The late John O'Neill repeatedly argued that a Jewish Law about claiming to be the Messiah lay at the root of the charge against Jesus. This demanded that Jesus never speak of himself as Messiah. O'Neill elaborated an elaborate series of arguments to show that Jesus maintained silence about his status. This paper summarises and analyses O'Neill's various writings and suggests that this thesis, as it stands, that Jesus was condemned for breaking a law about claiming to be the Messiah does not hold up. An examination of some Philonic evidence, however, yields traces of a legal charge based on self testimony -which might form the basis of a charge against Jesus. The charge focuses on the nature rather than substance of the claim, as O'Neill assetted, and gains some support from recent research on identity formation.