Quran and New Testament, are they the same in authorship, manuscript evidence, textual reliability?

[firedragon]

There are many discussions and social media shout outs about these two books and various people say various things. This thread is opened in hope of understanding certain points of view and of course some deeper analysis of the topic.

There are several points taken into consideration. How about manuscript evidence? There are many apologists all over the world who say many things, but what do analytical scholarship say? Are they both the same in manuscript evidence? The Qur'an has manuscripts from the 7th century AH, the oldest manuscript of the NT (P52) is from the 2nd century AD. How does that matter?

Did we receive the Quran and the Bible the same exact way? What are the differences? Not just rhetorical belief statements, but historical facts.

E.g. It is a fact that P90 is dated to the latter part of the 2nd century and is one of the oldest manuscripts of John, and the NT ever found.

Thats a fact, not a faith statement.

I know this maybe considered a broad subject. But I would like to hear what you have to say.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are many discussions and social media shout outs about these two books and various people say various things. This thread is opened in hope of understanding certain points of view and of course some deeper analysis of the topic.

There are several points taken into consideration. How about manuscript evidence? There are many apologists all over the world who say many things, but what do analytical scholarship say? Are they both the same in manuscript evidence? The Qur'an has manuscripts from the 7th century AH, the oldest manuscript of the NT (P52) is from the 2nd century AD. How does that matter?

Did we receive the Quran and the Bible the same exact way? What are the differences? Not just rhetorical belief statements, but historical facts.

E.g. It is a fact that P90 is dated to the latter part of the 2nd century and is one of the oldest manuscripts of John, and the NT ever found.

Thats a fact, not a faith statement.

I know this maybe considered a broad subject. But I would like to hear what you have to say.

What the NT has going for it is that it doesn't claim to be dictated words from God, so it doesn't share the same burden as the Quran. All the NT has to do is to is withstand the criticisms that it doesn't comply or fit into Judaism. The Quran doesn't even try to do that. Instead it will claim that Judaism must comply with itself. They are two very differently interpreted and criticized things. Also the NT is a series of letters and some small books, not one thing. John for example is a distinct book in the NT collection, none of which claim to be written on a particular date. It may also be that one of the NT books or part of one doesn't comply with Judaism, but this doesn't invalidate the rest of the NT writings since they don't claim to be a unit. The Quran, however, claims to be a unit and words from God almost directly. Therefore its proponents must argue that it is unique, a flawless unit, incomparable.

 

[firedragon]

What the NT has going for it is that it doesn't claim to be dictated words from God, so it doesn't share the same burden as the Quran. All the NT has to do is to is withstand the criticisms that it doesn't comply or fit into Judaism. The Quran doesn't even try to do that. Instead it will claim that Judaism must comply with itself. They are two very differently interpreted and criticized things. Also the NT is a series of letters and some small books, not one thing. John for example is a distinct book in the NT collection, none of which claim to be written on a particular date.

True. But leaving the faith matters of Gods word and apologetics of the modern era aside, you are right. The Quran is one book, and the NT is 27 or 29 books. But I wonder why you spoke of the books not claiming a date of writing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

True. But leaving the faith matters of Gods word and apologetics of the modern era aside, you are right. The Quran is one book, and the NT is 27 or 29 books. But I wonder why you spoke of the books not claiming a date of writing.

I added a little to the post to clarify. I was too slow though.

 

[Brickjectivity]

One other thing. Some people do try to argue that not just the NT but the protestant canon is unique and flawless. There have been quite a large number of people who have. We've got books about it. They generally attempt to argue that scripture has predicted future events, but its a very difficult argument for them to maintain. I also think its fraudulent to argue that.

 

[firedragon]

I added a little to the post to clarify. I was too slow though.

Oh sorry. I will go back and read.

 

[firedragon]

The Quran, however, claims to be a unit and words from God almost directly. Therefore its proponents must argue that it is unique, a flawless unit, incomparable.

This post is nothing about justifying a theological claim. I mean this thread. It is not a thread on the theology of Islam or Christianity whatsoever. Even if the book claims that it is Gods word, it is still not part of the question. Also, even the Bible claims that all scripture is "theopneustos". Theos is divine/God, pneim to means to breath. Thus God breathed. But I did not address the validity of the claims and expect people to prove the claims are true. Like a Zombie apocalypse or a God's word and prophethood of David, Adam and other things in the Quran. This is a historical question. I even tried to give an evidence of a fact.

Hope you understand.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

There are many discussions and social media shout outs about these two books and various people say various things. This thread is opened in hope of understanding certain points of view and of course some deeper analysis of the topic.

There are several points taken into consideration. How about manuscript evidence? There are many apologists all over the world who say many things, but what do analytical scholarship say? Are they both the same in manuscript evidence? The Qur'an has manuscripts from the 7th century AH, the oldest manuscript of the NT (P52) is from the 2nd century AD. How does that matter?

Did we receive the Quran and the Bible the same exact way? What are the differences? Not just rhetorical belief statements, but historical facts.

E.g. It is a fact that P90 is dated to the latter part of the 2nd century and is one of the oldest manuscripts of John, and the NT ever found.

Thats a fact, not a faith statement.

I know this maybe considered a broad subject. But I would like to hear what you have to say.

There are two aspects.

One is, if you are talking about worthiness of Quran or Bible, it is solely dependent on belief in divine origin of these Books.

Meaning, let's say, if one believes Bible is from God, and Quran is not from God, then to him, the Bible would be the truth without error, and the Quran works of a false prophet.

If one believes neither the Bible nor the Quran are divine in origin then, it doesnt really count or matter much to argue the Quran is more likely to have been preserved.

But If one believes both Quran, and Bible are divine in origin, then to argue Quran is the truth but the Bible is false, is meaningless, for if you believe in an all powerful God, you must likewise believe He was able to protect the Bible, in His own ways, just as you believe He protected the Quran. To think, God protected the Quran, but He could not protect the Bible is illogical.
To argue that, God revealed injil or Torah to His Messengers, but He did not cause those revelations to be written is illogical, for God woul do whatever is the best. It was best, if God caused those revelations to be written and protected, than to not want them to be written, or protected. God does logical things.
The maunstream Muslim view, to me, is wishful and has a fanatical flavor. Our Book is the best and the only True word of God, is only to wistfully believe themselves are better. The best Ummah. The chosen ones of God.
I hope you understand

 

[firedragon]

There are two aspects.

One is, if you are talking about worthiness of Quran or Bible, it is solely dependent on belief in divine origin of these Books.

Meaning, let's say, if one believes Bible is from God, and Quran is not from God, then to him, the Bible would be the truth without error, and the Quran works of a false prophet.

If one believes neither the Bible nor the Quran are divine in origin then, it doesnt really count or matter much to argue the Quran is more likely to have been preserved.

But If one believes both Quran, and Bible are divine in origin, then to argue Quran is the truth but the Bible is false, is meaningless, for if you believe in an all powerful God, you must likewise believe He was able to protect the Bible, in His own ways, just as you believe He protected the Quran. To think, God protected the Quran, but He could not protect the Bible is illogical.

Well, this thread has nothing to do with any of the beliefs you have stated. So that's that sis.

 

[exchemist]

There are many discussions and social media shout outs about these two books and various people say various things. This thread is opened in hope of understanding certain points of view and of course some deeper analysis of the topic.

There are several points taken into consideration. How about manuscript evidence? There are many apologists all over the world who say many things, but what do analytical scholarship say? Are they both the same in manuscript evidence? The Qur'an has manuscripts from the 7th century AH, the oldest manuscript of the NT (P52) is from the 2nd century AD. How does that matter?

Did we receive the Quran and the Bible the same exact way? What are the differences? Not just rhetorical belief statements, but historical facts.

E.g. It is a fact that P90 is dated to the latter part of the 2nd century and is one of the oldest manuscripts of John, and the NT ever found.

Thats a fact, not a faith statement.

I know this maybe considered a broad subject. But I would like to hear what you have to say.

I think you will need to explain more about what you mean by "evidence". Evidence of what? A manuscript is just a manuscript, written by someone, at some point in history.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, this thread has nothing to do with any of the beliefs you have stated. So that's that sis.

Ok. But there is no way really to prove, the Bible is less accurate than the Quran.
Remember you can't even prove the Quran was authored by Muhammad.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This post is nothing about justifying a theological claim. I mean this thread. It is not a thread on the theology of Islam or Christianity whatsoever. Even if the book claims that it is Gods word, it is still not part of the question. Also, even the Bible claims that all scripture is "theopneustos". Theos is divine/God, pneim to means to breath. Thus God breathed. But I did not address the validity of the claims and expect people to prove the claims are true. Like a Zombie apocalypse or a God's word and prophethood of David, Adam and other things in the Quran. This is a historical question. I even tried to give an evidence of a fact.

Hope you understand.

Oh.

The oldest scraps from NT books are about 200AD. Chris Price from christianorigins.com argues that the latest possible date for Acts is 120AD based upon quotes from other Christian writers. I don't have an opinion about that. He has a word document about it online under /acts . The site has no welcome page, so you have to use a search engine if you don't know the page you want. Here is an external links page from that site: Christian Origins

Other scholars tend to agree that the NT writings must be attested to by early Christian writers.

William Sanday in his free book The Gospels in the Second Century (link) say the following "...In order to prove either the existence or the authority of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source...."

Here is a scholar very much interested in the veracity of the NT scriptures who realizes the difficulty involved in establishing their historic origins.

 

[firedragon]

I think you will need to explain more about what you mean by "evidence". Evidence of what? A manuscript is just a manuscript, written by someone, at some point in history.

Its manuscript evidence. Not just evidence. Manuscript evidence will show you that there actually was a Gospel of John or at least a book that we refer now as John in ancient history of the 2nd century. If not for manuscript evidence, one would have to settle to legend and hearsay and faith. Because of manuscript evidence one knows for sure this book existed in the 2nd century in some form or the other.

Manuscript evidence will show many things.

 

[firedragon]

Ok. But there is no way really to prove, the Bible is less accurate than the Quran.
Remember you can't even prove the Quran was authored by Muhammad.

So how does that provide any response to the OP?

 

[firedragon]

Oh.

The oldest scraps from NT books are about 200AD. Chris Price from christianorigins.com argues that the latest possible date for Acts is 120AD based upon quotes from other Christian writers. I don't have an opinion about that. He has a word document about it online under /acts . The site has no welcome page, so you have to use a search engine if you don't know the page you want. Here is an external links page from that site: Christian Origins

Other scholars tend to agree that the NT writings must be attested to by early Christian writers.

William Sanday in his free book The Gospels in the Second Century (link) say the following "...In order to prove either the existence or the authority of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source...."

Here is a scholar very much interested in the veracity of the NT scriptures who realizes the difficulty involved in establishing their historic origins.

I have not heard of Chris Price honestly. But of course, William Sanday, the age old theologian, yes. Good.

 

[firedragon]

Ok. But there is no way really to prove, the Bible is less accurate than the Quran.
Remember you can't even prove the Quran was authored by Muhammad.

Who do you think wrote the Quran and who do you think wrote the NT (All the books)? And whats the evidence or some proof or some reasoning with evidence?

I ask this because you touched on the authorship. So, lets hear some insight.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Who do you think wrote the Quran and who do you think wrote the NT (All the books)? And whats the evidence or some proof or some reasoning with evidence?

I ask this because you touched on the authorship. So, lets hear some insight.

It doesnt matter what I think, because your OP does not consider personal beliefs.

But, if you go by evidences, there is not enough evidence to prove who wrote the Quran or the Bible.

If you go by what the Books claim, both Books claim to be divine in origin, but written through revelations and inspirations of God.

So, you can decide to believe it or not. You cannot get passed this point in my opinion without having your own belief.

If a document is given to court, if your signature, your stamp is on it, that proves document is yours. Next, if it can be proven, it matches your hand writing, it is proved to be yours.
Next, is, if you are there to testify.

But with regards to Quran or Bible, there is no signature or handwriting or stamp to prove who was the author.
Muhammad, or John are not here to testify either.

The evidences, points us to the authors. But pointing to author, is not the same as proof. The evidences gives us clues who was the author. So, the clues tell us, Muhammad authored Quran, and the Jewish prophets authored many of the books in old testament. The clues tell us, disciples of Jesus authored the new testament.

When we say "authored", we don't mean, they wrote it by their own hand. It is not even necessary to say, to author them, it must have been written in their own time. If disciples of christ, narrated those stories to some other believers, and was written after the death of disciples, still the disciples would be the authors. If Muhammad narrated verses, and some people memorized them, and wrote them, still Muhammad is the author. That Quran was written at the time of Muhammad, does not make the Quran any more work of Muhammad, than if it was written after death of Muhammad. So, just because the Injils, or gospels were written after death of disciples does not mean, you have proved that the disciples were not their author.

 

[firedragon]

It doesnt matter what I think, because you OP does not consider personal beliefs.

But, if you go by evidences, there is not enough evidence to prove who wrote the Quran or the Bible.

If you go by what the Books claim, both Books claim to be divine in origin, but written through revelations and inspirations of God.

So, you must decide to believe it or not. You cannot get passes this point.

If a document is given to court, if your signature, your stamp is on it, that proves document is yours. Next, if it can be proven, it matches your hand writing, it is proved to be yours.
Next, is, if you are there to testify.

But with regards to Quran or Bible, there is signature or handwriting or stamp to prove who was the author.
Muhammad, or John are not here to testify either.

The evidences, points us to the authors. But pointing to author, is not the same as proof. The evidences gives us clues who was the author. So, the clues tell us, Muhammad authored Quran, and the Jewish prophets authored authored many of the books in old testament. The clues tells us, disciples of Jesus authored the new testament.
When we say "authored", we don't mean, the wrote it by their own hand. It is not even necessary to say, to author them, it must have been written in their own time. If disciples of christ, said those stories to some other believers, and was written after the death of disciples, still the disciples would be the authors.

Okay. So what are the evidences, and what are the "clues"?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Okay. So what are the evidences, and what are the "clues"?

The most important evidence is the text of these Holy Books. That is as old as manuscript could have been found.

The clues are in the text of these Books, as well as any recorded testimony of witnesses who lived as close as we can know to the time of Muhammad in case of Quran, or the time of disciples in case of the new testament.

Again, clues do not prove.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Who do you think wrote the Quran and who do you think wrote the NT (All the books)? And whats the evidence or some proof or some reasoning with evidence?

I ask this because you touched on the authorship. So, lets hear some insight.

There is reportedly a copy of the Quran which carbon dates to a time before Muhammad. Here is the daily mail article. It cites a NYT article. Koran thought to be the oldest in the world could predate Muhammad | Daily Mail Online

This article by Will Jones says that there is doubt about whether the early and later parts of the Quran could have been written by the same person: What If Muhammad Didn't Write the Qur’an? - Crisis Magazine

Other than that I don't see a lot of controversy.

I have no idea, personally. I've never considered it to be anything other than something like the Vedas or something like Upanishads or something like any other religious scroll...just something people inherit from their parents that they are told to take seriously.