The present volume gathers a wealth of insights that should be considered in the construction of a prophetology regardless of whether it is developed from an Islamic or Christian perspective. Without the claim of being exhaustive, the authors intend to highlight four such insights to suggest how interreligious learning in the sense of comparative theology can be successful.
On the Character Integrity and Epistemic Limitations of the Prophets
First, the competitive relationship between prophecy and scholarly knowledge in Rabbinic Judaism, as referenced by Charlotte Fonrobert, highlights the reasons why the Qur’an is under pressure to legitimise itself when it grants prophets such a prominent role in the religious practice that it inspires. Rabbinic Judaism has long since developed methods for addressing the prophetic that absorbed this impulse into its discourses, which effectively blunts its revolutionary edge. Similarly, Late Antiquity Christianity no longer relied on the authoritative role of prophets as a source of disruption for the hierarchically developing Church. Prophetic inspirations were required to submit to episcopal authority, that is, prophets were subordinate to the apostles.
Thus, prophecy does not vanish but continues to live on in Rabbinic knowledge and the apostolic tradition of the Church. As noted by Fonrobert, this relationship exemplifies the scepticism of rabbis towards all charismatic claims and movements of their time. The sages play the role of the prophets. Inspired leadership exists even in Rabbinic times, which was passed down across generations – from Hillel to Samuel the Small (Fonrobert 9–11), who even delivers a prophetic speech to foretell the catastrophic developments following Bar Kochba (Fonrobert 11). However, prophets and certainly claims to divine authority by prophets against Rabbinic or ecclesiastical authorities no longer exist.
In contrast, when Qur’anic discourse grants prophets apostolic dignity1 and understands Muhammad as a messenger/an apostle and a prophet and aims to revive the prophetic element, it faces the pressure to legitimise itself. It is not immediately clear that these prophets are more trustworthy than the established legitimising authorities of the apostolic tradition or scholarly knowledge. Consequently, the notion that true prophecy must be accompanied by character integrity from the Qur’anic perspective is understandable. For this reason, for example, Balaam cannot be considered a prophet, as we observe in the contribution of Fatima Tofighi, while Muhammad is established as a gentile prophet partially due to his moral excellence. Islamic tradition continually elaborates this excellence, but its roots can be witnessed in the precarious status of prophetic speech in Late Antiquity.
The discussion of Christian Late Antiquity about Balaam, which uses his example to debate what true prophets are (Tofighi 103), is particularly insightful in this context. At the same time, he appears in this context as an example of idolatry and magic and despite his prophetic role; thus, he is also mentioned in the Epistle of Jude as an example of false prophecy (Tofighi 105). In Rabbinic tradition as well, he is an ambiguous figure and is occasionally associated with Jesus (Tofighi 106). Thus, Balaam is a character of dubious integrity across traditions. When Jacob of Serugh honours Balaam as a gentile prophet, this move simultaneously demonstrates that a prophet can possess a poor character (Tofighi 106–107), which challenges the legitimacy of the Qur’anic conception. From the perspective of Jacob, being shown the future by God without being a good person is possible; Severus holds a similar view (Tofighi 107–108). Indeed, Christian tradition, up to and including Thomas Aquinas, repeatedly develops the idea that God can bestow prophetic gifts upon people without making them role models.2
Such a perspective is particularly risky for the Qur’anic conception, because Muhammad not only claims prophetic gifts but also serves as a role model for Muslim life. When Muhammad is defined in the Qur’an as a prophet and a messenger, doing so is not about correctly predicting the future or accessing hidden information from God; instead, it is providing comprehensive guidance for one’s life. The Qur’an is not satisfied if its proclaimer is reduced to merely receiving God-inspired prophecies, while one’s cognition and life remain unaffected by his proclamation. It aims to challenge people and focuses on the rehabilitation of the appropriate Biblical understanding of prophecy, which was redefined through the concept of the messenger or apostle. At the same time, the Qur’an rehabilitates individual Biblical prophets to defend its prophetological concept against the challenges of Judaism and Christianity. Interestingly, this aspect leads to an engagement with Jewish polemics against Jesus, which aim to refute the legitimacy of his legal condemnation (Zellentin 39).
Especially given the multitude of apocalyptic discourses in Late Antiquity, the contribution of Zishan Ghaffar emphasizes that, from the Qur’anic perspective, prophets do not possess apocalyptic knowledge. He does not dispute that prophets can proclaim insights about the future, as any other concept would, indeed, be in tension with the Biblical genre of prophetic speech, as demonstrated by Blumenthal (277–282). Furthermore, Ghaffar does not deny that prophets can ‘uncover the hiddenness of the human heart’ (Blumenthal 287). However, according to the Qur’anic view, prophets neither know the unseen nor “gained access to the treasures of God … only God is omniscient and the true bearer of knowledge’ (Ghaffar 161–163). In summary, Ghaffar argues that Qur’anic references to the future do not exhibit an apocalyptic character. Consequently, visions of the future do not serve as the ultimate legitimizing authority for prophetic claims. Accordingly, prophets do not need to be necessarily granted a privileged epistemological position that involves infallible knowledge mediated by God. This concept has led modern theology into numerous aporias, especially regarding the difficulty in addressing the problem of evil if prophets are believed to possess infallible knowledge from God.
Despite the epistemic humility of Qur’anic prophetology,3 it insists on all the vigour of the Biblical prophetic tradition. As Fonrobert vividly demonstrates, rabbis no longer directly anticipate the inspiring power of the Holy Spirit or the voice of God; instead, they await an echo of it, namly a heavenly voice (bat kol). This voice does not authoritatively lead them out of Rabbinic debates, but into them. This voice appears to be a less intense, authoritative form of divine presence. Although the voice is capable of connecting people with the divine and times of intensified encounters with God, individual sages, such as Rabbi Hillel, who are conceived as persons worthy of the Holy Spirit and considered on par with prophets, are distinguished from prophets. The issue is not their lack of moral integrity but the corruption of their time, which makes wielding the same authority as the prophets impossible for them.
When the Qur’an regards Muhammad as a prophet in the Biblical sense, it defends not only his personal piety but also the integrity of his community. The Prophet cannot be conceived without his community. While Christianity occasionally tends to portray human society as deeply entangled in sin, such that Jesus can shine bright as the Saviour, the Qur’an emphasizes the prophetic distinction of an Arabian prophet and his followers. Therefore, Angelika Neuwirth rightly stresses that the Prophet should be honoured not apart from his community. Muhammad is not only a prophet to the gentiles in general; he is specifically sent to the Arabs in particular, who with him receive a new role in salvation history. This case is evident, for example, in the Qur’an’s endowment of non-Biblical Arabian figures with prophetic authority and their stories intertwined with Biblical narratives.
On the Lasting Political Impact of Prophecy
The contribution of Ghaffar has only been partially understood if one perceives only an epistemic humility within the framework of prophetology in his reflections. Ultimately, he is also at the least tracing an anti-imperial aspect of Qur’anic theology. In contrast to the pre-Islamic seers and the apocalyptic-imperial theology of Byzantium, the Prophet does not know details about the end of the world from the Qur’anic perspective. In contrast, typical apocalyptic texts of his time possess an imperial dimension: ‘They identify empires, who will prevail or not prevail till the end time’ (Ghaffar 173). Alternatively, the Qur’anic position is programmatically anti-apocalyptic, as demonstrated by the treatment of apocalyptic thought in the early Meccan suras. The Qur’an does not deny the possibility of God knowing the future and communicating it to prophets (for example, consider Joseph’s interpretations of dreams or the prediction of Byzantium’s victory over the Persians). It merely opposes the apocalyptic intensification of such knowledge (Ghaffar 179). Thus, our initial point needs refinement. The Qur’anic concern is not about an abstract epistemic humility but about a political challenge to imperial claims and the conception of an anti-imperial model of prophetology.
The contributions of Saqib Hussein to this volume also point in this direction, which focus on the prophetic kings David and Solomon. Specifically, David is portrayed as a prophetic ruler through his piety and willingness to repent. By being a devout worshipper and seeker of forgiveness, he fulfils his role as a prophetic king (Hussein 144–145). The prophetic and royal authority of David and Solomon can only be restored through their plea for repentance (Hussein 150–151). While the Meccan elites or other imperial powers base their rule on their strength and invulnerability, David and Solomon demonstrate a model of rulership that admits personal weaknesses and shortcomings. The divine support for their reign is not a legitimization for later imperial elites but a limitation and theological critique of imperial claims to power (Hussein 155–156). After Solomon, a divine imperial authority no longer existed; in other words, the ruling claims of the Meccan elites must be subject to the same theological critique as those of the Christian emperors in Byzantium or the Sassanids. The adoption of Biblical salvation history thinking serves to critique voices in Late Antiquity that view continuity with Biblical figures as a legitimization of their claim to power. In contrast, the Qur’an emphasizes that the Biblical salvation history continues through the Qur’anic community and their Prophet through their hope in a forgiving and merciful God, who has now also included the people of the Arabs in His covenant.
The clearly emerging anti-imperial impact of prophetic thinking not only poses a challenge for the political elites of Christian empires but also extends to religious elites. Their authority should not be exercised by God-like lords (Q 9:30–31) but should consist of viewing religious authorities, such as John the Baptist, Jesus (Q 19:30), and the early Islamic community, as servants of God. This aspect leads the discussion to the potential of the prophetological insights in this book for Christological debates.
Prophetology Beyond Supersessionism
A central Christian theological concern in this volume and the associated research project lies in the search for impulses for a non-supersessionist Christology. The objective is to explore how Christology can remain the guiding reference point for prophetology without entirely absorbing it. In other words, this objective is related to the revelation of prophetologically relevant insights that lack consideration within Christology. This approach intends to preserve the unique contributions and perspectives of prophetology, which enable an integrated and dialogical relationship between Christology and prophetology. By doing so, the project aims to enrich Christian theological discourse and offer new avenues for understanding the role of prophets within the Christian framework without undermining the distinctiveness of prophetic figures in other religious traditions, particularly within Islam.
At this point, three major observations in the present volume offer significant pointers. First, the authors wish to mention the counter-prophetology that Klapheck identified in the Book of Esther and the Jewish prophetesses. Within Judaism, this aspect is challenging, because it presents a positive attitude towards the Persian exile and, thus, a positive view of the diaspora (Klapheck 60–61). The position of Klapheck becomes a Christological challenge, because she views the seven prophetesses as an alternative to the Davidic messianic hope (Klapheck 70). Understood as an example of an integrated Jewess in exile with a dual identity, that is, Persian and Jewish, Esther creates an alternative to the messianic expectation. In other words, redemption is already given here and now. Esther did not need a state and a temple, which represents a secular emancipation that has only partially realized the messianic promise but enables an affirmation of the present life. Instead of returning to Jerusalem, she focuses on the concrete improvement of the current political situation (Klapheck 75). This point conceptualizes an alternative form of salvation to the conception of the Torah by the Rabbis. Furthermore, tracing Queen Esther back to King Saul illustrates that this alternative conception can integrate the fallen of history and, thus, free people from black-and-white thinking. This maneuvre can also break open the black-and-white thinking of the traditional promise-fulfillment schema for Christianity. It creates space for the recognition of experiences of atonement and emancipation that have occurred beyond the boundaries of the Church. Especially in times of emphasis on the masculinity of Jesus Christ, it demonstrates how the feminine dimensions of prophetology can broaden the perspective on the Christ event in a healing manner. Meanwhile, in her contribution, Hezser proposes that only the Exodus can be considered an archetype of future redemptions (Hezser 87), which highlights the well-trodden paths of surpassing Moses by Jesus, which the Qur’an rightly exposes as supersessionist. Klapheck’s model points out that unrealized potentials exist in the Jewish hopes of redemption that have not simply been usurped Christologically.
At the same time, Hezser’s contribution is an indirect invitation for creativity in redefining the relationship between Moses and Jesus. Only in Byzantine art in Late Antiquity was Moses typologically interpreted as a precursor to Jesus and subordinate to him. In many depictions, Jesus replaces Moses or is even portrayed as the lawgiver who hands the new law to Peter and Paul, which replaces the old one. In other texts, Moses continues to appear but is surpassed by Jesus and points to him (Hezser 90). At the burning bush, Moses appears as a forerunner of Jesus at the Transfiguration (Hezser 92–93), which is understood as the fulfillment of the experience of Moses. A particularly intriguing fact is that the miraculous power of Moses, as described in the Bible when he causes water to flow from the rock, is interpreted as prefiguring baptizm, which Peter initiates. This interpretation is based on an apocryphal text in which Peter baptizes a Roman soldier with water that Peter miraculously causes to spring from a rock (Hezser 95). Thus, the Christian art of Late Antiquity creatively engages with tradition and is relatively willing to invent new connections to legitimize its typological intent of supersession.
In contrast, the Qur’an’s depiction of Muhammad as ‘Moses redivivus’ and as the Seal of the Prophets opens the possibility for a non-supersessionist interpretation of both religious founders. The seal can also mean confirmation, which implies that emphasis is placed on the affirmation of what came before instead of surpassing it. Perhaps from this context, one could develop a model for understanding Jesus as the goal of the Torah (Romans 10:4), not ending or abolishing it but fulfilling and expanding it in his person. The creativity of Christian thinkers in Late Antiquity, as Hezser very clearly documents, can encourage people to seek new ways in broad connection to Christian traditions.
The degree to which one can differently perceive prophetic figures even with similar methodological assumptions is exemplified by the contributions of Nora Schmidt and Klaus von Stosch. While Schmidt acknowledges the Christological motifs in the Qur’anic depiction of Joseph but does not consider them central and interprets Joseph instead as a figure of wisdom, von Stosch observes numerous points of connection for engaging with Christology in the Joseph surah. Schmidt and von Stosch interpret the same detail of the healing of Jacob’s father through Joseph’s shirt in a nearly opposite manner, which is a clear example that the ambiguity of Qur’anic verses through their intertextual embedding may not diminish.
This volume does not aim to definitively answer which aspects are considered by the proclaimer of the Qur’an in terms of the typological interpretations of the prophets with regard to Jesus and how he specifically responds to such claims. However, this book demonstrates that the Qur’an engages in diverse dialogues with the typological and Christological interpretations of prophets and that the Qur’anic response do not always merely reject these connections. Although its primary concern is seemingly developing its prophetology, the Qur’an also presents a confident view of humanity (Neuwirth/Hartwig 135), which is ultimately grounded in God’s vouching for Adam (Neuwirth/Hartwig 132). In this aspect as well, the Qur’anic worldview encourages a new perspective on Christian tradition.
This notion, similar to a comprehensive elaboration of an intertextually sensitive Qur’anic prophetology, cannot be achieved here. Our objective was to collect initial impulses and present various case studies. All of these methods assume that the intense dialogue among Islam, Judaism and Christianity from Late Antiquity can be fruitfully explored today. Methodologically, not only considering the dialogue among Abrahamic religions but also subjecting the pre-Islamic Arabian context to scrutiny is crucial. In this regard, Arabic inscriptions can provide important new insights, as particularly highlighted in the contribution of Dost—regardless of whether they are monotheistic or pagan inscriptions (Dost 240). Moreover, the examination of patristic and Rabbinic sources remains incomplete. Therefore, these conclusions are provisional and subject to further research and in-depth examination.
Long-term Systematic Theological Significance of Prophecy
In general, the theological engagement with prophets and prophecy evidently does not necessarily and should not, occur due to purely historical interest. Among others, the contributions of Ghaffar and Hussein illustrate that the conceptualisation of prophecy in the Qur’an is closely linked to fundamental questions of epistemology, anthropology and salvation history. When the Qur’an emphasizes the limitation of prophetic knowledge and defends the moral integrity and vulnerability of prophets at the same time, it also addresses religious polemical discourses about God’s election of specific individuals and peoples. The position and significance of individual figures as prophets or non-prophets in their respective historical perspectives also determine (from the theological standpoint) how one can appreciate the theological value of another religious tradition. A Christocentric perspective on salvation history can lead to typological appropriations of religious traditions and to hermeneutical violence. Similarly, one can ask how to prevent the Qur’anic understanding of Biblical and non-Biblical figures in a prophetological model from being interpreted in a manner that leads to an indifferent levelling of the individual significance of figures and their unique positions in their respective religious traditions. The nature of prophecy as uncomfortable, disruptive and challenging on the one hand and healing, corrective and meaningful, however, is seemingly inherent. Therefore, a comparative theological reflection on the phenomenon of prophecy is particularly suitable for initiating hermeneutical learning effects within one’s and other theological traditions.
Sinai, “Muḥammad as an Episcopal Figure.”
Cf. Moreland, Muhammad Reconsidered.
The result of the abandonment of epistemic humility and the assertion of a general infallibility of prophets can be well understood through Aghaei’s contribution, which impressively illustrates how the dogma of the infallibility of prophets changes the manner of addressing Hadiths regarding Adam and Eve.