Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

CHAPTER 1: Revelation, Scripture, and Authority amongAbrahamic Faiths

The Widening Horizon of the Discourse on Revelation and Scripture in a Pluralistic World

The problem with pre-critical Christian tradition is not the confidence it had about the truthfulness of the biblical revelation but the fact that it offered no resources in negotiating with other religious traditions that, each in their own ways, made similar claims to ultimate truth. Common sense tells that it is not possible to assume that numerous such claims are equally correct - or incorrect! Hence, comparative theology is not saying that because there is a number of competing truth claims, none can be true. It rather looks for ways for a peaceful interaction of competing traditions, comparing notes, and giving distinctive testimony to what each tradition honestly believes. Consequently, in light of the religious and philosophical plurality of our times, “[i ]t is useless to say that God makes his revelation self-authenticating.”[1] Hence, such certainty cannot be a matter of simple self-evidence,”[2] be it based on the notion of a “Christian” state - or Islamic or Buddhist or Hindu state - or consensus, or territorial occupancy, or something similar that is external in nature.[3]

It is now obvious to us even in the American context - and the situation is even more urgent in most European settings - that Christian faith can no longer be taken as the religion of the land.[4] True, most Americans still identify themselves with Christian tradition. However, as the polling by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (2008) reports, “the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country.” The Roman Catholic Church has suffered even more dramatic losses. More than one-quarter of Americans have changed their faith allegiance or ended up as confessing no faith.[5] Both religious diversity and pervasive secularism have transformed the American and European cultures in dramatic ways. In the Global South religious diversity is taken for granted and is a matter of fact in many areas; secularism is doing much more poorly therein. Consequently, “We do our theology from now on in the midst of many others ‘who arenot . . of this fold.’ Our own faith, if only we are aware of it, is a constantly renewed decision, taken in the knowledge that other faiths are readily available to us.”[6]

While a rigid,fundamentalistic sticking with one’s own Scripture and its authority may lead to disastrous and violent consequences, what Martin E. Marty calls “lethal theology,”[7] one has to be mindful of the identity-forming agency of “canonical” Scriptures in any religious tradition. So, how to negotiate the need to avoid religious conflicts and violence, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, continue faithfully building on the received scriptural tradition?

Unfortunately, that question has not occupied the minds of most theologians so far. Sheer lack of knowledge of religions usually nurtures not only misguided remarks on them but also negative attitudes. Even such a careful theologian as Emil Brunner could say of other living faiths that they are “essentiallyeudaemonistic and anthropocentric”[8] and, even worse, “religions of self-redemption.”[9] Rightly TimothyTennett notes: “In the West, it is rare to find someone who has more than a cursory knowledge of the sacred texts of other religions. In contrast, because Christians in the Majority World are often in settings dominated by other religions, it is not uncommon to meet a Christian with a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist backgroundwho has an intimate knowledge of another sacred text.”[10] Hence, a careful and well-informed tackling of religious diversity “here at home” and “out there” is an urgent task for any theology for the third millennium worth its salt.

These many objections and rebuttals to the whole notion of thedoctrine of revelation should be acknowledged and carefully reflected upon if one is going to make a serious attempt to construct a more satisfactory and adequate doctrinal account of the Christian theology of revelation. The Jesuit Avery Dulles makes the important, but often neglected observation that the “theology of revelation offers peculiar methodological problems” in that it “is not a part of doctrinal theology (ordogmatics ) as ordinarily understood, for doctrinaltheology . . customarily tests its assertions by their conformity with what is already recognized as revelation.”[11] The current project seeks to develop a contemporary theology of revelation in the matrix of both contextual-global-intercultural diversity, including questions of inclusivity and power, and the diversity of living faiths and their claims to revelation and authority. Such an attempt will be best described as “the polymorphous character of revelation.”[12] Such a multifaceted and dynamic vision of revelation may offer resources for a new way of thinking of revelation in a diverse and pluralistic world. The ultimate goal is “to articulate a concept of revelation which will be true to the main orthodox Christian tradition, yet which will be open to a fruitful interaction with other traditions, and with the developing corpus of scientific knowledge.”[13]

The Challenge and Complexity of Interfaith Engagement of Scriptures

Putting Christian Scripture and doctrine of revelation in a mutual dialogue with some other living faiths is an enormous challenge. To begin with, the reservoir of sacred Scriptures is amazingly huge among religions - illustrated by the classic work of MaxMüller’s Sacred Books of the East in fifty hefty volumes; yet even that “library” misses noteworthy portions of Scriptures from various parts of Asia!

Whereas until recent decades religious studies as an academic discipline used to undermine the importance ofwritten Scriptures for the study of religions, giving preference tonontextual elements such as ritual, myth, and symbols,[14] more recently a new appreciation of the importance of written Scriptures to the study and knowledge of religions has emerged. That is not to undermine the importance of other elements such as folk religiosity, arts, and ritual, but rather to acknowledge that basically all living faiths are either based on or have been shaped in the presence of authoritative Scriptures.[15] “In all religions the scriptural word is seen as a means of revealing or realizing the Divine.”[16]

It is interesting and theologically important to note that while most religions have either the canonical or otherwise determined “primary” Scripture (Torah, Qur’an, Bible, Vedas,Tipitaka ), they also have a huge secondary literature that typically is believed to be based on and derive its (relative) authority from the primary revelation. Hence the Jews have the extensive Talmud, the “Oral Torah”; the Muslims have the huge collection ofHadith ; the main way to study the Vedas is the growing commentary literature in Vedic Hinduism and the wholesmrti tradition for the rest of the Hindus. The Christian church has accumulated a massive secondary literature of creedal and other definitive traditions. An important theological task not only for Christians but also for Jews, Hindus, and Muslims is to discern the relationship between the “canonical” and “extra-canonical” texts, to use the Christian parlance.

So far we have spoken of “Scriptures” as if the term were self-evident. It is not. A number of aspects vary among religions regarding what is called Scripture. First of all, religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have a clearly defined and closed canon. In many others, most profoundly in Buddhism, especially in Mahayana traditions, there is hardly any notion of a “closed canon.” Hinduism lies somewhere in between, as it has the twofold structure of primary, most authoritative Scriptures, the Vedas (shruti ), and the secondarysmrti collections of various types of materials, from epics to songs to folklore and so forth. Even the collection of Vedas, let alone the rest of the Hindu Scriptures, is immense. Hence, in a typical household in India, a small part of an important epic in thesmrti collection, the Bhagavad-Gita, may be the only Scripture available. Or consider Taoism, which embraces more than 1,000 scriptural texts!

Scriptures also play different roles in various religions. Whereas Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - as well as most profoundly Zoroastrianism - can be rightly called “religions of the book” because of the necessary and authoritative role played by the written canonical Scripture, in Hinduism, the spoken word is primary. The Vedas, even though found in written form in Sanskrit, are considered to be divine speech, and hence the written form is inferior to the “oral text.”[17] Hence, JuliusLipner rightly and importantly speaks of “[t]he voice of scripture as Veda” when speaking of “scripture” in Hinduism. He also remind us that the term “scripture” from Latin “to write” poorly describes Hindu intuition; hence, the Sanskrit termśabda , from “to make a sound” and “to call” is more appropriate.[18] Furthermore, whereas almost all religions of the world regard their Scriptures as inspired and divinely originated, that is not the case with all traditions. Buddhism has no concept of divine inspiration. Even more profoundly, Confucianism regards its Scripture as a human product, although hugely important for religion. One could also, perhaps somewhat ironically, point to Liberal Protestantism in Christianity, according to which the Bible is merely an invaluable human sharing of responses to religious experiences.

Finally, the nature and function of Scripture among various traditions vary greatly. For the typical Muslim theQur’anic revelation is true verbatim and relates to all aspects of life. Typical contemporary Jews and Christians consider Scripture as the ultimate authority, even though, apart from fundamentalists, they consider its principles and thoughts to be the inspired guide to faith and practice. For most Buddhists, Scripture’s main role and authority lies in their capacity to convey Buddha’s enlightenment and precepts. It is the Scripture’s “object” rather than the Scripture as such that is highly venerated and authoritative. In Hinduism, Brahmins study Vedas as the divinely originated religious (and in many traditions, philosophical) authority, whereas for most Hindus, scriptural content comes in the form of folklore, rituals, artistic forms, and the general cultural environment in India.

These diversities in mind, it is important to be mindful of the danger of generalizations and assumptions. The Christian theologian approaches the interfaith exchange between Scriptures and notions of revelation among other living faiths through the lens of his or her own tradition. The Muslim scholar would do the same, and so forth. The Christian student does well to remember what has been called the “Protestant bias” in the study of religions’ Scriptures.[19] This simply means that

Certain mainstream Protestant ideas about the nature of scripture colored the study of the scriptures of other religions and only today are being identified and corrected. They can be listed serially: a preoccupation withtextuality to the exclusion oforality , from the Protestant emphasis on the scripture aswritten ; an individualistic orientation that assumes that scriptures are to be read mainly by the individual, from Protestant ideas of the “priesthood of all believers” and universal literacy; the notion that scriptures are widely authoritative over every aspect of religious life, from the Protestant assertion that the scriptures are the sole authority in the Christian faith; and the assumption that scriptures are best understood by academically recognized methods of study, from mainstream Protestant attachment to sound academic procedures.[20]

One of the biases mentioned in this list calls for more comment. It has to do with the preference, at times almost exclusive, for written rather than oral Scriptures, which is the hallmark of not only the current Protestant world but also the whole of Christian tradition. Indeed, the prioritization of the written over the oral is a larger cultural development going back to the invention of printing on the eve of the Protestant Reformation.[21] The Protestant Reformation took full advantage of the new printing capacities in its desire to put the Bible in the hand of every Christian. Industrialization and more recently globalization with the expansion of information production have all contributed to the hegemony of the written over the spoken. Even the current virtual world relies on written texts as much as it includes other forms of communication. The French philosopher JacquesEllul rightly sawThe Humiliation of the Word , particularly the spoken word, in our current culture, no longer limited to the Global North but also, with the rise of Western-type of schooling, taking place in the Global South.

ForEllul , the printed and spokenword are not merely two complementary and convenient ways of communication; they differ in nature from each other. Since spoken words function as symbols and evoke emotions, they cannot be reduced to mere facts (even though they also contain cognitive content). The modern and contemporary fixation with the printed text treats printed words as signs that have a fixed reference and by and large convey information.[22] Ellul is of course too smart to naively dismiss the importance of printed text - as prolific a writer as he is; his point is that we should work hard in holding on to the complementary and necessarily mutually dependent role of writing and speaking, seeing and hearing, symbolic and informative. For the purposes of this discussion, that is an essential observation. Thepluriform nature of Christian revelation calls for an inclusive, multifaceted, and multilayered concept of communication, including the oral.

The eclipse of the oral Scripture in Christian tradition is an odd development when looked at historically. The First Testament of the Bible, shared by the Jewish tradition, builds essentially on the role of oral transmission of scriptural content and emphasizes the importance of remembering and reciting the Lord’s commands and blessings. Consider only Deuteronomy chapter 6, the great pedagogical mandate for all Israelite parents to instill in their children’s minds the precepts of the Lord. Much better than Christianity, Judaism has maintained the habit of learning and reciting scriptural words even after biblical times. Jesus and the apostles, as Jews, memorized and recited Scriptures daily. The early church also did that as the Gospels were not yet written and were circulating in the oral form. In the Islamic tradition, oral memorization and recital of Scripture took even higher importance. “Indeed, spiritual merit in Islam is said to be measured by the thoroughness of one’s oral knowledge of the scripture. According to the tradition, on the day of resurrection everyone will be called upon to rise up and recite the Qur’an.”[23] Examples from other living faith traditions could be easily accumulated to make the case for the significance of the oral form of Scripture, an intuition basically lost in contemporary Christian faith and theology.[24]

Coupled with the eclipse of the oral “Scriptures,” Western religious studies and theological studies have also bracketed out the importance ofnoncognitive , “spiritual” forms of appreciating, appropriating, and living out Scriptures. The post-Enlightenment academic paradigm has one-sidedly sought to merely analyze, using the best critical tools, religious texts with little consideration of theirpluriform meaning and use in all living traditions. This is, of course, related to the Enlightenment-based replacement of the concept of God with religion.[25] The theologian Keith Ward’s observation is right on target: “The language of religion is like the language of poetry; and it is a major heresy of post-Enlightenment rationalism to try to turn poetry into pseudo-science, to turn the images of religion, whose function is to evoke eternity, into mundane descriptions of improbable facts.”[26] In the same spirit, Howard Coward, himself a leading scholar of world religions, gives this correction:

But discursive academic study is always of secondary importance, since knowledge of the Transcendent can never be fully captured and communicated in words. Spiritual transformation takes place more through the continuous action of the memorized words, which have become a part of the very structure of consciousness, than through intellectual study. The poetic power of the words to point beyond themselves and resonate strongly with the Transcendent is a major force in the religious transformation of consciousness.[27]

In religions, Scriptures - at least the “canonical ones” - play a “foundational” role, not only in guiding belief and practice but also in the forming of the way the world is viewed. In his investigation into five religious traditions, Ward seeks to discern what he calls “a revelatory matrix.” “A revelatory matrix is a paradigm metaphor which encapsulates a particular vision of the world.” An example of this is the famous idea mentioned in theIsa Upanishad : “Those who see all beings in the Self and the Self in allthings, will never doubt It.”[28] A matrix is not there only for explanation. “It seeks to evoke a way of life which is regulated, in its most general forms of apprehension and action, by a controlling metaphor. . The term ‘matrix’ seems appropriate for it, because it is a basic mould or pattern which forms our most general perception of things and our reactions to them.”[29]

A revelatory matrix at work in major living faiths has three interrelated functions: “It is regulative for human understanding, providing a paradigm by which an explanation can be given of how things are and of how they came to be as they are.”[30] Just think of how well this definition applies to Christian theology of revelation, particularly as it is built on the self-revelation of the Triune God in the embodiment of the eternal Logos in one historical person. “The source of the matrix is revelation; either the claim to omniscience, as traditionally withSakyamuni [Gautama Buddha] and Jesus, or a claim to inspired knowledge given by asuprahuman source to a chosen person, as with the authors of the Veda, Torah, and Koran.” Rather than merely seeking to describe the Divine, revelation proposes a way of liberation from sin as in Christianity ordukkha as in Buddhism or “ignorance” as in Hinduism.[31]

Some recent approaches in systematic and constructive theology may turn out to be helpful in capturing a more holistic view of Scriptures not only in Christian but also other faith traditions. These include approaches such asVanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine , engaged widely in the discussion above, and William A.Dyrness’s Poetic Theology , which builds on the intuition that since religion - and knowledge of God - comes to us in so many forms, the category of the “poetic” in the most inclusive sense, going back to the Aristotelian notion of “making,” is needed along with the more traditional discursive approach.

In a systematic/constructive theology project such as the current one in which the category of revelation and the notions of Scripture are approached mainly from the perspective of textual analysis and with a focus on “official” authoritative texts such as Vedas or Torah or Qur’an, we need the constant reminder of the primacy in many religions of the oral rather than written, poetic rather than discursive,[32] communal rather than individual orientations. In addition to its help in academic constructive work, mindfulness of this wider framework may help the Christian church and theologiansbe more inclusive and “relevant.”

The First and the Second Testament s

Salient Features of Torah as Revelation

Christian and Jewish traditions of course hold much in common when it comes to Scripture. Simply put: a greater part of the Christian Bible is Jewish..

The origins and reception of both Hindu and Islamic[33] religions arenonhistorical . Whereas the origin of the Vedas is the eternal divine speech and that of Qur’an the divine dictation via the angel to the Prophet, according to “the first book of the Hebrew Bible, Judaism has its historical origins in the act of obedience.”[34] The origins of the Hebrew people lie in the response of faith of the forefather Abram (later named Abraham) who obediently set out on a journey to the Promised Land (Gen. 12:1-3). As the later history of the First Testament narrates it, this “missionary call” was meant to bring blessing not only to the family of Israel but also to the whole world. Hence, the universal scope of this particular and local revelation.

As a result, several interrelated aspects shape and make distinctive the Jewish revelation and its Scriptures. First, it is deeply embedded in the historical process. While divine in its origin, the revelation is given and received in the matrix of human life at personal, tribal, national, and international levels. Second, its focus is on ethical and moral obedience. This is not to deny the importance of moral precepts in other living faiths - only consider Buddhism. It is to say that in other living faiths, the connection between moral conduct and religious practice, belief in God and righteous walks of life as expression thereof, is not established in the integral way it is in Judaism[35] - and of course, by implication, in Christianity. Third, because revelation comes in the unfolding of history, it looks into history, to the future, for future fulfillment. But being oriented to Yahweh’s final intervention, the most significant sign and manifestation of which is the arrival of the Messiah, does not mean that therefore Jewish faith is otherworldly. It is not. Indeed, one of the most significant differences between the Jewish and Christian views of revelation is that the latter is deeplyeschatologically oriented and hence itsrevelational category of promise is also eschatological, as discussed above. Judaism focuses on the implications of revelation for this world. Ward succinctly notes: “For Judaism, revelation comes in the form of Teaching; not a teaching about the nature of the universe, but a set of practical principles for communal life, enjoining wholeness, a loving and obedient relationship to God, and social justice.”[36]

The focus on this-worldly needs and concerns, however, has nothing to do with the ethos of Christian Classical Liberalism, which made Jesus merely a convenient ethical teacher. Judaism’s this-worldly orientation is fully and absolutely based in Yahweh, the creator, almighty ruler, and personal Father of all. Israel is to submit in love and covenant faithfulness to the One who loves and is faithful. Part of the revelation is also the readiness - albeit at times, quite reluctantly - to become the object of Yahweh’s fatherly rebuke when ethical standards and covenant faithfulness is lacking. Rightly it can be noted that the First Testament is “surely the most self-critical body of literature any people has everproduced . . [and] has ultimately only one hero: God.”[37]

For the Jewish faith, revelation is propositional in nature. Two important considerations help highlight the importance of the propositional nature of revelation. On the one hand, according to ancient tradition - although not supported by recent Jewish historical academic study - Moses basically received the Law by way of divine “dictation.” On the other hand, what he received - whether, in light of contemporary understanding of the formation of canon, it happened as “dictation” or not - the detailed lists of commands, exhortations, laws, and practices conveyed by Yahweh can only be appreciated as cognitive, propositional statements. How different is the content of the Hebrew Bible’s law code from the style and content of, say, the Rig Vedas of Hinduism? And yet, Vedanta and other Hindu theologians take Vedas as propositional statements as well, whatever else they are.

The center and most sacred part of the Jewish canon,Tanakh ,[38] isTorah (“teaching,” “instruction”). In written form it is the “Five Books of Moses.” An important counterpart is the Oral Torah, which came to full flourishing with the emergence of rabbinic Judaism beginning from around the Common Era, but which was believed to have been revealed to Moses along with the written Torah as well. The two other parts of the canon, albeit not as sacred, areNevi’im (Prophetic books) andKetuvim (“Writings”).[39] A noteworthy observation about the second part, the prophetic books, is thata significant portion of that collection are writings that could be better labeled as “historical books” (Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings). In the Jewish theological outlook, however, they are rightly located since Yahweh is the Lord of history and hence, the post-Enlightenment separation of “secular” and “sacred” history is a foreign idea. Similarly, the last book of the Hebrew Bible (which, incidentally in the Christian OT is placed after 1-2 Kings), the two-volume Chronicles is placed at the end of the canon because it ends in a hopeful note of the release from the exodus. It is a book of promise, pointing toward future fulfillment. It is fittingly placed in the collection that is mainly about wisdom and religious poetry and parable.

If “prophetic Judaism” (the Judaism until the beginning ofc.e .) brought about the Hebrew Bible as we have it now, it is rabbinic Judaism that produced the huge and varied collections of the so-called Oral Torah; the nomenclature “oral,” of course, has to be taken in a qualified sense here: while put into written form inMishnahs (and commented on inTalmuds ), it is believed to be oral in its first transmission from Yahweh to Moses. While not canonical in the sense of Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), its importance is irreplaceable as it helps make the written Torah living and applicable to ever-new situations. Hence the importance ofmidrash , the meticulous examination of the written text to find its right and true meaning.

Rabbinic Judaism became the dominant form of the religion following the devastation caused by the destruction of the Second Temple in 70c.e ., which of course meant yet another loss of the land and more importantly the temple, the earthly locus and guarantee of God’s presence. Not surprisingly, rabbinic Judaism was not a uniform movement; it consisted of several fractions, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees, both of which held Torah as the canonical Scripture but had opposite views concerning the value of extra-scriptural tradition. The Sadducees took only the received text of the written Scripture as authoritative, as it has been entrusted to the priesthood, and consequently they regarded any tradition whose sources was not in the written Scripture as human invention.

The Pharisees, who became the mainstream of rabbinic Judaism after 70c.e ., did not think the canonical status of the written Scripture excluded the importance of later developing tradition. Through painstaking study of the Law (Torah) and the rest of the canon, they uncovered meanings not apparent at a cursory reading. For the Pharisees - and indeed, for rabbinic Judaism at large - revelation is thus “progressive,” unlike traditional prophetic Judaism, which believes in the reception by Moses of Yahweh’s revelation; if the term “progressive revelation” is too much, then we should speak at least of “progressive interpretation of revelation” inRabbinicism .[40] This huge Oral Torah is classified under the general categories ofhalakah , ritual and legal practices and traditions, andhaggadah , with its focus on homiletics, ethics, exegesis, and theology. The first major such work that also became foundational to the Oral Torah is theMishnah , compiled in the second centuryc.e . Huge collections of Talmudic tractates - the most important of which are the Babylonian and Palestinian - emerged as commentaries on theMishnah over several centuries. The Babylonian Talmud, completed in the sixth centuryc.e ., is the most important of these works and an indispensable resource for everything Jewish.[41]

In medieval times when revisionist movements arose, such asKaraism , which questioned and basically rejected the rabbinic notion of Jewish tradition, andKabbalism , which, unlikeKaraism , did not reject either rabbinic tradition or the Oral Torah, but rather filled it with new meanings, often highly speculative and imaginative.

As important as prophetic and rabbinic Judaism is to that religion, in the contemporary world there are a number ofnonorthodox movements, beginning from the Reform movements of the mid-nineteenth century to various Liberal schools of our era. While all these movements, in some sense or another, consider Torah the canonical Scripture, wide disagreements have to do with how to deal with the rules (mitzvoth ) of Torah in the contemporary world. Should they be taken “literally,” as the unchanging will of God for all ages? Are they supposed to be considered principles with different applications? Or are they such that many of them cannot be taken as an expression of the will of God at all? Consider just the many dietary and other rules of Leviticus or the passages in Psalms and elsewherethat seem to ordain violence.

Scripture and the Covenants

In order to locate the Jewish tradition in themultifaith matrix, it is helpful to follow Ward’s characterization. He identifies Judaism as seminal and intermediate. It is seminal in its functioning as the basis for two other faiths, Christianity and Islam, and it is intermediate because it is a local or tribal tradition. However - and this is significant for Christian considerations - its view of revelation is universal in that it speaks of Yahweh as the creator and God of all men and women and the whole of creation. Hinduism shares materially the same three characteristics: it provides many Asian faiths the foundational ideas of karma, rebirth, its view of reality as “appearance” and release as “salvation”; yet it is intermediate with its focus on androotage in India; and its view of revelation is universal because it seeks to offer all men and women the right view of reality and path of release.[42]

When it comes to the relation of the two peoples of God who share the same Torah as their Scripture, we have to begin with the sad and long track record of Christian anti-Semitism. As early as the second centuryc.e .,Marcion wanted the Christian church to reject the OT as canonical Scripture. The history of anti-Semitism runs from the church fathers (John Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine) to Reformers (Luther) to twentieth-century theologians (Karl Adam), to popes, too numerous to list.[43]

At the center of the tension between the twosibling faiths lies the obvious but important fact that “historically Christianity has been theologically exclusive andhumanistically universal, while Judaism has been theologically universal andhumanistically exclusive.” Christian theologicalexclusivism , however, is qualified by the equally important conviction that Christ died for all and thattherefore, all people from all nations can be beneficiaries of thissalvific work.[44] As long as the Christian church wishes to stay faithful to its canonical Scriptures, which include not only the First but also the Second Testament, she is faced with this continuing challenge, so eloquently and ironically described by the contemporary Jewish scholar Michael S.Kogan : “how to be faithful to the New Testament command to witness for Christ to all peoples and to convert all nations, while, at the same time, affirming the ongoing validity of the covenant between God and Israel via Abraham and Moses. Can the church have it both ways?”[45]

The Jewish conviction of being the elected people is based on Torah, which speaks of the covenant struck between Yahweh and Israel. However, if the people of God do not adhere to the covenant, its benefits may be lost. On the other hand, from as early as the third centuryc.e ., rabbinic Judaism has appealed to theNoahic Covenant as a means for offering the “way of salvation” to non-Jews.[46] This admission is not a matter of compromising Israel’s covenantstatus, it is rather to act in light of the universally oriented revelation. The Christian side faces the challenge of, without compromising the new covenant “struck” in Jesus Christ - because that is the message of the NT - not invalidating God’s covenant with the OT people. The contemporary Jewish scholar Michael S.Kogan poses the challenge to their Jewish counterparts: “Are Jews really ready and willing to affirm that God, the God of Israel and of all humanity, was involved in the life of Jesus, in the founding of the Christian faith, in its growth and spread across much of the world, and in its central place in the hearts of hundreds of millions of their fellow beings?”Kogan’s conviction is that the response of “yes” is inevitable from the perspective of the universal nature of revelation in his faith.[47] This kind of acknowledgment of the place of the Christian church in God’s economy of salvation is not something totally novel in Jewish history. Just consider the greatest medieval Jewish theologian, Moses Maimonides - routinely compared to St. Thomas Aquinas in Christian tradition - who surmised that not only Christianity but also Islam are part of the divine plan to prepare the world for the reception of the message of the biblical God.[48]

When mutual trust is being established, mutual dialogue and common Scripture may begin with issues related to the discussion of current themes such as the implications of the divine Word as incarnate and the Christian “deviation” from the teachings of the First Testament. Is the whole idea of divine embodiment totally unacceptable to Jewish Scriptures?Kogan scrutinizes texts such as the walking of Yahweh in the garden (Gen. 3:9) or appearing to Abraham (18:1) and concludes: “For Jewish believers, then, the thought may come to mind that, if God can take human form in a series of accounts put forward in one’s own sacred texts, one would be unjustified in dismissing out of hand the possibility that the same God might act in a similar fashion in accounts put forward in another text revered as sacred by a closely related tradition.”[49] What about the implications of the sharedmaterial conviction that whereas in Judaism the Word of God is Torah, in Christianity it is Christ/Logos?[50] And so forth.

Common Scripture Reading as a Form of Interfaith Theologizing

This brief consideration of the views of Scripture and revelation in other living faiths from the viewpoint of Christian theology has highlighted both continuities and discontinuities. Before mentioning them, it should be noticed that not only between religions but also within each tradition there are significant differences that must be noticed if ones seeks a serious interfaith engagement. Keith Ward illustrates both of these aspects by placing side by side the Buddhist and Islamic views of Scripture and revelation. While these two traditions display significant differences from each other, there is also significant diversity within each of them:

Orthodox Muslim accounts speak of a direct verbal transmission by God; while Buddhists rely on very old traditions recalling the teaching of the enlightened one, whose own experience is the guarantor of truth. Within each tradition there is the logical possibility of a continuous range of positions between the two poles of propositional dictation and enlightened experience. While the orthodox tend to make claims for infallibility as strong as possible, other believers allow for the possibility of such an element and degree of personal experience and developing historical context that a degree of partiality and fallibility is introduced. It may be argued that this allows revelation to be considered as much more a personal interaction between human and divine, whereasinfallibilist accounts treat revelation in a rather mechanical way, as the passive reception of information. Moreover, a stress on factors of personal temperament and cultural context may help one to appreciate the rich diversity of different traditions, and make possible a more tolerant and appreciative attitude to other traditions than one’s own.[51]

Significant differences between Christian tradition and other faith traditions highlighted in the discussion above include these: Whereas Christian - and Jewish - views of revelation are fully embedded in and in a genuine way emerge out of the historical process, in Asiatic and Islamic traditions history plays no role. A related significant difference has to do with the lack of ethical-moral emphasis in Asiatic faiths whereas that is a key aspect of Judeo-Christian Scripture. The Islamic tradition is somewhat unique in that, on the one hand, a significant part of “submission” to Allah has to do with obedience toQur’anic ethics. However, on the other hand, because of neglect of historical and contextual factors in the reception of revelation - as some leading revisionist Muslim critics are pointing out[52] - Scripture’s relevance to socio-political and ethical pursuit is vague. Other significant differences include “fundamentalistic ” insistence on the infallibility of Scripture not only in Islam but also in Vedic Hinduism. This is related to the reluctance to engage critical studies of Scripture. And as discussed in some detail above, differs from all other traditions, the Christian doctrine of revelation is focused on and derives from the divine embodiment, the Word-made-flesh; hence, it istrinitarian through and through.

The understanding of revelation as historical in Christian tradition calls for more remarks. It not only distinguishes it from other traditions; it also poses a challenge and opportunity for Christian theology and the church, as explained by Lewis E. Winkler:

if one affirms that God reveals himself through history not only in Christianity but also other religions, much more needs to be done by Christians to answer questions surrounding the recognition, discernment, and significance of these outside revelatory resources. How can we differentiate the cultural, anthropological, and even demonic when dialoging with other faith traditions? In addition, how can we look more closely at history and see more clearly how it reveals important truths about God, his creation, andourselves as human beings?[53]

Such discernment and recognition must attend to both similarities and dissimilarities - at times, even to the deep conflicts. An important theological question asks,Why do we have these irreconcilable conflicts in the understanding of revelation among the religions?and What do we do with them? Consider only Muslim and Christian differences between their understandings of revelation. Whereas the difference from Buddhism is easier to understand because of its non-theistic - or “differently-theistic” - nature, which naturally leads to a human-centered pursuit of release, even with Hinduism, Christian tradition has less of a hard time. The difference is because these two theistic religions (even apart from whether Hinduism is mono- or polytheistic) understand the divine so very differently. Islam presents Christian faith with a profound challenge as both build not only on a clearly defined authoritative canon but also, more importantly, on a personal notion of God who is the source and giver of revelation.

Unless one is satisfied with the naive pluralistic denial of differences that hardly does justice to any tradition, even to one’s own, a careful consideration of the theological implications of real conflicts is called for. It seems to me that Keith Ward’s response to this dilemma is as good as any: “Apparently, God has not given an unambiguous revelation and preserved it unequivocally from error. God has permitted many alleged competing revelations to have currency in the modern world.”[54] Isn’t that a reason to maintain modesty and humility, without rejecting proper confidence, about the truth of revelation in Christ? Isn’t that a reason to continue careful reflection on how to best understand the complicated relationship between the divine and human elements in the inspiration of Scripture and formation of the canon? Isn’t that a reason to continue investigating the relationship between the propositional and symbolic in Scripture? And so forth. It seems to me the Christian doctrine of revelation,pluriform in nature, which seeks to negotiate the dynamics of historical and eternal, inerrant and fallible, infinite and finite, propositional and symbolic, “spiritual” and socio-political, may offer the best resources for such a continuing enterprise.

As Christian theology continues constructing an adequate theology of revelation and Scripture, gleaning from rich sources of tradition and from the wide diversity of contemporary global theology, it also is well served by inviting scholars and practitioners from other faith traditions into a common reading of Scriptures - every tradition’s own Scriptures. This is an act of hospitality: “we” are opening our Scriptures for others to read and “they” are opening theirs. We are not only talking about how similar or different our theologies of revelation are; we are learning from and contributing to each other by reading together.

One of the theologically most promising initiatives in this respect is called “Scriptural Reasoning.” It is actually a loose network of various types of international and interfaith enterprises that aim at helping scholars and clergy study sacred Scriptures together.[55] It was started at the turn of the millennium among Jewish, Christian, and Islamic representatives and has so far concentrated heavily on monotheistic faiths for the simple reason that they share much in common.[56] It is likely that soon Scriptural Reasoning will be tried among other religions as well. The strength and promise of these kinds of interfaith enterprises is that they not only studyabout scriptures, they studyscriptures together.

The Qur’an and Bible

Islamic Canon and Sacred Texts

Unlike Hinduism and Buddhism in which the canon is either vast or hardly defined, but similarly to Judeo-Christian traditions, Islam has a clearly defined canon, the Qur’an. Linked to later exposition and expansion of theQur’anic materials, there is also a huge and vastHadith tradition that consists of the sayings of the Prophet and other sages. The sayings and actions of Muhammad narrated in theHadith are not believed to be revealed, although they are inspired.[57] By the ninth century, as many as about 600,000Hadith had been recorded, which were then condensed into about25,000. By far the most important is theHadith ofBukkhari ; significant also are theHadith of Muslim, ofSunan Abu-Dawud , and ofMalik’s Muwatta . Understandably Islamic tradition has brought about commentary literature, similarly to other living faiths. Especially the Sunni exegesis during the first Islamic centuries became famous for its meticulous and tedious work. Along with the mainline Sunni andShi’ite schools, the mystical Sufi schools have produced an amazingly diverse devotional and mystical literary and poetic treasury.

The discussion so far has established the central role of Scripture not only in Christianity (and by implication in Judaism) but also in two major world religions from Asia. Not only is that true of Islam, but it is probably the case among all living faiths. Yet it is in Islam that Scripture plays the most profound role. “Out of the Qur’anarises the Islamic community, its law, literature, art, and religion. Perhaps more than any other religious community, Muslims are a ‘people of the Book’.”[58]

The Qur’an does not do away with earlier revelations, the Jewish First Testament and the Christian Second Testament, but rather considers itself as their fulfillment and correction. Similarly to Hindu conception of the Vedas, most Muslims consider the Qur’an as the eternal speech of God.[59] Again, similarly to Hinduism, the oral Scripture is the primary mode. What is interesting is that the termQur’an in Arabic means both “recitation” and “reading,” thus embracing both oral and written aspects.

Unlike in Hinduism, whoserishis (“seers”) merely “hear” the eternal speech in the Vedas, passively, by virtue of having been cultivated spiritually to tap into the divine, the role of the recipient in Islam, the prophet Muhammad, is more than just a passive recipient. Hence, the usual nomenclature of the “messenger” probably says too little of the role of the prophet.[60] “The Qur’an as Scripture comes only to him [Muhammad]: it has penmen other than himself but does not come from their pens, nor is itabout him. ‘Herald,’ ‘emissary,’ even ‘commissioner,’ would all possibly serve, were they not encumbered by associations that are too sentimental or too vulgar.”[61] Coward puts it well: “God is the speaker of the revelation, the angel Gabriel is the intermediary agent, and Muhammad is the recipient. Not a passive recipient, however, for God’s word acts by its own energy and makes Muhammad the instrument, the ‘sent-doer,’ by which all peopleare warned by God and called to respond.”[62] Mediator - the angel Gabriel, or at times, the Holy Spirit (Q 16:102), or the Trustworthy Spirit (26:193) - is needed because of the categorical separation between the transcendence of God and immanence of humanity.[63]

Unlike in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian traditions in which most of the divine speech comes in human forms, often embedded in the struggles of human life and in the events of history, and which often contain substantial narratives about key figures such as prophets and apostles, in the Islamic Qur’an “there is no notion of an inspiration from God that is then clothed and uttered in the best words a human mind can create. In the Qur’an, Muhammad receives a direct, fully composed revelation from God, which he then recites to others.”[64] While progressive contemporary scholars, mainly based in the West, acknowledge the personal, religious, socio-historical, and similar contextual factors in the formation of the canon,[65] orthodox Islam regards the Arabic Qur’an as the direct, authoritative speech of God conveyed through the prophet. In that sense, Muhammad’s role is critical and unique.[66] Unlike the Christian understanding of the formation of the canon as a centuries-long divine-human synergy, orthodox Islam rests on the firm conviction that the formation and closing of theQur’anic canon was a divine act through Muhammad. Indeed, there is an old tradition according to which the Qur’an is but a copy of a “Guarded Tablet” in heaven (85:22).[67]

The belief that the revelation of the Qur’an came to Muhammad directly from God does not mean that it all came at one time and in the form of dictation as it were. According to Q 17:106, “We have revealed it by [successive] revelation.”Hadith traditions give vivid accounts of various ways the reception of revelation took place, including dramatic emotional states.[68] However, theologically it is essential to note that unlike the experiences of the OT prophets or the NT apostle Paul, these emotional and personal struggles were not part of the revelation and revelatory process in Islamic understanding.

Although in each of the living faiths their sacred texts were conveyed originally in particular languages - Vedas in Sanskrit,Tipitaka inPali , Torah in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek - in contrast the Qur’an insists that its original language, Arabic, is also its only “revelatory” language.[69] The Qur’an can only exist in Arabic, all translations fall short of full revelation.[70] The form of Arabic used in the Qur’an is of the tribe ofQuraysh , that of Muhammad. Interestingly, stylistically it is identical with none of the known bodies of Arabic. Even the Arabic of theHadith is different from that of the Qur’an. “The uniqueness of the language of the Qur’an has become a dominant element in Muslim orthodoxy.”[71]

As with the Vedas andTipitaka , it is the oral form of (the Arabic) Qur’an that is the most foundational and most authentic revelation. Beginning from Muhammad who was commanded by the Angel to commit revelation to memory and who then recited it to the first disciples, there has been an unbroken line ofreciters (ķurrā ) of the Qur’an. As mentioned above, Islam holds a firm belief that great blessings come from this recital, not only in this life but also in the life to come. “The Qur’an is uttered to call others to it, to expiate sins, to protect against punishment, and to ensure blessings in paradise.”[72]

Similarly to the NT, the Qur’an defines its main and ultimate goal as the salvation of humankind. It also often refers to itself as the guide (14:1; 2:185, among others). An extreme view of the infallibility of theQur’anic revelation and words is affirmed by all orthodox Muslim traditions.Sura 11, which speaks of Muhammad’s task as prophet, opens with this affirmation: “(This is) a Scripture the revelations whereof are perfected and then expounded. (It cometh) from One Wise, Informed” (11:1,Marmaduke Pickthall trans .).According to 2:2 “That Book, in it there is no doubt” (see also 5:15-16; 5:48).

TheQur’anic view of Scripture is understandably strongly propositional. That said, part of the Islamic doctrine of Scripture has to do with its “sacramental” nature, to use the Christian vocabulary.The Arabic termāyāt , which also means “verse” (of thesūrah ), carries the meaning of “sign,” to be more precise, a divine or divinely sanctioned sign. [73] Consider Jesus’ miracles as “signs” (named as such in the Gospel of John, and understood as such in theSynoptics ) as a material parallel.[74]

Not surprisingly the Islamic tradition has paid close attention to careful and authoritative exegesis (tafsir )of the Qur’an. Indeed, because the Qur’an lays the foundation for and regulates all aspects of life and society, more is at stake in the hermeneutics of Scripture in Islam than with most other traditions.[75] As mentioned, in early times, the Sunni school excelled in a most detailed exegesis. The tenth-centuryAbū Ja’far Muhammadaţ-Țabarī and the twelfth-centuryFakhr ad-Dīin ar-Rāzī are often lifted up as most brilliant commentators. While the former established the procedure of citing all relevantHadith comments with regard to theQur’anic passage under exegesis, the latter also helped move exegesis in a philosophical and rationalistic direction. The main difference between the Sunni andShi’ite schools is that for the latter theimāms are also inspired (and perhaps even infallible), a claim strongly rejected by the Sunni. Indeed, theShi’ite school has a strictly regulated theology of succession, which maintains that while all Muslims may understand the Scripture at the basic level, the authoritative interpretation comes only from theimāms who are considered to be standing in the line of Ali, the legitimate successor of the Prophet. Hence, this line of “apostolic succession” goes all the way to Muhammad via Ali. For a Christian observer, it does not take much imagination to see parallels with Christian tradition’s deeply divisive debates about theepiscopal succession and its relation to a rightfulmagisterium , the church’s teaching office. Indeed, there is the notion not only of continuing inspiration but also (at least in some sense) infallibility attached to the office of theimām as Ali and his successors have received the “inner knowledge” of Muhammad.Again, reflecting some aspects of Christian tradition, it is not the differing exegetical techniques that make the difference but rather the deeply differing notion of succession and authority. The way of doing exegesis varies only in the Sufi traditions with their immersion in mystical materials and their use of Greek philosophical materials.[76]

Because of the nature of the Qur’an’s divine origin - void of historical contextual factors and absolutely infallible - it is understandable that orthodox Muslim traditions reject the kinds of historical-critical study that has been the hallmark of the Christian - and more recently Jewish - study of Scriptures for a long time now. This is not to say that no such inquiry into the Qur’an exists; rather, it means that it is marginal and rejected by the “curia” and the masses of the faithful.

Qur’an as the Fulfillment of Revelation

What is the relationship of the Qur’an’s to other scriptures? This is a dynamic and complex question that calls for a nuanced reflection. Well known is the statement in Q 42:15 that clearly bespeaks universality: “I believe in whatever Book God has revealed.”[77] The Holy Qur’an makes it clear that the divine revelation as guide is available to all nations (Q 35:24). The one source of revelation is based on the conviction that all humankind is of the same origin (Q 2:213; so also 5:48). Hence, the current “A Common Word”[78] project between Muslims and Christians took its inspiration from Q 3:64: “Say: ‘O People of the Scripture! Come now to a word agreed upon between us and you, that we worship none but God.”

To balance and complicate this openness and universality, there is an equally important principle of sufficiency and completeness in the Qur’an. The passage from Q 43:3-4 puts this dynamic in perspective: “Lo! We have made it an ArabicQur’ān that perhaps you may understand. And it is indeed in the Mother Book, [which is] withUs [and it is] indeed exalted.” Whereas the former verse states that it is the Arabic Qur’an, this particular book, that is the vehicle for understanding divine revelation, the latter verse seems to be referring to a “Mother Book” (also mentioned in 13:39) - a universal treasure of divinerevelation out of which even the Qur’an is a part.[79] If so, this means that all the sacred books of the religions derive from the same divine origin. That would again bespeak universality.

On the other hand, Islamic theology of revelation also includes the determined insistence on the supremacy and finality of theQur’anic revelation, something similar to the Roman Catholic fulfillment theology of religions.Sura 5:44-48 makes this clear by presenting the Jewish Torah and the Christian NT as stepping stones to the final revelation given in the Qur’an. Not only fulfillment but also correction and criterion, it is in light of the Qur’an that the value of other revelations is assessed. The obvious problem posed by this interpretation is that whereas it seems to fit well Judeo-Christian Scriptures, it has a hard time negotiating other faith traditions’ revelations. I am not aware of any satisfactory solutions to this problem.[80]

A major challenge to Christian-Muslim common reading of their Scriptures is the common Muslim charge oftahrīf , usually translated as “alteration.” The eleventh-centuryIbn Hazm is routinely named as one of the earliest Islamic thinkers who definitely established the importance oftahrīf as a counter-Christian tool.[81] The termtahrīf is used in more than one sense. At its most basic level, it refers to problems of textual variants and hence, the lack of the authentic original. It may also denote deliberate altering of the text - of which charges the most typical one is that Ezra had altered the OT text. And, then, it can simply mean a misguided interpretation of the meaning of texts.[82] A brilliant form oftahrīf accusation, going back all the way to the important fourteenth-century Muslim apologeticIbn Taymiyyah’s massive rebuttal of Christianity in response to the Christian writings of Paul of Antioch, is that perhaps the NT is likeHadith rather than Scripture.[83] In light of Islamic tradition, this makes sense as the NT contains not only sayings of Jesus but also his activities, not unlike theHadith of Islam. The currenttahrīf criticism of the Bible uses skillfully - and selectively - the insights of (Christian) historical-critical study in rebutting the truthfulness and reliability of the text.[84]

The dilemma of Muslim-Christian views of revelation does not have to do with the strangeness but rather the deep affinity between these two traditions. Both claim a strictly defined canon and both appeal to One God as its source and provider. Yet they differ dramatically concerning which one of the books is the ultimate revelation. To add to the complexity of this question, note the dramatic differences in understanding of the category of revelation in general and of the other party’s revelation in particular. Clinton Bennett succinctly lays out this complexity - which, of course, is an urgent invitation to continuing careful dialogue:

In many respects, the conservative Christian view of the Bible as infallible and as inspired word for word is closer to how Muslims view the Qur’an than to the liberal Christian view of the Bible as a potentially fallible, human response to experience of the divine. On the Muslim right, the Bible is regarded as so corrupt that it no longer has any value. On the Christian left, an attempt is made to understand how the Qur’an can be accepted as “revelation.” One difficulty is that Christians who deconstruct the Bible are likely to transfer this approach to the Qur’an as well, which is unacceptable, even to more liberal Muslims. Yet despite each side’s view of theOther’s scripture, Christians and Muslims from both the “right” and “left” cite from the Other’s scripture to support their views. Christians have theirfavourite Qur’anic passages while Muslims havefavourite Bible passages. More often than not, when Christians and Muslims use each other’s scriptures, they do so in a manner that ignores or refutes how Christians and Muslims understand the passages concerned.[85]

Qur’an and Christ as Living Word

Muslim-Christian relations are plagued with great ironies. On the one hand, Islam is the only non-Christian tradition that requires the faithful to acknowledge and believe in Jesus Christ to be a Muslim! There is simply such a plethora of references to him in the Qur’an (about one hundred at least).[86] On top of that, the Qur’an contains references to and narratives about many key figures of the OT. On the other hand, because of the principle of “self-sufficiency” and vastly different hermeneutics from the beginning of Islam, the presence of common materials between the two books, the Qur’an and the Bible, have generated deep and irreconcilable conflicts.

As is routinely - and correctly - remarked, it is not the prophet but rather the Book that is the closest parallel to Christ, the center of Christianity. Unlike Christian faith, which is determined by belief in Christ, Islam is not based on Muhammad but rather on Qur’an and Allah. Neither Christ nor Muhammad in Islamic interpretation is divine, only God is.[87] Hence, it is in Christ’s role as the living Word of God in relation to the divine revelation of the Qur’an that the deepest commonalities are to be investigated.[88] Rightly it has been noted that whereas Jesus in Christian tradition is the “Word-made-flesh,” the Qur’an in Islam is the divine word “inlibrate .”[89]

There are surprisingly deep similarities between the accounts in the Qur’an of the power of its Word and OT claims about the word of the Lord and NT statements about Christ as the creative word. Consider Q 59:21: “HadWe sent down thisQur’ān upon a mountain, you would have surely seen it humbled, rent asunder by the fear of God. And suchsimilitudes doWe strike for mankind, that perhaps they may reflect.” Again, similarly to the many functions of the Word of the Lord in the Bible, whether encouragement or healing or miraculous acts, the Islamic tradition speaks of the living words of the Qur’an:

In addition to its destructive power, the words of the Qur’an are also a positive source for healing and tranquility. According to tradition when the Qur’an is recited divine tranquility (sakīnah ) descends, mercy covers thereciters , angels draw near to them, and God remembers them. Tradition also tells how one of the companions of Muhammad came to him and reported seeing something like lamps between heaven and earth as he recited while ridinghorseback during the night. Muhammad is reported to have said that the lights were angels descended to hear the recitation of the Qur’an. For the pious Muslim, then, the chanted words of the Qur’an have the numinous power to cause destruction, to bring mercy, to provide protection, to give knowledge, and to evoke miraculous signs.[90]

The noted Muslim scholarMahmoud Ayoub makes the startling claim that the Islamic notion to “live in the Qur’an” as it is faithfully and piously recited is a very close parallel to the NT idea of being “in Christ.”[91] There is, however, also a significant difference here, aptly noticed byMahmoud Ayoub , that whereas in the beginning of the Gospel of John the Word is not only with God butis God, “no one has asserted that the Qur’an is God.”[92] In terms of the dialogue between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, one topic well worth careful consideration is whether not only the Qur’an and the Word but also the Jewish Torah would function as parallels, a topic to which we turn below.[93]

Having considered in some detail key aspects of a contemporary doctrine of revelation - in light of Christian tradition, contemporary global and contextual diversity, as well as in relation to four living faiths - part 2 will take us to the heart to which revelation points in each tradition (with the exception of Theravada Buddhism), namely, the concept of God or the Divine. While revelation in each living tradition has much to say about life “here and now,” they all have as their ultimate goal “release” or “salvation,” which, as much as it may have implications for this life, as is the case particularly in Judeo-Christian traditions, points to transcendence, something “final.”