Church and State

In Chapter 6 of Armstrong’s Jerusalem, she speaks of the Greeks’ influence on Jerusalem: “Greek art, philosophy, democracy, and literature, which have played such an important role in the development of Western culture, would not have impressed the inhabitants of Jerusalem in this terrible time” (104).  The Greeks insisted on religion and government existing separately-- the foundation of separation of church and state.  Jerusalem continued on under a council of elders (gerousia), with the Torah persisting as official law, but under the official rule of the Ptolemies. However, once the Tobiads took over, “the very boundlessness that had seemed chaotic and threatening to their ancestors now seemed exciting and liberating” (106). Armstrong then notes the sudden economic class struggles.

I cite these passages because I think this is a critical turning point in Jerusalem’s history that we can still see the consequences of today. The battle for ownership in Jerusalem today is partially an internal one, kindled by religion. Armstrong mentions that the lower class in Jerusalem wanted to adhere closely to the Law which would provide security. The upper class, however, were enticed by this materialistic possibility that the Greek culture supported. This raises two questions:

1)    Who should interpret religious texts, and should their say be considered law?

2)    If Jerusalem had adhered to Greek customs at this point in history, would there still be such profound conflict today?

To speak to Question 1, governments’ reliance on biblical texts is a recipe for disaster. Not that religious texts shouldn’t hold some authority, but the personal value and interpretation of such texts will never be consistent for an entire population. We see such discrepancies today when we consider issues such as marriage and immigration. Jerusalem faces this issue on a much greater scale; three religions and three texts further split an already politically divided land. This leads to Question 2. Perhaps assuming a democracy could’ve prevented some of the religious division of Jerusalem, or, at the very least, resolved the issues of borders and control. I think the gravity of religious conflict on top of geographical/border conflict is too much of a burden for such a small piece of land. However, this was unavoidable considering the Eliadean significance of the place.

I don’t think I have a definitive answer to either question; the history is too complex and deeply rooted. What are your thoughts?