How can John tell the story of the Roman trial of Jesus in such a way that Pilate delivers him over for execution without Jesus appearing criminal or vanquished? That is the rhetorical problem of the Fourth Gospel. To solve this problem, John uses implicit commentary through comparative characterization, including narrative structure, intratextuality, and irony. He depicts Pilate as earthbound (“from here”), political, obtuse, perturbed, and ineffectual, whereas Jesus is transcendent (“from above”), spiritual, piercing, composed, and in control.
This paper unveils the “discontinuous dialogues” of Pilate and Jesus in John 18:33-38a and 19:9-11, showing how they contribute to the comparative characterizations and the solution of the rhetorical problem. A. D. Nuttall identifies discontinuous dialogue in John’s trial scenes in his 1980 book Overheard by God: Fiction and Prayer in Herbert, Milton, Dante and St John. However, subsequent Johannine scholars either pass over his insight as insignificant, appeal to it for only limited support of their interpretation, or misapply it. This may be because Nuttall’s treatment is incomplete: he only comments on two or three discontinuities in 18:33-38a and does not treat 19:9-11 at all. This paper shows that there is more discontinuity in the first passage than he identifies and that the latter passage uses the same structural technique with culminating rhetorical effect. In other words, the discontinuities of the dialogues are more thoroughgoing than Nuttall or subsequent scholars have recognized.
Tables in this paper chart out and describe the several discontinuous “moves” of Jesus’s responses to Pilate’s eight questions. Jesus counters with a challenging question, refuses to answer, silently embodies the answer, and answers previous questions in discontinuous and spiritually transcendent ways that Pilate fails to grasp. Thus, Jesus the defendant gains the upper hand and baffles Pilate the interrogator. Following the tables, the paper explicates these moves and analyzes other means of comparative characterization. It cites wide scholarly corroboration of insights regarding the interlocutors’ comparative characterization and also counters errant interpretations. It interacts with Johannine commentators and narrative critics as well as specialists in the study of dialogue and questions.
In summary, for the implied reader, these dialogues expose Pilate as an impotent potentate while Jesus emerges as the true King and Judge. Previous scholarship supports much of the exegesis and narrative analysis. This paper contributes to Johannine scholarship by revealing discontinuous dialogue throughout the passages, which supports the interpretation described above and helps to solve the rhetorical problem.