Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths... Take 1.

I thoroughly enjoy the way that Karen Armstrong has structured her writings thus far. The way she presents arguments in favor of either Israel or Palestine's ownership of Jerusalem just to turn it around showing an argument for the opposite is cute to say the least. More so I find it extremely important to her credibility in that she has no strong fundamental slant that she seems to be fighting for. Particularly in the introduction she makes the assertion that her purpose in writing this book was not to present a solution to the problem of Jerusalem but rather it was "to find out what a holy city was". This must have been a gravitating line for the team working on the Jerusalem Project because it reveals her neutrality. This is only augmented by the fact that she is not even from Jerusalem but rather a "British citizen" (xiiv). Yet, if anything these statements make me even more cautious of the writing style because it sounds too good to be true. The question is that even though she presents both sides to an argument, do both arguments hold equal weight? And that is something that I will be keeping my eye on personally.

When reading the earlier chapters of this book, a line from Rashid Kalid's essay has been circling throughout my brain that most of Jerusalem's "history" is actually not historically verifiable. Obviously with such an extensive timeline, historians cannot expect to present all of the information accurately whether that be cause by miscommunication error or lack of sources to compare texts with. What I found that was particularly amusing was how on page 14 she said that "we should pause briefly" to look at how a new god, Baal, might affect the city's spirituality. She continues on for 6 pages with a skeptical topic that at best she states that "some scholars believe" may have happened. Of course I am not saying that Baal was not a part of Jerusalem's history but the basis comes from her statement that "some scholars believe" may have happened. What is the importance of this? If the Hurrians did not bring the new god then the Ugarit similarities with the Israelite cult of Mount Zion take no precedence in Jerusalem's ownership. Thoughts?

Although skeptical in the first chapter, I am regaining my trust in Armstrong's neutrality as a historian. Her structure allows for the book to flow easily through the chronologically history and her comments appear significantly unbiased. She talks of how the "Bible speaks of terrible massacres" (22) and how many historians do believe this was true. Yet, she also adds that others also have evidence that says that this was not true although a minority of the population. I also enjoy the way she does not just debunk arguments and leave it at that. She continues to explain why the group may have thought that way (ie. the bible's "mythologized" style would not "satisfy modern historians" but she goes on to say the Jews needed these passionate stories to survive daily hardships).