Researchers in the curriculum theory deny the existence of a full curriculum theory, maturity in the strict sense of the concept of the theory, but at the same time they confirm the existence of serious theoretical work trying to explore the phenomenon of the curriculum. This study aimed to analyze such actions to determine their reality. For the purposes of this analysis, the study used the model of building branches of knowledge proposed by Schwab, as it examined the availability of each of the organizational, fundamental, and structural structures that are required in a branch of knowledge. An examination as the study examined the extent of theorists' commitment to these tasks. The analysis of these theoretical works revealed that the Minhaj field lacked the structures proposed by Schwab and the theorists' commitment to the tasks set forth by Bichamps. The study attempted to deduce some obstacles that might impede traffic towards building a theory, approach. The study identified four of these obstacles: the complexity of the field of the curriculum, the lack of specification of the features of the curriculum phenomenon, the difference about the purpose of theorizing, and the difference of theorists in linguistic uses in their methodological writings.