In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conversations in Canterbury DAVID MARSHALL This volume consists mainly of edited versions of the various papers and responses to papers that were prepared before the seminar and delivered in either public or private sessions in the course of its three days. However, a great deal of the seminar was naturally given over to unscripted discussion and conversation. On the first day of the seminar, lectures were delivered at King’s College London in sessions open to the public, with opportunity for questions to the speakers from a large audience. Video recordings of these sessions are available on the Building Bridges website.1 For its second and third days, the seminar moved into its private phase in the precincts of Canterbury Cathedral, where participants met in plenary sessions and in small groups for further discussion , which now focused on the selected Christian and Islamic texts included in this volume. It has been the experience of many Building Bridges participants that the most valuable dialogue occurs in these private sessions, especially in the time spent in small groups of seven or eight in which it is possible to develop conversation marked by theological depth, personal openness, and a willingness to engage in frank questioning. The intention here is to offer a brief account of some of the main topics that emerged in these conversations in Canterbury. Differences between Christian and Islamic perspectives will be evident in what follows, but so will some similarities. Differences between coreligionists will also be apparent. Indeed, some participants made observations or assertions that may strike some readers as marginal to the mainstream of their respective traditions. As at many other Building Bridges seminars, it was impossible to go far into the discussion of this year’s theme of death, resurrection, and human destiny without raising the fundamental question of how Christians and Muslims understand what scripture is and what expectations we have of our different scriptures.2 A Muslim participant admitted to being puzzled by N. T. Wright’s comment (included in his chapter in this volume) that ‘‘belief in resurrection 231 232 Conversations in Canterbury hardly features in the Old Testament at all.’’ In contrast, the reality of the resurrection is affirmed on nearly every page of the Qurān. Why, then, had God not clearly revealed such a vital doctrine in the Old Testament? Various points were made in response. For Christians, the Old Testament is understood as providing not ‘‘a list of true doctrines’’ but rather a narrative of the people of God, a narrative ‘‘within which you live and within which you learn as you go along.’’ Furthermore, another Christian pointed out, the Bible is not ‘‘a book.’’ Rather, it is a collection of books, as the Greek plural ta biblia indicates. The plurality of the books of the Bible is often ignored by Christians. Here we should note the considerable influence of the King James Version, which gives a strong impression of the Bible as one book within which all its characters speak the same Jacobean English. The richness and diversity of the human authorship of the biblical books should be affirmed by Christians and does not contradict their divine inspiration. There is thus an unfolding revelation within the Bible, which explains why a doctrine as important to the Christian faith as the resurrection is not present in its earlier books. A Christian also made the point, now very familiar in Christian–Muslim dialogue, that whereas for Muslims the Qurān is the Word of God, for Christian it is ultimately Jesus who is the living Word of God, to whom the words of scripture bear witness; another Christian, however, warned against pressing the Qurān–Jesus analogy too far and thus underplaying the proper sense in which the Bible remains the Word of God for Christians. A Muslim pointed out that there is some parallel to the idea of Jesus as the living Word in the description in Shı̄ı̄ Islam of the imām as al-qurān al-nāt .iq (‘‘the speaking Qurān’’) and of the text of the Qurān as al-qurān al-s .āmit (‘‘the silent Qurān’’). There was further exploration of the question of what scripture is as well as its relationship to tradition. An interesting intra-Muslim exchange concerned how to understand the Arabic word ‘‘kitāb.’’ Although this has often been translated ‘‘book,’’ one Muslim preferred ‘‘scripture’’; others raised the question...

Share