Il “paradosso” di Ponzio Pilato: condannare un innocente per assolvere se stesso

The author presents a reinterpretation of Pontius Pilate’s character, constructed according to a typically juridical point of view. To do that, he considers the problematic aspects of judging, a “painful necessity”, that directly emerge from the Gospels, especially from John’s. In following the latter, Pilates’ handling of the trial of Jesus shows him in three different roles: at first, as an honest inquirer, then as an unsuccessful political mediator, and eventually as an administrator of injustice. The author contends that, while Pilate was forced into this last role because of his inability to resist the pressure from the accusers, upon taking up said role, he continued to act according to the trial rituals he had chosen to follow from the beginning. To put it otherwise, Pilate did not fail simply to proclaim Jesus’ innocence but instead declared him guilty. From this juridical interpretation of the events, the author draws the enunciation of a “paradox”, in which Pilate fell: to condemn an innocent, so that he could absolve himself from the guilt of not having been a “just” judge. This paradox has a current interest, since every judge may at a certain point have to face it, no matter in what historical time he operates, nor in what place of the world he operates. Because of that, a judge must be aware of it, so that he could try to avoid falling as its victim.