What did Pilate mean by asking “What is Truth?”

Question

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.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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