“What is Truth?” Pilate was the first Modernist

[Maximian]

Today’s reading of the St John Passion contains Pilate’s famous words Quid est veritas?

It is a warning to us all not to fall into the easy belief that truth is relative.

 

[OddBird]

It is a warning to us all not to fall into the easy belief that truth is relative.

While I agree with that, is Pilate really a “Modernist” (I’m putting quotes here because it’s a bit of an anachronism) ?

It depends on how one reads his question. Is it asked in a cynical way, is it an honest inquiry on Pilate’s part, or does it express the puzzlement of someone who has trouble grasping what his interlocutor is saying ? It’s hard to tell. What is certain is that Pilate, in st John’s Gospel, seems to be particularly stricken by Jesus’ words and attitude and reluctant to have Him condemned.

 

[Maximian]

anachronism

It certainly is not an anachronism. Pope St Pius X defined modernism as “the synthesis of ALL heresy.”

It is the false belief that the truth can be moderated to suit the moment. That neatly sums Pilate’s outlook.

 

[BartholomewB]

A pedantic quibble: it’s quid, not quis. Quis means “who”, quid means “what”.

And another thing. Latin is one of those languages that don’t have articles. Quid est veritas? can also be translated as “What is the truth?”, which of course, in English, is a different question altogether.

 

[OddBird]

A pedantic quibble: it’s quid , not quis.

Yes. I actually went to check that…

 

[Maximian]

quibble: it’s quid , not quis.

Thank you. It was a typo because d and s are next to each other on my miniscule keyboard

 

[OddBird]

It certainly is not an anachronism.

I may be wrong (and I’m writing mostly from memory here, hopefully without too many inaccuracies ), but I think it is, indeed, an anachronism.

Within the Church, the condemnation of modernism followed the development of Liberal Catholicism, which is a 19th century-early 20th century phenomenon. It is deeply linked to the changes brought about to the Western world by modernity and industrialisation, and the correlated emphasis on the notion of subjectivity and its consequences, such as the multiplying of “truths” which accompanied the multiplying of viewpoints – the whole “truth is relative” idea.

I am weary of projecting such a concept on an individual who lived 2 millennia ago, in a culture which had a different view of truth.

It is the false belief that the truth can be moderated to suit the moment. That neatly sums Pilate’s outlook.

To me, saying this assumes two things: that one knows what Pilate’s outlook was (I, for one, do not, and I don’t think the text is particularly clear on that), and that the false belief that the truth can be moderated to suit the moment was actually a thing in 1st century Roman thought. I am not so sure of that, because I am not sure it would have entertained the notion that truth was relative.

Schools of thought like stoicism, which had some prominent representatives in the 1st century, had a relationship to truth which could maybe have been said to be subjective. But, if I remember correctly, it is only in the sense that it was dependent on the thinking subject’s ability to grasp correctly a given reality (which may or may not have been the background for Pilate’s question). In other words, truth was considered as objective but not necessarily within reach, in which case one had to work at best with approximations, like gradations on a scale running from “false” to “true”.

This relationship to truth was accompanied by the fundamental postulate that virtue – objective virtue – was the chief good towards which all must strive. If you did not strive for virtue and allowed your passions to govern your decisions, then you were nothing more, to quote Zeno’s famous words, than a dog tied to a cart, forced to follow wherever the cart led you.

This was an outlook which had not, as modernity did, emptied both the notion of virtue and the notion of truth of their objectivity.

Pope St Pius X defined modernism as “the synthesis of ALL heresy.”

That does not mean that modernism was, from the beginning, coexistent with every heresy in the Church’s history. It is, precisely, a synthesis.

 

[Maximian]

And another thing. Latin is one of those languages that don’t have articles. Quid est veritas? can also be translated as “What is the truth?”, which of course, in English, is a different question altogether.

Thanks for the lecture. However, Greek is not such a language and (sorry I can’t do the Greek alphabet on this) ti estin aletheia, which quid est veritas translates, has no other meaning.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

Well, let me off another thought.

Modernists, Post-Modernists, Relativists…etc…are not a new phenomena as the Secularist would have you believe. These views have been with us even before the time of Christ with writing from the Greeks as evidence.

With the recent, very recent tech age and accompanying internet the contemporary world is concerned with newness and makes the error in believing they are original. A study of Literature and Philosophy will show all questions have been asked, all lifestyles have been lived, all views have been expressed. As Ecclesiastes writes, “There is nothing new under the sun.” Well, yes, we have a computer and online communication, but the human condition is the human condition and that has not nor cannot be changed.

So, Secularists will write, “oh, we are cutting edge because we don’t have Faith. Faith is a bronze Age idea. This is now the Tech Age.” Well, no, that is incorrect secularism was present in the bronze age and often what they do that they think is new is not only old but dangerous.

So, again, because of the internet people are now more exposed to ideas; it doesn’t mean the ideas are new but just new to the person.

 

[OddBird]

Good point. It is all the more noteworthy that there is no variant reading bearing an article here either.

 

[Maximian]

one knows what Pilate’s outlook was

We know his outlook both from his words and from his actions.

His question, whether straight or rhetorical, shows that he has no sense of principle. The same point is made by washing his hands. He had the power to release Jesus, but as he instead handed him to the Jewish authorities he ducked the inconvenience of standing by his own belief in Jesus’ innocence.

All these are indeed characteristics of modernism, as much then as now, which pretends that principles can be adjusted to suit public opinion or personal advantage.

 

[OddBird]

We know his outlook both from his words and from his actions.

Well, here I disagree. I struggle to see principles or motives spelled out in the text, except maybe for fear (“if you let him go, you are not the emperor’s friend”) and a desire not to be held responsible (the handwashing). That may tell us something about his personality, but not what his principles were, especially since there always is the possibility that one does not act according to one’s principles.

 

[Bithynian]

A pedantic quibble: it’s quid , not quis. Quis means “who”, quid means “what”.

Although the Vulgate has quid, it can be quis as well. Generally (but not always) Latin interrogatives agree with their referent in gender, with veritas being a feminine noun.

Jerome followed the style of the Greek which uses the neuter interrogative pronoun despite ἀλήθεια aletheia being feminine. This is very common throughout both Classical and Biblical Greek (this can be jarring as τί also means ‘why’).

However, Greek is not such a language and (sorry I can’t do the Greek alphabet on this) ti estin aletheia, which quid est veritas translates, has no other meaning.

Good point. It is all the more noteworthy that there is no variant reading bearing an article here either.

Ancient Greek (Classical and especially Biblical) varied widely in the use of the use of the definite article, sometimes to the point of illogical inconsistency (particularly when it applied to persons).

A good example is Meno, Plato’s Socratic dialogue, wherein Meno and Socrates discuss the question τί ἐστιν ἀρετή; ti estin arete; “what is virtue?”. The definite article ἡ he is used in the first paragraph to modify ἀρετή, but rarely afterwards. Perhaps the assumption is the audience understands an implicit definite article given the context.

Note that in Jn 18:37 Jesus replies to Pilate that he testifies to the truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια).

In addition, the numerous instances where υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ huios tou theou (Son of God) never receives the definite article ὁ ho. In Matthew alone, the definite article is only used once in 26:63, whereas it is omitted in the other five instances (4:3, 6, 8:29, 14:33, 27:40). Muslim and Unitarian apologists have occasionally used this grammatical phenomenon as a basis for believing that there are multiple sub-deity sons of God, with Jesus being one of many.

 

[DaveBj]

In addition, the numerous instances where υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ huios tou theou (Son of God) never receives the definite article ὁ ho . In Matthew alone, the definite article is only used once in 26:63, whereas it is omitted in the other five instances

The omission may be a hebraism. In Hebrew “X of Y” is a construct. By itself “X” is made definite by prefixing the definite article, making it “ha-X”. However, when “X” is the first part of a construct, the prefixed “ha-” cannot be used, because the “X” will take its definiteness from the second part of the construct; thus “ha-ben = the son,” but “ben Elohim = the Son of God”. Since the Gospel according to Matthew was written for the benefit of Jewish believers, it would not be surprising to see “the Son of God” translated into Greek as “υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ = huios tou theou,” without the Greek definite article before “υἱὸς”.

Full disclosure – my own expertise is in Arabic, not Hebrew, but I do have enough Hebrew to know that the treatment of definiteness in constructs is identical in both languages. Still working on Hebrew.

Edit, to bring my post back to the topic: I’ve always consider “What is truth?” as Pilate’s just being a wise-aleck (deliberately not using the three-letter alternative). I can understand the attempts to philosophize his comment, but I just don’t think he was that smart.

D

 

[Maximian]

I think that often modernism is just that: being a wise-aleck.

However, the evangelists were not in the habit of reporting events just for the sake of interest,. Every word has been included for a purpose.

 

[EndTimes]

Today’s reading of the St John Passion contains Pilate’s famous words Quid est veritas?

It is a warning to us all not to fall into the easy belief that truth is relative.

As is LOVE… TRUTH is a Quality… of God…

 

[OddBird]

The omission may be a hebraism.

I’m not sure about that, I’d say it’s more likely colloquialism. If you compare New Testament manuscripts, you’ll see that for the same passages, some rather consistently omit articles, some like to have them mostly everywhere. Some have an article almost before every proper noun, some almost never.

That said, I’m still pondering whether one has to read intentionality into the fact that in two subsequent verses, one has a definite article before ἀλήθεια, and not the other. On this particular point, known manuscripts are unanimous (for example, none adds an article both times, and none omits it both times). There is, very consequently, a definite article in v. 37, and none in v. 38.

 

[EndTimes]

I think that often modernism is just that: being a wise-aleck.

Modernism - as it applies to errant theology - has - as do many -isms which are opposed to God/Jesus - roots in Satan.