398 THoMAS ToPS 18,33, since, for John, Jesus is indubitably ‘the king of the Jews’. Ac- cording to de Boer, Pilate functions in the trial narrative as a mouth- piece for the truth that Jesus is king 6. Further on in this discussion, we will illustrate how de Boer derives this from John’s trial narrative. In addition to the question of whether 18,33c is a question or a statement, it is necessary to seek the origin of the accusation, “king of the Jews”. For de Boer, it is clear from 18,35 that Pilate got this accu- sation from the Jews 7. R.A. Piper does not agree with this. With regard to the issue of whether 18,33c is a question or an assertion, he speaks of an “ambiguity”, and when speaking of 18,35, he points out that it can also mean that Pilate does not believe in any form of Jewish king- ship, rather than indicating the source of the accusation. Hence, Piper does not exclude the possibility that Pilate himself formulated the title, “king of the Jews”. Piper suggests that good reasons for this are that the title “king of the Jews” is outsider language, and that it is not used by others in the Fourth Gospel before the dispute about the titulus in 19,21 8. Unlike de Boer and Piper, C.M. Tuckett gives no attention to the question of the origin of the accusation in 18,33. Tuckett agrees with de Boer that the focus in 18,33 is on Jesus’ kingship, but he does not conclude from this that 18,33c is an assertion. Although Tuckett acknowledges that Pilate’s accusation comes out of the blue, he does not speculate on its origin. The only thing Tuckett shares about this is that the question of 18,33 could be a traditional element in the story. He refers to the Synoptic parallel in Mark to justify this conjecture 9. So every position discussed has a different interpretation of the ori- gin of the expression “king of the Jews” in 18,33. Now each one of these interpretations is determined by the answer that is given to the question regarding the intention with which Pilate formulates the ques- tion or assertion in 18,33. In other words, before we are capable of an- swering the question of the origin of the charge, “king of the Jews”, we need to characterize Pilate. Secondary literature offers two ways to do this. We can characterize him as aggressive or as reluctant. If we 6 De BoeR, “Narrative Function”, 148-153. 7 De BoeR, “Narrative Function”, 148-153. See also R. BIeRINGeR, “«My kingship is not of this World» (John 18,36): The kingship of Jesus and Politics”, The Myriad Christ. Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (eds. T. MeRRIGAN – J. HAeRS) (BeThl 152; leuven 2000) 159-175, here 169. 8 R.A. PIPeR, “The Characterisation of Pilate and the Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel”, The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (ed. G. VAN Belle) (BeThl 200; leuven 2007) 121-162, here 147, 154. 9 TUCkeTT, “Pilate”, 134.