Viewing Jerusalem

       This week’s reading, the introduction of From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods, detailed the importance of understanding the potential fallibility in human records of history, with specific regards to Jerusalem. This goes hand in hand with understanding the context in which a historical record is being analyzed in, as well as the potential biases brought forth depending on the analyzer. While studying Jerusalem, it would be irresponsible to attempt to gather knowledge of its general history by relying solely on a specific account; if anything, I have learned that in order to even define Jerusalem, you must think of it broadly to encompass the various cultural and religious ways of life that saturate it. 

As said by the author, “historians are prisoners of sources that can never be made fully reliable, but if they are skilled readers of sources and always mindful of their captivity, they can make their sources yield meaningful stories about a past and our relationship to it” (Howell and Prevenier, 4). Because the history of Jerusalem is generated by the crossings of different groups of people, there is a dilemma when it comes to understanding it. The job of historians is to interpret time periods and events of the past based on other people’s interpretations of said time periods and events, so acknowledging the discrepancies that can arise is essential. Jerusalem in particular complicates this because of how polarizing the internal views can be. As seen in National Geographic’s Jerusalem (2013) documentary, modern-day Jerusalem seems to be as disparate as ever; the four quarters of Old Jerusalem are basically four different cities classified under an umbrella term of Jerusalem. With this in mind, it is imperative to understand that in order to study the history of anything, much less Jerusalem, one must maintain an open perspective. 

However, an open perspective is subjective based upon who the reader is. With Jerusalem’s rich religious history, there comes a deeper gravity when analyzing its relevance to cultural context, as it is often intertwined. One can choose one of two perspectives; a prescriptive view, or a descriptive one (Ernst 52). The prescriptive view is one in which the historian, or reader, has a stake in what they’re reading. Many people interested in Jerusalem, not for academic purposes, often step forth with a prescriptive view under the guise of religious bias. This is not necessarily something that they can help, as it is an internalized view that often defines part of their inherent thinking patterns. However, some are able to acknowledge their potential bias, and actively work to combat it. They choose a detached, outsider perspective. I am not saying that in order to study something as culturally and religiously sensitive as the topic of Jerusalem you must look from a descriptive perspective, but that one at least acknowledges which angle they are coming from. That being said, readers must be aware of the many influences that in turn have influenced what they are reading; discrediting or dismissing this idea diminishes the ability for true study to take place. 

Ernst, Carl W. Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World. University of North Carolina Press, 2003.