The Qurʾānic Jesus in Late Antique, Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite Profiles: A Bridge-First Model for Muslim–Christian Dialogue

Abstract

This article examines the Qurʾānic portrayal of Jesus (ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ) and the naṣārā in comparison with Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles, situating them within the Arabicised debatespace of Late Antiquity and early Islam. Building on recent studies of Qurʾānic Christology and interconfessional exchange as well as Macdonald’s work on Samaritan theology and Thomas’s research on Christian–Muslim polemic, the study argues that overlaps in prophetology, law-centred piety, and divine transcendence reflect shared category availability rather than genealogical dependence. Methodologically, the analysis combines close readings of Qurʾānic passages (e.g., Q 4:171; 5:72–75; 4:157) with textual variants from the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Masoretic Text (MT), alongside patristic notices of Jewish–Christian groups. Evidence from Sinai Arabic MS 154, an early Christian apologetic treatise preserved at St Catherine’s Monastery, illustrates how Arabic-speaking Christians engaged Qurʾānic categories in staged dialogue. The findings clarify where conceptual overlaps (titles, law, divine unity) coexisted with decisive non-overlaps (worship, sonship, atonement), showing that the Qurʾān’s Christology participated in a common discursive field while maintaining distinct theological boundaries. On this basis, the article proposes a historically grounded “Bridge-First” model for Muslim–Christian dialogue, beginning with Qurʾān-affirmed titles for Jesus and advancing toward contested claims in sequence.

1. Introduction

Recent scholarship has further advanced the study of Qurʾānic Christology within Late Antique multilingual and interconfessional contexts. Reynolds (2021) examines Qurʾānic engagement with biblical traditions through the lens of intertextuality, while Griffith (2013) demonstrates how early Christian Arabic theology developed in conversation with Qurʾānic idioms and scriptural categories shared across communities. Recent work on forgiveness in the Joseph’s narrative (Hyun 2023) also illustrates how intertextual themes can function as dialogical bridges, sustaining trust while respecting theological difference. These works demonstrate the ongoing relevance of situating the Qurʾān’s portrayal of Jesus in a broader debate space, underscoring the timeliness of the present study.

This study re-examines the relationship between Samaritan thought, Jewish–Christian (“Ebionite/Nazarene”) currents, and the Qurʾān’s portrayal of Jesus (ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ) and the naṣārā, asking how these profiles reflect the shared religious debate-space of Late Antiquity and how such a comparative lens can ground a constructive ‘Bridge-First’ model for contemporary Muslim–Christian dialogue. Previous scholarship has often polarized the discussion: some press too strongly on direct historical dependence from Jewish–Christian sects to Islam, while others deny any historical texture to the Qurʾān’s engagements with earlier communities. Between these extremes lies a more balanced and defensible position: that the Qurʾān, Samaritan traditions, and certain Jewish–Christian profiles co-existed within a Late Antique Aramaic–Syriac–Arabic “debate-space” where strict monotheism, law-centered piety, and “prophethood-first” Christologies were viable, actively contested options. On this account, thematic and theological overlaps become historically intelligible without requiring a model of direct derivation.

Building on John Macdonald’s analysis of Samaritan theology under Islam (Macdonald 1960, 1962, 1964) and David Thomas’s studies of Christian–Muslim textual encounters (Thomas 1992, 2002, 2008; Thomas et al. 2009), this study situates the Qurʾānic Jesus/naṣārā profile within the wider Arabic–Syriac debates of Late Antiquity and early Islam. Their scholarship provides the historical scaffolding for the paper’s comparative analysis of Samaritan, Nazarene/Ebionite, and Qurʾānic materials, and for assessing how these traditions intersected in theological exchanges under Islamic rule.

The initial aim of this project was to draw connections between John 4’s Samaritan woman, Samaritan theology, Jewish–Christian (Ebionite/Nazarene) currents, and Qurʾānic categories for Jesus in order to propose an interfaith bridge for Muslim–Christian encounter. The argument developed into three additional concerns: a fuller Qurʾānic engagement, a historically informed section on category exchange under Islamic patronage, and a sharper identification of obstacles to Christological dialogue today. This paper addresses each of these components in turn.

For clarity, naṣārā refers to “Christians” as the Qurʾān names them (e.g., Q 2:62; 5:69; 22:17), while anṣār (Q 3:52; 61:14) denotes the “helpers,” the disciples who respond to Jesus’ call. These are etymologically related (n-ṣ-r) but not identical in reference. “Nazarene” (Nazōraioi) in Late Antique usage can designate Jesus “of Nazareth,” the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian church, or a distinct Jewish–Christian group; here, “Nazarene/Ebionite” is used as a cautious scholarly shorthand. I make no claim that the Qurʾān depends on these groups; rather, I argue for intelligible overlaps arising within a shared historical milieu.

Methodologically, the author conducts close readings of key Qurʾānic passages (Q 4:171; 5:72–75; 4:157; 9:30; 2:62; 5:69; 22:17; 3:52; 61:14), supplemented by representative classical tafsīr and early Christian Arabic responses. These are then compared with Samaritan and Jewish–Christian profiles across four thematic axes: Christ’s status, law, sacrifice/atonement, and divine attributes. A contextual section explores mechanisms of category exchange—Arabicization, translation, and intercommunal study circles—under Islamic rule, illustrating how conceptual parallels could emerge without genealogical dependence. The conclusion advances a “bridge-first” model that begins with Qurʾānic titles for Jesus (Messenger, Word, Spirit; eschatological Judge) before addressing Chalcedonian formulations.

John 4’s Samaritan woman offers a narrative frame for this approach: starting with categories already affirmed by the interlocutor—messiah/prophet, law, monotheism—and reorienting them toward Jesus himself. Historically, Samaritan commitments to strict monotheism, law-centrism, and resistance to anthropomorphism or sacrificial cult parallel certain Jewish–Christian features and elements in the Qurʾān’s portrayal of Jesus and the naṣārā. The analysis that follows tests these parallels for historical plausibility and assesses their dialogical value in contemporary Muslim–Christian engagement.

Thesis: The Qurʾān’s depiction of naṣārā and of ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ overlaps in historically traceable ways with certain Jewish–Christian and Samaritan profiles—not by direct derivation, but as co-participants in a Late Antique religious debate-space. Consequently, a bridge-first model for Muslim–Christian dialogue should begin with Qurʾān-affirmed titles for Jesus (Messenger, Word, Spirit) before advancing to Chalcedonian claims.

2. Terms, Sources, and Method

2.1. Terms

Naṣārā and anṣār—In this article naṣārā designates the Qurʾānic label for “Christians” (e.g., Q 2:62; 5:69; 22:17). By contrast, anṣār refers to the “helpers,” the disciples responding to Jesus’ call (Q 3:52; 61:14). Both share the triliteral root n-ṣ-r (“to help”) but differ in reference; conflating them risks category mistakes. The singular naṣrānī (“a Christian”) is distinct from nāṣirī (“of Nazareth”) in later Arabic usage. Here, naṣārā is treated strictly as the Qurʾān’s label for Christians, anṣār for the disciples’ role.

“Nazarene/Ebionite”—Late Antique nomenclature is slippery. “Nazarene” (Nazōraioi) can mean Jesus “of Nazareth,” Palestinian Aramaic-speaking Christians, or a Torah-observant Christian group in patristic heresiology (Acts 24:5; Kinzig 2007). “Ebionite” is a scholarly label derived from patristic reports, not a self-designation, variably linked to ʾebyōnīm (“poor”) or a putative founder (Wilhite 2015). In this study, “Nazarene/Ebionite” functions as a heuristic for certain Jewish–Christian profiles—Torah observance, anti-sacrificial cult, prophet-first Christology—without asserting direct derivation into the Qurʾān (Griffith 2013).

Samaritan—Refers to the community historically centred on Mt. Gerizim and the Pentateuch as sole canon, with a distinctive messianic hope in the Taheb, a Moses-like restorer (Anderson and Giles 2012). Samaritan tradition is marked by strict monotheism and avoidance of anthropomorphism (e.g., rendering Exod 15:3 without corporeal predicates) (Zewi 2015). Over centuries, Samaritans transitioned from Hebrew/Aramaic to Arabic, producing medieval Arabic translations (e.g., BL Or. 7562) that reflect Islamic-era contexts (Macdonald 1964; Zewi 2015). Such sources are valuable for mapping conceptual proximities but must be used chronologically with caution, not retrojected into the Qurʾān’s formation (Zewi 2015; Zahn 2015; Waltke 1970; Kahle 1959).

Qurʾānic titles and “low Christology”—The Qurʾān assigns Jesus exalted titles—al-Masīḥ (Messiah), Messenger of God, God’s Word “cast to Mary,” and a Spirit from Him (Q 4:171)—yet situates him within uncompromising monotheism, denying ontological divinity and atoning crucifixion (Q 5:72–75; 4:157; 9:30). This nomenclature helps compare the Qurʾānic profile with elements in Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite materials without prejudging questions of dependence. It will also be important to flag “false friends”: kalima in Q 4:171 cannot be equated one-to-one with John’s Logos; we must indicate overlap in sense while acknowledging non-identity (Nazir-Ali 2006).

2.2. Sources

Primary corpora:

• The Qurʾān—This study focuses on Q 2:62; 3:45, 52; 4:157, 171; 5:72–75, 82; 9:30; 22:17; 61:14, as these verses contain the most salient Christological and communal descriptors relevant to Muslim–Christian engagement.
• Classical tafsīr—Representative exegetes (e.g., al-Ṭabarī, al-Zamakhsharī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī) provide a reception-history layer, showing early Muslim interpretive trajectories for the Jesus passages. These are consulted for interpretive context, not as proxies for the Qurʾān’s original meaning.
• Patristic notices—Writers such as Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Eusebius supply portraits—albeit polemical—of Nazarene/Ebionite groups.
• Samaritan materials—The SP, select medieval Arabic translations/glosses (e.g., BL Or. 7562), and theological treatises offer comparative data on law, prophecy, and divine transcendence.
• Early Christian Arabic texts—Most notably Sinai Arabic MS 154, an 8th–9th century De Trinitate apologetic from St Catherine’s Monastery. This manuscript engages Qurʾānic categories directly (e.g., Word, Spirit) as part of a Christian defense of the Trinity (fols. 99r–102r; see Appendix A), making it a critical case study for how Christians in an Islamic context utilised shared vocabulary while maintaining doctrinal distinctives. For cataloguing and access, see Gibson (1894) and the Sinai Manuscripts Digital Library (n.d.).

Secondary literature—Anderson and Giles (2012) and Pummer (2002) are central for Samaritan origins, canon, and messianism. Macdonald (1964) and Griffith (2013) illuminate Arabicisation and intercommunal textual exchange under Islam. Waltke (1970), Kahle (1959), and Zahn (2015) detail the SP’s textual profile. Kinzig (2007), Wilhite (2015), and Joseph (2017) inform the Jewish–Christian typologies and their stances on sacrifice. This literature frames the multilingual, multi-traditional field without presuming linear influence. Throughout, I signal the polemical limits of heresiological sources and avoid flattening diverse movements into monolithic entities.

Chronological cautions—Because several Samaritan Arabic witnesses postdate the Qurʾān by centuries, the study treats them as evidence of how certain lexemes and categories could circulate and be reframed in Islamicized contexts—not as proof that those exact forms fed into the Qurʾān. Where a phrase appears that resembles Islamic confession (e.g., Deut 4:35 rendered lā ilāha illā Allāh in BL Or. 7562), I present it as a later scribal phenomenon with diaspora characteristics (Zewi 2015, pp. 98, 180), useful for thinking about conceptual convergence but not determinative for Qurʾān origins. This approach preserves both the integrity of the Qurʾān’s own project and the historical texture of minority communities living under Islam (Griffith 2013, pp. 29–31).

2.3. Method

Scope and posture. This study neither equates Samaritan and Jewish Christian (Nazarene/Ebionite) traditions with the Qurʾān’s “Christians” nor seeks a single “source” for the Qurʾān’s Jesus. The aim is to test, with disciplined comparisons, whether the Qurʾān’s depiction of ʿĪsā and the naṣārā sits intelligibly alongside Samaritan and certain Jewish Christian profiles, such that overlap without derivation can ground a productive dialogical sequence today. The objective is to identify zones of overlap without asserting derivation, thereby supplying a historically responsible basis for constructive dialogue.

The method unfolds in four interlinked stages:

• Stage 1—Exegetical profiling

• Close readings of the selected Qurʾānic passages establish a profile of the Qurʾānic Jesus and the naṣārā. For each passage, three questions guide the analysis: (1) What titles, predicates, and functions are ascribed to Jesus? (2) How are the naṣārā positioned relative to Jews and other communities? (3) What doctrinal boundaries are marked, especially regarding divine sonship, crucifixion, and triune language? Brief references to tafsīr illustrate early reception trajectories.

• Titles/predicates/functions—Q 4:171, for instance, names Jesus al-Masīḥ, God’s Messenger, His Word “cast to Mary,” and a Spirit from Him; Q 5:72–75 warns against declaring “God is the Messiah.”
• Positioning of the naṣārā—Q 2:62 and Q 5:69 list them among other communities with access to divine mercy, conditioned on belief and righteousness.
• Doctrinal boundaries—Q 4:157 denies the crucifixion; Q 9:30 rebukes attributions of divine sonship.

Each reading is lightly triangulated with 1–2 tafsīr comments to show early interpretive trajectories. The outcome is a compact profile of the Qurʾānic Jesus: high in titles and eschatological weight, law affirming, and anti-anthropomorphic, yet ontologically non divine and non-crucified. Brief references to early tafsīr illustrate formative interpretive trajectories. The resulting profile depicts a Qurʾānic Jesus bearing elevated titles and eschatological agency, affirming law, and resisting anthropomorphism, yet ontologically non divine and not crucified. Brief references to tafsīr (e.g., al-Ṭabarī on Q 4:171’s kalima, al-Zamakhsharī on Q 5:72’s kufr) illustrate early interpretive trajectories without collapsing the text into later commentary.

• Stage 2—Historical comparison along four axes

• The Qurʾānic profile is compared to Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite configurations along four thematic axes:

• Christ’s status—prophetology vs. ontology.
• Law/Torah—continuity, observance, and authority.
• Sacrifice/Atonement—cultic scepticism vs. cross.
• Divine attributes—strategies for avoiding anthropomorphism.

• On each axis, overlaps (e.g., Torah-centrism, prophet-first Christology) and non-overlaps (e.g., Christian worship of Christ) are recorded, constraining speculation. This “agreements/disagreements” mapping constrains speculation and keeps the comparison honest (Kinzig 2007; Wilhite 2015; Joseph 2017; Anderson and Giles 2012).

• Stage 3—Context under Islamic patronage

• To bridge the chronological gap, the study considers how minority communities lived, wrote, and translated under early Islam: Arabic as administrative and devotional lingua franca; shared study settings; translation habits; re-articulation of doctrines in Arabic. This explains mechanisms for conceptual cross-pollination without positing derivation. Macdonald’s work on Samaritan Arabic and Griffith’s mapping of Christian–Muslim debates are key here. The point is not to claim that the Qurʾān adopted Samaritan or Nazarene doctrine; it is to show that the Qurʾān’s Jesus and its naṣārā inhabit a Late Antique debate space where such configurations were already intelligible options (Macdonald 1964; Griffith 2013).

• Stage 4—Dialogical application (“bridge-first”)

• The historical analysis feeds into a missional sequence for contemporary Muslim–Christian encounter: begin with Qurʾān-acknowledged categories for Jesus (Messenger, Word, Spirit; eschatological Judge), affirm shared commitments (monotheism, prophetic obedience, Torah reverence), clarify “false friends” (e.g., kalima vs. Logos; naṣārā ≠ anṣār), then advance from Christology-from-below to Christology-from-above (Nazir-Ali 2006). Sinai Arabic MS 154 exemplifies this sequencing, showing that it is historically attested as well as conceptually viable. This section provides the study’s methodological framework in line with Religions guidelines, outlining the corpora, terms, and comparative approach used throughout. The Section 3. functions as the background and literature review, situating the present argument within recent scholarship on Arabicisation, intercommunal debates, and minority traditions in Late Antiquity.

3. Late Antique Context and Minorities Under Islam

Peter Brown (1971) redefined Late Antiquity (c. 150–750) not as decline but as transformation, marked by religious and cultural innovation across the Mediterranean. Within this frame, the rise of Islam reordered the social and intellectual landscape of the eastern Mediterranean and Near East. From the seventh century onward, Arabic rapidly became the lingua franca not only of administration and commerce but also of devotion, law, and learned exchange. Communities that had long worshiped and wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek increasingly expressed their identities, scriptures, and arguments in Arabic. “Arabicization” did not produce uniformity; it yielded a multilingual, multi confessional environment in which Samaritans, Jews, and multiple Christianities (Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian; Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian) negotiated life as protected minorities while also competing for patronage, prestige, and adherents (Macdonald 1964; Griffith 2013). Within this setting, the conceptual proximities that concern this article—law centered piety, anti-anthropomorphism, “prophethood first” Christology—were not hidden esoterica but publicly available options in Arabic discourse. Mapping that environment is essential for bridging the chronological gap the reviewer flagged.

3.1. Arabicization as a Shared Medium

Arabicization had at least three interlocking dimensions.

• Bureaucratic—Tax registers, petitions, and decrees shifted into Arabic, drawing non-Muslim elites into administrative literacy.
• Devotional—Sermons, catecheses, polemics, and biblical paraphrases appeared in Arabic for communities whose members increasingly lacked command of older liturgical languages.
• Scholarly—Inter-confessional debates and majālis (learned sessions) unfolded in Arabic, producing an apologetic literature and stimulating new theological articulations. For Christians, this catalyzed the emergence of Arabic theology (e.g., Abū Qurra, Abū Rāʾiṭa, ʿAmmār al-Baṣrī); for Jews, Arabic biblical translation and philosophy (e.g., Saadya Gaon); for Samaritans, a vernacular of worship and identity preservation (Pummer 2002; Anderson and Giles 2012).

In all three communities, translation did not merely move words from one language to another; it reframed concepts, stabilized some terms, and opened or closed pathways for comparison across confessional lines (Griffith 2013).

3.2. Samaritans in an Arabic Key

Samaritan communities, historically anchored on Mt. Gerizim and the Pentateuch (SP), transitioned from Hebrew and Aramaic to Arabic across the medieval period. Arabic Samaritan translations and glosses display both continuity with earlier exegetical habits and selective accommodation to their Islamic environment. Anti-anthropomorphic instincts—the drive to avoid ascribing bodily predicates to God—are visible in lexical choices and paraphrases (Zewi 2015; Anderson and Giles 2012). Some diaspora manuscripts also echo Islamic formulae—for example, BL Or. 7562 renders Deut 4:35 with lā ilāha illā Allāh. Most scholars interpret such instances as later, diasporic adaptations rather than pre-Islamic or Qurʾānic-era language (Zewi 2015, pp. 98, 180). These materials illuminate how certain theological categories were publicly “available” under Islam, without implying that the Qurʾān’s diction or theology was derived from Samaritan sources. The evidence is thus probative for “category availability,” not for genealogical dependence.

3.3. Jewish and Christian Communities Under Early Islamic Patronage

Jews and a spectrum of Christian churches likewise lived as protected minorities (with variations across regions and regimes), paying the poll tax, maintaining communal hierarchies, and negotiating public religious expression. Within these parameters, significant studies emerged. Jews produced Arabic Targums, commentaries, and philosophical treatises that rearticulated biblical monotheism in conversation with kalām. Christians composed Arabic apologies and biblical expositions that answered Qurʾānic critiques, defended Christological claims, and sought shared terms for revelation, scripture, and law (Griffith 2013). These texts rarely “borrow” doctrine; instead, they repurpose overlapping vocabularies—rasūl (Messenger), kalima (Word), rūḥ (Spirit), dīn (religion), tawḥīd (oneness), sharīʿa/nomos (law)—into distinct confessional grammars. The point for our comparison is not that Christians and Samaritans “Islamized,” but that a common Arabic idiom made some construals of Jesus and of piety more intelligible to Muslim hearers than others.

3.4. Mechanisms of Cross Pollination

How, concretely, did cross pollination occur? Four mechanisms are especially relevant:

• Translation chains. Texts and ideas often traveled not in a single leap but through chains—Hebrew/Aramaic → Syriac → Arabic, or Greek → Syriac → Arabic. Each step invited interpretation (Griffith 2013). Choices about rendering divine predicates, sacrificial terminology, and messianic titles had downstream effects. When Christians in Arabic called Jesus kalimat Allāh (Word of God) or rūḥun minhu (a Spirit from Him), they were engaging Qurʾānic titles (Q 4:171) while resisting Qurʾānic delimitations in other verses (Q 5:72–75) through argument and analogy.
• Shared schools and disputation. Monasteries, courts, and private salons hosted debates in which Jews, Christians, and Muslims rehearsed stock questions about divine unity, prophecy, scripture, and law. These settings normalized certain “starting points”—strict monotheism, prophetic authority, legal obedience—thereby privileging “prophethood first” presentations of Jesus in dialogue, even when the Christian end of the argument was Chalcedonian.
• Social vicinity and pragmatic bilingualism. Craftsmen, scribes, and officials worked side by side. Bilingual or trilingual households were common in cities and garrison towns. Everyday bilingualism made terms such as naṣārā and anṣār homophonically proximate even when functionally distinct—one reason this article insists on terminological discipline (see 2 terminology section).
• Law and public order. Because non-Muslim communities were permitted to adjudicate many internal affairs, law–ethics frames took pride of place in self presentation. Christians argued for the moral fruits of the gospel; Jews for the wisdom of Torah; Samaritans for the purity of their Pentateuchal observance. In such a world, law centered piety functioned as a trans confessional currency.

3.5. Where the Qurʾān Sits in the Same Conversation

Against this backdrop, the Qurʾān’s profile of Jesus looks neither anomalous nor derivative but situated. Several passages align with the categories that dominate inter communal debate: Jesus is Messiah, Messenger, Word, and Spirit from God (Q 4:171); uncompromising monotheism is non-negotiable (Q 5:72–75; 9:30); the cross does not function as vicarious atonement (Q 4:157); Christians—named as naṣārā—are part of the eschatological horizon and are, in some settings, “nearest in affection” (Q 5:82; cf. 2:62; 5:69; 22:17). Whatever one’s dating of particular exegetical traditions, these texts participate in the very axes that also structure Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite materials: Christ’s status (office vs. ontology), law/obedience, sacrificial cult, and divine attributes. The overlaps are real; what they are evidence of is the shared debate space of Late Antiquity.

3.6. Sinai Arabic 154: An Early Christian Arabic Treatise as Dialogue Precedent

Sinai Arabic MS 154, housed at St Catherine’s Monastery, is an 8th–9th century Arabic Christian apologetic text that exemplifies contextual engagement with Qurʾānic categories. The manuscript contains Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and a De Trinitate treatise structured around Qurʾānic idioms such as “God, His Word, and His Spirit” (Q 4:171; Q 16:102).

• Oxford: Zaki (2020) highlights how Sinai 154 integrates Qurʾānic idioms—‘God, His Word, and His Spirit’ (Q 4:171; Q 16:102)—as a starting point for explaining the Trinity (fols. 99r–102r; see Appendix A). She situates the text within the tradition of early Arabic Christian apologetics, showing its integration of Qurʾānic tropes to frame a high Christology.
• Birmingham: Husseini (2011) analyses the treatise’s rhetorical sequencing—beginning from Qurʾānic categories and progressing to Nicene claims—while emphasizing its intended Muslim audience. Takawi (2019) examines the Trinitarian formula in fols. 99r–102r, tracing its exegetical and interfaith functions (see Appendix A).
• Codicology: Digital library catalogues (Sinai Manuscripts Digital Library; Library of Congress) confirm its 8th–9th century date, Kufic script, and preservation context.

Sinai 154 thus provides a concrete, early example of Christian theology framed in terms recognisable within Islamic discourse, aligning in part with Nazarene/Ebionite emphases while moving toward Chalcedonian conclusions.

3.7. Nazarene/Ebionite Profiles in the Arabicized Environment

Patristic notices portray early Jewish–Christian groups—labeled “Nazarenes” or “Ebionites”—as Torah-observant, anti-sacrificial, anti-anthropomorphic, and committed to a “prophet-first” Christology (Kinzig 2007; Wilhite 2015; Joseph 2017). While these portrayals are polemical, the profile they convey is historically attested and recognisable in the early Islamic milieu. Samaritan and Jewish–Christian communities in the Levant and Arabia entered this milieu with theological emphases congruent to certain Qurʾānic depictions of Jesus: uncompromising monotheism, law-centred piety, and messianic identity framed as prophetic rather than ontological. Such continuities help explain why some Christians, Jews, and Samaritans found shared starting points—Messenger, Word, Spirit; law and obedience; divine transcendence—even while reaching sharply different conclusions.

The historical plausibility of this profile is strengthened by early Arabic-speaking contexts in which such ideas continued to circulate. Samaritan and Jewish–Christian communities in the Levant and Arabia—already shaped by Aramaic and Syriac traditions—entered the early Islamic milieu with theological emphases congenial to Qur’anic discourse: the oneness and transcendence of God (tawḥīd), law-centered piety, and recognition of Jesus as al-Masīḥ in a prophetic (not ontological) sense. For example, Samaritan Pentateuch traditions replaced anthropomorphic terms such as ish (“man”) in Exodus 15:3 with gibor (“hero”), a rendering echoed in early Samaritan Arabic translations (Zewi 2015, pp. 98, 116). These communities also preserved a Deuteronomy 18:15–18 expectation of a prophet like Moses, a theme later appropriated in Islamic interpretations of Jesus and Muhammad (Macdonald 1964; Anderson and Giles 2012).

Such continuities help explain why certain Christians, Jews, and Samaritans in the early Islamic period found shared starting points with Muslim interlocutors—Messenger, Word, Spirit; law and obedience; divine transcendence—even as they defended sharply different conclusions about Jesus’ identity and work. The Ebionite–Nazarene profile’s intelligibility within an Arabicized debate space shows that these beliefs were not marginal curiosities but components of a wider religious conversation that spanned late antique Judaism, diverse Christianities, Samaritanism, and emergent Islam (Braswell 2000).

This profile also extended into eschatological expectation. Samaritan Taheb traditions looked for a Mosaic-type restorer; Nazarene/Ebionite currents anticipated a prophet-like figure rather than a divine Son; and the Qurʾān depicts ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ as eschatological judge while rejecting his ontological divinity (Q 4:171; 5:72–75). Early Arabic Christian texts such as Sinai 154 echo this sequencing: fols. 120r–125v (see Appendix A) present Jesus as eschatological victor within a framework recognisable to Muslims, before advancing to Trinitarian confession. These convergences clarify how eschatology too belonged to the shared debate space, while divergence on divinity marked the confessional boundary.

3.8. Why This Context Matters Methodological Cautions

Placing Samaritan, Jewish–Christian, Qurʾānic, and early Arabic apologetic texts like Sinai 154 within the minority-under-Islam context answers the call to “bridge the historical gap” and conceptualize meaningful Muslim–Christian dialogue. It clarifies why law-centred and prophet-first idioms became common starting points across communities, and why the Qurʾān’s Christological vocabulary can be read intelligibly alongside Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles. For this study, the crucial implication is that such categories—Messenger, Word, Spirit; law; divine unity—provide a historically grounded platform for interfaith conversation. This rationale underlies the “bridge-first” model, in which dialogue begins with Qurʾān-affirmed titles for Jesus before advancing toward Chalcedonian claims. To avoid over-reading or genealogical speculation, methodological cautions are flagged here briefly and treated more fully in Section 6.3.

4. Qurʾānic Data: Jesus and the Naṣārā in the Late Antique Debate Space

The following sections present the results of the textual analysis, beginning with the Qurʾānic portrayal of Jesus and the naṣārā. The contextual mapping in Section 3 allows us to read the Qurʾān’s portrayal of Jesus and the naṣārā not as an isolated phenomenon, but as participating in the broader Arabicised debate space of Late Antiquity. In this environment, categories such as law-centred piety, prophetic authority, divine transcendence, and the titles “Word” (kalima) and “Spirit” (rūḥ) were common currency, even as their meanings were contested. The Qurʾān’s Christological affirmations and limits can thus be compared with Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles without presuming derivation. The Qurʾān’s Christological affirmations and limits can thus be compared with Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles without presuming derivation. This comparative frame will be further developed in Section 6, where overlaps and non-overlaps are tabulated.

4.1. Q 4:171 and Q 5:72–75—Titles and Limits

Q 4:171 accords Jesus four titles: al-Masīḥ, Messenger of God (rasūl Allāh), His Word “cast to Mary” (kalimatuhu alqāhā ilā Maryam), and a Spirit from Him (rūḥun minhu). It then warns against ghulūw (“excess”) and constrains Trinitarian formulations. Q 5:72–75 reinforces these limits, rejecting worship of Christ as divine and affirming his mortality.

Overlap: Prophetology (high), law affirmation, transcendence of God’s nature. Read alongside Q 5:72–75, where Jesus’ status is resolutely that of messenger, the denial of crucifixion aligns naturally with the broader anti-anthropomorphic, law-centered piety that the Qurʾān commends to its audiences. This cluster of claims—high titles and mission; denial of divine sonship; denial of crucifixion—coheres as a “prophethood-first” profile.

Non-overlap: Worship of Christ, ontological divinity. Sinai 154 engages directly with this terrain, citing Q 4:171 and Q 16:102 to open its De Trinitate argument (see Appendix A, fols. 99r–102r). It treats “Word” and “Spirit” as shared points of recognition, then redefines them within a Nicene framework. This mirrors the Samaritan/Nazarene practice of starting from shared premises—Torah, prophecy, divine unity—before articulating distinctive claims.

4.2. Q 4:157 and Q 9:30—Denial of Crucifixion and Divine Sonship

Q 4:157 denies that Jesus was crucified, asserting instead that it appeared so; Q 9:30 rejects divine sonship as a form of unbelief. Q 4:157 denies that the opponents “killed/crucified” Jesus; later traditions vary on the mechanism (substitution, appearance, divine deliverance), but the immediate exegetical upshot is that vicarious, cultic atonement does not occupy the Qurʾān’s soteriological center.

Overlap: Rejection of sacrificial cult (parallels Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite scepticism toward temple sacrifice).

Non-overlap: NT theology of atoning death; incarnational sonship.These verses show the limits of overlap: while all three profiles resist anthropomorphic and sacrificial atonement imagery, only Chalcedonian Christianity affirms the incarnation and atoning death. In Sinai 154, the crucifixion is affirmed but reinterpreted in terms accessible to an Islamic audience, appealing to prophetic precedent and divine justice before addressing atonement (see Appendix A, fols. 110r–112v).

4.3. Q 2:62; Q 5:69; Q 22:17; Q 3:52; Q 61:14—Community Profiles

Taken together, these verses highlight the Qurʾān’s recognition of the naṣārā as a distinct community, even as it delimits the boundaries of acceptable belief. This overlap and divergence invite a broader synthesis, which the following section develops. These passages depict the naṣārā alongside Jews, Sabians, and others as potential recipients of divine reward, conditional on faith and righteousness. Q 3:52 and Q 61:14 portray the anṣār as Jesus’ disciples, faithful helpers of God.

Overlap: Recognition of naṣārā as a defined community; affirmation of discipleship as obedience to prophetic mission.

Non-overlap: Qurʾānic delimitation of acceptable belief; non-Trinitarian theology.

For Nazarene/Ebionite comparison, the Qurʾān’s community framing aligns with the emphasis on Torah-keeping and prophetic fidelity. Sinai 154’s pastoral tone in its opening sections mirrors this frame, presenting Christians as obedient monotheists who honour prophetic teaching before introducing higher Christology (see Appendix A, fols. 93–96r). As

Table 1. Qurʾānic Overlaps and Non-Overlaps.

Passage(s)	Key Themes	Overlap with Samaritan/Nazarene-Ebionite Profiles	Non-Overlap
Q 4:171; Q 5:72–75	Titles, Trinitarian limits	High prophetology; law; divine transcendence	Worship of Christ; ontological divinity
Q 4:157; Q 9:30	Crucifixion; sonship	Anti-sacrificial cult; transcendence	Atoning death; incarnational sonship
Q 2:62; Q 5:69; Q 22:17; Q 3:52; Q 61:14	Community identity; discipleship	Torah piety; prophetic obedience	Non-Trinitarian theology; belief delimitation

demonstrates, the Qurʾān affirms Jesus with exalted titles yet rejects ontological divinity and atoning death, producing a profile of overlap in prophetology, law, and divine transcendence, but sharp non-overlap in worship, sonship, and atonement.

4.4. Why This Matters: An Integrated Synthesis for the Comparison

Situating Samaritan, Jewish–Christian, Qurʾānic, and early Arabic apologetic texts such as Sinai 154 within the minority-under-Islam context a responsible synthesis of these scattered references. This step unites multiple strands—textual variants, patristic notices, Qurʾānic categories—into a comparative portrait that can now be analysed systematically.

The portrait that emerges identifies four principal axes of debate: prophetology (whether Jesus is construed first as prophet or as pre-existent divine figure), law (continuity and observance versus fulfilment and transformation), sacrifice (suspicion of the cultic system versus cross as atonement), and divine attributes (avoidance of anthropomorphism versus incarnational language). As Acts 3:11–26 shows early Christian preaching portrayed Jesus as the fulfilment of covenantal promises—a theme that resonates in Muslim contexts and underscores the contested but shared categories of the Arabicised debate space (Hyun 2016). By drawing these strands together, the comparison avoids atomistic readings of isolated texts and instead produces a coherent profile recognisable across Samaritan, Nazarene/Ebionite, and Qurʾānic materials.

This integrated synthesis matters for two reasons. Historically, it clarifies why certain idioms—law-centred piety, prophetic messianism, divine transcendence—circulated as publicly available categories within an Arabicised, multi-confessional environment. Analytically, it furnishes a structured basis for the next stage of the study: juxtaposing the Qurʾānic data directly with Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles. While the immediate purpose here is comparative, the broader implication is dialogical: by showing why these categories proved intelligible across confessional lines, the synthesis also indicates why they remain a viable platform for interfaith recognition today—a point developed further in Section 6 and Section 7. The Qurʾān itself supplies both the very categories with which dialogue can begin and the points at which conversation tightens. This integrated reading lays the foundation for the practical implications explored in Section 4.5.

4.5. Interfaith Dialogue Implications

The Arabicized environment described above offers more than historical context; it provides tested strategies for constructive engagement that remain relevant today. Law-centred, prophet-first frames were not abstract theological constructs but operative tools in real discourse under Islam. They enabled minority communities to present their beliefs intelligibly in a shared linguistic and conceptual medium while retaining doctrinal distinctives.

Based on the comparison, Sinai Arabic MS 154 offers a clear precedent. Its De Trinitate treatise begins with Qurʾānic categories—Messenger, Word, Spirit; divine unity; prophetic mission—and only then unfolds Nicene and Chalcedonian claims. This sequencing allowed its Christian author to affirm common ground, clarify potential misunderstandings (“false friends” such as kalima ≠ Logos), and advance high Christology without forfeiting dialogue.

Taken together, these themes—titles, law, fulfilment motifs, ontological delimitations, and eschatological hope—yield a coherent Qurʾānic profile of Jesus and the naṣārā. While this profile is historically intelligible within the wider debate space surveyed in Section 3, its broader significance emerges in how such categories may serve as a basis for constructive dialogue today. One further dimension, however, deserves attention: the shared messianic expectation that shaped both Qurʾānic and Jewish–Christian hopes, to which we now turn. Section 5 will examine one case study—messianic expectation—where Samaritan, Nazarene/Ebionite, and Qurʾānic profiles overlap yet diverge, showing how a bridge-first logic could operate at the eschatological level.

5. Eschatological Expectation: A Test Case for Overlap/Non-Overlap

Building on the contextual analysis of Section 3, the overlap analysis in Section 4—particularly in the areas of prophetic titles, law-centred piety, and divine transcendence—helps explain why Muslim messianic expectation can be an effective point of contact in dialogue. Within the Qurʾān and later Islamic tradition, al-Masīḥ ʿĪsā is a prophet of exceptional status who will return to defeat evil and establish justice before the Day of Judgment. In many Sunni traditions, his return is closely linked to the appearance of the al-Mahdī; in others, Jesus fulfils the eschatological role himself.

While differing in scope and content, this expectation shares elements with Samaritan Taheb hope and the Nazarene/Ebionite anticipation of a Moses-like restorer (Deut 18:15–18). In all three frames, the messianic figure is bound to divine law, vindicates God’s people, and executes judgment—but without collapsing the figure into the ontological identity of God.

5.1. Eschatology in Sinai Arabic MS 154

The De Trinitate treatise in Sinai Arabic MS 154 reflects this shared eschatological framework. In fols. 110r–112v, the text cites Q 3:55 to affirm Jesus’ exaltation “above” his enemies and his role in eschatological vindication (see Appendix A, fols. 110r–112v). The treatise presents this as part of a prophetic sequence, connecting Jesus’ victory to his mediatorial role in judgment (see Appendix A, fols. 120r–125v).

Here, the manuscript mirrors the bridge-first pattern:

• Shared recognition—affirms al-Masīḥ and Qurʾānic eschatological motifs.
• Prophetic continuity—situates Jesus within a legal-prophetic mission.
• Fulfilment argument—draws from biblical prophecy to claim that the expected judge is already revealed in Christ.
• Ontological step—advances to a Nicene interpretation of his authority to judge.

This sequencing parallels the Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite approach of beginning with agreed categories before introducing distinctive claims.

5.2. Overlap and Non-Overlap in Messianic Expectation

The same pattern recurs in eschatology (see

Table 2. Overlap and Non-Overlap in Messianic Expectation.

Tradition	Overlap with Islamic al-Masīḥ/al-Mahdī Expectation	Non-Overlap
Samaritan (Taheb)	Law-keeping restorer; vindication of God’s people	No role in divine incarnation; non-Trinitarian
Nazarene/ Ebionite	Prophet-like-Moses; Torah fidelity; judgment role	Rejects divinity of Messiah; denies atoning death
Sinai 154	Affirms prophetic mission, law, and judgment using Qurʾānic terms	Asserts ontological divinity; affirms crucifixion and resurrection

): Samaritan, Nazarene/Ebionite, and Qurʾānic traditions overlap in law-bound messianic hope but diverge on Christ’s ontological status and atoning role.” This table underscores that while there is significant thematic common ground, the theological conclusions diverge sharply. These comparative profiles, while already noted in earlier sections, underscore that the Qurʾānic Christology did not emerge in isolation but participated in a wider debate space where prophetic fidelity, Torah observance, and divine transcendence were common categories. For present purposes, the key point is that these overlaps supplied shared language without collapsing confessional boundaries—a dynamic that Sinai 154 exemplifies in its eschatological argument.

5.3. Bridge-First Dialogue at the Eschatological Level

The eschatological focus offers a test case for how a bridge-first logic can operate in practice. By starting with the Qurʾānic acknowledgment of Jesus as al-Masīḥ who will return to judge, dialogue partners can explore shared convictions about divine justice, prophetic authority, and the defeat of evil. From this shared platform, Christian theology—following the Sinai 154 pattern—can then unfold its distinctive claim: that the returning Judge is also the crucified and risen Lord.

This is not an attempt to blur doctrinal differences, but to structure the conversation so that it moves from recognition to redefinition, allowing the interlocutor to encounter higher Christology within a familiar eschatological frame. Historical evidence from Sinai 154 confirms that such a sequence is not a modern invention, but an early, contextually tested mode of engagement under Islam. By sequencing dialogue in this way—shared expectation first, contested ontology last—the eschatological theme illustrates the broader bridge-first model that will be developed in Section 7.

6. Integrated Analysis

6.1. Overlaps in the Arabicised Debatespace

Having analysed the Qurʾānic profile in detail (Section 4) and tested the framework through the eschatological case study (Section 5), this section integrates the findings into a structured comparative profile. The purpose here is not to rehearse the evidence again, but to draw the strands together across four axes: prophetology, law, sacrifice, and divine attributes as shown in

Table 3. Comparative Matrix of Qurʾān, Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX/MT, and Nazarene/Ebionite Profiles.

Category	Qurʾān	Samaritan Pentateuch (SP)	LXX/MT	Nazarene/Ebionite	Overlap/Non-Overlap
Prophetology	Jesus as al-Masīḥ, rasūl Allāh, kalima, rūḥ (Q 4:171); prophetic mission (Q 3:49–50)	Taheb expectation (Deut 18:15–18) with strong Mosaic typology	SP emphasises Mosaic likeness more than MT; LXX uses prophētēs	Messiah as Mosaic-type prophet (Acts 3:22; Epiphanius)	Overlap: Prophet-first identity
Law-Centred Piety	Jesus confirms Torah (Q 3:50) and promotes obedience	Torah as sole canon; Sabbath, cultic laws reinforced	SP harmonises legal texts; MT retains original sequence; LXX varies	Torah observance alongside Jesus-belief	Overlap: Law as covenant identity
Anti-Anthropomorphism	Tanzīh theology (Q 42:11; Q 112:3)	Exod 15:3 “man of war” → “hero” (gibbōr)	LXX anēr polemistēs less theologically loaded	Avoid corporeal predicates for God	Overlap: Divine transcendence emphasis
Worship of Christ	Denied (Q 5:72–75)	Absent	Absent	Absent in theology; present in orthodoxy	Non-Overlap: Orthodox worship of Christ
Divine Sonship	Denied (Q 9:30)	Absent	Absent	Some messianic sonship claims without divinity	Non-Overlap: Ontological sonship
Atonement/Crucifixion	Crucifixion denied (Q 4:157); no atonement	Pentateuchal sacrificial system, no messianic atonement	Same as SP/MT depending on variant	Death acknowledged by some; no atoning role	Non-Overlap: NT atoning death
Later kalām	Codifies non-incarnation and non-atonement	N/A	N/A	N/A	Non-Overlap: Systematic theology diverges

. The overlaps—prophet-first identity, Torah fidelity, and divine transcendence—establish why the Qurʾānic Jesus was intelligible within Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite debates. The non-overlaps—worship of Christ, divine sonship, and atoning death—mark boundaries that safeguarded each tradition’s theological integrity.

Three primary areas of overlap emerge when comparing the Qurʾānic portrayal of Jesus with Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles, viewed against the textual backdrop of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Masoretic Text (MT).

• Prophetology

- Qurʾān: Jesus is al-Masīḥ, rasūl Allāh, kalimatuhu “cast to Mary,” and rūḥun minhu (Q 4:171), operating firmly within the prophetic office.

- Nazarene/Ebionite: Patristic sources depict Jesus as a prophet in the succession of Moses, fulfilling Deut 18:15–18 (Eusebius, HE 3.27; Epiphanius, Pan. 29–30).

- Samaritan: The Taheb expectation in SP (Deut 18:15–18) parallels this prophet-like Moses’ framework.

- Textual Note: The SP version of Deut 18:15 includes emphatic language reinforcing

Mosaic typology, more pronounced than in the MT; this emphasis is mirrored in Samaritan messianic expectation (Anderson and Giles 2012).

2.

Law-Centred Piety

- Qurʾān: Jesus affirms the Torah’s validity and his mission to confirm and clarify it (Q 3:50), aligning with the law’s enduring authority.

- Nazarene/Ebionite: Early Jewish–Christian groups maintained Torah observance alongside belief in Jesus as Messiah (Kinzig 2007; Wilhite 2015).

- Samaritan: SP preserves the Pentateuch as the sole scriptural canon; fidelity to Mos aic law is a defining marker.

- Textual Note: SP variants in legal passages (e.g., Deut 5, Sabbath laws) harmonise or emphasise cultic observance compared to MT, reinforcing legal centrality (Zewi 2015, pp. 88–90).

3.

Anti-Anthropomorphism

- Qurʾān: Affirms God’s transcendence (tanzīh)—“Nothing is like unto Him” (Q 42:11); “He begets not, nor is begotten” (Q 112:3).

- Nazarene/Ebionite: Avoidance of attributing divine sonship in ontological terms; rejection of incarnational formulations.

- Samaritan: SP rendering of Exod 15:3 replaces “man of war” (MT: ʾîš milḥāmâ) with “hero”(gibbōr), avoiding corporeal terminology; LXX parallels this moves with anērpolemistēs but in a less theologically charged register. In medieval Arabic Samaritan translations, terms are further softened to align with theological avoidance of anthropomorphism (Zewi 2015, p. 116).

These overlaps reflect category availability in the Arabicised debate space-concepts and emphases that could be recognised and engaged across communal boundaries.

The fact that they are attested in multiple textual traditions(SP, LXX, MT) strengthen the historical plausibility of shared conceptual ground.

6.2. Non-Overlaps and Doctrinal Boundaries

Alongside these points of convergence, several non-overlaps mark the Qurʾān’s distinct confessional stance as shown in Table 3:

• Worship of Christ

- Qurʾān: Explicitly rejects deifying Jesus—“They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘God is the Messiah’” (Q 5:72–75).

- Samaritan/Nazarene/Ebionite: Neither Samaritan theology nor Jewish–Christian groups worshipped Jesus as divine, but orthodox Christianity affirmed his worship based on NT witness (Phil 2:9–11; Rev 5:12–14).

2.

Divine Sonship

- Qurʾān: Rejects divine sonship as shirk (Q 9:30).

- Nazarene/Ebionite: Patristic reports suggest some may have accepted a form of messianic sonship without ontological divinity (Joseph 2017).

- Samaritan: No concept of divine sonship in messianic expectation.

3.

Atonement and Crucifixion

- Qurʾān: Denies Jesus’ crucifixion and death (Q 4:157); affirms that it was made to appear so.

- Nazarene/Ebionite: Some may have accepted Jesus’ death but not its salvific, aton-ing significance (Wilhite 2015).

- Samaritan: Sacrificial atonement is centred on Pentateuchal prescriptions, not on a messianic figure.

4.

Later kalām Development

- Post-Qurʾānic Islamic theology further codified Christological boundaries in debates with Christians and Jews, systematising rejection of incarnation and atonement (Thomas 2008).

- The persistence of these boundaries underscores that overlap does not erase confessional difference; rather, it provides a recognisable framework within which disagreement can be articulated.

6.3. Methodological Cautions

To interpret these overlaps responsibly, several cautions must be observed:

• Overlap ≠ Derivation

Shared emphases indicate common debatespace participation, not direct borrowing.

Both Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite traditions predate Islam in the region, making them part of the Qurʾān’s ambient context, not its “source material.”

2.

Chronological Care

Later Samaritan Arabic manuscripts (e.g., BL Or. 7562) and early Arabic Christian apologetics (Sinai Arabic MS 154) illustrate reception history under Islam. They show category continuity, but their specific formulations cannot be projected backwards into the Qurʾān’s formation (Zewi 2015, pp. 98, 180; Waltke 1970; Kahle 1959; Zahn 2015).

3.

Polemical Filters

Patristic heresiology distorts Jewish–Christian self-understanding. Reports on Nazarenes/Ebionites must be weighed against their polemical aims (Kinzig 2007; Wilhite 2015).

4.

Terminological Discipline

Distinguish naṣārā (Qurʾānic label for Christians) from anṣār (disciples); avoid conflating Qurʾānic kalima with Johannine Logos without qualification (Nazir-Ali 2006).

By holding these cautions in view, the comparison remains historically grounded, avoids over-reading, and preserves the theological integrity of each tradition. This integrated analysis thus sets the stage for the bridge-first model, which leverages shared categories for constructive engagement while respecting enduring doctrinal differences.

By retaining the full textual evidence (SP, LXX, MT) and comparative citations, this analysis provides a historically grounded, textually supported basis for the “bridge-first” approach. The overlaps supply the categories for initial engagement; the non-overlaps and cautions preserve theological integrity and prevent historical overreach.

This synthesis demonstrates that the Qurʾānic Jesus profile both intersects with and diverges from Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite configurations in ways consistent with Late Antique debate space. As already signaled in Section 3.8, methodological cautions are essential here: overlaps are not evidence of direct derivation but of shared category availability; later Samaritan Arabic witnesses must not be retrojected into Qurʾānic origins; patristic heresiology must be treated heuristically; and key terms (kalima, naṣārā) must be used with terminological discipline. By centralising these cautions, the analysis avoids genealogical speculation while preserving the Qurʾān’s own theological project. On this disciplined basis, we are now ready to move from historical and textual analysis to the constructive proposal: the Bridge-First model for dialogue (Section 7).

Comparative table showing overlaps and non-overlaps between the Qurʾānic portrayal of Jesus, Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) tradition, LXX/MT textual forms, and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles. Row 1–3 indicate thematic and theological overlap (e.g., prophetology, law-centred piety, anti-anthropomorphism) as shared categories within the Arabicised debate space. Row 4–7 indicate non-overlap, marking doctrinal boundaries (e.g., worship of Christ, divine sonship, atonement, later kalām developments). Data are drawn from Qurʾānic verses (e.g., Q 4:171; Q 3:50; Q 5:72–75), SP textual variants (e.g., Deut 18:15–18; Exod 15:3), LXX/MT comparisons, and patristic descriptions of Jewish–Christian groups (Kinzig 2007; Wilhite 2015; Joseph 2017), supplemented by secondary analyses (Anderson and Giles 2012; Zewi 2015; Thomas 2008; Griffith 2013).

7. From History to Dialogue: The Bridge-First Model

The preceding sections have prepared the ground for a constructive proposal. Section 5 examined one case study—messianic expectation—where Samaritan, Nazarene/Ebionite, and Qurʾānic profiles overlap yet diverge, showing how a bridge-first logic could operate at the eschatological level. Section 6 then integrated the broader results of the comparison, mapping overlaps and non-overlaps across prophetology, law, sacrifice, and divine attributes, while centralising methodological cautions. A historical precedent for this staged approach is found in Sinai Arabic MS 154, where Qurʾānic categories (‘Word,’ ‘Spirit’) are first affirmed before advancing to Trinitarian confession. Its rhetorical sequence anticipates the bridge-first model proposed here for contemporary Muslim–Christian dialogue.

This section now moves from case-specific and analytical synthesis to a generalised dialogical framework. The “Bridge-First” model proposed here sequences dialogue in a way that begins with Qurʾān-affirmed titles for Jesus (Messenger, Word, Spirit), affirms shared commitments (law, monotheism, prophetic obedience), then advances from office to ontology, and only at the end engages the hardest points of divergence (divine sonship and the cross). This structure draws on historical precedent, especially Sinai Arabic MS 154, and resonates with contemporary dialogical principles such as Volf’s “shared core/thick edges” and Kerr’s “double integrity.”

The “bridge-first” model advocated here mirrors that logic as explained in Figure 1.

• Begin with Qurʾānic-acknowledged titles for Jesus.
• Affirm shared commitments (monotheism, prophetic obedience, reverence for law).
• Clarify conceptual non-equivalences.
• Move, only then, to contested theological claims.

The Bridge-First Model for Muslim–Christian dialogue, based on historical overlaps between Qurʾānic, Samaritan, and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles of Jesus. The model moves in four stages: Qurʾān-affirmed titles, shared commitments, progression from office to ontology, and addressing contested claims (divine sonship, crucifixion) last. Sinai Arabic MS 154 provides historical precedent for this sequential approach. This “bridge-first” model thus reflects not only historical practice but also a dialogical method suited for contemporary engagement.

7.1. The Bridge-First Sequence

The model unfolds in four movements, each building on the previous step and delaying the most contested issues until shared ground has been firmly established.

• Titles—Begin with Qurʾān-affirmed designations for Jesus (al-Masīḥ, Messenger of God, Word from Him, Spirit from Him; cf. Q 4:171). These titles carry theological weight in both Christian and Muslim traditions and create a recognised vocabulary for further exploration. (Fols. 99r-102r)
• Shared Commitments—Affirm the shared ground in monotheism, reverence for divine law, and recognition of prophetic mission. Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite trajectories illustrate that such commitments can coexist with high respect for Jesus without collapsing into divinity claims. (Fols. 93r-96r)
• From Office to Ontology—Move from Jesus’ prophetic role and eschatological authority toward questions of his identity. Here, Sinai Arabic MS 154 provides a historical precedent: the De Trinitate treatise begins with Qurʾānic categories, affirms shared commitments, and only later advances to Nicene Christology (Fols. 99r–102r; 110r–112v, see Appendix A).
• Hard Points Last—Address the most contested claims—divine sonship and the cross—only after mutual recognition of Jesus’ significance has been established. Historical polemics, such as those of al-Warrāq, show that these are the constraint points where discussion can easily stall unless preceded by careful framing. (Fols. 115r–118v; 120r–125v; 128r–132v)

While the main argumentative sequence of Sinai Arabic 154 is generally treated as ending at fol. 132v (Titles → Shared Commitments → Office to Ontology → Hard Points), the remaining folios (132r–139v) contain primarily doxological prayers, confessional Trinitarian formulae, and liturgical echoes. These function as a conclusion or devotional closure rather than as further argumentative development. For this reason, most modern analyses (Zaki 2020; Husseini 2011; Takawi 2019) do not treat fols. 132–139 as part of the rhetorical “Bridge-First” progression. They are acknowledged here as a confessional conclusion rather than a separate step of dialogical strategy.

7.2. Historical Precedent: Sinai Arabic MS 154

The bridge-first pattern is not merely theoretical. In Sinai Arabic MS 154, the author opens with Qurʾānic idioms (Q 4:171; Q 16:102), connects Jesus’ mission to prophetic continuity, and gradually introduces biblical prophecy fulfilment and Christ’s role in judgment (fols. 115r–118v; see Appendix A). The ontological step—asserting Jesus’ divinity—comes only after shared categories have been explored, mirroring the staged approach outlined above.

7.3. Constraint Points and Theological Frameworks

Al-Warrāq’s ninth-century polemics (Thomas 1992) against Christian claims demonstrate where dialogue historically met resistance: divine sonship was seen as a breach of tawḥīd, and the crucifixion was rejected as incompatible with God’s justice. Recognising these as fixed points of objection allows the bridge-first model to avoid premature confrontation, instead creating a sequence where these issues are addressed in the context of shared affirmation of God’s purposes in Jesus.

This Figure 2 sequencing resonates with Miroslav Volf’s A Common Word framework, which distinguishes between a shared core (monotheism, love of God and neighbour) and thick edges (confessional distinctives) (Volf et al. 2010). It also aligns with David Kerr’s “double integrity” principle, which insists that interfaith engagement must preserve the theological integrity of both traditions (Kerr 2000). The bridge-first model is a practical application of these principles. It seeks commonality without erasure, difference without hostility.

Each arrow represents a conversational progression, beginning with recognised Qurʾānic categories, moving through mutual affirmations, and only then engaging contested theological claims. Future research may extend this bridge-first framework to Syriac Christian, Coptic, and Jewish exegetical traditions not treated here, testing its applicability across a wider spectrum of Late Antique debates.

8. Conclusions

This study has traced the Qurʾānic portrayal of Jesus and the naṣārā within the Arabicised debate space of Late Antiquity, comparing it with Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles and situating all three in their shared linguistic and theological environment. By mapping both the overlaps—prophetology, law-centred piety, and anti-anthropomorphism and the non-overlaps—worship of Christ, divine sonship, and atonement—it has shown that the Qurʾānic Jesus can be historically contextualised without reducing the Qurʾān to a derivative of Jewish–Christian theology.

The textual evidence from the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the LXX, and the MT, alongside patristic notices and early Arabic Christian sources such as Sinai Arabic MS 154, demonstrates that these categories were publicly available and actively contested across confessions. This context explains why some Christians, Jews, and Samaritans found shared starting points with Muslim interlocutors, even as they defended sharply different theological conclusions.

The Bridge-First model proposed here offers a historically grounded strategy for Muslim–Christian engagement. This section notes both the promise of beginning with Qurʾān-affirmed categories as shared ground and the possible concern of instrumentalising Qurʾānic language. By acknowledging these tensions, the revised text frames the model not as a prescriptive tool but as an invitation to mutual exploration and dialogical trust. A brief reflection on contemporary use may be noted as well, since while rooted in Late Antique debate-space, the Bridge-First model offers a practical framework for present-day interfaith dialogue, showing how Qurʾān-affirmed categories can provide common ground without collapsing theological differences.

Beginning with Qurʾānic titles for Jesus, affirming shared commitments, moving from office to ontology, and addressing hard points last, it mirrors the sequential logic of early Arabic Christian apologetics and aligns with Volf’s “shared core/thick edges” and Kerr’s “double integrity.” Recent scholarship reinforces this approach: Reynolds (2021) highlights Qurʾānic intertextuality, Griffith (2013) trace its resonance in scriptural reasoning, and Hyun (2023) demonstrates how intertextual analysis can function as a bridge for dialogue.

In this way, the model preserves the theological integrity of both traditions while fostering mutual recognition and respect. It neither erases confessional boundaries nor neglects the call to bear witness to Christ in terms intelligible to the other. Grounding present-day interfaith conversation in this reconstructed historical debate space offers a tested and practical framework for building understanding without compromising conviction.