John 18 Quid est veritas? - Who was right: Pilate or Jesus?

by Pole 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • hybridous
    hybridous

    Perhaps oversimplified...but,

    I believe that Pilate was indicating to Jesus that any 'truth' that Jesus offered could be challenged or refuted. Pilate was basically denying that there are any concrete, irrefutable truths, or facts, if you prefer.

    I could state that the sky is blue, but if someone is disposed to argument, they could come up with a variety of reasons explaining why the sky is not blue. It all comes down to a basis of diaglogue. If there is no area of agreement on anything, no meaningful dialogue or exchange could occur.

    Basically, I take from it that Pilate was telling Jesus that there was nothing meaningful he could say to him, because or a difference in assumptions about the nature of reality.

  • euripides
    euripides

    frankiespeakin.. you say

    The question was never answered. Typical evengelical style if you ask me (ie.. Those who love the lord look for the smallest opening to give a witness even in vague answers to questions).

    I suspect the question was never answered because it was a rhetorical question. And hybridous is correct, the purpose of it is presumptively to demonstrate that Pilate and Jesus are not even on the same page, let alone that they happen to be in the same room.

    When I was a child this response put in the mouth of Pilate struck a very responsive chord. In essence it says, "what on earth are you talking about?" Did anyone see the way the line was delivered in Latin in Gibson's Passion? I thought, this is the only line I've read in this story that makes any sense? It's not just a relativist question...Jesus is the one playing fast and loose with semantics in the word 'truth.' JWs also use this as the high-water mark of their defense of anti-intellectualism: How Dare Haughty Pilate talk to the Son of God like that! To me, it's an honest question, and as you point out, one that speaks to feelings. It's quite in keeping with John's characterizations also to have Jesus speaking elliptically and Pilate come across as out of the loop and forgivable, sinless compared to the "Jews."

    The most difficult element of this Gospel to me is for the lines delivered by the "other side" to be the ones I agree with the most, like cheering when the serpent of Genesis or Job's comforters speak.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    It is a typical literary device of the Fourth Gospel to have some of its deepest and most controversial points made, unwittingly or candidly, and especially in interrogative form, by marginal or even hostile characters -- e.g. 4:12,29; 7:25ff,31,35f,41f; 8:22; 10:31ff; 11:37,49f; 12:34; 16:18; 19:9.

    As to the Johannine christology expressed in such formulas as "I am the truth", I think the big question is: "who's speaking?" Whether the answer is "the Word", "the Son", "a god" or whatever it is absolutely clear than John's Jesus is no mere man. It is intended to be a mythological, not historical character.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Nark,

    Since the john's gospel is heavily gnostic,, it seem the idea that jesus being the truth,,would be a mysterious ever present jesus,, jesus is god,,he is divine,,he's the truth. He's everything he's the way,,the truth,,the life. He all you need and he is everywhere,,he is the begining. After all,, the gospels are really a sales pitch for beleif in jesus,,a little mystery makes him more apealing.

  • Pole
    Pole

    euripides,

    It's not just a relativist question...Jesus is the one playing fast and loose with semantics in the word 'truth.'


    LOL. That's exactly my impression as I see it now. The writer of the gospel depicts Jesus as the holder of divine truths. Now how exactly do you go about presenting such a character? Mysticism and esoteric, polysemous understatements are useful and perhaps the only available techniques of achieving this goal.

    Pole

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit