There is nothing like an author reading her or his own text. The expression, exclamations, pauses, all where it is supposed to be; conveying exactly what the author means. It would have been better however, if the tracks were broken down into chapters. It is easier that way especially if you like to download them on to your i-pod. (Hence I ranked it 4 star and not 5).
The text is phenomenal. I wish it was not abridged. It is true that Karen Armstrong has not adopted the much prevalent anti Muslim rhetoric. Having said that, I really do not think that she portrayed any ethnic or religious group better or worse than the other. She presents historical facts (as factual as history has been recorded)and leads the listener / reader to draw their own conclusion. It unravels a few mysteries behind ongoing unrest in the middle east. Not only it provides us with a better insight in the current conflicts, and also enables us to hypothesize plausible solutions (though none are easy).

An excellent book about a tough subject. I learned a lot about this history of the city that me and my people aspire to become the capital of the Palestinian State.

One conclusion that struck me at the end of this spiritual quest, because this is more than a history of a city, Karen rightly concludes that a religion based on hatred of others is a self destructive. This is what the history of this tells us. That's why Jews and Christians have lost this city before to others. That doesn't mean Muslims automatically deserves this city. It means that only when this city is open to all, then this city and its rulers will live in peace.

I highly recommend this book for all.

Much of the material tracing the earlier history of Jerusalem is well written and quite interesting. However, when the author approaches the re-emergence of a strong Jewish presence in Jerusalem all of her previous objectivity goes out the window as she argues that the Jews brutalize the Arabs and that things would be so much better if only the Jewish majority were ruled by the Arab minority.

Her portrait of Jerusalem as a divided and armed camp on p. 419, "Repeatedly ...." is simply false. It is true that the area of Jaffa Road and King George is no longer mixed, but the commercial interaction between Arabs and Jews has simply moved to Talpiot. You also see many clearly identifiable Arabs at the three campuses of the Hebrew University and both Hadassah hospitals. The remaining area of commercial activity in Jerusalem is the food industry where in restaurants, hotels and grocery stores you see Arabs running the kitchens in most restaurants and running a large part of the operations of many of the grocery stores. I see this every day living here in Jerusalem.

The idea that Jews buying properties and moving into Arab neighborhoods constitutes an act of war has its parallels in the history of black people in the old south. It is a view of someone who rejects the idea that Jewish people are equal with any other people. How sad that the author has wasted her talents to present such a view.

This book provides a very balanced view of the factors leading to the present day situation in Jerusalem. Although somewhat heavy on the religious influences, not inappropriately so, since this is what made Jerusalem what it is today. I would have liked to have learned more about the situation with the Armenians in that quarter of the city throughout the turmoil of the last few hundred years. The many maps of the changing city were outstanding. Excellent!

One must begin where it started, why is Jerusalem holy? The answer, not found in this book, it is not. Jerusalem was claimed by the Jews to be a place where Isaac was not sacrificed by Abraham. However this was pure revisionism from the beginning, since by the time David founded his city in Jerusalem, no one knew. David did build Jerusalem, and two temples did rest above his city. Herod did built the monstrous temple mount that exists today. Jesus was crucified in or near Jerusalem. Mohammed never saw Jerusalem, he referenced 'the holy' which was not Jerusalem but became Jerusalem when it was conquered. On the temple mount the Muslims found a rock, and claimed Mohammed's footprint was in it. As illogical as the same rock being where Isaac and Abraham were, this shows how a once faked holy site is then doubly faked. Pagans faked its holiness to. They built a temple atop the mount. The city is holy, no doubt, but the historical facts attributed to it are bogus. Persecution followed, of Jews by Christians and then of Christians by Muslims. In 1948 the city divided, Christian students in the city were forced to learn Koran half the day and Jews were forbidden to enter. 1967 liberated the city, for all faiths, despite the authors opinion that it would be better for intolerance to have triumphed and only one religion be allowed sovereignty.

This is a sad disingenuous tale, which does not remark on the idiocy of the very idea of a city being 'holy' to three faiths. Maybe it is holy to the world? Maybe the Buddha was in Jerusalem.

Seth J. Frantzman

One must begin where it started, why is Jerusalem holy? The answer, not found in this book, it is not. Jerusalem was claimed by the Jews to be a place where Isaac was not sacrificed by Abraham. However this was pure revisionism from the beginning, since by the time David founded his city in Jerusalem, no one knew. David did build Jerusalem, and two temples did rest above his city. Herod did built the monstrous temple mount that exists today. Jesus was crucified in or near Jerusalem. Mohammed never saw Jerusalem, he referenced 'the holy' which was not Jerusalem but became Jerusalem when it was conquered. On the temple mount the Muslims found a rock, and claimed Mohammed's footprint was in it. As illogical as the same rock being where Isaac and Abraham were, this shows how a once faked holy site is then doubly faked. Pagans faked its holiness to. They built a temple atop the mount. The city is holy, no doubt, but the historical facts attributed to it are bogus. Persecution followed, of Jews by Christians and then of Christians by Muslims. In 1948 the city divided, Christian students in the city were forced to learn Koran half the day and Jews were forbidden to enter. 1967 liberated the city, for all faiths, despite the authors opinion that it would be better for intolerance to have triumphed and only one religion be allowed sovereignty.

This is a sad disingenuous tale, which does not remark on the idiocy of the very idea of a city being 'holy' to three faiths. Maybe it is holy to the world? Maybe the Buddha was in Jerusalem.

Seth J. Frantzman

While this is a superb, fair-minded and empathetic history of the city which will be enlightening to all except very knowledgeable specialists, it is at the same time Karen Armstrong's meditation on the "sacred geography" conceived by the three faiths in its spiritual and its material form. She is very sympathetic to and receptive of the spiritual ideals of all three faiths, and is dismayed by how so often they have all been debased by bitter rivalries (between as well as within religions), by demands for exclusivity and domination, as well as by the "idolatry to see a shrine or a city as the ultimate goal of religion". This is something the wisest theologians - few, alas, in number - have taught. At the same time, however, a material shrine is one expression of one's spiritual identity, so that the perceived threat or the destruction of a shrine - let alone expulsions and exile - are experienced as violations of one's spiritual identity. She shows that the potency of religious symbolism is such that even secular nationalism (to which she perhaps does not pay quite enough attention) has recourse to it. She shows how the best periods in the history of the city have been those few when the rulers of one faith or ethnicity have respected the faith, ethnicity and buildings of another. She is not optimistic that such wisdom is available in Jerusalem in the near future.

While this is a superb, fair-minded and empathetic history of the city which will be enlightening to all except very knowledgeable specialists, it is at the same time Karen Armstrong's meditation on the "sacred geography" conceived by the three faiths in its spiritual and its material form. She is very sympathetic to and receptive of the spiritual ideals of all three faiths, and is dismayed by how so often they have all been debased by bitter rivalries (between as well as within religions), by demands for exclusivity and domination, as well as by the "idolatry to see a shrine or a city as the ultimate goal of religion". This is something the wisest theologians - few, alas, in number - have taught. At the same time, however, a material shrine is one expression of one's spiritual identity, so that the perceived threat or the destruction of a shrine - let alone expulsions and exile - are experienced as violations of one's spiritual identity. She shows that the potency of religious symbolism is such that even secular nationalism (to which she perhaps does not pay quite enough attention) has recourse to it. She shows how the best periods in the history of the city have been those few when the rulers of one faith or ethnicity have respected the faith, ethnicity and buildings of another. She is not optimistic that such wisdom is available in Jerusalem in the near future.

Well, there are three contenders for whose city it is! Just ask Karen Armstrong. Should it be awarded to the evil Christians, who killed the Pagans and went back on the noble idea of refusing to consider mere terrain sacred? Obviously not. How about to the Pagans? No, of course not. They don't count at all, even though I must admit that Armstrong does refer to them a few times. How about to the Jews? No, these folks are just interlopers who had to invent arbitrary myths to pretend that they cared at all about the place, much less had a right to be there. The winners are ... (envelope please!) ... the Muslims! The Muslim Arabs had no need to invent any myths to "fuel their struggle" because Jerusalem was theirs like a spouse. I wonder if Karen will award Paris to the Germans next.

I was hoping to see a more sympathetic treatment of Aelia Capitolina. Still, I wasn't shocked by Armstrong's lack of concern for the polytheists: she seemed to discuss them only to complain about the Christians. But I was surprised to see Armstrong trying to mislead her readers into thinking that Jerusalem is Arab by right and is in the process of being wickedly Judaized. After all, as even Karen states, Jerusalem was over 60% Jewish by 1900. And, in fact, the Jewish percentage of the city hasn't changed much since then, even though the surrounding area has become far more Jewish. This sort of blatant bias made Armstrong look more like a Hamas gun moll than a serious scholar.

There are plenty of facts in this book, but Armstrong's tendency to invert truth makes it appear that she wrote the book just to attack the human rights of a few non-Muslims. Avoid this paean to hatred, racism and intolerance.

In books concerning hot conflicts like the Middle East, it is commonplace to cover only part of the story or to concentrate on one set of events more so than others. This is understandable of course since most people with adequate interest in a topic typically have made up their minds and favor one of the conflicting sides. Not so with this book. I read this book with a critical eye, begging to find any evidence that the author is partial to anyone anyone, but in all of the 430 pages I could not find a single biased reference nor any significant omissions. By writing this wonderful comprehensive and well-researched history of Jerusalem, Karen Armstrong has done all of us concerned about the city a great favor. Throughout the 5000-year history of the city, this book describes in an unbiased tone the enormously interesting history of this hotly contested city. Many remarkable and little-known facts are can be found here. For example, I was surprised to learn that the history of Jerusalem extended for 2000 years before King David, its purported "founder". The book covers all the different eras of the city: the Canaanite, Egyptian, Israelite, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Muslim, and Crusader eras. The last two chapters focus on the 20th century history of the city.

Though the author was a former catholic nun, she displays no bias whatsoever towards Christianity. The book displays the history of the city equally from the points of view of all three religious groups that care about it: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Thus the book dwells in detail about the extreme agony of the Jews for their loss of the city and their being forbidden to enter it during Byzantine Roman rule. The book also illustrates the relative tolerance of early Islam and how Jews for the first time were allowed to return to Jerusalem under Islamic rule and coexist in peace with Christians and Muslims. If the author displays a bias against anyone, it is against extremists from all religions who are today fanning the flames of conflict and threatening the peace of the city.

The book is a definite page-turner, packed full of information, and well worth a read if you cared about understanding the "whys" and the "how comes" behind the daily headlines.

If you liked this book, you'll like Karen Armstrong's other books, especially "A History of God" which, surprisingly, contains little repetition or overlap with this book, unlike many similarly prolific authors.

I was unable to finish this book because Karen Armstrong's Biblical references are so glaringly wrong. She has the God of the Old Testament splitting a sea monster in half during creation, and Isaiah telling King Ahaz that the Messiah will be his Queen's unborn son, just to name a few. I eventually came to the conclusion that if her Biblical references cannot be trusted, how can I trust that the rest of her research is correct as well? I don't know what Bible she was reading, but it wasn't the Judaic/Christian one!

I walked into this book having read several of Karen Armstrong's books, so I knew of her leanings that other reviewers have pointed out. Of course, if you are going to write about three major faiths, it is natural to expect some bias towards one of them. That aside, I found her history to be very interesting and helped put this city into a perspective I had not had before. She shows how an off the beaten path city became one of the most important places for three of the world's religions, and a contentious site of conflict. What Armstrong does well is to show the shifting lines that have occurred between areas of the city as various religious powers came to control. But more importantly she brings the various pieces of Jerusalem and puts them in a coherent organized narrative. Many of the places mentioned in the bible are put into perspective with each other, and their historical changes are traced over time. Even more useful is that the author generously includes maps throughout the book to show the changes and shifting lines of groups throughout time. As someone who knew little about the geography of Jerusalem, I found this to help keep all the players and movements straight. The book lags at points but overall moves very well through the centuries. This is an excellent overview history of this holy city and would be a very good introduction to the reader wishing to know more. It should not be the only book you read on the region, but rather use it as one view of the history which has brought us to the modern religious conflicts of the area.

Karen Armstrong, an Oxford-educated,ex-Catholic Nun,and prolific writer on comparative religions has written an important contribution to the history of a city so mired in political and religious strife. Her main theme is the idea of "sacred geography", and the notion of religious symbolism and myth that is associated with sacred geography.
In a chronological manner, Armstrong ties each monotheistic religion to the city of Jerusalem, and delves into the linkages between each religion and the city of Jerusalem
For any reader of history, the story of Jerusalem is fascinating, if not for the depth of history associated with the city.

Yes, Armstrong does display a bias towards the current situation in the city today, but I will let you determine that for yourself.
All in all, a good overview of the history of the city, and the religious associations with Jerusalem.

Armstrong does a good job of showing the history of Jerusalem and how the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came to view the city as holy ground. It does give insight into the mid east situation today. That said, Armstrong writes from a liberal (non-faith) point of view. I think this leads her [writing] to have certain prejudices in history and the way she views these religions.