Scholars of the historical Jesus and scholars of the historical Muhammad are engaged in seemingly similar activities, but they rarely look to each other to compare and evaluate their methods and theories. Such a comparison reveals that both seek to read thoroughly theological texts as historical texts, or at least ones out of which the historical facts can be rooted. Thus, both sets of scholars approach the texts with assumptions shared by the believers. Furthermore, because of the status accorded Jesus in the development of Christianity and the contemporary relevance assigned to Jesus by scholars of the historical Jesus, these scholars also share similar goals and perspectives with believers. Scholars of the historical Muhammad may be fewer in number, have fewer resources, and have less sophisticated methodologies than their counterparts, but for the most part their conclusions are less theological.

This article examines mutually exclusive reconstructions of the community “behind” Q. It argues this state of affairs is a product of the implicit assumptions about religion that each reconstruction takes for granted. Rather than dismissing theoretical reflection on the category of religion as irrelevant for their work, it is time for Q scholars to recognize that presuppositions about “religion” fundamentally shapes their understanding of the text’s representative potential.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract