WHoSe TRUTH? A ReADeR-oRIeNTeD STUDy 397 refused to specify their accusation. Hence, the question comes “out of the blue” 3, and confronts the reader with “a narrative gap” 4. As a con- sequence, it is not surprising that interpreters of the text fill this gap in different ways. The way we fill the gap is strongly determined by the way we answer the question: what is the origin of the accusation, “the king of the Jews”. The answer to this question again depends heavily on the answer we give to the question of the intention with which Pilate formulated this question. It is not our goal to defend a certain way of filling this gap, but to show that every way of filling it has a certain plausibility, and so the answer depends on the concepts the interpreter uses to characterize Pilate, whether the concept of aggressiveness or the concept of reluctance. We begin by remarking that it is not clear whether 18,33c is a ques- tion. The Synoptics also have the phrase su. ei= o` basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wn (Mt 27,11; Mk 15,12; lk 23,3). As M.C. de Boer observes correctly, the only difference with the Synoptics is that in John the phrase is in- troduced by ei=pen, while the Synoptics use forms of evperwta,w for this. According to de Boer, this indicates that Pilate’s words have to be un- derstood as a statement rather than as a question. De Boer illustrates that, when John uses ei=pen to introduce a question, markers in the con- text, as for example the word order, an interrogative particle, or a pro- noun, indicate that what follows is to be construed as a question. De Boer exemplifies this with ouvkou/n basileu.j ei= su, in 18,37, in which it is the word order that illustrates that it is a question, while the context determines whether the particle ouvkou/n is inferential, interrogative, or accenting. These features are not present in 18,33. The punctuation that Nestle-Aland offers is, according to de Boer, inspired by scholars and biblical translators who, under the influence of the Synoptic parallels, assume that Pilate’s words must be a question 5. Furthermore, de Boer states that it is John’s theological agenda that assures us that 18,33c is a statement and not a question. John evidently cannot have Pilate’s first words to Jesus presented as a question in 3 C.M. TUCkeTT, “Pilate in John 18–19. A Narrative-Critical Approach”, Nar- rativity in Biblical and Related Texts (eds. G.J. BRooke – J.-D. kAeSTlI) (BeThl 149; leuven 2000) 131-140, here 134. 4 A.J. köSTeNBeRGeR, “«What is Truth?»: Pilate’s Question in Its Johannine and larger Biblical Context”, JETS 48 (2005) 33-62, here 37. 5 M.C. De BoeR, “The Narrative Function of Pilate in John”, Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts (eds. G.J. BRooke – J.-D. kAeSTlI) (BeThl 149; leu- ven 2000) 141-158, here 148.