Original Research

Psychologically informed engagement with the Matthean pericopes on Pilate and Judas through Jungian lenses: The sensing, intuition, feeling and thinking approach

Leslie J. Francis, Christopher F. Ross
HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies | Vol 74, No 1 | a5179 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i1.5179 | © 2018 Leslie J. Francis, Christopher F. Ross | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 11 July 2018 | Published: 05 November 2018

About the author(s)

Leslie J. Francis, Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit, University of Warwick, United Kingdom; and, Department of New Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Pretoria, South Africa
Christopher F. Ross, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada; and, Department of New Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Pretoria, South Africa


Share this article

Bookmark and Share

Abstract

Within the passion narrative Matthew adds important pericopes to the Marcan text concerning both Pilate and Judas. These additional pericopes provide a rich resource for exploring the psychological motivation of and the psychological consequences for these two key actors in the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus. The present study employs the Jungian framework of the sensing, intuition, feeling and thinking (SIFT) approach to Biblical hermeneutics to explore the interpretation of Matthew 27:19–25 (concerning Pilate) through the lenses of sensing and intuition, and the interpretation of Matthew 27:3–10 (concerning Judas) through the lenses of thinking and feeling among 24 experienced preachers in Ontario, Canada. The findings confirm the hypotheses advanced by the SIFT approach that significant differences emerge between the psychological perceptions of sensing types and intuitive types, and that significant differences emerge between the psychological evaluations of thinking types and feeling types.

Keywords

biblical hermeneutics; reader perspective; psychological type theory; SIFT approach

Metrics

Total abstract views: 52
Total article views: 36


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.