Reading Response: April 20

We've been slogging through Armstrong for a while now--and I say slogging not because it's not a well-written, enjoyable book, but because there is a lot of detail and Armstrong is prone to excursion--and I've come to a couple conclusions about Jerusalem.

First, Armstrong is trying to illustrate the history of Jerusalem by giving us a history of the three religions that consider it the Holy City. This point bears emphasis. Armstong is trying to illustrate the history of Jerusalem by giving us a complete history of the three religions--from their origins to the present--of the three religions that consider it the Holy City. This explains most of her excursions, wherein we learn details that hardly seem relevant to the politics of contested modern-day Jerusalem.

So what does it mean that Armstrong thinks that a history of Jerusalem is lacking without a full history of the three great monotheisms? Several things, really: first, that arguments about modern Jerusalem are rooted in the history of religion; second, religion and religious history is used in arguments about modern Jerusalem, and so it behooves everyone to know the history involved; third, details matter. This last point is most problematic. Because yes, I think it's important that we get a full idea of the history and the development of the three religions, so we know Jerusalem's place in all this history. But if the details really matter, then we're surrendering ground to those who use those details as wedges, as points of contention. And worse, Armstrong, while very thorough and drawing on a gamut of sources, leans very heavily on scripture for history--and as problematic as historical texts are for accuracy and reliability, scripture even moreso, if only because scripture is meant to enlighten believers about the nature of the religion, not to provide an accurate historical record of events.

So when I read today's chapters about early Christianity and the beginnings of Islam, and the Crusades, I'm troubled that an account like this does work against its primary objective. People can easily seize on factoids in the book, or entire chapters or even themes, and use those to bolster their exclusionary claims. Not only do we open the door to the inevitable "who got there first?" questions/arguments, but we also open the door to "who was treated the worst, and by whom?" claims--wherein whichever group suffered the most has the most puissant claim to the city now, and whichever group was the greatest victimizer has the weakest claim.

On these grounds, then, the Jews have the greatest claim to Jerusalem: they were present in the city and the region so far back in antiquity that it is difficult (if not impossible) to separate their presence from that of the progenitors of the Palestinians, and they suffered repeatedly at the hand of conquerors and rulers from afar--to an extent never known before (Armstrong repeatedly notes that the Jews were the first people to be persecuted for their religious beliefs and practices).

Again, this is a very problematic direction, because it closes down the possibility for dialogue. Israelis use this history as justification for their claims, while Palestinians point to evidence that their progenitors were in the region at the same time as the progenitors of modern Jewry, and that the Palestinians or the Muslims were not the great persecutors in Jewish history, and therefore they (Palestinians and/or Muslims) shouldn't suffer penalties today. These are the terms by which the argument is framed so often, without deep histories of religion. So giving us the deep histories doesn't serve to defuse or to deconstruct those terms.

The second conclusion I've reached is not so deep (or long-winded), and one I've stated in class as well as above. Armstrong relies too heavily on scriptural sources to flesh out her "history." At one point--I think in describing the Bar Kokhba Revolt, but I'm a bit foggy on where exactly--Armstong cites... maybe Josephus, saying that the Legions swept through and killed something like 585,000 people in the scouring of Judea. That number is preposterous--there's no way a half a million people were living in the region, let alone that many being killed in the sub-province (and leaving any survivors behind to populate it, even sparsely). I've read a few critiques of Josephus, who, as a "historian" is problematic and not very reliable. So if Josephus isn't entirely reliable, and (at the very least) exaggerates numbers, what about scriptural writers? Armstrong is right to point out the very anti-Jewish themes in the gospels of Matthew and John, but despite acknowledging this bias, she never questions the historical veracity of their writings. This is beating up chapters that we read prior, but the point is still valid, because establishing scripture as a reliable history undermines the (more recent) history of Muslim presence in the region--a history that has greater support and more sources.

So coming to the expansion of the Arab Islamic Empire, and the clash with European Crusaders, the Jewish presence is not entirely written out of Jerusalem, but then Armstrong replicates some of the violence down to conquered peoples--but focusing on the contests between the powerful, between the armies and rulers of the two newer religions. Even more than in the bloody history of Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman conquests, the Crusades stand out for the cruelty and violence--not because the Crusaders were necessarily more villianous than previous conquerors, but because we have more detailed records of the cruelty that survive to the present--often because the Crusaders themselves bragged of their (mis)deeds as if they were virtues.

And I'm not sure that Armstrong acknowledges that problem.

I was going to write something else about Armstrong, but not only have I forgotten my point--I've written a bunch already, and don't want to write a book here. Oh, and did anyone else despair at finding the Ellwood chapter? I couldn't find a link or anywhere to download it.