I’ve had memorable instructors. Most of them were memorable in good ways. Like Dr. Hong,1 who taught Moorhead State’s ancient history classes in the early 1970s.
By the time I graduated, I think I’d taken every ‘ancient history’ class the History Department offered.
One reason I liked, and like, that subset of humanity’s long story is that we know a fair amount about it: and it’s a part of the story that’s now complete. As I see it, pretty much all the “history” since then is still in progress. Studying it is interesting. But it’s a bit like reading a mystery story, where the last few chapters are missing.
Most students very likely didn’t see ancient history that way, since Dr. Hong’s classes seldom had more than maybe a half-dozen students. That’s probably why they were in what I’m guessing was a conference room in MacLean Hall.
I didn’t mind the class size, or spending 50 minutes at a table in a windowless room, taking notes.
But — now that I think about it, this one student might have enjoyed his snooze. While he was taking it.
The Curious Case of the Somnolent Student
I had no trouble understanding Dr. Hong during lectures, or in conversation.
His syntax was precise, and his diction exact. For example: that upward inflection English-speaking folks put at the end of a sentence to indication a question? Dr. Hong ended questions with a very distinct change in tone. The same one. Every time.
However, and particularly during lectures, his speech did tend toward steady tonal values.
His delivery style was unruffled. Tranquil. Monotonic.
And that brings me to The Curious Case of the Somnolent Student.
Among the handful of folks in one of the classes I took with Dr. Hong was a six-foot-plus fellow who was big as well as tall. He could have played the part of a viking.
My guess is that he’d let himself get short on sleep the previous night. That can happen with college students, for various reasons.
At any rate, he started out the class period in his usual seat, near Dr. Hong’s end of the table, diligently taking notes.
Then, as the lecture proceeded, I noticed that his hand had stopped moving.
A few minutes later, his hand, and arm, began flowing across the table, followed by his shoulders, neck, head and body. By the time his hand had crossed the opposite side of table, he was softly snoring.
Dr. Hong didn’t skip a beat, I kept taking notes, the class period ended, and someone awoke the slumbering student.
He was mildly concerned. Can’t say that I blame him. But to my knowledge, that unplanned nap didn’t affect his grade.
Taking, and Sharing, Notes
Taking notes during Dr. Hong’s lectures was a real pleasure for me. Early on, I realized that he followed an outline. An exact outline.
Organized and prioritized lecturing is good practice, and fairly common. Some professors can be wonderfully informative without that sort of hierarchical structure in their lectures, and I’m drifting off-topic.
But like I said, early on, looking at my notes from one of his classes, I realized that he’d been delivering highly-organized information. The sort of thing you see in how-2 guides:
- A.
- 1.
- a.
- b.
- c.
- 2.
- a.
- 3.
- 4.
- a.
- 1.
- B.
- 1.
- 2.
— you get the picture.
I can organize information in outline format, but it’s not my favorite activity. The effort he put into his lectures, and the way those notes made studying easier, helped make Dr. Hong among my favorite professors.
Again, Dr. Hong’s diction and syntax were very precise. But they weren’t the Upper Midwest dialect of English I’d grown up hearing.
Dr. Hong’s speech style — accent? whatever — didn’t keep me from understanding what he was saying, since he spoke very clearly and consistently.
Apparently, though, I was the only one in some of his classes who could follow his lectures.
That resulted in a few conversations, including one where someone asked me if (1) I could understand what Dr. Hong was saying and (2) if I’d mind if she copied my notes.
The other students hadn’t left yet, so when I said (1) yes and (2) no problem: they stopped. None of us had a class during the next period, and the room was still free, so we all sat around the table as I read through the notes.
That happened in a few classes, and was a good experience. I like being useful.
And Dr. Hong gave excellent lectures.
Hearing a Unique Translation
One of Dr. Hong’s classes was — I think it was called “The Bible as History”.
Anyway, during one of the lectures, he read an example of the Bible’s historical aspect from one of the Old Testament books. I don’t remember which one.
Partway through, I noticed that the text he was reading — although familiar — wasn’t quite like any translation I’d run across.
That’s when I glanced at the Bible’s cover. Whatever was written there was in the Greek alphabet. And I realized why the text I was hearing had the same syntax Dr. Hong used during lectures.
I’d been listening to someone who grew up speaking Korean, reading a Greek text, and translating on the fly into English.
That was another reason Dr. Hong is among my favorite teachers.
Understanding and Accepting the Bible: Very Briefly
I’ve been reading one of the Bible’s historical books, 2 Kings. Don’t be overly impressed — I’m a Catholic, so reading the Bible is a ‘must do’ thing. And a very good idea.
“The Church ‘forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful… to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.'”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 133)
Knowing what the Bible, Sacred Scripture is — and what it’s not — is also a good idea.
“…Know what the Bible is – and what it isn’t. The Bible is the story of God’s relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation….”
(“Understanding the Bible” , Mary Elizabeth Sperry, USCCB)
Okay: so how can I think “The Bible as History” was a valid course title and say that not seeing the Bible as “a history text” makes sense?
Bear in mind that I’m looking at this as someone who is, among other things, an historian.
Viewpoints and Me
Reading the Bible as if it’s a “history text” — in other words, assuming that it was written by someone with a contemporary Western viewpoint, focusing on the political, military, and economic aspects of people and events during a particular period?
That would be a bad idea.
But recognizing at least parts of the Bible as historical documents? The sort of thing historians study as part of an ongoing effort to understand our past?
That strikes me as a good idea.
Bear in mind that I don’t see 2 Kings, or any other of the Bible’s historical books, as merely — or mainly — an historical document. It’s pretty sparse when it comes to the ‘who did what, when, where, how, why and to whom’ details that historians deal with.
But since it gives the names of ‘historical’ folks, along with what they did and who else was around at the time — at a bare minimum, it’s the sort of documentation that can be useful in an academic sense.
Or could be useful, when the notion that everything in the Bible must be ‘fiction’ or ‘myth’ — in the sense of make-believe — becomes less fashionable.
That said, I’m not reading 2 Kings because I think it’s a “history text”.
Reading the Bible, Being a Catholic
I’m reading it because it’s part of humanity’s long story: specifically, part of what I call our Lord’s family history.
I’m also reading it because it’s part of Sacred Scripture, where I can learn what God has been showing us. And that is, putting it mildly, very important.
But, again, I’m a Catholic. So it’s not ‘just the Bible and me’. I’ve got access wisdom that’s been accumulated over millennia, and the sort of guidance I won’t find anywhere else.
Here’s a very quick look at how I see the Bible, Tradition (capital “T”), the Magisterium, and the third person of the Holy Trinty:
“BIBLE: Sacred Scripture: the books which contain the truth of God’s Revelation and were composed by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit (105). The Bible contains both the forty-six books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (120). See Old Testament; New Testament.”
“HOLY SPIRIT: The third divine person of the Blessed Trinity, the personal love of the Father and Son for each other. Also called the Paraclete (Advocate) and Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit is at work with the Father and the Son from the beginning to the completion of the divine plan for our salvation (685; cf. 152, 243).”
“MAGISTERIUM: The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church’s fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals (85, 890, 2033).”
“TRADITION: The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75-82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83).”
(Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church)
That’s all I have time for this week.
I’ve talked about the Bible, history, and making sense, before:
- “Elijah’s Cup: a Reminder, a Tradition, and a Memory” (December 7, 2024)
- “Holiday Season 2023: Here We Go Again” (November 25, 2023)
- “Pope Francis and an Open Catholic Church” (August 12, 2023)
- “Lent 2023: Prayer and Prepping For Easter” (February 22, 2023)
- “History, Viewpoints, Narratives and Ancient Rome” (July 2, 2022)
1 Took me a while, but I found a document that mentioned Dr. Hong:
- Graduate Bulletin, 1985-1987 (1985)
Department of History; RED: a Repository of Digital Collections, Minnesota State University Moorhead
That led me down a rabbit hole or two, but at the end of the day here’s what I learned about Dr. Hong’s academic background:
Christopher C. Hong, 1968. Professor of History. A.B., Ottawa University; B.D. , Westminster Seminary; Ph.D., University of Chicago
(Graduate Bulletin, 1985-1987 (1985), MSUM)
