An Evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek Language Criteria... 51 repeated in vv. 37-41. We can speculate that Jesus must have thought that the people who are closest to him are the only ones who would truly understand his inmost pain, or at least, they are the ones with whom he would have been comfortable to share it. This is probably evident in his use of the Aramaic vocative αββα at v. 3671. By only being able to tell his disciples to stay at Place 1, and then expressing his deep sorrow to the Three at Place 2, it is only to the Father at Place 3 that he can honestly say that he wanted his sorrow be taken away (see Appendix 1). The dra- matic change of participants, the highly intimate (cf. the emphatic πατήρ μου in Matt 26,39) and superior-subordinate relationship72 between the Father and Jesus, as well as the high information and affective content of Jesus’ words here are noticeable. Jesus exemplifies a convergence behavior and a positive identity, when he steadfastly yields to the Father (οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω) despite the imminent suffering he is about to face. This is an instance where code-switching can happen. There are two possibilities. Jesus could have spoken in Greek by virtue of the change of participants from the Three to the Father. However, the highly intimate interaction with the Father (but notice a superior-subordinate relation as well) and strong affective content of Jesus’ words seem to be the most salient factor and would suggest that Aramaic was spoken, especially since the native tongue is used in affective situations typically. Moreover, the transition at vv. 42 and 43 with the arrival of Judas and the crowd points more plausibly to Aramaic as the language he used in his conversation with the disciples, as well as the Father. This being the case, we may deduce that Aramaic was the “internal” language between Jesus and his disciples. b) Mark 14,43-52 — Jesus’ Betrayal and Arrest The sudden arrival of Judas with the crowd is a strong indication that an immediate situational code-switching should have happened. Although the social setting probably remained at Place 2, where Jesus found his slumbering disciples for the third time, Jesus’ audience shifted from his private disciples to the public crowd. Moreover, after the pronouncement of his betrayal, the topic of conversation also changed from his personal 71 The meaning, as well as the function of this Aramaic word here is disputed. As such, there are numerous scholarly opinions as to whether this word should still be transliterated here if it simply means “father”. Nevertheless, the vocative form here and Paul’s mention of the word in Rom 8:15-16 is perhaps distinctive and may suggest that Jesus’ style of address to his father has a deep imprint among his contemporaries. For a good discussion of the various positions on this issue, see C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (Word Biblical Commentary 34b; Nashville 2001) 412-13. 72 The word αββα “combines aspects of supernatural authority and care for his people”. See Louw and Nida, Lexicon, I, 139.