The recent death of an old friend (i.e., of 52 years' standing) has brought vividly to mind, in the recollection of the person by their friends and family, a vital distinction: the distinction between what actually took place in one's life and the interpretation/s we place on events in retrospect.

I saw this clearly when my mind, upon hearing the news of their death, turned almost instantly to the music I was listening to when I first knew the person. It was the album "Who's Next" by The Who, which had just come out and featured "Baba O'Riley" and "Behind Blue Eyes", to name just a few. Whenever I think of my now deceased friend, my mind first fixes on "Who's Next".

But if you had asked the person, they would have said, "Oh no, I wasn't listening to The Who back then. I was listening to "Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding, not to mention "Ram" by Paul and Linda McCartney."

The point is, "Who's Next" was my interpretation, albeit contemporary with the events. "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" was the music to which my friend was listening. So if I want to understand them, I need to "Stick with the facts, Ma'am".

This principle, of distinguishing, especially in personal recollection, between what actually happened and one's interpretation of what happened is crucial. It is crucial to understanding the true facts of one's life, let alone that of another. I see this quite clearly in trying to recollect -- let alone evaluate -- the old friend who has died.

This cast proceeds to unlock the so-called "Synoptic Problem", let alone the historicity of ... the Israelites in the Old Testament, from Dan to Beersheba. [Whuh?]

I hope your own gaze personally will sharpen as a result of listening to this podcast. And I hope that my assessment of an unexpectedly deceased old friend will grow not only more accurate, but richer, kinder, more hopeful, and more faithful.