A central question in philosophy of religion is the question of epistemic priority between reason and revelation. Debates surrounding this topic have resulted in several different views concerning the epistemic status of revelation. This paper compares and analyzes four views from four historical figures: Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī, Abū ʿAlī Ibn Sīna, Abū al-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn Rushd, and Baruch Spinoza. While all four figures take a "philosophical religion" approach to the question, comparing them illuminates important epistemic differences. After the initial comparison, I present a weak and a strong view of the epistemic status of revelation on their "philosophical religion" approach. I then proceed with an epistemic analysis and critique of each view. I conclude the paper by arguing that although different from one another in substantive ways, both views render scripture epistemically unreliable and thus fail to make sense of its epistemic value.