Genesis 1-3

Much is made of the paternalist consequences of women supposed being born out of the rib of man (secondary to the creation), however it seems that this ignores the reference in Genesis 1 to "humankind" being created, "male and female". Does this contradiction indicate the presence of editing or multiple writers? Also, why is it that we overlook the initial statement and take on the claim that women were fashioned from the rib of Adam? Is this not an example of using the bible not to construct, but rather to fit into our preconceived norms?

Lecture 20- 6/3/10

As we close out the quarter, today's final lecture brought us to modern Jerusalem, a city filled with all of the tension and cultural strife of its ancient predecessor Aelia Capitolina, and before that, the city of Jerusalem in the days of King David and the Davidic dynasty.
Following the Israeli conquest of the formerly-Jordanian West Bank and East Jerusalem, Arabs living in these conquered territories essentially became strangers in their own homeland. After years of discontent under Israeli rule, with many Palestinian leaders continuing to propose a forceful end to the Jewish state, the First Intifada began in 1988. Marked by the usual back and forth between terror attack and retaliatory strike, the First Intifada eventually came to a close with the Oslo Accords of 1992. Under the agreement, PLO leader Yasser Arafat acknowledged the State of Israel while Israel in return acknowledged the authority of the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
However, with many on both sides of the issue feeling betrayed by their leadership (and with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin), peace was not achieved, and thus the Second, or Al-aqsa Intifada began in 2000 following PM candidate (and later PM) Ariel Sharon's defiant visit to the Temple Mount. Lasting over the majority of the decade, this conflict had all the hallmarks of its predecessor, including the lack of a suitable conclusion.
And yes, that brings us to today, a day in which peace seems so necessary and yet at the same time so far-fetched.

Lecture 19- 6/1/10

Today's lecture began the conversation on modern, or 2oth Century Jerusalem. Beginning with the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I and the institution of the British mandate, the Palestinian territory once again became subject to rule from Western Europe, this time in the form of British and French (north of modern Israel, mainly Lebanon/Syria) imperial authorities.
Although promising to respect the holy sites of all faiths, the British occupiers set in motion a series of events that, although culminating in the State of Israel, ensured that peace would remain simply a hopeful whim for generations to come. While secretly agreeing to divide the conquered territory with French authorities in the Sikes-Picot Agreement, the British also signaled a half-hearted desire to establish a Jewish National Homeland in Palestine in response to growing Zionist sentiment among Jewish populations across Europe. Although the support for a Jewish state was tempered with Churchill's White Paper, the British had done enough damage with their initial proclamation to invigorate Zionist movements to move toward a Jewish state while at the same time angering Arab inhabitants into a series of violent riots.
The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 only worsened the division centered around control of Jerusalem. With the armistice between Israel and Jordan allowing for Jordanian control of the West Bank, the Jewish state was from its inception in opposition to the plans set forth by the UN for Palestinian partition between two state, one Jewish and the other Arab-Palestinian. Although the UN partition had initially been agreed to by the Zionists (and rejected by the Arabs), Israelis have gradually crept east in their settlement movements, especially after the Six-Day War of 1967 gave Israel full control over East Jerusalem and the West Bank. With these settlements, it has become nearly impossible for Israel to accept the boundaries laid forth by the original UN mandate, boundaries that the Arab population has now come to favor.

Lecture 18- 5/27/10

Today's lecture covered Jerusalem's rise throughout the Mamluk and Ottoman periods, eventually becoming the modern city it is today. Left without the protection of city walls, the Mamluk city was one in which religious significance reigned supreme. Lacking this protection, Jerusalem was no longer the administrative power seat it had been in years past, but rather left as a city whose importance was contained within the religious ideology. Within the Islamic and Jewish faiths (to a lesser extent, the Christian faith), the city came to become prominent in the spiritual realm, making up for its lack of administrative power with a connection to the religious imagination that made the holiness of the city unrestricted by its backwater role in the political and economic worlds.

During the Ottoman Empire, Jerusalem began to rise from the ashes. With its city walls rebuilt under Suleiman the Magnificent, the city once again gained political power, at the same time continuing to play a prominent role in the religious ideology of the region. Once again blessed with an upswing in building volume, Ottoman Jerusalem was made into a city clearly worthy of its claim as the third holiest in the Islamic faith.

However, the decline of the Ottoman Empire, coupled with corruption amongst local politicians, brought Jerusalem once again to its knees. This time, however, the decline in population eventually came to an end with the beginnings of the Zionist movement. With aliyah to the city now firmly engrained in the religious and secular ideology of the Jewish ethnicity, a return of Jewish population to the west side of the city served to once again make Jerusalem a Jewish-majority city despite its being under Islamic rule.

Lecture 17-5/25/10

Today's lecture covered a period of tremendous turmoil in Jerusalem, the Crusader period. Starting with the bloody conquest by these "Soliders of Christ" in 1099, Jerusalem underwent a nearly 200 year period of dramatic change, with the city falling back and forth between the hands of the Western Christian forces and those from the Islamic world. Although Christianity was in its formative years a religion deeply rooted in principles of peace and non-violence, Pope Urban II responded to a plea from Alexius I for mercenaries following several military losses by the Byzantine empire. In response, Urban makes a captivating (although to this day not completely transcribed) speech calling for "Holy War" to retake the Holy land from the "infidels" of Islam. Playing upon feelings of racism and a deep socioeconomic incentive (pursuit of fame and fortune), Urban's call leads to the formation of a massive Christian force that eventually takes Jerusalem in 1099.

After establishing the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (with Baldwin I named as "King of Jerusalem" in 1100), the Crusaders began to re-transform the city into a Christian center, rebuilding damaged shrines, erecting new ones, and re-characterizing Muslim holy sites as sites holy to the Christian faith. However, infighting and a lack of incentive for Crusaders to stay in the city left the kingdom vulnerable, a vulnerability exploited by the legendary Ayyubid sultan, Saladin, who regained control of Jerusalem following a rout of Crusader troops at the Horns of Hattin on July 4, 1187 and then the complete surrender of the city on September 26 of the same year. Saladin's mercy in not replicating the slaughter that defined the Crusaders attack gained him a reputation for chivalry in Europe and the Islamic world alike.

But, the Crusader period did not end for another 104 years. During that span, the city bounced back and forth between Christian and Muslim hands, with each conquest leading to fatal infighting on the part of the city's new owners. Finally, in 1291, the last outpost of Crusader power in the Holy Land, Acre, fell into Muslim hands, bringing to an end the Crusader period and instituting a Muslim rule over the Holy Land that would last until the British occupation that followed the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

Lecture 16- 5/21/10

Today's Lecture dealt with the transformation of Jerusalem into a uniquely Islamic city. Following in the footsteps of a power vacuum created by the divide between the Roman West and the Byzantine East, the Islamic empire swept in and conquered Jerusalem fairly easily, instituting a rule that was uncharacteristically benign in its treatment and tolerance of religious views different from those of the Muslim conquerors.

However, while there was a level of benevolence at the center of Islamic rule, the building projects undertaken by these new rulers clearly had at their core a motive of making Jerusalem an Islamic city, using architectural prowess to assert political and religious authority over the local Christian and Jewish populations (Jews allowed back into the city).

During this building phase, iconic structures such as the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque came to dominate the Temple Mount, at this point known as the Haram al-Sharif. While Jerusalem was simply given the role of 3rd holiest city in the Islamic faith, the political usage of these magnificent structures also came with the added bonus of turning Jerusalem into a tourist attraction, not only bringing in multitudes of Christian and Jewish pilgrims, but now the added patronage of muslim faithful. Now in direct competition for "tourist business" in the form of attracting pilgrims with the holy city of Mecca, the Umayyad dynasty was creating internal tension between those open to the holiest of the newly conquered city and those unnerved by a challenge to the reverence for Mecca. This divide would leave the Islamic empire without a united front and thus vulnerable in the face of the impending Crusade attack.

Lecture 15- 5/18/10

Yesterday's lecture covered Jerusalem's role in the Byzantine era of the Roman empire. An era marking the city's transition into a fully "Romanized" city, Jerusalem during the Byzantine period quickly became a city whose primary religious function lay within the Christian faith. With the Edict of Milan legalizing the faith in 313 and Theodosius making it the state religion in 391, Christianity's influence across the Roman empire grew enormously during this stage of the empire's development. Spurned by the "first" pilgrimage of Helena (Constantine's mother), the city attracted flocks of Christian pilgrims during the Byzantine era, attracted by holy sites such as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Nea ("New") Church.

However, the Byzantine era was also one marked by tension involving the entire Roman empire, tension rooted in both internal and external forces. In addition to the ongoing disputes over the orthodoxy (or lack thereof) that the new Christian church should adopt, the Roman empire itself was undergoing significant political turmoil. During the period, the expansive Roman empire was split, laying the foundation for the political and religious divide that would cement itself between the Christian empire centered in Rome and that which emerged to the east, in Constantinople (Istanbul). Ultimately, this political and religious schism would create a power vacuum leading directly or indirectly to the eventual conquest of the eastern empire (including Jerusalem) by the forces of Islam during the middle stages of the first millenia CE.