Karen Armstrong Reading Response - Week 3

The first reading was lengthy, but I loved it! I have read other Karen Armstrong books and she is an excellent author. (If you haven't read more from her, you definitely should!) Having attended a Catholic school for most of my years before college, I had much of Jerusalem's history drilled into my head. I also had to study Kings 1 and Kings 2, which are the biblical accounts of early Judea. But it never fails to interest me. As opposed to focusing on each of the 7 chapters that we all read (which is some dense material!), I'm going to just focus on some of the aspects that I found particularly important to my understanding of Jerusalem's history.

1. Lack of solid evidence: Armstrong starts out by acknowledging that "we know nothing" about the people who first settled the area that would become Jerusalem. There is an immediate acknowledgement of the lack of solid evidence about who was in Jerusalem first, or what the exact history of Jerusalem is. I noticed that Armstrong used the Bible as a reference, which is not really looked at as a credible historical source, which Armstrong knows. It just goes to show that we cannot definitively know what she is saying is true. Her honesty makes it easier to approach this book that is probably controversial to many.

2. Basic acknowledgement of Abrahamic religions: people LOVE to separate Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Many do so for divisive purposes. Yet the roots of these three major world religions are the same. Everyone traces their roots back to Abraham. She explains the split between the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac, but does so to explain to historical separation of the religions as well. She doesn't try to make it seem as though this is some sort of dogmatic difference. While this seems elementary, I was glad to see it in a book that I hope others pick up who don't understand that these three religions share the same roots.

3. Spirituality in geography: I was completely fascinated by the idea that people chose to build temples in places where they felt some sort of connection with their respective gods. It makes the obsession with Jerusalem seem somewhat arbitrary and less meaningful. For those who think that a specific ethnicity belongs in a certain place due to any religious reason should examine this idea. There are many places in that area that people felt moved by their gods. It was not about a specific area being holy. No place was holier than another. Many places were holy and God could be found almost anywhere. In the beginning of people inhabiting the area surrounding modern Jerusalem, no one even seemed to care about Jerusalem. It seems that people have lost the point of "holy land." While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not religious in nature, many conservative Christians in the United States lobby to fund specifically Jewish inhabitation of modern Israel due to their biblical interpretations. In the face of that logic, this idea could easily nullify that rationale.

4. Coexistence: Armstrong explores King David's takeover of Jerusalem where the Jebusites had lived. Unlike many takeovers, he did not harm the Jebusites. He took over political control, but allowed the former king to retain his estate and he kept Jebusite officials to help him run the city. While things did not remain so peaceful forever in ancient Israel, it showed the capability of coexistence. This idea has been completely lost in modern times, including in this area. I thought her inclusion of that was an interesting thought to ponder in light of current events.

5. Mythology and symbols: one of the most frequently run-into issues I have had with religious conversations, especially with where I grew up, were questions about what I think is religious "mythology." The best example is the story of creation, which I believe in a symbolic story to explain that God created the world. The story of Adam and Eve is simply to explain that humans are fallen in nature and imperfect creatures, which sets up the future New Testament covenant of Jesus redeeming humanity through his death as both a fully human and fully divine being. Being raised in a Catholic tradition, I was never raised to take these stories literally. As I got a little older and found out that people took them literally, I was surprised. Armstrong mentioning symbols and myths about religion was great, as it reminds us that much of what is believed about Jerusalem is symbolic and/or mythical. That doesn't make them any less important, as these myths and symbols still greatly impact how people feel, think, and react to the question of Jerusalem that is faced today.

Discussion questions:
1. What do you think about the historical precedent of coexistence in Jerusalem? Do you think that there is a lesson to be learned from the story of David, or is it too far removed at this point to be relevant?
2. Is the spirituality in geography idea relevant to the current issue, or is it now too politically and culturally involved to matter? Do you think if somehow the spirituality in geography idea were totally removed from the conflict that it would make a difference in how people feel about it, at least in the United States amongst fundamentalist Christian groups?