See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331998550

Arabia Haeresium Ferax (Arabia Bearer of Heresies): Schismatic Christianity’s

Potential Influence On Muhammad and the Qur’an

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 248

1 author:

Darren M. Slade
Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design
14 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

American Theological Inquiry Journal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Darren M. Slade on 26 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 American Theological Inquiry

ARABIA H A E R E SIU M F E R A X
(ARABIA B EA R ER E ^ E R E ^IE ^ ): ‫ه‬
Schism atic Christianity’s Pctential Influence on M uham m ad and the Q uf’an
D arren M. Slade*

For E astern Christendom , Arabia was the region o f exile for heretical doctrines and
schismatic Christian groups. This same Arabia saw the rise o f M uham m ad and the Q u r’an in
the seventh century. As Samir Ktialil Samir relates, “There is no need to dem onstrate that
there was a Christian influence on the Q ur’an, in as m uch as this is apparent from the
evidence o f a num ber o f narratives.” 1 Yet, the Q u r’an’s understanding o f Chtistology is in
conflict with orthodox Christian beliefs. In one instance, the Q u r’an views Christianity as
teaching modalism, assuming that Jesus com prised the entire G odhead (sura 5:72), while the
next verse describes Christians as tritheists, assigning Jesus to one o f three gods (v.73). The
same sura contends that the Christian Trinity consists o f G od, Jesus, and Mary (v.116).2 In
the historical context o f seventh century Arabia, it is im portant to recognize the im pact o f
Christian sects on differing cultures and religions. T he purpose o f this article is to determine
the extent, if any, o f schismatic Christian influences on the Q u r’an’s ^ s u n d e rsta n d in g about
the nature o f Christ. It will identify the dissonant Christian groups present in Arabia at the
time o f M uhammad, as well as discuss their Christological views, the probability o f
M uham m ad’s contact with them , and the likelihood that M uham m ad borrow ed from these
groups in creating the Q ur’anic view o f Jesus. In the end, it is probable that the Q u r’an
partially, though no t consistently, reflects some o f the com peting Christologies am ong
Christian schismatics in Arabia at the time o f M uhammad.

Qur’anic Christology
Sidney G riffith explains that it is likefy M uham m ad viewed all Christian denom inations.
O rthodox and schismatic, as possessing the same Christology because o f their agreement in
m ost other theological discussions.3 Likewise, Samir concludes that the Q u r’an takes
Christological themes and juxtaposes them with 1$‫ ^ ﺿﻂ‬dogma. M uham m ad’s “principle o f
coherence” required assimilating parallel stories to give them a new Islamic meaning.4 Thus,
while Q ur’anic Christology is ‫دق‬ to some aspects o f O rthodox Christian belief, it has a
distinct flavor that is tailored to tire Arab-M uslim milieu. W riting in tire eighth century, Jo h n
o f Dam ascus (AD 675-753) eloquently summarized M uham m ad’s Christology as presented
in the Q ur’an:

* D arren M. Slade, MATS, M Div, is a deacon at W aterStone C om m unity C hurch in Littleton,

Colorado.
1 Samir Khalil Samir, “T he Theological Christian Influence on the Q u r’än: A Reflection,” in The
Q u r’dn in Its Historical Context, ed. CalM el Said Reynolds (London: Routledge, 2008), 161. See, also, p.
160 for a discussion on schismatic exile in Arabia and pp. 152-61 for examples o f Christian theological
and philolo^cal influence.
2 Unless otherw ise noted, all allusions and quotations o f the Q u r’an are from M.A.S. M rdel
H aleem , The Qur'an: A New Translation (New York: O xford University Press, 2005).
3 Sidney G riffith, ‘“M elkites’, Jacobites’ and the Christological Controversies in Arabic in
T hird /N in th -C en tu ry s^ria,” in Syúan Chñstians Under Islam: The First Thousand Years, ed. D avid T hom as
(Leiden: Brill, 255 -54 ‫ ﻣﻢ‬. , (1
4 Samir, 152-160.

- 43-
 American Theological Inquiry

H e says that Christ is the W ord o f G od [3:45] and His spirit [4:171], created [3:59],
and a servant [4:172], horn from Mary [5:110], the sister o f Moses and A aron [19:28]
w ithout seed [19:20], hecause the W ord o f G od entered Mary [21:91] and she gave
birth to Jesus, a prophet [3:39] and a servant o f G od, and that the Jews, violating the
law w anted to crucify him [3:54] and they seized him, but they crucified his shadow,
and Christ him self was no t crucified, they say, n o r did he die [4:157]; G od took him
up to heaven unto H im self [3:55; 4:158] because H e loved him. A nd he says that
w hen he ascended into heaven G od asked him, ،Jesus did you say that “I am Son o f
G od, and G od” ?’ A nd Jesus answered, ‘Be merciful to me, o Lord; you know that I
‫ س‬no t say so, neither shall I boast that I am your servant, but m en w ho have gone
astray w rote that I said this thing, and they spoke lies against me, and they are in
error.’ [5:116].5

Muhammad’s Encounters With Christian Schismatics

Because M uham m ad had an entirely different Chtistology from the biblical Jesus, it is
im portant to consider the am ount o f influence heterodox Christians had on Muhammad.
Jo h n Ttim ingham and Griffith conclude that there were three dom inant Christian groups in
contact with ^ e - I s l‫؛‬unic Arabs: O riental (Syrian) O rthodox, M onophysites, and N estorians.6
T he majority o f Syriac and ^ h ic - s p e a k in g Christians in the Arabian region, including
m onks and clergy members, were M onophysite7 Likewise, R obert Betts explains that the
N estorians were the second largest group to im pact the Arabs.8 In fact, the Arab Ghassänid
tribe was entirely M onophysite while the Lakhm id tribe was N estotian.‫ ؟‬T he presenting
problem is w hether M uham m ad had contact with these groups and learned from their
differing Chtistologies.

Challenges to Muhammad’s Knowledge of Differing Sects

D espite the Q ur’an’s claim to believe in Christian revelation (29:46), Muslim and non-
Muslim historians agree that M uham m ad ‫ س‬n o t have access to Christian literature .!٥ For
Richard Bell, this means that M uham m ad likely did n o t possess an intimate knowledge o f
any particular sect’s Chtistology. Instead, he gathered m ost o f his convictions from
schismatic retellings o f biblical narratives and characters. M uham m ad merely collected
w hatever inform ation he could assemble, oftentim es from third and fourth-hand sources. As
time passed, M uham m ad discovered m ore Chtistological teachings that he either accepted or

5 Q uoted in D aniel j. Sahas, John ()/Damascus ou Islam: The ‘ITeresy ofthe Ishmaelites” (Leiden: E. j.
Brill, 1972), 78.
6 Jo h n Spencer T rim ingham , Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times (London: Longm an
G roup Lim ited, 1979), 159‫ ؛‬Sidney H. G riffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and
Muslims in the World of Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 8.
7 Trim ingham , 167.
8 R obert B renton Betts, Christians in the -Arab East: Λ Political Study, rev. ed. (Atlanta: Jo h n K nox
Press, 1978), 3.
‫ و‬See Sidney G riffith, “ Christian Lore and the Arabic Q ur'an: T he ،Com panions o f th e Cave’ in
Sürat al-Kahf and in Syriac Christian T radition,‫ ״‬in The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, ed. Galiriel Said
Reynolds (London: Routledge, 2008), 121.
10 See, for example, M uham m ad Farooq-i-A zam Malik, English Translation of the Meanings 0/ Λ Ι -
Qur'an: The Guidancefor M ankind (H ouston: T he Institute o f Islamic K now ledge, 1997), 16 and B ertold
Spuler, The Muslim World: Λ Historical Surrey (Leiden: E. j. Brill, 1960), l:2 6 n l.
 American Theological Inquiry

rejected depending on his situation. A ccording to Bell, it was only after M uham m ad fled to
Medina that he had personal contact with Christians. Thus, w hen the Q u r’an references
different sects (cf. 6:159), it is likely referring to the division hetween Christians and Jews.
Bell helieves it is im prohahle that M uham m ad knew ahout the Chtistological controversies
o fth e tim e A

D avid Marshall acknowledges that the Q ur’an has little to say about Christians in the
M eccan suras, grouping them under the title, “People o f the Book.” It appears that
M uham m ad believed Christians w ould endorse his p rophethood before arriving in Medina.
O nce there, M uham m ad distinguished between Jews and Christians in answer to their
rejection o f his prophetic claim. N onetheless, a phenom enon appears in the M eccan suras
that indicates his awareness o f Chtistological co^roversies. A fter every significant Meccan
passage referencing Jesus, the Q u r’an renounces Christian factionalism (cf. 21:93; 23:53;
43:65 ).٧ These qualifying statements indicate that M uham m ad had some knowledge about
the different Christian sects.

Similarly, the historical context o f M uham m ad’s m em bership in the Quraysh tribe leaves
little doubt that M uham m ad had repeated encounters with Christian schismatics throughout
his hfo. His specific tribesm en were well-known traders to Syria and southw estern Arabia, as
well as guardians o f the m ajor M eccan pilgrimage to the K a’aba.13 It is n o t apparent,
however, w hether these contacts had m ore than a superficial influence on his Chtistology.
A ccording to G riffith’s research, the influence o f M onophysite Christians, especially from
Abyssinia, gave M uham m ad a version o f Jesus that he later rejected in the Q ur’an. Instead o f
borrow ing directly from Christian sources, G riffith argues that M uham m ad alluded to
M onophysite folklore to develop his own personal theology.14 Likewise, Ttim ingham states
that the concept o f a G od-m an was just too foreign for the Arabs and w ould n o t be
em braced by the people.15 Thus, for many scholars, the presence o f Christian schismatics
was not enough to influence or dom inate the Chtistological beliefs o f Islam ’s founder.
Direct Contact in Islamic Tradition
D espite these challenges, Muslim tradition discusses several m ajor encounters between
M uham m ad and dissonant Christian groups. T he first encounter involves a N estotian m onk
who ^ o cla im e d M uham m ad’s prophetic ascendency. A nother encounter involves Waraqa
ibn Nawfal, cousin to M uham m ad’s wife Khadija. A ccording to 1$‫ ^ ﺿﻂ‬tradition, W araqa
was a Christian scholar who copied the Gospels from their H ebrew translation. Also, during
the M eccan persecution, M uham m ad sent his earliest followers to Negus, an Abyssinian
M onophysite king in Ethiopia. A nother tradition states that M uham m ad had frequent

11 Richard Bell, LA Origin oflslam in Its Chnstian Environment, Islam and the Muslim W orld G unning
Lectures 10 (London: Routledge, 1968), 100-55. See also, M arston Speight, “ Christians in the Hadith
L iterature,” in Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, ed. Lloyd V.J. Ridgeon (N ew V ork: St. M artin's Press,
2 ‫ﻣﻤﻢ‬ 37-49 .(,
12 D avid Marshall, “ Christianity in the Q ur'an,” in Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, ed. Lloyd V.J.
Ridgeon (New York: St. M artin's Press, 2000), 8-10.
13 See William Shepard, Introducing Islam (London: Routledge, 2009), 15, 26-27 and A lbert H ourani,
A History of the A rab Peoples, rev. ed. (CamlMdge, M A H arvard University Press, 2002), 7-12.
14 G riffith, “ Christian Lore and the A rabic Q ur'än,” 109-37.
15 T rim ingham , 310-11.
 American Theological Inquiry

discussions with an Egyptian Christian nam ed Jahr. M uham m ad’s critics claimed that Jabr
was responsible for Islamic teachings. Einally, M uham m ad had a Coptic (Monophysite) wife
nam ed Mariya from Egypt.16 E ven the Q u r’an alludes to encounters with foreign sources o f
inform ation, “W e know very well that they say, ‘It is a m an w ho teaches him ,’ but the
language o f the person they allude to is foreign” (16:103). A ccording to these traditions,
M uham m ad had regular contact w ith schismatic Christians, especially M onophysites and
Nestorians.

The Rise of Christologieal Controversies

M ahm ud Ayoub relates a com m on story by Muslim com m entators that attem pts to
explain the rise o f Christologieal controversies in Arabia. T he legend describes a Jew nam ed
Btilus, w ho persecuted and killed Christians. In order to fully destroy Christian e d ib ility ,
Btilus changed his nam e to Paul and pretended to convert to Christianity. H e then trained
foree men, N estorius, Jacob, and Malka, to claim divine knowledge and spread the resulting
N estotian, Jacobite (Monophysite), and Melkite (Syrian O rthodox) ChtistologiesA Yet,
despite this revisionist legend, the N estorians and M onophysites developed separately after
the Council o f Chalcedon (AD 451), which defined Christ as existing in two natures, divine
and hum an, in one person. These two natures are n o t mixed, divided, confused, or separated
into different persons.18 T he first group was the Syrian O rthodox, know n as “Melkites”
because o f their adherence to the Council o f Chalcedon. T he term “Melkites” referred to
Syrian and Egyptian Christians with “royal” sympathies. They held to O rthodox
C tisto lo g ica l beliefs A

The second group was the M onophysites, geographically referred to as “Jacobites” for
those in the Arabian Peninsula and “Coptics” for those in Egypt. This ^ tiac-sp eak in g
assembly rejected the “G od-m an” thinking o f Chalcedon and held that the person o f Christ
had a “natural union” o f both hum an and divine natures. While different in kind, the two
natures were mixed together to produce one distinct nature.20 Einally, the third prom inent
group was N estotian, appropriately called the “Church o f the E ast,” w ho were condem ned
at Chalcedon for maintaining a strict distinction between the hum an and divine natures o f

16 See H ugh C oddard, ٨ History ofChústian-Muslim Relations (Edinl^urgh: Edinl^urgh University

Press, 2000), 15-29. F o r the story o ^ 'a r a q a ibn Nawfal, see The Translation of the Meanings ofSahihM l-
Bukhari, trans. M uham m ad M uhsin K han (Al-Medina: Islamic University, n.d.), 1:2-4. F o r the story o f
Jabr, see M uham m ad ilm -Ishaq, The U fe of Muhammad: A. Translation oflshaq's Sirat RasülMlläh, trans. A.
C uillaum e (Dxford: O xford University Press, 1955), 180.
17 M ahm ud M ustafa Ayoub, “Jesus the Son o f God: A Study o f the Term s Ihn and Walad'm. the
Q u r’an and Tafsïr T radition,‫ ״‬in Muslim-Chnstian Encounters, ed. Y vonne Yazlieck H addad and W adf
Zayda“n Hadda“d (Gainesville: University Press o f Florida, 1995), 71-72.
18 A d o lf M artin Ritter, “Chalcedon, Council of,” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. G eoffrey W.
Bromiley (G rand Rapids, MI: William B. E erdm ans Publishing Com pany, 1999), l:398-400.
19 G riffith, ‘“M elkites’, ‘Jacobites’ and the C hristolo^cal Controversies,” 11-16.
20 See R oberta C. Chesnut, Three Monophysite Chnstologies: Severus of'Mntioch, Philoxenus ofMabbug, and
Jacob of Sarug (Oxford: O xford University Press, 1976), 12-14.

- 46-
 American Theological Inquiry

Christ. A ccording to their opponents, N estohans viewed Jesus’ humanity only as a

participant with the divine .‫آث‬

Possible Monophysite Influence

Trim ingham explains that the M onophysites were active missionaries am ong the Arab
tribes, w hich led to establishing many desert communities. A m ong the Arabs, there were two
expressions o f M onophysitism: the Severans, w ho followed the teachings o f Severus o f
A ntioch (d. A D 538), and the T dtheists, who adhered to the Chdstologies o f the Cilician
bishops Eugenius (fl. A D 654-657) and Conon (fl. A D 686-687).22 According to Roberta
Chesnut, Severan M onophysites held a particular view o f the Trinity com m on at the time.
They stressed the unity o f G od by declaring that the Father is the source o f b oth the Son
and H oly spirit. Because the Father is unknowable, the m ind o f G od had to appear as a
divine messenger ^esus) to make the Father fathom able.23 It is interesting to note that the
M onophysites were considered the purest form o f m onotheism by N ubians, Egyptians, and
E thiopians because o f their view o f Christ’s nature and His relation to the Godhead. The
O rthodox Christians were seen as possessing “two Christs” because o f their belief in two
natures.24

Remarkably, Severan Christology is n o t unlike the Q ur’an’s view o f Jesus. T he Q ur’an

declares, “T he Messiah ^esus], son o f Mary, was only a m essenger” (5:75; cf. ¥.11?) and
states that Jesus came to give w isdom to the people about the divine (43:63). In the Q u r’an,
Jesus possesses only one nature while stressing the unity o f G od (cf. 3:51). UM ortunately,
these are mere superficial resemblances that do n o t fully explain the Q ur’anic view o f Christ.
T he Q ur’an contends against the Severans by d e la tin g that Jesus did n o t know G od
personally or intimately (5:116). It refutes the claim that Jesus is the “son o f G o d ” and
“L ord” ( 9 : 3 3 1 - ‫) م‬.
Rather, the Q ur’an’s understanding o f the Trinity coincides m ore with tritheism than
with Severan theology. It declares, “T hose people w ho say that G od is the third o f three are
defying [the truth]: there is only O ne G o d ” (5:73). T he presence o f a secondary schismatic
group am ong the M onophysites may explain this misunderstanding. In the latter part o f the
sixth century, some Arab M onophysites declared that the G odhead was distinct in b oth
persons and nature. This is unlike the Severans, w ho believed the G odhead was distinct only
in persons. K now n as the “Tritheist Controversy,” the dissonant sect o f M onophysites
gained a large following in Armenia, Alexandria, and Syria. Their C risto lo g ical m ovem ent
existed as late as the sum m er o f A D 633, where records docum ent their presence at the
synod in Alexandria one year after M uham m ad’s death.23 It is possible that M uham m ad
m isunderstood the Christian concept o f the Trinity due to the Tritheist M onophysites, who
believed the G odhead had three distinct natures.

21 See G riffith, ‘“M elkites’, ‘Jacobites’ and the Christological Controversies,” 10n6 and M artin
Chem nitz, The Two Natures in Christy trans. ]. A . ‫ ه‬. Freus (St. Louis, M O : Concordia Fublishing H ouse,
1971), 169-12, 207.
22 T rim ingham , 163-67.
23 C hesnut, 36-38.
24 See W. H. C. Frend, The Rise ofthe Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History ofthe Church in the
Fifth and Sixth Centuries (London: Cam!)ridge University Press, 1972), 297.
25 See Frend, 289-91, 350 and Trim ingham , 183.

- 47-
 American Theological Inquiry

Griffith, on the other hand, says that the term “third o f three” is actually a “Syfiacism,”
meaning that M uham m ad employed s^fiac words with an tr a h ie diction. T he Syrian
Christians merely called Christ “the trehle one,” which M uham m ad rejected. According to
Griffith, the phrase is no t a reference to ttitheism at all.26 While there is strong evidence that
Syriac had a greater influence on the Q u r’an than Muslims concede, it is i m p o r t s to
recognize that m odern translations o f the Q ur’an do n o t use this Syriac translation.^ In fact,
several versions specifically com hat any ttitheist m isconceptions hy employing a Trinitarian
tenn, though it is not in the original tra h ie . A hm ed Alt’s translation states, “T he third o f the
trinity” while M uham m ad Farooq-i-Azam Malik writes, “O ne o f three in a Trinity” (5:73).28

Possible Nestorian Influence

N estotian Christology reached the Arabs through evangelism by the end o f the fourth
century, which made the controversies o f the fifth century very im portant to the Arabs.
A ccording to Betts, while the M onoph^sites virtually denied Christ’s humanity, the
N estotians focused almost entirely on Jesus’ hum an nature.29 M artin Chem nitz’s confirms
this by citing N estotius’ belief that Jesus should tightly be called the “G od-bearer” or the
“receiver o f G od.” N estotius believed the divine nature merely dwelt in Jesus to a fuller
degree than the average saint. Thus, it is possible to speak o f Jesus’ hum an actions, such as
eating, sleeping, and dying, while at the same time speak o f Christ’s divine actions, such as
perform ing miracles and rising from the dead. Making this distinction between the two
natures was condem ned at Chalcedon.30

James Bethune-Baker disagrees w ith this assessment and contends that N estotius was
largely O rthodox. H e merely feared that the hum an aspect o f Jesus would be diminished
with the Chalcedon belief in a “hypostatic union” o f the two natures .3‫ل‬Yet, N estotius’ w ork
betrays this sentiment. H e once wrote, “ [The Holy spirit] form ed out o f the Virgin a temple
for G od the Logos, a temple in which he dwelt,” and, “T hat which was form ed in the w om b
is no t in itself God. T hat which was created by the spirit was n o t in itself God. T hat which
was buried in the tom b was no t in itself G od.”32 Later, N estotius w rote, “W hat is conveyed
to us is the birth and suffering not o f the deity b ut o f the hum anity o f Chtist.”33

26 Sidney H. G riffith, ‘“Syriacisms’ in the Arabic Q ur'an: W ho were T h o s e w ho said that Allah is
third o f three’. A ccording to al-Ma'idah 73?,” in A Word Fitly spoken: Studies in Medieval Exegesis ofthe
Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an; Presented to Haggai Ben-Shammai, ed. M eir M. Bar A sher et al. Jerusalem : T he
Ben-Zvi Institute, 2007), 83-110.
27 F o r m ore about the possible Syriac influence on the Q u r’an, see C hristoph Luxenberg, The Syro-
Aramaic Reading ofthe Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding ofthe Tanguage ofthe Koran (Berlin: H ans Schiler,
2007).
28 See A hm ed All, trans., Islam: TheQur'an, rev. ed., ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Sacred Vtiitings (New
York: H istory B ook Club, 1992), 3:107 and Malik, 202‫ ؛‬emphasis added to b o th translations.

3‫ ه‬Chem nitz, 112, 273-74■

31 Jam es Franklin Betiiune-Baker, Nestorius and H is Teaching: A Fresh Examination ofthe Evidence
(1908‫ ؛‬repr., N ew York: K raus R eprint Com pany, 1969), 82-100, 171-73.
32 Translated by Richard A. N orris Jr., ed., “N estorius's First Serm on Against the Theotokos,” in The
Christological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 125, 130.
33 Ibid., “N estorius’s Second L etter to Cyril,” 137.
 American Theological Inquiry

The N estorian emphasis on Jesus’ humanity may have influenced M uham m ad’s
conception o f Christ. N estotius once expressed, “W ithout male seed, he fashioned from
the Virgin a nature like A dam ’s (who was him self form ed w ithout male seed) and through
a hum an heing hiOught ahout the revival o f the hum an race.”34 A similar com parison is
found in the Q ur’an w hen discussing the virgin hirth, “In G o d ’s eyes Jesus is just like
Adam: H e created him from dust, said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was” (3:59). Likewise,
N estotius proclaimed the ^ p o ssih ility o f the divine heing crucified, “Let n o t the Jews
glory, for they did no t crucify G od but a m an.” H e also renounced the foolishness o f
begetting the divine, “It is impossihle for G od to he begotten o f a m an.”35 A similar
renunciation is found in the Q ur’an, “ [The Jews] dishelieved and uttered a tertihle slander
against Mary, and said, ‘W e have killed the Messiah, Jesus son o f Mary, the M essenger o f
G od.’ (They did no t kill him, no r did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like
that to them )” (4:156-57). T he Q u r’an states elsewhere, “ [Allah] has hegotten no one, and
is hegotten o f none” (112:3, A hm ed Alt). Though the Q ur’an rejects the N estotian belief
that Christ possessed a divine element, these verhal echoes hetween the Q u r’an and
N estotius are significant hecause o f their stress on Jesus’ humanity.

Possible Gnostic Influence

Surprisingly, fow authors m ention the potential influence from G nostic Christians in
Arabia. A ccording to Ttim ingham , docum ents record Arab converts to Gnosticism as
early as the second century. G nosticism also influenced the m onastic lifestyles o f m onks in
the Arabian region, heing the root o f Syrian a sc e tic ism .35 T hough n o t officially part o f the
(h isto lo g ic a l co^roversies o f the form er schismatic groups, the G nostic churches held
to a heretical D ocetic view o f Christ’s nature. Found in the N ag H am m adi collection o f
Egypt, G nostic Gospels portray Jesus primarily as a pure spiritual heing with no actual
hum an existence. In both the G ospel o f Philip and the G ospel o f the Egyptians, Jesus’
hum an flesh is a m ere deception. The divine Christ never actually acquired a hum an
nature. Especially in the G ospel o f Thom as, Jesus’ hody is a m ere shell in order to relate
to His hum an audience.37

It is possihle that M uham m ad may have heard some o f these “G ospel” accounts
during ltis contacts with Egyptian Christians. Samir acknowledges the probability o f
M uham m ad having at least some contact with Gnosticism. O ne connection regarding the
nature o f Christ appears in sura 4:171, which identifies Jesus as “a spirit from [God].”
Samti notes that none o f the canonical writings label Jesus as a spirit o f G od. Only the
G nostic writings provide that characteristic.38 O f course, the Q u r’anic designation “spirit”
does not imply that Jesus merely m asqueraded as a human. T he Q u r’an is clear in its belief
that Jesus was mortal.

O ne particular parallel connecting G nosticism to the Q ur’an is also one o f the m ost
co^roversial. T he Q ur’an famously rejects the crucifixion and death o f Jesus, stating that

34 Ibid., “N estorius's First Serm on Against the T h e o to k o s124.

35 Q uoted in Chem nitz, 207.
36 Ttim ingham , 51-52, 102, 134.
37 Majella Franzm ann, Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Writings (Edinlm rgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1996),

‫ﺿﺔ‬, 152.‫؛؛‬،.

- 49-
 American Theological Inquiry

G od made it appear as though Jesus had heen crucified (4:156-58). N orm an Geisler and
A bdul Saleeb note the varying interpretations regarding this passage. T he m ost popular
Islamic explanation is that Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, Simon o f Cyrene, or one o f the
disciples took Jesus’ place on the crossA Interestingly, the second-century G nostic,
Basilides, taught that the Jews m istook Simon o f Cyrene for Jesus and crucified him
instead.^ Samir hypothesizes that the G nostic belief in Jesus’ non-crucifixion traveled to
Arabia during the seventh century w hen Byzantines conquered Jerusalem and expelled
Christian hereticsA Admittedly, however, there is little evidence to defend Samir’s theory.
Yet, the potential for G nostic teachings should n o t be discounted. M uham m ad would
have likely m et G nostic Christians in his travels and may have learned about these
substitution theories from heretics fleeing to Egypt.

Possible Nazorean Influence

T he final schismatic group that may have influenced M uham m ad’s fottnation o f the
Q^n’anic Jesus appears in the early Jewish-Christian sect know n as the Nazoreans. Erançois
de Blois explores the idea that the Q ur’an is actually mferencing this heretical sect, which
was know n for maintaining adherence to the Jewish law despite believing in Christ as the
Messiah. H e deduces this from the Q ur’an’s use o f the w ord AQjr¿//2f(،،N azoreans”) to refer
to Christians. This term was a Jewish epithet for the J e w i^ C h tis tia n sect because o f their
continued presence in synagogue worship. Allegedly, the E bionite heresy was first developed
from this N azorean sect. D e Blois hypothesizes that a small group o f N azoreans existed in
Arabia at the time o f M uham m ad and were responsible for perpetuating the mistaken notion
that the Trinity consists o f the Father, Son, and Jesus’ m other, Mary. According to the
N azorean ،،Gospel According to the H ebrew s,” which was written in Hebrew , the text
identifies Mary as the Holy spirit. Thus, as the third person o f the G odhead, M uham m ad
could have accurately renounced the belief that Mary was a god. For de Blois, the Q ur’an
does not view O rthodox Christianity as a threat; only the N azoreans were cause for alarm.42
Thus, the Q ur’an refutes the idea that Jesus ever said, ،،Take me and my m other as two gods
alongside G od” (5:116).

In support o f de Blois’ theory, it is significant to note that the Ebionites existed in Syria
at least until the fifth century. The Ebionites were extreme m onotheists, who em phasized
the Jewish law, especially ceremonial cleansing rituals similar to those in Islam A Also, the
tradition o f W araqa ibn Nawfal ttanslating the Gospels from H ebrew is oddly coincidental
to the N azorean Gospel.44 Yet, even de Blois admits that there are no records o f either
group having contact with M uham m ad or living in Arabia. Similarly, the term ،،Nazoreans”

‫ وت‬N orm an L. C eisler and A bdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In eight ofthe Cross, 2nd ed.
(G rand Rapids, MI: Baker B ook H ouse, 2002), 67.
E verett Eerguson, Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation (G rand Rapids, MI:
Z ondervan, 2005), 95-96.
41 Samir, 160.
42 Eranc^ois de Blois, “N asrañf (Ναζωραίος) and IJanff (εθνικός): Studies on the Religious
Vocabulary o f Christianity and o f Islam ,” Bulletin ofthe School of Oriental and African Studies 65, no. 1
2)‫ﻣﻢ‬ 2-262.(:
43 H elm ut Merkel, “E lA m ites,” in The encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. G eoffrey w. Brom ile^ (G rand
Rapids, MI: William B. E erdm ans Publishing Com pany, 2001), 2:8-9.
^ 1 - B u k h a t i, 1:2-4.

- 50-
 American Theological Inquiry

is the Arabic designation for Christians and existed prior to Islam ’s form ation.45 A t this
point, de Blois’ thesis begins to lose validity. Nevertheless, heresiographers cannot dismiss
the similarities between the Q ur’an’s incorrect concept o f the Trinity and the N azorean’s
deification o f Maty.

Possible Monastie Influenee

In focusing on schismatic groups in seventh-century Arabia, one m onastic stoty is
particularly im portant. According to M uham m ad’s eighth-century biography, the Sïrat, by
hagiographer M uham m ad ibn Ishäq, Christian m onk Sergius-Bahira recognized a
prophetic m ark on M uham m ad’s body and related the foretelling o f his ascendency from
earlier Scriptures. This short stoty involving Bahira was likety invented by Muslims to
answer the Christian charge that M uham m ad was unannounced and, thus, a false prophet.
T he apologetic legend was d e s ir e d to give a Christian approval o f M uham m ad’s
p rophethoodA

Yet, the legend o f M uham m ad’s encounter with Bahira is also found in b o th Syrian
and Arab Christian circles during the ninth centuty. Barbara Roggema clarifies that the
Christian version tells the legend differently. Both M onophysite and N estotian Christians
had a copy o f the stoty, which seeks to dem onstrate that Bahira was the actual author o f
the Q ur’an. O ne purpose o f containing such a legend was to dem onstrate that the Q ur’an
originated from Christianity. Bahira claims that M uham m ad had trouble differentiating
between the polytheists and the Christians. In sura 4:157, B ^ a did n o t intend to say that
Jesus never died on the cross. Instead, he m eant only that Jesus did n o t die in His divine
nature.47

As Griffith explains, the Christian version o f the legend presents Islam as a mistaken
form o f Christianity. Bahira is presented as a fugitive m onk from the N estotian tradition,
who attem pted to convert the Arab potytheists by contextualizing Christianity for Arab
culture. Originally, the Q ur’an contained a pure gospel message prior to Jewish converts
distorting the record and making Islam w hat it is know n today. Bahira even gave him self
the nam e “N estotius,” in order to prom ote N estotian Chtistology. This may account for
another Muslim legend o f M uham m ad meeting a m onk on his way to Syria nam ed Nastûr
(Nestorius?), w ho also declared M uham m ad’s future prophethood. A ccording to Griffith,
the legend o f Bahira likely originated from M onophysite Christians to blame N estotians
for the rise o f Islam. Griffith summarizes the legend, “ [It] is clearly a literaty attem pt,
knowingly to depict Islam as a degraded and simplified form o f Christianity, w hich was
further distorted by the Jews.

45 de Blois, 1-2, 12. See also, Bell, 149.

46 See G oddard, 19-20, Sidney H. G riffith, “M uham m ad and the M onk Bahira: Reflections on a
Syriac and Arabic T ext from Early A bbasid Tim es,‫ ״‬Oñens ChHstianus 79 (1995): 148, 153, Sahas, 73,
73n5, and Barbara Roggema, “A Christian Reading o f the Q ur'an: T he Legend o f Sergius-Bahira and
Its U se o f Q ur'an and Sira,‫ ״‬in Syñan Chnstians Under Islam: The First Thousand Years, ed. D avid T hom as
(Leiden: Brill, 2001), 57.
47 Roggema, 57-70.
48 G riffith, “M uham m ad and the M onk Bahira,148-65 ‫״‬.
 American Theological Inquiry

Interestingly, Jo h n o f Dam ascus details a polemic against Muslims hy referring to an

Arian m onk as the teacher o f Muhammad. In his eighth century work. De Haeresibus, Jo h n
concludes that Islam is a fo n n o f Christian heresy. O ne codex o f his book describes
Jo h n ’s belief that Jews, Christians, Brians, and N estotians were the cause behind
M uham m ad’s religion. From the Brians, M uham m ad learned that Jesus was created and
no t eternal. F rom the N estotians, M uham m ad learned to place a stress on Christ’s
humanity. The m onk Bahira, according to John, was an Arian w ho misled the Arab
people.49 M uham m ad’s Arian tendencies is confirm ed by the legend w hen Bahira says,
“ [M uhammad’s] understanding could n o t encompass it, and the faith o fA riu s ... becam e
fixed in his lin k in g , who had said, ‘I think that the messiah is the W ord o f G od and the
son o f G od, but he was created.’”50

Betts explains that recent theories into the legend suggest that the m onk actually m et
M uham m ad as an adult and became the dom inant source o f his Chfistological teachings.51
However, the value o f this medieval legend is n o t in its historicity. It is likely that neither
the Islamic nor Christian version truly took place. However, the legend’s im portance to
the present study is found in early Christian-Muslim dialogue. All three Christian
communities, Syrian O rthodox, M onophysite, and N estotian, believed that schismatic
heresies were responsible for the form ation o f the Q ur’anic Jesus. G riffith states, “There
is a perceptible interest on the author’s part to suggest that Islam was inspired in its origins
from within the ،N estorian’ community, albeit at the hands o f a m onk w hom the
‘N estotians’ themselves had repudiated.”^ Interestingly, the Q u r’an quotes M uham m ad’s
skeptics w ho allude to him receiving personal instructions from an outsider, ،،They say, ،It
is just ancient fables [apocryphal legends?], w hich he has had written down: they are
dictated to him m orning and evening’” (25:5).

Conclusion
In the end, the presence o f schismatic Christian groups in Arabia m ust be treated as
probable influences on M uham m ad’s concept o f Christ. It is possible that the Q u r’an’s stress
on divine unity and m isunderstanding about ttitheism developed from M uham m ad’s contact
with M onophysite Christians. It is equally possible that M uham m ad learned to stress Jesus’
humanity from the N estotian tradition. F rom G nostic influence, M uham m ad may have
learned about the substitution legend surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion. F rom the N azoreans,
M uham m ad may have incorrectly learned that Mary is part o f the Christian Trinity. Finalty,
tales about an erring m onk guiding M uham m ad give credence to the notion that dissonant
groups were at least involved, if no t directly responsible, for M uham m ad’s Chtistology.

How ever, it would be historically unwise to suggest that schismatic Christians were the
dom inant influence behind the form ation o f Islam. While there are similarities, the Q ur’an
does no t conform to any one Chtistology. It appears that M uham m ad developed his own
personalized version o f Jesus. Nevertheless, it would be equally unwise to suggest that these
schismatic groups did not, in some fashion, influence M uham m ad’s convictions on proper
religion. I f nothing else, they dem onstrated to him the factionalism present in Christianity.

49 Sahas, 59, 67-69, 73-74,81.

50 Q uoted in G riffith, “M uham m ad and the M onk B atirá,” 168.

52 G riffith, “M uham m ad and the M onk Bahira,” 159-

 American Theological Inquiry

A t hest, history can identify d ik in g resemblances between M uham m ad’s view o fje s u s and
the Chtistology o f certain schismatic groups. A t worst, M uham m ad was completely ignorant
o f the Chtistological controversies and merely rejected w hat he believed was true o f all
Christians. In either case, it is apparent that M uham m ad form ulated m uch o f his beliefs
about Jesus from w hat was preached in Arabia. T o further explore outside influences on
M uhammad, Christoph Luxenberg’s The SyroAramaic ‫־‬Reading of the Koran and Gabriel
Reynolds’ TheQur'än in Its Histoncal Context provide excellent studies regarding M uham m ad’s
cultural and religious environm ent.
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.

View publication stats