Reading Response #4

In chapters 5-8, Karen Armstrong makes a narrative of the destruction of the Jewish people, their temple, and the ensuring Diaspora that has led to generations of a homeless mentality among them. I thought that the most powerful point that she made in chapter 5 was that idea that for these people it was not only a physical dislocation from their home but also a spiritual one. They saw their city destroyed, their temple burned, and their people succumb to starvation and desperation. She also points out that this moment marks a psychological event for the Jews because it plants a seed of mistrust and doubt. How could God abandon them and why did this happen? I believe that this mentality (combined with centuries of other tragic or dislocating events) carried through generations of Jewish people and ultimately became a staple in their mindset and culture. The exclusivity of the Jewish people is not completely unwarranted. Membership means carrying the burden of the generations before who have seen their Temple destroyed, their city sacked, their people relocated and pushed out of place after place, and eventually facing one of the most devastating genocides the world has ever seen. Jerusalem was their home and without their sacred Temple how could they pray to Yahweh and hear his voice? Armstrong points out something I found to be interesting as well which is that in the modern versions of most religions, prayer can be effective anywhere not just in a sacred site. But I think that she is generalizing too much here because although some religions believe this and have adapted their traditions to fit into a modern way of living, not every religion has done so and in my opinion, there is an absolute difference between praying in the supermarket and praying in a sacred place such as a church or a synagogue. Although I do understand that she is saying there was a difference for the Israelite Jews because they believed that Jerusalem was the only place where the Temple could be built.

As far as the content of this piece, I understand that Armstrong is trying to create an "unbiased" composition but it is obvious that this just isn't possible. First, I think that separating the oral history of the three religions is going to prove to be ultimately confusing. I think it would be much more beneficial to our understanding of the city if we had a brief overview of how these religions started and then go into more detail as to what the city went through, as opposed to only what the people went through. I appreciate what Armstrong is trying to accomplish but I think that it is more important to focus on what happened, not what people think happen. Yes, history is interpretation and perception. It is not absolute fact. And truth is also personal and subjective. Oral tradition is a crucial part of understanding people because it is part of their culture and their belief system. Who has the right to tell someone that what they believe to be true, is not true? In my opinion, no one. I think that the beauty of humanity is that each person is entitled to their own version of the truth, so long as they allow others to have the same right. The history of Jerusalem is wrapped in oral tradition, a history of destruction and regeneration, and the beliefs of millions that have inhabited its walls. Its not easy and it cannot be simply put. I look forward to the rest of Karen Armstrong's version of Jerusalem's history.