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.
418 THoMAS ToPS
good shepherd’ is a much less overtly political image than ‘I am a king’
would be”, this saying does have implications for “society, as the good
shepherd will unite a single flock (John 10,16)” 79. It is thus clear that
su. le,geij o[ti basileu,j eivmi evgw, refers back to evgw, eivmi o` poimh.n o`
kalo,j. And if it refers back to one of the evgw, eivmi-sayings, it also refers
to all the others, because they are highly related to each other, and share
in connotation. Consequently, we have to conclude that Heath’s idea
that su. le,geij o[ti basileu,j eivmi evgw, evokes the meaning of all the other
evgw, eivmi-sayings is not so far-fetched after all.
We can conclude that Heath’s interpretation of 18,38a supplies
what we are looking for. In Heath’s view, 18,38a triggers the reader to
participate in the revelatory process of the gospel event. It does this by
making him/her aware of the act of interpretation that is necessary for
revelation to take place. We are not saying that Heath’s interpretation
is the only possible one. Such a claim is not viable with the principles
of hermeneutics. That these principles are legitimate is shown by the
first part of this article. In line with these principles, we have shown in
the second part of this article that Heath’s interpretation is the richest
interpretation of 18,38a that we have discussed, although it is not the
only possible interpretation.
Conclusion
We have to conclude that, from a narrative point of view, it is not
easy to determine which characterization of Pilate is the correct one,
that he is aggressive or reluctant. We have illustrated that there are two
reasons for this. The first one is the presence of narrative gaps. These
gaps open up different possibilities for characterizing Pilate. The sec-
ond reason is that every characterization of Pilate is interrelated with
an interpretation of his deeds and words. And because there are differ-
ent ways to interpret these, different characterizations of Pilate are in-
terrelated with them.
This insight has led us to embrace the fact that the potential mean-
ing of a text is always actualized by our act of interpretation. We have
called this the revelatory dimension of literary texts. From this view
point, we have formulated a second criterion for the interpretation of
literary texts. every interpretation of these texts does not only have to
be exegetically correct, but also has to be able to reveal this revelatory
dimension of the text. This secondary criterion has led us to a division
79
HeATH, “you Say”, 242.