🏠 Main menu
Convergence model · v4.13 · timelines end at the Arab Spring (2011)

Comparative Atlas
Judaism · Christianity · Islam

69 coded indicators, 9 dimensions, 3 pairs. Proximity indices are shown with their uncertainty: coding bounds, bootstrap intervals, weight simulation and dimension exclusion. Three timelines trace the history of each tradition, from its origins to the Arab Spring (2011). The Judaism timeline now shows sources and historicity levels H0-H4. An exploratory tool, not an absolute measure.

⚠ Before reading the numbers

The indices summarize criteria scored by a single coder, with no check by an independent second coder. The gaps between pairs are of the same order as the estimated uncertainty: see the Robustness tab before drawing any conclusion about "the closest pair". In the dataset, hover over or tap the i items to see the reasoning behind each score. The ◆ symbol marks documented minority positions, and the 📖 card badge marks a detailed card.

📖 Detailed cards: prophets, figures and themes ()

One card for each prophet and figure in the Atlas, for Mary and for inheritance: reference texts in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and the Quran, readings from each tradition, and a point-by-point comparison. Each card ends with a box on a point of divergence.
Go straight to a point of divergence:

🕰 Timelines: from the origins to the Arab Spring (2011)

For each tradition: events, revelation and texts, interpretations, prophets, apostles and figures, and the rise of movements. A comparative timeline shows the three histories side by side and where they cross.

✅ Permitted / ⛔ Forbidden

Food, clothing, rites, prayer and fasting, marriage, inheritance, birth, funerals, conversion and ethics: what each tradition requires, permits or forbids, with the differences between movements and the sources.

Proximity network

Link thickness and color = convergence index of the pair (equal weighting).

Radar profile by dimension

Average index per pair on each dimension (0 = divergence, 100 = convergence).
Judaism–ChristianityJudaism–IslamChristianity–Islam

Distribution of criteria

Type of pattern observed for each criterion.

🕰 Timelines of the three traditions

Each timeline starts with the origin narratives and follows history up to the Arab Spring (2011). Ancient narratives are dated according to tradition ("trad." badge): their historicity is debated by historians. For texts, the dates given are generally those of historical criticism, with the traditional date noted when it differs. Click 📖 to open the matching card, and ⇆ to jump to the same theme in another tradition.

🌳 Rise of movements

Simplified tree of the main lines of descent. Dashed and in italics: movements that no longer exist. Dates are approximate.

✅ Permitted / ⛔ Forbidden

What each tradition requires, recommends, permits or forbids: food, drink, clothing, worship, prayer, fasting, charity, marriage, inheritance, birth, death, funerals, conversion and ethics. The majority or traditional position is summarized, with significant differences between movements; ◆ marks minority groups. Hover over a status for details or click 🔗 to open the related coded criterion. This table is documentary and does not change the scores.

How to read this table: Statuses summarize traditional or majority positions; they do not imply that every believer interprets or observes these rules identically. Significant differences among denominations, legal schools and religious authorities are noted where relevant.

Note on Jewish denominations: “permitted” and “forbidden” primarily describe traditional Halakha. Orthodox Judaism generally treats Halakha as binding; Masorti/Conservative Judaism retains it as a normative framework open to development; Reform/Liberal movements place greater emphasis on individual autonomy and reinterpretation. Contemporary practice is therefore not uniform.
Rule✡ Judaism✝ Christianity☪ IslamSources

Heat map: dimensions × pairs

Hover over a cell for the exact value. Scale: red = divergence · amber = partial · green = convergence.

Closest pair by dimension

The highest value in each row, read directly.

Dimension weighting

Change the weight given to each dimension (0 = excluded, 3 = triple). The indices are recalculated in real time.

Weighted result

Recalculated proximity indices.

1 · Coding uncertainty

criteria have a debatable score (marked ◐ in the dataset). Lower and upper bound: for each one, we take the least favorable score, then the most favorable.

2 · Bootstrap intervals

2,000 resamplings of the criteria with replacement. The 95% interval measures how sensitive the result is to the choice of criteria. It is not a confidence interval in the classical sense: the criteria were not drawn at random.

3 · Weight simulation

2,000 random draws of weights (between 0 and 3) for each dimension. Share of draws in which each pair comes first.

4 · Excluding one dimension

Ranking recalculated by removing each dimension in turn. If the ranking changes, it depends on a single dimension.

5 · Gaps between pairs

Paired bootstrap gap. If the interval contains 0, the difference is not robust.

Robustness verdict

Glyph: J–C | J–I | C–Iconvergencepartialdivergence◆ minority positions📖 card detailed card
#CriterionDimensionGlyphIndex

1 · Question and scope

Question: across a defined set of features (doctrine, texts, figures, salvation, afterlife, practices), which pairs of traditions hold the most convergent positions?

Scope: normative, historical or majority positions: rabbinic Judaism, Trinitarian Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, historical Protestant), and majority Sunni and Shia Islam.

Not measured: what believers actually believe, what they actually practice, and the historical or social relations between communities.

Criterion removed: "Ancient languages" was excluded: the original language of the texts is a historical and linguistic fact, not a comparable religious position.

Minority positions (◆): for some criteria, minority groups depart from the majority position. These are documented in the card but do not count toward the score.

Detailed cards (📖): they bring together the reference texts and traditional readings for a criterion. They are used to check the coding and do not change the scores. Polemical arguments are presented as such, without taking sides. Available cards: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Lot, Job, David, Solomon, Elijah, Jonah, Jesus, John the Baptist, Muhammad and Mary, plus a thematic card on inheritance with a worked example. Bible references follow the usual chapter:verse numbering; Quran references follow the surah:verse numbering of the Cairo edition. Texts in their original script (Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Arabic) are displayed using the fonts installed on the device.

2 · Coding

  • 2: strong convergence, equivalent or very close position;
  • 1: partial convergence, same category but different content or status;
  • 0: divergence, affirmed in one tradition, rejected or absent in the other.

Reasoning: each criterion comes with a breakdown by tradition and the reasoning behind its score, shown as tooltips in the dataset.

Uncertain scores (◐): when two scores can be defended, an alternative score is recorded and used to calculate the bounds.

3 · Calculations

Pair index: I(p) = Σₖ wₖ · sₖ(p) / ( 2 · Σₖ wₖ ) × 100 Coding bounds: I_min, I_max, replacing sₖ with min / max(sₖ, s′ₖ) Bootstrap: 2,000 resamplings of the criteria, 95% interval = 2.5th – 97.5th percentiles Weights: 2,000 draws wₖ ~ U(0, 3), share of draws where each pair ranks 1st Exclusion: ranking recalculated without each dimension

4 · Limitations

  • What is measured: "religious proximity" is not something that can be measured directly. The index summarizes a coding, nothing more.
  • Choice of criteria: the criteria are not a random sample. Adding criteria on biblical history would favor Judaism–Christianity; adding criteria on law and ritual would favor Judaism–Islam.
  • Reliability: a single coder, with no measure of agreement between coders (Cohen's kappa, Krippendorff's alpha). A rigorous study would require at least two specialists scoring independently.
  • Linked or overlapping criteria: Trinity, incarnation, the divinity of Jesus and Son of God express the same underlying divergence; "Return of Jesus" and "Return of Jesus at the end", or "Merciful God" and "Divine mercy", overlap. The bootstrap intervals are therefore probably too narrow.
  • 0-1-2 scale: it is a ranking, not a measurement. Averaging assumes that the gap between 0 and 1 equals the gap between 1 and 2.
  • "Rejection" and "absence" combined: a score of 0 covers both an explicit rejection (the Trinity) and a simple absence (a figure who is not central).
  • Theological weight: by default, a point of practice weighs as much as a claim about the nature of God. No set of weights is "the right one".
  • Internal diversity: the coding describes the majority position; minority positions (◆) are documented for only a few criteria.
  • Neutrality: the scores express no judgment of value, truth or superiority.

5 · What can be concluded, and what cannot

✔ On this corpus, the three traditions share a large common foundation.
✔ The closest pair changes with the dimension.
✘ It cannot be claimed that one pair is "overall" the closest, independently of the criteria and weights.
✘ These figures measure neither lived proximity, nor theological compatibility, nor relations between believers.

6 · Clothing, food, permitted and forbidden

Two coded dimensions: "Clothing and appearance" (head covering, modesty, beard, materials, tattoos…) and "Food" (pork, alcohol, blood, ritual slaughter, milk and meat…). The criteria "Dietary rules" and "Pork", previously under "Practices", were moved there. These criteria count in the indices like all others; their large number mechanically favors the Judaism–Islam pair, which shares a detailed body of religious law: use the sensitivity analysis to measure the effect.

"Permitted / Forbidden" tab: a documentary table, not scored, with seven statuses (required, recommended, permitted, under conditions, debated, forbidden, no rule). It describes the majority position and notes the main differences between movements (Orthodox, Masorti/Conservative and Reform/Liberal Judaism; Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christianity; Sunni and Shia schools).

Marriage, family and inheritance: eight coded criteria: nature of marriage, divorce, polygamy, interfaith marriage, inheritance set by scripture, daughters' share, birthright, full adoption. The detailed rules appear in the "Marriage and family" and "Inheritance" themes of the "Permitted / Forbidden" tab.

Birth, death and conversion; ethics and society (v4.9): two new dimensions (circumcision, religious majority, burial, ritual washing of the dead, cremation, mourning, conversion, proselytism; interest, abortion, organ donation, euthanasia, gambling). Three practice criteria complete "Practices and religious life" (fixed-rate almsgiving, ablutions, mixed seating). These criteria mainly concern religious law and mechanically favor the Judaism–Islam pair; the "Doctrine first" preset in the sensitivity analysis reduces their weight.

7 · Timelines

Purpose: to place in time the events, the revelation and writing down of the texts, the major interpretations, the prophets, apostles and figures, and the rise of each tradition's movements. The timelines are for documentation only: they do not change the scores.

Historicity: H0 religious tradition · H1 tradition with a possible historical basis · H2 historicity debated · H3 historically documented · H4 very strongly attested.

Two kinds of dates: origin narratives (Creation, patriarchs, Exodus; sacred history according to the Quran) are presented according to the tradition's own chronology, with the "trad." badge; their historicity is debated and no date is guaranteed. Elsewhere, dates follow history and, for the writing of the texts, historical criticism; "c." marks an approximate date.

Selection: the Judaism timeline is detailed ( entries, from the origins to 2011); those of Christianity ( entries) and Islam ( entries), all ending at the Arab Spring (2011) and graded H0 to H4, include the events that shed light on the criteria and cards of the Atlas. The movement trees are simplified: they show the main lines of descent, without claiming to cover every branch or to settle questions of affiliation (Druze, Ahmadiyya, restorationist movements).

Neutrality: contested events are described from the sources, with historical debates noted.