Karen Armstrong's Jerusalem: One City, three Faiths is amazing. How does one person research and discover so much information? She sure did a good job recording it: the beginning was a refreshing and well-written explanation of 'history' without historicity, but she made it easier for me to visualize. And as soon as there is valid historical evidence, she quickly ties it into her story. While the first and second chapters seem a familiar refreshment of something I enjoy reading and hearing (yep, I listen to her every day while commuting to school), I soon got into information that I am unfamiliar with. Though I'm thoroughly absorbed with the detail of the new information I'm reading and hearing, it changes so fast, and leaves me wondering who's on first and what's on second. And not only does it seem fast paced, but it gets faster, with more intensity and conflict. And, each of these newcomers claim a stake in Jerusalem. How can one city be pulled internally and externally so many different directions?
Something that really struck me was the opening of chapter three: "The Jebusites were convinced David would never be able to conquer their city. Jerusalem..." ...THEIR city?? I guess I always thought of Jerusalem as having been the Israelites. And I really have wondered why the claim of the Jewish people couldn't stand intact, since it was 'always' theirs. Now I find out it wasn't! It was the Jebusites??? And David conquered it around 1000 BCE? This puzzles me...is this why each conqueror can claim Jerusalem as their own? David conquered it and claimed it 'The City of David,' so each conqueror can claim it, build upon it, and it becomes theirs? No wonder Jerusalem is such a disputed territory: she has had so many different conquerors over her vast history....how can it ever be sorted out?
I agree that Karen Armstrong's book offers a balanced look at Jerusalem's history. She has found and recorded these various conquerors and approaches their conquests fairly and without bias. I especially like her story-like approach of the time period during the Bible. For example, in the second chapter during her 'history' of the Israelites, she writes of Abraham. She relates the story of when he is sitting outside his tent at Mamre and the three strangers approach. It is so smooth it sounds as if she is reading a bedtime story or just relating some gathered facts. Yet it is taken from the Bible. And, within that writing (the bottom of page 27 in her book) she mentions, in reference to Abraham's kindness to the strangers: "With typical Near Eastern courtesy." Wow! Is she comparing Abraham to today's typical Near Eastern courtesy or to others around him during his time period? Just wondering there. Though it seems such a small point, imagine the work that went into being able to make that claim.
I wanted to comment on what you said regarding the Jebusites, because that was almost exactly my thought process. One of the things Jewish Israelis--in general, and in my experience--have often claimed is that the land is by nature theirs. This book says maybe that's not the case. Also, what happened to the Jebusites? I guess some of them are still in the area today, or their descendents rather, but where are they in all the modern mess? I have no idea, it's just something I was thinking about as well when I read about them.
ReplyDelete