Class News
Neil Hoffmann ’64 discusses new book about Jesus with friends
July 10, 2022
There are a number of classmates who participate in ongoing email threads to discuss various topics of interest with other classmates and friends. Neil Hoffmann ’64 is a regular in such a group, and recently, they had a lively discussion sparked by a book about Jesus, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, by Reza Aslan. Here are some highlights from the thread.
Neil Hoffmann ’64: I wonder if I'm up to such a challenging book. Does this book attempt to explain how this impoverished, uneducated peasant could have become such a charismatic leader? How does that person become the preacher of such a radical religious view?
George Pickett ’64: The book does indeed explain how he acquired a near-term gathering of followers, even as other preachers attempted to do so (with varying successes in terms of their duration), and how his influence grew over the subsequent centuries. He describes how Jesus attracted followers, and how those followers after his death grew even greater in number. Jesus, like several others who created groups of Jews to follow them, was objecting to the role of Rome and to the behavior of priests in the Temple. Whether Jesus' view could be called “radical” is probably in the eye of the reader. In my opinion it was the difference between him and other preachers in the underlying message for why objecting to Rome and Temple was worth following. One of the author's observations, which is very thought-provoking, is that the one thing that separates the endurance of Jesus’ impact over the centuries from the views of other preachers in that period was resurrection. Other preachers preached against Rome and the Temple. Others were crucified as well. But no other had resurrection as part of their story. Thus, none had a long-term following. The author’s observation is that resurrection is the key piece in the foundation of Christianity.
Neil Hoffmann ’64: Humans are very susceptible to magical, mystical, other-worldly fantasies. So the resurrection, virgin birth, son of God, miracles, loaves and fishes story, all built a religious mythology which became Christianity. Of course the question is, why did Jesus inspire this and not the others?
George Pickett ’64: I am not willing to identify a number of these as myths. That is a matter of faith. The author does raise the questions that logically fall out of what can be constructed from history. For example, Jesus had several siblings, so how does that fit with virgin birth? He does not attack the belief; he just raises the contrast. Faith in my view is not about denying the existence of the contrast. Faith is about understanding its existence and maintaining the belief. After all, the religious interpretation could be correct. One does not require God to do everything in ways that we as humans grasp. As to why Jesus inspired, I do recommend the book for that. It was the confluence of a number of factors or forces involving empires, religious practices, local peoples’ living, education levels, history of previous centuries, etc. Those were also important in his preaching and in his existence surviving thousands of years beyond his death.
Mo Dean ’64: I suspect (or like to think) that Jesus of Nazareth had an exceptionally strong charisma, which I don’t think you or Neil (or Thia) have mentioned, at least not explicitly. And I am thinking of charisma in everyday terms, not in terms of Charismatic Christianity, but I imagine that a person of faith might be inclined to interpret Jesus’ presumed charisma in terms of the Holy Spirit working in and through him to draw others to him and Itself.
George Pickett ’64: I think you will find the book useful in thinking about that question. “Charisma” is an interesting label. Jesus certainly assembled a following. The book says the following emerged for a number of reasons: the fact that his objections to Rome and the Temple fit with the feelings of others; that he did not claim to be the one who could make Rome or Temple change if being placed in charge; that he concentrated as a preacher on visiting towns away from Jerusalem among the poor and suffering (of which he was one); that he preached the poor were the children of God and the inheritors of life (not the wealthy, the priests, the emperor); that God would recognize; that he did not call for violent rebellion (which other leaders did); that his actions made him a healer (healers were commonplace); but unlike other healers he did not require to be paid; that he spoke and exhibited manners that were common to magicians of that period; that he lived in a period when people attributed actions like healing and chanting to be a part of solving the challenges of living. I think the evidence is there that he had charisma, but one needs to distinguish the charisma of someone with a magnetic personality from that of a person who drew others to him because his views resonated with the views of others in that time and place. We have examples of the magnetic ones (Hitler?), and the conditional (Churchill). If your image of charisma is people chanting and cheering, much like the way we react to some movie stars, the book will not (as I recall) help. If the measure is what leads people to follow him, the book will help. It is unclear to me that Jesus had a magnetic charisma while alive. Faith has raised him to that after he died and the religion of Christianity became one of the major religions of the world. Faith seems to have given him a charisma that escaped him when alive. But that all depends on how you define the word.
Nortin Hadler ’64: I find this casual historiography lacking without consideration of the role, writing, and influence of Paul the Apostle.
Cynthia Barnett: But the book seems to be interested only in Jesus, which is just fine since it was he who inspired Paul. Paul, formerly called Saul, became an amazing advocate of Christ Jesus' teachings and spread them throughout the Middle East and even Asia Minor. While there is legitimate debate over some passages in Paul's writings — the ones which seem to have no agreement with the others — his influence has been formidable. Paul, a former Pharisee, brought us the beautiful treatise on “charity” (i.e., love): “There are these three: faith, hope, charity, but the greatest of these is charity [love].” He also claimed there was no place or circumstance where we could be separated from God, Love. And he proved this with his incredible delivery from shipwreck, poisoning, plots to kill him, etc. Plus, he raised Eutychus from the dead, appealing to that same spiritual sense of ever-present Life, God, that Jesus turned to.
Neil Hoffmann ’64: I downloaded the free sample of Aslan’s Zealot. The Author’s Note about how he was converted to Christianity from Islam at summer camp, how he fell away from the Church as a result of all the unreconcilable contradictions in the Bible, and how that caused him to pursue an academic and professional career attempting to understand the differences between Jesus Christ — the religious figure — and Jesus of Nazareth — the historical person — in the context of an extraordinarily violent time in Palestine under Roman rule. Also included in the sample is the Introduction, which outlines pretty conclusively why the historically constructed Jesus of Nazareth in his narrative is very different from the faith-based Jesus Christ modern Christians, including you and me, would recognize. There are reasons why the title is ”Zealot.” I don’t want to upset anyone so I can only suggest that you read the sample to see if you want to challenge what are probably lifelong beliefs about the life and convictions of Jesus of Nazareth.
Jim Carney ’64: Most scholars recognize the gospel of Mark as the earliest of the Gospels being written immediately before or after the Jewish revolt against Rome — i.e., either c. 56 or c. 66.
Cynthia Barnett: Who knows why some accounts relate some incidents about Jesus and others relate others? We don't even know if we have the full books, or Gospels, of these writers, maybe only fragments. Luke, for example, emphasizes Mary's role in the birth of Jesus, while Matthew emphasizes Joseph's. Luke, the physician, is also more interested in Jesus' healings than the others, although they all pay attention to these. That doesn't bother me. I put them all together to see what I can glean from the totality. Jesus did not ever refer to Joseph as his father. I assume he revered this faithful, strong, and unselfish man, however, and probably learned his skills as a carpenter and handyman from him. (My take.) Jesus did, however, refer to God as his Father, not equal to Him in quantity, but rather in quality and inseparability. "I and my Father are one," is the way he said that. Just as Genesis I has it: We are His image and likeness (reflection, offspring, creation) but not one of us is the same as God, the Creator. My faith, unlike many other Christian denominations, does not teach that Jesus was God. The son is not the same as the father, and Spirit cannot suddenly become matter any more than light can become, by definition, darkness. But Jesus illustrated and lived the wonderful truths of God's goodness and power better than any other we know of. I like your point that "the Son of Man" is a frequent and humble self-identifier for Jesus. Again, I believe that this unique man showed that divinity (his divine nature) embraced humanity in its need to know Love (God) better. Christians like me believe Jesus expressed god-like qualities so beautifully that we give him the title of Christos or Messiah (Savior) almost like we accord the title Doctor to one who has diligently studied medicine and has a proven practice of healing as a result. But to us, Christ Jesus was and is unique — which is why we study and follow him. I love hearing about what others are studying and learning about this incredible game-changer, Jesus. While I may not agree with all scholars and their views, they challenge mine and force me to think.
Neil Hoffmann ’64: Aslan says the revolt was in 66 and in 70 the Romans came back, destroyed Jerusalem completely, and enslaved the survivors. His chronology has Mark written soon after 70, Matthew and Luke 90-100, John 100-120. The Gospel of Mark has no story before Jesus' baptism and no mention of the resurrection. I can only assume Mark, who would have known James (died 62), didn't think the early story relevant to Jesus' ministry. Why did he leave out the resurrection? Did he believe it wasn't credible or too problematic from a Jewish perspective? The whole idea of Jesus being the literal, physical Son of God was a fundamental problem for the One God of the Jews and likely for Jesus. A very Greek-like concept and one which is reinforced by the resurrection story. I think Jesus called himself the Son of Man because he did not believe he was Divine. God was his Spiritual Father, Joseph his physical father. All of which goes down a rabbit hole where history and mystery are jumbled in the dark and Faith takes charge. Thanks to Paul. You and I have very different beliefs about Jesus and the Christian Bible. We should let it go at that. I've enjoyed exercising my brain on this complex topic. I have a clearer view of the historical life of Jesus of Nazareth. Amazing enough. It is clear that you are comfortable and confident in your beliefs, which I think is wonderful. All the richness and subtlety
George Pickett ’64: After Zealot I went back to reread a book recommended to me by a friend over a decade ago, God’s Secretaries by Adam Nicolson. It is the history of the making of the King James Bible, in a period of about 1603 to 1616. The story itself is rich in developing the history of the period from 1500 to 1700 in England, discussing the multitude of Bibles, the conflicting religious interpretations of various branches of the Christian religions, the life and times, the background of the dozens of translators, etc. It is hard for me to summarize the book in a few words, because it depends on what path of interest you might have. There are certainly central themes in the conflicts between whether the king as an institution is separate from the church, and if so how can he be viewed as more than mortal. Or, whether the biblical treatments in words should be followed verbatim. Or, what those words mean (since the English language about God and Christianity is just translations of Greek and Hebrew, and words do not mean the same across languages). Or, what the role of rituals should be in a religion. Or, how much religion and religious practices dominated daily life. Or, how intolerant different religious practitioners were of those following other branches. But one thing that grabbed hold of me is the writing itself. For someone (like me) with little knowledge of European history, the book is a window into the period, described in such intricate details that I have to read each sentence of each paragraph to capture the subtle or strong messages that Nicolson produces. His capability (power?) over language is to me one of the magnets about the book. He is probably playing with someone like me, and certainly is showing off his mastery of the period, the various bibles and the English language and its use for images. There is a comment in his book that the subtle, rhythmic, and choice of words to create images and messages was a rich characteristic of the period. To Nicolson it is unfortunate that the language of the 20th century has done much to simplify expression and thus to steal the deeper beauty of words and their composition.
Jim Carney ’64: In talking about the KJV of the Bible, we are dealing with two different issues. One issue is the accurate translation of ancient Greek or Hebrew. Another issue is the translation of the majestic prose of the 17th century writers whose English is not our English. My own view is that the best English translation is one which uses the language of the King James’ Version except (1) where it is clear in the light of modern scholarship that the KJV’s translation from Greek or Hebrew is wrong because it is based on bad text or a mistaken understanding of the ancient language or (2) where the 17th century English is unintelligible to the modern reader even though it may have been an accurate and understandable translation of the original text when the translation was done. I think Thia has pointed out a great example of the second issue. A larger issue in all translations is the fact that language reflects culture and one culture may not have the same concepts and ergo an exact substitute for the word in the foreign language. Obviously, this is true in case of language used to describe institutions, holidays, etc. It is even truer in terms of concepts. Take for example the Latin words authoritas and dignitas. These are generally translated as authority and dignity. However, these translations do not really reflect the Roman concepts. We think of authority as legal authority; the Romans view authoritas as something much more like moral or personal authority. George Washington would be an example of someone who had authoritas. We think of dignity as conduct or bearing consistent with one’s station in life. Dignitas to the Romans was more a sense of self-worth and self-identity which directed one’s conduct in life. George H. W. Bush had dignitas — something which many Americans failed to recognize or appreciate. Several years ago Time Magazine wrote an apology for some of the criticism it made of No. 41 based on its failure to recognize his dignitas. Learning another language is in effect learning another culture and another way of seeing life. And now, dear friends. I must ask you for the modern counterpart to the medieval Truce of God in terms of your learned discussion of books. As you know, the wheels of justice turn extremely slowly and your recommendations for reading is forcing them to stop altogether. In addition, your efforts to distract me from the pursuit of scholarship is forcing me to turn aside from my next masterpiece: Q. Lutatius Catulus — The Forgotten Roman Statesman. And if you don’t remember who he was, you are validating my title. Scholarship must go forward so let us have peace for a while.
Neil Hoffmann: The book is really about the politics behind James’s religious and intellectual motivation. I had no idea about his abilities and arguably genius. When the Council of Church of England Bishops and Deans and a few Puritans were assembled at James’ behest he established himself in no uncertain terms. He sent the Puritans out of the room, and after letting the clerics dig themselves a hole saying how terrific the Church was for 40 years, he proceeded to blast them with accusations of corruption and persecution of the Puritans, which must stop and the church be cleansed. But he intended to buttress the established church. On Monday he dismissed all the objections of the Puritans and Presbyterians and strict English Protestants to Church pomp and ceremony on the grounds that there’s nothing in the Bible opposing it. He sided unequivocally with the bishops. It is a request of the Puritans that initiated the writing of a new translation of the Bible that would be read in all churches. What never occurred to me is that the different editions are political from the King’s perspective. James saw this as an opportunity to create a Bible in alignment with his political interests. And so it is we have the KJB. I understand your reaction. My reaction to the KJV was the usual acronym guessing game of “what’s that?.” Insiders’ academic acronyms set my teeth on edge. There may be many later and earlier versions of the Bible but the King James Bible as a work of art can’t reasonably be characterized as a “version” of something. It’s unique in the history of the Bible. It’s arrogant, diminishing, and disrespectful, in my view, to reduce it to the status of a version. I apologize for KJB. I’ll stick to King James Bible. Short enough.
Nortin Hadler ’64: However, I’m ready to offer two cents on the KJB thread. There was a time I could do so with a good deal of familiarity, but that time is long past. The last time I introduced “hermeneutics” in my writing was in the draft of an editorial I was asked to write for the British Medical Journal. I said that parsing a dense “systematic review” of overlapping science was akin to hermeneutics. The reviewer of my review (undoubtedly a Brit who should have been educated) claimed ignorance of the term and criticized me for obfuscation. But my interest in theological hermeneutics goes back to the preparation for my Bar Mitzvah, an educational experience that I found entirely sterile except for the historical content of the Old Testament. Then came freshman year at Yale. I chose to read Shakespeare with Thomas Greene, All Quiet Flows the Don with Firuz Kazemzadah, and Early Christian Documents with David Harned. I learned to read and write in those three courses and was truly inspired by the relevant scholarship. I can still remember a great deal of the course content. David Harned was a Lutheran priest and theologian who was junior faculty then but went on to chair the Religion Department at Smith and then become president of Allegheny College. I can still recite the Nicaean Creed and speak of the contributions of Abelard (and Heloise) and Anselm. It was hermeneutics-light but it changed the way I viewed theology ever since. I got into Martin Luther and the history of anti-sedentism but that’s a digression from this digression. That brings me to Durham Cathedral in the UK in 1973. It is a huge Romanesque cathedral which, unlike most large cathedrals, was not built by the local nobility. It was built by monks as a shrine for St. Cuthbert. This is the religious community that educated Venable Bede (aka Venerable Bede). And it is for the sake of Venable Bede that I am digressing. The cathedral is starkly decorated but one feels the presence of Venable Bede and can imagine him at a desk translating religious documents into colloquial English. He wrote the “Ecclesiastic History of the English People.” It’s Venable Bede who created the primordial KJB. The Durham Cathedral is his shrine. I found it quite moving. If I were a religious man, I would have called it a religious experience. Hermeneutics is a great diversion in this ugly time.
Neil Hoffmann ’64: So I had to look up hermeneutics, being unaware of the term. Way over my head. And The Venable Bede I learned from Wikipedia was born in 673, long before the magnificent Durham Cathedral was built. The monastery at Wearmouth-Jarrow had a significant library and is probably where he worked. That's near the present Durham. Confusing, but the construction of the present Cathedral began in 1093 with the demolition of the previous Saxon church which also seems to postdate Bede. The Wikipedia article gives a rather jumbled account of his very substantial life work, including a translation of the Gospel of St John into Anglo Saxon English. And other sections of the Bible. Fascinating. A long way from the King James Bible but you are right that the Venable Bede led the way.
Cynthia Barnett: In all the Biblical scholarship I've read, I've seen no one who wanted to "fix" the King James, only to make its meaning clearer to us. Many have, quite the contrary, offered words and phrases as contextual clues for how people were thinking and feeling in Bible days. These works have only added to our understanding and appreciation for the Bible language, particularly the King James. BTW, I attend a church where we are committed to the King James for most of our service and our daily Bible lessons, though we often use other translations for smaller parts of the service or our own study. I support this approach. But we are overlooking an important distinction in comparing Shakespeare with the Bible, namely the purpose for which these works were written and the purpose for which (mostly) they were read. Shakespeare wrote plays and poetry. He wrote to entertain, to express himself artistically, and perhaps to inspire us to think more deeply about human nature. He ended up doing all of these things so well and beautifully that we revere the language he used. Students of his works have to "translate" his words constantly into their own vernacular as they read them because otherwise they wouldn't understand much of it! But I never remember that anyone lobbied to change the language officially. I say this as an English major and a former teacher of literature. Shakespeare's purpose was not religious, however. He did not write to give specific religious instruction as to how we were to think of God and worship God in our daily life. That religious purpose was clearly that of the Bible. So for me, clarity is more important in the Bible, whichever we read, than beauty or eloquence, no matter how much I value these. And today's modern English language, however flat or bland it can be, can also soar to tremendous heights of beauty of its own. Just read some modern poets — or ask Mo for examples!
George Pickett ’64: I think in these profound exchanges we have missed a major point, to which the author gave only one line. But it is probably as important in its impact on society for the next five hundred years. In the midst of the KJV writing, Scotland created one of the most defining athletic games of the modern world — golf. One might even claim that the decline of devoted practicing Christians contrasts strikingly with the opposite constant growth in golf. That says something about the changing cultural and morale values of people. Two forces meld together in the story of two devoted friends and golfers. Bob died. A week later Bill is in the fairway of the fourth hole. Bob’s voice comes to him. Bill says “Bob, if that is you, what is heaven?” Bob’s voice “Bill, it is marvelous. Weather is always perfect; an infinite number of golf courses; no waiting time; just terrific.” Bill says “That’s great.” Bob says “I have just one downside.” Bill: “What’s that.” Bob: “You have a tee time at 9:00am next Thursday.” So endeth the lesson.
Brooks Carder ’64: We praise God in beautiful buildings, with the clergy often in beautiful vestments. We should do so in the most beautiful possible language. The Bible is not just a means of delivering content. We can write other books to do that. It should have emotional impact. The KJV has long been known as one of the finest examples of expression in the English language. That makes it very appropriate for use in our beautiful churches. And I'm so used to it that the new services fall on my ear with a dull thud. It would have been simple to address the content issues without rewriting the whole thing. Are we going to tear down St. Peter's Basilica because it is poorly insulated?
Neil Hoffmann ’64: Brooks has a point of view shared by millions and by the Church of England bishops who oversaw the writing of the King James Bible. For the King it was about confirmation of his authority over the church. Art won out over politics. The Puritans and other dissenters didn’t share this hierarchical view of the Church or the virtues of ecclesiastical pomp and clerical circumstance. They believed in the Geneva Bible and brought it to America.
Cynthia Barnett: I agree here. However, that the King James is "very appropriate for use in our beautiful churches" is not the issue. If and when the King James becomes unclear and unhelpful in articulating what God is or how we should live with His/Her laws, would you ban other versions for at least those passages? I think not. This is not an all-or-nothing situation. We are so fortunate to have English as our native language. It has the largest, richest vocabulary of all languages and this is because of the many and varied groups which have contributed to English as we now know it: Angles, Saxons, Germanic tribes, Celts, Viking Norse, French, Roman and Latin speaking, etc. As well, the lands we call Great Britain apparently did not resist or forbid these influences but rather welcomed them and folded them into their language at the time. Compare the French who even today sneer at and try to exclude "other" language influences than their beloved Gallic tongue. Quelle catastrophe! There is no French King James Bible, of course. But I think the French and others deserve to be inspired and enlightened in their own Bible versions as we English speakers do. I hope they are.