confluence of situational
factors would point to this discourse being possibly authentic Jesus
tradition, in terms of how historical-Jesus research construes such a
concept.
One question that has been in the background of this analysis of Mk
13.5-37 is that of the language of Jesus. So far, utilizing this criterion,
no explicit statement has been made regarding whether one can deter-
mine whether Jesus delivered this discourse in Greek or not. The analy-
sis has been made on the basis of the Greek language of the Gospel,
requiring, as has been noted in Chapter 5, above, that close attention be
paid to the Greek text that has been the subject of scrutiny. However,
this criterion, although it relies upon analysis of the Greek text and is,
therefore, in this sense a Greek language criterion for authenticity, does
not necessarily rely upon the original discourse being delivered in
Greek to prove effective. The reasonable presumption, however, is that,
even in translation, the significant number of discourse features that are
distinct in the discourse from the narrative of the Gospel indicate a
separate source. This translated source may have originally been given
66. See M. Hengel, 'Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums', in

H. Cancik (ed.), Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilis-
tische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium (WUNT, 33; Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1984), pp. 1-45; ET in M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (trans.
J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1985), pp. 1-30, who links Mk 13 to the dis-
cussion of authorship.
67. I have made an attempt to describe the Markan context of situation along
other, related lines in Porter, 'Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Appli-
cation with Reference to Mark's Gospel'.
in Aramaic, with a significant number of textual linguistic features of

the translation (not necessarily Semitisms, but Greek discourse features)
distinguishing the selection from its surrounding discourse. This cri-
terion would still apply whether the narrative in which the discourse is
embedded were originally written in Greek, or whether it were written
(as is unikely) in another language, such as Aramaic. However, this is
not the full extent of the use of this criterion. If it could be shown, on
the basis of the first criterion above—that of Greek language and its
context—or a similar criterion or method, that the analysed discourse
were originally probably delivered in Greek, this criterion could serve
as a useful check upon that presumption. If the features of the discourse
were significantly distinct from those of its surrounding narrative, this
criterion could serve to confirm that the discourse was originally deliv-
ered in Greek. If the features were not, then one would not necessarily
have disproved that the discourse was originally delivered in Greek, but
one would not be able to appeal to this criterion in support of such a
presumption. So far, this criterion is not able to determine on its own
whether a discourse was originally delivered in Greek.
To make this criterion more useful, it requires much further refine-
ment in a number of areas. One of these is in terms of the corpora
studied. When a sufficient database has been prepared, it will be pos-
sible to study a far greater number of linguistic features in this, and
other, texts of the New Testament and the Graeco-Roman world, and to
draw conclusions that extend over a much larger corpus. Another refine-
ment is in terms of the linguistic features studied and the explanations
given of the results. The larger body of material in machine processable
form will allow for greater experimentation in terms of not only a larger
number of features for analysis, but a higher level of complexity in
those features themselves. It will have been noted, I am sure, that I have
not compared my results of the above study in any systematic way with
the results of other studies of authenticity of this passage, apart from
those few studies utilized above that address similar issues. It might be
instructive to do so, in order to compare the results and see whether
further clarification of issues comes from other quarters. However, this
new criterion, along with the other two presented in Chapters 4 and 5,
above, is not meant simply as a further supplement to decisions made
according to other criteria. This criterion is designed to break new
ground in exploration of what is meant by criteria for authenticity in
historical-Jesus research. This third criterion of discourse features may
have the greatest potential because of its possible extension over a larger
body of material to develop linguistic indicators to aid in determining
which portions of a Gospel are earlier than other portions, and hence
could reflect the authentic words of Jesus.
CONCLUSION
At the beginning of this all-too-brief study, I began with a question.

That question was whether the term 'third quest' was merited as a
descriptive label of current historical-Jesus research, in particular in
terms of the criteria for authenticity that are often invoked in such re-
search. Even though this study has been a relatively short one, I believe
that we have come a long way from that question in the ensuing dis-
cussion. I have first surveyed the history of historical-Jesus research.
Although the vast majority of scholars wish to divide the scholarly study
of Jesus into several discrete approach-based units, I have not been con-
vinced by such divisions. These divisions seem to mask as much as, if
not more than, they reveal. One of the major historical facts that they
hide is that there has been a consistent and sustained scholarly discus-
sion of who Jesus was and what he said and did that has extended from
the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries. This discussion may not always
have been equally actively maintained in various countries or by vari-
ous language groups, or have approached the issues in the same method-
ological ways, but it has seemed to be consistently present for virtually
all of the twentieth century, and the nineteenth before it. It seems, how-
ever, that much historical-Jesus research has been seduced into focusing
its attention on a small band of discussion, in particular the treatments
of Jesus that were being written in Germany in the early part of the
twentieth century, and whether they utilized form-critical methods. But
even in the Germany of the first half of that century there was more
discussion of Jesus than those who advocate the 'no quest' period seem
willing to admit, to say nothing of the research being done elsewhere.
In the light of the international nature of current scholarly research, as
well as the relation between this subject matter and the activity of the
Christian Church, my conclusion is that we should not speak of histor-
ical-Jesus research in terms of the conceptual framework of only one
nationality or approach, but take note of its consistent and ongoing de-
velopment in various quarters. There is no denying that there have been
a number of crucial developments in method and approach along the
Conclusion 239
way, but I do not believe that the segmented scenario usually advocated
is warranted.
In particular, in the light of such discussion, I have been interested in
tracing the criteria for authenticity, as they were developed and utilized
in historical-Jesus research. Part of the evidence for seeing one contin-
uous and ongoing history of Jesus research is the fact that the criteria
for authenticity have themselves transcended any rigid boundaries in
their own origins and development. Although several of the major crite-
ria had their origins around the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth cen-
turies, as I have tried to note, most of them were originally formulated
in the light of the development of form criticism. Again, one of the pos-
sible reasons that the history of Jesus research has been written as it has
been, may well be that form criticism found its greatest initial support,
and resulted in several of its major formative statements, in German-
speaking circles. It is entirely logical that form criticism led to the
positing of criteria for authenticity, since one of the major goals of form
criticism was to be able to differentiate between earliest Church
tradition and its development. Several of the more surprising features of
the development of these criteria, however, are that their formulation
often lacked a systematic nature in the work of their earliest advocates,
but that more definitive statements as to the formulation and use of these
criteria often came from those who are associated with the so-called
'new' or 'second quest' for the historical Jesus. This development in
the criteria seems to move in the opposite direction from the way some
have wished to characterize the 'new' or 'second quest'. When one
realizes that the quest for the historical Jesus has been an ongoing and
continuous one, one can understand this tendency towards codification
of the criteria by those responsible.
These developments have led me to investigate several recent attempts
to redeem, expand or transform the criteria for authenticity. In terms of
those who are advocating a 'third quest' for the historical Jesus along
what they claim are significantly different lines than previous quests,
the development of such criteria would seem to be a sine qua non of
their efforts. It is surprising, therefore, that more attention has not been
given to the development of such criteria among 'third quest' advo-
cates. My examination of two major recent attempts to redefine the
traditional criteria and appropriate them in terms of the development of
new criteria has not resulted in the kind of optimistic view of these cri-
teria that others have, however. The shortcomings are several, and merit
repeating here. One is the failure to sufficiently formulate the criteria in

terms that avoid falling victim to the criticisms of the traditional criteria
that these new or refined criteria are attempting to correct. Another
shortcoming is the misguided notion that something new and different
has been developed, when in fact the result is simply a reformulation,
often with new language, of criteria that were formulated earlier and, in
fact, criticized and corrected along similar lines. The result is a sense that
the newest criteria advocated by some for the 'third quest' have failed
once more to push forward discussion of the criteria for authenticity.
In the light of these developments—or lack of them, even among a
number of historical-Jesus scholars who merit much respect in the work
that they have done—I have taken what some might well see as the
bold step of attempting to develop new criteria for authenticity. As much
as is possible (although admittedly, not entirely), I have tried to develop
these criteria independently of the traditional criteria. Since several of
these traditional criteria appeal to basic common sense, or even stan-
dard principles of logic, it has of course been impossible—and it would,
indeed, be unwise—to attempt to work outside of these parameters.
Nevertheless, I have begun from a very different point in developing
these criteria, and tried to be consistent and faithful to my presuppo-
sitions in their development. Taking note of recent comments by other
scholars (both positive and negative), I have gone outside of the Gospels
themselves and begun with a view of the world of first-century Roman
Palestine. My view of this world is, apparently, quite different from that
of many other New Testament scholars, some of whom I have directly
responded to in the course of this work. I am convinced, on the basis of
what I see as virtually undeniable evidence, that there was widespread
use of the Greek language in first-century Palestine. Further, I believe
that there is good evidence and reason for believing that Jesus and many
of his closest followers probably also used Greek. I do not wish to deny
that they also knew and used Aramaic (and even perhaps knew some
Hebrew), and probably used Aramaic in the majority of their commu-
nication. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that they also would
have known Greek. Of course, we do not have the kind of access to
their linguistic usage that we have in modern linguistic contexts. We
must work on the basis of the remains available, but interpreted within
a linguistically sound methodological framework. I have tried to utilize
such a framework, in terms of concepts of multilingualism and prestige
languages, as well as what is known of Greek as the lingua franca of
Conclusion 241
the Graeco-Roman world. I do not think that all who have entered into
this discussion have been as precise in this regard as they might have
been. I do not consider for a moment that I have got all of the facts and
perspectives correct either, but I do think that this research is moving in
the proper direction for such discussion, and I hope that I and others
will have a chance to continue and advance such work.
On the basis of this starting point within the Greek-speaking world of
first-century Palestine (without the disjunctive presupposition of deny-
ing the use of other languages), I have developed the criterion of Greek
language and its context. I have done this by examining the Gospel
accounts in an attempt to find situations where it is likely that Jesus and
his conversational partners would have used Greek. A number of such
contexts have been suggested by others, and I may well have excluded
some that merit further attention. I have tried to be rigorous and re-
strained in my use of my method, and believe that I have found an
essential minimum number of episodes, where it is plausible to suggest
that Greek was the language of conversation on that occasion. I have
started from this point, and extended the criterion by analysing the
subject matter as also consistent with the use of Greek. On the basis of
these two sub-criteria, it is possible to note seven Gospel episodes where
it is possible that Jesus spoke in Greek with others. This first new cri-
terion of Greek language and its context establishes that Jesus probably
spoke in Greek on particular, definable occasions, but it does not deter-
mine with certainty what those words might have been.
The second new criterion is that of Greek textual variance. This cri-
terion is a further extension of the one above on Greek language and its
context. This criterion also relies upon recent work regarding textual
variants in the words of Jesus to develop a principle for differentiating
authentic tradition. In those contexts where it has been established by
the first criterion or some other means that Greek was the language of
communication between Jesus and his conversational partners, this cri-
terion attempts to determine what those words might have been. This
criterion relies upon there being multiple independent traditions, but
overcomes the limitations of this traditional criterion by applying it at
the point that it has been especially criticized—to determine specific
wording. It is able to do this because of the use of Greek language as
the linguistic medium of communication. On this basis, it is probable
that we have the very words of Jesus in at least one, if not up to four
episodes in the Gospels. Some will dispute these individual episodes,
and others will resist the force of the conclusions (perhaps because they
have pre-decided that Jesus could not have spoken Greek, despite the
overwhelming evidence to the contrary), but the minimalist conclusions
seem to me to be secure.
The third and final criterion is that of discourse features. This crite-
rion departs the furthest from the traditional criteria for authenticity and
relies upon recent work in discourse analysis. Discourse analysis, a new
area of linguistic investigation especially for the New Testament, has
much to offer biblical scholars. In developing this criterion, I have at-
tempted to combine this new method with the traditional stylistic find-
ings of other scholars. By examining the findings of others within this
new interpretive framework, I believe that a third criterion can be devel-
oped that allows us to determine whether a given episode may well be
authentic to the Jesus tradition. This criterion, I believe, has the most
potential for further development as the resources available for study
increase, and as the linguistic features examined are further refined. Its
application to a larger number of major pericopes in the Gospels has the
promise of determining whether larger chunks of Jesus material, rather
than simply individual sentences, have a claim to authenticity.
The results of this study have, in many respects, been negative in the
sense that I have concluded that much of the conceptual framework of
previous historical-Jesus research has been imprecisely and inaccurately
formulated. Part of my work has been to call for historical-Jesus schol-
ars to re-assess our interpretive framework. My development of new
criteria has been a major part of this attempt. Rather than leaving the
negative critique, I have attempted to develop and utilize these new
criteria for authenticity as a way forward in historical-Jesus research.
Again, the number of passages that have been analysed and the conclu-
sions promoted have been small. As I have stated at several points in
the research above, however, just because a passage does not fulfil
these criteria does not mean that a given episode was not uttered in
Greek or that it is not authentic. There are clear and distinct limitations
to these criteria that must be respected. However, there is a potential for
further research that may well lead others to extend the results to a
larger number of passages. In any event, this work has been an attempt
to broaden and extend the scope of historical-Jesus research, as we enter
a new century of continued discussion of the fascinating man from
Galilee.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, T.K., Essays, Chiefly on the Original Texts of the Old and New Testaments (Lon-
don: Longmans, Green, 1891).
Abel, F.-M., Grammaire du grec biblique: Suivie d'un choix de papyrus (EB; Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1927)
Achtemeier, P.J., 'Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of
Late Western Antiquity', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 3-27.
Adams, E., 'Historical Crisis and Cosmic Crisis in Mark 13 and Lucan's Civil War\ TynBul
48.2 (1997), pp. 329-44.
Adinolfi, M., 'L'ellenizzazione della Palestina', in M. Adinolfi and P. Kaswalder (eds.),
Entrarono a Cafarnao: Lettura interdisciplinare di Me 1. Studi in onore di P. Vir-
ginio Ravanelli (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 44; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing
Press, 1997), pp. 29-35.
Aland, K., and B. Aland, Der Text des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelge-
sellschaft, 2nd edn, 1981; ET The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the
Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism [trans.
E.F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1989]).
Allison, D.C., Jr, 'Matthew 23.39 = Luke 13.35B as a Conditional Prophecy', JSNT 18
(1983), pp. 75-84; repr. in Evans and Porter (eds.), The Historical Jems, pp. 262-70.
Anderson, H., Jesus and Christian Origins: A Commentary on Modern Viewpoints (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1964).
Argyle, A.W., 'Did Jesus Speak Greek?', ExpTim 67 (1955-56), pp. 92-93, 383.
—'Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times', NTS 20 (1974), pp. 87-
89.
— ' "Hypocrites" and the Aramaic Theory', ExpTim 75 (1963-64), pp. 113-14.
Atkinson, K., 'On Further Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue: Fact or Fiction?',
NTS 43 (1997), pp. 491-502.
Aulen, G., Jesus i nutida historiskforskning (Stockholm: Verbum, 1973; 2nd edn, 1974; ET
Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research [trans. I.H. Hjelm; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976]).
Aune, D.E., 'Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some Critical Considerations',
in Charlesworth and Johns (eds.), Hillel and Jesus, pp. 176-92.
—Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983).
Bacon, B.W., The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate: A Series of Essays on Problems
Concerning the Origin and Value of the Anonymous Writings Attributed to the Apos-
tle John (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1919).
Baetens Beardsmore, H., Bilingualism: Basic Principles (Multilingual Matters, 1; Cleve-
don: Multilingual Matters, 1982; 2nd edn, 1986).
Baird, J.A., Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus (NTL; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press; London: SCM Press, 1969).
—The Justice of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963).
Bammel, E., 'The titulus\ in Bammel and Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his Day,
pp. 353-64.
Bammel, E., and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his Day (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1984).
Banks, R.J., 'Setting "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" in a Broader Framework', in
France and Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives, II, pp. 61-82.
Barbour, R.S., Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels (Studies in Creative Criticism,
4; London: SPCK, 1972).
Bardy, G., La question des langues dans I'eglise ancienne (Etudes de theologie historique,
1; Paris: Beauchesne, 1948).
Bar-Kochva, B., Pseudo-Hecataeus, 'On the Jews': Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).
Barr, J., 'Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age', in W.D. Davies and L.
Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. II. The Hellenistic Age
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 79-114.
— The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Nachrichten der Akademie
der Wissenschaften in Gb'ttingen I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Mitteilungen des
Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979).
—'Which Language Did Jesus Speak?—Some Remarks of a Semitist', BJRL 53 (1970),
pp. 9-29.
Barrett, C.K., The Gospel According to St John (London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster Press, 2nd edn, 1978 [1955]).
— Jesus and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1967).
Bassnett, S., Translation Studies (London: Routledge, rev. edn, 1991 [1980]).
Bassnett, S., and H. Trivedi (eds.), Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice (Trans-
lation Studies; London: Routledge, 1999).
Beare, F.W., The Earliest Records of Jesus (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964).
Beasley-Murray, G.R., Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter:
Paternoster Press, 1986).
—Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1993).
—John (WBC, 36; Dallas: Word Books, 1987).
Beattie, D.R.G., and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Histori-
cal Context (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
Beker, J., Jesus von Nazaret (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1995).
Bell, G.K.A., and A. Deissmann (eds.), Mysterium Christi: Christological Studies by
British and German Theologians (London: Longmans, Green; Berlin: Furche-Verlag,
1930).
Bell, R.T., Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice (Applied Linguistics and
Language Study; London: Longman, 1991).
Bellinzoni, A.J., Jr (ed.), The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 1985).
Benoit, P., J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les grottes de Murabba'at (DJD, 2; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1961).
Berger, K., Einflihrung in die Formgeschichte (UTb, 1444; Tubingen: Franke, 1987).
Bibliography 245
—Exegese des Neuen Testaments: Neue Wege vom Text zur Auslegung (UTb, 658;
Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1977).
—'Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament', ANRW2.25.2, pp. 1031-1432.
Betz, H.D., Antike und Christentum: Gesammelte Aufsdtze IV (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1998).
—'Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis', JR 74 (1994), pp. 453-75;
repr. in idem, Antike und Christentum, pp. 32-56.
—'Wellhausen's Dictum "Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew" in Light of Present Schol-
arship', ST45 (1991), pp. 83-110; repr. in idem, Antike und Christentum, pp. 1-31.
Betz, O., Was Wissen wir von Jesus? (Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1965; ET What Do We Know about
Jesus? [trans. M. Kohl; London: SCM Press, 1968]).
Beyer, K., Die aramaische Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1984).
Biber, D., Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995).
—Variation across Speech and Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Biber, D., and E. Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (Oxford Studies
in Sociolinguistics; New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and their
Importance (JSPSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988).
Birkeland, H., The Language of Jesus (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-
Akademie I. II. Historish-Filosofisk Klasse I; Oslo: Dybwad, 1954).
Black, C.C., The Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate
(JSNTSup, 27; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).
—'An Oration at Olivet: Some Rhetorical Dimensions of Mark 13', in D.F. Watson (ed.),
Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A.
Kennedy (JSNTSup, 50; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 66-92.
Black, D.A., 'Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and Markan Grammar: Some
Methodological Considerations', in Black et al. (eds.), Linguistics and New Testa-
ment Interpretation, pp. 90-98.
—It's Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998).
—'Some Dissenting Notes on R. Stein's The Synoptic Problem and Markan "Errors'", FN
1(1988), pp. 95-101.
Black, D.A., and D.S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1991).
Black, D.A., et aL (eds.), Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Dis-
course Analysis (Nashville: Broadman, 1992).
Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946;
2nd edn, 1954; 3rd edn, 1967; repr. with 'Introduction: An Aramaic Approach Thirty
Years Later', by C.A. Evans, pp. v-xxv; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998).
Blass, F., Philology of the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1898).
Blass, F., and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature (trans. R.W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961).
Blomberg, C.L., 'Historical Criticism of the New Testament', in D.S. Dockery, K.A. Math-
ews and R.B. Sloan (eds.), Foundations for Biblical Interpretation (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1994), pp. 414-33.
—The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987).
—Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1990).
—'Interpreting the Parables of Jesus: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?',
CBQ 53 (1991), pp. 50-78.
—'The Parables of Jesus: Current Trends and Needs in Research', in Chilton and Evans
(eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 231-54.
Boccaccini, G., Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991).
Bock, D.L., 'Form Criticism', in Black and Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and
Interpretation, pp. 175-96.
—Luke (2 vols.; Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 3A, B; Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994, 1996).
Bockmuehl, M., This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994).
Boers, H., The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul's Letters to the Galatians and Romans
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
Bond, H.K., Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (SNTSMS, 100; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Borg, M.J., Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen Press, 1984; repr. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998).
—Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994).
—Jesus a New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper -
SanFrancisco, 1987).
Borgen, P., 'The Independence of the Gospel of John: Some Observations', in Van
Segbroeck, Tuckett, Van Belle and Verheyden (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, III, pp.
1815-33.
—'John and the Synoptics', in Dungan (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels, pp. 408-37.
Boring, M.E., 'The Historical-Critical Method's "Criteria of Authenticity": The Beatitudes
in Q and Thomas as a Test Case', Semeia 44 (1988), pp. 9-44.
—Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS, 46;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
Bornkamm, G., 'Die Sturmstillung im Matthausevangelium', Wort und Dienst: Jahrbuch
der Theologischen Schule Bethel NS 1 (1948), pp. 49-54; repr. in Bornkamm, Barm
and Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 52-57.
—'Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthausevangelium', in W.D. Davies and D. Daube
(eds.), The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology: Studies in Honour
ofC.H. Dodd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), pp. 222-60.
—Jesus von Nazareth (Urban-Bucher, 19; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1956; 10th edn, 1975;
ET Jesus of Nazareth [trans. I. McLuskey and F. McLuskey with J.M. Robinson;
London: Hodder & Stoughton, I960]).
Bornkamm, G., G. Barth and H.J. Held, Uberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthausevan-
gelium (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960; ET Tradition and Interpre-
tation in Matthew [trans. P. Scott; NTL; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: West-
minster Press, 1963]).
Botha, J.E., 'Style in the New Testament: The Need for Serious Reconsideration', JSNT43
(1991), pp. 71-87.
Bousset, W., Jesus (Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke, 1904; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 3rd edn,
1907; ET Jesus [CThL; trans. J.P. Trevelyan; London: Williams & Norgate; New
York: Putnam's Sons, 1906]).
Bibliography 247
—Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfangen des Christentums
bis Irenaeus (FRLANT, 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913; 5th edn,
1964; ET Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of
Christianity to Irenaeus [trans. J.E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970]).
Bowden, J.S., Jesus: The Unanswered Questions (London: SCM Press, 1988).
Braaten, C.E., and R.A. Harrisville (eds.), The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ:
Essays on the New Quest of the Historical Jesus (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964).
Bradford, R., Stylistics (New Critical Idiom; London: Routledge, 1997).
Braun, F.-M., Jesus: Histoire et critique (Tournai: Casterman, 1947).
Braun, H., Jesus: Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit (Berlin: Kreuz-Verlag, 1969).
Breech, J., The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Authentic Man (Philadelphia:
Brehm, H.A., The Meaning of 'EMjivicrafe in Acts in Light of a Diachronic Analysis of
eM,rjvi£eiv', in Porter and Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics, pp.
180-99.
Breytenbach, C, Nachfolge und Zukunftserwartung nach Markus: Eine methodenkritische
Studie (ATANT, 71; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984).
Brixhe, C., Essai sur le Grec Anatolien: Au debut de notre ere (TMEA, 1; Nancy: Presses
Universitaires de Nancy, 1984).
Brixhe, C. (ed.), La koine grecque antique (3 vols.; TMEA, 10, 14, 17; Nancy: Presses Uni-
versitaires de Nancy, 1993-98).
Brock, S.P., review of Aramaic Approach, by Black, in JTS NS 20 (1969), pp. 274-78.
Brodie, T.L., The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Brown, C., 'Historical Jesus, Quest of, in Green, McKnight and Marshall (eds.), Dic-
tionary of Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 326-41.
Brown, G., and G. Yule, Discourse Analysis (CTL; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983).
Brown, R.E., The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (2 vols.; ABRL;
New York: Doubleday; London: Chapman, 1994).
—The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB 29, 29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966,
1970).
—An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1997).
Browning, R., Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd
edn, 1983), pp. 19-52.
—'Von der Koine bis zu den Anfangen des modernen Griechisch', in H.-G. Nesselrath
(ed.), Einleitung in die griechische Philologie (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1997), pp. 156-68.
Bruce, F.F., 'Render to Caesar', in Bammel and Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his
Day, pp. 249-63.
—Tradition Old and New (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1970).
Biichsel, F., 'Die griechische Sprache der Juden in der Zeit der Septuaginta und des Neuen
Testaments', ZAW60 (1944), pp. 132-49.
Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (MeyerK; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1947; 2nd edn, 1964; supplement 1966; ET The Gospel of John: A Com-
mentary [trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971]).
—Das Verhaltnis der urchristlichen Christusbotschaft zum historischen Jesus (Sitzungs-
berichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften phil.-hist. Klasse; Heidel-
berg: Winter, 1960; 3rd edn, 1962); ET The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the
Historical Jesus', in Braaten and Harrisville (eds.), The Historical Jesus and the
Kerygmatic Christ, pp. 15-42.
—Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT, 29; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1921; 2nd edn, 1931; 6th edn, 1957; ET History of the Synoptic Tradition
[trans. J. Marsh; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963; 2nd edn, 1968]).
—Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926; 2nd edn, 1934; ET Jesus and the Word [trans.
L.P. Smith and E. Huntress; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934; London: Ivor
Nicholson & Watson, 1935]).
—'Neues Testament und Mythologie: Das Problem der Entmythologisierung der neutesta-
mentlichen Verkundigung', in H.W. Bartsch (ed.), Kerygma und Mythos: Ein theo-
logisches Gesprach (Hamburg: H. Reich, 1948; 2nd edn, 1951), pp. 15-48; ET 'New
Testament and Mythology: The Mythological Element in the Message of the New
Testament and the Problem of its Re-Interpretation', in H.W. Bartsch (ed.), Kerygma
and Myth: A Theological Debate (trans. R.H. Fuller; London: SPCK, 1953; 2nd edn,
1964), pp. 1-44.
—The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem', JR 6 (1926), pp. 337-62; repr. in S. Ogden
(ed.), Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann (New York: Merid-
ian, 1960; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961), pp. 35-54.
—Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948; 7th edn ed. O. Merk,
1977; ET Theology of the New Testament [2 vols.; trans. K. Grobel; London: SCM
Press; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951, 1955]).
Bundy, W.E., Jesus and the First Three Gospels: An Introduction to the Synoptic Tradition
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955).
Burge, G., Interpreting the Gospel of John (Guides to New Testament Exegesis; Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992).
Burkitt, F.C., The Gospel History and its Transmission (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906;
3rd edn, 1911).
—Jesus Christ: An Historical Outline (London: Blackie, 1932).
Burney, C.F., The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922).
—The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925).
Byrskog, S., Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel,
Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community (ConBNT, 24; Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell, 1994).
Cadoux, C.J., The Historic Mission of Jesus: A Constructive Reexamination of the Escha-
tological Teaching in the Synoptic Gospels (London: Lutterworth, 1941).
Caldas-Coulthard, C.R., and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical
Discourse Analysis (London: Routledge, 1996).
Calvert, D.G.A., 'An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words
of Jesus', NTS 18 (1971-72), pp. 209-19.
Caragounis, C.C., The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT, 38; Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1986).
Carpenter, H., Jesus (Past Masters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).
Carlston, C.E., 'A Positive Criterion of Authenticity?', BR 1 (1962), pp. 33-44.
Carrington, P., According to Mark: A Running Commentary on the Oldest Gospel (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960).
—The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel (Cam-
Bibliography 249
Carson, D.A., The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991).
—'Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?', in France and Wenham
(eds.), Gospel Perspectives, II, pp. 85-145.
—'Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool', in D.A.
Carson and J.D. Woodbridge (eds.), Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1983), pp. 119-42.
Cartlidge, D.R., and D.L. Dungan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press; London: Collins, 1980).
Cary, M., A History of Rome down to the Reign of Constantine (London: Macmillan, 1935;
2ndedn, 1954).
—The Legacy of Alexander: A History of the Greek World from 323 to 146 B.C. (New
York: Dial, 1932).
Case, S.J., The Historicity of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912; 2nd edn,
1928).
—Jesus: A New Biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927).
Casey, M., 'An Aramaic Approach to the Synoptic Gospels', ExpTim 110.7 (1999), pp.
275-78.
—Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (SNTSMS, 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).
—'In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?', ExpTim 108.11 (1997), pp. 326-28.
Catchpole, D.R., The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt, xxvi.64)', NTS 17 (1970-71),
pp. 213-26.
—The Centurion's Faith and its Function in Q', in Van Segbroeck, Tuckett, Van Bekke
and Verheyden(eds.), The Four Gospels 1992,1, pp. 517-40; repr. in D.R. Catchpole
The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), pp. 280-308.
—Tradition History', in Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation, pp. 165-80.
Charlesworth, J.H., The Historical Jesus in Light of Writings Contemporaneous with
Him', ANRW2.25.1 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1982), pp. 451-76.
—Jesus within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (ABRL;
New York: Doubleday, 1988).
Charlesworth, J.H., and C.A. Evans, 'Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels', in
Chilton and Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 479-533.
Charlesworth, J.H., and L.L. Johns (eds.), Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two
Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997).
Chilton, B., 'Assessing Progress in the Third Quest', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Authenti-
cating the Words of Jesus, pp. 15-25.
—A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture of his Time
(GNS, 8; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984).
—The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Tar gum (JSOTSup, 23;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982).
—God in Strength: Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom (SNTU, B.I; Freistadt: Plochl,
1979; repr. BibSem, 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
—The Kingdom of God in Recent Discussion', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Studying the
—Profiles of a Rabbi: Synoptic Opportunities in Reading about Jesus (BJS, 177; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1989).
—Pure Kingdom: Jesus' Vision of God (SHJ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: SPCK,
1996).
—The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992).
—Traditio-Historical Criticism and Study of Jesus', in J.B. Green (ed.), Hearing the New
Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Pater-
noster Press, 1995), pp. 37-60.
Chilton, B., and C.A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (AGJU, 39;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997).
Chilton, B. (ed.), The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (IRT, 5; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press; London: SPCK, 1984).
Chilton, B., and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2;
—Authenticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS, 28.1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998).
—Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS, 19;
Chomsky, W., 'What Was the Jewish Vernacular during the Second Commonwealth?',
JQR 42 (1951-52), pp. 193-212.
Clarke, K.D., 'Original Text or Canonical Text? Questioning the Shape of the New Testa-
ment Text We Translate', in Porter and Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible, pp. 281-
322.
Clarke, W.K.L., New Testament Problems: Essays—Reviews—Interpretations (London:
SPCK, 1929).
Cluysenaar, A., Introduction to Literary Stylistics: A Discussion of Dominant Structures in
Verse and Prose (London: Batsford, 1976).
Collinge, N.E., 'Some Reflexions on Comparative Historical Syntax', Archivum Linguis-
ticum 12 (1960), pp. 79-101.
Collins, A.Y., The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis:
Collins, R.F., Introduction to the New Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983).
Colwell, E.C., 'The Greek Language', in G. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible, II (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 479-87.
—The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic
Greek (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931).
—Jesus and the Gospel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963).
Conzelmann, H., Die Mine der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (BHT, 17; Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1953; 2nd edn, 1957; 4th edn, 1962; ET The Theology of St Luke
[trans. G. Buswell; New York: Harper & Brothers; London: Faber & Faber, I960]).
—'Jesus Chrisms', RGG, III (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 3rd edn, 1959), cols. 619-53; ET
Jesus (trans. J.R. Lord; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973).
—'Zur Methode der Leben-Jesu-Forschung', ZTK 56 (1959), pp. 2-13; ET 'The Method of
the Life-of-Jesus Research', in Braaten and Harrisville (eds.), The Historical Jesus
and the Kerygmatic Christ, pp. 54-68.
Conzelmann, H., and A. Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament (Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 8th edn, 1985; ET Interpreting the New Testament: An Introduction to the
Principles and Methods of New Testament Exegesis [trans. S.S. Schatzmann;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988]).
Bibliography 251
Cook, J.G., The Structure and Persuasive Power of Mark: A Linguistic Approach (Semeia
Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
Corley, B. (ed.), Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh
Approaches (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983).
Corrington, G.P., 'Redaction Criticism', in S.R. Haynes and S.L. McKenzie (eds.), To
Each its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 87-99.
Costas, P.W., An Outline of the History of the Greek Language, with Particular Emphasis
on the Koine and the Subsequent Periods (Chicago: Ukrainian Society of Sciences of
America, 1936; repr. Chicago: Ares, 1979).
Cotterell, P., and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989).
Cotton, H.M., and J. Geiger, Masada, The Y. Yadin Excavations 1963-65. II. The Latin and
Greek Documents (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989).
Cotton, H.M., W.E.H. Cockle and F.G.B. Millar, The Papyrology of the Roman Near East:
A Survey', JRS 85 (1995), pp. 214-35.
Cotton, H.M., and A. Yardeni (eds.), Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from
Nahal Hever and Other Sites (DID, 27; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).
Coulthard, M., The Official Version: Audience Manipulation in Police Records of Inter-
views with Suspects', in Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices,
pp. 166-78.
—'On Beginning the Study of Forensic Texts: Corpus Concordance Collocation', in
M. Hoey (ed.), Data, Description, Discourse: Papers on the English Language in
Honour of John McH. Sinclair (London: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 86-97.
—'On the Use of Corpora in the Analysis of Forensic Texts', Forensic Linguistics 1
(1994), pp. 27-43.
—'Powerful Evidence for the Defence: An Exercise in Forensic Discourse Analysis', in
Gibbons (ed.), Language and the Law, pp. 414-27.
Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (London: Routledge, 1994).
Cranfield, C.E.B., The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1959).
Cross, A.R., 'Historical Methodology and New Testament Study', Themelios 22.3 (1997),
pp. 28-51.
Crossan, J.D., The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
—In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
Crossan, J.D., L.T. Johnson and W.H. Kelber, The Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Con-
flict (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999).
Crystal, D., 'Some Current Trends in Translation Theory', The Bible Translator 27 (1976),
pp. 322-29.
Crystal, D., and D. Davy, Investigating English Style (London: Longman, 1969).
Cullmann, O., Heil als Geschichte: Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament
(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965; ET Salvation in History [NTL; trans. S.G. Sowers;
London: SCM Press, 1967]).
—Petrus: Junger—Apostel—Martyrer (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2nd edn, 1961
ET Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historial and Theological Study [trans. F.V.
Filson; London: SCM Press, 1962]).
Culpepper, R.A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia:
Dahl, N.A., 'Der historische Jesus als geschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches
Problem', KD 1 (1955), pp. 104-32; ET 'The Problem of the Historical Jesus', in C.E.
Braaten and R.A. Harrisville (eds.), Kerygma and History: A Symposium on the The-
ology of Rudolf Bultmann (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 138-71; repr. in
N.A. Dahl, The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974),
pp. 48-89, 173-74.
Dalman, G., Die Worte Jesu: Mit Berucksichtigung des nachkanonischen jiidischen
Schrifttums und der aramaistischen Sprache erortert (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898; rev.
edn, 1930; ET The Words of Jesus: Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish
Writings and the Aramaic Language [trans. D.M. Kay; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1909]).
—Grammatik desjudisch-paldstinischenAramaisch (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1894; 2nd edn,
1905; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960).
—Jesus-Jeschua: Die drei Sprachen Jesu, Jesus in der Synagoge, auf dem Berge beim
Passahmahl, am Kreuz (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1922; ET Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in
the Gospels [trans. P.P. Levertoff; London: SPCK, 1929]).
—One und Wege Jesu (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 3rd edn, 1924; ET Sacred Sites and Ways:
Studies in the Topography of the Gospels [trans. P.P. Levertoff; London: SPCK,
1935]).
Daniel-Rops, H., Jesus en son temps (Paris: Fayard, 1945; ET Jesus in his Time [trans.
R.W. Millar; London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1955; 2nd edn, 1956]).
Danove, P.L., The End of Mark's Story: A Methodological Study (BIS, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1993).
Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956).
Davids, P.H., 'The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty Years after Gerhardsson', in
France and Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives, I, pp. 75-99.
Davies, M., and L. Ravelli (eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and
Practice (London: Pinter, 1992).
Davies, W.D., 'Reflections on a Scandinavian Approach to "The Gospel Tradition"', in
Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freudesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr Oscar Cull-
mannzu seinem 60. Geburtstag uberreicht (NovTSup, 6; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1962), pp.
14-34; repr. in W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1964), pp. 464-80.
Davies, W.D., and D.C. Allison, Jr, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-97).
Davis, C.W., Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the
Literary Structure of Pauls Epistle to the Philippians (JSNTSup, 172; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
Debrunner, A., Geschichte der griechischen Sprache. II. Grundfragen und Grundzuge des
nachklassischen Griechisch (ed. A. Scherer; Sammlung Goschen, 114/114a; Berlin:
W. de Gruyter, 2nd edn, 1969).
De Waard, J. and E.A. Nida, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in
Bible Translating (Nashville: Nelson, 1986).
Deissmann, A., Bibelstudien (Marburg: Elwert, 1895).
—Bible Studies (trans. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901).
Bibliography 253
—'Hellenistisches Griechisch', in A. Hauck (ed.), Realencyklopddie fur protestantische

Theologie undKirche, VII (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 3rd edn, 1899), pp. 627-39; ET in
Porter (ed.), Language of the New Testament, pp. 39-59.
—Licht vom Osten (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1908; 4th edn, 1923; ET Light from the
Ancient East [trans. L.R.M. Strachan; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910; 4th edn,
1927]).
—Neue Bibelstudien (Marburg: Elwert, 1897).
—Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future (trans. L.R.M. Strachan; London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1908).
Denniston, J.D., Greek Prose Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952).
Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1919; 2nd
edn, 1933; 6th edn ed. G. Bornkamm; ET From Tradition to Gospel [trans. B. Woolf;
London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1934]).
—Gospel Criticism and Christology (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935).
—Jesus (Sammlung Goschen; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1939; ET Jesus [trans. C.B. Hedrick
and F.C. Grant; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949; London: SCM Press, 1963]).
Dodd, C.H., The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1936).
—The Founder of Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1970; London: Collins, 1971).
—The Framework of the Gospel Narrative (1932)', in idem, New Testament Studies
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953), pp. 1-11.
—Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1963).
—History and the Gospel (London: Nisbet, 1938).
—The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1935; New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, rev. edn, 1961).
—The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus', in AJ.B. Higgins (ed.), New Testa-
ment Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson 1893-1958 (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 106-18.
Donahue, J.R., 'Redaction Criticism: Has the Hauptstrasse Become a SackgasseT', in E.S.
Malbon and E.V. McKnight (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testa-
ment (JSNTSup, 109; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 27-57.
Doty, W.G., The Discipline and Literature of New Testament Form Criticism', ATR 51
(1969), pp. 257-321.
Doudna, J.C., The Greek of the Gospel ofMark(]BLMS, 12; Philadelphia: Society of Bib-
lical Literature and Exegesis, 1961).
Dover, K., The Evolution of Greek Prose Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).
Downes, W., Language and Society (London: Fontana, 1984).
Downing, F.G., The Church and Jesus: A Study in History, Philosophy and Theology
(SBT, 10; London: SCM Press, 1968).
—'Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 69-85.
Dufton, F., The Syrophoenician Woman and her Dogs', ExpTim 100 (1988-89), p. 417.
Duncan, G.S., Jesus, Son of Man: Studies Contributory to a Modern Portrait (London:
Nisbet, 1947).
Dungan, D.L., A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition,
and the Interpretation of the Gospels (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1999).
Dungan, D.L. (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels (BETL, 95; Leuven: Leuven Univer-
sity Press/Peeters, 1990).
Dunkerley, R., The Unwritten Gospel: Ana and Agrapha of Jesus (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1925).
Dunn, J.D.G., 'Can the Third Quest Hope to Succeed?', in Chilton and Evans (eds.),
Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, pp. 31-48.
—The Evidence for Jesus: The Impact of Scholarship on our Understanding of How
Christianity Began (London: SCM Press, 1985).
—'Jesus and Factionalism in Early Judaism', in Charlesworth and Johns (eds.), Hillel and
Jesus, pp. 156-75.
Dupont, J. (ed.), Jesus aux origines de la christologie (BETL, 40; Gembloux: Duculot,
1975; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2nd edn, 1989).
Duranti, A., and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phe-
nomenon (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 11; Cam-
Dvorak, J.D., The Relationship between John and the Synoptic Gospels', JETS 41 (1998),
pp. 201-13.
Dyer, K.D., The Prophecy on the Mount: Mark 13 and the Gathering of the New Commu-
nity (International Theological Studies: Contributions of Baptist Scholars, 2; Bern:
Peter Lang, 1998).
Eagleson, R., 'Forensic Analysis of Personal Written Texts: A Case Study', in Gibbons
(ed.), Language and the Law, pp. 362-73.
Edersheim, A., The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2 vols.; London: Longmans,
Green; New York: Randolph, 1883; 7th edn, 1892).
Edwards, D., 'First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archae-
ological and Literary Evidence', in D.J. Lull (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1988
Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 169-82.
—'The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century:
Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement', in Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late
Antiquity, pp. 53-73.
Edwards, D.R., and C.T. McCollough (eds.), Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and
Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods (South Florida Studies in the
History of Judaism, 143; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
Elliott, J.K., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
—Essays and Studies in New Testament Textual Criticism (Estudios de Filologia Neotes-
tamentaria, 3; Cordoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1992).
—'Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism', in B.D. Ehrman and
M.W. Holmes (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research:
Essays on the Status Quaestionis (SD, 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 321-
35.
Ellis, E.E., 'Gospels Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art', in Stuhlmacher (ed.),
Gospel and the Gospels, pp. 26-52.
—'The Historical Jesus and the Gospels', in J. Adna, S.J. Hafemann and O. Hofius (eds.),
Evangelium Schriftauslegung Kirche: Festschrift fiir Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65.
Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), pp. 94-106.
—'New Directions in Form Criticism', in Strecker (ed.), Jesus Christus in Historie und
Theologie, pp. 299-315; repr. in E.E. Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Chris-
tianity (WUNT, 18; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1978; repr. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 237-53.
Bibliography 255
Emerton, J.A., 'Did Jesus Speak Hebrew?', JTS NS 12 (1961), pp. 189-202.
—'The Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the First Century AD and the Language of
Jesus', JTS NS 24 (1973), pp. 1-23.
Enkvist, N.K., J. Spencer and M.J. Gregory, Linguistics and Style (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1964).
Ennulat, A., Die 'Minor Agreements': Untersuchungen zu einer offenen Frage des
synoptischen Problems (WUNT, 2.62; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994).
Enslin, M.S., The Prophet from Nazareth (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).
Epp, E.J., Textual Criticism in the Exegesis of the New Testament, with an Excursus on
Canon', in Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis, pp. 45-97.
Epp, E.J., and G.W. MacRae (eds.), The New Testament and its Modern Interpreters (The
Bible and its Modern Interpreters; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
Evans, C.A., 'Authenticating the Activities of Jesus', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Authen-
ticating the Activities of Jesus, pp. 3-29.
—'Authenticity Criteria in Life of Jesus Research', CSR 19 (1989), pp. 6-31.
—'From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament', in C.C. Broyles
and C.A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Inter-
pretive Tradition (2 vols.; VTSup, 70.1-2; Formation and Interpretation of Old Tes-
tament Literature, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), II, pp. 651-91.
—The Historical Jesus and Christian Faith: A Critical Assessment of a Scholarly Prob-
lem', CSR 18 (1988), pp. 48-63.
—'Introduction: An Aramaic Approach Thirty Years Later', in M. Black, An Aramaic Ap-
proach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946; 2nd edn, 1954; 3rd
edn, 1967; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), pp. v-xxv.
—Jesus (IBR Bibliographies, 5; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992).
—Jesus and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGJU, 25; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1995).
—'Life of Jesus', in Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis, pp. 427-75.
—Life of Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography (NTTS, 24; Leiden: E.J. Brill, rev.
edn, 1996).
—Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1992).
—'Reconstructing Jesus' Teaching: Problems and Possibilities', in Charlesworth and Johns
(eds.), Hillel and Jesus, pp. 397-426.
—'Source, Form and Redaction Criticism: The "Traditional" Methods of Synoptic Inter-
pretation', in Porter and Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study, pp. 17-
45.
—Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's Prologue
Evans, C.A., and S.E. Porter (eds.), The Historical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader (BibSem, 33;
Fairclough, N., Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (SLSL;
London: Longman, 1995).
Fairclough, N., and R. Wodak, 'Critical Discourse Analysis', in T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Dis-
course as Social Interaction. II. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction
(London: Sage, 1997), pp. 258-84.
Farmer, W.R., The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994).
—'An Historical Essay on the Humanity of Jesus Christ', in W.R. Farmer, C.F.D. Moule
and R.R. Niebuhr (eds.), Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to
John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 101-26.
—The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan; London: Collier-
Macmillan, 1964).
Farmer, W.R. (ed.), New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond
(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983).
Fairer, A.M., 'On Dispensing with Q', in D.E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels:
Essays in Memory ofR.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957), pp. 55-88.
—St Matthew and St Mark (London: Dacre Press, 1954).
—A Study in St Mark (London: Dacre Press, 1951).
Fawcett, R.P., and D.J. Young (eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. II. Theory
and Application (London: Pinter, 1988).
Feldman, L., 'How Much Hellenism in Jewish Palestine?', HUCA 57 (1986), pp. 83-111.
Ferguson, C, 'Diglossia', Word 15 (1959), pp. 325-40.
Ferris, C., The Meaning of Syntax: A Study in the Adjectives of English (LLL; London:
Longman, 1993).
Fiensy, D.A., 'Jesus' Socioeconomic Background', in Charlesworth and Johns (eds.), Hillel
and Jesus, pp. 225-55.
Finegan, J., The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginnings
of the Early Church (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969).
Fishman, J.A. (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages (Contributions to the
Sociology of Jewish Languages, 1; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1985).
Fitzmyer, J.A., The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament',
NTS 20 (1973-74), pp. 383-407; repr. in idem, A Wandering Aramean, pp. 85-113.
—The Gospel According to Luke (2 vols.; AB, 28, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1981, 1985).
—The Languages of Palestine in the First Century AD', CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 501-31; repr.
with corrections and additions in Porter (ed.), Language of the New Testament, pp.
126-62.
—'Methodology in the Study of the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus' Sayings in the New
Testament', in Dupont (ed.), Jesus aux origines de la christologie, pp. 73-102; repr.
in Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean, pp. 1-27.
—A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS, 25; Missoula, MT: Schol-
ars Press, 1979; repr. in The Semitic Background of the New Testament [Biblical
Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove Booksellers, 1997]).
Fitzmyer, J.A., and DJ. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Biblica et
Orientalia, 34; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978).
Flender, H., Heil und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas (BEvT, 41; Munich: Chr.
Kaiser Verlag, 1965; ET St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History [trans. R.H.
Fuller and I. Fuller; London: SPCK, 1967]).
Fletcher, P., and M. Garman (eds.), Language Acquisition: Studies in First Language Devel-
opment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1986).
Flusser, D., Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddocumenten (Rowohlts Monographien, 140;
Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1968; El Jesus [in collaboration with R.S. Notley; New York:
Herder & Herder, 1969; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, rev. edn, 1997]).
Bibliography 257
Fornberg, T., and D. Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual
and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (Oslo: Scandinavian
University Press, 1995).
Fortna, R.T., The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present
Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
Fosdick, H.E., The Man from Nazareth as his Contemporaries Saw Him (New York: Harper,
1949).
Fowl, S.E., 'Reconstructing and Deconstructing the Quest of the Historical Jesus', SJT42
(1989), pp. 319-33.
Fowler, R. (ed.), Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Critical Approaches to
Literary Style (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966).
France, R.T., 'The Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus', in C. Brown (ed.), History, Criti-
cism and Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), pp. 101-43.
—Matthew—Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1989).
France, R.T., and D. Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition
in the Four Gospels, 1 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980).
—Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, II (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1981).
Freyne, S., Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 BCE to 135 CE: A Study of
Second Temple Judaism (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press; Wilmington,
DE: Michael Glazier, 1980; repr. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998).
—'The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the Quest for the Historical
Jesus', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 75-121.
—'Jesus and the Urban Culture of Galilee', in Fornberg and Hellholm (eds.), Texts and
Contexts, pp. 597-622.
Fuchs, E., 'Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus', ZTK 53 (1956), pp. 210-29; repr. in
idem, Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus, pp. 143-67; ET 'The Quest of the
Historical Jesus (1956)', in idem, Studies of the Historical Jesus, pp. 11-31.
—Studies of the Historical Jesus (trans. A. Scobie; SBT, 42; London: SCM Press, 1964).
—Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960; ET Studies of
the Historical Jesus (trans. A. Scobie; SBT, 42; London: SCM Press, 1964).
Fuller, R.H., A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Gerald Duckworth,
1966).
—The Mission and Achievement of Jesus: An Examination of the Presuppositions of New
Testament Theology (SBT, 12; London: SCM Press, 1954).
—The New Testament in Current Study: Some Trends in the Years 1941-1962 (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962; London: SCM Press, rev. edn, 1963).
Funk, R.W., Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966).
—Parables and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1982).
Funk, R.W., et a/., The Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge
Press, 1988).
Gagnon, R.A.J., 'Luke's Motives for Redaction in the Account of the Double Delegation in
Luke 7:1-10', NovT36 (1994), pp. 122-45.
—'The Shape of Matthew's Q Text of the Centurion at Capernaum: Did it Mention
Delegations?', NTS 40 (1994), pp. 133-42.
—'Statistical Analysis and the Case of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:3-7a', CBQ 55
(1993), pp. 709-31.
Galperin, I.R., Stylistics (Moscow: Vyssaja Skola, 3rd edn, 1981).

Gardner-Smith, P., Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1938).
Gerhardsson, B., 'Der Weg der Evangelientradition', in Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evan-
gelium unddie Evangelien, pp. 79-102.
—Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism
and Early Christianity (ASNU, 22; trans. EJ. Sharpe; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1961;
repr. in Biblical Resources Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove
Booksellers, 1998).
—Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (ConBNT, 20; trans. E.J. Sharpe; Lund:
C.W.K. Gleerup, 1964; repr. in Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Livonia, MI: Dove Booksellers, 1998).
Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Register Analysis: Theory and Practice (London: Pinter, 1993).
Gibbons, J. (ed.), Language and the Law (London: Longman, 1994).
Gibson, A., Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1981).
Gibson, E., The 'Christians for Christians' Inscriptions of Phrygia (HTS, 32; Atlanta:
Gignac, F., A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (2 vols.;
Milan: Cisalpino, 1976, 1981).
—The Language of the Non-Literary Papyri', in D.H. Samuel (ed.), Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Congress ofPapyrology (Toronto: Hakkert, 1970), pp. 139-52.
—The Papyri and the Greek Language', Yale Classical Studies 28 (1985), pp. 157-58.
Gilliard, F.D., 'More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non Omne Verbum Sonabaf, JBL 112
(1993), pp. 689-94.
Glasson, T.F., Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology (London: SPCK, 1961).
—His Appearing and his Kingdom: The Christian Hope in the Light of its History (London:
Epworth Press, 1953).
—'Schweitzer's Influence: Blessing or Bane?', JTS NS 28 (1977), pp. 289-302; repr. in
Chilton (ed.), The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 107-20.
—The Second Advent: The Origin of the New Testament Doctrine (London: Epworth Press,
1945; 2nd edn, 1947).
Glasswell, M.E., The Relationship between John and Mark', JSNT23 (1985), pp. 99-115.
Glover, T.R., The Jesus of History (London: SCM Press, 1917).
—Jesus of Nazareth (York: William Sessions, 1912; repr. from idem, The Conflict of Reli-
gions in the Early Roman Empire [London: Methuen, 1909], pp. 113-40).
Goebel, S., Die Parabeln Jesu; ET The Parables of Jesus: A Methodical Exposition (trans.
Professor Banks; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913).
Goetz, S.C., and C.L. Blomberg, The Burden of Proof, JSNT11 (1981), pp. 39-63.
Goguel, M., La vie de Jesus (Paris: Payot, 1932; ET The Life of Jesus [trans. O. Wyon;
London: George Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan, 1933]).
Goodacre, M.S., Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (JSNTSup,
133; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Goodspeed, E.J., A Life of Jesus (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950).
—The Original Language of the New Testament', in idem, New Chapters in New Tes-
tament Study (New York: Macmillan, 1937), pp. 127-68.
Goppelt, L., Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I. Jesu Wirken in seiner theologischen Bedeu-
tung (ed. J. Roloff; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975; ET Theology of the
Bibliography 259
New Testament. I. The Ministry of Jesus in its Theological Significance [trans. J.E.
Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981]).
Goulder, M.D., The Evangelists' Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Development
of Scripture (London: SPCK, 1978).
—Luke: A New Paradigm (2 vols.; JSNTSup, 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).
—'Luke's Knowledge of Matthew', in G. Strecker (ed.), Minor Agreements: Symposium
Gottingen 1991 (Gottinger theologische Arbeiten, 50; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 143-62.
Grabbe, L.L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1992;
London: SCM Press, 1994).
Grant, M., Herod the Great (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971).
Green, J.B., The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative
(WUNT, 2.33; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988).
Green, J.B., S. McKnight and I.H. Marshall (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992).
Greenlee, J.H., Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1964).
Gregg, R.C., and D. Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights: Greek
and Other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Eras (South Florida Studies in
the History of Judaism, 140; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
Grintz, J.M., 'Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second
Temple', JBL 79 (1960), pp. 32-47.
Grosjean, F., Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1982).
Gruen, E.S., Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1998).
Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Ver-
lagsanstalt, 6th edn, 1971).
—Die Geschichte Jesu Christi (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1956; 2nd edn, 1959).
Guelich, R., Mark 1-8:26 (WBC, 34A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989).
Gu'lich, E., and W. Raible, Linguistische Textmodelle: Grundlagen und Moglichkeiten
(UTb, 130; Munich: Fink, 1977).
Gundry, R.H., The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine: Its Bearing on the Authen-
ticity of the Gospel Tradition', JBL 83 (1964), pp. 404-408.
—Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
—Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982).
—The Narrative Framework of Matthew XVI. 17-19: A Critique of Professor Cullmann's
Hypothesis', NovTl (1964), pp. 1-9.
Giittgemanns, E., Offene Fragen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums: Eine methodolo-
gische Skizze der Grundlagenproblematik der Form- und Redaktionsgeschichte
(BEvTh, 54; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1970; 2nd edn, 1971; ET Candid Questions
Concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological Sketch of the Fundamental
Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism [trans. W.G. Doty; Pittsburgh: Pick-
wick Press, 1979]).
Guy, H.A., The Life of Christ: Notes on the Narrative and Teaching in the Gospels
(London: Macmillan, 1957).
Hachlili, R., The Goliath Family in Jericho: Funerary Inscriptions from a First Century
A.D. Jewish Monumental Tomb', BASOR 235 (1979), pp. 31-65.
Hadas-Lebel, M., Histoire de la langue hebraique: Des origines a I'epoque de la Mishna
(Paris: Peeters, 1995).
Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklarung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanoni-
schen Parallelen (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2nd edn,
1968).
Hagner, D.A., Matthew (2 vols.; WBC, 33A, B; Dallas: Word Books, 1993, 1995).
Hahn, F., 'Methodologische Uberlegungen zur Riickfrage nach Jesus', in Kertelge (ed.),
Ruckfrage nach Jesus, pp. 11-77; ET 'Methodological Reflections on the Historical
Investigation of Jesus', in F. Hahn, Historical Investigation and New Testament
Faith: Two Essays (trans. R. Maddox; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 35-
105.
Hall, F.W., A Companion to Classical Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).
Halliday, M.A.K., 'The Construction of Knowledge and Value in the Grammar of Sci-
entific Discourse, with Reference to Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species', in
Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, pp. 136-56.
—Explorations in the Functions of Language (EISL; London: Arnold, 1973).
—An Introduction to Functional Grammar (London: Arnold, 1985; 2nd edn, 1994).
—Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning
(London: Arnold, 1978).
Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English (London: Longman, 1976).
—Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective
(Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press, 1985).
Halliday, M.A.K., and R.P. Fawcett (eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. I.
Theory and Description (London: Pinter, 1987).
Hamers, J.F., and M.H.A. Blanc, Bilingualite et bilinguisme (Brussels: Pierre Mardaga,
1983; ET Bilinguality and Bilingualism [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989]).
Harnack, A., Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1900; ET What is
Christianity? [trans. T.B. Saunders; CThL; London: Williams & Norgate; New York:
Putnam's Sons, 1900; 3rd edn, 1904]).
—Spriiche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite Quelle des Matthaus und Lukas (BENT, 2; Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs, 1907; ET The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source ofSt Matthew and
St Luke [trans. J.R. Wilkinson; CThL; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Put-
nam's Sons, 1908]).
Harris, J.R., 'The So-Called Biblical Greek', ExpTim 25 (1913), pp. 54-55.
Harris, W.V., Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).
Harrisville, R.A., 'Representative American Lives of Jesus', in Braateu and Harrisville
(eds.), The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, pp. 172-96
Hart, H.St.J., 'The Coin of "Render unto Caesar..." (A Note on Some Aspects of Mark
12:13-17; Matt. 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26)', in Bammel and Moule (eds.), Jesus and
the Politics of his Day, pp. 241-48.
Hartman, L., Text-Centered New Testament Studies: Text-Theoretical Essays on Early Jew-
ish and Early Christian Literature (ed. D. Hellholm; WUNT, 102; Tubingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 1997).
Harvey, A.E., Jesus and the Constraints of History (London: Gerald Duckworth; Philadel-
phia: Westminster Press, 1982).
Bibliography 261
Harvey, V.A., and S.M. Ogden, 'How New is the "New Quest of the Historical Jesus"?', in
Braaten and Harrisville (eds.), The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, pp.
197-242.
Hastings, J. (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898-
1904).
Hatim, B., and I. Mason, Discourse and the Translator (LSLS; London: Longman, 1990).
—The Translator as Communicator (London: Routledge, 1997).
Hatina, T.R., The Focus of Mark 13:24-27: The Parousia, or the Destruction of the Tem-
ple?', BBR 6 (1996), pp. 43-66.
Haugen, E., 'Dialect, Language, Nation', American Anthropologist 68 (1966), pp. 922-35;
repr. in Pride and Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, pp. 97-111.
—'Problems of Bilingualism', Lingua 2 (1950), pp. 271-90.
Hawkins, J.C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1909).
Hawthorne, G.F. (ed.), Current Issues inn Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Festschrift
M.C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
Hayes, J.H., and S.R. Mandell, The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity from Alexander to
BarKochba (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998).
Headlam, A.C., The Life and Teaching of Jesus the Christ (London: John Murray, 1923;
2nd edn, 1927).
Hedrick, C.W., Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1994).
Heitmuller, W., Jesus (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1913).
Hellholm, D., 'Substitutionelle Gliederungsmerkmale und die Komposition des Matthaus-
evangeliums', in Fornberg and Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts, pp. 11-76.
Hemer, C.J., 'Reflections on the Nature of New Testament Greek Vocabulary', TynBul 38
(1987), pp. 65-92.
Hengel, M., 'Der vorchristliche Paulus', in M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und
das antike Judentum (WUNT, 58; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), pp. 177-291; ET
The Pre-Christian Paul (with R. Deines; trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press;
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991).
—'Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums', in H. Cancik (ed.), Markus-
Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum
zweiten Evangelium (WUNT, 33; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), pp. 1-45; ET in
M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press,
1985), pp. 1-30.
—'Jerusalem als jiidische und hellenistische Stadt', in B. Funck (ed.), Hellenismus:
Beitrdge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten
des hellenistischen Zeitalters (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 269-306.
—Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berucksichti-
gung Palastinasbis zur Mine des 2Jh.s v. Chr. (WUNT, 10; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1969; 2nd edn, 1973; ET Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in
Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period [2 vols.; trans. J. Bowden; London:
SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974]).
—Nachfolge und Charisma (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1968; ET The Charismatic Leader and
his Followers [trans. J.C.G. Greig; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981; repr. 1996]).
—'Zwischen Jesus und Paulus', ZTK 72 (1975), pp. 151-206; ET in idem, Between Jesus
and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (trans. J. Bowden; Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 1-29.
Hengel, M., with C. Markschies, 'Zum Problem der "Hellenisierung" Judaas im 1. Jahrhun-
dert nach Christus'; ET The 'Hellenization' of Judaea in the First Century after
Christ (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press Inter-
national, 1989).
Herder, J.G., Vom Erloser der Menschen: Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (Riga: Hart-
knoch, 1796).
—Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland: Nach Johannes Evangelium (Riga: Hartknoch,
1797).
Heyer, C.J. den, Wie is Jezus? Balans van 150jaar onderzoek naar Jesus (Zoetermeer, The
Netherlands: Uitgeverij Meinema, 1996; ET Jesus Matters: 150 Years of Research
[trans. J. Bowden: London: SCM Press, 1996]).
Hill, C.C., Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
Hirsch, E.D., Jr, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967).
Hoehner, H., Herod Antipas (SNTSMS, 17; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1972).
Hoey, M., Patterns of Lexis in Text (Describing English Language; Oxford: Oxford
Hofius, O., ' "Unknown Sayings of Jesus"', in Stuhlmacher (ed.), Gospel and the Gospels,
pp. 336-60.
Holmen, T., 'Doubts about Double Dissimilarity: Restructuring the Main Criterion of
Jesus-of-History Research', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of
Jesus, pp. 47-80.
Holmes, J., An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (London: Longman, 1992).
Holmstrand, J., Markers and Meaning in Paul: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians
and Galatians (ConBNT, 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1997).
Hooker, M.D., 'Christology and Methodology', NTS 17 (1970), pp. 480-87.
—The Gospel According to Saint Mark (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991).
—'In his Own Image?', in Hooker and Hickling (eds.), What about the New Testament?,
pp. 28-44.
—'On Using the Wrong Tool', Theology 75 (1972), pp. 570-81.
Hooker, M.D., and C. Hickling (eds.), What about the New Testament? Essays in Honour
of Christopher Evans (London: SCM Press, 1975).
Horrocks, G., Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (LLL; London: Long-
mans, 1997).
Horsley, G.H.R., 'Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible', Bib 65 (1984),
pp. 393-403.
—New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. V. Linguistic Essays (New South Wales,
Australia: Macquarie University, 1989).
Horsley, R.A., Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus
and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996).
—Galilee: History, Politics, People (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995).
—Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1987).
—Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989).
Horst, P.W. van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of
Bibliography 263
Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE-700 CE) (Contributions to New Testament

Exegesis and Theology, 2; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991).
—'Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship before 70 CE?', in S. Fine (ed.), Jews,
Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the
Greco-Roman Period (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 18-43.
Hoskyns, E., and N. Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament (London: Faber & Faber,
1931).
Howard, W.F., The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation (rev. C.K.
Barrett; London: Epworth Press, 1931; 4th edn, 1955).
Hudson, R.A., Sociolinguistics (CTL; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn,
1996).
Hughes, P.E., 'The Languages Spoken by Jesus', in R.N. Longenecker and M.C. Tenney
(eds.), New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974),
pp. 127-43.
Humbert, J., Histoire de la langue grecque (Que sais-je?, 1483; Paris: Presses Univer-
sitaires de France, 1972).
Hunter, A.M., Interpreting the New Testament 1900-1950 (London: SCM Press, 1951).
—The Work and Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950; London: SCM
Press, 1951).
Hurst, L.D., The Neglected Role of Semantics in the Search for the Aramaic Words of
Jesus', JSNT 28 (1986), pp. 63-80; repr. in Evans and Porter (eds.), The Historical
Jesus, pp. 219-36.
Hurtado, L.W., 'Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Assesssment
of Werner Kelber's The Oral and the Written Gospel', BBR1 (1997), pp. 91-106.
Hyltenstam, K., and L.K. Obler (eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acqui-
sition, Maturity, and Loss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
lersel, B.M.F. van, Marcus, uitgelegd aan andere lezers (Baarn: Gooi en Sticht; Kampen:
Kok, 1997; ET Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary [trans. W.H. Bisscheroux;
JSNTSup, 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998]).
Irmscher, J., TO Aeyei<; (Mk. 15,2—Mt. 27,11—Lk. 23,3)', Studii Clasice 2 (1960), pp.
151-58.
Isaac, B., 'A Donation for Herod's Temple in Jerusalem', IEJ33 (1983), pp. 86-92.
Iser, W., Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie dsthetischer Wirkung (Munich: Fink, 1976; ET The
Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response [trans. D.H. Wilson; Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978]).
Jackson, B., Twenty-Five Agrapha or Extra-Canonical Sayings of our Lord (London:
SPCK, 1900).
Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der greichischen Historiker (3 vols. and 16 parts; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1954-69).
James, M.R., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924).
Jellicoe, S., The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968).
Jeremias, J., 'Der gegenwartige Stand der Debatte um das Problem des historischen Jesus',
in H. Ristow and K. Matthiae (eds.), Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische
Christus: Beitrdge zum Christusverstandnis in Forschung und Verkiindigung (Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1960), pp. 12-25; ET The Present Position in the Con-
troversy Concerning the Problem of the Historical Jesus', ExpTim 69 (1957-58), pp.
333-39.
—Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1935; 3rd edn, 1960;
ET The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [trans. A. Ehrhardt; Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1955]).
—Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1947; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-
recht, 10th edn, 1984; ET The Parables of Jesus [trans. S.H. Hooke; London: SCM
Press, 3rd edn, 1972]).
—'Isolated Sayings of the Lord', in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (eds.), Neutesta-
mentliche Apokryphen, I (2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1959; ET New Testament
Apocrypha, I [trans. R.McL. Wilson; London: Lutterworth; Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster Press, 1963]), pp. 85-90.
—'Kennzeichen der ipsissima vox Jesu', in Synoptische Studien: Alfred Wikenhauser zum
siebzigsten Geburtstag am 22. Februar 1953 dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen
und Schulern (Munich: Zink, 1954), pp. 86-93; ET 'Characteristics of the Ipsissima
Vox Jesu*, in idem, The Prayers of Jesus, pp. 108-15.
—Neutestamentliche Theologie. I. Die Verkundigung Jesu (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971;
ET New Testament Theology. I. The Proclamation of Jesus [trans. J. Bowden; NTL;
London: SCM Press; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971]).
—The Prayers of Jesus (trans. J. Bowden, C. Burchard and J. Reumann; SBT, 2.6; London:
SCM Press, 1967).
—Unbekannte Jesusworte (Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 2nd edn, 1951; Giitersloh: Gerd
Mohn, 3rd edn, 1963; ET Unknown Sayings of Jesus [trans. R.H. Fuller; London:
SPCK, 1957; 2nd edn, 1964]).
Johnson, L.T., The Gospel of Luke (SP, 3; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991).
—The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Tra-
ditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996).
Johnson, S.E., The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism (SBLMS, 41; Atlanta:
Jones, A.H.M., Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937).
—The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940).
Jonge, M. de, God's Final Envoy: Early Christology and Jesus' Own View of his Mission
(SHJ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
—Jesus, the Servant-Messiah (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991).
Joiion, P., 'Quelques aramai'smes: Sous-jacent au grec des Evangiles', RSR 17 (1927), pp.
210-29.
Jiingel, E., Paulus und Jesus (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962).
Kahle, P.E., The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2nd edn, 1959).
Kahler, M., Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus
(Leipzig: Deichert, 1892; 2nd edn, 1896; repr. Theologische Biicherei, 2; Munich:
Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1956; ET The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic,
Biblical Christ [trans. C.E. Braaten; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964]).
Kapsomenos, S.G., 'Das Griechische in Agypten', Museum Helveticum 10 (1953), pp. 248-
63.
Kasemann, E., 'Das Problem des historischen Jesus', ZTK 51 (1954), pp. 125-53; repr. in
idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I, pp. 187-214; ET 'The Problem of
the Historical Jesus', in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes, pp. 15-47.
—'Die neue Jesus-Frage', in Dupont (ed.), Jesus aux origines de la christologie, pp. 47-57.
—Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. W.J. Montague; SBT, 41; London: SCM Press,
1964; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982).
Bibliography 265
—Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd

edn, 1960).
—'Sackgassen im Streit um den historischen Jesus', in idem, Exegetische Versuche und
Besinnungen, II (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964; 2nd edn, 1965), pp. 31-
68; ET 'Blind Alleys in the "Jesus of History" Controversy', in idem, New Testament
Questions of Today (trans. W.J. Montague; London: SCM Press, 1969), pp. 23-65.
—'Zum Thema der Nichtobjektivierbarkeit', EvT 12 (1952-53), pp. 455-66; repr. in idem,
Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I, pp. 224-36; ET 'Is the Gospel Objective?',
in idem, Essays on New Testament Themes, pp. 48-62.
Kasper, W., Jesus der Christus (Mainz: Matthias-Griinewald Verlag, 1974; ET Jesus the
Christ [trans. V. Green; London: Burns & Gates; New York: Paulist Press, 1976]).
Kaufman, S., 'Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study
of First Century CE Texts', in Beattie and McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible, pp.
118-41.
—'On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronology', JSNT 23 (1985),
pp. 117-24.
Keck, L.E., A Future for the Historical Jesus: The Place of Jesus in Preaching and Theol-
ogy (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971; London: SCM Press, 1972).
Kee, H.C., 'Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue: Problems and Progress', NTS 41
(1995), pp. 481-500.
—'Early Christianity in the Galilee: Reassessing the Evidence from the Gospels', in Levine
(ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, pp. 3-22.
—Jesus in History: An Approach to the Study of the Gospels (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1970; 2nd edn, 1977).
—The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.', NTS 36 (1990), pp. 1-24.
—What Can We Know about Jesus? (Understanding Jesus Today; Cambridge: Cambridge
Kenny, A., A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).
Kenyon, F.G., Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmil-
lan, 1926).
Kertelge, K. (ed.), Ruckfrage nach Jesus: Zur Methodik und Bedeutung der Frage nach
dem historischen Jesus (QD, 63; Freiburg: Herder, 1974).
Keylock, L.R., 'Bultmann's Law of Increasing Distinctness', in Hawthorne (ed.), Current
Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, pp. 193-210.
Kilpatrick, G.D., 'Dura-Europos: The Parchments and the Papyri', GRBS 5 (1964), pp.
215-25.
—'Jesus, his Family and his Disciples', JSNT 15 (1982), pp. 3-19; repr. in Evans and Porter
(eds.), The Historical Jesus, pp. 13-28.
Kirk, G.S., Homer and the Epic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965).
Klausner, J., Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching [Hebrew 1925] (trans.
H. Danby; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1925).
Klein, W., Second Language Acquisition (CTL; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986).
Kloppenborg, J.S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Christian Wisdom Collec-
tions (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
Klutz, T., 'Naked and Wounded: Foregrounding, Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13-
20', in Porter and Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, pp. 258-79.
Kniffka, H., with S. Blackwell and M. Coulthard (eds.), Recent Developments in Forensic
Linguistics (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996).
Knox, J., The Church and the Reality of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1962; London:
Collins, 1963).
Knox, W.L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. I. St Mark (ed. H. Chadwick; Cam-
Koch, K., Was ist Formgeschichte? Neue Wege der Bibelexegese (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1964; 2nd edn, 1967; ET The Growth of the Biblical Tradition:
The Form-Critical Method [trans. S.M. Cupitt; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1969]).
Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia:
Trinity Press International; London: SCM Press, 1990).
—Introduction to the New Testament. I. History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic
Age (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982).
Kokkinos, N., The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (JSPSup, 30;
Kraft, R.A., and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters
(The Bible and its Modern Interpreters; Atlanta: Scholars Press; Philadelphia: Fort-
ress Press, 1986).
Krentz, E., The Historical-Critical Method (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).
Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (International Encyclopedia of Unified
Science; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962; 2nd edn, 1970).
Kuhrt, A., and S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East (London: Gerald Duckworth,
1987).
Kiimmel, W.G., Das Neue Testament: Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme
(Munich: Alber, 1958; rev. edn, 1970; ET The New Testament: The History of the
Investigation of its Problems [trans. S.M. Gilmour and H.C. Kee; Nashville: Abing-
don Press, 1972]).
—Dreissig Jahre Jesusforschung (1950-80) (BBB, 60; ed. H. Merklein; Bonn: Hanstein,
1985).
—'Jesusforschung seit 1981', TRu 53 (1988), pp. 229-49; 54 (1989), pp. 1-53; 55 (1990),
pp. 21-45; 56 (1991), pp. 27-53, 391-420.
—Verheissung und Erfullung (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1956; ET Promise and Fulfilment:
The Eschatological Message of Jesus [trans. D.M. Barton; London: SCM Press,
1957]).
Kutscher, E.Y., 'Hebrew Language: Mishnaic', EncJud, XVI, cols. 1592-93.
—A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. R. Kutscher; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982).
Kysar, R., The Fourth Evangelist and his Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Schol-
arship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975).
Ladd, G.E., Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1964; London: SPCK, 1966).
Lagrange, M.-J., L'evangile de Jesus-Christ (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1928; ET The Gospel of
Jesus Christ [2 vols.; London: Burns, Gates & Washbourne, 1938]).
—Evangile selon Saint Marc (EB; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1929).
Lakatos, I., 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', in
I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceed-
ings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965,
volume 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 91-196.
Bibliography 267
Lang, M., Johannes und die Synoptiker: Fine redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Joh
18-20 vor dem markinischen und lukanischen Hintergrund (FRLANT, 182; Gottin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999).
Lapide, P., 'Insights from Qumran into the Languages of Jesus', RevQ 8 (1975), pp. 483-
86.
Leaney, A.R.C., The Jewish and Christian World 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (Cambridge: Cam-
Leclercq, H., 'Note sur le grec neo-testamentaire et la position du grec en Palestine au
premier siecle', Les etudes dassiques 42 (1974), pp. 243-55.
Lee, J.A.L., 'Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark's Gospel', NovT 27 (1985), pp.
1-36.
Leech, G.N., and M.H. Short, Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fic-
tional Prose (London: Longman, 1981).
Lefort, L.-Th., 'Pour une grammaire des LXX', Museon 41 (1928), pp. 152-60.
Lentzen-Deis, F., 'Kriterien fiir die historische Beurteilung der Jesusuberlieferung in den
Evangelien', in Kertelge (ed.), Ruck/rage nach Jesus, pp. 78-117.
Leon, H.J., The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1960; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rev. edn, 1995).
Levine, L.I. (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary
of America; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).
Levinsohn, S.H., Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook (Dallas:
Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992).
—Textual Connections in Acts (SBLMS, 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).
Lewis, N., The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek
Papyri (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Shrine
of the Book, 1989).
Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish
Palestine in the II-IV Centuries C.E. (New York: Feldheim, 2nd edn, 1965).
—'How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?', in A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 123-41.
Lifshitz, B., 'L'hellenisation de Juifs en Palestine: A propos des inscriptions de Besara
(Beth-Shearim)', RB 72 (1965), pp. 520-38.
Lightfoot, R.H., The Gospel Message of St Mark (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950).
—History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton; New York:
Harper, 1935).
—Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938).
—St John's Gospel: A Commentary (ed. C.F. Evans; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956).
Lindars, B., John (NTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).
Linmans, A.J.M., 'Correspondence Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels', Literary and Lin-
guistic Computing 13 (1998), pp. 1-13.
—Onderschikking in de synoptische evangelien: Syntaxis, discourse-functies en stilometrie
(Leiden: FSW, 1995).
Linnemann, E., Jesus of the Parables (trans. J. Sturdy; New York: Harper & Row, 1967 [=
Parables of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1966)]).
Loisy, A., La naissance du christianisme (Paris: Nourry, 1933; ET The Birth of the Chris-
tian Religion [trans. L.P. Jacks; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1948]).
Longenecker, R.N., 'Literary Criteria in Life of Jesus Research: An Evaluation and Pro-
posal', in Hawthorne (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, pp.
217-29.
Lopez Eire, A., 'Del atico a la koine", Emerita 49 (1981), pp. 377-92.
Lord, A.B., Epic Singers and Oral Tradition (Myth and Poetics; Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, 1991).
Loveday, L., The Sociolinguistics of Learning and Using a Non-Native Language (Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1982).
Liihrmann, D., 'Die Frage nach Kriterien fur ursprungliche Jesusworte: Eine Problem-
skizze', in Dupont (ed.), Jesus aux origines de la christologie, pp. 59-72.
Mackowski, R., 'Some Colloquialisms in the Gospel According to Mark', in R.F. Sutton, Jr
(ed.), Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, SJ (Wauconda, IL:
Bolchazy-Carducci, 1989), pp. 229-38.
MacMullen, R., 'Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire', AJP 87 (1966); repr. in
Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1990), pp. 32-40, 282-86.
Maloney, B.C., Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS, 51; Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1981).
Mann, C.S., Mark (AB, 27; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986).
Manson, T.W., 'The Life of Jesus: A Study of the Available Materials', ExpTim 53 (1942),
pp. 248-51; repr. in idem, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, pp. 13-27.
—'The Life of Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present-day Research', in W.D. Davies and
D. Daube (eds.), The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology
(Festschrift C.H. Dodd; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), pp. 211-21.
—'The Quest of the Historical Jesus—Continued', repr. in idem, Studies in the Gospels
and Epistles, pp. 3-12.
—The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1949 [first published in H.D.A. Major, T.W.
Manson and C.J. Wright, The Mission and Message of Jesus: An Exposition of the
Gospels in the Light of Modern Research (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1937),
pp. 301-639]).
—The Servant-Messiah: A Study of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge
—Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (ed. M. Black; Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1962).
—The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1931; 2nd edn, 1935).
Manson, W., Jesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ
with Special Reference to Form-Criticism (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1943; Phil-
adelphia: Westminster Press, 1946).
Marrou, H.I., Histoire de I'education dans Vantiquite (Paris: Seuil, 3rd edn, 1948; A
History of Education in Antiquity [trans. G. Lamb; London: Sheed & Ward, 1956]).
Marsh, J., Jesus in his Lifetime (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1981).
Marshall, I.H., The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).
—I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
—Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1970).
Marshall, I.H. (ed.), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods
(Exeter: Paternoster Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
Bibliography 269
Martin, R.A., Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Studies in the Bible and Early
Christianity, 10; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987).
Martin, R.P., The New Quest of the Historical Jesus', in C.F.H. Henry (ed.), Jesus of
Nazareth: Saviour and Lord (London: Tyndale Press, 1966), pp. 23-45.
—The Pericope of the Healing of the "Centurion's" Servant/Son (Matt 8:5-13 par. Luke
7:1-10): Some Exegetical Notes', in R.A. Guelich (ed.), Unity and Diversity in New
Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1978), pp. 14-22.
Martin-Asensio, G., 'Foregrounding and its Relevance for Interpretation and Translation,
with Acts 27 as a Case Study', in Porter and Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible, pp.
189-223.
—'Participant Reference and Foregrounded Syntax in the Stephen Episode', in Porter and
Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, pp. 235-57.
—Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Arts of the Apostles: A Functional-Grammati-
cal Approach (JSNTSup; SNTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcoming).
Marxsen, W., Anfangsprobleme der Christologie (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1960; ET The
Beginnings of Christology: A Study in its Problems [Facet Books, Biblical Studies,
22; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969; 2nd edn, 1979]).
—Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums (FRLANT,
67; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956; 2nd edn, 1959; El Mark the Evan-
gelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel [trans. J. Boyce et al.\ Nash-
ville: Abingdon Press, 1969]).
Mason, S., Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992).
Masson, E., Translator's Prolegomena', in G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the New Testament
Diction (trans. E. Masson; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1859; 6th edn, 1866), pp. i-x.
Matthews, S., The Social Teaching of Jesus: An Essay in Christian Sociology (New York:
Macmillan, 1902).
Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit (3 vols.; Berlin: W.
de Gruyter, 1906-1934; 2nd edn of vol. 1, 1970).
McArthur, H.K., 'Basic Issues, A Survey of Recent Gospel Research', in idem (ed.), In
Search of the Historical Jesus, pp. 139-44.
—The Burden of Proof in Historical Jesus Research', ExpTim 82 (1970-71), pp. 116-19.
McArthur, H.K. (ed.), In Search of the Historical Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1969).
McDonald, J.I.H., 'New Quest—Dead End? So What about the Historical Jesus', in E.A.
Livingstone (ed.), Studia Biblica 1978. II. Papers on the Gospels. Sixth International
Congress on Biblical Studies (JSNTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 151-70.
McDonald, L.M., and S.E. Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2000).
McEleney, N.J., 'Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 431-60.
McKnight, E.V., 'Form and Redaction Criticism', in Epp and MacRae (eds.), New Testa-
ment and its Modern Interpreters, pp. 149-74.
—What is Form Criticism? (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969).
McKnight, S., Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (Guides to New Testament Exegesis;
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988).
—A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (SHJ; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
—'Public Declaration or Final Judgment? Matthew 10:26-27 = Luke 12:2-3 as a Case of

Creative Redaction', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus,
pp. 363-83.
McLaren, J.S., Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century
CE (JSPSup, 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
Mead, A.H., The paaiXiKoc; in John 4.46-53', JSNT23 (1985), pp. 69-72.
Mealand, D.L., 'Correspondence Analysis of Luke', Literary and Linguistic Computing 10
(1995), pp. 171-82.
—The Dissimilarity Test', SJT31 (1978), pp. 41-50.
—The Extent of the Pauline Corpus: A Multivariate Approach', JSNT 59 (1995), pp. 61-
92.
—'Measuring Genre Differences in Mark with Correspondence Analysis', Literary and
Linguistic Computing 12 (1997), pp. 227-45.
Meecham, H.G., Light from Ancient Letters: Private Correspondence in the Non-Literary
Papyri of Oxyrhynchus of the First Four Centuries, and its Bearing on New Testa-
ment Language and Thought (London: Allen & Unwin, 1923).
Meeks, W.A., The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).
Meier, J.P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols.; ABRL; New York:
Doubleday, 1991-).
Meillet, A., Aper$u d'une histoire de la langue grecque (Paris: Hachette, 3rd edn, 1930).
Mendels, D., The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in
Ancient Palestine (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1997).
Metzger, B.M., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restora-
tion (New York: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992).
—A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies,
1971; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 2nd edn, 1994).
Meyer, A., Jesu Muttersprache: Das galildische Aramdisch in seiner Bedeutung fiir die
Erkldrung der Reden Jesu und der Evangelien uberhaupt (Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck,
1896).
Meyer, B.F., The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979).
Meyers, E.M., The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Ju-
daism', ANRW 2.2.19, pp. 686-702.
—'Galilean Regionalism: A Reappraisal', in W.D. Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient
Judaism. V. Studies in Judaism and its Greco-Roman Context (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1985), pp. 115-31.
—'Jesus and his Galilean Context', in Edwards and McCollough (eds.), Archaeology and
the Galilee, pp. 57-66.
Meyers, E.M., and J.F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity (London:
SCM Press, 1981), pp. 73-78.
Michaels, J.R., Servant and Son: Jesus in Parable and Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1981).
Millar, F., The Roman Near East 31 BC-AD 337 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1993).
Millard, A., 'Latin in First-Century Palestine', in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff (eds.),
Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in
Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 451-58.
Bibliography 271
Miller, R.J. (ed.), The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Sonoma, CA: Pole-
bridge Press, 1992; 2nd edn, 1994; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 3rd edn,
1994).
Milligan, G., The Grammar of the Greek New Testament', ExpTim 31 (1919-20), pp. 420-
24.
—Here and There among the Papyri (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1922).
—The New Testament Documents: Their Origin and Early History (London: Macmillan,
1913).
Mitton, C.L., Jesus: The Fact behind the Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973; London:
Mowbrays, 1975).
Moore, S.D., Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1989).
Morgan, R., The Historical Jesus and the Theology of the New Testament', in L.D. Hurst
and N.T. Wright (eds.), The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in
Christology (Festschrift G.B. Caird; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 187-206.
Morgan, R., with J. Barton, Biblical Interpretation (OBS; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988).
Morris, L.L., The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971).
—The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries', in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.), Gos-
pel Perspectives: Studies in Midrash and Historiography, III (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1983), pp. 129-56.
—The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale Press, 1964).
Moule, C.F.D., 'Once More, Who were the Hellenists?', ExpTim 70 (1958-59), pp. 100-
102.
—The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1967).
—' "The Son of Man": Some of the Facts', NTS 41 (1995), pp. 277-79.
Moulton, J.H., 'Characteristics of New Testament Greek', Expositor Sixth Series 9 (1904),
pp. 67-75, 215-25, 310-20, 359-68, 461-72; 10 (1904), pp. 24-34, 168-74, 276-83,
353-64, 440-50.
—'Grammatical Notes from the Papyri', Classical Review 15 (1901), pp. 31-39, 434-42; 18
(1904), pp. 106-12,151-55.
—'New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery', in H.B. Swete (ed.), Essays
on Some Biblical Questions of the Day: By Members of the University of Cambridge
(London: Macmillan, 1909), pp. 461-505.
—'Notes from the Papyri', Expositor Sixth Series 3 (1901), pp. 271-82; 7 (1903), pp. 104-
21; 8 (1903), pp. 423-39.
—Prolegomena, to A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906;
3rd edn, 1908).
—The Science of Language and the Study of the New Testament (Inaugural Lecture;
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1906).
Moulton, J.H., and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from
the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914-
29).
Miiller, M., The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (JSOTSup, 206;
Copenhagen International Seminar, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Munro, W., The Pharisee and the Samaritan in John: Polar or Parallel?', CBQ 57 (1995),
pp. 710-28.
Mussies, G., 'Greek as the Vehicle of Early Christianity', NTS 29 (1983), pp. 356-69.
—'Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora', in Safrai and Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in
the First Century, pp. 1040-64.
—'Languages (Greek)', ABD 4 (1992), pp. 195-203.
Mussner, F., 'Der "historische" Jesus', TTZ 69 (1960), pp. 321-37; repr. in idem, Jesus von
Nazareth, pp. 43-61.
—Jesus von Nazareth im Umfeld Israels und der Urkirche: Gesammelte Aufsdtze (ed.
M. Theobald; WUNT, 111; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999).
—'Methodologie derFrage nach dem historischen Jesus', in Kertelge (ed.), Ruckfrage nach
Jesus, pp. 118-47; repr. in Mussner, Jesus von Nazareth, pp. 13-42.
Muysken, P., 'Are Creoles a Special Type of Language?', in F.J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguis-
tics: The Cambridge Survey. II. Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 285-301.
Neil, W., The Life and Teaching of Jesus (London: Hodder & Stoughton; Philadelphia:
Lippincott, 1965).
Neill, S., and T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1988 [1964]).
Neirynck, F., 'The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark', in J.-M. Sevrin (ed.), The
New Testament in Early Christianity (BETL, 86; Leuven: Leuven University Press/
Peeters, 1989), pp. 123-75; repr. in F. Neirynck, Evangelica II: 1982-1991 Collected
Essays (BETL, 99; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), pp. 715-72.
—Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (BETL, 31;
Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1988).
—Evangelica: Gospel Studies—Etudes d'evangile. Collected Essays (ed. F. Van Seg-
broeck; BETL, 60; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1982).
—'John and the Synoptics', in M. de Jonge (ed.), L'evangile de Jean: Sources, redaction,
theologie (BETL, 44; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977), pp. 73-106; repr. in Neirynck,
Evangelica: Gospel Studies, pp. 365-400.
—'The Redactional Text of Mark', ETL 57 (1981), pp. 144-62; repr. in idem, Evangelica:
Gospel Studies, pp. 618-36.
Neirynck, F., et al, The Gospel of Mark: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1990 (BETL,
102; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1992).
Nestle, E., Einfuhrung in das griechische Neue Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1899; ET Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New
Testament [trans. W. Edie; Theological Translation Library; London: Williams &
Norgate, 1901]).
—Philologica Sacra: Bemerkungen uber die Urgestalt der Evangelien und Apos-
telgeschichte (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1896).
New, D.S., Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two-Document
Hypothesis (SBLSCS, 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).
Newmark, P., About Translation (Multilingual Matters, 74; Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 1991).
Nicklin, T., Gospel Gleanings: Critical and Historical Notes on the Gospels (London:
Longmans, Green, 1950).
Nida, E.A., Language Structure and Translation: Essays by Eugene A. Nida (ed. A.S. Dil;
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975).
—The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication (Collection Traductologie; Brussels:
Editions du Hansard, 1996).
Bibliography 273
—Toward a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures

Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1964).
Nida, E.A., and C.R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: EJ. Brill,
1969).
Nida, E.A., et aL, Style and Discourse: With Special Reference to the Text of the Greek
New Testament (Roggebaai, South Africa: Bible Society, 1983).
Norden, E., Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede
(Stuttgart: Teubner, 1913; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1956).
Nunan, D., Introducing Discourse Analysis (Penguin English Applied Linguistics; Har-
mondsworth: Penguin Books, 1993).
O'Collins, G., Interpreting Jesus (Geoffrey Chapman Theology Library; London: Chap-
man, 1983).
O'Donnell, M.B., 'Linguistic Fingerprints or Style by Numbers: The Use of Statistics in
the Discussion of Authorship of New Testament Documents', in S.E. Porter and D.A.
Carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures (JSNTSup, 168;
SNTG, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 206-62.
—The Use of Annotated Corpora for New Testament Discourse Analysis: A Survey of
Current Practice and Future Prospects', in Porter and Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis
and the New Testament, pp. 71-117.
Oesterley, W.O.E., The Gospel Parables in the Light of their Jewish Background (London:
SPCK, 1936).
Ogg, G., The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1940).
O'Neill, J.C., The Bible's Authority: A Portrait Gallery of Thinkers from Lessing to Suit-
mann (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991).
Orchard, B., and H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?
(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987).
Orrieux, C, Lespapyrus de Zenon: L'horizon d'un grec en Egypte au Hie siecle avant J.C.
(Paris: Macula, 1983).
Osborne, G.R., 'Redaction Criticism', in Black and Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criti-
cism and Interpretation, pp. 199-224.
Overman, A., 'Recent Advances in the Archaeology of the Galilee in the Roman Period',
CR 1 (1993), pp. 35-58.
Owens, E.J., The City in the Greek and Roman World (London: Routledge, 1991).
Palmer, H., The Logic of Gospel Criticism: An Account of the Methods and Arguments
Used by Textual, Document, Source, and Form Critics of the New Testament (Lon-
don: Macmillan; New York: St Martin's, 1968).
Palmer, L.R., The Greek Language (London: Faber & Faber, 1980).
Patterson, S.W., 'What Language Did Jesus Speak?', The Classical Outlook 23 (1946), pp.
65-67.
Paulus, H.E.G., Das Leben Jesu, als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums
(2 vols.; Heidelberg: Winter, 1828).
Payne, P.B., The Authenticity of the Parables of Jesus', in France and Wenham (eds.),
Gospel Perspectives, II, pp. 329-44.
Peabody, D.B., Mark as Composer (New Gospel Studies, 1; Macon, GA: Mercer Univer-
sity Press/Peeters, 1987).
Peabody, F.G., The Social Teaching of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press, 1924).
Perrin, N., Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testa-
ment Interpretation (NTL; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976).
The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1963).
—Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (NTL; London: SCM Press; New York: Harper &
Row, 1967).
—What is Redaction Criticism? (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SCM Press,
1970).
Phipps, W.E., The Wisdom and Wit of Rabbi Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1993).
Piper, R.A. (ed.), The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (NovTSup, 75;
Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1995).
Pokorny, P., 'From a Puppy to the Child: Problems of Contemporary Biblical Exegesis
Demonstrated from Mark 7.24-30/Matt 15.21-8', NTS 41 (1995), pp. 321-37.
—Jesus in the Eyes of his Followers: Newly Discovered Manuscripts and Old Christian
Confessions (Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins Library; North Richland Hills,
TX: Bibal Press, 1998).
Polkow, D., 'Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research', in K.H. Richards (ed.),
Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 26; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1987), pp. 336-56.
Polome, E.C., 'The Linguistic Situation in the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire',
ANRW 2.29.2, pp. 509-53.
Popper, K.R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963; 4th edn, 1972).
Porter, S.E., 'The Adjectival Attributive Genitive in the New Testament: A Grammatical
Study', Trinity Journal NS 4 (1983), pp. 3-17.
—'Dialect and Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Theory', and 'Register in the
Greek of the New Testament: Application with Reference to Mark's Gospel', in M.D.
Carroll R. (ed.), Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social
Sciences to Biblical Interpretation (JSOTSup, 299; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2000), pp. 190-208 and 209-29.
—'Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?', TynBul 44.2 (1993), pp. 199-235; repr. in idem, Stud-
ies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 139-71.
—'Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey', in Porter and
Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics, pp. 14-35.
—'The Greek Language of the New Testament', in idem (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis, pp.
99-130.
—'The Greek Papyri of the Judaean Desert and the World of the Roman East', in S.E.
Porter and C.A. Evans (eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years
After (JSPSup, 26; RILP, 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 293-311.
—Idioms of the Greek New Testament (BLG, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1994).
—'Introduction: The Greek of the New Testament as a Disputed Area of Research', in
idem (ed.), Language of the New Testament, pp. 11-38; repr. with corrections in idem,
Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 75-99.
—'Is Critical Discourse Analysis Critical? An Evaluation Using Philemon as a Test Case',
in Porter and Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, pp. 47-70.
Bibliography 275
—'Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Studying the
—The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Theology (WUNT, 115;
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999).
—review of The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986, by Neill and Wright, in
JETS 35 (1992), pp. 546-47.
—Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (SBG, 6; New York: Peter
Lang, 1996).
—'Studying Ancient Languages from a Modern Linguistic Perspective: Essential Terms
and Terminology', FN2 (1989), pp. 147-72.
—Thucydides 1.22.1 and Speeches in Acts: Is There a Thucydidean View?', NovT 30
(1990), pp. 121-42.
—'Vague Verbs, Periphrastics, and Matthew 16:19', FN 1 (1988), pp. 154-73; repr. in
idem, Studies in the Greek New Testament, pp. 103-23.
—Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood
(SBG, 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989).
—'Why so Many Holes in the Papyrological Evidence for the Greek New Testament?', in
K. van Kampen and S. McKendrick (eds.), The Bible as Book: The Transmission of
the Greek Text (London: British Library Publications; Grand Haven, MI: Scrip-
torium, forthcoming 2000).
Porter, S.E., and M.B. O'Donnell, The Implications of Textual Variants for Authenticating
the Activities of Jesus', in Chilton and Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of
Jesus, pp. 121-51.
—The Implications of Textual Variants for Authenticating the Words of Jesus', in Chilton
and Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus, pp. 97-133.
—The Words and Activities of Jesus: Textual Variants and Register Analysis (Texts and
Editions, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, forthcoming).
Porter, S.E., and B.W.R. Pearson, 'Ancient Understandings of the Christian-Jewish Split',
in S.E. Porter and B.W.R. Pearson, Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries
(RILP, 6; JSNTSup, 192; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcoming 2000).
—'Why the Split? Christians and Jews by the Fourth Century', JGRChJ 1 (2000), forth-
coming.
Porter, S.E. (ed.), Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Greek (JSNTSup 193;
SNTG, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcoming 2000).
—Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (NTTS, 25; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997).
—The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays (JSNTSup, 60; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1991).
Porter, S.E., and D.A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical
Greek (JSNTSup, 113; SNTG, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995).
Porter, S.E., and D. Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study (JSNTSup, 120;
Porter, S.E., and R.S. Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects
(JSNTSup, 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
Porter, S.E., and J.T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches
and Results (JSNTSup, 170; SNTG, 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
Powell, M.A., Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from
Galilee (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998).
Pride, J.B., and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972).
Pryke, A.J., Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as
Guides to Redaction in Mark (SNTSMS, 33; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1978).
Rabin, C., 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Gentry', in Safrai and Stern (eds.), Jewish
People in the First Century, pp. 1007-1039.
Radermacher, L., Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im
Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (HNT, 1; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911; 2nd
edn, 1925).
Rajak, T., Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Rauschenbusch, W., A Theology of the Social Gospel (New York: Macmillan, 1922).
Redlich, E.B., Form Criticism: Its Value and Limitations (Studies in Theology; London:
Gerald Duckworth, 1939).
Reed, J.T., 'Discourse Analysis', in Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis, pp. 189-217.
—A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary
Integrity (JSNTSup, 136; SNTG, 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
—'Modern Linguistics and the New Testament: A Basic Guide to Theory, Terminology,
and Literature', in Porter and Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study, pp.
222-65.
Reicke, B., The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986).
Reimarus, H.S., Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Junger: Noch ein Fragment des Wolfen-
buttelschen Ungenannten (Fragment 7; ed. G.E. Lessing; Braunschweig: n.p., 1778;
ET Reimarus: Fragments [ed. C.H. Talbert; trans. R.S. Fraser; LJ; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1970; London: SCM Press, 1971]).
Reiser, M., Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums im Licht der hellenistischen Volksliter-
atur (WUNT, 2.11; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984).
Renan, E., La vie de Jesus (Paris: Levy, 1863; ET The Life of Jesus [London: Triibner,
1864]).
Rendsburg, G.A., 'The Galilean Background of Mishnaic Hebrew', in Levine (ed.), The
Galilee in Late Antiquity, pp. 225-40.
Renehan, R., Greek Textual Criticism: A Reader (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1969).
Resch, A., Agrapha: Aussercanonische Schriftfragmenta (TU, 15.3-4; J.C. Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 2nd edn, 1906).
Reumann, J., 'Jesus and Christology', in Epp and MacRae (eds.), New Testament and its
Modern Interpreters, pp. 501-64.
—Jesus in the Church's Gospels: Modern Scholarship and the Earliest Sources (Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1968; London: SPCK, 1970).
Rhoads, D., Israel in Revolution: 6-74 C.E. A Political History Based on the Writings of
Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976).
—'Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark', JAAR 62 (1994), pp. 343-75.
Richardson, P., Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996).
Riches, J.K., 'The Actual Words of Jesus', ABD 3 (1992), pp. 802-804.
—A Century of New Testament Study (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1993).
—Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism (London: Darton, Longman & Todd; New
York: Seabury, 1980).
Bibliography 211
Riches, J.K., and A. Millar, 'Conceptual Change in the Synoptic Tradition', in A.E. Harvey
(ed.), Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study (London: SPCK, 1985), pp.
37-60.
Riesenfeld, H., The Gospel Tradition (trans. E.M. Rowley and R.A. Kraft; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970).
—'The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings', in K. Aland (ed.), Studia Evangelica (TU, 73;
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958); repr. in Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition, pp. 1-29.
Riesner, R., Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Uber-
lieferung (WUNT, 2.7; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981; 4th edn, 1994).
—'Jesus as Preacher and Teacher', in H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel
Tradition (JSNTSup, 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 185-210.
—'Jtidische Elementarbildung und Evangelieniiberlieferung', in France and Wenham (eds.),
Gospel Perspectives, I, pp. 209-223.
—'Synagogues in Jerusalem', in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its First Century
Setting. IV. Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter: Paternoster Press,
1995), pp. 179-211.
Rist, J.M., On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (SNTSMS, 32; Cambridge: Cam-
Ristow, H., and K. Matthiae (eds.), Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus:
Beitrdge zum Christusverstdndnis in Forschung und Verkundigung (Berlin: Evange-
lische Verlagsanstalt, 1960).
Robbins, V.K., 'Pragmatic Relations as a Criterion for Authentic Sayings', Forum 1.3
(1985), pp. 35-63.
—The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London:
Routledge, 1996).
Roberts, A., Greek: The Language of Christ and his Apostles (London: Longmans, Green,
1888).
—A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Christ (Paisley: Alexander Gardner,
1893).
Robertson, A.T., Epochs in the Life of Jesus: A Study of Development and Struggle in the
Messiah's Work (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908).
—A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (New York:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1914; Nashville: Broadman, 4th edn, 1934).
—An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1925).
Robinson, J.A.T., The Destination and Purpose of St John's Gospel', NTS 6 (1960), pp.
117-31; repr. in idem, Twelve New Testament Studies, pp. 107-125.
—The New Look on the Fourth Gospel', in K. Aland (ed.), Studia Evangelica (TU, 73;
Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958), pp. 338-50; repr. in idem, Twelve New Testament
Studies, pp. 94-106.
—The Priority of John (ed. J.F. Coakley; London: SCM Press, 1985; Oak Park, IL: Meyer-
Stone, 1987).
—Twelve New Testament Studies (SBT, 34; London: SCM Press, 1962).
Robinson, J.M., The Formal Structure of Jesus' Message', in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder
(eds.), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A.
Piper (London: SCM Press; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 91-110, 273-84.
—A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (SET, 25; London: SCM Press, 1959; Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1979).
—The Problem of History in Mark (SET, 21; London: SCM Press, 1957).
—'The Study of the Historical Jesus after Nag Hammadi', Semeia 44 (1988), pp. 45-55.
Rohde, J., Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode: Einfuhrung und Sichtung des For-
schungestandes (Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1966; rev. 1968; ET Rediscovering the
Teaching of the Evangelists [trans. D.M. Barton; NTL; London: SCM Press, 1968]).
Roloff, J., 'Auf der Suche nach einem neuen Jesusbild: Tendenzen und Aspekte der
gegenwartigen Diskussion', TLZ98 (1973), cols. 561-72.
—'G. Theissen and D. Winter, The Question of Criteria in Jesus Research: From
Dissimilarity to Plausibility', Review of Theological Literature 1 (1999), pp. 54-58.
Romaine, S., Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1994), pp. 55-64.
Ropes, J.H., 'Agrapha', in Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible, V, pp. 343-52.
Rosner, B.S., 'Looking Back on the 20th Century 1. New Testament Studies', ExpTim 110
(1999), pp. 316-20.
Ross, J.M., 'Jesus's Knowledge of Greek', IBS 12 (1990), pp. 41-47.
Rostovtzeff, M., Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (2 vols.; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1926; 2nd edn rev. P.M. Fraser, 1957).
Rydbeck, L., 'EYEEBEIAN EAEISEN TOIL ANGPQnOII', in Fornberg and Hellholm
(eds.), Texts and Contexts, pp. 591-96.
—Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und Neues Testament: Zur Beurteilung der
sprachlichen Niveauunterschiede im nachklassischen Griechisch (Uppsala: Univer-
sity of Uppsala; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1967).
—'The Language of the New Testament', TynBul 49.2 (1998), pp. 361-68.
Safrai, S., and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT, 1.2; Assen:
Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976).
Sanday, W., 'Jesus Christ', in Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the Bible, II, pp. 603-653.
—The Life of Christ in Recent Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 1907).
—Outlines of the Life of Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905).
Sanday, W. (ed.), Studies in the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911).
Sanders, E.P., The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993).
—Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
—Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia:
Trinity Press International, 1990).
—Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity
Press International, 1992).
—The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS, 9; Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1969).
Sanders, E.P., and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press; Phil-
adelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989).
Schafer, P., The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the
Great to the Arab Conquest (Luxembourg: Harwood, 1995).
Schenk, W., Das biographische Ich-Idiom 'Menschensohn' in denfriihen Jesus-Biogra-
phien: Der Ausdruck, seine Codes und seine Rezeptionen in ihren Kotexten
(FRLANT, 177; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997).
Bibliography 279
—The Testamental Disciple-Instruction of the Markan Jesus (Mark 13): Levels of Com-
munication and its Rhetorical Structures', in Porter and Reed (eds.), Discourse
Analysis and the New Testament, pp. 197-222.
Schiffrin, D., Approaches to Discourse (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1994).
—Discourse Markers (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 5; Cambridge: Cambridge
Schille, G., 'Bin neuer Zugang zu Jesus? Das traditionsgeschichtliche Kriterium', Zeichen
undZeit40 (1986), pp. 247-53.
Schillebeeckx, E., Jezus, het verhaal van een levende (Bloemendaal: Nelissen, 1974; ET
Jesus: An Experiment in Christology [trans. H. Hoskins; New York: Seabury, 1979]).
Schlatter, A., Die Geschichte des Christus (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1921; 2nd edn, 1923;
ET The History of the Christ: The Foundation for New Testament Theology [trans.
A.J. Kostenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997]).
Schmidt, K.L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur
dltesten Jesusuberlieferung (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919).
—'Jesus Christus', RGG, III (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2nd edn, 1929), cols. 110-51.
Schmidt, T.E., 'Cry of Dereliction or Cry of Judgment? Mark 15:34', BBR 4 (1994), pp.
145-53.
Schmiedel, P.W., Das vierte Evangelium gegeniiber den drei ersten (Tubingen: J.C.B.
Mohr, 1906; ET The Johannine Writings [trans. M.A. Canney; London: A. & C.
Black, 1908]).
—'Gospels', in T.K. Cheyne and J.S. Black (eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dic-
tionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archaeology, Geography
and Natural History of the Bible (4 vols.; London: A. & C. Black, 1899-1907), II,
cols. 1761-898.
Schmitt, R., 'Die Sprachverhaltnisse in den ostlichen Provinzen des romischen Reiches',
ANRW 2.29.2, pp. 554-86.
Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium (4 vols.; HTK, 4.1-4; Freiburg: Herder,
1965-84; ET The Gospel according to St John [trans. K. Smyth; 3 vols.; New York:
Crossroad, 1982]).
—Gottes Herrschaft und Reich (Freiburg: Herder, 1963; 4th edn, 1965; ET God's Rule and
Kingdom [trans. J. Murray; London: Burns & Gates, 1963; 2nd edn, 1968]).
Schramm, T., Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschicht-
liche Untersuchung (SNTSMS, 14; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).
Schulz, S., 'Der historische Jesus: Bilanz der Fragen und Losungen', in Strecker (ed.),
Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie, pp. 3-25.
—'Die neue Frage nach dem historischen Jesus', in H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke (eds.),
Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen
Testament (Festschrift O. Cullmann; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag; Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1972), pp. 33-42.
Schiirer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; rev.
G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87).
Schurmann, H., 'Kritische Jesuserkenntnis: Zur kritischen Handhabung des "Unahn-
lichkeitskriteriums"', in idem, Jesus—Gestalt und Geheimnis: Gesammelte Beitrdge
(Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1994), pp. 420-34.
Schiissler Fiorenza, E., Jesus: Miriam's Child and Sophia's Prophet (New York: Contin-
uum, 1994).
Schwabe, M, andB. Lifshitz (eds.), Beth She'arim. II. The Greek Inscriptions (New Bruns-
wick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, for the Israel Exploration Society and the Insti-
tute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1974).
Schwarz, G., 'ITPOOOINIKIIEA—XANANAIA (Markus 7.26/Matthaus 15.22)', NTS 30
(1984), pp. 626-28.
— 'Und Jesu Sprach': Untersuchungen zur aramdischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu
(BWANT, 118; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2nd edn, 1987).
Schwarz, H., Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
Schweitzer, A., Das Messianitdts- und Leidensgeheimnis: Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu
(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901; 3rd edn, 1956; ET The Mystery of the Kingdom of
God: The Secret of Jesus' Messiahship and Passion [trans. W. Lowrie; London: A. &
C. Black, 1925]).
—Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1906; 2nd edn, 1910; 6th edn, 1951; ET The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A
Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede [trans. W. Montgomery;
London: A. & C. Black, 1910]).
Schweizer, E., Jesus Christus im vielfdltigen Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments (Munich:
Siebenstern, 1968; ET Jesus [trans. D.E. Green; London: SCM Press; Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1971]).
—Jesus: The Parable of God. What Do We Really Know about Jesus? (Alison Park, PA:
Pickwick, 1994; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997).
Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik (2 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1939, 1950).
Scott, B.B., 'From Reimarus to Crossan: Stages in a Quest', CR 2 (1994), pp. 253-80.
Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in Language (New York: Wiley, 1960).
Segal, M.H., A Grammar ofMishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927).
—'Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic', JQR 20 (1908),
pp. 670-700,734-37.
Segal, P., 'The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem', IEJ 39
(1989), pp. 79-84.
Selby, G.R., Jesus, Aramaic and Greek (Doncaster: Brynmill Press, 1989).
Seliger, H.W., and R.M. Vago (eds.), First Language Attrition (Cambridge: Cambridge
Sevenster, J.N., Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians
Have Known? (NovTSup, 19; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968).
Sharp, D., Language in Bilingual Communities (EISL; London: Edward Arnold, 1973).
Sherwin-White, A.N., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Sarum Lec-
tures, 1960-61; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963).
Siegert, F., 'Die Makrosyntax des Hebraerbriefs', in Fornberg and Hellholm (eds.), Texts
and Contexts, pp. 305-16.
Silva, M., 'Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek', Bib 61 (1980), pp. 198-
219; repr. in Porter (ed.), Language of the New Testament, pp. 205-26.
Smalley, S.S., 'Redaction Criticism', in Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation, pp.
181-95.
Smith, D.M., Johannine Christianity: Essays on its Setting, Sources, and Theology
(Durham: University of South Carolina, 1984; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987).
Smith, M., 'Aramaic Studies and the Study of the New Testament', JBR 26 (1958), pp.
304-13.
Bibliography 281
Smith, W., 'Computers, Statistics and Disputed Authorship', in Gibbons (ed.), Language
and the Law, pp. 374-413.
Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar (rev. G.M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1929; rev. edn, 1956).
Soden, H.F., Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 2nd edn,
1909).
Soukup, P.A., and R. Hodgson (eds.), From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for
Communicating the Scriptures in New Media (New York: American Bible Society;
Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1997).
Spencer, A.B., Paul's Literary Style: A Stylistic and Historical Comparison of II
Corinthians 11:16-12:13, Romans 8:9-39, and Philippians 3:2-4:13 (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1998 [1984]).
Spolsky, B., 'Bilingualism', in F.J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey.
IV. Language: The Socio-Cultural Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), pp. 100-118.
—'Diglossia in Hebrew in the Late Second Temple Period', Southwest Journal of Linguis-
tics 10.1 (1991), pp. 85-104.
—'Jewish Multilingualism in the First Century: An Essay in Historical Sociolinguistics', in
Fishman (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages, pp. 35-50.
Stanton, G.N., 'Form Criticism Revisited', in Hooker and Hickling (eds.), What about the
New Testament?, pp. 13-27.
—The Gospels and Jesus (OBS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
—'Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet who Deceived God's People?', in
J.B. Green and M. Turner (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the
Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle:
Paternoster Press, 1994), pp. 164-80.
—Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (SNTSMS, 27; Cambridge: Cambridge
Stauffer, E., Jesus: Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern: Francke, 1957; ET Jesus and his Story
[trans. R. Winston and C. Winston; London: SCM Press; New York: Knopf, I960]).
—'Jesus, Geschichte und Verkundigung', ANRW225.\, pp. 3-130.
Stein, R.H., 'The "Criteria" for Authenticity', in France and Wenham (eds.), Gospel Per-
spectives, I, pp. 225-63.
—Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1996).
—The Method and Message of Jesus' Teachings (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978;
Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, rev. edn, 1994).
—The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987).
—'What Is RedaktionsgeschichteT', JBL 88 (1969), pp. 45-56.
Sterling, G.E., 'Recluse or Representative? Philo and Greek-Speaking Judaism beyond
Alexandria', in E.H. Lovering, Jr, Society of Biblical Literature 1995 Seminar Papers
(SBLSP, 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 595-616.
Stine, P.C. (ed.), Issues in Bible Translation (UBSMS, 3; London: United Bible Societies,
1988).
Stoker, W.D., Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (SBLRBS, 18; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1989).
Stoldt, H.-H., Geschichte und Kritik der Markmhypothese (Gb'ttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1977; ET History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis [trans. D.L.
Niewyk; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980]).
Stonehouse, N.B., The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (London: Tyndale Press,
1944; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958).
Strange, J.F., 'First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts', in Edwards
and McCollough (eds.), Archaeology and the Galilee, pp. 39-48.
Strauss, D.F., Das Leben Jesu fur das deutsche Volk bearbeitet (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1864;
3rd edn, 1874; ET A New Life of Jesus [London: Williams & Norgate, 1865]).
—Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Tubingen: Osiander, 1835-36; 4th edn,
1840; ET The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined [3 vols.; trans. G. Eliot; London:
Chapman, 1846; repr. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972; London: SCM Press, 1973]).
—Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Geschichte: Eine Kritik des Schleier-
macher'schen Lebens Jesu (Berlin: Duncker, 1865; ET The Christ of Faith and the
Jesus of History: A Critique of Schleiermacher's Life of Jesus [trans. L.E. Keck;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977]).
—Hermann Samuel Reimarus und seine Schutzschrift fur die vernunftigen Verehrer Gottes
(Bonn: Strauss, 2nd edn, 1877 [1862]).
Strecker, G. (ed.), Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie (Festschrift H. Conzelmann;
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975).
Streeter, B.H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1926).
—'The Literary Evolution of the Gospels', in Sanday (ed.), Studies in the Synoptic Prob-
lem, pp. 209-27.
—'St Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q', in Sanday (ed.), Studies in the Synoptic Problem,
pp. 165-83.
Stuckenbruck, L.T., 'An Approach to the New Testament through Aramaic Sources: The
Recent Methodological Debate', JSP 8 (1991), pp. 3-29.
Stuhlmacher, P., Jesus von Nazareth—Christus des Glaubens (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag,
1988; ET Jesus of Nazareth—Christ of Faith [trans. S.S. Schatzmann; Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1993).
Stuhlmacher, P. (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vortrage vom Tubinger Sym-
posium 1982 (WUNT, 28; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; ET The Gospel and the
Gospels [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991]).
Styler, G.M., 'The Priority of Mark', in C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament
(BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 3rd edn, 1981; HNTC; New York: Harper & Row,
1982), pp. 285-316.
Such, W.A., The Abomination of Desolation in the Gospel of Mark: Its Historical Refer-
ence in Mark 13:14 and its Impact in the Gospel (Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, 1999).
Sundwall, J., 'Die Zusammensetzung des Markusevangeliums', in Acta Academiae Aboen-
sis, Humaniora, IX (Abo: Abo Academy, 1934), pp. 1-86.
Swete, H.B., The Gospel According to Mark (London: Macmillan, 1898).
Tarn, W., and G.T. Griffith, Hellenistic Civilisation (London: Edward Arnold, 1927; 3rd
edn, 1952).
Taylor, N.H., 'Palestinian Christianity and the Caligula Crisis. Part II. The Markan Escha-
tological Discourse', JSNT62 (1996), pp. 13-41.
Taylor, V., Behind the Third Gospel: A Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1926).
Bibliography 283
—The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1933; 2nd edn, 1935).
—The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1959).
—Jesus and his Sacrifice: A Study of the Passion-Sayings in the Gospels (London: Macmil-
lan, 1937).
—The Life and Ministry of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1954; Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1955).
—The Passion Narrative of St Luke (SNTSMS, 19; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1972).
—The Work and Words of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1950).
Tcherikover, V., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. S. Applebaum; 1959; repr.
New York: Atheneum, 1975).
—'Palestine under the Ptolemies (A Contribution to the Study of the Zenon Papyri)',
Mizraim 4-5 (1937), pp. 9-90.
Telford, W.R., 'Major Trends and Interpretive Issues in the Study of Jesus', in Chilton and
Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus, pp. 33-74.
Teodorsson, S.-T., 'Phonological Variation in Classical Attic and the Development of
Koine', Glotta 57 (1979), pp. 61-75.
—The Phonology of Ptolemiac Koine (Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis,
1977).
Thackeray, H.St.J., A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909).
—Josephus: The Man and the Historian (1929; repr. New York: Ktav, 1967).
Theissen, G., Der Schatten des Galilders: Historische Jesusforschung in erzdhlender Form
(Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1986; ET The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the
Historical Jesus in Narrative Form [trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1987]).
—'Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research or My Attempt to Leap across
Lessing's Yawning Gulf, SJT 49 (1996), pp. 147-76.
—'Lokal- und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der syrophb'nischen Frau (Mk 7:24-30)',
ZAW75 (1984), pp. 202-25.
—Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
synoptischen Tradition (NTOA, 8; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989; ET
The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition [trans.
L.M. Maloney; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992]).
—Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der
synoptischen Evangelien (SNT, 8; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1974; ET The Miracle
Stories of Early Christian Tradition [trans. F. McDonagh; SNTW; Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983]).
Theissen, G., and A. Merz, Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1996; ET The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [trans. J.
Bowden; London: SCM Press; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998]).
Theissen, G., and D. Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkri-
terium zum Plausibilitdtskriterium (NTOA, 34; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997).
Thomson, G., The Greek Language (Cambridge: Heffer, 1972).
Thumb, A., Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beitrdge zur Geschichte
und Beurteilung der KOINH (Strassburg: Trubner, 1901).
—Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Indogermanische Bibliothek; Heidelberg: Winter,

1909).
Torrey, C.C., The Four Gospels: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1958).
—Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1916).
—The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels', in D.G. Lyon and G.F.
Moore (eds.), Studies in the History of Religions (Festschrift C.H. Toy; New York:
Macmillan, 1912), pp. 269-317.
Tov, E., 'Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?', in A.
Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William
Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Ontario: Benben, 1984), pp. 53-70.
Tov, E. (ed.), The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll (DID, 8; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).
Travis, S.H., 'Form Criticism', in Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation, pp. 153-64.
Trenkner, S., Le style xai dans le recit attique oral (Cahiers, 1; Brussels: Editions de
1'Institut d'Etudes Polonaises en Belgique, 1948).
Treu, K., 'Die Bedeutung des Griechischen fur die Juden im romischen Reich', Kairos 15
(1973), pp. 123-44.
Trocme, E., Jesus de Nazareth vu par les temoins de sa vie (Neuchatel: Delachaux &
Niestle, 1972; ET Jesus and his Contemporaries [trans. R.A. Wilson; London: SCM
Press, 1973]).
Tuckett, C.M., Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1996).
—Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1987).
—The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal (SNTSMS, 44;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
Tuckett, C.M. (ed.), Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983
Turner, C.H., 'Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel', JTS
OS 25 (1924), pp. 377-86; 26 (1924-25), pp. 12-20, 145-56, 225-40, 337-46; 27
(1926), pp. 58-62; 28 (1926-27), pp. 9-30, 349-62; 29 (1928), pp. 275-89, 346-61;
repr. in J.K. Elliott (ed.), The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark: An Edition
of C.H. Turner's 'Notes on Marcan Usage' Together with Other Comparable Studies
(NovTSup, 71; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), pp. 3-146.
Turner, G.W., Stylistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973).
Turner, H.E.W., Historicity and the Gospels: A Sketch of Historical Method and its Appli-
cation to the Gospels (London: Mowbrays, 1963).
Turner, N., Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965).
—'The Language of the New Testament', in M. Black and H.H. Rowley (eds.), Peake's
Commentary on the Bible (London: Nelson, 1962), pp. 659-62.
Vaganay, L., and C.-B. Amphoux, Initiation a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament
(Paris: Cerf, 2nd edn, 1986; ET An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism
[trans. J. Heimerdinger; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991]).
Van Segbroeck, F., C.M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Four Gospels
1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (3 vols; BETL, 100; Leuven: Leuven University
Press/Peeters, 1992).
Vassiliadis, P., AOTOI IHIOY: Studies in Q (University of South Florida International
Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999).
Bibliography 285
Venuti, L. (ed.), Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology (London: Rout-

ledge, 1992).
Vergote, J., 'Grec biblique', in DBSup, III, cols. 1353-60.
Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins; Phil-
adelphia: Fortress Press, 1973).
—The Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
Via, D.A., Jr, The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia:
Vledder, E.-J., Conflict in the Miracle Stories: A Socio-Exegetical Study of Matthew 8 and
9 (JSNTSup, 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Voelz, J.W., The Linguistic Milieu of the Early Church', CTQ 56.2-3 (1992), pp. 81-97.
Vogtle, A., 'Die griechische Sprache und ihre Bedeutung fur die Geschichte des Urchris-
tentums', in H. Gundert (ed.), Der Lebenswert des Griechischen (Karlsruhe: Badenia,
1973), pp. 77-93.
Vorster, W.S., Speaking of Jesus: Essays on Biblical Language, Gospel Narrative and the
Historical Jesus (NovTSup, 92; ed. I.E. Botha; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999).
Wacholder, B.Z., Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974).
—Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962).
Walker, W.O., The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Discussion of Methodology', ATR 51
(1969), pp. 38-56.
Wardhaugh, R., An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986; 2nd
edn, 1992).
Watt, J.M., Code-Switching in Luke and Acts (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semi-
otics, 31; New York: Peter Lang, 1997).
—'Of Gutturals and Galileans: The Two Slurs of Matthew 26.73', in S.E. Porter (ed.),
Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Greek (JSNTSup, 193; SNTG, 6;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, forthcoming 2000).
Weaver, W.P., The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950 (Harrisburg, PA:
Trinity Press International, 1999).
Weinreich, U., Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (Publications of the Lin-
guistic Circle of New York, 1; New York: Linguistic Circle of New York, 1953).
Weiss, B., Das Leben Jesu (2 vols.; Berlin: Wilhelm Herz, 1888).
Weiss, J., Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1892; 2nd edn, 1900; De Waard, J. and E.A. Nida, From One Language to Another:
Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating (Nashville: Nelson, 1986).
Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God [trans. R.H. Hiers and D.L. Holland; LJ;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SCM Press, 1971]).
Weiss, Z., 'Social Aspects of Burial in Beth She'arim: Archeological Finds and Talmudic
Sources', in Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, pp. 357-71.
Welles, C.B., Alexander and the Hellenistic World (Toronto: Hakkert, 1970).
Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Lucae (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1904).
—Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1903).
—Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1904).
—Einleitung in die drei erste Evangelien (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1905; 2nd edn, 1911).
Wenham, D., The Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse (Gospel Perspectives, 4;
Wenham, D. (ed.), Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, V (Shef-
field: JSOT Press, 1985).
West, M.L., Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin
Texts (Teubner Studienbucher, Philologie; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973).
Westcott, B.F., An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1851; 8th
edn, 1895).
Westcott, B.F., and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. II. Introduction,
Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988).
Westerholm, S., Jesus and Scribal Authority (ConBNT, 10; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1978).
Wexler, P., 'Recovering the Dialects and Sociology of Judeo-Greek in Non-Hellenic
Europe', in Fishman (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages, pp. 227-40.
Wiefel, W.,D0s Evangelium nach Matthdus (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1998).
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Die griechische Literatur des Altertums (Stuttgart: Teubner,
3rd edn, 1912; repr. 1995).
Wilcox, M., 'The Aramaic Background of the New Testament', in Beattie and McNamara
(eds.), The Aramaic Bible, pp. 362-78.
—'Jesus in the Light of his Jewish Environment', ANRW 2.25.1, pp. 131-95.
—'Peter and the Rock: A Fresh Look at Matthew 16:17-19', NTS 22 (1975), pp. 73-88.
—'Semitisms in the New Testament', ANRW2.25.2, pp. 978-1029.
Willis, W. (ed.), The Kingdom of God in 20th-century Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 1987).
Winton, A.P., The Proverbs of Jesus: Issues of History and Rhetoric (JSNTSup, 35;
Wise, M.O., 'Languages of Palestine', in Green, McKnight and Marshall (eds.), Dictionary
of Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 434-44.
Witherington, IB., II, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).
—The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1995).
Wood, H.G., Jesus in the Twentieth Century (London: Lutterworth, 1960).
Wrede, W., Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Ver-
standnis des Markusevangeliums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901; ET
The Messianic Secret [trans. J.C.G. Greig; Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1971]).
Wright, N.T., Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).
—The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992).
—'Quest for the Historical Jesus', ABD 3 (1992), pp. 796-802.
Zahrnt, H., Es begann mit Jesus von Nazareth: Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus
(Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1960; ET The Historical Jesus [trans. J.S. Bowden; London: Collins;
New York: Harper & Row, 1963]).
Zeitlin, I.M., Jesus and the Judaism of his Time (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988).
Zerwick, M., Untersuchungen zum Markus-Stil: Ein Beitrag zur Durcharbeitung des
Neuen Testamentes (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937).
Zimmermann, F., The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels (New York: Ktav, 1979).
Zimmermann, H., Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre: Darstellung der historisch-kritischen
Methode (Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1967; 2nd edn, 1968).
Zlateva, P. (ed.), Translation as Social Action: Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives
(Translation Studies; London: Routledge, 1993).
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
BIBLE
Old Testament 12.38 71 22.20 159, 198,

Leviticus 13.16-17 85 200
16.12-21 175 15.21-28 150, 155, 22.21 159, 199,
158, 193, 200
Psalms 196 23.39 182
22.1 109 15.21 150 24.4 228
15.22 150 24.18 227
New Testament 15.24 196 24.21 227
Matthew 15.26-27 197 26.25 205
2.21 198 15.26 159, 196, 26.54 205
4.25 154 197 26.64 190
5.1 154 15.28 159, 196 27.11-14 149, 155,
5.17 85 15.29-31 157 158, 193,
5.32 85 16.13-20 153, 156, 203, 204
5.33-37 76 158, 164, 27.11 159, 164,
5.38-47 76 193,201, 190, 203-
6.2 200 202 205
6.15 200 16.13 159,201, 27.37 204
6.16 200 202 27.46 71,139
8.5-13 147, 155, 16.15 159, 201,
158, 164, 203 Mark
192 16.17-19 159, 160, 1.1-16.8 227
8.7 159 202, 203 1.1-16 232
8.13 159 16.17 201 2.1-12 182
8.22 73 16.18 201 2.8-9 229
8.28-34 154 16.19 201 2.13-14 154, 157,
8.34 154 16.21-23 153 158, 192
9.9 154, 157- 18.18 161 2.14 159
59, 192 19.3-12 85 2.18-20 85
9.25 157 22.16-22 145, 156, 2.19 208, 209,
9.37-38 85 158, 193, 229
10.19 227 198, 199 2.22 208
11.4-6 178 22.18 198, 200 2.23-3.6 95
11.5 71 22.19 159, 198- 2.25 229
12.31-32 71 200 3 225
Mark (cont.) 8.27-30 153, 156, 13.2 228

3.8 154 158, 164, 13.3-37 232
3.16 152 193,201, 13.3-32 233
3.21 71 202 13.3 225
3.24 229 8.27 159, 201, 13.4 228
4 234 202 13.5-37 220, 225-
4.3-32 233 8.29 159, 201, 31,234,
4.3 229 203 235
4.13 229 8.31-33 153 13.5-27 233
4.21 229 8.33 229 13.5 228
4.24 228 9 228 13.6 226,231
4.26-29 85 9.11-13 95 13.7 209, 226
4.28 208 9.39 229 13.8 226
4.30 208, 229 9.43 208 13.9 225, 226
5 225 9.49 208 13.10 230
5.1-20 154 10 225, 228 13.11 227,231
5.17 154 10.1-12 85 13.14-23 232
5.21-43 157 10.3 209 13.14 225, 230,
5.41 139, 157 10.17-18 71 231
6 225 10.18 229 13.16 227
6.3 176 10.32-34 232 13.19 226, 227
6.4 208 10.35-45 95 13.21 225
6.5^6 71 10.36 229 13.24-27 232
6.8 229 10.43 208 13.28-37 233
6.11 208 11.13 209 13.28 225
6.37 209 11.14 209 13.30 231
6.41 209 12.7 209 13.32 71, 109
6.47 209 12.13-17 145, 156, 13.34 226
7.8 208 158, 193, 13.35 226, 233
7.15 76 198, 199 14 228
7.17 209 12.15 159, 198- 14.6 229
7.18 229 200 14.12-26 95
7.25-31 193 12.16 159, 198, 14.48 209
7.25-30 150, 155, 200 15 225
158, 164, 12.17 159, 198, 15.1-5 207
196 200 15.2-5 149, 155,
7.26 150 12.24 229 158, 193,
7.27-28 197 12.29 209 203, 204
7.27 159, 195- 12.35 229 15.2 159, 161,
98 12.36 228 164, 190,
7.29 159 12.38 229 203-207
7.31-37 157 13 220, 224- 15.9 161
7.31 150 26, 228- 15.12 161
7.34 139 35 15.25 209
8.12 71 13.1-5 225 15.26 204
8.14-21 71 13.1-4 228 15.34 71, 139,
8.15 229 13.1 225, 228 177
8.17 229
Index of References 289
Luke 17.31 227 4.17-18 159

3.7-18 78 20.20-26 145, 156, 4.21-24 159
3.166 78 158, 193, 4.35 85
5.27-28 154, 157, 198, 199 4.46-54 147, 155,
158, 192 20.23 199 158, 192
5.27 159 20.24 159, 198- 4.46 148
6 154 200 4.48 159
6.14 152 20.25 159, 198- 7.53-8.11 86
6.17 154 200 8.333 205
6.27-36 76 21.88 228 8.522 205
7.1-10 147 21.99 228 9.177 205
7.2-10 164 21.233 227 12.20-28 151, 155,
7.3 148 21.333 228 158, 164
7.22-23 178 22.70 205 14.99 205
7.22 71 23. 159 18.29-38 148, 149,
8.18 228 23.1-5 207 155, 158,
8.26-29 154 23.2-4 149, 155, 193, 203,
8.36-37 154 158, 193, 204
8.54 157 203, 204 18.333 164, 204
9.18-21 153, 156, 23.33 161, 164, 18.344 203
158, 164, 190, 203- 18.36-37 204
193,201, 207 18.366 203
202 23.11 161 18.377 159, 161,
9.188 159,201, 23.38 204 205
202 18.399 161
9.19 159 John 19.199 204
9.20 159, 201, 1.422 152
203 1.444 152 Acts
9.22 153 4.2 159 6.1 141
10.188 86 4.4-26 152, 155,
11.14-22 85 158, 159, 1 Corinthians
11.299 71 192 7.10-11 85
12.11 227 4.7 159
15.11-32 81 4.10 159 Philippians
15.355 182 4.13-14 159 3.2 198
16.9-13 185 4.155 86 3.5 134, 146
16.188 85 4.166 159
OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES

Talmuds r. Sot Josephus
b. Ber. 15.8 170 Ant.
8b 187 1.34 176
Philo 1.36 176
b. Sot Conf. Ling, 1.117 176
49b 170 129 138 1.1466 176
1.204 176
1.258 176 279 170 Polybius

1.333 176 336-60 170 39.12 170
3.252 176 359 147
6.22 176 390-93 170 Suetonius
7.67 176 410 170 Aug.
9.290 176 89 176
10.8 176 War
10.218 169 1.3 169 Claud.
11.148 176 1.282 204 42 176
11.159 176 2.117-18 162
11.286 176 2.253-58 162 Titus
12.145 168 5.193-94 168 3.2 176
14.36 204 5.360-61 176
15.342-43 146 6.96 178 Ostraca, Papyri
15.373 204 6.97 176 and Tablets
16.6 146 6.124-25 168 P. Egerton
16.203 146 6.129 178 2 146
16.242-43 146 6.327 178
16.291 204 9.97 177 Inscriptions
16.311 204 CIJIII
17.20-21 146 Christian Authors 1400 168
17.52-53 147 Gos. Thorn. 1404 177
17.94 147 100 146
18.1-10 162 IGII
18.23-25 162 Classical Authors 90.135 146
18.143 147 Aulus Gellius
19.360 147 NA. IGII I
20.102 162 11.8.2 170 550 146
20.263-65 169 551 146
174 146 Cicero
Brut OGISII
Apion 81 170 598 168
1.50 169
1.69-72 151 Dionysius of SEG VIII
Halicarnassus 13 168
Lifee 1.7.2 170 169 168
11-13 170 244 177
13 153 Ep. Arist. 95 153
34-42 170 32 139 96 153
65 170 39 139
88 170 46 139
175-78 170 47-50 139
186 170
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abbott, T.K. 164 Beare, F.W. 197, 199, 202

Abel,F.-M. 130 Beasley-Murray, G.R. 20, 38, 148, 204,
Achtemeier, PJ. 132 205, 220, 221, 234
Adams, E. 233 Beattie, D.R.G. 93,99
Adinolfi,M. 165 Beker,J. 53,62
Adna,J. 65 Bell,G.K.A, 44,60
Aland, B. 193,211 Bell,R.T. 95
Aland, K. 88, 186, 193, 194, 196, 198, Belle, G. Van 149,206
199,206,211,225 Bellizoni, A.J., Jr 88
Allison, D.C., Jr 147, 148, 151, 156, 160, Benoit, P. 140
161, 182, 199, 205 Berger, K. 67
Altmann, A. 165 Betz, H.D. 95, 142, 144, 149, 178-80,
Amphoux, C.-B. 193 189, 190
Anderson, H. 50,61 Betz,0. 50,61
Argyle, A.W. 154, 166, 200 Beyer, K. 91, 140
Atkinson, K. 177 Biber,D. 214,215
Aulen,G. 51,61 Bilde,P. 171
Aune,D.E. 180,220 Birkeland,H. 131,149,165
Black, CC. 221,223
Bacon, B.W. 205 Black, D.A. 24, 66, 69, 224, 226
Baetens Beardsmore, H. 133 Black, J.S. 71,106
Baird,J.A. 50,61 Black, M. 92, 93, 95-98, 140, 142, 166,
Baltensweiler, H. 51 188,225
Bammel,E. 146,156,204 Blackwell, S. 213
Banks, RJ. 52 Blanc, M.H.A. 133
Bar-Kochva, B. 138 Blass, F. 93, 168, 188
Barbour, R.S. 58, 63, 74, 75 Blomberg, C.L. 56, 66, 68-69, 78, 184,
Bardy,G. 166,188 218,219
Barr, J. 132, 136, 138-39, 156, 165, 170, Boccaccini, G. 74
172 Bock, D.L. 66, 148
Barrett, C.K. 50, 61, 151, 152, 155, 204, Bockmuehl, M. 53, 62
205 Boers, H. 210
Barth, G. 67 Bond,H.K. 149
Barton,!. 30 Borg,MJ. 18,52,53,62,77
Bartsch,H.W. 19 Borgen, P. 206
Bassnett, S. 95 Boring, M.E. 63, 70-72, 75, 78, 82, 90,
Bauckham, R. 177 104, 107, 233
Bornkamm, G. 49, 50, 61, 67, 100 Casey, M. 92, 95-97, 147, 164, 166-69,
Botha, J.E. 212 171-80, 188, 189
Bousset,W. 34,35,60 Catchpole, D.R. 77, 149, 161, 205
Bowden,J.S. 51,62 Charlesworth, J.H. 54, 62, 74, 76, 85,
Braaten, C.E. 30,43, 47, 48, 50, 75, 118 174, 180, 219
Bradford, R. 211 Cheyne,T.K. 71,106
Braun,F.-M. 41,61 Chilton, B. 22-24, 30, 37-39, 52, 53, 55,
Braun,H. 51,61 62, 66, 76, 85, 89, 92, 93, 97-99,
Breech,!. 69 105,111,115,127,142,147,173,
Brehm,H.A. 141 181,183-85,188,208,209,218,
Breytenbach, C. 223 219
Brixhe,C. 135,136 Chomsky, W. 131
Brock, S.P. 225 Clarke, K.D. 194
Brodie, T.L. 206 Clarke, W.K.L. 64
Brown, C. 30,38-40,74 Cluysenaar, A. 211
Brown, G. 211 Cockle, W.E.H. 137
Brown, R.E. 54, 55, 57, 82, 152, 155, Collinge, N.E. 214
162, 205-207 Collins, A.Y. 221,231,234
Browning, R. 131, 135 Collins, R.F. 66, 68, 78
Broyles, C.C. 98,142 Colwell,E.C. 50,61,130
Bruce, F.F. 71,146 Conzelmann, H. 50, 66, 67
Buchsel,F. 189 Cook,J.G. 223
Bultmann,R. 18-20,31,36,44-47,49, Corley,B. 87
50, 52, 60, 61, 64, 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, Corrington, G.P. 69
78, 80, 100, 101, 148, 152, 204, 205 Costas,P.W. 131,135
Bundy, W.E. 146, 150, 154, 192, 197, Cotterell,P. 215
199 Cotton, H.M. 137,141,173
Burge, G. 206 Coulthard, M. 213, 215, 216
Burkitt,F.C. 40,41,60,83 Cox,C. 138
Burney,CF. 91-93,188 Cranfield, C.E.B. 204
Buttrick, G. 130 Cross, A.R. 11,56
Byrskog, S. 62, 88, 108 Crossan, J.D. 18, 56, 62, 85, 184, 188
Crystal, D. 94,211
Cadoux, CJ. 42,43, 61 Cullmann, O. 50, 72, 160
Caldas-Coulthard, C.R. 213 Culpepper, R.A. 148
Calvert, D.G.A. 101,107,108,114
Cancik,H. 235 Dahl,N.A. 30,61,75,83,118
Caragounis, C.C. 167 Dalman, G. 90, 92,93,146,149, 150,
Carlston, C.E. 81 152,153,166,167, 188, 190
Carpenter, H. 51,62 Daniel-Rops, H. 41,61
Carrington, P. 88 Danove,P.L. 223
Carroll R., M.D. 216 Darwin, C. 216
Carson, D.A. 23, 68, 141, 152, 205, 206, Daube, D. 42, 67, 75
210,212 Davey,N. 85
Cartlidge, D.R. 85 Davids, P.H. 89
Cary,M. 136 Davies, M. 66-69, 73, 98, 142, 215
Case, S.J. 43 Davies, W.D. 42, 67, 89, 132, 147, 148,
151,156,160,161,199,205
Davis, C.W. 133 Fairclough, N. 213

Davy,D. 211 Farmer, W.R. 87
Debrunner,A. 135, 168 Farrer, A.M. 68, 87
Deines,R. 134,141,145,152 Fawcett, R.P. 215
Deissmann, A. 44, 60, 129, 130, 164, Feldman, L.H. 170,189
168, 177 Ferguson, C. 175
Denison, N. 133 Ferris, C. 229
Denniston, J.D. 212 Fiensy, D.A. 173
Dibelius, M. 44,45, 61, 64, 77, 100 Fine,S. 177
Dijk, T.A. van 213 Finegan, E. 215
Dockery,D.S. 66,69,78 Finegan, J. 168
Dodd, C.H. 38, 42-44, 60, 80, 83, 85, 86, Finkelstein, L. 132
88,92,100,118,148,205 Fishman, J.A. 133,138,165
Donahue, J.R. 69 Fitzmyer, J.A. 91-93, 132, 140, 141, 165,
Doty, W.G. 57, 65-67, 101 170, 176, 188, 202
Doudna,J.C. 222,228 Flender,H. 68
Dover, K. 212 Fletcher,?. 133
Downes, W. 134 Flusser, D. 50,61
Downing, F.G. 70,87 Fornberg,T. 144,173,210
Dufton,F. 151 Fortna,R.T. 204
Duncan, G.S. 42,43, 61 Fosdick, H.E. 43
Dungan, D.L. 85,88,89 Fowl,S.E. 31
Dunkerley, R. 84 Fowler, R. 211
Dunn, J.D.G. 52, 74, 76, 92 France, R.T. 52, 58, 63, 74, 88, 89, 107,
Dupont, J. 47, 74, 92 108, 149, 205, 218
Duranti, A. 216 Freyne, S. 165, 173
Dvorak, J.D. 206 Fuchs,E. 50,119,184
Dyer,K.D. 222,229,231-34 Fuller, R.H. 35,46, 74, 87, 90
Funck, B. 141
Edersheim, A. 33,60 Funk, R.W. 184, 188, 220
Edwards, D.R. 174, 176
Ehrman, B.D. 211 Gagnon, R.A.J. 149
Elliott, J.K. 85,211,222 Galperin, I.R. 211
Ellis, E.E. 65,66 Gardner-Smith, P. 204, 205
Emerton, J.A. 132, 165 Garman, M. 133
Enkvist,N.E. 211 Geiger,J. 173
Ennulat,A. 199 Gerhardsson, B. 61, 88, 108
Enslin, M.S. 49, 61 Ghadessy,M. 215
Epp,EJ. 29,66,185,186 Gibbons, J. 212,213
Evans, C.A. 11, 17, 22-24, 29, 30, 35, 37, Gibson, A. 56
39, 51-53, 55, 58, 62, 64, 67, 69, 70, Gibson, E. 136
76, 77, 85, 86, 92-94,96, 98, 99, Gignac, F. 136
104,105,107-10,111-13,115,121, Gilliard, F.D. 133
127, 137, 142, 147, 148, 165, 173, Gitin,S. 132
181-84, 186-89, 208, 209, 212, 218, Glasson,T.F. 39
219, 225 Glasswell, M.E. 206
Glover, T.R. 42,43,60
Goebel,S. 218 Hastings,!. 33,84

Goetz, S.C. 56 Hatim, B. 95
Goguel,M. 46,60 Hatina,T.R. 232
Golding,W. 216 Hauck,A. 129
Goodspeed, EJ. 41, 45, 61, 130 Haugen, E. 175
Goodwin, C. 216 Hawkins, J.C. 222, 224-27
Goppelt, L. 44, 62 Hawthorne, G.F. 39, 79, 108
Goulder, M.D. 87, 88, 199 Hayes, J.H. 137
Grabbe,L.L. 147,175,189 Haynes, S.R. 69
Grant, M. 147 Headlam, A.C. 40, 60
Green, J.B. 30, 67, 74, 132, 155, 207 Heckel,U. 134
Green, W.D. 175 Hedrick,C.W. 218,219
Greenlee, J.H. 193 Heitmuller, W. 71
Gregg, R.C. 153 Held,H.J. 67
Gregory, MJ. 211 Hellholm, D. 144, 173, 210
Griffith, G.T. 136 Hemer,C.J. 136
Grintz, J.M. 132 Hengel, M. 73, 134, 140, 141, 146, 147,
Grosjean, F. 133 152, 153, 165, 179, 235
Gruen,E.S. 145 Hennecke, E. 84
Grundmann,W. 50,61,206 Henry, C.F.H. 84
Guelich, R.A. 149,150, 157 Herder, J.G. 31,33,60
Giilich,E. 215 Hess,R.S. 194,215
Gundert,H. 128 Heyer, CJ. den 71,106
Gundry, R.H. 132,147, 150, 151,160, Hickling,C. 66,68
165,204,221,229 Higgins, A.J.B. 88
Guttgemanns, E. 67 Hill,C.C. 141
Guy, H.A. 42, 61 Hirsch, E.D. 79, 80
Hodgson, R. 94
Hachlili,R. 172 Hoehner,H. 147
Hadas-Lebel, M. 131 Hoey,M. 80,213,224
Haenchen, E. 68 Hofius, O. 65, 84
Hafemann, S.J. 65 Holmen,T. 76,115,122,127
Hagner,D.A. 151,156,160,161 Holmes,!. 133-35,175
Hahn,F. 48 Holmes, M.W. 211
Hall,F.W. 193 Holmstrand, J. 210
Halliday, M.A.K. 214-16, 220, 224, 230 Hooker, M.D. 66, 68, 75, 81, 112, 162,
Hamers,J.F. 133 221
Harnack, A. 31, 35, 36,43, 60, 149 Horrocks,G. 131,135,145
Harrington, D.J. 91,140 Horsley, G.H.R. 131,200
Harris, J.R. 130 Horsley, R.A. 54, 144, 150, 165, 172,
Harris, W.V. 132 173, 175
Harrisville, R.A. 30,43,47, 48, 50, 75, Horst, P.W. van der 140, 168, 172, 177
118 Hort,F.J.A. 193
Hart,H.StJ. 156 Hoskyns, E.G. 44, 85
Hartman,L. 215 Howard, W.F. 206
Harvey, A.E. 52,62,116 Hudson, R.A. 135,177
Harvey, V.A. 48 Hughes, P.E. 166
Hasan, R. 214 Humbert,!. 135
Hunter, A.M. 40,41,61,92 Kniffka,H. 213

Hurst, L.D. 24,94,96,189 Knox,J. 50,61
Hurtado,L.W. 133 Knox,W.L. 147,207
Hyltenstam, K. 133 Koch, K. 66
Koester,H. 85,131
lersel, B.M.F. van 221 Kokkinos, N. 146, 147
Irmscher, J. 161 Kraft, R.A. 74
Isaac, B. 177 Krentz,E. 65
Iser,W. 80 Kuhn,T. 143
Kuhrt,A. 135
Jackson, B. 84 Kummel, W.G. 29, 38, 50, 65
Jacoby,F. 146 Kutscher, E.Y. 131
James, M.R. 84 Kysar,R. 206
Jellicoe,S. 138,139
Jeremias, J. 44, 50, 61, 80, 83, 84, 89, 91, Ladd,G.E. 38
92,139,183,184,188,212,218 Lagrange, M.-J. 41, 60, 165, 223
Jeyer, CJ. den 30 Lakatos,!. 116,143
Johns, L.L. 74, 174,180,219 Lambrecht, J. 222
Johnson, L.T. 24, 25, 56, 62 Lang,M. 206
Johnson, S.E. 87 Lapide, P. 165, 188
Jones, A.H.M. 136 Leaney, A.R.C. 137
Jonge, M. de 54, 62, 205 Leclercq,H. 165
Jouon,P. 189 Lee,J.A.L. 152
Jungel,E. 184 Leech, G.N. 211
Lefort, L.-Th. 136
Kahle,P.E. 91 Lentzen-Deis, F. 63
Kahler,M. 31,37,39,60 Leon,HJ. 172
Kampen, K. van 138, 194 Lessing,G.E. 31,34,113
Kapsomenos, S.G. 137 Levine,L.I. 131, 165,173,174
Kasemann, E. 32, 47-49, 52, 61, 72, 73, Levinsohn, S.H. 224, 226
100, 107, 115 Lewis, N. 137,140
Kasper,W. 51,62 Lieberman, S. 165, 170, 172
Kaswalder,P. 165 Lifshitz, B. 145, 172, 173
Kaufman, S. 99 Lightfoot, R.H. 46, 61, 68, 130, 205
Keck,L.E. 51,61 Lindars, B. 206
Kee,H.C. 51,61,165,176,177 Lindemann, A. 66
Kelber,W.H. 56,133 Linmans, AJ.M. 221
Kenny, A. 212 Linnemann, E. 184
Kertelge,K. 48,63,118 Livingstone, E.A. 48
Keylock, L.R. 79 Loisy, A. 46, 61
Kilpatrick, G.D. 145,182 Longenecker, R.N. 39, 108, 166
Kirk,G.S. 78 Lopez Eire, A. 135
Kittel, G. 44 Lord,A.B. 78
Klassen,W. 86 Loveday, L. 133
Klausner,J. 41,60 Lovering, E.H., Jr 141
Klein, W. 133 Liihrmann, D. 74
Kloppenborg, J.S. 84 Lull,D.J. 174
Klutz, T. 215 Lyon, D.G. 92
MacMullen,R. 136 84,93,98,103,105-10,112,113,

MacRae,G.W. 29,66 116,123,127,134,176,189
Mackowski, R. 227 Meillet,A. 135
Major,H.D.A. 42, 131 Mendels,D. 145
Malbon,E.S. 69 Merk,D. 80
Maloney, E.G. 222, 224-26 Merklein,H. 29
Mandell, S.R. 137 Merz, A. 21,58, 103, 104, 113-15, 117-
Mann,C.S. 150 19, 121, 128
Manson, T.W. 42, 43, 60, 83, 92, 131, Metzger, B.M. 185, 193, 211
149, 187 Meyer, A. 90,93,96
Manson, W. 40,41,61 Meyer, B.F. 30, 52, 56, 62, 75, 86, 109,
Markschies, C 140,141,145-47,152, 161,188,202
153,165, 179 Meyers, E.M. 140, 165, 173-75
Marrou, H.I. 147, 178 Michaelis,W. 50
Marsh, J. 51,62 Michaels, J.R. 51
Marshall, I.H. 30, 51, 62, 66, 68, 77, 106, Milit,J.T. 140
132,207 Millar, A. 116
Martin, R.A. 222 Millar, F.G.B. 137, 140, 144, 151, 153,
Martin, R.P. 84, 149 156, 165
Martin-Asensio, G. 215, 228, 230 Millard,A. 132
Marxsen,W. 68, 117 Miller, RJ. 85
Mason,!. 95 Milligan, G. 129, 130, 165
Mason, S. 171 Mitton, C.L. 51,62
Masson, E. 130 Moore, G.F. 92
Mathews, K.A. 78 Moore, S.D. 69
Matthews, S. 43 Morgan, R. 24,30
Matthiae, K. 48, 50 Morgenthaler, R. 233
Mayser,E. 168,225 Morris, L.L. 88, 152
McArthur, H.K. 29, 61, 64, 75, 83 Moule, C.F.D. 74, 84, 87, 108, 141, 146,
McCollough, C.T. 174 156,167, 204
McDonald, J.I.H. 48 Moulton,J.H. 129,130,164
McDonald, L.M. 53, 164 Mrazek,J. 9
McEleney, NJ. 63,78,81,83-86,92, Miiller,M. 138
109,116,212 Munro,W. 163
McKendrick, S. 138,194 Musgrave, A. 116,143
McKenzie, S.L. 69 Mussies,G. 165,189
McKnight, E.V. 65,66,69 Mussner,F. 63,75,118
McKnight, S. 30, 38, 39, 56, 64, 66, 67, Muysken,P. 137
69, 105, 132
McLaren, J.S. 176 Neil,W. 50,61
McLuskey,F. 49 Neill, S. 28, 53, 54
McNamara, MJ. 93,99 Neirynck, F. 85, 183, 205, 222, 230, 231
Mead,A.H. 148 Nesselrath, H.-G. 135
Mealand, D.L. 73, 221 Nestle, E. 93, 186, 188, 193, 194, 196,
Meecham, H.G. 130 198, 199, 225, 233
Meeks,W.A. 138 New,D.S. 156
Meier, J.P. 18, 21, 54, 58, 62, 64, 77, 83, Newmark, P. 95
Newmeyer, F.J. 133,137
Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 74 Powell, M.A. 18,28,30,111

Nicklin, T. 166 Pride, J.B. 133,175
Nida,E.A. 94,210,212 Pryke,AJ. 222,223,230,231
Niebuhr,R.R. 87
Nineham, D.E. 87 Rabin, C. 132, 165
Norden, E. 65 Radermacher, L. 130
Motley, R.S. 50 Raible,W. 215
Nunan,D. 80 Rajak, T. 146, 147, 165, 169-71
Rauschenbusch, W. 43
Obler,L.K. 133 Ravelli,L. 215
O'Collins,G. 51,62 Redlich,E.B. 64
O'Donnell, M.B. 11, 23, 181, 186, 195, Reed,J.T. 210,212,214-16,220,223
208, 209, 212, 216, 218 Reicke,B. 50,51,165
Oesterley, W.O.E. 219 Reimarus, H.S. 34, 35, 52, 60, 75
Ogden, S.M. 48, 64 Reiser, M. 129,225
Ogg,G. 41,61 Renan,E. 34,35,60
O'Neill, J.C. 18,31 Rendsburg, G.A. 131
Orchard, B. 87 Renehan, R. 193
Orrieux, C. 137 Resch, A. 84
Osborne, G.R. 69 Reumann, J. 29, 30, 32, 45, 50, 53, 61
Overman, A. 176 Rhoads,D. 150,176
Owens, EJ. 136 Richards, K.H. 58, 64, 105
Richardson, P. 147
Palmer, H. 67 Riches, J.K. 30, 33, 36,46, 51, 62, 116,
Palmer, L.R. 135 191
Patterson, S.W. 166 Riesenfeld, H. 88, 108
Paulus, H.E.G. 33,60 Riesner, R. 56, 61-63, 77, 82, 88, 108,
Payne, P.B. 218 177
Peabody,D.B. 222 Riley,H. 87
Peabody,F.G. 43,231,232 Rist,J.M. 88
Pearson, B.W.R. 128 Ristow, H. 48,50
Perrin, N. 38, 46, 61, 65, 68, 73, 74, 81, Robbins, V.K. 104
86, 100, 109, 183-85, 233 Roberts, A. 149, 150, 152, 154, 166, 178
Phipps,W.E. 62 Robertson, AT. 41, 49, 60, 130, 193
Pietersma, A. 138 Robinson, J.A.T. 151,204
Piper, R.A. 84 Robinson, J.M. 48, 68, 85, 86, 206
Pokorny,P. 9,10,53,62,199 Rohde,J. 68
Polkow, D. 58, 64, 69, 70, 90, 105-107, Roloff, J. 30, 104
110,111,113,114 Romaine, S. 134
Polome,E.C. 138 Ropes, J.H. 84
Popper, K.R. 143 Rosner, B.S. 28
Porter, S.E. 23, 29, 53, 54, 58, 64, 67, 90, Ross, J.M. 166, 167
92-94, 105, 128-32, 134, 135, 137- Rostovtzeff, M. 136
39, 141, 147-51, 153, 160, 161, 164- Rowley, H.H. 166
69, 171, 174,175-177, 181-83, 185, Rydbeck,L. 90,131,135,144
186, 189, 194, 195, 198, 200, 202,
204, 208-10, 212, 214-18, 223, 227, Safrai, S. 132, 165
228, 230, 235 Salisbury, R.F. 133
Samuel, D.H. 137 Smalley, S. 68

Sanday, W. 33, 38,40, 60, 84 Smith, D.M. 206
Sanders, E.P. 18, 52, 54, 62, 66-69, 73, Smith, M. 165
74, 76-79, 89, 98, 99, 108, 111, 120, Smith, W. 212
142, 144, 177, 224 Smyth, H.W. 167
Sankoff,G. 133 Snyder, G.F. 86
Sasse,H. 45 Soden, H.F. 44, 60
Schafer,P. 137 Sokoloff,M. 132
Schenk,W. 168,223 Sorenson, A.P., Jr 133
Schiffrin,D. 210,224 Soukup, P.A. 94
Schille,G. 118 Spencer, A.B. 212
Schillebeeckx, E. 58, 62, 63, 70, 90, 98, Spenser,!. 211
105,110,117 Spolsky,B. 133,165
Schlatter,A. 44,60 Stanton,G.N. 51,62,66,74
Schmidt, K.L. 44, 60, 64 Stauffer,E. 44,61
Schmidt, T.E. 109 Stein, R.H. 51, 53, 55, 58, 62, 63, 66, 68,
Schmiedel, P.W. 71,106 69,77,78,81-84,86,90,92,107-
Schmitt,R. 165 109, 226
Schnackenburg, R. 38,206 Sterling, G.E. 141
Schneemelcher, W. 84 Stern, M. 132, 165
Schramm,T. 199 Stine,P.C. 94
Schulz,S. 51,61 Stoker, W.D. 84
Schurer, E. 140, 144, 146, 148, 153, 154, Stoldt,H.-H. 87
168, 170, 189 Stonehouse, N.B. 68
Schurmann, H. 50, 118 Strange, J.F. 140,174
Schiissler Fiorenza, E. 54 Strauss, D.F. 31, 34, 35, 60, 75, 173
Schwabe, M. 173 Strecker,G. 51,199
Schwarz,G. 94,151 Streeter, B.H. 83, 84, 205
Schwarz,H. 24,30,56,62 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 91
Schweitzer, A. 18-20, 31, 33, 36-40, 45, Stuhlmacher, P. 54, 62, 66, 84
52, 60, 91 Styler,G.M. 84
Schweizer,E. 50,55,61,105 Such,W.A. 221
Schwyzer,E. 135 Sundwall,J. 231
Scott, B.B. 128 Sutton, R.F., Jr 227
Sebeok,T. 211 Swete, H.B. 129, 150, 223
Segal, M.H. 131
Segal, P. 168 Taber,C.R. 94
Selby, G.R. 153, 166 Tarn,W. 136
Seliger,H.W. 133 Taylor, N.H. 232
Sevenster, J.N. 138, 140, 149, 168, 170, Taylor, V. 40,41, 61, 64, 77, 146, 151,
173, 176, 177 153, 206, 223
Sevrin, J.-M. 85,152, 165 Tcherikover, V. 137, 138, 153
Sharp, D. 134 Telford,W.R. 30,53,183
Sherwin-White, S. 135, 149 Tenney, M.C. 166
Short, M.H. 211 Teodorsson, S.-T. 137
Siegert,F. 210 Thackeray, H.St.J. 130, 170
Silva,M. 131,134,139,165 Theissen, G. 21, 23, 30, 40,47, 53, 54,
Sloan, R.B. 78 58, 62, 63, 67, 70, 75, 76, 79-82, 86,
89, 103, 104, 113-23, 128, 142, 151, Watt,J.M. 134,138,158,175,177

221 Weaver, W.P. 36
Thomson, G. 135 Weinreich, U. 139
Thumb, A. 129,135,136 Weiss, B. 33,60
Tombs, D. 67,214 Weiss, J. 37-39,60
Torrey,C.C. 91,93,188 Weiss, Z. 173
Tov,E. 138 Welles, C.B. 136
Travis, S.H. 66 Wellhausen, J. 64,92,93
Trenker, S. 224 Wenham, D. 52, 58, 63, 88, 89, 107, 108,
Treu,K. 165 205,218,234
Trivedi,H. 95 West, ML. 193
Trocme,E. 30,40,51,61,86 Westcott, B.F. 89, 193
Tuckett, C.M. 66, 69, 84, 87, 149, 206 Westerholm, S. 77
Turner, C.H. 222,230,231 Wexler,P. 138
Turner, G.W. 211 Wiefel,W. 155
Turner, H.W.E. 63,73,79 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. 134
Turner, M. 74,215 Wilcox,M. 93,160,188
Turner, N. 166 Willis, W. 37
Winer, G.B. 130
Urman,D. 153 Winter, D. 21, 23, 30,40, 47, 53, 58, 63,
70,75,76,81,82,86,103,104,
Vaganay, L. 193 113-15,117-21,128,142
Vago,R.M. 133 Winton,A.P. 99,110
Van Segbroeck, F. 149, 206, 223 Wise,M.O. 132,137,171,188
Vassiliadis, P. 84,228 Witherington, B. 30, 53, 55, 62
Vaux,R.de 140 Wodak, R. 213
Venuti,L. 95 Wood,H.G. 30,46,61
Vergote,J. 136 Woodbridge, J.D. 68
Verheyden,J. 149,206 Wrede, W. 37, 38, 60, 64, 68
Vermes, G. 51, 55, 61, 140, 189 Wright, CJ. 42
Via,D.O.,Jr 184 Wright, N.T. 18,24,28,29,51-57,62,
Vledder, E.-J. 147,162 66,111
Voelz,J.W. 165
V6gtle,A. 128 Yardeni, A. 141
Vorster, W.S. 128, 165, 169, 228 Young, DJ. 215
Yule,G. 211
Waard, J. de 94
Wacholder, B.Z. 140, 146 Zahrnt,H. 50,61,73
Walker, W.O. 40,42, 48, 63, 69, 73, 78, Zeitlin, I.M. 54,62
81,83,86,92,107,109 Zerwick,M. 231
Wansbrough, H. 88, 108 Zevit,Z. 132
Wardhaugh, R. 134 Zimmermann, H. 66, 68, 93
Watson, D.F. 221 Zlateva,P. 95
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
60 Stanley E. Porter (ed.), The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays
61 John Christopher Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Com-
munity
62 Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study
63 James S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the
Governing of their Land, 100 BC-AD 70
64 Henry Wansborough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition
65 Douglas A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26
66 Nicholas Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and
Authority in Earliest Christianity
67 F. Scott Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and
Relations
68 Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif
in Matthean Redaction
69 Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel
70 J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in
Revelation 20
71 Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus
12 Steven M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts
73 Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to
the Hebrews
74 Edwin K. Broadhead, Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in
the Gospel of Mark
75 John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth
76 Robert W. Wall and Eugene E. Lemcio (eds.), The New Testament as Canon:
A Reader in Canonical Criticism
77 Roman Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity
78 L. Gregory Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians
79 Elaine Charette, The Theme of Recompense in Matthew's Gospel
80 Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Lin-
guistics: Open Questions in Current Research
81 In-Gyu Hong, The Law in Galatians
82 Barry W. Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4
83 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel
84 Martinus C. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New
Testament Christology in Honour ofMarinus de Jonge
85 William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the
Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1
86 Bradley H. McLean (ed.), Origins and Method—Towards a New Under-
standing of Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd
87 Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Min-
istry in the Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin
88 Mark Coleridge, The Birth of the Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology
in Luke 1-2
89 Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Back-
ground of John's Prologue
90 Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Tes-
tament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference
91 Janice Capel Anderson, Matthew's Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and
Over Again
92 Eric Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew
93 Jan Fekkes III, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation:
Visionary Antecedents and their Development
94 Charles A. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel
95 Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Inter-
play of Form and Meaning
96 Richard E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at
Colossae
97 Edwin K. Broadhead, Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form and Function
in Mark 14-16
98 Carol J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessa-
lonians 2.14-16
99 Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God
100 Thomas E. Schmidt and Moises Silva (eds.), To Tell the Mystery: Essays on
New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry
101 Jeffrey A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Let-
ter Closings
102 Joel F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major
Figures in Mark's Gospel
103 Warren Carter, Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20
104 Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scrip-
tures of Israel
105 W.P. Stephens (ed.), The Bible, the Reformation and the Church: Essays in
Honour of James Atkinson
106 Jon A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts
107 Elizabeth Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evan-
gelist
108 L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson (eds.), Gospel in Paul: Studies on
Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker
109 Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight (eds.), The New Literary
Criticism and the New Testament
110 Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its
Fulfillment in Lukan Christology
111 Ian H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters
112 Jeffrey B. Gibson, The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity
113 Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other
Topics in Biblical Greek
114 Lauri Thuren, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian
Paraenesis
115 Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation
116 C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays
117 Kenneth G.C. Newport, The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23
118 Troy W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response
to a Cynic Critique
119 David Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel
120 Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament
Study
121 Todd C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an
Ancient Christian Letter
122 A.D.A. Moses, Matthew's Transfiguration Story in Jewish-Christian Contro-
versy
123 David Lertis Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and
Interpretation
124 David Mark Ball, 'I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background
and Theological Implications
125 Robert Gordon Maccini, Her Testimony is True: Women as Witnesses
According to John
126 B. Hudson Mclean, The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and
Pauline Soteriology
127 R. Barry Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul's Interpreters and
the Rhetoric of Criticism
128 Timothy Dwyer, The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark
129 Carl Judson Davis, The Names and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes,
New Testament Christology
130 Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul's
Imprisonments
131 Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and
Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference
132 J. Nelson Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John's Apocalypse
133 Mark S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New
Paradigm
134 Larry J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the
New Testament World
135 Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle ofJude
136 Jeffrey T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric
in the Debate over Lierary Integrity
137 Roman Garrison, The Graeco-Roman Context of Early Christian Literature
138 Kent D. Clarke, Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies'
Greek New Testament
139 Yong-Eui Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew's Gospel
140 Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld, Put on the Armour of God: The Divine Warrior
from Isaiah to Ephesians
141 Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradi-
tion in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts
142 Scott Cunningham, 'Through Many Tribulations': The Theology of Persecu-
tion in Luke-Acts
143 Raymond Pickett, The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death
of Jesus
144 S. John Roth, The Blind, the Lame and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-
Acts
145 Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John
146 Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), The Rhetorical Analysis of
Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference
147 Kim Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus According to L
148 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation
of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals
149 J. Dorcas Gordon, Sister or Wife?: 1 Corinthians 7 and Cultural Anthro-
pology
150 J. Daryl Charles, Virtue amidst Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1.5-7
151 Derek Tovey, Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel
152 Evert-Jan Vledder, Conflict in the Miracle Stories: A Socio-Exegetical Study
of Matthew 8 and 9
153 Christopher Rowland and Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (eds.), Understanding,
Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton
154 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Function of Scripture in
Early Jewish and Christian Tradition
155 Kyoung-Jin Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke's Theology
156 I.A.H. Combes, The Metaphor of Slavery in the Writings of the Early Church:
From the New Testament to the Begining of the Fifth Century
158 Jey. J. Kanagaraj, 'Mysticism' in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its
Background
159 Brenda Deen Schildgen, Crisis and Continuity: Time in the Gospel of Mark
160 Johan Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology
161 Helen C. Orchard, Courting Betrayal: Jesus as Victim in the Gospel of John
162 Jeffrey T. Tucker, Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the
Gospel of Luke
163 John A. Darr, Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characteri-
zation
164 Bas M.F. Van lersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary
165 Alison Jasper, The Shining Garment of the Text: Gendered Readings of
John's Prologue
166 O.K. Beale, John's Use of the Old Testament in Revelation
167 Gary Yamasaki, John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Crit-
icism of Matthew's Narrative
168 Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament:
Critical Junctures
169 Derek Newton, Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth
170 Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament: Approaches and Results
111 Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (eds.), Baptism, the New Testament
and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of
R.E.O. White
172 Casey Wayne Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles
ofOrality on the Literary Structure of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians
173 Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible: Problems
and Prospects
174 J.D.H. Amador, Academic Constraints in Rhetorical Criticism of the New
Testament: An Introduction to a Rhetoric of Power
175 Edwin K. Broadhead, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of
Mark
176 Alex T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline
Legacy
177 Brian Dodd, Paul's Paradigmatic T: Personal Examples as Literary Strategy
178 Thomas B. Slater, Christ and Community: A Socio-Historical Study of the
Christology of Revelation
179 Alison M. Jack, Texts Reading Texts, Sacred and Secular: Two Postmodern
Perspectives
180 Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds.), The Rhetorical Interpretation
of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference
181 Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story: (Reinterpreting the Exodus Tra-
dition
182 Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen (eds.), New Readings in John: Liter-
ary and Theological Perspectives. Essays from the Scandinavian Con-
ference on the Fourth Gospel in Arhus 1997
183 Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neigh-
bours
184 David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni (eds.), Characterization in the Gospels:
Reconceiving Narrative Criticism
185 David Lee, Luke's Stories of Jesus: Theological Reading of Gospel Narrative
and the Legacy of Hans Frei
186 Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (eds.), Resurrection
187 David A. Holgate, A Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness: The Prodigal Son
in Graeco-Roman Perspective
188 Jerry L. Sumney, 'Servants of Satan', 'False Brothers' and Other Opponents
of Paul: A Study of those Opposed in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus
189 Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Hon-
our ofJ.L. North
190 John M. Court, The Book of Revelation and the Johannine Apocalyptic Tra-
dition
191 Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research.
Previous Discussion and New Proposals

Stanley E. Porter - Criteria For Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research - Previous Discussion and New Proposals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stanley E. Porter - Criteria For Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research - Previous Discussion and New Proposals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stanley E. Porter - Criteria For Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research - Previous Discussion and New Proposals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What are the main parts of the book?

What are the main parts of the book?

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Sheffield Academic Press

Previous Discussion and New Proposals

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Copyright © 2000 Sheffield Academic Press

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available

ISBN 1 84127 089 X

1. Timeline of the Quest for the Historical Jesus 60

2. The Rise of the Criteria and the Development of Form and

3. Mt. 15.21-28 = Mk 7.25-30 196

4. Mt. 22.16-22 = Mk 12.13-17 = Lk. 20.20-26 198

5. Mt. 16.13-20 = Mk 8.27-30 = Lk. 9.18-21 201

6. Mt. 27.11-14 = Mk 15.2-5 = Lk. 23.2-4 = Jn 18.29-38 203

CSR Christian Scholar's Review

KD Kerygma und Dogma

TRu Theologische Rundschau

The Purpose and Approach of this Study

1. A very useful bibliography is to be found in C.A. Evans, Life of Jesus Re-

treated exhaustively the several passages to which these criteria might

studies, and is seen as more of a descriptive nay-sayer, who brought the

4. It is true that Schweitzer, who held earned doctorates in theology, philoso-

6. Meier, Marginal Jew, I, pp. 167-95; G. Theissen, 'Historical Scepticism and

As a result of the tracing of this historical background into the quests

discussion of Aramaic as a language of Jesus, but by attempting to factor

8. My colleague, Matthew Brook O'Donnell, and I have written The Implica-

as by appearing to utilize data that are not accessible or recognized by

every schoolchild has a mastery of a great deal of technical vocabulary regarding

tinue historical-Jesus research in virtually the same mode and vein as

THE 'THIRD QUEST' FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS

1. S. Neill and T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986

pline. However, Wright's and others' use of such terminology, as well

5. Throughout this volume, I am deeply indebted to the useful bibliography of

to show how it is that historical-Jesus research has progressed in order

ticity. In the course of my research, I have arrived at what appears to

2. The Quest for the Historical Jesus

Sons, 1934; London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935]).

This is even though these scholars remained optimistic about writing

gave his reading of Jesus as a somewhat confused visionary, a figure

17. W. Bousset, Jesus (Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke, 1904; 3rd edn, Tubingen:

continued to have importance for contemporary New Testament schol-

teacher, but also as a healer and exorcist, not as a messianic claimant.26

like the characterize^.29 It is perhaps worth noting that, in many ways,

29. Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, esp. pp. 396-401.

than is often apparently realized and certainly as often depicted.32 Rather

32. See Trocme, Jesus and his Contemporaries, pp. 1-2.

at play and often devoted considerable attention to discussing them

regarding one's ability to discover the original teaching or facts re-

direction in his own characterization. He and others also argued for an

51. E. Kasemann, 'Sackgassen im Streit um den historischen Jesus', in idem,

In the light of my above historical survey of Jesus research in the first

(JSNTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 151-70.

there have been other particularly noteworthy contributions as well.

describes four distinguishing features of this 'third quest' in relation to