Thomas Tops, «Whose Truth? A Reader-Oriented Study of the Johannine Pilate and John 18,38a», Vol. 97 (2016) 395-420
This contribution investigates the role of the reader in character studies of the Johannine Pilate. It contends that every characterization of Pilate is determined by narrative gaps, because they give occasion for different ways of interpreting Pilate’s words and deeds. The potential meaning of the text is always actualized by our act of interpretation. This revelatory dimension of the text is valuable in itself, and therefore should be considered as a secondary criterion for evaluating interpretations of the Johannine Pilate. In the second part of this contribution, we illustrate how this can be done for Pilate’s question of truth.
WHoSe TRUTH? A ReADeR-oRIeNTeD STUDy 417
who says, “Jesus is king”: “Pilate insists on writing it for the Jews, but
they seek to disown it by having it written instead, ‘He said, ’” 75. Hence, Heath formulates the question: “Is it ulti-
mately what God says, perhaps through Scripture (John 12,13-16)?” 76.
Therefore, while Heath correctly states that su. le,geij o[ti basileu,j
eivmi evgw, implies that Jesus puts these words in Pilate’s mouth without
affirming or denying them, it ultimately remains unclear who it is that
calls Jesus king. No one appropriates these words. They all seem eager
to disown them. Nonetheless, it is written in Hebrew, latin, and Greek
for all the world to see (19,20). The double use of the perfect tense in
Pilate’s answer to the Jewish protest at the titulus “king of the Jews”
in o] ge,grafa( ge,grafa (19,22) points out that Pilate has written it with
a certain finality, and that it cannot be undone. It is thus not wrong of
Heath to ask whether it is God who reveals through the text that Jesus
is king. Regardless of the introduction with an indirect reason, this sug-
gests that the revelatory force of basileu,j eivmi evgw, is not any less than
that of the direct evgw, eivmi-sayings, although this might seem so at first
sight. We can even say that su. le,geij o[ti basileu,j eivmi evgw, presupposes
the metaphorical network of the direct evgw, eivmi-sayings, and that the
goal of these sayings is to elucidate and reveal the meaning of Jesus’
kingship. The fact that Jesus states in 18,36 that in his kingdom his ser-
vants do not fight for him evokes the meaning of the evgw, eivmi o` poimh.n
o` kalo,j-saying (10,11.14), because it is the shepherd who gives up his
life for his sheep (10,11). Unlike the worldly king, Jesus does not have
any servants who give up their lives for him, but it is Jesus himself
who gives up his life for his servants, for it is the lord who serves and
washes the feet of the servants (13,1-20). As Heath remarks, evgw, eivmi
o` poimh.n o` kalo,j has “sometimes been interpreted as an image of Jesus’
own royalty, or at least of his rule”, and “[s]hepherd imagery was com-
mon for many kinds of rulers in antiquity, both inside and outside bib-
lical literature, although no biblical kings except David are portrayed
in this way” 77. Heath also refers to “ezekiel’s prophecy about God’s
promised good shepherd, especially in the emphasis on the goodness
of the shepherd and the ambiguity about whether it is God himself or
a human king or both (ezek 34,1-31; cf. John 10,1-18)” 78. Further-
more, Heath adds to this that, although “Jesus’ metaphorical ‘I am the
75
HeATH, “you Say”, 245.
76
HeATH, “you Say”, 245.
77
HeATH, “you Say”, 242.
78
HeATH, “you Say”, 242.
FOLLOW US