 
                         20060113.00

     This is one of those mornings when thoughts seems to
want to spill out of my mind, all at once, and I must take
care that my ideas should be disposed of in an orderly manner. 
One of the important functions of thought, and hence also of
the written word, is to project order, or at least the
semblance or the illusion of order, upon an inherently
disorderly existence.

     An idea which seems uniquely important to me this
morning, - and I can imagine many a reader yawning with
boredom as he reflects on my exposition, is that the
evangelists, Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, should in
fact be considered artists, great artists, and that it is the
grandeur of their art which is responsible, as much as
anything else, for the "success" of Christianity.

     It has long been held that art is divinely inspired.
That the holy scripture, and specifically the Gospels are the
word of God, i.e.  divinely inspired, is a fundamental tenet
of Christian religious dogma.  Accordingly, the
interpretations of the Gospels as art is eminently consistent
with the interpretation of the Bible as divine inspiration,
as the writ of God.

     Once this discovery is acknowledged, the other books of
the Bible fall into place.  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Job, Psalms,
the Song of Solomon, and not least, Genesis require to be
interpreted as very great works of art.  To my mind at least,
a very persuasive argument may be made to the effect that the
Bible is in essence Literature, and that all Literature is
(potentially) sacred, if only because reading requires faith
in a reality which is beyond and outside of the text.

     In any event, I prefer classical art to modern art.  I
prefer Praxiteles to Moore, Rembrandt or Vermeer, Titian or
Michelangelo to Picasso or Dali; Bach, Mozart, Haendel or
Haydn to Stravinsky or Schoenberg.  In literature, which is
_my_ religion, I root for Moses rather than Darwin.  Call me
an (esthetic) "creationist", but don't tell anyone.  As to
the historical validity of these expressions of Moses' or
Darwin's artistic creativity, I am reassured by Kant that I
can't possibly know.  Corroborating Kant, Schopenhauer claims
that it's all in my head. (Vorstellung).  I think he's right.
Accordingly, as regards "reality" (being, Wirklichkeit),
neither Moses nor Darwin can get to first base; so, if truth
is unknowable, what difference does it make, whether Moses'
or Darwin's dogma is misleadingly celebrated as "truth". 
With respect to poetic beauty, Moses wins hands down.


                      * * * * *
Copyright 2006, Ernst Jochen Meyer
