History Repeats Itself
The oldest historical knowledge I have is that of classical Greece
and Rome. I really couldn’t speak to anything before the Roman emperors until
now, reading the history of the Near East in a Biblical context. During this
week’s reading of Chapter three of Armstrong’s Jerusalem: One City, Three
Faiths I noticed some stark parallels between the Kingdom of David and
Julius Caesar’s Comentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentary on the Gallic
Wars, 58-49 BC). In Caesar’s Comentarii, he recalls the Gallic wars
(against tribes within Gaul, modern France) from his position as Emperor and
General of the Roman armies. He describes his exact military strategies and,
later, how he ran his conquered enemies as his own empire. This is where some
of Armstrong’s assertions about David sound almost exactly the same as Caesar’s
style of conquering and ruling.
First, Armstrong notes David’s mercy as a “conqueror of Jerusalem.
He not only treated the existing inhabitants of the city with respect but even worked
closely with them, incorporating them into his own administration” (pp.38-39).
Caesar did something similar later on in history: he would approach a territory
with an offer of peace and agreement that the tribe could practice their own
religion and keep their own leaders as long as they agreed to pay taxes as
citizens. If a tribe declined, then Caesar would order his army to attack.
Second, Armstrong discusses David’s movement of the Ark of the Covenant into
Jerusalem, “legitimiz[ing] his rule and also transform[ing] Jerusalem… into a
holy place” (pp. 41). Caesar did something similar with the aquilifer,
the golden eagle of the Roman legions. In bringing the golden eagle into
foreign territory--by agreement or force-- marked the land as Roman in the eyes
of their many gods. Although the golden eagle is not necessarily a religious
symbol, it held the same respect and honor as a symbol.
Armstrong concludes that “alongside the glowing descriptions, we
also read of a nation bitterly divided against itself, exceeding its resources,
and clearly heading for a crisis” (45). This description not only suits the
Davidian kingdom, as it is written to but also the Roman Empire before its
sudden fall. It is interesting to see such uncanny similarities between two
different historical and religious contexts. I am eager to read more of
Armstrong and continue the story of Jerusalem and Israel because there has to
be a major difference somewhere in the minute details; perhaps the difference
is the God they worshipped.
Comments
Post a Comment