WHoSe TRUTH? A ReADeR-oRIeNTeD STUDy 419 between poorer and richer interpretations. Poorer interpretations cut the reader off from the revelatory dimension of the text, while richer interpretations reveal this dimension to the reader. We have adopted this approach for an interpretation of Pilate’s question of truth (John 18,38a). We have illustrated that this question has, exegetically speaking, many possibilities of interpretation. We have shown that it is not clear who is being addressed in 18,38a, and that this itself is a narrative gap. even the reader can be considered as a possible addressee. We have discussed three interpretations in sec- ondary literature where this position has been defended. We have illustrated that the first interpretation, namely that of A. köstenberger, operates from an agenda of theological exclusivism. This interpretation makes it impossible to view truth as the result of a revelatory process, but it offers this result without taking account of the process that led to it. Pilate’s question of truth is not what we have called an authentic question of truth, because it does not reveal the revelatory dimension of the text to the reader. köstenberger interprets Pilate’s question as a non-question, more specifically, as a take-it-or- leave-it option. The reader can take truth for what it is, that is, as it is incarnated in Christ. If s/he does not do this, the reader becomes apa- thetic to truth. Although this interpretation of 18,38a is exegetically possible, it can be called poor, because it is not able to reveal the revelatory dimension of the text. The second interpretation proposed by B. kowalski, while exeget- ically possible, is likewise unable to interpret 18,38a as an authentic question of truth. We have illustrated that this interpretation operates from an agenda of theological inclusivism. Again, 18,38a is not artic- ulated as a question, but as a take-it-or-leave-it option. either you take the truth for what it is, or else you become apathetic to truth in general, and you only desire power. In this interpretation of 18,38a, truth is not acknowledged as the result of a revelatory process, and therefore, Pilate’s question of truth cannot be called an authentic question of truth. Again, we have here an exegetically possible interpretation of 18,38a but not a rich one, because it is not able to reveal the revelatory dimen- sion of the text. It is the third interpretation that is able to articulate Pilate’s question of truth as an authentic question of truth. J. Heath interprets 18,38a as referring to the hermeneutical issues that are at stake concerning the relationship between “truth” and linguistic expressions. Confronted with 18,38a, the reader is confronted with two different grammars of “truth”, the worldly grammar of Pilate, and the spiritual grammar of