Jerusalem: Not a History

           Karen Armstrong's writing in chapters 8-10 seems remarkably less historical than the previous chapters. 

During these chapters, Armstrong goes directly from writing about Constantine's rise to power to writing of a debate about the godhood and humanity of Jesus Christ.  Arius, a "charismatic presbyter of Alexandria," did not believe that Jesus was inherently divine and was only divine because God had rewarded him for his obedience.  Alexander, a bishop and his assistant Athanasius argued that "only the One who had created the world had the strength to save it, so Jesus, the Logos made flesh, must share the Father's essential divinity" (177).  Later, Cyril, a bishop beginning in 349 proposes that "the humanity of Christ had religious value in itself.  There was no need to discount it and seek the spiritual essence of the Logos.  By taking a body, God had voluntarily and permanently allied himself with the human race.  The image of Jesus the man revealed Gods eternal disposition toward us.  There was no need to reject the physical world; you could actually use it to seek God" (191).  Though this is important to Christian belief today, the implications for Jerusalem are less clear.

Armstrong's writing about Constantine contains seemingly ungrounded speculations of his motivations.  Constantine, according to Armstrong used Christianity to gain political success and "hoped that once it was legalized, Christianity could become a cohesive force in his far-flung empire" (175).  He helped to uncover what was assumed to be Christ's tomb because he "knew that his Christian empire needed symbols and monuments to give it a historical resonance" (179). While all of this may be true, what does Armstrong know of Constantine's hopes and thoughts?  Are there writings from Constantine which document such considerations about his empire and the role of Christianity?  If there are, why does she not cite them?  If there are not, why does she stop recording history and begin writing conjecture?

In chapter 10, Armstrong writes in a critical manner of Christians.   Repeatedly, she writes of an "inbuilt hostility toward the Jews" (205) when rebuilding Jerusalem.  Though such a hostility may have been present, as I read, I found myself desiring evidence from historical sources which told of motivations for actions, not simply her assumptions or proposals.

I believe I went into reading Jerusalem with the wrong idea – the idea that it was a historical account of the city.  Jerusalem is, in fact, Armstrong's historical account which will naturally be presented with some of her own ideas and speculations and cannot be expected to be a totally unbiased account  - and perhaps that is why it is so interesting.