09596411003619806

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

1/18

This article was downloaded by: [109.93.64.215]On: 15 July 2014, At: 14:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Islam and ChristianMuslim RelationsPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cicm20

The death, resurrection, and ascension

of Jesus in medieval Christian anti-

Muslim religious polemicsSteven J. McMichael

a

aTheology Department , University of Saint Thomas , Saint Paul,MN, USA

Published online: 25 Mar 2010.

To cite this article:Steven J. McMichael (2010) The death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesusin medieval Christian anti-Muslim religious polemics, Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations, 21:2,

157-173

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596411003619806

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596411003619806http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cicm20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596411003619806http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cicm20

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

2/18

The death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus in medieval Christian

anti-Muslim religious polemicsSteven J. McMichael

Theology Department, University of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul, MN, USA

The focus of this article is on the treatment of the resurrection of Jesus in medieval Christiananti-Muslim polemical literature. It will also provide a glimpse of the Muslim perception ofJesuss resurrection or, actually, the ascension of Jesus and the denial by Muslims of theresurrection of Jesus as Christians have understood it. The article will offer a brief reviewof the issue of the general resurrection of the dead and then focus on how the death andresurrection of Jesus are treated in the Quran. Especially important in this article is the

presentation of Muslim belief with regard to the resurrection of Jesus in the thought ofPope Pius II, Nicholas of Cusa and Alonso de Espina, all significant Christian writers ofthe fifteenth century.

Keywords: resurrection; polemic; Jesus; death; ascension; cross; denial; scripture; Quran;prophet

Introduction

The twelfth-century monk Peter the Venerable (d. 1156) stated in his anti-Islamic text, the

Summa totius haeresis Saracenorum, that Muslims

. . .

do not believe that Christ, though conceived of the Holy Spirit, is the son of God, or God, but[only that he is] a good prophet, most true, free from all falsehood and sin, the Son of Mary, bornwithout a father, [and] never having died, because it was not fitting that he should die. On the con-trary, [they believe that] when the Jews wanted to kill him, he ascended to the heavens, havingescaped out of their hands, and [that] he lives there now in the flesh in the presence of the creatoruntil the coming of the Antichrist. (Cited in Kritzeck 1964, 119)

Here Peter lists Muslim beliefs that differed from the Christian understanding of the identity

and mission of Jesus of Nazareth. Muslims held that Jesus was a prophet; he did not die a

shameful death on the cross; he ascended into Gods presence; and he will come again at

the end times. At the centre of the ChristianMuslim debate about Jesus were questions

about the reality of his death and whether he was resurrected, or ascended into heaven

without passing through death. Concerning his ascension into heaven, Peter tells his readersthat Muslims believe that Jesus will stay there until the arrival of the Antichrist, at which

time he

. . .will come and kill the faithless with the power of his sword; he will convert the remainder of theJews and restore the Christians, who, after the death of the apostles, turned aside from the teaching ofthe Gospels. Like all creatures, Jesus is destined to die and then be resurrected. At the Last Judgment,he is to assist God in his work, though he himself will not judge. (Summarized in Iogna-Prat 2002,34041)

Peter the Venerable, therefore, was quite aware of the essential elements of Muslim belief

concerning Jesuss alleged crucifixion and death and his ultimate role on the Day of Judgment.

ISSN 0959-6410 print/ISSN 1469-9311 online

# 2010 University of Birmingham

DOI: 10.1080/09596411003619806

http://www.informaworld.com

Email: [email protected]

Islam and Christian Muslim Relations

Vol. 21, No. 2, April 2010, 157173

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

3/18

It is these elements of Muslim understanding that medieval Christians like Peter had to address

in their polemical works.

Beliefs about the death and resurrection of Jesus are integral to themes of life and death, soul

and body, ascension and resurrection, which, in turn, have ramifications for eschatology and the

ultimate fate of humankind. Christians and Muslims argued, of course, and continue to argue

about key issues of theology such as the nature of God (i.e., Trinity), revelation, the incarnation

and divinity of Jesus, scripture, and the role of prophecy.1 The issue of the resurrection of Jesus

also played and continues to play a role in these debates, for it is a fundamental Christian

doctrine that Muslims reject. The resurrection of Jesus is important for both communities not

only for the theological questions it raises about him (Christology) but also for its ramifications

for the final end of humanity (eschatology), including beliefs about the general resurrection of

the dead, the final judgment and eternal life (soteriology). The resurrection of Jesus raises impor-

tant questions about the truthfulness and authenticity of the Christian scriptures and the Quran.

Finally, it raises questions about the identity and role of Muhammad in salvation history, not

only in relation to Jesus but also to medieval saints (Tolan 1996, 2541).

This article will focus on how the resurrection of Jesus is treated in medieval Christian anti-Muslim polemical literature. It will also provide a glimpse of the Muslim perception of Jesuss

resurrection, or actually, the denial of the resurrection of Jesus as Christians have understood it.

Because Muslims believe in the ascension and not the resurrection of Jesus, a careful distinction

needs to be made between the Christian and Muslim understanding of these two concepts. The

article will offer a brief review of the issue of the general resurrection of the dead and then focus

on how the death and resurrection of Jesus are treated in the Quran. The main focus of the article

is to show how this theme is presented in Christian polemical religious literature.

The ascension and resurrection of Jesus

A word needs to be said about the medieval view of the ascension of Christ in relation to his

resurrection. For example, Thomas Aquinas (1225 1274) believed that the ascension of

Christ, which took place 40 days after his resurrection (Gospel of Luke), confirmed that

Christ ascended by his own power, as he rose from the dead by his own power.2 In the resurrec-

tion, Jesus rose, soul and body, by his own power after he experienced real death (the meaning of

the three days in the tomb).3 In the ascension, Jesus ascended above all corporeal and spiritual

creatures, thus showing that he rose according to his divine nature and his human nature (i.e., as

God and as a human being). The Word, divine for all eternity, descended into the human con-

dition and then rose in that condition as a human being by his own divine power. Christ now sits

at the right hand of God the Father as Sovereign Lord and God of heaven. He awaits the general

resurrection of the dead, when he will judge both the righteous and the wicked. His ascension is

seen, therefore, as inter-connected with his resurrection both divine actions become the cause

of our salvation.

The Franciscan theologian and contemporary of Thomas, Bonaventure (c. 1217 1274),

agrees on these aspects of Christian belief about the ascension, but he adds some further

details. For the Seraphic Doctor, the ascension shows that Jesus opened the gates of heaven

to the exiles, presumably the righteous who lived before the coming of Jesus. He therefore

repaired the fall of the angels, increased the honor of his eternal Father, manifested himself

in triumph and proved that he is the Lord of Hosts (Bonaventure 1978b, 162). Bonaventure

adds another significant detail: Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father above all the

angels and will show to the glorious face of his Father the scars of the wounds which he suffered

for us (Bonaventure 1978b, 119). Bonaventure thus connects the ascension to the crucifixion,

showing how Jesus was the faithful and obedient Son who is now worthy of our worship and

158 S.J. McMichael

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

4/18

acts as advocate for humanity before the Heavenly Father. The ascension, therefore, testifies

further to the importance of belief in the resurrection of Christ in the Christian economy of

salvation.

The resurrection and the ascension of Christ are important for Christians because it is only

through these events that human beings can hope for their own resurrection. It is the power of

Christs resurrection that will raise up those who have believed in him. In the words of Thomas:

He ascended by his own power, but the saints are drawn by Christ: Draw me on, [we will run

in the scent of your perfume] after you and so forth (Song of Songs 1.3). Or one could argue

that no one ascends into heaven but Christ, because the saints do not ascend except as members

of Christ, who is the head of the Church (Aquinas 1988, 99). Christ sits at the very Throne of

God so that he might lead human beings to him through their own resurrection by virtue of the

power of his resurrection; he is there to intercede for all human beings who hope in the resurrection;

and he also draws the hearts of all to himself (Aquinas 1988, 99 101).Christs place and activity at

the right hand of God the Father are thus very dramatic and efficacious.

In Jewish, Christian, and Muslim spiritual literature of the Middle Ages, the term ascension

can have many different meanings. There is the ascension of Jesus in the Christian tradition, butthere are various types of ascension experiences in the Abrahamic faith communities. In the

Jewish tradition, there is mystical ascension based on the raising of Moses, Elijah, and Enoch

from the earth (Idel 2005, 26). The Sufis in the Islamic tradition speak of the mystical experience

itself as an ascension, based on the miraj experience of Muhammad, who ascended to many

levels of heaven, encountering angels, the major prophets, and the Throne of Glory. In Christian

mysticism, the ascent of Mount Carmel by Saint John of the Cross is an example of Christian

ascension, as is the stigmata experience of Francis of Assisi. Bonaventure explains Franciss

life of prayer as an ascent to God on Jacobs ladder, which caused him to be led apart by

divine providence to a high place which is called Mount La Verna, where he experienced the

stigmata.4

The ascension experience also takes place for other Christians whose souls areraised to God at the moment of death.

The resurrection of the dead in Christianity and Islam

Medieval Christians and Muslims both believed that the general resurrection of the dead would

take place at the end of time and would lead to the final judgment of all humankind. Christians

believed that all human beings would face individual judgment at the moment of death and then,

at the end of time, would be raised from the dead to face the final universal judgment. In this

resurrection, the soul would rejoin the body so each human person would face God as an embo-

died individual.

Muslims held that there are two resurrections. In the lesser resurrection, the person dies a

natural death and is transferred to the intermediate world (barzakh). The greater resurrection,

the Resurrection of the Rising (bath) and the supreme Gathering (al-_hashr al-a

_zam), is the

general resurrection of the dead (Ibn al-Arabi 2005, 110). The common Islamic medieval view

was that all human beings would rise from the dead and appear before the throne of God on what

is called the Day of Accounting or the Reckoning (_hisab) (Smith and Haddad 2002, 76 8).

All human beings would be raised in physical form, their natural bodies rejoined to their proper

souls, and then they would be brought before God to give an account of their intentions and

deeds.5 The Muslims took this so seriously that Ayyubid political and religious authorities

put to death the Sufi philosopher Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi because of his heretical teachings,

which included denying the resurrection of the dead (Kraemer 2005, 31).

The resurrection of the dead was, therefore, a doctrine that both Christians and Muslims held

in the Middle Ages. Each community struggled to define what resurrection exactly entailed for

Islam and Christian Muslim Relations 159

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

5/18

the body in its relationship to the soul/spirit in the resurrection (Bynum 1995). While mostChristians and Muslims accepted that the soul would rise, there were always questions about

the role of the body in this process. But the central issue was not about the general resurrection

itself. Rather, it was about whether Jesus had been raised from the dead and, if so, who was the

agent of this resurrection: God or God in the person of Jesus?

The denial of the death and resurrection of Jesus in the Quran

There are 93 verses (ayat) that speak of Jesus in the Quran.6 These verses highlight the basic

belief of Muslims concerning Jesus that he was Gods special messenger (rasul) who tried

to restore monotheism to the Jewish people of his day. Although he was born of a virgin,

spoke from the cradle, and performed miracles, he is not presented as partaking of the divine

nature. In the Quran, he is a mortal being. More than 30 times he is referred to as the son of

Mary, which emphasizes his humanness. Mary is the bearer of a prophet, not the bearer of

the Son of God (Theotokos). Muslims held that the marvelous aspects of Jesuss life reveal

how God worked through him, not how God was in him.7

In Muslim Christology (or theso-called Muslim gospel), Jesus did not bring about atonement or redemption through his

death and resurrection (Khalidi 2001). In fact, the Quran says nothing about any atoning or

redeeming action on his part, and in the denial of the crucifixion (Q 4.157) removes any

grounds for suggesting this (Thomas 2002, 38). Rather, Jesus testified that God alone brings

salvation to the true believer. The Quran is quite explicit about defending Gods unity

against attempts to allow any human being (i.e., Jesus) to be considered divine in any

manner. There can be no division or multiplicity in the divine being. The Muslim gospel high-

lights Jesuss moral character, prophethood (he is a rasulor special messenger), asceticism, and

his role in eschatology. This quranic view determines to a great extent the subsequent Islamic

understanding of Jesus, especially regarding his death and resurrection.The Islamic tradition specifically denied that Jesus died on the cross God would not allow

such a terrible death to happen to one of his special messengers. This assertion distinguishes the

polemic between Christians and Jews from that between Christians and Muslims. In his argu-

ment with the Jews, Petrus Alfonsi (10621110) notes: Although we pass over many things

that we can say about him, let us merely introduce one which both we [Christians] and you

[Jews] believe, namely, that he denied Christ, whom we believe both to be dead and crucified.

He then quotes from the Quran 4.157 8:

That they said (in boast): We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah but theykilled him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ thereinare full of doubts, with no (certain knowledge) but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed

him not, nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself, and Allah is Exalted in Power. (Alfonsi 2006, 163)

Thus, Jews, Romans, and early Christians all affirmed that Jesus really died, differing only about

whether he was raised from the dead.8 Muslims, on the other hand, denied that Jesus actually

died.

Furthermore, Muslims hold that while Jesus did not die on the cross, he did ascend to God.

The main verse of the Quran that speaks of the death and resurrection of Jesus is 19.33: Oh

God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he

was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive! The common medieval

Muslim interpretation of this passage acknowledged that the day he dies refers to Jesuss

return at the end of time, since he did not die on the cross. This interpretation is correlated

with Q 4.1578, which states that the Jews thought they had crucified Jesus but it was made

to appear to them, and then Allah raised him [Jesus] up unto Himself.9 There is enough ambi-

guity in these texts concerning Jesuss crucifixion and death to create a number of different

160 S.J. McMichael

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

6/18

interpretations in medieval Muslim exegesis of what really happened to Jesus. Muslim commen-

tators asked the following questions testifying to this uncertainty: Did the Jews kill Jesus, or did

they only desire to kill him? Did a substitute take the place of Jesus on the cross? Did Jesus really

die or was he taken up directly to God? What does tawaffaytanin 5.117 mean and how does one

translate it into English: take me to thyself or cause me to die?

It appears that most medieval quranic commentators, such as al-Baydawi (d. 1282), held

that Jesus did not die on the cross, that he was taken up to God in a type of ascension, and

that he would return during the end times for a 40-year period and act as a just judge (Parrinder

1995, 10521). It is thus the ascension rather than the crucifixion of Jesus that is the central

focus of how Muslims view the end of Jesuss earthly mission, and the future descent of

Jesus back into earthly existence is the focus of Jesuss eschatological role at the end time

(Jeffery 1951, 10726). At his descent, he

would break the cross, kill the swine, suppress the poll-tax, and make wealth so abundant thatnobody would wish for any more. Baiwadi said that Jesus would descend in the Holy Land, thathe would kill al-Dijjal, the Anti-Christ, and go to Jerusalem, worshipping there, killing swine and

all who do not believe in him, reign in peace for forty years, and finally die and be buried inMedina. An empty tomb beside the tomb of Muhammad in Medina was thought to be reservedfor Jesus. (Parrinder 1995, 124)

The death of Jesus will mark the coming of the Hour as the Quran indicates: And [Jesus] will

be a Sign for the coming of the Hour [of judgment]: therefore have no doubts about the [Hour],

but follow ye Me: this is a straight way (Q 43.61).10 Jesuss ascent to God and descent back to

earth, therefore, are the pivotal events of Jesuss life according to the Quran and the Muslim

gospel.

In the Islamic tradition, there also remains a question concerning the role of Jesus on the Day

of Judgment. While, on the one hand, Muslims credit Jesus with interceding for his own fol-

lowers, they also tend to refute this, because they perceive that Christians worship Jesus andhis mother as gods (Smith and Haddad 2002, 80).11 Muhammad will have the role of intercessor

for the Muslim community, and only he will have the right to speak on behalf of the faithful,

which includes everyone except the mushrikun (those who have committed the worst sin of

impugning thetawhidof God) (Smith and Haddad 2002, 81). Certain Muslims, however, held

that Jesus would act as an intercessor to cleanse those who believed that he was anything more

than a prophet (e.g., Son of God or Lord).12 In any case, even if Jesus does act as a special mes-

senger to Christians on the Day of Judgment, this will not make him unique. According to the

Quran, God has sent messengers to all peoples and at the resurrection every people will be

accompanied by one such messenger who will act as a witness against them (Robinson 1991, 87).

The resurrection and/or ascension of Jesus in Christian and Islamic polemicalliterature

Because Muslims recognized Jesus as one of Gods special messengers (rasul), Christian polem-

ical writings against Islam were different from those written against Jews. Muslims held that

Jesus was born miraculously (virgin birth), performed miracles (including raising the

dead),13 and appeared to be crucified (but was rather brought near to God in a type of ascension

experience). He will come again (descend according to Ibn Khaldun) (Smith and Haddad 2002,

70) to defeat the Antichrist, will die for the first time and be buried next to Muhammad, will rise

with all creatures (including Muhammad), and take part in the final judgment of all humankind.

Muslims believed that Jesus was a major prophet (rasulor special messenger), and Allah would

never allow such a prophet to die the kind of terrible death presented in the gospels. Christians,

on the other hand, affirmed the actuality of the crucifixion, and belief in the resurrection of Jesus


7/27/2019 09596411003619806

7/18

was founded on this. In MuslimChristian discussions, therefore, the question was whether

Jesus ascended to God without actually dying on the cross or was resurrected after experiencing

death on the cross.

As important as it was, however, the resurrection of Jesus was not the central issue in

medieval Christian anti-Muslim polemical literature. It was embedded in and connected with

other theological arguments. For example, early Mozarab and Oriental-Christian writings con-

centrated on the following six themes, which remained constant throughout the Middle Ages:

1) God is one substance in three persons.

2) Jesus the Messiah is both God and a human being.

3) Christian scriptures are authentic and uncorrupted.

4) Muhammad was not a prophet.

5) The Quran is not revelation.

6) Islam is a religion of lax morality (Burman 1994, 104).

A review of major Christian anti-Muslim texts of the Middle Ages shows that the resurrection of

Jesus played a significant but minor role in ChristianMuslim debates. For example, the Epistleof al-Kindi (ca. 800870) begins with a discussion on monotheism and the Trinity, proceeds to

an exploration of Islam (the Quran, the practices and traditions of Muslims, and the prophetic

nature of Muhammad), and only then takes up the Christian faith. The death, resurrection, and

ascension of Christ are dealt with in a very limited manner (Tartar 1985, 2778).

Christian anti-Muslim polemical literature

As we can see from the medieval Muslim presentation of Jesuss life and legacy, the crucifixion

of Jesus constitutes a fundamental point of difference from the beliefs of Christians and Jews.

Therefore, medieval Christian anti-Muslim polemical literature emphasized that Jesus trulydied on the cross, that he was raised by God after three days, and that he ascended into

heaven 40 days after his resurrection. The key issue was the fact of the death of Jesus on the

cross. All subsequent elements of Christian Christology his resurrection, ascension, and

special role as Judge in the Final Judgment rely on this.

The denial of the crucifixion was one of the earliest polemical issues (Swanson 2006, 237 56).

Early Melkite apologetic literature (eighth and ninth centuries) emphasizes the cross, asserting

that only with Christs death on the cross is there forgiveness of sins. The cross, therefore, consti-

tutes a firm foundation for belief in the general resurrection, a belief that Muslims and Christians

share. A certain Melkite author claims that although Muslims say that they believe in the general

resurrection, it is the death and resurrection of Christ which alone provide a sound warrant for

that belief (Swanson 1994, 127). Thus, according to medieval Christians, Jesuss resurrection

is the solid foundation for any sort of belief in the general resurrection of the dead.

In the fifteenth century, a number of Christian authors wrote polemical tracts against Islam:

Pedro de la Cavalleria, Jean German, Juan de Torquemada, Juan de Segovia, Nicholas of Cusa,

and Alonso de Espina (Echevarria 1999, 220 33). All these texts have certain things in

common: they attack Muhammad directly as either a heretic or someone who has created a

false religion; they point out the errors that are found in the Quran with regard to Christianity

and the inherent contradictions found within the text; they especially focus on the issues of

Trinity and Incarnation in their arguments with Muslims; they point out that the Muslim view

of paradise is very seductive but totally wrong, since it promises material pleasures rather

than spiritual ones (as Christianity does); they discuss the resurrection, but in a very limited

way. We will review three different but somewhat similar fifteenth-century Christian authors

who dealt with the resurrection issue in a substantive way, beginning with Pope Pius II.

162 S.J. McMichael

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

8/18

Pope Pius II

We have a letter written by Pope Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, 14051464) that is not

only polemical but also conversionary. The Pope wrote it in 1453 to convert the Ottoman

Turk leader, Mehmed II, conqueror of Constantinople (Piccolomini 1990). The letter is impor-

tant in that it follows the pattern of contemporary polemical texts its main focus is on the

Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation but it also considers the resurrection of

Jesus. We see that the resurrection is secondary to these two other doctrines, but it is intimately

tied in with them. As did other polemicists, Pius II acknowledged that Muslims deny that God

became flesh (incarnation) and that Jesus died on the cross.14 He also recognized that Muslims

hold that Jesus himself must be killed in the future (when he comes again at the end times). He

disputes this by using an Old Testament passage, Psalm 68.5: But, David, speaking in the person

of Christ, says, Then did I pay that which I took not away, because he did not sin but paid

the penalty and suffered death for a crime which was not His (Piccolomini 1990, 59).

Christs passion and death are thereby predicted by David. Other biblical writers, particularly

the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, are employed to show that not only would the Suffering

Servant undergo death but he would also be raised up (Isaiah 52.1253). Therefore Pius II

concludes:

The prophets predicted that Christ would die and that He would rise from the dead. The Gospelsaffirm that He died on the cross, was buried, and arose on the third day. This is certain and thereis no room for ambiguity; everything accords with the truth. The Lord rose again, ascended intoheaven, and will come back again to pass judgment at the end of the world. Your religion doesnot accept this because it does not know about Christ what it should know. (Piccolomini 1990,5960)

These same prophets predicted that Jesus would come a second time to judge the world.

They therefore predicted the entire Christic mystery that is summarized in the Christian

creed. A true and complete understanding of the Christian creed is what Pius II and all otherChristian theologians and polemical writers thought was at stake in their encounter with the

Muslims.

Appealing to the predictions of the prophets with regard to the person and role of Jesus was

standard procedure in Jewish Christian polemical literature, since both traditions accepted the

sacredness and authority of these biblical texts. For Muslims, the Old Testament, together with

the rest of the Bible, was viewed as corrupt and therefore not reliable. Only the Quran was trust-

worthy for revelation. Also, Christians believed that the major prophets (e.g., Jeremiah, Isaiah,

Malachi, Hosea, and Daniel) were spokespersons for the future identity and salvific activity of

Jesus. This was especially true regarding the doctrine of the resurrection. For example, Hosea

6.2: He will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up, to live in his presence,clearly was a prophecy that referred to the resurrection of Jesus. Since these prophets do not

appear in Islamic lists of major Old Testament prophets, they are not very significant in the

history of salvation as understood by Muslims. However, there are some Muslim authors who

read these prophetic texts and applied a specific Islamic understanding to them. Many of the

prophetic texts that Christians applied to Jesus were understood by these Muslim writers to

be referring to the coming of Muhammad. For Christians, however, this apparent disregard

for these prophets and prophetic texts that spoke of Jesus revealed to them another avenue of

Muslim blindness to and ignorance of the truth of Christianity.

Pius II provides us with one other important theological assertion that will be brought out

more fully in many of the medieval theological texts that connect the passion and death of

Jesus with the resurrection. Based on atonement theology, it claimed that there was a price to

be paid for the fall of Adam and Eve (Genesis 23). God became human in order to save all


7/27/2019 09596411003619806

9/18

human beings and paid the ultimate price for humankinds transgression. Quoting from a sermon

by Pope Leo the Great, Pius II states:

Humility derives from majesty, weakness from strength, and mortality from immortality. In order topay the debt which derives from our existence, the inviolable nature is united with one which issubject to suffering; true god and true man are found united. So that a suitable remedy can be

found for our salvation, one and the same mediator of God and man was able to die by virtue ofone of his natures and resurrect by virtue of the other. If he were not the true God, He would notbring remedy. If He were not a true man, He would not furnish an example. You can see how suitablythe Son of God assumed the flesh as God and as a man faced death. (Piccolomini 1990, 56)

We see, therefore, in this letter a summation of Christian theology that has the suffering/death of Christ intimately tied into the resurrection of Christ. This involves the fullness of incar-

national theology. God did not become human only in order to forgive sins and bring redemption

to human beings, but God became one with human beings in the flesh so that human beings

might become god (Factus est Deus homo, ut homo fieret Deus) (Piccolomini 1990, 55).

Two other Christian authors dealt with the resurrection of Jesus in a more substantial way than

earlier polemical writers had. Nicholas of Cusa (14011464) and Alonso de Espina (d. 1464)were writing about Islam some time around 1461. They lived in different parts of Europe

(Germany and Spain respectively) and therefore had very different approaches to Muhammad

and the Quran.

Nicholas of Cusa

What is unique and problematic in the work of Nicholas of Cusa is his conviction that, while

Muhammad himself believed in the Gospel message and the Quran tacitly proclaims it, Muham-

mad had to conceal this from the ignorant Arab peoples of his day. Nicholas based his argument

on the principle that the Quran reveals the secrets of God only to the wise (Q 3.7). He held thatMuhammad could reveal only the basic components of Abrahamic monotheism (especially the

prohibition against idolatry) to the uneducated Arab peoples until the full revelation could be

given to them. Nicholas claimed that the Quran tacitly acknowledges not only Jesuss divine

nature but also his role as witness and judge at the Last Judgment. 15 It also tacitly acknowledges

the resurrection of Jesus as well as the Incarnation. He says:

The Koran would not have been able to teach of Christs resurrection from the dead through Hispower to lay down His life and to take it up again (as He avows in the Gospel) unless it hadshowed Christ to be not only a man but also God a view which is supposed to be at odds withthe doctrine of Gods oneness, which it was preaching. (Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 132)

For Nicholas, therefore, the doctrines of incarnation, Trinity, and resurrection are all tacitly con-

firmed in the Quran.

The Quran, according to Nicholas, is a mixture of earlier revelations (the Old Testament and

the Gospel) and Muhammads own teachings received from the monk Sergius and others

(especially Jewish men), who mingled the writings of the [Old] Testament with stories from

the Talmud and mingled the clarity of the Gospel with apocryphal books (Nicholas of Cusa

1990a, 90). Nicholas held that Jews attached themselves to Muhammad in order to prevent

him from becoming a perfect Christian. The basic principle for Nicholas was that the things con-

tained in the Quran were not to be accepted as the words of God if they were opposed to earlier

books that had been handed down by God. In instances where the Quran does not affirm the

Gospel, it is due to Muhammads ignorance and perverse intent (i.e., his own glory). Only

that which agrees with the Gospel ought to be called the light of truth and of the right way.

In the Cribratio Alkorani (1461), Nicholass main arguments concern Jesus as Son of God,

the Trinity, and the relationship between the Gospel and the Quran. The resurrection comes up

164 S.J. McMichael

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

10/18

towards the end of his discussion on the Trinity. In response to the Muslims, who held that Jesus

had not been crucified nor had he died, Nicholas first established that Jesus had truly been cru-

cified and had, indeed, died. In a previous book, De Pace Fidei (1453), he had explained that

Muslims cannot accept the death of Christ because of their reverence for him. Furthermore,

they deny that the Jews crucified him as such men would have had no power over Christ

(Nicholas of Cusa 1990b, 44). Nicholas thought that the Muslim belief was based on a misun-

derstanding of the role of suffering and death in salvation history:

Therefore, if the Arabs consider the fruit of Christs death and that it was up to him as one sent byGod to sacrifice himself in order to fulfill the desire of his Father and that there was nothing moreglorious for Christ than to die for the sake of truth and obedience, even the most shameful death:they would not remove from Christ this glory of the cross, by which he merited to be the mosthigh and to be superexalted in the glory of the Father. Finally, if Christ preached that in the resurrec-tion men will attain immortality after death, how could the world be better assured of this than that hewillingly died and was resurrected and appeared alive? For the world then was made certain by afinal attestation when, from the testimony of many who saw him alive and died so that theymight be faithful witnesses of his resurrection, it heard that the man Christ had died openly on

the cross and had publicly risen from the dead and was alive. Therefore, this was the most perfectproclamation of the Gospel, which Christ made known in himself, and which could not be moreperfect; and without death and resurrection it could always have been more perfect. Therefore,whoever believes that Christ most perfectly fulfilled the will of God the Father must confess allthese things without which the proclamation would not have been most perfect. (Nicholas ofCusa 1990b, 456)16

Nicholas is echoing here the earlier position of Melkite Christians, who held that Jesuss resur-

rection gives us certain knowledge of the resurrection of the dead. Christs resurrection is the

cause of the resurrection of all humanity that will take place at the end of time:

His Resurrection is that through which all men will arise, who are of the same nature with Him anature which in Him is united to immortal life. But He arose on the third day in order to prove by

[this] deed that we ought to believe in the resurrection-of-the-dead, which, He taught, was to beexpected at the Day of Judgment. Therefore, Christ is the one in whose death we die and inwhose Resurrection we are made alive and through whom we have access to God the Father, theCreator, in order to see God in His own glory and, with Him, Christ Jesus, His ever-blessed Son.(Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 139)

Nicholas also argues against the Muslim belief that a prophet is not honored in such a tragic

death by showing how, ultimately, the crucifixion is the exaltation and glorification of Jesus. He

demonstrates the supreme value of the death of Jesus and what that death means for those who

accept its reality and the reality of the resurrection (Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 14044).

Concerning Jesuss death, then, Nicholas finds the Quran problematic in several ways. He

claims that the Quran contradicts itself. In one passage it says that Jesus does not die (Q 4.157);

but, in another (Q 19.324), that he does die. Nicholas points out that the Quran tacitly presents

the possibility that Jesus was crucified, stating only that Jesus was not crucified by the Jews. He

concludes: The possibility is left open that Pilate, not the Jews, could have carried out this cru-

cifixion in the way stated by the Gospel (Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 135). Because of these textual

ambiguities, Nicholas argues that the Gospel is more truthful than the Quran and that the Gospel

not only explains, but also corrects, the Quran. This, of course, goes totally contrary to what

Muslims hold, namely that the Quran corrects the New Testament.

Nicholas shows that not only do the New Testament and the chronicles of the first century

prove that Jesus died, but also that the prophets of Israel foretold his death, so if the prophets

testified to the death of the Messiah, to deny these texts is to deny or contradict the prophets,

which the Quran claims it does not do.17 Because the Quran approves of the Gospel and

these earlier prophets, Muslims who do not believe in the things foretold by the prophets end

up contradicting themselves, going against the witness of the Quran itself. Therefore they


7/27/2019 09596411003619806

11/18

must believe the testimony of such prophets as Daniel, who wrote that he had received from

Gabriel the message that the Messiah was to die (Daniel 9.256). Was Gabriel lying when he

prophesied in the book of Daniel that the Messiah was to die and then later, in the Quran

(ca. 800870 CE),18 stated that the Messiah did not die? Furthermore, if Jesus himself testifies

to his own death in the Gospels, does this make him out to be a blasphemer? These problems are

solved if one accepts Nicholass position that if the Koran denies the [death of Christ], then

assuredly a stand must be taken on the side of the Gospel, since [the Koran] offers no support

[for its claim] (Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 131).

One of the central questions Nicholas raises concerns the meaning of the quranic texts that

speak of God taking Jesus up to Himself (Q 5.117, 3.545, 4.158). Nicholas argues that the

Quran affirms what the Gospel proclaims: that in Jesuss death, God has taken Jesus back to

Himself. Both the resurrection and ascension prove this to be true. Nicholas is aware that

Muslims believe that Jesus was not killed but that he will die when he returns and will rise

again on the day of resurrection. The difficulty is that the Quran also states that at the first

sounding of the trumpet all [living] things will yield to death except those which the right

hand of God will protect; and at the second sounding they will come to life again (Q 39.68,with supporting texts Q 2.157, 2.207, 3.169). Since both the dead and those who have been

saved by God must die anew before the day of resurrection, Nicholas raises the issue of the

existence of souls after the death of their bodies. Do souls live separate from the bodies that

will rise to face divine judgment? He rejects the passages of the Quran that seem to assert

the death of the soul (e.g., Every soul will taste death, Q 29.57 and supporting texts Q

78.39 and 28.88) and reasons that the souls of the dead will continue to exist, even though

the bodies of these persons are dead. Based on the belief that the soul exists after the death of

the body, Nicholas concludes that Jesuss soul did not die, even though his body did. Christ

is not going to die again and be raised again with all other human beings. He has already

died and has risen from the dead.

Alonso de Espina

Alonso de Espina, the Spanish Franciscan polemicist, provides a complete commentary on the

Apostles Creed as a foundation for his argument against the Muslims,19 which appears in his

Fortalitium Fidei (c. 1464), Book IV, On the war of the Saracens (De bello saracenorum).20

The resurrection theme appears here in relation not only to Jesus but also to all humanity, i.e., the

general resurrection of the dead. His work demonstrates how certain medieval Christians under-

stood basic Muslim beliefs regarding the resurrection. It also shows us what major questions

were addressed in ChristianMuslim polemical literature.

Dealing with the creedal phrase, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and

was buried, Alonso explains that Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus was condemned to

death under Pontius Pilate. They disagree, however, about the factuality of his death.

Muslims hold that the Jews wanted to kill Christ, but Jesus, clearly withdrawing [from the

crucifixion site], left behind I know not who in his own place, whom they crucified, thinking

that he was the Christ. God then raised Christ to Himself, and Christ is now with God until

the Day of Judgment. Just as with other human beings, Christ will die after he returns to

earth and will be raised from the dead. The central issue for Alonso is that Muslims do not

believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God (filius Dei vivi). They deny that Jesus could

die in his humanity and not in his divinity. Christians and Muslims had debated this from at

least the eighth century, as evidenced in the work of Theodore Abu Qurra (d. ca. 820). (Theodore

Abu Qurra 2005, 10949)

166 S.J. McMichael

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

12/18

In treating the next section of the creed, he descended into hell and on the third day rose

from the dead, Alonso states that Christians believe Jesus went down among the dead. He

liberated the prisoners out of the pit where there is no water and this happened by the

blood of the Testament (Zechariah 9.11). There was great joy among the blessed when they

saw the vision of the Deity and were led out from their underworld captivity (captivitate

inferni). The souls of the disciples and holy women also rose, because they were glad to see

the Lord. Indeed, all the faithful delight in the faith of this article, considering that the power

of the lower beings could not resist the savior either when he descended nor (naturally) when

he arose; and they rejoice, hoping to rise because Christ arose. Alonso here appears to be repeat-

ing what Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologiae (ST) (III, 52, article 5).

In this same section of the creed, Alonso brings up the problematic issue of the humanity and

divinity of Jesus after his death. Christians had debated this from the beginning of the eighth

century. It is embedded in the early Christological debates about the relationship between the

human Jesus and the Christ/Son of God. Here the doctrine of resurrection is intimately con-nected with the doctrine of incarnation, and we find evidence of this in the Christian/Muslim

polemic. For example, Timothy I (727823), in a response to the Caliph al-Mahdi, says: Itis clear that it is the human nature of the Word-God which suffered and died, because in no

book of the prophets or the Gospel do we find that God himself died in the flesh, though we

do find the Son and Jesus Christ died in the flesh (Parrinder 1995, 118). Nevertheless,

Alonso, centuries later, claims that

when it says that he descended to Hell, it ought to be understood according to the soul joined todivinity, for even the body that remained in the tomb was joined to divinity (the Word of God),for what he once assumed he never set aside (quod semel assumpsit numquam dimisit). It is otherwiseregarding the whole being that results from the body and the soul, because on account of theirseparation, according to the agreement of the learned according to what is found in Book III ofthe Sentences, Christ was not a human being during the space of three days and no mistake

about this had arisen [in Christian belief and theology]. Therefore when it is said symbolicallythat He descended to the netherworld, it was not explicitly stated that [he did so] accordingto his soul.

What Alonso wants to demonstrate is that, even though Jesuss soul descended into hell, his body

that remained in the tomb was simultaneously joined to it through the union of both soul and

body with the Word of God.21 The person of Christ (the Word of God) was present, but he

was not truly a human being because the soul and body were separated during these three

days. Alonso seems to be in agreement with Thomas Aquinas here in two ways: Thomas

holds that the body was not in hell but actually remained in the tomb; and the soul of Christ

was truly present in hell (because His soul when separated from the body did go down into

hell, as Thomas states in ST, III, question 50, article 3).Alonso then points to the difficulty of this belief by asking whether John the Baptist doubted

the true identity of Jesus when he sent his followers to ask Jesus: Are you the one to come?

(Matthew 11). Alonso, basing his opinion on the thought of a certain Alexander (Alexander

of Hales?), states that this is more a doubt of compassion than of faith (non fidei sed pietatis dubi-

tavit). That is, John asks a rhetorical question, just as a mother might say upon seeing her dead

son: You are not dead, O my son? Alonso, quoting John Chrysostom, says that John the Baptist

asked this question not for his own sake, but for the sake of his disciples.

This raises the question of the relationship of John the Baptist to Jesus, which the Quran

does not make clear. It tells us that John (Ya_hya) is one of the righteous (Q 6.85) and would

be a witness to the truth of a Word from Allah (Q 3.39), and also speaks highly of him:O Yahya! Take hold of the Book with might: and We gave him Wisdom even as a youth. And pity(for all the creatures) as from Us, and purity: he was devout, and kind to his parents, and he was not


7/27/2019 09596411003619806

13/18

overbearing or rebellious. So peace be upon him the day he was born, the day that he dies, and theday that he will be raised up to life (again)! (Q 19.1215)

What is significant in these verses is the last sentence, which parallels what is said of Jesus in the

same sura (Q 19.33). Since the same thing is said of both of them and since Christians do not

hold that John the Baptist was a divine being, Muslims could use John to refute the Christian

claim that Jesus was a divine being. John and Jesus appear together in many of the miraj

accounts (Muhammads ascent into the heavens to meet all the former prophets) of the

Middle Ages. This once again confirms that Jesus and John were considered great prophets

but, nevertheless, mere human beings. Medieval Christians, for their part, emphasized Johns

role in announcing the coming of the Messiah, whom they clearly identified as Jesus. In the

economy of salvation, they asserted the subordination of John (the announcer) to Jesus (the

One who comes). Muslims, on the other hand, emphasized the equality and humanity of John

and Jesus.

Alonso concludes this section by claiming that Muhammad is at odds with Christians in

refusing to grant that Christ died and in claiming that another unnamed individual took

Christs place. Therefore Muhammad denies that Jesus descended into hell and rose on thethird day.

Then Alonso moves on to the creedal phrase he ascended into heaven and was seated at the

right hand of the Father. This statement raises three questions: Did Jesus ascend into heaven in

his human nature or in his divine nature? What is meant by right hand (dexteram)? And is it

possible to say that the Father is seated to the right of the Son? Alonso answers these questions:

Jesus rose because of the divine power he himself possessed; Jesus sits at the right hand of God

the Father, which represents Jesuss equality with the Father; and, because of the personal order

of origin with respect to personal distinction within the Trinity, Christ stands in equality with

God the Father even though the Father is the origin of the Son. Thus the personal distinctions

within the Trinity are brought to bear in Alonsos argument about the identity of Jesus asLord who sits at the right hand of the Father. This emphasizes the divine nature of Jesus, who

rose from the dead, against Muslims who deny this truth.

Concerning Jesuss ascent into heaven, Alonso states that Muhammad is in agreement with

Christians that Jesus ascended body and soul, as is stated in the Quran: It is the truth that he

did not die but God raised him to Himself. But Muhammad is not in agreement with the

phrase at the right hand of the Father, because in the miraj experience, before Muhammad

saw God, the Prophet saw Jesus in the first heaven in a higher seat than John the Baptist

(Hyatte 1997, 116). Alonso refers to the Scala Machometias the source of Muslim disbelief in

Jesus being at the right hand of God in heaven. We see why Christian polemicists such as

Alonso had such great difficulty with the mirajexperience of the Islamic tradition. It not onlyshowed Muhammad in a more dignified and superior role, but it also showed how the

resurrected Jesus did not ascend to be at the right hand of God and therefore was not equal to God.

Another issue is based on the creedal statement that Jesus would come again as Risen Lord

to judge the living and the dead and that his kingdom would have no end (Luke 1). Alonso

points out that Muhammad denies that Jesus will be the judge who is to come.

But [Muhammad] says, in the fifth chapter Azoara of the Quran, that God delivered Christ fromthe unbelievers, and that he subjected those who followed him to those who did not believe his word,even until the public day of resurrection; and that when Christ has returned to God, he will dispel thedispute and the strife.

Here Alonso refers to Q 5.11617, in which Jesus distances himself from something others

are saying about him, namely, that he and his mother should be worshipped. Alonso is aware

that the Quran teaches that Jesus will die around the time of the Day of Judgment and be

168 S.J. McMichael

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

14/18

raised just like every other human being. At that time God will ask who is right, Christians or

Muhammad, and will pass judgment on the unbelievers and give favor to the faithful. Alonso

must be referring here to Q 1.159, which states that Jesus will act as a witness against Christians

who hold him to be more than a prophet. Alonso also states that there is another place in the

Quran that treats of the day of death: And regarding that day in which the living one will be

sent, the Quran holds that he will come forty years before the Day of Judgment. Alonso

may be referring to the Islamic tradition that holds that Jesus will marry, have children and

die after 40 years and be buried beside Muhammad in Medina (Ata ur-Rahim and Thomson

2003, 274).

At the end of his exposition on the harmony and disharmony of Muhammads teachings rela-

tive to the Christian creed, Alonso takes up the issue of belief in bodily resurrection and the

eternal reward for the righteous. Concerning the first issue, he states that, according to Alexander

(of Hales?) at the end of his Third Book (of the Sentences commentary), there is a suitable order

to resurrection: the first resurrection consists of the remission of sins and the raising of the soul;

and the second resurrection is the resurrection of the body, glorious in riches (in bonis), as found

in Romans 8.11: And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you; he thatraised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit

that dwells in you, and in 1 Corinthians 15.51: We shall all indeed rise again. Alonso, there-

fore, considers the rising of the soul and its rejoining the body as the Spirits activity. He points

out that what the Quran teaches is in harmony with this belief: God will give life to the dead,

and those remaining in the tombs will rise together without a doubt. Those who contradict this

will be punished on the Day of Judgment, according to the Quran.

The ultimate goal of resurrection belief for medieval Christians was envisioned as eternal life

in a blissful spiritual state in the presence of the Risen Christ. Muhammad, however, separates

himself from Christians in his vision of what Paradise is to be. Alonso lists common elements of

the Muslim view of Paradise as found in earlier polemical literature: food, drink, clothing,flowing waters, virgins, and sex.22 As he had pointed out earlier in his book against the

Muslims (Book IV, consideration 8, article 6), this conception of Paradise is completely contrary

to the Christian, totally spiritual, vision of eternal life, which consists in eternal spiritual blessed-

ness with the Risen Christ and the beatific vision of God.

Conclusion

We have reviewed many issues associated with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus

and seen that these articles of Christian belief are founded on related issues of theology, such as

incarnation, revelation, eschatology, and salvation. Belief or disbelief in the resurrection of Jesus

has serious consequences for both Christians and Muslims, as we see evidenced in the three

Christian authors reviewed above. For medieval Christians, the resurrection gave them sure

hope and assurance that the faithful followers of Jesus would themselves experience resurrection

at the end of time. They knew, too, that the possibility of risen life with Christ was determined

not only by faith in Christ, but also by their own righteous deeds. The resurrection, therefore,

gave Christians at least the possibility that, after the general resurrection of the dead, they

would experience everlasting life. Muslims, on the other hand, derived their firm belief from

the Quran and the passages that spoke of Allah as the One who would resurrect all human

beings. There is no intermediary figure that would bring about the resurrection; this will be

the act of Allah and not Muhammad or any other prophet or angel.

Even though we may designate the writings of Pius II and Nicholas of Cusa as conversion-

ary, they should be seen primarily as polemical texts, which is clearly the category to which

Alonsos work belongs. Christian polemical texts were written as a defense of the faith of the


7/27/2019 09596411003619806

15/18

writer but they were usually offensive in that they attacked the belief of others (Jews and

Muslims in particular). They are written more for a Christian audience than for the religious

community that they are attacking. This is evidenced by the texts that are used in the defense

of faith and the way the material is presented. We have seen three authors whose sources and

style of writing reveal that they are not really speaking to a Muslim audience, but a Christian

one. Even though there was an attempt at the time of Nicholas of Cusa to obtain more precise

knowledge of the Quran and Islamic theology from Muslims themselves, Christians in the fif-

teenth century only possessed a basic awareness of what Muslims believed about the resurrec-

tion. Since they did not read Arabic or have accurate Islamic sources available to them, they

were often reduced to repeating as especially evidenced in the writings of Alonso de

Espina what earlier polemical literature stated about any particular issue, such as the

resurrection.

At the centre of Muslim Christian debates concerning any element of theology in the

Middle Ages was prophetology or prophetic theology, which established for Muslims and

in a more limited way for Christians the truth and identity of the true religion (Griffith

2008, 96).23

The identity and mission of the prophet and prophecy are the foundations for allof Islamic theology and are also important for certain elements of Christian theology, especially

the resurrection of Jesus. Since Christians argued with Jews about the Old Testament prophetic

texts that spoke of Jesuss resurrection, they quite often simply transferred these same arguments

to their debates with Muslims. This reveals one of the most basic Christian misunderstandings of

Islam in the Middle Ages, since Muslims had a very different approach to the ancient prophets

and prophecy of the Old Testament. These ancient texts, which Christians believed referred to

Jesus, were seen by Muslims as directly related to Muhammad.

What this study reveals to us in the end is that Christians and Muslims are very much divided

not only by general themes of theology, such as the resurrection of Jesus and all of humanity at

the end of time, but also by the texts that are considered to be the very foundation of faith (theQuran and the Old and New Testaments). But it is not only the texts that divide them; it is also

the way in which they are interpreted and the meaning derived from the respective interpret-

ations. Rather than hearing what the other was saying with regard to a particular passage of scrip-

ture, as happens often in the context of modern Muslim Christian dialogue (where there can be

an appreciation of diverse interpretations of a certain text), medieval Christians and Muslims

often simply talked past each other in order to disprove what the other was saying and also to

bolster what they considered to be the proper and correct way of interpreting a text so as to

confirm their own faith.

Notes

1. There are now many works on theological issues between Muslims and Christians in the Middle Ages.For a good introduction to the subject, see Griffith (2008).

2. On the ascension of Christ in Thomas Aquinas, see theSumma Theologia, III, Question 57 and hisCollationes Credo in Deum (Aquinas 1988, 95101).

3. Thomas Aquinas states: The resurrection of all others is postponed until the end of the world, whereasChrist rose on the third day. The reason is that the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ was for oursalvation. Therefore he wished to rise then so that our salvation might be brought about. If Christ hadrisen immediately, there would be no credibility to his being dead. Similarly, if he much postponed hisresurrection, the disciples would not have kept faith in him and no practical benefit would come fromhis passion. What benefits from shedding my blood, [as long as I go down to corruption] and so forth

(Psalm 29.10). Thus he rose on the third day, that we might believe he was dead and that his disciplesmight not lose faith (Aquinas 1988, 913).

4. Bonaventure (1978a, 303). The translator, Cousins, writes in the footnote to this passage that the allu-sion is to Matthew 17.1: By employing the Latin words excelsum seorsum from the above text in

170 S.J. McMichael

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

16/18

Matthew, Bonaventure is making an illusion to Mt. Tabor and Jesuss transfiguration. For Bonaven-ture, the transfiguration is a foreshadowing of the resurrection. In his Life of Francis, Bonaventure waswriting about Franciss experience of the stigmata and histransitusfrom death to new life as manifes-tations not only of an ascension experience but also of a type of resurrection experience.

5. Avicenna was known to have seriously questioned the doctrine of bodily resurrection. On his question-ing and al-Ghazalis response, see Tolan (2008, 11519).

6. On Jesus in the Quran, seeinter alia Parrinder (1995) and Robinson (1991).7. This insight has come to be acknowledged only recently in contemporary Christian Muslim dialogue.

I do not know its original source.8. Bonaventure held that Jesus was dead for 36 hours to prove that he had truly died. For if this period had

been shorter and he had risen sooner, it might have been believed that he had not died at all, but hadmerely feigned death; if he had prolonged it, he would have seemed to be permanently dead, and thusbelieved to be powerless and unable to lead others to life. That is why he rose again on the third day(1Corinthians 15.4) (Bonaventure 2005, 167).

9. Another passage, found in Q 3.55, is also unclear about the timing of Jesuss death. Behold! Allahsaid: O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of thosewho blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day ofResurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein

ye dispute.10. This and all the translations of quranic texts that follow are taken from Abdullah Yusuf Alis edition

(2000).11. On the issue ofshifaa(intercession), these authors state: According to this account (al-Ghazal in the

Durra), Muslims waiting for the judgment for a thousand years seek restlessly for one of the prophets tointercede for them with God. They go from one to the next, but each has to refuse because of someparticular problem or sin he has committed. Adam for eating the fruit of the tree, Noah for beingtoo concerned for himself while his people were drowning, Abraham for disputing with his communityabout thednof God, Moses for killing a man, and Jesus because he and his mother were worshipped asgods. Finally they go to Muhammad, and the Prophet says, I am the right one! I am the right one [tointercede] insofar as God allows it for whomever he wills and chooses. Moving onwards to the pavi-lions of God, the Prophet asks for and is granted permission to intercede. The veils are raised, he falls in

prostration for a thousand years, praising God, and the Throne itself trembles in tribute to him (Llull1985, 151).12. This is based on Q 5.116 17: And behold! Allah will say: O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say

unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah? He will say: Glory to Thee!never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have knownit. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full allthat is hidden. Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, worshipAllah, my Lord and your Lord; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thoudidst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. Al-Ghazalireports that part of the inquisition after death will be the appearance of Jesus: Then Jesus (upon whombe peace) is brought, and God (Exalted is He!) asks him: Did you say to people: Take me and mymother as two gods besides God? [Q 5.116]. And he remains writhing under the force of this questionfor many years. O, the majesty of that Day, when the Prophets themselves are submitted to judgment byquestions such as these! (Ghazali 1989, 18990).

13. For Jesuss raising the dead, see Ibn al-Arabi (1980, 174 86).14. It is interesting that Pius II adds a detail about Simon of Cyrene, who many Muslims claimed was the

one crucified by the Romans: It was necessary for Christ to suffer and so enter upon his glory, as HeHimself said in the Gospel of Luke (9.26). Power was therefore on his shoulder because on it He carriedthe cross, even though Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry it when He was tired (Luke 23.26)(Piccolomini 1990, 57).

15. The Quran is clear about Jesuss role as witness, but not as judge (Q 4.159) (see Nicholas of Cusa1990a, 128). On the approach of Nicholas of Cusa to Islam, see Burgevin (1969), Izbicki (1991),and Biechler (1991).

16. Biechler observes: Peter explains to the assembly that the Muslims reject the notion because they donot wish to see Christ degraded. If they understood the mystery of the cross as fruitful, they would not

want to deprive Christ of this glory (Biechler 2004, 2778).17. Nicholas held that the Quran does not contradict any of the prophets but rather endorses them and

corroborates the books transmitted to the prophets by God (viz. the Testament of Moses, the Psalter


7/27/2019 09596411003619806

17/18

of David, and the Gospel transmitted by Jesus Christ, the son of the Virgin Mary) (Nicholas of Cusa1990a, 878). Nicholas wrote an entire chapter entitled The Koran is devoid of faith where it contra-dicts the Scriptures and another called The Gospel is to be preferred to the Koran.

18. Nicholas has this date for the writing of the Quran in his text. I do not know where he would havegotten such a late date for it. Obviously he is making the point that a much earlier text that is acknow-ledged as scripture by Christians is more credible and authoritative than a much later text such as theQuran.

19. Alonso was not original in choosing the Creed as a basis for his polemical argumentation againstMuslims. According to John Tolan, Christians and Muslims in thirteenth-century Spain spoke toeach other about their respective creeds. Pedro [Pascual] himself refers several times to such discus-sions he had with Muslims (Tolan 2008, 434). The use of the Creed was also the basis of the firstencounters between Christians and Muslims (see Griffith 2008, 57).

20. For the text of the Fortalitium Fidei, the Anton Koberger edition (Nuremberg 1494) and the 1464manuscript from the Cathedral Library of El Burgo de Osma were used for the Latin text in the Appen-dix, which was transcribed by Ana Echevarria. All translations from the Fortalitium Fideiare my ownbased on the Latin text in the Appendix. Two editions of the Fortalitium Fideican be found online athttp://www.cervantesvirtual.com. On Alonso and Islam, see Echevarria (1999).

21. Thomas Aquinas holds that Christs soul and body were united in Christs person: As before death

Christs flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of God, it remained so afterHis death, so that the hypostasis of the Word of God was not different from that of Christs fleshafter death, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) (ST, III, 50, article 2).

22. The medieval standard version of the Quran promised that paradise would include the flowing waters,the mild air in which neither heat nor cold could affect people, the shady trees, the fruits, the many-coloured silken clothing and the palaces of precious stones and metals, the milk and wine served ingold and silver vessels by angels, saying, eat and drink in joy; and beautiful virgins, untouchedby men and demons. Whatever the blessed desired would immediately be supplied (Daniel 1997,172).

23. As Griffith states, prophetology was all encompassing: The topics that were always included underthis heading [in Islam apologetic literature which Christian apologists responded to] were the integrityof the scriptures, the teachings about God and the messengers who claimed to have been sent by God;

the signs by which the messengers might be recognized; the religious practices of the followers of thetrue religion, such as the direction they faced when at prayer; the moral teachings of the messengers;the character of the rewards and punishments awaiting human beings at the end of this life; and the truestatus of Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam (Griffith 2008, 96 7).

References

Alfonsi, Petrus. 2006.Petrus Alfonsi: Dialogue against the Jews, trans. Irven M. Resnick. Washington, DC:Catholic University of America Press.

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. 2000. The Holy Quran. Ware, Herts: Wordsworth Editions.Aquinas, Thomas. 1988. The sermon-conferences of St Thomas Aquinas on the Apostles Creed, trans.

Nicholas Ayo. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Ata ur-Rahim, Muhammad, and Ahmad Thomson. 2003.Jesus, Prophet of Islam, rev. ed. Elmhurst, NY:Tahrike Tarsile Quran Inc.

Biechler, James E. 1991. A new face toward Islam: Nicholas of Cusa and John of Segovia. In Nicholas ofCusa in search of God and wisdom: Essays in honor of Morimichi Watanabe by the AmericanCusanus Society, ed. Gerald Christianson and Thomas M. Izbicki, 185202. Leiden: Brill.

Biechler, James E. 2004. Interreligious dialogue. In Introducing Nicholas of Cusa: A guide to aRenaissance man, ed. Christopher M. Bellitto, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson,27096. New York: Paulist Press.

Bonaventure. 1978a. Life of Saint Francis. In Bonaventure, trans. Ewert Cousins. New York: Paulist Press.Bonaventure. 1978b. Tree of life. In Bonaventure, trans. Ewert Cousins. New York: Paulist Press.Bonaventure. 2005. Breviloquium, trans. Dominic V. Monti. Bonaventure Texts in Translation 9. St

Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications.

Burgevin, Frederick Haviland. 1969. Cribratio Alkorani (Nicholas of Cusanus Criticism of the Koran inthe Light of His Philosophy of Religion. New York: Vantage.

Burman, Thomas. 1994. Religious polemic and the intellectual history of the Mozarabs, c. 10501200.Leiden: Brill.

172 S.J. McMichael
http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/

7/27/2019 09596411003619806

18/18

Bynum, Caroline Walker. 1995. The resurrection of the body in Western Christianity, 200 1336.New York: Columbia University Press.

Daniel, Norman. 1997.Islam and the West: The making of an image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.de Espina, Alonso. 1494.Fortalitium Fidei. Nuremberg: Anton Koberger.Echevarria, Ana. 1999. The fortress of faith: The attitude toward Muslims in fifteenth-century Spain.

Leiden: Brill.Ghazali, Abu Hamid al-. 1989. The remembrance of death. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society.Griffith, Sidney H. 2008.The church in the shadow of the mosque: Christians and Muslims in the world of

Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Hyatte, Reginald, trans. 1997.The Prophet of Islam in Old French: The Romance of Muhammad (1258) and

The Book of Muhammads Ladder (1264). Leiden: Brill.Ibn al-Arabi. 1980. The bezels of wisdom, trans. R.W.J. Austin. New York: Paulist Press.Ibn al-Arabi. 2005. The Meccan revelations, ed. Michael Chodkiewicz. Vol 1. New York: Pir Press.Idel, Moshe. 2005. Ascensions on high in Jewish mysticism: Pillars, lines, ladders. Budapest: Central

European University Press.Iogna-Prat, Dominique. 2002. Order and exclusion: Cluny and Christendom face heresy, Judaism, and

Islam (1000 1150), trans. Graham Robert Edwards. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Izbicki, Thomas. 1991. The possibility of dialogue with Islam in the fifteenth century. In Nicholas of Cusa

in search of God and wisdom: Essays in honor of Morimichi Watanabe by the American CusanusSociety, ed. Gerald Christianson and Thomas M. Izbicki, 17583. Leiden: Brill.

Jeffery, Arthur. 1951. The descent of Jesus in Muhammadan eschatology. InThe joy of study: Papers on theNew Testament and related subjects presented to honor Frederick Clifton Grant, ed. Sherman E.Johnson, 10726. New York: Macmillan.

Khalidi, Tarif. 2001.The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and stories in Islamic literature. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kraemer, Joel. 2005. Moses Maimonides: An intellectual portrait. In The Cambridge companion toMaimonides, ed. Kenneth Seeskin, 1057. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kritzeck, James. 1964. Peter the Venerable and Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Llull, Ramon. 1985. Selected works of Ramon Llull (12321316), trans. Anthony Bonner. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Nicholas of Cusa. 1990a. Nicholas of Cusas De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, trans. JasperHopkins. Minneapolis, MN: A.J. Banning Press.Nicholas of Cusa. 1990b.Nicholas of Cusa on interreligious harmony: Text, concordance and translation

of De Pace Fidei, ed. James E. Biechler and H. Lawrence Bond. Lewiston, NY: Edwin MellenPress.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. 1995.Jesus in the Quran. Oxford: Oneworld.Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius. 1990. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini: Epistola Ad Mahomatem II (Epistle to

Mohammad II), ed. and trans. Albert R. Baca. New York: Peter Lang.Robinson, Neal. 1991.Christ in Islam and Christianity. Albany: State University of New York Press.Smith, Jane Idleman, and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad. 2002. The Islamic understanding of death and

resurrection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Swanson, Mark N. 1994. The cross of Christ in the earliest Arabic Melkite apologies. In Christian Arabic

apologetics during the Abbasid period (7501258), ed. Samir Khalil Samir and Jrgen S. Nielsen,11545. Leiden: Brill.

Swanson, Mark N. 2006. Folly to the hunafa: The crucifixion in early ChristianMuslim controversy. InThe encounter of Eastern Christianity with early Islam, ed. Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark N.Swanson and David Thomas, 23756. Leiden: Brill.

Tartar, Pasteur Georges. 1985.Dialogue islamo-chretien sous le calife al-Mamum (813 834): Les epitresdAl-Hashimet dAl-Kind. Paris: Nouvelles editions latines.

Theodore Abu Qurra. 2005.Theodore AbuQurrah, trans. John C. Lamoreaux. Provo, UT: Brigham YoungUniversity.

Thomas, David. 2002. Early Muslim polemic against Christianity: Abu sa al-Warraqs Against theIncarnation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tolan, John V. 1996. Anti-hagiography: Embrico of MainzsVita Mahumeti.Journal of Medieval History22: 25 41.

Tolan, John V. 2008. Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European eyes in the Middle Ages. Gainsville:University Press of Florida.


09596411003619806

Documents