Keywords: freedom, Pontius Pilate, dialogue, truth, patristic exegesis, modern exegesis
Abstract:
The article analyses, in a comparative manner, Modern and Patristic exegeses of the last part of the conversation between Jesus and the Roman Governor Pilate (John: 19, 10-12). In short: the Modern exegesis has a juridical perspective over the dialogue (of Jesus transforming Himself into an accuser that imparts condemnations over His judges). On the contrary, Patristic exegesis considers that Jesus tries to help Pilate with His answer, by freeing him from the fear and unrest that had taken hold of him. The article is structured as following: after a brief Introduction, the second chapter analyses Textual and Translational Issues. This chapter presents how the differing exegetical choices (Juridical-exegesis for the Protestant and Catholic tradition vs. Personalist-exegesis for the Orthodox traditions) are influencing the translation of this passage. The third chapter (Modern Exegesis) presents the Modern academic view on the text, with several examples. The fourth chapter gives a few exegetical reasons of why the juridical perspective on the dialogue is implausible in the context of the Fourth Gospel and of Jesus’ discourse in general. The fifth chapter presents a few additional possible ways of interpreting the dialogue besides the canonical Patristic and Modern views. The sixth chapter (Patristic Exegesis) presents the view of the Hoy Fathers with a few examples, while the last chapter concludes and gives an analysis of the quality of the Truth to make people free, but also of the responsibility of the people to remain inside this Freedom.
Pages: 55-68