WHoSe TRUTH? A ReADeR-oRIeNTeD STUDy 399 characterize Pilate as aggressive, we are inclined to interpret 18,33c as an assertion or question that is used by Pilate to drive the Jews into denying their religious identity and heritage in 19,15. Hence, we have to argue that Pilate gives the impression that he considers Jesus’ kingship as a political threat, although he possibly knows better than that. Piper and Tuckett defend this position. That is why Piper does not exclude the possibility that Pilate himself devised the accusa- tion, “king of the Jews” 10. If we characterize Pilate as reluctant, we will rather be inclined to understand 18,33c as an assertion or question that Pilate himself does not really take seriously, because he is able to see that Jesus is no political threat to him. For this reason, Pilate reacts reluctantly to the accusation of the Jews. This is how de Boer charac- terizes Pilate. That is why he thinks the Jews devised the charge, “king of the Jews”. The role of the narrative gap of 18,33 is all-determining. It deter- mines how one characterizes all the other deeds and sayings of Pilate in relation to Jesus and the Jews. We will illustrate this extensively. Ac- cording to de Boer, it is unconvincing that Pilate considers Jesus as a political threat to him, because Pilate declares: evgw. ouvdemi,an eu`ri,skw evn auvtw/| aivti,an (18,38f.). Pilate repeats this statement in 19,4.6 11. By contrast, Tuckett concludes the opposite from 18,38f. and 19,4.6. Al- though Pilate comes to a clear decision about Jesus’ innocence, he fails 10 H.k. BoND, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (MSSNTS 100; Cambridge 1998) 167, 177, avoids the implication that an aggressive Pilate de- vised the accusation himself by presupposing that the Jews made an arrangement with Pilate before Jesus’ arrest. The Jews brought Jesus to Pilate’s attention before the arrest with the charge, “king of the Jews”. She finds support for this in “the arrest” and “the Jewish plot in chapter 11, where the chief priests and Pharisees express their fear that the Romans will take severe measures against Jesus’ increasing popularity (11,48)”. Nevertheless, Piper (“Pilate”, 144) remarks that Jesus’ arrest in John is “an event with cosmic significance” in which the world’s forces have been marshalled to confront Jesus, and as such it has another narrative function than pointing out to the reader that there was a previous arrangement between the Jews and the Romans. The possibility of a previous arrangement between the Jews and the Romans is “not excluded, but neither does it seem to be the point”. This is also the case for 11,48. The fact that the Jews think that the Romans will interfere against Jesus’ increasing popularity does not force us to infer that there was a previous arrangement between the Jews and the Romans. This might be possible, but the arguments that Bond gives are far from compelling. As such, we conclude that Bond’s hypothesis is another way to fill in the narrative gap of the origin of the accusation, “king of the Jews”, although not more com- pelling than the others. 11 De BoeR, “Narrative Function”, 143 n. 11.