Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When Jesus is brought before Pilate, Pilate wants to know if Jesus is a King. When Jesus admits as such, Pilate asks, "What is truth?"

Does Pilate actually believe Jesus, or is he simply being dismissive of Jesus' "naivite" in assuming there is such a thing as truth?

I'd like answers that pull from the tradition of mainstream Christian factions and scripture.

share|improve this question

6 Answers 6

up vote 6 down vote accepted

History records that Pilate was not the most even tempered of men. Considering this, I find that it is quite probable that the words would have been intended more as mockery than anything else.

Traditions related to Pilate are a good deal more vague. While the apocryphal "Passion (or Gospel) according to St. Peter" exonerates him, the majority of writings which come from the post-apostolic writers suggest that the writings of Philo may very well be correct as to the nature of his character.

Of course, there is no way to know, but it seems far more probable that he was not acting as Christ's friend in that conversation.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm inclined to agree that "What is truth?" was intended as mockery, but this mockery may have been favorable to Christ. Pilate seems to be expressing the opinion that Christ is not to be taken seriously, but that's a good thing when the charge against Christ is claiming to be the king of the Jews. From Pilate's point of view, a "king" who, at his trial, philosophises about "truth" is no threat to Roman rule and can safely be acquitted. –  Andreas Blass Nov 16 '13 at 1:58

Scripture doesn't explain what Pilate was thinking when he said "What is truth." I know that Pilate has always been portrayed by Catholic moral theologians as the archetype of the man who wants to please everyone, of the pusillanimous man who doesn't have the courage to take a tough stand because of the personal costs.

Perhaps the best dramatization of this "want to have it both ways, woe is me, I can't make up my mind" concept is from the movie The Passion of the Christ: http://youtu.be/r_tOgEIup_s

It is ironic that Pilate would address the question "what is truth?" while looking Truth itself right in the eye.

share|improve this answer

You are asking this from the perspective of a Christian. Now step back, and consider it from the perspective of the observer, here re-phrased a bit:

  • (19) the religious authorities ask some questions
  • (20-21) the defendant refuses to answer them
  • (23) the defendant retorts "charges or I walk"
  • (24) the defendant is sent to the high religious authority; what was discussed is not recorded, but presumably relates very much to the charges
  • (28) the defendant is sent in front of a judge
  • (33) the judge asks a question, that relates to why is he is being handed over
  • (34) the defendant does not answer the question
  • (35) the judge re-asks about the nature of the incident
  • (36) the defendant answers, saying something which could very well be treated as incoherent or delusional, but which seems to answer an indirect affirmative to the original question
  • (37) the judge, exasperated, exclaims that the original question finally has some kind of half answer
  • (37) the defendant claims this exasperated outcry as an affirmation (actually, it was simply a restatement of the defendants words in (36), where it is the defendant who says this)
  • (37) the defendant claims to be about truth, and claim everyone in support of truth supports him (I'm reminded here of "...available in all good book stores", and "all decent people agree..." - as a device, it makes it sound like anyone who simply disagrees with him disagrees with "truth", but... this is not a reasonable claim for any person; and remember he is judged and tried as human)
  • [key point] (38) the judge, tiring of the whole thing, with little "truth" coming from those who sent the defendant, and the defendant being uncooperative while setting logic traps about "truth", snarkily retorts that the "truth" here isn't worth knowing
  • (38) to his credit, the judge remarks there is no clear case to answer, and suggests (within the rules available) to acquit
share|improve this answer

Hard to believe folks here are ignoring the contribution of the other Gospel writers who provide more threads to this cloth. Pilate was not in the dark about Jesus and knew of His truth claims as well as what had been reported about Him. It seems unreasonable to restrict hos comments to so narrow an interpretation ("What is THE truth?") when the article is absent and the issue at hand is much wider. He was adept in his acquisition of the throne and just as adept in defending it (as being under the watchful eye of Tiberius in Rome for his assault on the Jews earlier). Truth as a category did not matter to him. He knew it did not matter to Jesus' accusers, either...the presumed guardians of Truth.

share|improve this answer
2  
I'm not arguing the validity of what you say, but this would be a much better answer if you had supporting references. As it is, it reads like a personal understanding rather than an established teaching. See What makes a good supported answer? and How we are different than other sites? I bet you could find such references fairly easily, an I'd encourage you to do so and help by sharing your knowledge! –  David Stratton Nov 16 '13 at 3:35

I upvoted @Marc Gravell -- interesting and good answer.

I've understood this retort to be a simple, default attitude which is still the norm today:

"What is truth?" as though it were an abstract concept open to interpretation. Interestingly the world considers God's word the same way.

share|improve this answer

I've been considering this conversation, since watching the movie "Hellbound?" -- After reading the scripture and many commentaries, I've come to the conclusion that Pilate was referring to what Jesus answered about Truth... that Truth was "true" for those who were "from" the Truth. What does it mean to be "from" the Truth? THAT is what I think Pilate was referring to... the idea that Truth in fact, in his own experience, depended upon what a person did or did not accept as the Truth, period.

Therefore, in Pilate's view, in this life, Truth is what you think is True, and there is not a reliable way to know what is Truly True - which "Truth" corresponds to reality.

Truth may be an objective thing - there can only be one Truth, ultimately. (I think...LOL) But in the context of spiritual matters, such as what Jesus taught, versus the Jews, versus Pagans, there is no way to objectively conclude what is Truth. It is a subjective decision... we all decide to be "from" one Truth or another.

share|improve this answer
    
This answer would be a lot better if you could add references showing that this is a common understanding, and who teaches/believes it. On this site, we're not looking for personal interpretation, but rather focusing on what various Christian groups teach. See How we are different than other sites? and What makes a good supported answer? –  David Stratton Apr 21 at 15:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.