WHoSe TRUTH? A ReADeR-oRIeNTeD STUDy 411 exodus 33–34, and that it is therefore highly likely that the expression h` ca,rij kai. h` avlh,qeia of the Johannine prologue harks back to the expression tmaw dsx in exod 34,6 48. köstenberger interprets this inter- textual relationship in terms of the fulfillment theory of the relationship between the New Testament and the old Testament. Unlike Moses, who was unable to see God (exod 33,20-23), Jesus Christ, the one-of-a-kind Son of God, has made him known (John 1,18). And while Moses was the mediator of the law (exodus 34), the fullness of God’s grace and truth was mediated by Jesus Christ (John 1,17). According to kösten- berger, John 18,36-38 indicates a progression in this line of thought, because it transforms the allusion to God’s faithfulness to the covenant in John 1,14-17 into the universal message of the Gospel 49. The truth stands before Pilate. Therefore, there is “a movement from Jew to Gentile” 50. As such, it can be said, according to köstenberger, that the Gospel of John transforms God’s faithfulness to the covenant of the old Testament into the universal message of the Gospel. According to köstenberger, Pilate’s question of truth plays an important role in this universalizing process, because the question is “open-ended” 51. every reader has to give an answer to the question of whether Jesus is the truth. Next to the idea that John presents Christianity as the religion that universalizes the Jewish thinking about the covenant between man and God, köstenberger presents the Jews in John’s gospel as opposing this universalization, and as being the driving force behind Jesus’ crucifix- ion. In this pursuit, they even betray “their own religious heritage” (John 19,15) 52. John is portraying the Jews as no longer being the peo- ple of God. The Christians are the new people of God. For kösten- berger, this is not just a theological view of John, but it also took place historically with the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD, and the spreading of Christianity afterwards 53. köstenberger interprets avlh,qeia in 18,38a as an exclusivistic term. If the reader gives a negative answer to Pilate’s question, and does not acknowledge Jesus as the truth, s/he becomes “apathetic about the issue of truth itself” 54. There is no way around it. Jesus is the truth, and the 48 köSTeNBeRGeR, “«What is Truth?»”, 43-44. 49 köSTeNBeRGeR, “«What is Truth?»”, 45. 50 köSTeNBeRGeR, “«What is Truth?»”, 45. 51 köSTeNBeRGeR, “«What is Truth?»”, 45. 52 köSTeNBeRGeR, “«What is Truth?»”, 47. 53 köSTeNBeRGeR, “«What is Truth?»”, 61-62. 54 köSTeNBeRGeR, “«What is Truth?»”, 51.