406 THoMAS ToPS Pilate. For someone with such an attitude towards truth, truth is rather “unknowable, illusory or unreal” 35. Because de Boer characterizes Pilate not as aggressive but as re- luctant, he will not go so far as to interpret 18,38a as a dismissive and mocking question. Although de Boer agrees with Tuckett that Pilate can have no idea what truth is, even if it is right in front of him (14,6), it is nevertheless not the case for de Boer that Pilate does not know what that truth is to which Jesus has come to testify in the context of the passion narrative, although he does not understand it, namely the truth that Pilate utters repeatedly: “Jesus is the king of the Jews”. In the Gospel of John, Pilate functions more as “the mouthpiece of a truth [he, T.T.] does not, indeed cannot, fully comprehend” 36. Tuckett and de Boer thus agree that 18,38a expresses Pilate’s in- ability to understand Jesus, but they differ with regard to how to inter- pret this. In Tuckett’s view Pilate is not interested in truth and considers it as unknowable. In his research Pilate stays focused on his political goals. In de Boer’s view, however, Pilate is sincerely interested in the truth to which Jesus testifies, and he arrives at the sincere conviction that Jesus is innocent. Therefore, Tuckett’s and de Boer’s interpretation of 18,38a differ, because they connect a different intention with Pilate’s inability to understand. And this intention differs, because they char- acterize Pilate in a different manner. And as we have concluded multi- ple times, both characterizations seem plausible. The possible meaning of 18,38a as a question that points the reader to his/her own act of interpretation does not even come into view here. The interpreter is so caught up in his/her act of interpretation that Pi- late’s question is not able to make him/her aware of his/her own activity as an interpreter. S/he is even so caught up in his/her interpretation that s/he does not notice that the identity of the addressee of 18,38a is not clear. Again, we meet a narrative gap here. As B. kowalski observes correctly, it is not clear who the addressee is of 18,38a, because Pilate again leaves the praetorium after speaking these words: kai. tou/to eivpw.n pa,lin evxh/lqen pro.j tou.j VIoudai,ouj 37. kowalski gives the fol- 35 TUCkeTT, “Pilate”, 135. 36 De BoeR, “Narrative Function”, 152-153. 37 B. koWAlSkI, “«Was ist Wahrheit?» (Joh. 18,38a): Zur literarischen und theologischen Funktion der Pilatusfrage in der Johannespassion”, Im Geist und in der Wahrheit. Studien zum Johannesevangelium und zur offenbarung des Jo- hannes sowie andere Beiträge. FS M. Hasitschka, S.J. zum 65. Geburtstag (eds. k. HUBeR – B. RePSCHINSkI) (NTA 52; Münster 2008) 201-227, here 220.