414 THoMAS ToPS “Ziel des dramatischen Dialogs ist ein kommunikationsgeschehen zwischen den Akteuren (inneres kommunikationsgeschehen) und den Hörern/Zuschauern (äußeres kommunikationsgeschehen)” 61. There- fore, 18,38a presents a Johannine misunderstanding which has a “leser- lenkende Funktion” 62. Pilate’s question of truth challenges the reader to give an answer to it on the basis of what s/he has read before, in par- ticular Jesus’ self-revelation as the truth in 14,6, as well as on the basis of the events that follow, that is, the passion story and the resurrection. Because these last events prove “die tiefere Wahrheit der Sendung und Person Jesu, seine Wahrhaftigkeit und Authentizität”, the reader pos- sesses, unlike Pilate, the necessary knowledge to be able to choose be- tween the truth of power and the power of truth 63. The reader is therefore able to follow the dialogue with the deaf between Pilate and Jesus. 18,38a offers the reader, according to kowal- ski, the choice of either listening to Jesus’ voice, and being delivered and set free by the power of truth, or listening to Pilate’s voice, and being chained by the truth of power. According to kowalski, the Jo- hannine avlh,qeia is an inclusivistic concept. everyone who sincerely searches for truth, and does not dictate truth out of a position of power, is, according to the Johannine concept of truth, someone who listens to Jesus’ voice. even if this person is unaware of his/her orientation to Jesus. But in spite of this inclusivistic tendency, or rather because of it, kowalski’s interpretation of the Johannine avlh,qeia and Pilate’s ques- tion of truth is not able to open the reader up to his/her own activity of interpretation. In kowalski’s view, 18,38a confronts the reader with the question of opting for the power of truth, or for the truth of power. This interpretation of 18,38a has the same problem as köstenberger’s interpretation, that is, that it conceals the event of avlh,qeia or un-con- cealment for the reader. It hides the activity of interpretation from the reader. The reader is not involved in the revelatory process of un-con- cealment or avlh,qeia, and consequently there is no such process. Just like köstenberger’s interpretation of 18,38a, kowalski’s interpretation offers the reader a “take it or leave it” kind of choice. either you take the truth for what it is, or else you become apathetic to truth in general, and you only desire power. Although kowalski’s interpretation of the 61 koWAlSkI, “«Was ist Wahrheit?»”, 205. 62 koWAlSkI, “«Was ist Wahrheit?»”, 218. 63 koWAlSkI, “«Was ist Wahrheit?»”, 218.