The historical Muhammad and the historical Jesus: A comparison of scholarly reinventions and reinterpretations

Abstract

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.

The cultural evolution of prosocial religions

“…One of the main heroes of his narrative is named Josiah, and the problem is that there is no evidence that he, just like other Biblical heroes, ever existed. The search for the historical Jesus, Paul, or Muhammad has not been any more successful than the search for the historical Krishna, Osiris, or Zeus (Berg & Rollens 2008;White 1896White /1993. Nevertheless, mythology should be of major interest to students of religion in its own right, as a reflection of universal (and local) human experiences and fantasies (Beit-Hallahmi 2010).…”

The word of God: The epistemology of language in classical Islamic theological thought

“…Within the Islamic context, ancient Arabian religions are presented as reprehensibly promulgating the cult of polytheism. Although the Qurʾān refers to the fact that the pre-Islamic Arabs had recognized that God was the sole creator and sustainer of the universe, it censures them for associating lesser deities with him, and for advocating that these were able to interpose on their behalf (De Blois 2010;Berg 2003;Donner 2010;Berg and Rollens 2008;Brock 1982).…”

The Essence of Essentializing: A Critical Discourse on “Critical Discourse in the Study of Islam”

“…But I have argued elsewhere that by attempting a reconstruction of history using a thoroughly theological text, he cannot help but reflect theological perspective. (Berg and Rollens 2008) Yet even this does not really put Schoeler in the same camp as Armstrong and Esposito. Accepting the basic narrative of early Islam does not necessarily imply an essentialized Islam.…”