Reframing the Issue Doesn’t Remove the Tension
Why Separating “Internal Critique” from “Historical Reconstruction” Doesn’t Solve the Problem
The argument now being made is this:
Internal critique and historical reconstruction are two separate operations.
Therefore, there’s no epistemic tension.
It sounds neat. Clean. Organized.
But once Islam’s actual claims are put back on the table, the separation collapses.
Because Islam does not merely say:
“Christians, your theology has tensions.”
Islam says:
“Your canon misrepresents a real historical prophet, and we preserve his true message.”
That is not just internal critique.
That is a historical counter-claim.
And once you enter the arena of historical correction, you are no longer playing a sealed theological game. You are adjudicating what happened in the first century.
History is not divided by religious boundaries.
Let’s examine the escape routes one by one.
1. Dialectical Use vs Historical Authority
It is true that you can use someone else’s text in a purely philosophical way.
You can say:
“Given your canon, you face tension.”
That does not require believing the text is historically accurate.
But this situation goes further.
The critique being made is not merely:
“If Christianity is true, it has internal problems.”
The claim is:
“Christianity’s portrayal of Jesus creates moral contradiction.”
But here’s the issue:
That critique depends on the stability of the portrayal.
If the Gospels are so altered that they significantly misrepresent Jesus, then you cannot be confident that any given episode accurately reflects him.
If distortion is real and significant, then the moral weight of specific passages becomes unstable.
You cannot build a moral indictment on a text whose representational status you suspend when convenient.
That’s not dialectical precision.
That’s selective stabilization.
2. “Mixed Text” Requires a Method
It’s often said:
“The Gospels are mixed — not completely false, but not perfectly preserved.”
Fine.
But that position demands a serious question:
How do you distinguish:
• authentic Jesus
• theological development
• community editing
• polemical framing
Where is the method?
If the filter is:
“What agrees with Islamic theology is authentic; what disagrees is distortion,”
then the conclusion is built into the process.
That is not historical analysis.
That is theological adjudication.
Christian textual criticism uses criteria like:
-
multiple attestation
-
early sources
-
embarrassment
-
contextual coherence
Secular historians use similar tools.
But Islam does not present an independent historical framework to reconstruct the “real” Jesus apart from Qur’anic assertion.
That is the pressure point.
3. You Can’t Separate A and B When Islam Connects Them
Some try to separate two questions:
A — Does Christian theology cohere with its canon?
B — Do the Gospels accurately represent the historical Jesus?
But Islam itself links them.
Islam’s claim is not merely:
“Christian theology is internally tense.”
It is:
“Christian theology is wrong because its portrayal of Jesus is distorted.”
That merges A and B.
If Christian theology is wrong because the texts misrepresent Jesus, then the distortion claim must be historically defensible.
You cannot critique Christian theology on the basis of its canon and then declare that same canon historically unreliable when scrutiny shifts toward Islam’s counter-claim.
That is conditional skepticism.
4. Shared Authority Isn’t Required — Shared Evidence Is
It’s true that competing traditions don’t share religious authority.
But once they make contradictory historical claims about the same events, they share evidentiary exposure.
If two traditions disagree about:
• whether Jesus was crucified
• whether he claimed divinity
• the scope of his mission
• how he understood himself
they are making incompatible claims about historical events.
At that point, the debate cannot be resolved by retreating into:
“My tradition says.”
History does not become relative because traditions differ.
Jesus was either crucified or not.
He either said certain things or did not.
These are not theology-relative events.
If you claim historical correction, you must engage historical evidence consistently.
5. The Real Dilemma Isn’t Binary — It’s Structural
The issue is not:
“Totally reliable or totally useless.”
It is this:
If a passage is stable enough to ground a moral indictment of Christian doctrine,
then it is stable enough to function as historical data in comparative evaluation.
If it is too unstable to challenge Islamic historical claims,
then it is too unstable to serve as solid moral leverage.
You want graded reliability? Fine.
But graded reliability must apply both ways.
You cannot downgrade reliability only when Islamic claims are under scrutiny.
That is where the asymmetry appears.
6. The Core Question
Here is the central issue:
By what independent, non-circular method does Islam determine:
• which Gospel traditions preserve authentic revelation
• which represent distortion
• and how that judgment is historically grounded
If no such method exists outside theological assertion, then “corruption” becomes a universal override switch.
Anything conflicting becomes later editing.
Anything aligning becomes residue of truth.
That makes the framework unfalsifiable.
And unfalsifiable systems are insulated by structure.
Final Reality
Internal critique is legitimate.
Historical counter-claims are legitimate.
What is not legitimate is combining the two while shielding one side from reciprocal evidentiary pressure.
If Islam claims to correct the historical Jesus,
then historical evidence matters.
If that evidence is unstable enough to dismiss when inconvenient,
then it is unstable enough to weaken moral critique.
That’s not collapsing categories.
That’s applying consistency.
And consistency is the one standard no framework escapes.
No comments:
Post a Comment