The Judgment of Pontius Pilate

A Critique of Giorgio Agamben

Bibliographic Data

ID20385121
AuthorsDavid Lloyd Dusenbury (Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, corresponding author)
Year2017
Volume32
Issue2
Pages340-365
Publication date2017-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Law and Religion (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0748-0814 • E-ISSN: 2163-3088
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/jlr.2017.35
OpenAlexW2770531495
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited23

In Pilate and Jesus , Giorgio Agamben argues that Pontius Pilate never formally condemned Jesus of Nazareth. “The traditional interpretation of Jesus’ trial ... must be revised,” he urges, because “there has not been any judgment in a technical sense.” In Agamben's telling, Pilate's non-judgment is the original truth of Jesus's death that has been covered over by tradition. This is an intriguing hypothesis, but Agamben's use of sources in arguing it is highly irregular. This article offers a critique of the legal and philological argumentation of Pilate and Jesus . In the process, it revisits an ancient—and still actual—controversy surrounding the Roman trial of Jesus and demonstrates that Pilate did sentence Jesus, pro tribunali , to death on a cross

Art · Epistemology · Faith · Historical Jesus · Jesus christ · Linguistics · Literature · Philology · Sentence · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Law · Philosophy · Political Theology and Sovereignty · Violence, Religion, and Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access