"What is truth?" is a question once put to the Man Who, shortly thereafter, split all known 'His-Story' in two by His unique and untimely and supremely untidy (on all sorts of levels) voluntarily-accepted murder. By a questioner, the infamous Pontius Pilate, who, in his impatience in awaiting the answer, thus arguably evidenced either his insincerity, or - at the bare minimum - his lack of deep, heart-burning desire to really know. Displaying qualities which would have enabled him to fit pretty well, "thank you very much", into today's time- and sound-bitten, 'rush, rush, rush', Western society. For surely one ought to first determine how much one actually desires to obtain the object of such a quest before embarking upon such an undertaking. To wit, is there the genuine desire to really know - come Satan's own domain or
some very deep water - irrespective of what that might do to one's pet theories, preconceptions, prejudices and biases? For, if we're deadly honest with ourselves, who would deny 'we all' have oodles of these, and so do we really possess the requisite patience, nay long suffering, to 'simply' suspend judgment until we uncover all the facts and arrive at a cogent, coherent, self-consistent and satisfactory answer? That, to quote the bard - in an admittedly altogether different context, but he had a way with words and expressions, eh - is the question. And moreover are we honestly willing and prepared to undertake the effort, to expend the energy and make the time - 'put in the hard yakka', that is - required to get below superficial, surface, seeming 'realities' to uncover the real, actual facts in the particular matter?
TO BE CONTINUED manana
Hi David, some interesting thoughts here. Am wondering if you have read 'The Master and Margarita'? I am not claiming that it is an authoritative source on the events surrounding Jesus' last days, or even that it makes extensive use of the original sources (whatever they are), but it does paint a fascinating picture of Pontius Pilate as a, well, 'very deep' man with a lot more to him than simply impatience or negligence or insincerity. Obviously Bulgarov has created his own 'glittering world' which while fascinating and enjoyable may have nothing to do with the events of the crucifixion of Jesus, but I find the assurance and plausibility of it fascinating. Of course other writers have done this - manufactured a mass of such compelling detail that the reader feels drawn to accepting it as fact or at least some sort of higher/inner truth. e.g. Mika Waltari's depiction of the last days of Ss. Peter and Paul in 'The Roman'. A possible argument against reading much fiction, even/especially of the highest quality?
ReplyDeleteThanks, John, for an interesting contribution. No, I haven't read 'The Master and Margarita', let alone Mika Waltari's 'The Roman', but such historical fiction (if that's what it is) is often quite interesting, and moreover useful, much like a good detective assembling a mass of important 'bits 'n pieces' upon a highly involved case s/he's investigating...i.e. however factual overall such may well - not - be, much like the aforementioned detective s/he manages to nevertheless gather together a vast array of many other realities of the time and place, accurately contextualizing the slew of surrounding circumstances and personages potentially involved...thus arriving at a useful, if not necessarily wholistically true and accurate, rendering of said happenings. (Do I - not! - make myself clear? - as double Dutch! Apologies to the Netherlands, even if a few - at least one of yours - is apparently reading my (other) blogsite. Nothing personal, you understand. Hey, John, have you read 'The Robe'? - (another famous (fictionalized) account of that ancient time and place.))
Delete