In these chapters I have been reminded about the sequence of conquering and rule change in Jerusalem. From Babylon to Persia to Greece to Rome, the foreign rule of the city caused a huge amount of conflict and strife. This reminder has helped me gain a greater perspective on the current situation in Jerusalem. While I don't necessarily see a direct connection between these ancient empires and the conflict of today, the overwhelming amount of information presented in these chapters contributes to the complexity of the city today.
Armstrong picks up on another theme with which I sort of agree and sort of disagree. Throughout the chapters she keeps coming back to how Judaism changes as a result of the empire in control of the city. On the one hand, Judaism did historically go through some changes as she describes, with the rabbis and priests adopting new traditions and adapting old ones to the cultures of their conquerors. For example, describing the "unclean" and "clean" customs, she writes, "This was an innovation that had no basis in the Torah but reflected the hostility of the more conservative Jews of Jerusalem toward the gentile world" (108). She also describes the transformation from a city of refuge for the poor to a city that viewed that poor as morally unclean. While I agree that some of the traditions of Judaism changed, (some in direct contradiction to the Torah and others not), I don't agree with her perspective that the teachings of true Judaism really changed. Perhaps it's a semantic argument, but I believe that the true nature of Judaism was preserved in its scriptures even if its people practiced it differently. I'm not sure how exactly to communicate what I'm thinking, but I believe there's a distinction between traditions and customs on the one hand and theology on the other. It seems to me that Armstrong does not make this distinction although I believe it's an important one. In theory and theology, pre-exilic and post-exilic Judaism was, at it's core, the same- even if it was practiced differently. (One might argue which is more important... but that's a different question altogether).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In your first paragraph I don't see the connection between the ancient empires and present day just yet. However, there has to be a point I think the connection will come soon. I also thought Armstrong's view of the "evolution" of Judaism was unique. At first I totally believed everything the author presented. But, I like your point that you disagree with her.
ReplyDeletehehe, babylong... sounds wrong :P
ReplyDeleteon a more serious note:
I think I agree with you in respect with what you say about Judaism. It's hard sometimes to really think about what you're reading, and analyze it. I'm glad one of us can do that :)