To ask if a writing on Jerusalem is a balanced account seems like a paradox within itself. I have come to feel that no matter how eagerly someone tries to be objective when writing on Jerusalem some personal belief and political attitude will seep through your well thought out words.
With this being said, I do believe that Armstrong's thesis question is a interesting way to look at the history of Jerusalem. She says in her concluding paragraph of the introduction, "this book will not attempt to lay down the law about the future of Jerusalem. That would be presumption. It is merely an attempt to find out what Jews, Christians, and Muslims have meant when they have said that the city is 'holy' to them and to point out some of the implications of Jerusalem's sanctity in each tradition." With this thesis, she sets up the reader for a history saturated with sacred, mythical, and symbolic context. If there is any other way to look at the history of Jerusalem, I would not know how.
I also like how Armstrong plainly lays out the importance of mythology when speaking of a holy city. She says, "mythology was never designed to describe historically verifiable events that actually happened." It was an attempt to express their inner significance or to draw attention to realities that were too elusive to be discussed in a logically coherent way." She then goes on to say stories of Jerusalem should not be dismissed because they are only 'myths'. The mythical attributes are vitally important to Jerusalem's history. Instead of dismissing the myths, for their not so historical backing, we should study, understand, and critique them on the basis of their relevance to Jerusalem and her people.
No comments:
Post a Comment