Armstrong 16-18

It's the end!

In chapter 16 I was a little confused about the conflict over Barclay's Gate and Robinson's Arch (pg 355). Armstrong says that "archaeology could fuel its own holy wars" and talks about how the Catholics (specifically Felicien de Saulcy) tried to discredit Robinson's findings and therefore the Protestant faith. But she mentions that de Saulcy didn't have any "training in antiquities" or "and proof for these assertions," so did people really believe him? I just thought it was interesting that the two groups are so willing to fight over something that, in my opinion, is comparatively trivial. I recognize that I'm probably ignorant to some unmentioned belief, but why would it really matter where David's tomb is/was? How does that really impact faith or the practice thereof?

Kind of as a side note (the apologist/theologian in me is thinking again), it is pretty remarkable from a historical perspective that Israel actually became a nation again after having been dispersed for nearly 2000 years. At least to my knowledge, this is a truly unique happening in the history of the world. As a point of interest as well, both the dispersion and regathering of Israel are predicted in the Old Testament Jewish scriptures (in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel 37). Ezekiel 37 is especially interesting to me because it is dated to the 6th century during the time of the exile in Babylon, and the story goes that God gives Ezekiel a vision of bones rising from the ground and flesh appearing on them, and then life breathed into them. He then explains the vision: "these bones are the whole house of Israel... Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel..." (Ez. 37:11-12). God then tells Ezekiel "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms" (verses 21 and 22). Besides the fascinating imagery described at the beginning of the chapter, it's really interesting to ponder the significance of these writings and how they should be viewed today.

I really liked Armstrong's conclusion. Out of all the information and everything that she presented, I liked the way that she summed it up. In spite of the difficulty to be optimistic about the future, she concludes: "It still remains true, when we look back on the long history of Jerusalem, that the societies that have lasted the longest there have, generally, been the ones that were prepared for some kind of tolerance and coexistence in the holy city. That, rather than a sterile and deadly struggle for sovereignty and total victory, must be the way to celebrate Jerusalem's sanctity today" (430). I think that all of that historical detail is worth it to glean this truth, and I hope that it can be applied to the city sometime in the near future.