would you say that Les Miserables' Waterloo Chapter is unreliable? Would you say that all the news reports about Virginia Tech are unreliable? Would you say the Gospels are unreliable? Would you say the Nag Hammadi writings are unreliable?

And the last shall be first - the Nag Hammadi writings are generally theological treatises many of which have snippets of narrative but are mostly sayings gospels. Many are clearly meant to be interpreted symbolically or as 'divine metaphors' explaining the illusion of this world and the truth of the divine world.

The Virginia Tech news reports are news reports and given the advanced state of technology compared to the oral traditions of the canonical gospels we do expect them to get the facts in sync. However, do they ALL refer to ALL the facts ALL the time? Will I read/hear the same things from CNN, BBC, Fox News, the Chosun Ilbo, the Korea Times? Major characters in one piece may be referred to in passing by other pieces. It is creative and smart use of data to present a point of view.

Finally, Hugo's WATERLOO chapter in Cosette, from Les Miserables. This is perhaps the closest analogy to the gospel I can give. While it is a fiction work the WATERLOO CHAPTER is the one under specific discussion. It is a creative work that nevertheless engages historical facts and gets a lot of them RIGHT. Hugo most likely was able to actually walk the grounds of Waterloo and check out Chateau Hougoumont and La Haye Saint and the Mont St.Jean ridgeline. However he was not an eyewitness and refers to oral tradition - the narratives of survivors and civilians present during the battle, as well as documentary evidence. And some 'theological speculation' as well as he concludes that Napoleon lost because the Corsican 'prometheus' had 'vexed G-d'. Hugo meets with mixed success because he - like the Gospel writers, was reporting and giving historical information according to their best sources and sometimes those sources aren't very complete or give conflicting or even wrong accounts.

Hugo refers to many correct things like the battle for Hougoumont, mentioning officers like John Lucie Blackmann by name, indeed most if not all the officers he mentions in this part of the narrative are verifiable through other sources - the only fictional participants in this 'roman a clef' are Baron Pontmercy and Thenardier.

Hugo gets some things mixed up or incomplete. He refers to the Scots Greys charging but fails to mention that they were part of a 3 regiment brigade (General Sir William Ponsonby's Union Brigade) which was in turn part of a 2 brigade division of heavy cavalry. The impression one gets is that the 'terrible grey horses' charged alone - indeed they get the lion's share of the glory thanks to Lady Butler and the Waterloo movie - but the historical fact is that it was a division of cavalry that charged, not a single regiment.

Furthermore Hugo is confused about the operations of a square. He imagines that the British square - and he should have known better - sheltered the artillery, guns and all, within the four sides of soldiers and the troops would quickly get out of the way to allow the guns to be fired and then immediately return to their place in a fantastic 'ballet' of coordinated infantry/artillery efforts. This could not be more wrong. The squares only sheltered the wounded, the officers and the regimental colours within - the artillery was left exposed OUTSIDE the squares and the British gunners had to return to the safety of the square when cavalry got too close.

Finally Hugo gets things dead wrong. The relationship between square and artillery is one thing, the presence of the '75th Highlanders' is another. There was no regiment of that title or type at Waterloo.

Hugo in this piece has a point - a 'theological' as well as a moral point and he marshals historical facts to support that. Now there are times he gets it right, times he is confused, times he gets it dead wrong. Does it detract from my reading of the work? No. Does it detract from the powerful moral and philosophical point he is trying to make? No.

It's the same case with the gospels. They use historical data in a creative fashion to create different theological pictures of Christ. They are still our earliest evidence and our most extant. They fit nicely in the proper historical patriarchial socio-religious context of Palestine from whence Jesus came from. And ultimately, they're much better reading than their Nag Hammadi rivals bringing to life through story and plot the character of Jesus of Nazareth.

H A  Meaney