Adequate proof for all three parts of this assertion [A. Neubauer’s as to the use of Aramaic in parts of Palestine] is awanting.
F. Blass ... characterizes as Aramaisms idioms which in some cases are equally good Hebraisms, and in others are pure Hebraisms and not Aramaisms at all.
P. W. Schmiedel ... does not succeed in reaching any really tenable separation of Aramaisms and Hebraisms.
Resch entirely abandons the region of what is linguistically admissible.... And the statement of the same writer that this ... “belongs very specially to the epic style of narration in the Old Testament” is incomprehensible.
The idioms discussed above ... show at once the incorrectness of Schmiedel’s contention that the narrative style of the Gospels and the Acts is the best witness of the Greek that was spoken among the Jews. The fact is that the narrative sections of the Synoptists have more Hebrew features than the discourses of Jesus communicated by them.
Such a book as Wünsche’s Neue Beiträge, by reason of quite superficial and inaccurate assertions and faulty translations, must even be characterized as directly misleading and confusing.
The want of due precaution in the use made of [the Jerusalem Targums of the Pentateuch] by J. T. Marshall is one of the things which were bound to render his efforts to reproduce the “Aramaic Gospel” a failure.
Harnack supposes it to be an ancient Jewish conception that “everything of genuine value which successively appears upon earth has its existence in heaven—i.e., it exists with God—meaning in the cognition of God, and therefore really.” But this idea must be pronounced thoroughly un-Jewish, at all events un-Palestinian, although the medieval Kabbala certainly harbours notions of this sort.
Holtzmann ... thereby evinces merely his own ignorance of Jewish legal processes.
Especially must his [R. H. Charles’s] attempts at retranslation [of the Assumptio Mosis] be pronounced almost throughout a failure.