Greetings, one and all,

First, an introduction of who I am and what my intentions are here, in hopes I avoid troubles later on. For those who can treat questions about the NT/Christianity after the NT in an academic manner without polemical or apologetic intent (although I welcome your guys’ input too, just forgive me if I don’t respond to your arguments, necessarily), then you can feel free to skip this introductory part, until the next sentence you see written in bold text. If you’d like to get to know who I am anyway, feel free to read :). 

I’m a new subscriber to this forum, coming in from Islamic Studies – in the sense of the academic discipline as taught in Western secular universities (I thus come to talk academia, not theology except as relevant to the former 😊); my research interest is in how soteriology developed within an Islamic context. My interest in subscribing to this forum is simple, really: I don’t want to sound stupid when talking about Christianity/the NT in my own work. I have no choice but to talk about Christianity/the NT: I find clear evidence that early Islamic texts made use of image/metaphor/theology from late antique Christianity and other religious traditions in establishing/articulating its own soteriological claims; I even believe in many cases that ‘Christian’ texts circulating in the Near East found their way into books of Islamic religious tradition (including the Qur’an); I imagine, though I have yet to prove, that in many cases these texts will prove to have been extinct in their original contexts, under pressure from orthodox circles. They are now ‘Islamic’ texts, or Christian/Jewish/gnostic/etc. texts masquerading as ‘Islamic’ texts, and in the modern day no one is the wiser. Early on Muslims dropped the requirement to consult the original scriptures, and so things like this can happen (the original Arabic provided for readers who will likely find themselves astounded, and that I’m not making this stuff up):

[Chain of transmission provided establishing (or purporting to do so) that the report is an authentic teaching of Muhammad: thus, the compiler of the text, Abu Dawud of Sijistan (a region in present day eastern Iran/southwest Afghanistan), who was born in 817 AD, 185 years after Muhammad’s death: ‘I was told by Yazid b. (bin, son of) Khalid of Ramle (yes, Abu Dawud was that well travelled); he said: I was told by Layth b. Sa’d of Egypt (born 91 years after Muhammad’s death); he said: I was told by Ziyad b. Muhammad, a resident of the Prophet’s city of Medina in Arabia; from Muhammad b. Ka`b al-Qurazi, a descendant of the Arabian *Jewish tribe* of Banu Qurayza that was wiped out in battle with the early Muslims, who reported that Abu al-Darda, a disciple of Muhammad, said:]

The Messenger of God said: “Anyone who comes down with an illness, or knows someone who has, should pray: ‘Our Lord, God, who is in the Heavens. Blessed be your name. Your command extends over the heavens and the earth; just as your mercy subsists in the Heavens, let it subsist on Earth. Forgive us our sins and transgressions, for You are the Lord of the pure, good ones. Cause a mercy of Your mercy, a healing of Your healing to descend on this pain, so that it may heal.” 

Now, in its original context, 185 years after Muhammad’s death, in a far, far away place with likely little or no Christian presence, I imagine no one at the time suspected a thing. I imagine in this forum, however, jaws are dropping :). Much can be said about this tradition, particularly that it is oddly enough related by a descendant of an Arabian Jewish tribe, but such things can be discussed at better times. 

My question for today is about another tradition, this time a statement allegedly made about Muhammad by a delegation of Christian bishops from south Arabia who visited the Prophet’s city in Medina seeking good relations. It should be pointed out that the Qur’an is oddly quite kind to Christians, particularly in comparison with its comparative hostility to Jews (to be fair, the Qur’an acknowledges that there are good Jews and bad Jews…but you really don’t get as much discussion of the good ones compared to the bad ones). In the hadith, the vast extra-Qur’anic body of literature that purports to depict Muhammad’s life and teachings, things look *significantly* different: Muhammad is depicted as much more hostile to Christians.

Again, to be fair, initially Muhammad is actually quite accommodating. The delegation of Christian bishops tells Muhammad that they need a place to pray, and Muhammad, to the disgruntlement of his own followers (because trinity, and what have you), offers them his own mosque. Once they are done, Muhammad, as is to be expected, calls upon them to embrace Islam. Surprisingly, the Christian bishops tell Muhammad ‘But we are already Muslims!’ 

‘You are not telling the truth (alternatively, ‘you lie!’),’ Muhammad retorts. ‘Three things prevent your claim from being true (lit. ‘three things prevent you from Islam’): your worship of the cross, your consumption of pig flesh, and your saying that God has a son.’ [Notice that an explicit rejection of Muhammad’s mission is not listed here!]

Here is where things get interesting: the Christian bishops then turn to one another and say: ‘does he not resemble the one that the scriptures foretold? Let’s not get ourselves mixed up with him, then!” So they agree to make peace with Muhammad, whereby they can retain the practice of their Christian faith and political control of their lands in return for symbolic tribute. The question is: this theme that Muhammad is mentioned in Jewish and Christian scriptures is a frequent refrain in Muslim polemic; it constitutes the main backbone of Muslim argument against Jewish/Christian “reluctance” to embrace the new faith as an authentic expression of God’s revelation. But my understanding is that late antique Christianity wasn’t really expecting anybody. Might these bishops have been referring to Hebrew scriptures, which they still considered binding on them? Or did some strand of Christianity emerge that was expecting some kind of interim agent of God to appear who would herald the return of Christ to Earth? Or is there some other way to read these reports that is escaping me?