56 | CHAPTER 3
For the time being, we are primarily concerned with the diachronic devel-
opment and comparative study of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim mono-
theisms. This is what underlies the periodization proposed, and mainly justi-
fies the effort invested, given that all three are important to how we
understand our past and our own times. (So, of course, are Greek philosophy
and Roman law.) Is there, then, something characteristic, perhaps even dis-
tinctive, about the process of maturation undergone by rabbinic Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam that encourages and facilitates our comparative effort
and confirms the justness of the periodization?
As a first move, both Christianity and Islam had to disentangle themselves
from Judaism (and even rabbinic Judaism had to emerge from Temple Juda-
ism). Arguably, in the case of Christianity, this was not fully achieved until
the late fourth century.^21 For Islam, as in many other things, the process of
growing up was hugely accelerated—the Prophet already separated himself
from the Jews at Medina, as we can see in the evolving tone of the Qurʾān’s
references to them.^22 But even once all three monotheisms stand completely
alone, and often in opposition, it is possible to see that each arrives at its in-
dependence, and eventually its mature form, by a roughly comparable set of
steps, three stages of development that are noted here not because they nec-
essarily have any wider typological application (the application they already
have is quite wide enough), but simply because they work for the traditions
in question and the period proposed.
The three stages may be called the prophetic, the scriptural, and the exe-
getical.^23 The first of these is a brief but intense, transformative (perceived)
encounter between God and a human being. This prophet, as he is called,
may or may not record his encounters with God in durable form. He is more
likely to communicate them to certain intimates, as a result of which he is
accepted as their teacher and may come to be seen as the leader of a social or
even political group. The scriptural phase follows, more commonly—but not
necessarily—after the prophet’s demise, and may last just a few years, or cen-
turies. During this period, disciples write down the prophet’s experiences
21 N. Koltun- Fromm, “Defining sacred boundaries,” in Rousseau (ed.), Late Antiquity [2:9]
556–71.
22 N. A. Stillman, “yahūd,” EIs^2 11.240.
23 Or “patristic” as I had it in the article mentioned in n. 1 above. M. Weber (ed. H. E. Kippen-
berg ), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Teilband 2: Religiöse Gemeinschaften (Tübingen 2001) 177–218, distin-
guishes the prophet and his revelation, canonical scriptures, and “dogmas,” emphasizing credal formula-
tions over the process of exegesis (with little understanding of Islam and almost no knowledge of Eastern
Christianity). Assmann, Kulturelle Gedächtnis [2:89] 65, 93–97, 163–64, 175–76, 276, 295–96, has
Prophetie, Kanonisierung, Auslegung ; Hodgson, Venture of Islam [1:1] 1.80–81, creative action/revela-
tion, group commitment thereto/institutionalization, cumulative interaction within the group/dialogue.
Schiavone, Invention of law [1:37] 35–37, detects a similar Weberian tripartition in F. Schulz, History of
Roman legal science (Oxford 1946). On the transition from prophecy via scripturalization to preaching in
the specifically Christian context, see A. Stewart- Sykes, From prophecy to preaching (Leiden 2001).