An Evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek Language Criteria... 53 about the same topic (i.e., his messiahship) in two different ways and codes depending on his audience and the social setting. Notice his third and most explicit pronouncement as the Son of Man at v. 62 before an even larger crowd and in a more formal setting (cf. his short answer at 15,2 when Pilate asked if he was the king of the Jews; not the Messiah). Here we may deduce that Greek was the language used by Jesus in a more “public” setting in order accommodate to his listeners. c) Mark 14,53-65 — Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin From Gethsemane, Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin assembly, which is definitely a formal social setting being the highest court of justice in Jesus’ time. In addition to all the people who went along with Jesus, the Jewish leaders and some false witnesses were present. The topic in focus was Jesus’ messiahship, and the agenda of the Sanhedrin was to coerce admission on Jesus’ part. Yet despite numerous attempts by false witnesses and the high priest’s questions, Jesus refused to reply (v. 61). This silence on Jesus’ part is a “divergence” behavior. Perhaps portray- ing a positive identity was the least of all things that Jesus would have intended before the high priest. Simply put, he refused to accommodate the high priest’s contemptuous questions. Eventually, however, Jesus said ἐγώ εἰμί and spelled out his true identity before the people in the San- hedrin assembly, perhaps in fulfillment of the Scriptures (v. 49) and in submission to the Father (v. 36). Based on these social factors, especially the social setting, it is very likely that Jesus would have continued using Greek before the Sanhedrin. Perhaps it is also arguably evident that Jesus’ triple pronouncements of his social (and true) identity (vv. 41, 49, 62; cf. 15,2) serve as a thematic feature that links these three episodes together. Was Jesus self-conscious that he was the Messiah78? It is plausible to think that he was based on these episodes79. In these three episodes, Jesus had not kept this identity in secret either to his own disciples nor to the crowd and the Sanhedrin 78 Historical Jesus studies in recent years have seen a revival of discussions on Jesus’ messianic consciousness, and there has been a notable increase of scholars who are willing to attribute messianic consciousness to the historical Jesus. See Powell, ““Things That Mat- ter””, 126. For those who have argued for a messianic consciousness on Jesus’ part, see M. Hengel ‒ A.M. Schwemer, Jesus und Das Judentum (Tübingen 2007); R. Leivestad, Jesus in His Own Perspective: An Examination of His Sayings, Actions, and Eschatological Titles (Minneapolis 1987); M. Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (New York 2004); N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London 1996). 79 For a discussion of some of the relevant issues here, see W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh 1991) II, 594-601; the essays in S.E. Porter, The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids 2007) 117-230.