Analytic Research Essay: Comparing Abrahamic Texts and Traditions in an Australian Context

Institution: Australian Catholic University, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy
Unit: THSR302 Comparing Texts and Traditions in the Abrahamic Faiths (undergraduate, Semester 1 2026, online scheduled)
Assessment item: Assessment Task 3, Analytic Research Essay
Length: 2,000 words, with ten percent variance either way, excluding notes and the bibliography
Weighting: 40 percent of the unit mark, alongside the short written comparative piece at 20 percent and the oral presentation with written component at 40 percent
Referencing: Chicago notes and bibliography, 17th edition, with scripture cited by book, chapter and verse in the SBL abbreviations
Due: 11.55pm on the Friday of Week 12, uploaded through the unit Turnitin dropbox in Canvas

Assessment Context

Australian Catholic University runs THSR302 Comparing Texts and Traditions in the Abrahamic Faiths as an undergraduate unit in the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, offered online and scheduled in Semester 1 2026. The unit publishes three assessment tasks: a short written comparative piece weighted at 20 percent, an oral presentation with a written component weighted at 40 percent, and an Analytic Research Essay weighted at 40 percent and mapped to all three learning outcomes. The essay set here is the third of those tasks, and it carries the largest single demand for independent research in the unit.

Published content covers revelation, authority and inspiration across Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the differing hermeneutical traditions through which each community reads its own scripture, specific texts that the three traditions share or read in parallel, and the conceptual frameworks of comparative theology, interreligious learning and scriptural reasoning. The handbook states the aim of the essay plainly: students critically analyse the texts and traditions of the Abrahamic faiths in an Australian context. Two prerequisites, THCT100 What Christians Believe and PHIL107 Philosophy of World Religions, mean the cohort arrives already able to describe the three traditions before it is asked to compare them.

The three learning outcomes set the boundaries. Students must compare sacred texts with due awareness of the lived traditions within which communities read them, critically evaluate the methodological overlaps and differences among comparative theology, interreligious learning and scriptural reasoning, and apply comparative insights to a local Australian setting in light of international scholarship. An essay that performs a close comparison and stops there meets the first outcome and misses the other two. The Australian application is not a concluding courtesy. It is a third of the task.

Task Description

Select one scriptural complex that at least two of the three Abrahamic traditions read, adopt one of the three methods taught in the unit, and analyse how that method handles the material when the reading is set in a named Australian context. Argue a position. A survey of what three traditions believe about a shared figure scores in the middle band, because the task asks for analysis rather than description.

Print the chosen text complex, the method and the Australian setting at the head of the essay in three lines, so a marker can see the scope immediately.

Approved Text Complexes

Choose one. Work from a primary text in translation and name the translation you use, since translation choices carry interpretive weight in all three traditions.

• The binding of Isaac in Genesis 22:1 to 19 and the near sacrifice in Qur’an 37:99 to 111.
• Abraham or Ibrahim as covenant partner, with Genesis 12 and 17 read against Qur’an 2:124 to 132 and Romans 4.
• Mary or Maryam, with Luke 1:26 to 38 read against Qur’an 3:42 to 47 and Surah 19.
• Joseph or Yusuf, with Genesis 37 and 39 to 50 read against Qur’an 12.
• The golden rule and neighbour love, with Leviticus 19:18 and Matthew 22:34 to 40 read against the farewell sermon material in the hadith collections.
• Divine mercy and divine justice, with Exodus 34:6 to 7 read against Qur’an 7:156 and the ninety nine names tradition.
• The image of God in Genesis 1:26 to 27 read against the Islamic account of human vicegerency in Qur’an 2:30.

Method Selection

Adopt one method and hold to it. Explain in the opening section what the method commits you to, and cite the scholarship that defines it rather than a course handout.

1. Comparative theology, in the sense of learning from another tradition while remaining rooted in one’s own, following the approach associated with Francis Clooney.
2. Scriptural reasoning, in the sense of a facilitated group reading in which participants from different traditions read each other’s texts together.
3. Interreligious learning as a pedagogical practice, in the sense of structured encounter designed to produce understanding rather than agreement.

Requirements

1. Name the method in the opening 300 words and state what it assumes about readers, texts and truth claims. A essay that names scriptural reasoning and then performs a private comparison has not used the method.
2. Compare the texts as texts. Attend to wording, narrative sequence and the interpretive tradition that surrounds each passage, and quote the primary source rather than a summary of it.
3. Represent each tradition through its own readers. Cite at least one scholarly source written from within or by a specialist in each of the traditions you compare, so a Muslim reading of Surah 37 is not filtered only through Christian secondary literature.
4. Locate the Australian setting precisely. Name the city, suburb, school, hospital, council or congregation, describe the composition of the group, and say what the comparison would require there in facilitation, consent and time.
5. Use census or other quantitative data once, cited properly, to establish the local religious profile rather than relying on impressions about Australian pluralism.
6. Engage at least ten scholarly sources, six of them peer reviewed and published since 2018, and at least one primary source in translation per tradition compared.
7. State the strongest objection to your reading of the comparison and answer it, or concede what it costs. The unit’s second learning outcome requires critical evaluation of the method, not advocacy for it.
8. Follow Chicago notes and bibliography, 17th edition. Scripture appears in the text with chapter and verse. Wikipedia, lecture slides, parish newsletters and commercial study sites are not scholarly sources.

Required Structure

Section 1: Text, Method and Question

Approximately 300 words. Identify the text complex, define the method, state the Australian setting and put the question in a form a marker could contest.

Section 2: The Text in Its Own Traditions

Approximately 500 words. Read the passage in each tradition on its own terms first, including the interpretive community’s habits of reading, before drawing any comparison.

Section 3: Applying the Method

Approximately 450 words. Perform the comparison through the chosen method. Show what the method allows you to see and what it screens out.

Section 4: The Australian Setting

Approximately 500 words. Analyse the named setting with quantitative context, then argue what the comparison changes in practice there.

Section 5: Objection and Reply

Approximately 150 words. State the strongest challenge to your reading, whether from within a tradition or from the method’s critics, and respond.

Section 6: Conclusion

Approximately 100 words. State the finding, the basis for it and what remains unresolved. The bibliography begins on a new page.

Assessment Overview

Task	Requirement	Length	Weighting	Learning outcomes
Assessment Task 1	Short written comparative piece demonstrating critical understanding of Abrahamic texts and traditions	1,000 words	20%	LO1, LO2
Assessment Task 2	Oral presentation with written component on methodological issues in comparative theology, interreligious learning and scriptural reasoning	10 minutes plus 750 word component	40%	LO1, LO2
Assessment Task 3	Analytic Research Essay, rubric below	2,000 words	40%	LO1, LO2, LO3

Marking Criteria

Criterion	Weight	High distinction (85 and above)	Distinction (75 to 84)	Credit (65 to 74)	Pass and below (0 to 64)
Selection and justification of method	20%	Method defined from primary scholarship, its commitments stated, its fit with the text argued	Method clear, fit argued briefly	Method named, justification thin	No stated method, comparison by juxtaposition
Comparative reading of the texts	25%	Close attention to wording and sequence in each tradition, translations interrogated, interpretive traditions distinguished	Sound comparison, one tradition read thinly	Parallel summary with occasional comparison	Texts summarised from secondary sources only
Analysis of the Australian context	20%	Setting named and described, quantitative context used, implications for practice argued	Setting named, implications argued at a general level	Setting mentioned, analysis thin	Australian context asserted or absent
Engagement with scholarship	15%	Sources from within each tradition, recent peer reviewed work integrated into the argument	Good range, some reliance on surveys	Sources cited but not integrated	Insufficient or misrepresented scholarship
Critical evaluation and reply to objection	10%	Objection stated at its strongest, reply reasoned, limits of the method conceded	Objection noted and answered	Objection mentioned briefly	No engagement with criticism
Presentation and referencing	10%	Chicago notes and bibliography faultless, scripture cited consistently	Minor slips	Frequent errors, incomplete bibliography	Referencing unreliable or absent

Submission and Feedback

Submit through Canvas. Turnitin runs on submission, and the similarity report is read for copied prose and for writing patterns consistent with generated text. Marking is against the published rubric rather than graded on the curve. Feedback returns within fifteen working days as a completed rubric with written comment that names one move in the argument worth repeating. Extensions follow ACU’s assessment policy and go through the Faculty, not to the lecturer in charge by email. State the word count on the cover sheet, since work beyond the permitted variance is marked on the words inside the limit. Notes and the bibliography sit outside the count, and in text citations sit inside it.

Academic Integrity

Submit original work. Unattributed paraphrase counts as plagiarism in the same way as unattributed quotation. Material from a previous unit may be reused only where the essay advances a different question, and substantial reuse falls under the University’s academic misconduct procedure. Interreligious material carries an additional obligation, since quoting another tradition’s scripture respectfully means citing it accurately, naming the translation, and not bending a passage to fit an argument the community it belongs to would reject. Do not upload unit materials to commercial study sites.

Learning Materials and References

Abdelnour, Mohammed Gamal. 2023. “The Qur’an and the Bible: Abrogation (naskh) or Confirmation (tasdiq)?” Religions 14 (7): 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14070856.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2022. Religious Affiliation in Australia. Canberra: ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/religious-affiliation-australia.

Avci, Betul. 2018. “Comparative Theology and Scriptural Reasoning: A Muslim’s Approach to Interreligious Learning.” Religions 9 (10): 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9100297.

De Sondy, Amanullah, Michelle A. Gonzalez, and William S. Green. 2020. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: An Introduction to Monotheism. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Mubarokah, Lailatin. 2023. “Theological-Based Dialogue in the Practice of Scriptural Reasoning at Young Interfaith Peacemaker Community.” el Harakah: Jurnal Budaya Islam 25 (2). https://doi.org/10.18860/eh.v25i2.23234.

Ralston, Joshua. 2020. Law and the Rule of God: A Christian Engagement with Shari’a. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roebben, Bert, and Klaus von Stosch. 2022. “Religious Education and Comparative Theology: Creating Common Ground for Intercultural Encounters.” Religions 13 (11): 1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13111014.

Syeed, Najeeba, and Heidi Hadsell, eds. 2020. Critical Perspectives on Interreligious Education: Experiments in Empathy. Leiden: Brill.

Verification note. The unit code, title, faculty, online scheduled delivery in Semester 1 2026, the two prerequisites, the three learning outcomes, the content list, the three assessment tasks at 20, 40 and 40 percent, and the seven representative texts reproduced above are published on the ACU Handbook entry for THSR302. Word counts for the three tasks, the Chicago referencing style, the ten percent variance and the Week 12 deadline follow Faculty of Theology and Philosophy convention and are not stated on the public page, so check them against the unit outline in Week 1 and adjust before submitting. The task order, with the research essay as Assessment Task 3, follows the sequence in which the handbook lists the three items.

Model Essay: Reading the Akedah Across Two Traditions

The binding of Isaac rewards a comparative reading because Genesis 22:1 to 19 and Qur’an 37:99 to 111 tell one story toward two different ends, and a Year 9 class in western Sydney will notice the divergence before anyone explains it. Genesis names Isaac and supplies a ram caught in a thicket. The Qur’anic account leaves the son unnamed in most readings and replaces the slaughter with a mighty ransom, so the texts part company exactly where a scriptural reasoning circle would want to slow down. Placing the passages side by side without a method yields comparison by juxtaposition, and juxtaposition is not analysis. Mohammed Gamal Abdelnour argues that the Qur’an never presents itself as an abrogator of earlier scripture but as a confirmer across a dozen occurrences, which reframes the exercise as abrogation or confirmation rather than supersession (Abdelnour 2023, 4). That argument changes what a student does in the room, since the question becomes how each community reads its own book beside the other’s, not which book displaces which. Pairing a shared text with a stated method and a named Australian setting turns a devotional comparison into a claim a marker can test. The Akedah works well for this because both traditions treat the story as a lesson about trust, yet they locate the lesson in different narrative moments.

Census data keeps the Australian setting from becoming decorative. The 2021 Census recorded 38.9 per cent of Australians reporting no religion, with Islam at 3.2 per cent and Hinduism at 2.7 per cent, which means a classroom audience is now mixed between religious and secular positions rather than divided between Christian denominations (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022). Bert Roebben and Klaus von Stosch describe how comparative theology and religious education can be brought into conversation through performative learning, where students enter another tradition’s space and read its texts as guests rather than as tourists (Roebben and von Stosch 2022, 9). Their account insists that short encounters do not produce understanding, which bears directly on how a school or council should budget time for a scriptural reasoning session. An essay section can carry that point if it names a real setting, for example an interfaith circle hosted by a local council library, and says what the method would require there in facilitation, consent and follow up.

Guesthood, Trust and Pace

Reading another tradition’s scripture in public raises questions that a private essay does not, and the literature on facilitated dialogue treats those questions as central rather than incidental. Lailatin Mubarokah’s case study of a youth interfaith community in Indonesia finds that scriptural reasoning can work at grassroots level because its core principle of adaptability allows non specialists to participate, which contradicts the assumption that text based dialogue belongs only to religious elites (Mubarokah 2023, 5). Her finding matters for the Australian setting, where a parish, mosque or synagogue may have few members trained in comparative method and yet wants to host something more substantial than a shared meal. Trust does not arrive with the method. It accumulates through repeated sessions, consistent facilitation and a rule that nobody is asked to defend an entire tradition. Students who treat the Australian application as a paragraph about multiculturalism miss the point, because the setting is where the method is tested and where its costs become visible. A strong essay will say who would need to be in the room, who would be absent, and what the facilitator must do to keep the conversation from becoming either a debate or a performance of agreement.

Method or Neutral Ground

A familiar student question concerns whether any of these methods is actually neutral, and the honest answer is that none is. Betul Avci examines comparative theology and scriptural reasoning together and argues that both carry liberal and postliberal features without settling into either taxonomy, which means a student cannot claim methodological innocence for choosing one (Avci 2018, 2). Four markers separate a defensible application of method from a decorative one:

1. The method is defined before the texts are introduced, and its assumptions about truth claims are stated rather than implied.
2. Each tradition is represented through a scholar or reader who belongs to it, not only through outsiders studying it.
3. The comparison reports what the method screens out, including the doctrinal disagreements it declines to resolve.
4. The Australian application names what would change in practice, not merely that dialogue is valuable.

Students who keep those four markers visible tend to write an essay that reads as an argument. Students who skip them write a comparison that a marker can only grade on coverage. Comparative theology and scriptural reasoning differ most sharply on the question of the reader’s own commitments, since the first works from within a tradition and the second brackets those commitments long enough to read together. Choosing between them is itself an argument, and the rubric rewards making it explicit.

Grassroots Rooms, Real Limits

Optimism about interreligious method needs a counterweight, and the limits are easier to state than to solve. Facilitated scriptural reasoning depends on participants who feel safe enough to say what they actually think, and a group where one tradition holds institutional power will produce polite agreement rather than reading. Australian pluralism is also unevenly distributed, since a capital city school may contain five traditions while a regional town may contain one, and a method designed for difference does little in a room without it. Syeed and Hadsell collect accounts of interreligious education that treat empathy as a practice to be taught rather than a feeling to be hoped for, and their contributors report that experiments fail most often through poor design rather than bad will (Syeed and Hadsell 2020). The essay that acknowledges those constraints reads as stronger than the essay that celebrates dialogue without cost. Conceding a limit costs a student very little and gains a great deal, because the criterion on critical evaluation asks for exactly that concession.

Conclusion

Settle the text and the method before reading anything else, because a comparison without a method will drift into summary no matter how much scholarship sits behind it. Read each passage inside its own tradition first, and resist the pull to compare too early, since the interesting differences only emerge once each reading is taken seriously on its own terms. Choose an Australian setting you can actually describe, with numbers and a composition, rather than a generic claim about a multicultural society. Census data and one good recent article will do more for the context section than five general statements about diversity. Write Section 5 while the argument is still fresh, since stating the strongest objection forces precision in the sections before it. Check the Chicago notes, confirm the translations you quote, and leave enough of the week to read the similarity report before the dropbox closes.

Phoebe as Deacon and Patron: Women’s Leadership in Romans 16:1–2

Research Question and Method

How does Romans 16:1–2 present Phoebe’s role in the church at Cenchreae, and what does that presentation suggest about women’s leadership in the earliest Christian movement? The paper argues that Paul describes Phoebe as a recognised church minister and a socially influential patron, so her example supports a broader account of women holding authorised, public roles in early Christian communities. The argument does not claim that Phoebe exercised every form of leadership later churches would recognise. It claims, more modestly, that Paul’s language gives her a standing that translations such as “servant” or “helper” often obscure.

The study uses a social-historical method joined to close exegetical analysis. A social-historical lens suits the question because Paul’s two titles for Phoebe, diakonos and prostatis, gain meaning from Greco-Roman practices of association, patronage, hospitality, and civic service (Hylen, 2018). The method therefore treats Romans 16:1–2 not as a timeless statement about church offices but as a commendation written for a particular congregation in a particular social world. Exegesis remains central: the Greek terms, Paul’s syntax, and the rhetorical purpose of the commendation determine what the social evidence may support.

Historical and Social Context

Cenchreae was Corinth’s eastern harbour, a busy port with travellers, merchants, and resident communities from across the eastern Mediterranean. A port town offered opportunities for women of means to exercise influence through property, hospitality, and patronage, even within a society that formally restricted many forms of female public authority. Phoebe’s association with a specific congregation at Cenchreae therefore matters. Paul does not introduce her as an anonymous believer; he identifies her with a local assembly and gives her a role within it.

Greco-Roman patronage shaped social relationships through reciprocal obligation. A patron supplied protection, resources, advocacy, or hospitality; clients responded with loyalty, honour, and public recognition. Hylen (2018) argues that Roman women commonly exercised agency through such networks, and that modern readers often underestimate that agency because they impose later assumptions about domestic confinement onto antiquity. Phoebe’s description as a “benefactor of many” places her inside this familiar social economy. She likely had resources, connections, and a reputation that made her useful to Paul and to other Christians.

Early Christian communities also met in households, which made household leadership socially significant. A woman who controlled a household could host a congregation, fund its activities, represent it to outsiders, and facilitate travel. Hylen (2023) shows that Phoebe’s roles as deacon, letter carrier, and patron fit together within this setting. Her position was not an anomaly invented by modern interpreters; it resembles patterns of female agency visible elsewhere in the Roman world. The context therefore makes it plausible that Paul expected the Roman churches to receive Phoebe with respect rather than merely offer her temporary lodging.

Exegetical Analysis

Paul opens with a formal commendation: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae” (Romans 16:1, New Revised Standard Version). The verb synistēmi (“I commend”) introduces a recognised practice of recommending a trusted person to another community. Paul then calls Phoebe tēn adelphēn hēmōn (“our sister”), establishing her belonging within the Christian family before naming her function. The sequence matters. Phoebe is not presented first as a guest requiring charity; she is presented as a sister whose ministry and standing deserve honour.

The term diakonos is the exegetical crux. Paul writes that Phoebe was ousan diakonon tēs ekklēsias tēs en Kenchreais, literally “being a deacon/minister of the church in Cenchreae.” The phrase ties her service directly to a particular congregation, which makes a purely generic reading of “servant” less convincing. Sybrandi (2024) argues that Paul’s wording presents Phoebe in terms associated with recognised leadership and that translation choices have often diminished the force of the description. The masculine form diakonos is significant: Paul does not use a distinct feminine office title such as diakonissa, a term that developed later. Hylen (2023) accordingly reads Phoebe as a deacon, not merely a “deaconess” in the later, more restricted sense.

A counter-reading holds that diakonos here means “servant” in a general sense, as it can elsewhere in Paul’s letters. Paul does call himself and other coworkers diakonoi without always implying a fixed office. That objection deserves attention because lexical range matters. Even so, Phoebe’s case differs from a general reference to service: Paul attaches the title to “the church at Cenchreae,” then urges the Romans to welcome her “in a manner worthy of the saints” and assist her in whatever she may need (Romans 16:2). The context points beyond informal helpfulness toward an authorised representative of a congregation.

Paul’s second title, prostatis, carries further weight. He says Phoebe “has been a patron/benefactor of many and of myself as well” (prostatis pollōn egenēthē kai emou autou, Romans 16:2). The noun is rare in the New Testament, and its exact force remains debated. Kim (2024) argues that prostatis may refer especially to hospitality and advocacy for travelling Christians, including accommodation and protection. On that reading, Phoebe’s patronage was practical and relational rather than merely financial. Even interpreters who emphasise material benefaction agree that Paul presents Phoebe as someone who had assisted many believers, including Paul himself.

The rhetoric of Romans 16:2 reverses a normal expectation. Paul, the letter’s author and apostle, identifies a woman as his own benefactor. He then asks the Roman Christians to help her. As Sybrandi (2024) observes, the request gives Phoebe social capital in Rome before she arrives; Paul publicly authorises her mission as his trusted envoy. Most scholars therefore identify her as the likely carrier of Romans, and possibly as someone who could explain its contents to its first hearers (Hylen, 2023). A letter carrier in the ancient world was not simply a courier. The carrier could interpret the sender’s intentions, answer questions, and represent the sender’s interests.

Theological and Hermeneutical Evaluation

Romans 16:1–2 contributes to a theological account of women’s ministry by showing that early Christian leadership could be personal, local, and publicly acknowledged without being identical to later clerical office. Phoebe’s diakonos title connects her to ordered service within a congregation. Her prostatis role connects her to the wider economy of patronage that made missionary travel and congregational life possible. The two roles reinforce each other: she possessed both ecclesial recognition and social influence.

The interpretive disagreement persists because the passage sits at the intersection of text, translation, and contemporary ecclesial practice. Communities that restrict women from ordained ministry may translate diakonos as “servant” and prostatis as “helper,” preserving a distinction between Phoebe’s service and male oversight. Communities that affirm women’s ordination may translate the terms as “deacon” and “leader” or “patron,” seeing Phoebe as evidence that women held recognised ministerial roles from the beginning. Both readings must account for the same Greek words; they differ in how much weight they give to Paul’s congregational specificity, the history of the diaconate, and the social meaning of patronage.

A careful theological reading should avoid two errors. It should not turn Phoebe into a modern church officer and then claim that Romans 16 settles every later question about ordination. The Pauline evidence is too brief for that conclusion. Conversely, it should not reduce her to an informal helper. Paul’s commendation gives her public standing, identifies her with a congregation, and asks another group of churches to receive her accordingly. The text therefore supports women’s authorised participation in the church’s ministry, while leaving the precise institutional form of that participation open to further historical and theological discussion.

Conclusion

Romans 16:1–2 presents Phoebe as both a deacon of the church at Cenchreae and a patron whose assistance extended to Paul and many other believers. A social-historical reading of the passage shows that these titles carried public weight in a world organised through households, hospitality, and reciprocal obligation. The exegesis of diakonos and prostatis supports the thesis that Paul commended Phoebe as a trusted minister and influential benefactor, probably the carrier of his letter to Rome. The argument remains limited by the brevity of the passage: Paul does not describe Phoebe’s ordination, duties, or authority in institutional detail. Even with that limitation, the text gives substantial evidence that a woman occupied a recognised and consequential leadership role in the earliest Christian movement.

References

Epp, E. J. (2005). Junia: The first woman apostle. Fortress Press.

Hylen, S. E. (2018). Women in the New Testament world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190237593.001.0001

Hylen, S. E. (2023). Finding Phoebe: What New Testament women were really like. Eerdmans. https://eerdmans.com/9780802882066/finding-phoebe/

Kim, S. (2024). Phoebe, a host of Christian travelers: The meaning of προστάτις in Romans 16:2. Journal of Biblical Literature, 143(2). https://doi.org/10.15699/JBL.1432.2024.8

Sybrandi, M. (2024). Women leaders lost in translation? A study in Romans 16:1–16. Expository Times. https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246241287148

The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. (1989). National Council of Churches.

Reading the Akedah Across Jewish and Muslim Traditions: Scriptural Reasoning in Parramatta, Australia

Text complex: Genesis 22:1–19 and Qur’an 37:99–111
Method: Scriptural reasoning
Australian setting: Proposed interfaith reading circle at Parramatta Library, Sydney, New South Wales

Section 1: Text, Method and Question

The binding of Isaac in Genesis 22 and Abraham’s near sacrifice in Qur’an 37 present a shared narrative with significant theological differences. Both passages portray Abraham as a faithful servant of God, but they differ in the identity of the son, the narrative sequence and the meaning of the divine test. These differences make the passages suitable for scriptural reasoning, an interreligious practice in which Jewish, Christian and Muslim participants read and discuss their scriptures together. David Ford describes the practice as a form of interfaith engagement grounded in the wisdom of reading sacred texts with others, rather than attempting to settle theological disagreements.¹ Scriptural reasoning assumes that participants bring particular religious commitments to the discussion, that scripture carries authority within distinct communities, and that shared reading does not require agreement about religious truth. Avcı (2018) explains that the method respects religious particularity while allowing participants to learn from interpretations outside their own traditions.

The proposed setting is a voluntary interfaith reading circle at Parramatta Library in western Sydney, involving Jewish, Muslim and Christian adults, alongside interested participants who identify with no religion. The central question is whether scriptural reasoning can encourage mutual understanding of the Akedah without reducing the differences between Jewish and Muslim interpretations to a single religious message. The argument is that scriptural reasoning offers a productive approach because it makes interpretive differences available for discussion while preserving each tradition’s authority to explain its own scripture. However, its success depends on careful facilitation, informed participation and sufficient time to examine the passages beyond their familiar moral lessons.

Section 2: The Text in Its Own Traditions

The Jewish and Christian Reading of Genesis 22

Genesis 22 presents Abraham’s test through a sequence of commands, responses and interruptions. God instructs Abraham to take Isaac, “your son, your only son, whom you love,” and offer him as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:2, NRSVue). The repetition of relational language makes the command emotionally difficult. Abraham responds without recorded protest, travels with Isaac and prepares the altar. Isaac’s question about the missing lamb introduces a moment of tension, particularly when Abraham replies that God will provide the sacrifice (Gen. 22:7–8).

The narrative reaches its turning point when the angel intervenes and Abraham discovers a ram caught in a thicket (Gen. 22:11–13). God acknowledges Abraham’s obedience, and the passage concludes with renewed promises concerning descendants and blessing. The story therefore connects divine testing with covenantal continuity, although the silence of Abraham and Isaac leaves questions about suffering and moral responsibility unresolved. Schwartz (2023) argues that the Aqedah should not automatically be reduced to a conflict between religious obedience and secular ethics. Its Jewish significance may instead concern the tension between divine command and covenantal promise.

Jewish interpretations also reflect historical experiences of persecution, particularly when communities have understood Isaac’s willingness to die as a model of faithfulness.² Christian readers have frequently connected the beloved son, sacrifice and substitution with Jesus’ death and resurrection. Such readings draw on later Christian theological interpretation rather than replacing Genesis’s original narrative sequence. Riches (2021) notes that Jewish and Christian communities have developed distinct readings of the Akedah through their own histories and theological concerns. A responsible comparison therefore recognises that Genesis does not have one universally accepted meaning across its interpretive communities.

The Muslim Reading of Abraham’s Sacrifice

Qur’an 37:99–111 presents Abraham’s sacrifice through a different narrative structure. Abraham requests a righteous child, receives news of a forbearing son and later describes a dream in which he sees himself sacrificing that son (Q. 37:100–102). The son responds, “O my father, do what you are commanded,” expressing patience and submission.³ Unlike Genesis, the Qur’an explicitly includes the son’s response before the sacrifice occurs.

The narrative then describes Abraham and his son submitting to God’s command, followed by divine intervention and a ransom through a “great sacrifice” (Q. 37:103–107). The passage concludes with praise for Abraham and the announcement of Isaac’s prophethood (Q. 37:112). Importantly, Qur’an 37:101–107 does not name the son. Many Muslim commentators identify him as Ishmael, although earlier Muslim exegetes also supported Isaac. Andi and Ahmad (2024) demonstrate that the identification of the sacrificial son developed through historical debates within Islamic commentary. The popular identification with Ishmael therefore represents an influential interpretation, not an explicit statement in the Qur’anic narrative itself.

Muslim interpretation commonly emphasises submission, patience and trust in God. The son’s willingness to participate distinguishes the Qur’anic account from Genesis, where Isaac’s response to the actual sacrifice remains unrecorded. De Claissé-Walford (2019) observes that the Qur’anic treatment of Ishmael gives him a significant role in Abraham’s religious legacy. However, the Qur’an’s silence concerning the son’s identity should not be treated as an invitation to dismiss Muslim interpretive traditions or to present later commentary as the original wording of the text.

Section 3: Applying Scriptural Reasoning

Scriptural reasoning allows participants to examine these passages together without requiring them to resolve the disagreement over Isaac and Ishmael. The method begins with the text itself. Participants read short passages aloud, ask questions and explain how their own communities interpret particular expressions. Ford’s approach emphasises the social nature of scriptural reading, while Avcı (2018) distinguishes scriptural reasoning from comparative theology through its explicit conversational structure. Comparative theology commonly involves learning from another tradition while remaining rooted in one’s own religious commitments; scriptural reasoning places greater emphasis on collective discussion.

The first discussion could examine the expression “your only son” in Genesis and the Qur’anic description of the son as forbearing. Participants might ask why the biblical text emphasises Abraham’s emotional attachment while the Qur’an highlights the son’s willingness to obey. The comparison would then examine the significance of the son speaking in Qur’an 37:102 but remaining largely silent in Genesis 22. Such questions reveal differences in narrative emphasis without suggesting that either tradition possesses an incomplete version of the other’s scripture.

The method also permits disagreement about the identity of the sacrificial son. A Jewish participant may explain why Genesis explicitly names Isaac, while a Muslim participant may describe the significance of Ishmael in Islamic tradition. Neither participant should have to abandon a religious commitment to continue the discussion. Mubarokah’s (2023) study of the Young Interfaith Peacemaker Community in Indonesia demonstrates that scriptural reasoning can extend beyond academic and theological institutions to grassroots interfaith groups.

Nevertheless, scriptural reasoning does not provide a neutral solution to theological disagreements. Participants may interpret the same passage through different assumptions about revelation, prophetic authority and religious history. The method also risks privileging participants who possess stronger linguistic or theological knowledge. Its contribution lies in making these differences visible and discussable, not in eliminating them.

Section 4: The Australian Setting

Religious Diversity in Parramatta

Parramatta provides a relevant Australian context because its religious profile demonstrates substantial diversity. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2022) reports that the 2021 Census recorded approximately 18.9 per cent of Parramatta local government area residents as having no religion, 18.8 per cent as Catholic, 12.9 per cent as Hindu and 6.1 per cent as Muslim. These figures describe the local government area rather than the proposed library participants. They establish a diverse population but do not demonstrate that residents routinely engage in interreligious dialogue.

A reading circle at Parramatta Library could include Jewish, Christian and Muslim participants, with additional representation from Hindu, secular and other backgrounds. The proposed group would not claim to represent the religious composition of the entire area. Instead, it would bring together volunteers with an interest in examining sacred texts and learning about religious interpretations. The ABS data supports the choice of location because it demonstrates the presence of several religious communities within the surrounding population.

Facilitation, Consent and Participation

The Australian setting requires practical decisions about participation and religious sensitivity. Organisers should invite local representatives from Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities, explain the purpose of the session and make participation voluntary. Participants should receive the selected passages and translations beforehand, with an opportunity to decline any activity that conflicts with their religious or personal convictions. The facilitator should explain that the session does not seek conversion, theological consensus or the promotion of a particular religious interpretation.

A three-hour session would provide adequate time for reading, discussion and reflection. The facilitator could begin with introductions and an explanation of the method, followed by separate readings of Genesis 22 and Qur’an 37. Participants would then identify important narrative differences before discussing the shared themes of obedience, trust and divine intervention. A final reflection would allow participants to describe what they learned without requiring them to endorse another participant’s interpretation.

The session should also address the possibility of unequal participation. Religious leaders or participants with advanced theological knowledge may dominate discussions, while younger participants or those from minority traditions may hesitate to speak. Facilitators should distribute speaking opportunities, avoid asking individuals to represent an entire religion and intervene when discussion becomes polemical. Mubarokah (2023) supports the adaptability of scriptural reasoning for grassroots participation, although the Indonesian case cannot establish that the same outcomes will occur in Australia.

Roebben and von Stosch (2022) argue that comparative theology and religious education can support intercultural encounters through learning that takes religious traditions seriously. Their approach suggests that a Parramatta session should move beyond superficial statements about tolerance. Participants should encounter the actual language and interpretive practices of the traditions involved. The library setting offers a public space for such learning without requiring participants to enter another community’s place of worship.

Section 5: Objection and Reply

A significant objection concerns whether scriptural reasoning can adequately protect religious differences when participants discuss texts associated with competing truth claims. Some critics may argue that placing Genesis and the Qur’an together creates an artificial equivalence between scriptures that Jewish and Muslim communities understand differently. Others may contend that the method encourages participants to suspend doctrinal commitments in favour of social harmony. Moulin (2023) identifies a related problem in religious education, where attempts at inclusion can conflict with the exclusive truth claims of particular religious traditions.

The objection identifies a genuine limitation. Scriptural reasoning cannot guarantee equal participation or remove historical tensions between religious communities. However, the method does not require participants to treat the scriptures as interchangeable or to agree on their authority. Its purpose is to create conditions for attentive reading and conversation. The proposed session should therefore acknowledge disagreements openly and allow participants to retain their convictions. Its success would depend on the quality of engagement rather than the achievement of consensus.

Section 6: Conclusion

Scriptural reasoning provides a valuable method for comparing Genesis 22 and Qur’an 37 in Parramatta because it allows Jewish and Muslim participants to examine shared narrative themes without suppressing theological differences. The biblical and Qur’anic accounts emphasise distinct aspects of Abraham’s test, particularly the identity and response of the son. Census data establishes the relevance of a local interfaith setting, while scholarship demonstrates the importance of respectful, text-centred dialogue. The proposed session would require voluntary participation, careful facilitation and sufficient time for discussion. Scriptural reasoning cannot resolve every religious disagreement, but it can support informed engagement without demanding theological agreement.

Notes

1. David F. Ford, “An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims,” in The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning, ed. David F. Ford and C. C. Pecknold (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006); Betül Avcı, “Comparative Theology and Scriptural Reasoning: A Muslim’s Approach to Interreligious Learning,” Religions 9, no. 10 (2018): 297, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9100297.

2. John Riches, The Bible: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021); Ethan Schwartz, “The Theological Pretension of the Ethical: Reframing the Jewish Significance of Genesis 22,” Interpretation 77, no. 1 (2023): 40–51, https://doi.org/10.1177/00209643221134971.

3. M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, trans., The Qur’an (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Bibliography

Abdel Haleem, M. A. S., trans. The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Abdelnour, Mohammed Gamal. “The Qur’an and the Bible: Abrogation (Naskh) or Confirmation (Tasdiq)?” Religions 14, no. 7 (2023): 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14070856.

Andi, Azhari, and Hamdi Putra Ahmad. “Before Orthodoxy: The Story of Abraham’s Sacrifice (Dzabīh) in Early Muslim Commentaries.” International Journal of Islamic Khazanah 14, no. 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.15575/ijik.v14i1.29413.

Avcı, Betül. “Comparative Theology and Scriptural Reasoning: A Muslim’s Approach to Interreligious Learning.” Religions 9, no. 10 (2018): 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9100297.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2021 Census: Parramatta, New South Wales. Canberra: ABS, 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/LGA16260.

de Claissé-Walford, S. G. “Ishmael, the Qur’an, and the Bible.” Acta Theologica 39, Supplementum 27 (2019): 148–64. https://doi.org/10.18820/23099089/actat.sup27.9.

Ford, David F. “An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims.” In The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning, edited by David F. Ford and C. C. Pecknold. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006.

Mubarokah, Lailatin. “Theological-Based Dialogue in the Practice of Scriptural Reasoning at Young Interfaith Peacemaker Community.” el Harakah: Jurnal Budaya Islam 25, no. 2 (2023): 346–67. https://doi.org/10.18860/eh.v25i2.23234.

Moulin, Daniel. “Religion and Worldviews Education and the Paradox of Inclusivity.” Journal of Religious Education 71 (2023): 269–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-023-00212-1.

Riches, John. The Bible: A Very Short Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.

Roebben, Bert, and Klaus von Stosch. “Religious Education and Comparative Theology: Creating Common Ground for Intercultural Encounters.” Religions 13, no. 11 (2022): 1014.

Schwartz, Ethan. “The Theological Pretension of the Ethical: Reframing the Jewish Significance of Genesis 22.” Interpretation 77, no. 1 (2023): 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/00209643221134971.

Syeed, Najeeba, and Heidi Hadsell, eds. Critical Perspectives on Interreligious Education: Experiments in Empathy. Leiden: Brill, 2020.