THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS IN THE QUR?AN: REFLECTIONS OF A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR

ι

Scholars have approached the portrait of Jesus in the Qur^än mainly from three different points of view, the polemical, the dialogical, and the historical.1

The polemical treatment is the oldest. For more than one thousand years it was the common practice for Christians to write about Islam polemically, branding Muhammad as an impostor and a liar. On the other hand, the same Christian readers, studying the QurDân from a specifically Christian perspective, concluded that even the liar acknow­ledges, if unwillingly, the divinity of Christ, for does he not, after all, call Jesus the "Word" of God?

The polemical tradition survives in a more attractive form in mis­sionary treatments of the theme. In 1912 S.M. Zwemer wrote: "To help our Moslem brethren to answer this question ['What think ye of Christ?'], we must...lead them up to higher truth by admitting all of the truth which they possess."2 On other occasions, the tone of missionary writers was much less tactful. E. Kellerhals, for instance, wrote that the Quranic portrait of Jesus reveals Islam as a form of Satanic anti-Christianity, devised by the father of lies. On the surface, Christ is ac­cepted and honored, but all this is mere cunning and calculation.3

Obviously, missionary study of Quranic Christology fails to do justice to the other religion. It is easy enough to compare the Quranic portrait of Jesus with the picture that emerges from the NT or with later Orthodox Christology and to conclude that the "Christian prophet as Islam knows him" is "sadly attenuated."4 But such an assessment does not do justice to Islam, which "is an autonomous expression of religious thought and experience, which must be viewed in and through its own principles and standards."5 Moreover, missionary critics of the

1 For details and a bibliography see Heikki Räisänen, Das koranische Jesusbild (Helsinki: The Finnish Society for Missiology and Ecumenics, 1971). This paper as a whole is based on the book to which I must refer the reader for all references. For a recent brief treatment of the topic, see also Kurt Rudolph, "Jesus nach dem Koran," in Was haltet ihr von Jesus? ed. by Wolfgang Trilling and Ingo Berndt (Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1975), pp. 260 ff.

2 Samuel M. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1912), p. 8.

3 Emanuel Kellerhals, Der Islam (Basel: Basileia Verlag, 1945), p. 180. 4 Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956),

p. 261. Of course, Cragg's approach to Islam as a whole is nevertheless characterized bysympathetic understanding.

5 Hamilton A. R. Gibb, Mohammedanism, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. vii.

122

THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS IN THE QUR'ÄN 123

Qur̂ an have usually been unaware of the inadequacy of their own yard­sticks. Missionary literature does not in general show much awareness of the differences between the Jesus of the NT and the Christ of Christological dogma, or of the existence of several rather different Christologies in the NT itself. Hence, the customary missionary ap­proach both fails to do justice to the alien tradition and lacks a realistic picture of its own tradition. It goes without saying that this fault does not lie with Christians alone. Standard Muslim criticism of Christianity and the Bible is certainly not less guilty in this respect.

In recent times, however, polemics and criticism have to a great extent given way to a new dialogical approach. There is a desire to achieve "fraternal understanding between the children of Abraham"6 in the search for social justice, moral values and world peace. One is eager to find in representatives of the other religion allies against the increasing encroachment of secularization. Laudable as such an enterprise is, the dangers inherent in the dialogical approach are those of superficiality and anachronism. One can easily read the Qur5än with a Christian bias, more or less ignoring the historical context of the book. Paradoxically enough, certain claims belonging to the old polemical literature are time and again repeated in a new form in the dialogue: the Qw°an, as op­posed to later Islam, does not (it is held) deny the divinity of Jesus or the Christian doctrine of the Logos.7 But the Qur5än is not to be expounded by the NT. Against all dialogical claims it should be emphasized that a knowledge of the NT is not at all necessary for an understanding of the Qur5an in its historical setting.8

The third approach may be termed historical. During the last hundred years much work has been done to trace all sorts of traditions which went into the making of the QurDan. Jewish and Judeo-Christian, Nestorian and Monophysite, Manichaean and Gnostic motives and traditions have been discovered. Especially clear is the influence of cer­tain popular apocryphal traditions concerning Mary and the birth and childhood of Jesus. This tracing of sources is part of the historical task, but by no means the whole of it or even the most important aspect. The Qur5an is not just the sum of its 'sources.' The establishment of the origin of some of its elements does not add up to an 'explanation' of the book. Muhammad was not merely a collector of ideas. Whatever tradi-

* Denise Masson, Le Coran et la révélation Judéo-Chrétienne, I (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1958), p. 7.

7 See, e.g., R. C. Zaehner, At Sundry Times (London: Faber & Faber, 1958), pp. 209, 216.

• Contra Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur^Qn (London: Faber & Faber, 1965), p. 173.

124 THE MUSLIM WORLD

tions were available to him, they all passed through his fervid religious experience and were transmuted by it. Every detail in the QurDan, whatever its origin may be, must be interpreted in the light of the new Quranic context. The QurDän must be explained by the Qur°an and not by anything else. This is the lesson to be learnt from the 'redaction-critical' studies of the Old and the New Testament. No matter what the Christians meant, for instance, when they spoke of Jesus as the "Word" of God, from the point of view of the QurDân the only relevant question is: "What could Muhammad possibly mean by that expression in the context of his total view?" Seen against the background of Muhammad's theology as a whole, the Quranic portrait of Jesus stands out as coherent and clear. The various stories of Jesus and the references to him, as well as the more dogmatic Christian statements known to Muhammad, were reinterpreted by Muhammad in the light of his own personal experience. Like other previous messengers of God, Jesus became an example and a precursor of Muhammad, a guarantor of Muhammad's message who had experienced similar things.

To speak of the Qur^an as an expression of Muhammad's religious experience is bound to offend Muslims. Many Christian writers, Watt and Parrinder for instance, attempt, therefore, to avoid such language altogether.9 This kind of language also appears to violate an often cited canon, formulated by W. Cantwell Smith, according to which "no statement about a religion is valid unless it can be acknowledged by that religion's believers."10 I think Cantwell Smith is right as regards descriptions of what is believed today by adherents of a religion. But his statement should not be applied to the historical study of religions. When a NT scholar tries to reconstruct the teaching of the historical Jesus, he does not and cannot stop to ask the average Christian believer what he thinks of the issue. On the contrary, the Biblical critic is likely to try to persuade the ordinary Christian to take another look at the historical evidence and rethink the whole thing. There is no reverting of the historical insights of the last two centuries. Christian theologians have had to learn to cope with the strictly historical treatment of their holy Scripture. They may be forgiven if they apply the same methods to other Scriptures, provided that the standards they apply are in fact the same.11 I feel justified in speaking of the Qur3an in terms of Muham-

9 Cf. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. x; Parrinder, Jesus, p. 10.

10 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, "Comparative Religion: Whither and Why?," in The History of Religions, ed. by Mircea Eliade and Joseph Kitagawa (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 42.

1 ' For an attempt to compare the Bible and the Qur3an from this perspective, see Heikki Räisänen, The Idea of Divine Hardening, 2nd ed. (Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Socie­ty, 1976).

THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS IN THE QUR'ÄN 125

mad's personal experience, since I use precisely the same kind of language when speaking of the NT. The NT bears every mark of successive transformations and reinterpretations of religious tradition in new situations and in the light of new human experiences. To acknowledge this does not necessarily detract from the value of the Scripture, although it compels one to view its authority in a different light. I would suggest that the same is true of the QurDan, although I realize that Muslims are not willing to admit this. But it took Christian theologians some seventeen centuries to get the historical criticism of the Bible started. In comparison with that, Islam still has plenty of time. In my view, a really penetrating dialogue between the two faiths can only begin when both sides are prepared to take historical criticism seriously.

II

For my present purpose, a rapid survey of the main points in the Quranic picture of Jesus is sufficient.12

The virginal conception of Jesus was a sign (S. 19:21) of God's omnipotence. Jesus worked great wonders "with God's permission" (S. 3:49; 5:110) and taught the same ethical monotheistic message that countless other messengers before him had taught and that Muhammad was to teach after him. A summary, appropriate in the mouth of any messenger, is given in S. 43:63 f.: "Fear God and obey me. Assuredly God is my Lord and your Lord. Serve Him! This is a straight path." In addition, Jesus confirmed the earlier Book of Torah (S. 3:50; 5:46) and clarified some controversial points in it (S. 43:63), just as Muhammad felt called upon to pronounce judgment on some matters debated be­tween Jews and Christians (S. 27:78). Jesus also announced the coming of Muhammad (S. 61:6). He was a righteous man (S. 3:46; 6:85), one of those who stand close to God (S. 3:45), displaying the characteristic Muslim virtues: prayer, almsgiving and piety toward his mother (S. 19:32). Nevertheless, his contemporaries rejected his message as "manifest sorcery" (S. 61:6; 5:110), except for his disciples who were, like Jesus, real Muslims (S. 3:45; 61:14). The Jews tried to kill Jesus and boasted that they had indeed done so, but they were wrong. They could not really kill him, but God raised him up to Himself (S. 4:158). Chris­tians regard Jesus blasphemously as God's Son—in fact, as one of three gods. Yet neither Jesus himself, a created being like Adam (S. 3:59; 4:171), nor his mother, ever wished to be anything other than God's ser­vant and messenger (S.4:171-172; 5:72, 116).

12 For details, cf. Räisänen, Jesusbild, pp. 17 ff.; and Henri Michaud, Jésus selon le Coran (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1960).

126 THE MUSLIM WORLD

This is a coherent and impressive picture of a messenger of the one and only God, who proclaimed the unchanging message in his own time and place. The coherence springs from the fact that Muhammad inter­preted everything he heard about Jesus in the light of his own ex­perience. Jesus' story, like that of other messengers, was a source of deep comfort and consolation for Muhammad. Jesus had been taught a Scripture by God, the Injïl, just as Muhammad received the Qur^än. If Muhammad was accused of sorcery and demonic possession, so was Jesus! If Muhammad suffered hardship, remember Jesus whom God saved from an ignominious death on the cross (probably letting him die a natural death later on). Jesus' disciples are seen as a paradigm for Muhammad's "helpers" (ansar) in Medina (S. 3:52; 61:14); they, too, are Muslims (S. 5:111). Last, but not least, Jesus had even prophesied the coming of the Arabian prophet (S. 61:6).

This is an outline of the general picture. A couple of points call for special comment.

The Qur^an affirms the virginal conception of Jesus. Many Western critics have accused Muhammad of inconsistency: since he rejects the divinity of Jesus, he ought not to have accepted the Virgin Birth either (or vice versa). This charge is groundless, however. Muhammad made it quite clear how the Virgin Birth, as he understood it, should be in­tegrated into his uncompromisingly monotheistic view. The manner of Jesus' birth is a "sign" (S. 19:21) that proves God's unlimited power. "God creates what He will" (S. 3:47). Interestingly enough, some of the Jewish-Christian Ebionites, according to Eusebius, also combined a belief in the Virgin Birth with a denial of Jesus' "pre-existence as God" as well as of his being "the Logos and the Wisdom" (H.E. III.27.3). One can go even further back, to the NT itself, and ask whether the idea of the virginal conception actually stands in anything like a causal rela­tion to Jesus' divine Sonship in the Lucan Infancy narrative. If Luke perceived such a relation, he never says so in so many words. In other parts of his work, as we shall see, he at least seems to conceive the Son-ship in a different light. It is at least arguable that the idea of the virginal conception in Luke is to be seen as a climactic development of the OT motif of barrenness removed by God. If that is the case, then Luke is speaking of God's miraculous creative power, the wonder of a new crea­tion, rather than giving an explanation for the relationship between the Father and the Son. In Matthew, too, the meaning of the virginal con­ception for the Evangelist is debatable. But whatever the original mean­ing of the idea of the Virgin Birth, the eastern Christians in Muham­mad's time certainly connected it with Jesus' divinity. It was a creative reinterpretation on the part of the Arabian prophet, triggered off by his

THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS IN THE QUR'ÄN 127

strictly monotheistic conception of God, to place all the emphasis on God's creative power in Jesus' birth, in analogy with the creation of Adam. In a similar vein, Muhammad emphasized that Jesus worked his wonders only "with God's permission," for "signs are only with God" (S. 6:109); it is only with God's permission that a messenger can pro­claim his message (S. 42:51) or give a sign (S. 13:38, 14:13 f., 40:78).

If the virginal conception does not raise Jesus above other men, neither does the title "Word" applied to him a couple of times. Jesus is "only God's messenger and His word that He uttered to Mary and a spirit from Him" (S. 4:171). Undoubtedly, the title "Word" goes back to the Christian use of Logos as a Christological title. But it is just as clear that Muhammad did not take over the specific Christian meaning of that term. In the context mentioned, the title seems to refer to the manner of Jesus' birth by the power of God's creative word of com­mand. Jesus is God's "Word," but certainly not in the sense of the Christian Logos. It is futile to engage in a dialogue on this point in an attempt to Christianize the language of the Qur3än.13

Ill

No wonder, then, that Christians have so frequently set out to criticize the 'attenuated' and 'impoverished' portrait of Jesus in the Qur?an, comparing it with the standard Christian picture. "The task is to show forth the glory and beauty of the Christ revealed in the New Testament to those who ignorantly honour Him as a mere prophet."14

The majority of such comparisons, however, suffer from a lack of dif­ferentiation. One does not distinguish sufficiently between the Bible and the later dogma, certainly not between different layers and conceptions within the NT itself. It is clear by now for NT scholarship that there is hardly anything in the NT that resembles even remotely the doctrine of the Trinity. This insight might in itself provide a fresh starting-point for a dialogue. But perhaps even more interesting is the fact that some layers of the NT bear a striking resemblance to the QurDanic portrait of Jesus. This is particularly conspicuous in the case of Luke, especially as regards the speeches in the Acts of the Apostles, where he probably uses at least some old traditional material.

Luke. On the whole, Luke gives us a Christology characterized by the emphatic subordination of Jesus to God. Whereas the rest of the NT uses the title 'Christ' absolutely, Luke speaks of Jesus as God's Christ (Acts 3:18, Lk 9:20, etc.). Jesus is God's servant (Acts 3:13, 4:27) and

13 Contra Masson, Coran, pp. 205, 213. 14 Zwemer, Christ, p. 8.

128 THE MUSLIM WORLD

Chosen One (Lk 9:35, Acts 3:20). His mighty acts were in fact worked by God through him (Acts 2:22), for God was with him (Acts 10:38). One may compare Muhammad's contention that Jesus worked his signs with God's permission. Jesus was killed according to God's plan (Acts 2:23). God raised him from the dead and made him Lord and Christ (Acts 2:23, 36). Professor John Hick is quite justified in inferring from such verses that "the first Christian preachers did not draw the conclu­sion that he [Jesus] was himself God but that he was a man chosen by God for a special role and declared by his resurrection to be Messiah and Lord."15 In his Infancy narrative Luke seems to indicate that Jesus was chosen for this role from the very beginning, before he was born; he also emphasizes God's creative activity in the whole matter. A certain tension exists between this and the statement in Acts 10:38, where Jesus' anointment with the Holy Spirit and with power is connected with his baptism. In Luke 1 the anointment is dated further back. Nevertheless, the total picture is not much affected by such differences. Jesus is God's chosen agent who does God's work, submits himself to suffering and death according to God's plan, and is raised to divine glory by God. Canon John Drury comments:

Luke's Jewish historical faith determines his theology of Christ, notoriously lower than some. It is in fact as high as traditional historical monotheism will allow and no higher.... Luke's Jesus is the epitome and compendium of the men whom God raised up: he is Son of God like the kings, wise men and Joseph in Joseph and Asenath, he is Son of David born in David's city, teacher, and, most striking of all, a prophet in the mould of Elijah, which role Luke deliberately takes from John...and gives to Jesus.16

Of the men raised up by God he is primus inter pares, as such having the uniqueness which is a gift of the spirit bestowed on man.... It does not seem necessary in the Lukan frame to posit that uniqueness of kind which has been the rampart of Christian separatism.... Monotheism reserves that transcendent uniqueness for God....17

Altogether, Drury can speak of a "take off" rather than a "landing" Christology in Luke.18

15 John Hick, "Jesus and the World Religions," in The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. by John Hick (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 171.

16 John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), p. 9.

17 Ibid., p. 12. 18 Ibid., p. 123.

THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS IN THE QUR'ÄN 129

There are no seeds of Trinitarian doctrine in Luke. Jesus is not God, even though he is divine in some way. Professor G. W. H. Lampe writes: "The union between him and the Father is, as it were, an exter­nal bond. Luke does not picture such a unity as we find in the Pauline or Johannine Christology. They are joined by the Spirit on the one side and the human response of prayer...on the other."19

Of course, this is not to claim that Quranic Christology is somehow identical with that of Luke. Obviously it is not. The passage just quoted goes on: "Yet it remains true that the word of Jesus is the word of God; his authority and power are divine; he is the agent of God's judgement and God's forgiveness." This is more than Muhammad would have said even about himself. The Lukan Christ plays a decisive, unique, unrepeatable role in the history of salvation, and Luke's attitude to the suffering of Christ is diametrically opposed to Muhammad's theologia gloriae, to mention only some of the most prominent differences. Nevertheless, the comparison with Luke should help one perceive that the Qw°anic portrait of Jesus is not so remote from the NT as might seem to be the case at first glance. At any rate, it should help one to realize that it is impossible to compare the Quranic Jesus with the Christology of the NT; such a unified Christology does not exist. To call Jesus the "Son of God," for instance, meant rather different things to different groups from the start, depending on the particular experience and cultural background of the group. Christians engaged in a dialogue with other faiths would do well to take the debate on the 'Myth of God Incarnate' very seriously.

John. Luke's presentation of Jesus is of particular interest in that it seems to preserve very old material, thus showing that at least some of the oldest interpretations of Jesus are closer to the Qur5anic portrait than subsequent ones. From another point of view, the Christology of the Fourth Gospel calls for close attention. Here we have an example of a rather free reinterpretation of Jesus' teaching in the light of later experiences and reflections. The Evangelist, for instance, makes Jesus speak of the glory which he had with God before the world was created (17:5), a statement which even Professor Moule, certainly not a scholar to be suspected of theological radicalism, discounts as evidence for Jesus' ipsissima vox.20 In the Synoptic tradition the doctrine of pré­existence is not attested. Professor Ernst Käsemann comments on John's overall perspective:

19 Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, "The Lucan Portrait of Christ," New Testament Studies, II (1955-56), 172.

20 Charles F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 138.

130 THE MUSLIM WORLD

Indeed, the Johannine symbolism...robs...what happened once upon a time of all intrinsic significance and only allows it any significance as a reflection of the present experience. Even the events of Good Friday, Easter and Ascension Day are no longer clearly distinguished. We must admit that nowhere in the NT is the life story of Jesus so emptied of all real content as it already is here, where it seems to be almost a projection of the present back into the past.21

And even C.H. Dodd, who made out an attractive case for the existence of historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel, could write concerning the statements about the Paraclete: "It would seem that the evangelist was conscious of putting forward a bold reinterpretation of what was believed to be the teaching of Jesus."22

The Johannine reinterpretation of older traditions is, needless to say, quite different from the later Quranic one. They reflect different religious experiences and, probably to an even greater extent, different cultural presuppositions. The notion of Jesus' préexistence, so impor­tant to the Fourth Evangelist, came to him through traditions molded by Jewish speculation as to the préexistent Wisdom of God, the mediator of creation, as is recognized almost universally by NT scholars today. John and his precursors interpreted their experience of the risen Christ through the lenses supplied by such speculations. Muhammad, on the other hand, interpreted the Jesus tradition known to him in the light of his strict monotheism and through his experience with Arabian polytheism. The results were bound to be poles apart, but the phenomenological processes themselves look remarkably similar. Of course, it may be argued, as Professor Moule does,23 that the Johannine interpretation is only a development of something that was there from the very beginning, whereas Muhammad's interpretation implies a far more radical break with previous tradition. In other words, "reinter­pretation" may turn out to be far too vague a category. On the other hand, the category of organic development is problematic, too, as Professor Moule himself admits. As regards the préexistence of Jesus, it would seem that that notion simply did not exist, either explicitly or implicitly, in Jesus' own message or in the Synoptic tradition and that it may be taken as an extremely radical Christological reinterpretation. So

21 Ernst Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 32.

22 Charles Harold Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, repr. 1968), p. 406.

23 Moule, Origin, pp. 2 ff. and passim.

THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS IN THE QUR'ÄN 131

there are problems on both sides. I should like simply to point out that at a certain level, at least, there are similarities between the Bible and the QurDan which have hitherto been largely overlooked.

Prophecies. Christians have always objected that Muhammad falsely applied Biblical prophecies to himself, above all the promise of the Paraclete in John (if that is what the ahmad passage, S. 61:6, refers to). Such a criticism is, of course, quite justified, but it is one that is likely to backfire. Precisely the same kind of thing happened when the early Christians read the OT, searching for prophecies about Jesus. Such prophecies were detected everywhere. The Gospel of Matthew in par­ticular offers a rich body of material in this respect. Even Professor Moule admits that Matthew "seems to be doing much the same" as the Qumran sect was doing in its "abuse" of the Scripture (as he chooses to call it). "Ignoring the original context and doing violence to the original meaning, the Evangelist fits the ancient words by force into a contem­porary, Christian meaning...."24 Exactly. To be sure, Professor Moule also asserts that the Christians' arbitrary use of the words of Scripture is to be explained by the fact that they had "discovered in Jesus an overall fulfilment, on the deepest level, of what Scripture as a whole reflected." This he takes to mean that, in the case of Jesus, "in contrast to the Qumran sect's leader, there was found to be fulfilment in a far pro-founder, and a deeply religious sense."25 But certainly the Qumran sect had also discovered an overall fulfilment of Scripture in a deeply religious sense in what was happening and what was expected still to happen to them, and it is futile to quarrel as to whose discovery was the more profound. Muhammad's procedure in his interpretation of what he knew of Jewish and Christian Scriptures was neither less nor more ar­bitrary than that of the Christians or that of the Qumran sect (or the Rabbis, or the Church Fathers).

John the Baptist. One last example. What happened to Jesus in the Qur5an resembles in many ways the fate of John the Baptist in the NT. In the Qw°an, Jesus became a precursor of Muhammad and a witness to him. This is exactly what happened to the Baptist with respect to Jesus in the Christian tradition. It is doubtful whether the historical John ever expected anyone like Jesus to come after him. Most probably he only expected, if not God Himself, then the Danielle Son of Man, conceived as a superhuman heavenly judge, to set his seal on his preaching of repentance.26

24 Ibid., p. 128. 25 ¡bid., p. 129. 26 See Jürgen Becker, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth (Neukirchen-

Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), pp. 34 ff.

132 THE MUSLIM WORLD

The portrait of John in Matthew is particularly instructive.27 Ac­cording to Matthew, John's message is perfectly identical with Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom of Heaven. "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," says John (Mt 3:2). So does Jesus, in exactly the same words, as he begins his preaching (4:17). This parallel results from Matthew's editing of his sources. At other points, too, identical statements recur in the mouths of John and Jesus (3:1 Ob/7:19, 3:7b/23:33; cf. 12:34), both of whom have to face a similar front of op­position. The Pharisaic opposition to Jesus is retrojected into the mis­sion of John, the clearest case being the editorial framing of John's pro­clamation of judgment in 3:7a, where Matthew (differing from Luke and probably from the common source known as Q as well) makes the Baptist address "the Pharisees and the Sadducees." On the whole, Mat­thew speaks of John as if he and his disciples were ordinary Christians. All these features recall Muhammad's treatment of the Jesus traditions. Jesus preaches just like Muhammad, faces a similar front of opposition and makes his disciples Muslims. On the other hand, just as Matthew never allows John to interfere with Jesus' exclusive significance as the Redeemer,28 Muhammad makes a clear distinction in rank between Jesus and himself, the "seal of the prophets." Both the Baptist in the NT and Jesus in the QurDän point to the greater one who was to come.

IV

Different as the Bible and the Qur^än are, from a phenomenological point of view the processes that led to their respective formations look remarkably similar. Of course, the Qur^än is a single book, whereas the Bible is a library in itself. In the Qur3än we can study the religious ex­perience of a single individual within a relatively short period of time. In the Bible we are confronted with the experiences and reinterpretations of many succeeding generations in changing cultural circumstances. Nevertheless, the general similarities remain.

Wherever our personal roots happen to be, we all exist within a living and constantly changing context of tradition and interpretation. The most meaningful thing to do would seem to be to help one another to react in creative ways to our new situations and to find constructive

27 See Wolfgang Trilling, "Die Täufertradition bei Matthäus," Biblische Zeitschrift, III (1959), 271 ff.

28 Matthew makes a sharper distinction than Mark, omitting Mark's remark that John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4) and inserting a corresponding remark on forgiveness in the story of the institution of the Eucharist (Mt 26:28).

THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS IN THE QUR'AN 133

ways of reapplying our respective traditions to our modern problems. Certainly, then, the dialogue, rightly understood, is what we need. But what I would like to see flourish, if it is impossible now, then at least some time in the future, is a dialogue true to history and sensitive to an historical-critical appraisal of even the most sacred tradition.

Järvenpää, Finland HEIKKI RÄISÄNEN