This article was downloaded by: [109.93.64.

215]
On: 15 July 2014, At: 14:50
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cicm20
The death, resurrection, and ascension
of Jesus in medieval Christian anti-
Muslim religious polemics
Steven J. McMichael
a
a
Theology Department , University of Saint Thomas , Saint Paul,
MN, USA
Published online: 25 Mar 2010.
To cite this article: Steven J. McMichael (2010) The death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus
in medieval Christian anti-Muslim religious polemics, Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations, 21:2,
157-173
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596411003619806
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
The death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus in medieval Christian
anti-Muslim religious polemics
Steven J. McMichael

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

The focus of this article is on the treatment of the resurrection of Jesus in medieval Christian
anti-Muslim polemical literature. It will also provide a glimpse of the Muslim perception of
Jesuss resurrection or, actually, the ascension of Jesus and the denial by Muslims of the
resurrection of Jesus as Christians have understood it. The article will offer a brief review
of the issue of the general resurrection of the dead and then focus on how the death and
resurrection of Jesus are treated in the Quran. Especially important in this article is the
presentation of Muslim belief with regard to the resurrection of Jesus in the thought of
Pope Pius II, Nicholas of Cusa and Alonso de Espina, all signicant Christian writers of
the fteenth century.
Keywords: resurrection; polemic; Jesus; death; ascension; cross; denial; scripture; Quran;
prophet
Introduction
The twelfth-century monk Peter the Venerable (d. 1156) stated in his anti-Islamic text, the
Summa totius haeresis Saracenorum, that Muslims
. . . do not believe that Christ, though conceived of the Holy Spirit, is the son of God, or God, but
[only that he is] a good prophet, most true, free from all falsehood and sin, the Son of Mary, born
without a father, [and] never having died, because it was not tting that he should die. On the con-
trary, [they believe that] when the Jews wanted to kill him, he ascended to the heavens, having
escaped out of their hands, and [that] he lives there now in the esh in the presence of the creator
until the coming of the Antichrist. (Cited in Kritzeck 1964, 119)
Here Peter lists Muslim beliefs that differed from the Christian understanding of the identity
and mission of Jesus of Nazareth. Muslims held that Jesus was a prophet; he did not die a
shameful death on the cross; he ascended into Gods presence; and he will come again at
the end times. At the centre of the ChristianMuslim debate about Jesus were questions
about the reality of his death and whether he was resurrected, or ascended into heaven
without passing through death. Concerning his ascension into heaven, Peter tells his readers
that Muslims believe that Jesus will stay there until the arrival of the Antichrist, at which
time he
. . . will come and kill the faithless with the power of his sword; he will convert the remainder of the
Jews and restore the Christians, who, after the death of the apostles, turned aside from the teaching of
the Gospels. Like all creatures, Jesus is destined to die and then be resurrected. At the Last Judgment,
he is to assist God in his work, though he himself will not judge. (Summarized in Iogna-Prat 2002,
34041)
Peter the Venerable, therefore, was quite aware of the essential elements of Muslim belief
concerning Jesuss alleged crucixion and death and his ultimate role on the Day of Judgment.
ISSN 0959-6410 print/ISSN 1469-9311 online
# 2010 University of Birmingham
DOI: 10.1080/09596411003619806
http://www.informaworld.com

Email: sjmcmichael@stthomas.edu
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations
Vol. 21, No. 2, April 2010, 157173
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

It is these elements of Muslim understanding that medieval Christians like Peter had to address
in their polemical works.
Beliefs about the death and resurrection of Jesus are integral to themes of life and death, soul
and body, ascension and resurrection, which, in turn, have ramications for eschatology and the
ultimate fate of humankind. Christians and Muslims argued, of course, and continue to argue
about key issues of theology such as the nature of God (i.e., Trinity), revelation, the incarnation
and divinity of Jesus, scripture, and the role of prophecy.
1
The issue of the resurrection of Jesus
also played and continues to play a role in these debates, for it is a fundamental Christian
doctrine that Muslims reject. The resurrection of Jesus is important for both communities not
only for the theological questions it raises about him (Christology) but also for its ramications
for the nal end of humanity (eschatology), including beliefs about the general resurrection of
the dead, the nal judgment and eternal life (soteriology). The resurrection of Jesus raises impor-
tant questions about the truthfulness and authenticity of the Christian scriptures and the Quran.
Finally, it raises questions about the identity and role of Muhammad in salvation history, not
only in relation to Jesus but also to medieval saints (Tolan 1996, 2541).
This article will focus on how the resurrection of Jesus is treated in medieval Christian anti-
Muslim polemical literature. It will also provide a glimpse of the Muslim perception of Jesuss
resurrection, or actually, the denial of the resurrection of Jesus as Christians have understood it.
Because Muslims believe in the ascension and not the resurrection of Jesus, a careful distinction
needs to be made between the Christian and Muslim understanding of these two concepts. The
article will offer a brief review of the issue of the general resurrection of the dead and then focus
on how the death and resurrection of Jesus are treated in the Quran. The main focus of the article
is to show how this theme is presented in Christian polemical religious literature.
The ascension and resurrection of Jesus
A word needs to be said about the medieval view of the ascension of Christ in relation to his
resurrection. For example, Thomas Aquinas (12251274) believed that the ascension of
Christ, which took place 40 days after his resurrection (Gospel of Luke), conrmed that
Christ ascended by his own power, as he rose from the dead by his own power.
2
In the resurrec-
tion, Jesus rose, soul and body, by his own power after he experienced real death (the meaning of
the three days in the tomb).
3
In the ascension, Jesus ascended above all corporeal and spiritual
creatures, thus showing that he rose according to his divine nature and his human nature (i.e., as
God and as a human being). The Word, divine for all eternity, descended into the human con-
dition and then rose in that condition as a human being by his own divine power. Christ now sits
at the right hand of God the Father as Sovereign Lord and God of heaven. He awaits the general
resurrection of the dead, when he will judge both the righteous and the wicked. His ascension is
seen, therefore, as inter-connected with his resurrection both divine actions become the cause
of our salvation.
The Franciscan theologian and contemporary of Thomas, Bonaventure (c. 12171274),
agrees on these aspects of Christian belief about the ascension, but he adds some further
details. For the Seraphic Doctor, the ascension shows that Jesus opened the gates of heaven
to the exiles, presumably the righteous who lived before the coming of Jesus. He therefore
repaired the fall of the angels, increased the honor of his eternal Father, manifested himself
in triumph and proved that he is the Lord of Hosts (Bonaventure 1978b, 162). Bonaventure
adds another signicant detail: Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father above all the
angels and will show to the glorious face of his Father the scars of the wounds which he suffered
for us (Bonaventure 1978b, 119). Bonaventure thus connects the ascension to the crucixion,
showing how Jesus was the faithful and obedient Son who is now worthy of our worship and
158 S.J. McMichael
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

acts as advocate for humanity before the Heavenly Father. The ascension, therefore, testies
further to the importance of belief in the resurrection of Christ in the Christian economy of
salvation.
The resurrection and the ascension of Christ are important for Christians because it is only
through these events that human beings can hope for their own resurrection. It is the power of
Christs resurrection that will raise up those who have believed in him. In the words of Thomas:
He ascended by his own power, but the saints are drawn by Christ: Draw me on, [we will run
in the scent of your perfume] after you and so forth (Song of Songs 1.3). Or one could argue
that no one ascends into heaven but Christ, because the saints do not ascend except as members
of Christ, who is the head of the Church (Aquinas 1988, 99). Christ sits at the very Throne of
God so that he might lead human beings to him through their own resurrection by virtue of the
power of his resurrection; he is there tointercede for all humanbeings who hope inthe resurrection;
and he also draws the hearts of all to himself (Aquinas 1988, 99101). Christs place and activity at
the right hand of God the Father are thus very dramatic and efcacious.
In Jewish, Christian, and Muslim spiritual literature of the Middle Ages, the term ascension
can have many different meanings. There is the ascension of Jesus in the Christian tradition, but
there are various types of ascension experiences in the Abrahamic faith communities. In the
Jewish tradition, there is mystical ascension based on the raising of Moses, Elijah, and Enoch
from the earth (Idel 2005, 26). The Sus in the Islamic tradition speak of the mystical experience
itself as an ascension, based on the miraj experience of Muhammad, who ascended to many
levels of heaven, encountering angels, the major prophets, and the Throne of Glory. In Christian
mysticism, the ascent of Mount Carmel by Saint John of the Cross is an example of Christian
ascension, as is the stigmata experience of Francis of Assisi. Bonaventure explains Franciss
life of prayer as an ascent to God on Jacobs ladder, which caused him to be led apart by
divine providence to a high place which is called Mount La Verna, where he experienced the
stigmata.
4
The ascension experience also takes place for other Christians whose souls are
raised to God at the moment of death.
The resurrection of the dead in Christianity and Islam
Medieval Christians and Muslims both believed that the general resurrection of the dead would
take place at the end of time and would lead to the nal judgment of all humankind. Christians
believed that all human beings would face individual judgment at the moment of death and then,
at the end of time, would be raised from the dead to face the nal universal judgment. In this
resurrection, the soul would rejoin the body so each human person would face God as an embo-
died individual.
Muslims held that there are two resurrections. In the lesser resurrection, the person dies a
natural death and is transferred to the intermediate world (barzakh). The greater resurrection,
the Resurrection of the Rising (bath) and the supreme Gathering (al-
_
hashr al-a
_
zam), is the
general resurrection of the dead (Ibn al-Arabi 2005, 110). The common Islamic medieval view
was that all human beings would rise from the dead and appear before the throne of God on what
is called the Day of Accounting or the Reckoning (
_
hisab) (Smith and Haddad 2002, 768).
All human beings would be raised in physical form, their natural bodies rejoined to their proper
souls, and then they would be brought before God to give an account of their intentions and
deeds.
5
The Muslims took this so seriously that Ayyubid political and religious authorities
put to death the Su philosopher Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi because of his heretical teachings,
which included denying the resurrection of the dead (Kraemer 2005, 31).
The resurrection of the dead was, therefore, a doctrine that both Christians and Muslims held
in the Middle Ages. Each community struggled to dene what resurrection exactly entailed for
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 159
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

the body in its relationship to the soul/spirit in the resurrection (Bynum 1995). While most
Christians and Muslims accepted that the soul would rise, there were always questions about
the role of the body in this process. But the central issue was not about the general resurrection
itself. Rather, it was about whether Jesus had been raised from the dead and, if so, who was the
agent of this resurrection: God or God in the person of Jesus?
The denial of the death and resurrection of Jesus in the Quran
There are 93 verses (ayat) that speak of Jesus in the Quran.
6
These verses highlight the basic
belief of Muslims concerning Jesus that he was Gods special messenger (rasul) who tried
to restore monotheism to the Jewish people of his day. Although he was born of a virgin,
spoke from the cradle, and performed miracles, he is not presented as partaking of the divine
nature. In the Quran, he is a mortal being. More than 30 times he is referred to as the son of
Mary, which emphasizes his humanness. Mary is the bearer of a prophet, not the bearer of
the Son of God (Theotokos). Muslims held that the marvelous aspects of Jesuss life reveal
how God worked through him, not how God was in him.
7
In Muslim Christology (or the
so-called Muslim gospel), Jesus did not bring about atonement or redemption through his
death and resurrection (Khalidi 2001). In fact, the Quran says nothing about any atoning or
redeeming action on his part, and in the denial of the crucixion (Q 4.157) removes any
grounds for suggesting this (Thomas 2002, 38). Rather, Jesus testied that God alone brings
salvation to the true believer. The Quran is quite explicit about defending Gods unity
against attempts to allow any human being (i.e., Jesus) to be considered divine in any
manner. There can be no division or multiplicity in the divine being. The Muslim gospel high-
lights Jesuss moral character, prophethood (he is a rasul or special messenger), asceticism, and
his role in eschatology. This quranic view determines to a great extent the subsequent Islamic
understanding of Jesus, especially regarding his death and resurrection.
The Islamic tradition specically denied that Jesus died on the cross God would not allow
such a terrible death to happen to one of his special messengers. This assertion distinguishes the
polemic between Christians and Jews from that between Christians and Muslims. In his argu-
ment with the Jews, Petrus Alfonsi (10621110) notes: Although we pass over many things
that we can say about him, let us merely introduce one which both we [Christians] and you
[Jews] believe, namely, that he denied Christ, whom we believe both to be dead and crucied.
He then quotes from the Quran 4.1578:
That they said (in boast): We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah but they
killed him not, nor crucied him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein
are full of doubts, with no (certain knowledge) but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed
him not, nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself, and Allah is Exalted in Power. (Alfonsi 2006, 163)
Thus, Jews, Romans, and early Christians all afrmed that Jesus really died, differing only about
whether he was raised from the dead.
8
Muslims, on the other hand, denied that Jesus actually
died.
Furthermore, Muslims hold that while Jesus did not die on the cross, he did ascend to God.
The main verse of the Quran that speaks of the death and resurrection of Jesus is 19.33: Oh
God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he
was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive! The common medieval
Muslim interpretation of this passage acknowledged that the day he dies refers to Jesuss
return at the end of time, since he did not die on the cross. This interpretation is correlated
with Q 4.1578, which states that the Jews thought they had crucied Jesus but it was made
to appear to them, and then Allah raised him [Jesus] up unto Himself.
9
There is enough ambi-
guity in these texts concerning Jesuss crucixion and death to create a number of different
160 S.J. McMichael
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

interpretations in medieval Muslim exegesis of what really happened to Jesus. Muslim commen-
tators asked the following questions testifying to this uncertainty: Did the Jews kill Jesus, or did
they only desire to kill him? Did a substitute take the place of Jesus on the cross? Did Jesus really
die or was he taken up directly to God? What does tawaffaytan in 5.117 mean and how does one
translate it into English: take me to thyself or cause me to die?
It appears that most medieval quranic commentators, such as al-Baydawi (d. 1282), held
that Jesus did not die on the cross, that he was taken up to God in a type of ascension, and
that he would return during the end times for a 40-year period and act as a just judge (Parrinder
1995, 10521). It is thus the ascension rather than the crucixion of Jesus that is the central
focus of how Muslims view the end of Jesuss earthly mission, and the future descent of
Jesus back into earthly existence is the focus of Jesuss eschatological role at the end time
(Jeffery 1951, 10726). At his descent, he
would break the cross, kill the swine, suppress the poll-tax, and make wealth so abundant that
nobody would wish for any more. Baiwadi said that Jesus would descend in the Holy Land, that
he would kill al-Dijjal, the Anti-Christ, and go to Jerusalem, worshipping there, killing swine and
all who do not believe in him, reign in peace for forty years, and nally die and be buried in
Medina. An empty tomb beside the tomb of Muhammad in Medina was thought to be reserved
for Jesus. (Parrinder 1995, 124)
The death of Jesus will mark the coming of the Hour as the Quran indicates: And [Jesus] will
be a Sign for the coming of the Hour [of judgment]: therefore have no doubts about the [Hour],
but follow ye Me: this is a straight way (Q 43.61).
10
Jesuss ascent to God and descent back to
earth, therefore, are the pivotal events of Jesuss life according to the Quran and the Muslim
gospel.
In the Islamic tradition, there also remains a question concerning the role of Jesus on the Day
of Judgment. While, on the one hand, Muslims credit Jesus with interceding for his own fol-
lowers, they also tend to refute this, because they perceive that Christians worship Jesus and
his mother as gods (Smith and Haddad 2002, 80).
11
Muhammad will have the role of intercessor
for the Muslim community, and only he will have the right to speak on behalf of the faithful,
which includes everyone except the mushrikun (those who have committed the worst sin of
impugning the tawhid of God) (Smith and Haddad 2002, 81). Certain Muslims, however, held
that Jesus would act as an intercessor to cleanse those who believed that he was anything more
than a prophet (e.g., Son of God or Lord).
12
In any case, even if Jesus does act as a special mes-
senger to Christians on the Day of Judgment, this will not make him unique. According to the
Quran, God has sent messengers to all peoples and at the resurrection every people will be
accompanied by one such messenger who will act as a witness against them (Robinson 1991, 87).
The resurrection and/or ascension of Jesus in Christian and Islamic polemical
literature
Because Muslims recognized Jesus as one of Gods special messengers (rasul), Christian polem-
ical writings against Islam were different from those written against Jews. Muslims held that
Jesus was born miraculously (virgin birth), performed miracles (including raising the
dead),
13
and appeared to be crucied (but was rather brought near to God in a type of ascension
experience). He will come again (descend according to Ibn Khaldun) (Smith and Haddad 2002,
70) to defeat the Antichrist, will die for the rst time and be buried next to Muhammad, will rise
with all creatures (including Muhammad), and take part in the nal judgment of all humankind.
Muslims believed that Jesus was a major prophet (rasul or special messenger), and Allah would
never allow such a prophet to die the kind of terrible death presented in the gospels. Christians,
on the other hand, afrmed the actuality of the crucixion, and belief in the resurrection of Jesus
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 161
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

was founded on this. In MuslimChristian discussions, therefore, the question was whether
Jesus ascended to God without actually dying on the cross or was resurrected after experiencing
death on the cross.
As important as it was, however, the resurrection of Jesus was not the central issue in
medieval Christian anti-Muslim polemical literature. It was embedded in and connected with
other theological arguments. For example, early Mozarab and Oriental-Christian writings con-
centrated on the following six themes, which remained constant throughout the Middle Ages:
1) God is one substance in three persons.
2) Jesus the Messiah is both God and a human being.
3) Christian scriptures are authentic and uncorrupted.
4) Muhammad was not a prophet.
5) The Quran is not revelation.
6) Islam is a religion of lax morality (Burman 1994, 104).
A review of major Christian anti-Muslim texts of the Middle Ages shows that the resurrection of
Jesus played a signicant but minor role in ChristianMuslim debates. For example, the Epistle
of al-Kindi (ca. 800870) begins with a discussion on monotheism and the Trinity, proceeds to
an exploration of Islam (the Quran, the practices and traditions of Muslims, and the prophetic
nature of Muhammad), and only then takes up the Christian faith. The death, resurrection, and
ascension of Christ are dealt with in a very limited manner (Tartar 1985, 2778).
Christian anti-Muslim polemical literature
As we can see from the medieval Muslim presentation of Jesuss life and legacy, the crucixion
of Jesus constitutes a fundamental point of difference from the beliefs of Christians and Jews.
Therefore, medieval Christian anti-Muslim polemical literature emphasized that Jesus truly
died on the cross, that he was raised by God after three days, and that he ascended into
heaven 40 days after his resurrection. The key issue was the fact of the death of Jesus on the
cross. All subsequent elements of Christian Christology his resurrection, ascension, and
special role as Judge in the Final Judgment rely on this.
The denial of the crucixion was one of the earliest polemical issues (Swanson 2006, 23756).
Early Melkite apologetic literature (eighth and ninth centuries) emphasizes the cross, asserting
that only with Christs death on the cross is there forgiveness of sins. The cross, therefore, consti-
tutes a rm foundation for belief in the general resurrection, a belief that Muslims and Christians
share. A certain Melkite author claims that although Muslims say that they believe in the general
resurrection, it is the death and resurrection of Christ which alone provide a sound warrant for
that belief (Swanson 1994, 127). Thus, according to medieval Christians, Jesuss resurrection
is the solid foundation for any sort of belief in the general resurrection of the dead.
In the fteenth century, a number of Christian authors wrote polemical tracts against Islam:
Pedro de la Cavalleria, Jean German, Juan de Torquemada, Juan de Segovia, Nicholas of Cusa,
and Alonso de Espina (Echevarria 1999, 22033). All these texts have certain things in
common: they attack Muhammad directly as either a heretic or someone who has created a
false religion; they point out the errors that are found in the Quran with regard to Christianity
and the inherent contradictions found within the text; they especially focus on the issues of
Trinity and Incarnation in their arguments with Muslims; they point out that the Muslim view
of paradise is very seductive but totally wrong, since it promises material pleasures rather
than spiritual ones (as Christianity does); they discuss the resurrection, but in a very limited
way. We will review three different but somewhat similar fteenth-century Christian authors
who dealt with the resurrection issue in a substantive way, beginning with Pope Pius II.
162 S.J. McMichael
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Pope Pius II
We have a letter written by Pope Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, 14051464) that is not
only polemical but also conversionary. The Pope wrote it in 1453 to convert the Ottoman
Turk leader, Mehmed II, conqueror of Constantinople (Piccolomini 1990). The letter is impor-
tant in that it follows the pattern of contemporary polemical texts its main focus is on the
Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation but it also considers the resurrection of
Jesus. We see that the resurrection is secondary to these two other doctrines, but it is intimately
tied in with them. As did other polemicists, Pius II acknowledged that Muslims deny that God
became esh (incarnation) and that Jesus died on the cross.
14
He also recognized that Muslims
hold that Jesus himself must be killed in the future (when he comes again at the end times). He
disputes this by using an Old Testament passage, Psalm68.5: But, David, speaking in the person
of Christ, says, Then did I pay that which I took not away, because he did not sin but paid
the penalty and suffered death for a crime which was not His (Piccolomini 1990, 59).
Christs passion and death are thereby predicted by David. Other biblical writers, particularly
the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, are employed to show that not only would the Suffering
Servant undergo death but he would also be raised up (Isaiah 52.1253). Therefore Pius II
concludes:
The prophets predicted that Christ would die and that He would rise from the dead. The Gospels
afrm that He died on the cross, was buried, and arose on the third day. This is certain and there
is no room for ambiguity; everything accords with the truth. The Lord rose again, ascended into
heaven, and will come back again to pass judgment at the end of the world. Your religion does
not accept this because it does not know about Christ what it should know. (Piccolomini 1990,
5960)
These same prophets predicted that Jesus would come a second time to judge the world.
They therefore predicted the entire Christic mystery that is summarized in the Christian
creed. A true and complete understanding of the Christian creed is what Pius II and all other
Christian theologians and polemical writers thought was at stake in their encounter with the
Muslims.
Appealing to the predictions of the prophets with regard to the person and role of Jesus was
standard procedure in JewishChristian polemical literature, since both traditions accepted the
sacredness and authority of these biblical texts. For Muslims, the Old Testament, together with
the rest of the Bible, was viewed as corrupt and therefore not reliable. Only the Quran was trust-
worthy for revelation. Also, Christians believed that the major prophets (e.g., Jeremiah, Isaiah,
Malachi, Hosea, and Daniel) were spokespersons for the future identity and salvic activity of
Jesus. This was especially true regarding the doctrine of the resurrection. For example, Hosea
6.2: He will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up, to live in his presence,
clearly was a prophecy that referred to the resurrection of Jesus. Since these prophets do not
appear in Islamic lists of major Old Testament prophets, they are not very signicant in the
history of salvation as understood by Muslims. However, there are some Muslim authors who
read these prophetic texts and applied a specic Islamic understanding to them. Many of the
prophetic texts that Christians applied to Jesus were understood by these Muslim writers to
be referring to the coming of Muhammad. For Christians, however, this apparent disregard
for these prophets and prophetic texts that spoke of Jesus revealed to them another avenue of
Muslim blindness to and ignorance of the truth of Christianity.
Pius II provides us with one other important theological assertion that will be brought out
more fully in many of the medieval theological texts that connect the passion and death of
Jesus with the resurrection. Based on atonement theology, it claimed that there was a price to
be paid for the fall of Adam and Eve (Genesis 23). God became human in order to save all
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 163
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

human beings and paid the ultimate price for humankinds transgression. Quoting from a sermon
by Pope Leo the Great, Pius II states:
Humility derives from majesty, weakness from strength, and mortality from immortality. In order to
pay the debt which derives from our existence, the inviolable nature is united with one which is
subject to suffering; true god and true man are found united. So that a suitable remedy can be
found for our salvation, one and the same mediator of God and man was able to die by virtue of
one of his natures and resurrect by virtue of the other. If he were not the true God, He would not
bring remedy. If He were not a true man, He would not furnish an example. You can see how suitably
the Son of God assumed the esh as God and as a man faced death. (Piccolomini 1990, 56)
We see, therefore, in this letter a summation of Christian theology that has the suffering/
death of Christ intimately tied into the resurrection of Christ. This involves the fullness of incar-
national theology. God did not become human only in order to forgive sins and bring redemption
to human beings, but God became one with human beings in the esh so that human beings
might become god (Factus est Deus homo, ut homo eret Deus) (Piccolomini 1990, 55).
Two other Christian authors dealt with the resurrection of Jesus in a more substantial way than
earlier polemical writers had. Nicholas of Cusa (14011464) and Alonso de Espina (d. 1464)
were writing about Islam some time around 1461. They lived in different parts of Europe
(Germany and Spain respectively) and therefore had very different approaches to Muhammad
and the Quran.
Nicholas of Cusa
What is unique and problematic in the work of Nicholas of Cusa is his conviction that, while
Muhammad himself believed in the Gospel message and the Quran tacitly proclaims it, Muham-
mad had to conceal this from the ignorant Arab peoples of his day. Nicholas based his argument
on the principle that the Quran reveals the secrets of God only to the wise (Q 3.7). He held that
Muhammad could reveal only the basic components of Abrahamic monotheism (especially the
prohibition against idolatry) to the uneducated Arab peoples until the full revelation could be
given to them. Nicholas claimed that the Quran tacitly acknowledges not only Jesuss divine
nature but also his role as witness and judge at the Last Judgment.
15
It also tacitly acknowledges
the resurrection of Jesus as well as the Incarnation. He says:
The Koran would not have been able to teach of Christs resurrection from the dead through His
power to lay down His life and to take it up again (as He avows in the Gospel) unless it had
showed Christ to be not only a man but also God a view which is supposed to be at odds with
the doctrine of Gods oneness, which it was preaching. (Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 132)
For Nicholas, therefore, the doctrines of incarnation, Trinity, and resurrection are all tacitly con-
rmed in the Quran.
The Quran, according to Nicholas, is a mixture of earlier revelations (the Old Testament and
the Gospel) and Muhammads own teachings received from the monk Sergius and others
(especially Jewish men), who mingled the writings of the [Old] Testament with stories from
the Talmud and mingled the clarity of the Gospel with apocryphal books (Nicholas of Cusa
1990a, 90). Nicholas held that Jews attached themselves to Muhammad in order to prevent
him from becoming a perfect Christian. The basic principle for Nicholas was that the things con-
tained in the Quran were not to be accepted as the words of God if they were opposed to earlier
books that had been handed down by God. In instances where the Quran does not afrm the
Gospel, it is due to Muhammads ignorance and perverse intent (i.e., his own glory). Only
that which agrees with the Gospel ought to be called the light of truth and of the right way.
In the Cribratio Alkorani (1461), Nicholass main arguments concern Jesus as Son of God,
the Trinity, and the relationship between the Gospel and the Quran. The resurrection comes up
164 S.J. McMichael
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

towards the end of his discussion on the Trinity. In response to the Muslims, who held that Jesus
had not been crucied nor had he died, Nicholas rst established that Jesus had truly been cru-
cied and had, indeed, died. In a previous book, De Pace Fidei (1453), he had explained that
Muslims cannot accept the death of Christ because of their reverence for him. Furthermore,
they deny that the Jews crucied him as such men would have had no power over Christ
(Nicholas of Cusa 1990b, 44). Nicholas thought that the Muslim belief was based on a misun-
derstanding of the role of suffering and death in salvation history:
Therefore, if the Arabs consider the fruit of Christs death and that it was up to him as one sent by
God to sacrice himself in order to fulll the desire of his Father and that there was nothing more
glorious for Christ than to die for the sake of truth and obedience, even the most shameful death:
they would not remove from Christ this glory of the cross, by which he merited to be the most
high and to be superexalted in the glory of the Father. Finally, if Christ preached that in the resurrec-
tion men will attain immortality after death, how could the world be better assured of this than that he
willingly died and was resurrected and appeared alive? For the world then was made certain by a
nal attestation when, from the testimony of many who saw him alive and died so that they
might be faithful witnesses of his resurrection, it heard that the man Christ had died openly on
the cross and had publicly risen from the dead and was alive. Therefore, this was the most perfect
proclamation of the Gospel, which Christ made known in himself, and which could not be more
perfect; and without death and resurrection it could always have been more perfect. Therefore,
whoever believes that Christ most perfectly fullled the will of God the Father must confess all
these things without which the proclamation would not have been most perfect. (Nicholas of
Cusa 1990b, 456)
16
Nicholas is echoing here the earlier position of Melkite Christians, who held that Jesuss resur-
rection gives us certain knowledge of the resurrection of the dead. Christs resurrection is the
cause of the resurrection of all humanity that will take place at the end of time:
His Resurrection is that through which all men will arise, who are of the same nature with Him a
nature which in Him is united to immortal life. But He arose on the third day in order to prove by
[this] deed that we ought to believe in the resurrection-of-the-dead, which, He taught, was to be
expected at the Day of Judgment. Therefore, Christ is the one in whose death we die and in
whose Resurrection we are made alive and through whom we have access to God the Father, the
Creator, in order to see God in His own glory and, with Him, Christ Jesus, His ever-blessed Son.
(Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 139)
Nicholas also argues against the Muslim belief that a prophet is not honored in such a tragic
death by showing how, ultimately, the crucixion is the exaltation and glorication of Jesus. He
demonstrates the supreme value of the death of Jesus and what that death means for those who
accept its reality and the reality of the resurrection (Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 14044).
Concerning Jesuss death, then, Nicholas nds the Quran problematic in several ways. He
claims that the Quran contradicts itself. In one passage it says that Jesus does not die (Q 4.157);
but, in another (Q 19.324), that he does die. Nicholas points out that the Quran tacitly presents
the possibility that Jesus was crucied, stating only that Jesus was not crucied by the Jews. He
concludes: The possibility is left open that Pilate, not the Jews, could have carried out this cru-
cixion in the way stated by the Gospel (Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 135). Because of these textual
ambiguities, Nicholas argues that the Gospel is more truthful than the Quran and that the Gospel
not only explains, but also corrects, the Quran. This, of course, goes totally contrary to what
Muslims hold, namely that the Quran corrects the New Testament.
Nicholas shows that not only do the New Testament and the chronicles of the rst century
prove that Jesus died, but also that the prophets of Israel foretold his death, so if the prophets
testied to the death of the Messiah, to deny these texts is to deny or contradict the prophets,
which the Quran claims it does not do.
17
Because the Quran approves of the Gospel and
these earlier prophets, Muslims who do not believe in the things foretold by the prophets end
up contradicting themselves, going against the witness of the Quran itself. Therefore they
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 165
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

must believe the testimony of such prophets as Daniel, who wrote that he had received from
Gabriel the message that the Messiah was to die (Daniel 9.256). Was Gabriel lying when he
prophesied in the book of Daniel that the Messiah was to die and then later, in the Quran
(ca. 800870 CE),
18
stated that the Messiah did not die? Furthermore, if Jesus himself testies
to his own death in the Gospels, does this make him out to be a blasphemer? These problems are
solved if one accepts Nicholass position that if the Koran denies the [death of Christ], then
assuredly a stand must be taken on the side of the Gospel, since [the Koran] offers no support
[for its claim] (Nicholas of Cusa 1990a, 131).
One of the central questions Nicholas raises concerns the meaning of the quranic texts that
speak of God taking Jesus up to Himself (Q 5.117, 3.545, 4.158). Nicholas argues that the
Quran afrms what the Gospel proclaims: that in Jesuss death, God has taken Jesus back to
Himself. Both the resurrection and ascension prove this to be true. Nicholas is aware that
Muslims believe that Jesus was not killed but that he will die when he returns and will rise
again on the day of resurrection. The difculty is that the Quran also states that at the rst
sounding of the trumpet all [living] things will yield to death except those which the right
hand of God will protect; and at the second sounding they will come to life again (Q 39.68,
with supporting texts Q 2.157, 2.207, 3.169). Since both the dead and those who have been
saved by God must die anew before the day of resurrection, Nicholas raises the issue of the
existence of souls after the death of their bodies. Do souls live separate from the bodies that
will rise to face divine judgment? He rejects the passages of the Quran that seem to assert
the death of the soul (e.g., Every soul will taste death, Q 29.57 and supporting texts Q
78.39 and 28.88) and reasons that the souls of the dead will continue to exist, even though
the bodies of these persons are dead. Based on the belief that the soul exists after the death of
the body, Nicholas concludes that Jesuss soul did not die, even though his body did. Christ
is not going to die again and be raised again with all other human beings. He has already
died and has risen from the dead.
Alonso de Espina
Alonso de Espina, the Spanish Franciscan polemicist, provides a complete commentary on the
Apostles Creed as a foundation for his argument against the Muslims,
19
which appears in his
Fortalitium Fidei (c. 1464), Book IV, On the war of the Saracens (De bello saracenorum).
20
The resurrection theme appears here in relation not only to Jesus but also to all humanity, i.e., the
general resurrection of the dead. His work demonstrates how certain medieval Christians under-
stood basic Muslim beliefs regarding the resurrection. It also shows us what major questions
were addressed in ChristianMuslim polemical literature.
Dealing with the creedal phrase, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucied, died and
was buried, Alonso explains that Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus was condemned to
death under Pontius Pilate. They disagree, however, about the factuality of his death.
Muslims hold that the Jews wanted to kill Christ, but Jesus, clearly withdrawing [from the
crucixion site], left behind I know not who in his own place, whom they crucied, thinking
that he was the Christ. God then raised Christ to Himself, and Christ is now with God until
the Day of Judgment. Just as with other human beings, Christ will die after he returns to
earth and will be raised from the dead. The central issue for Alonso is that Muslims do not
believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God (lius Dei vivi). They deny that Jesus could
die in his humanity and not in his divinity. Christians and Muslims had debated this from at
least the eighth century, as evidenced in the work of Theodore Abu Qurra (d. ca. 820). (Theodore
Abu Qurra 2005, 10949)
166 S.J. McMichael
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

In treating the next section of the creed, he descended into hell and on the third day rose
from the dead, Alonso states that Christians believe Jesus went down among the dead. He
liberated the prisoners out of the pit where there is no water and this happened by the
blood of the Testament (Zechariah 9.11). There was great joy among the blessed when they
saw the vision of the Deity and were led out from their underworld captivity (captivitate
inferni). The souls of the disciples and holy women also rose, because they were glad to see
the Lord. Indeed, all the faithful delight in the faith of this article, considering that the power
of the lower beings could not resist the savior either when he descended nor (naturally) when
he arose; and they rejoice, hoping to rise because Christ arose. Alonso here appears to be repeat-
ing what Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologiae (ST) (III, 52, article 5).
In this same section of the creed, Alonso brings up the problematic issue of the humanity and
divinity of Jesus after his death. Christians had debated this from the beginning of the eighth
century. It is embedded in the early Christological debates about the relationship between the
human Jesus and the Christ/Son of God. Here the doctrine of resurrection is intimately con-
nected with the doctrine of incarnation, and we nd evidence of this in the Christian/Muslim
polemic. For example, Timothy I (727823), in a response to the Caliph al-Mahdi, says: It
is clear that it is the human nature of the Word-God which suffered and died, because in no
book of the prophets or the Gospel do we nd that God himself died in the esh, though we
do nd the Son and Jesus Christ died in the esh (Parrinder 1995, 118). Nevertheless,
Alonso, centuries later, claims that
when it says that he descended to Hell, it ought to be understood according to the soul joined to
divinity, for even the body that remained in the tomb was joined to divinity (the Word of God),
for what he once assumed he never set aside (quod semel assumpsit numquam dimisit). It is otherwise
regarding the whole being that results from the body and the soul, because on account of their
separation, according to the agreement of the learned according to what is found in Book III of
the Sentences, Christ was not a human being during the space of three days and no mistake
about this had arisen [in Christian belief and theology]. Therefore when it is said symbolically
that He descended to the netherworld, it was not explicitly stated that [he did so] according
to his soul.
What Alonso wants to demonstrate is that, even though Jesuss soul descended into hell, his body
that remained in the tomb was simultaneously joined to it through the union of both soul and
body with the Word of God.
21
The person of Christ (the Word of God) was present, but he
was not truly a human being because the soul and body were separated during these three
days. Alonso seems to be in agreement with Thomas Aquinas here in two ways: Thomas
holds that the body was not in hell but actually remained in the tomb; and the soul of Christ
was truly present in hell (because His soul when separated from the body did go down into
hell, as Thomas states in ST, III, question 50, article 3).
Alonso then points to the difculty of this belief by asking whether John the Baptist doubted
the true identity of Jesus when he sent his followers to ask Jesus: Are you the one to come?
(Matthew 11). Alonso, basing his opinion on the thought of a certain Alexander (Alexander
of Hales?), states that this is more a doubt of compassion than of faith (non dei sed pietatis dubi-
tavit). That is, John asks a rhetorical question, just as a mother might say upon seeing her dead
son: You are not dead, O my son? Alonso, quoting John Chrysostom, says that John the Baptist
asked this question not for his own sake, but for the sake of his disciples.
This raises the question of the relationship of John the Baptist to Jesus, which the Quran
does not make clear. It tells us that John (Ya
_
hya) is one of the righteous (Q 6.85) and would
be a witness to the truth of a Word from Allah (Q 3.39), and also speaks highly of him:
O Yahya! Take hold of the Book with might: and We gave him Wisdom even as a youth. And pity
(for all the creatures) as from Us, and purity: he was devout, and kind to his parents, and he was not
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 167
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

overbearing or rebellious. So peace be upon him the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the
day that he will be raised up to life (again)! (Q 19.1215)
What is signicant in these verses is the last sentence, which parallels what is said of Jesus in the
same sura (Q 19.33). Since the same thing is said of both of them and since Christians do not
hold that John the Baptist was a divine being, Muslims could use John to refute the Christian
claim that Jesus was a divine being. John and Jesus appear together in many of the miraj
accounts (Muhammads ascent into the heavens to meet all the former prophets) of the
Middle Ages. This once again conrms that Jesus and John were considered great prophets
but, nevertheless, mere human beings. Medieval Christians, for their part, emphasized Johns
role in announcing the coming of the Messiah, whom they clearly identied as Jesus. In the
economy of salvation, they asserted the subordination of John (the announcer) to Jesus (the
One who comes). Muslims, on the other hand, emphasized the equality and humanity of John
and Jesus.
Alonso concludes this section by claiming that Muhammad is at odds with Christians in
refusing to grant that Christ died and in claiming that another unnamed individual took
Christs place. Therefore Muhammad denies that Jesus descended into hell and rose on the
third day.
Then Alonso moves on to the creedal phrase he ascended into heaven and was seated at the
right hand of the Father. This statement raises three questions: Did Jesus ascend into heaven in
his human nature or in his divine nature? What is meant by right hand (dexteram)? And is it
possible to say that the Father is seated to the right of the Son? Alonso answers these questions:
Jesus rose because of the divine power he himself possessed; Jesus sits at the right hand of God
the Father, which represents Jesuss equality with the Father; and, because of the personal order
of origin with respect to personal distinction within the Trinity, Christ stands in equality with
God the Father even though the Father is the origin of the Son. Thus the personal distinctions
within the Trinity are brought to bear in Alonsos argument about the identity of Jesus as
Lord who sits at the right hand of the Father. This emphasizes the divine nature of Jesus, who
rose from the dead, against Muslims who deny this truth.
Concerning Jesuss ascent into heaven, Alonso states that Muhammad is in agreement with
Christians that Jesus ascended body and soul, as is stated in the Quran: It is the truth that he
did not die but God raised him to Himself. But Muhammad is not in agreement with the
phrase at the right hand of the Father, because in the miraj experience, before Muhammad
saw God, the Prophet saw Jesus in the rst heaven in a higher seat than John the Baptist
(Hyatte 1997, 116). Alonso refers to the Scala Machometi as the source of Muslim disbelief in
Jesus being at the right hand of God in heaven. We see why Christian polemicists such as
Alonso had such great difculty with the miraj experience of the Islamic tradition. It not only
showed Muhammad in a more dignied and superior role, but it also showed how the
resurrected Jesus did not ascend to be at the right hand of God and therefore was not equal to God.
Another issue is based on the creedal statement that Jesus would come again as Risen Lord
to judge the living and the dead and that his kingdom would have no end (Luke 1). Alonso
points out that Muhammad denies that Jesus will be the judge who is to come.
But [Muhammad] says, in the fth chapter Azoara of the Quran, that God delivered Christ from
the unbelievers, and that he subjected those who followed him to those who did not believe his word,
even until the public day of resurrection; and that when Christ has returned to God, he will dispel the
dispute and the strife.
Here Alonso refers to Q 5.11617, in which Jesus distances himself from something others
are saying about him, namely, that he and his mother should be worshipped. Alonso is aware
that the Quran teaches that Jesus will die around the time of the Day of Judgment and be
168 S.J. McMichael
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

raised just like every other human being. At that time God will ask who is right, Christians or
Muhammad, and will pass judgment on the unbelievers and give favor to the faithful. Alonso
must be referring here to Q 1.159, which states that Jesus will act as a witness against Christians
who hold him to be more than a prophet. Alonso also states that there is another place in the
Quran that treats of the day of death: And regarding that day in which the living one will be
sent, the Quran holds that he will come forty years before the Day of Judgment. Alonso
may be referring to the Islamic tradition that holds that Jesus will marry, have children and
die after 40 years and be buried beside Muhammad in Medina (Ata ur-Rahim and Thomson
2003, 274).
At the end of his exposition on the harmony and disharmony of Muhammads teachings rela-
tive to the Christian creed, Alonso takes up the issue of belief in bodily resurrection and the
eternal reward for the righteous. Concerning the rst issue, he states that, according to Alexander
(of Hales?) at the end of his Third Book (of the Sentences commentary), there is a suitable order
to resurrection: the rst resurrection consists of the remission of sins and the raising of the soul;
and the second resurrection is the resurrection of the body, glorious in riches (in bonis), as found
in Romans 8.11: And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you; he that
raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit
that dwells in you, and in 1 Corinthians 15.51: We shall all indeed rise again. Alonso, there-
fore, considers the rising of the soul and its rejoining the body as the Spirits activity. He points
out that what the Quran teaches is in harmony with this belief: God will give life to the dead,
and those remaining in the tombs will rise together without a doubt. Those who contradict this
will be punished on the Day of Judgment, according to the Quran.
The ultimate goal of resurrection belief for medieval Christians was envisioned as eternal life
in a blissful spiritual state in the presence of the Risen Christ. Muhammad, however, separates
himself from Christians in his vision of what Paradise is to be. Alonso lists common elements of
the Muslim view of Paradise as found in earlier polemical literature: food, drink, clothing,
owing waters, virgins, and sex.
22
As he had pointed out earlier in his book against the
Muslims (Book IV, consideration 8, article 6), this conception of Paradise is completely contrary
to the Christian, totally spiritual, vision of eternal life, which consists in eternal spiritual blessed-
ness with the Risen Christ and the beatic vision of God.
Conclusion
We have reviewed many issues associated with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus
and seen that these articles of Christian belief are founded on related issues of theology, such as
incarnation, revelation, eschatology, and salvation. Belief or disbelief in the resurrection of Jesus
has serious consequences for both Christians and Muslims, as we see evidenced in the three
Christian authors reviewed above. For medieval Christians, the resurrection gave them sure
hope and assurance that the faithful followers of Jesus would themselves experience resurrection
at the end of time. They knew, too, that the possibility of risen life with Christ was determined
not only by faith in Christ, but also by their own righteous deeds. The resurrection, therefore,
gave Christians at least the possibility that, after the general resurrection of the dead, they
would experience everlasting life. Muslims, on the other hand, derived their rm belief from
the Quran and the passages that spoke of Allah as the One who would resurrect all human
beings. There is no intermediary gure that would bring about the resurrection; this will be
the act of Allah and not Muhammad or any other prophet or angel.
Even though we may designate the writings of Pius II and Nicholas of Cusa as conversion-
ary, they should be seen primarily as polemical texts, which is clearly the category to which
Alonsos work belongs. Christian polemical texts were written as a defense of the faith of the
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 169
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

writer but they were usually offensive in that they attacked the belief of others (Jews and
Muslims in particular). They are written more for a Christian audience than for the religious
community that they are attacking. This is evidenced by the texts that are used in the defense
of faith and the way the material is presented. We have seen three authors whose sources and
style of writing reveal that they are not really speaking to a Muslim audience, but a Christian
one. Even though there was an attempt at the time of Nicholas of Cusa to obtain more precise
knowledge of the Quran and Islamic theology from Muslims themselves, Christians in the f-
teenth century only possessed a basic awareness of what Muslims believed about the resurrec-
tion. Since they did not read Arabic or have accurate Islamic sources available to them, they
were often reduced to repeating as especially evidenced in the writings of Alonso de
Espina what earlier polemical literature stated about any particular issue, such as the
resurrection.
At the centre of MuslimChristian debates concerning any element of theology in the
Middle Ages was prophetology or prophetic theology, which established for Muslims and
in a more limited way for Christians the truth and identity of the true religion (Grifth
2008, 96).
23
The identity and mission of the prophet and prophecy are the foundations for all
of Islamic theology and are also important for certain elements of Christian theology, especially
the resurrection of Jesus. Since Christians argued with Jews about the Old Testament prophetic
texts that spoke of Jesuss resurrection, they quite often simply transferred these same arguments
to their debates with Muslims. This reveals one of the most basic Christian misunderstandings of
Islam in the Middle Ages, since Muslims had a very different approach to the ancient prophets
and prophecy of the Old Testament. These ancient texts, which Christians believed referred to
Jesus, were seen by Muslims as directly related to Muhammad.
What this study reveals to us in the end is that Christians and Muslims are very much divided
not only by general themes of theology, such as the resurrection of Jesus and all of humanity at
the end of time, but also by the texts that are considered to be the very foundation of faith (the
Quran and the Old and New Testaments). But it is not only the texts that divide them; it is also
the way in which they are interpreted and the meaning derived from the respective interpret-
ations. Rather than hearing what the other was saying with regard to a particular passage of scrip-
ture, as happens often in the context of modern MuslimChristian dialogue (where there can be
an appreciation of diverse interpretations of a certain text), medieval Christians and Muslims
often simply talked past each other in order to disprove what the other was saying and also to
bolster what they considered to be the proper and correct way of interpreting a text so as to
conrm their own faith.
Notes
1. There are now many works on theological issues between Muslims and Christians in the Middle Ages.
For a good introduction to the subject, see Grifth (2008).
2. On the ascension of Christ in Thomas Aquinas, see the Summa Theologia, III, Question 57 and his
Collationes Credo in Deum (Aquinas 1988, 95101).
3. Thomas Aquinas states: The resurrection of all others is postponed until the end of the world, whereas
Christ rose on the third day. The reason is that the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ was for our
salvation. Therefore he wished to rise then so that our salvation might be brought about. If Christ had
risen immediately, there would be no credibility to his being dead. Similarly, if he much postponed his
resurrection, the disciples would not have kept faith in him and no practical benet would come from
his passion. What benets from shedding my blood, [as long as I go down to corruption] and so forth
(Psalm 29.10). Thus he rose on the third day, that we might believe he was dead and that his disciples
might not lose faith (Aquinas 1988, 913).
4. Bonaventure (1978a, 303). The translator, Cousins, writes in the footnote to this passage that the allu-
sion is to Matthew 17.1: By employing the Latin words excelsum seorsum from the above text in
170 S.J. McMichael
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Matthew, Bonaventure is making an illusion to Mt. Tabor and Jesuss transguration. For Bonaven-
ture, the transguration is a foreshadowing of the resurrection. In his Life of Francis, Bonaventure was
writing about Franciss experience of the stigmata and his transitus from death to new life as manifes-
tations not only of an ascension experience but also of a type of resurrection experience.
5. Avicenna was known to have seriously questioned the doctrine of bodily resurrection. On his question-
ing and al-Ghazalis response, see Tolan (2008, 11519).
6. On Jesus in the Quran, see inter alia Parrinder (1995) and Robinson (1991).
7. This insight has come to be acknowledged only recently in contemporary ChristianMuslim dialogue.
I do not know its original source.
8. Bonaventure held that Jesus was dead for 36 hours to prove that he had truly died. For if this period had
been shorter and he had risen sooner, it might have been believed that he had not died at all, but had
merely feigned death; if he had prolonged it, he would have seemed to be permanently dead, and thus
believed to be powerless and unable to lead others to life. That is why he rose again on the third day (1
Corinthians 15.4) (Bonaventure 2005, 167).
9. Another passage, found in Q 3.55, is also unclear about the timing of Jesuss death. Behold! Allah
said: O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those
who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of
Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein
ye dispute.
10. This and all the translations of quranic texts that follow are taken from Abdullah Yusuf Alis edition
(2000).
11. On the issue of shifaa (intercession), these authors state: According to this account (al-Ghazal in the
Durra), Muslims waiting for the judgment for a thousand years seek restlessly for one of the prophets to
intercede for them with God. They go from one to the next, but each has to refuse because of some
particular problem or sin he has committed. Adam for eating the fruit of the tree, Noah for being
too concerned for himself while his people were drowning, Abraham for disputing with his community
about the d n of God, Moses for killing a man, and Jesus because he and his mother were worshipped as
gods. Finally they go to Muhammad, and the Prophet says, I am the right one! I am the right one [to
intercede] insofar as God allows it for whomever he wills and chooses. Moving onwards to the pavi-
lions of God, the Prophet asks for and is granted permission to intercede. The veils are raised, he falls in
prostration for a thousand years, praising God, and the Throne itself trembles in tribute to him (Llull
1985, 151).
12. This is based on Q 5.11617: And behold! Allah will say: O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say
unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah? He will say: Glory to Thee!
never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known
it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all
that is hidden. Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, worship
Allah, my Lord and your Lord; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou
didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. Al-Ghazali
reports that part of the inquisition after death will be the appearance of Jesus: Then Jesus (upon whom
be peace) is brought, and God (Exalted is He!) asks him: Did you say to people: Take me and my
mother as two gods besides God? [Q 5.116]. And he remains writhing under the force of this question
for many years. O, the majesty of that Day, when the Prophets themselves are submitted to judgment by
questions such as these! (Ghazali 1989, 18990).
13. For Jesuss raising the dead, see Ibn al-Arabi (1980, 17486).
14. It is interesting that Pius II adds a detail about Simon of Cyrene, who many Muslims claimed was the
one crucied by the Romans: It was necessary for Christ to suffer and so enter upon his glory, as He
Himself said in the Gospel of Luke (9.26). Power was therefore on his shoulder because on it He carried
the cross, even though Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry it when He was tired (Luke 23.26)
(Piccolomini 1990, 57).
15. The Quran is clear about Jesuss role as witness, but not as judge (Q 4.159) (see Nicholas of Cusa
1990a, 128). On the approach of Nicholas of Cusa to Islam, see Burgevin (1969), Izbicki (1991),
and Biechler (1991).
16. Biechler observes: Peter explains to the assembly that the Muslims reject the notion because they do
not wish to see Christ degraded. If they understood the mystery of the cross as fruitful, they would not
want to deprive Christ of this glory (Biechler 2004, 2778).
17. Nicholas held that the Quran does not contradict any of the prophets but rather endorses them and
corroborates the books transmitted to the prophets by God (viz. the Testament of Moses, the Psalter
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 171
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

of David, and the Gospel transmitted by Jesus Christ, the son of the Virgin Mary) (Nicholas of Cusa
1990a, 878). Nicholas wrote an entire chapter entitled The Koran is devoid of faith where it contra-
dicts the Scriptures and another called The Gospel is to be preferred to the Koran.
18. Nicholas has this date for the writing of the Quran in his text. I do not know where he would have
gotten such a late date for it. Obviously he is making the point that a much earlier text that is acknow-
ledged as scripture by Christians is more credible and authoritative than a much later text such as the
Quran.
19. Alonso was not original in choosing the Creed as a basis for his polemical argumentation against
Muslims. According to John Tolan, Christians and Muslims in thirteenth-century Spain spoke to
each other about their respective creeds. Pedro [Pascual] himself refers several times to such discus-
sions he had with Muslims (Tolan 2008, 434). The use of the Creed was also the basis of the rst
encounters between Christians and Muslims (see Grifth 2008, 57).
20. For the text of the Fortalitium Fidei, the Anton Koberger edition (Nuremberg 1494) and the 1464
manuscript from the Cathedral Library of El Burgo de Osma were used for the Latin text in the Appen-
dix, which was transcribed by Ana Echevarria. All translations from the Fortalitium Fidei are my own
based on the Latin text in the Appendix. Two editions of the Fortalitium Fidei can be found online at
http://www.cervantesvirtual.com. On Alonso and Islam, see Echevarria (1999).
21. Thomas Aquinas holds that Christs soul and body were united in Christs person: As before death
Christs esh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of God, it remained so after
His death, so that the hypostasis of the Word of God was not different from that of Christs esh
after death, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) (ST, III, 50, article 2).
22. The medieval standard version of the Quran promised that paradise would include the owing waters,
the mild air in which neither heat nor cold could affect people, the shady trees, the fruits, the many-
coloured silken clothing and the palaces of precious stones and metals, the milk and wine served in
gold and silver vessels by angels, saying, eat and drink in joy; and beautiful virgins, untouched
by men and demons. Whatever the blessed desired would immediately be supplied (Daniel 1997,
172).
23. As Grifth states, prophetology was all encompassing: The topics that were always included under
this heading [in Islam apologetic literature which Christian apologists responded to] were the integrity
of the scriptures, the teachings about God and the messengers who claimed to have been sent by God;
the signs by which the messengers might be recognized; the religious practices of the followers of the
true religion, such as the direction they faced when at prayer; the moral teachings of the messengers;
the character of the rewards and punishments awaiting human beings at the end of this life; and the true
status of Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam (Grifth 2008, 967).
References
Alfonsi, Petrus. 2006. Petrus Alfonsi: Dialogue against the Jews, trans. Irven M. Resnick. Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press.
Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. 2000. The Holy Quran. Ware, Herts: Wordsworth Editions.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1988. The sermon-conferences of St Thomas Aquinas on the Apostles Creed, trans.
Nicholas Ayo. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Ata ur-Rahim, Muhammad, and Ahmad Thomson. 2003. Jesus, Prophet of Islam, rev. ed. Elmhurst, NY:
Tahrike Tarsile Quran Inc.
Biechler, James E. 1991. A new face toward Islam: Nicholas of Cusa and John of Segovia. In Nicholas of
Cusa in search of God and wisdom: Essays in honor of Morimichi Watanabe by the American
Cusanus Society, ed. Gerald Christianson and Thomas M. Izbicki, 185202. Leiden: Brill.
Biechler, James E. 2004. Interreligious dialogue. In Introducing Nicholas of Cusa: A guide to a
Renaissance man, ed. Christopher M. Bellitto, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson,
27096. New York: Paulist Press.
Bonaventure. 1978a. Life of Saint Francis. In Bonaventure, trans. Ewert Cousins. New York: Paulist Press.
Bonaventure. 1978b. Tree of life. In Bonaventure, trans. Ewert Cousins. New York: Paulist Press.
Bonaventure. 2005. Breviloquium, trans. Dominic V. Monti. Bonaventure Texts in Translation 9. St
Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications.
Burgevin, Frederick Haviland. 1969. Cribratio Alkorani (Nicholas of Cusanus Criticism of the Koran in
the Light of His Philosophy of Religion. New York: Vantage.
Burman, Thomas. 1994. Religious polemic and the intellectual history of the Mozarabs, c. 10501200.
Leiden: Brill.
172 S.J. McMichael
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4

Bynum, Caroline Walker. 1995. The resurrection of the body in Western Christianity, 2001336.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Daniel, Norman. 1997. Islam and the West: The making of an image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Espina, Alonso. 1494. Fortalitium Fidei. Nuremberg: Anton Koberger.
Echevarria, Ana. 1999. The fortress of faith: The attitude toward Muslims in fteenth-century Spain.
Leiden: Brill.
Ghazali, Abu Hamid al-. 1989. The remembrance of death. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society.
Grifth, Sidney H. 2008. The church in the shadow of the mosque: Christians and Muslims in the world of
Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hyatte, Reginald, trans. 1997. The Prophet of Islam in Old French: The Romance of Muhammad (1258) and
The Book of Muhammads Ladder (1264). Leiden: Brill.
Ibn al-Arabi. 1980. The bezels of wisdom, trans. R.W.J. Austin. New York: Paulist Press.
Ibn al-Arabi. 2005. The Meccan revelations, ed. Michael Chodkiewicz. Vol 1. New York: Pir Press.
Idel, Moshe. 2005. Ascensions on high in Jewish mysticism: Pillars, lines, ladders. Budapest: Central
European University Press.
Iogna-Prat, Dominique. 2002. Order and exclusion: Cluny and Christendom face heresy, Judaism, and
Islam (10001150), trans. Graham Robert Edwards. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Izbicki, Thomas. 1991. The possibility of dialogue with Islam in the fteenth century. In Nicholas of Cusa
in search of God and wisdom: Essays in honor of Morimichi Watanabe by the American Cusanus
Society, ed. Gerald Christianson and Thomas M. Izbicki, 17583. Leiden: Brill.
Jeffery, Arthur. 1951. The descent of Jesus in Muhammadan eschatology. In The joy of study: Papers on the
New Testament and related subjects presented to honor Frederick Clifton Grant, ed. Sherman E.
Johnson, 10726. New York: Macmillan.
Khalidi, Tarif. 2001. The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and stories in Islamic literature. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kraemer, Joel. 2005. Moses Maimonides: An intellectual portrait. In The Cambridge companion to
Maimonides, ed. Kenneth Seeskin, 1057. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kritzeck, James. 1964. Peter the Venerable and Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Llull, Ramon. 1985. Selected works of Ramon Llull (12321316), trans. Anthony Bonner. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Nicholas of Cusa. 1990a. Nicholas of Cusas De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, trans. Jasper
Hopkins. Minneapolis, MN: A.J. Banning Press.
Nicholas of Cusa. 1990b. Nicholas of Cusa on interreligious harmony: Text, concordance and translation
of De Pace Fidei, ed. James E. Biechler and H. Lawrence Bond. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen
Press.
Parrinder, Geoffrey. 1995. Jesus in the Quran. Oxford: Oneworld.
Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius. 1990. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini: Epistola Ad Mahomatem II (Epistle to
Mohammad II), ed. and trans. Albert R. Baca. New York: Peter Lang.
Robinson, Neal. 1991. Christ in Islam and Christianity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Smith, Jane Idleman, and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad. 2002. The Islamic understanding of death and
resurrection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swanson, Mark N. 1994. The cross of Christ in the earliest Arabic Melkite apologies. In Christian Arabic
apologetics during the Abbasid period (7501258), ed. Samir Khalil Samir and Jrgen S. Nielsen,
11545. Leiden: Brill.
Swanson, Mark N. 2006. Folly to the hunafa: The crucixion in early ChristianMuslim controversy. In
The encounter of Eastern Christianity with early Islam, ed. Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark N.
Swanson and David Thomas, 23756. Leiden: Brill.
Tartar, Pasteur Georges. 1985. Dialogue islamo-chretien sous le calife al-Mamum (813834): Les epitres
dAl-Hashim et dAl-Kind . Paris: Nouvelles editions latines.
Theodore Abu Qurra. 2005. Theodore Abu Qurrah, trans. John C. Lamoreaux. Provo, UT: Brigham Young
University.
Thomas, David. 2002. Early Muslim polemic against Christianity: Abu sa al-Warraqs Against the
Incarnation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tolan, John V. 1996. Anti-hagiography: Embrico of Mainzs Vita Mahumeti. Journal of Medieval History
22: 2541.
Tolan, John V. 2008. Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European eyes in the Middle Ages. Gainsville:
University Press of Florida.
Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations 173
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
0
9
.
9
3
.
6
4
.
2
1
5
]

a
t

1
4
:
5
0

1
5

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
4