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

[firedragon]

Re ripoff of Sumerian. Could be, in a sense. During the time when Abraham came out of Sumer
there was no Israel and no Jews. Think about it. The creation account, Noah etc weren't ripped
from these ancient civilizations, they belonged to them at one stage.

You know what? Do you know what you just touched on? You touched on a big scholarship effort running currently in all kinds of academic environments. This is why I come to this forum because people like you would sometimes randomly bring up something with or without the realisation of how profound it is.

 

[blü 2]

1. You said the Quran is an edit job. That means the work of many, over time. Whats the evidence for this?

I'll dig out my reference if I haven't lent the relevant book. Meanwhile since Muhammad didn't write anything himself, and he had no named scribal team, the written material was piecemeal and assembled by others. The big edit, though, was two centuries down the track.

2. You said that the NT, or in your words "Jesus' case", do you mean to say that the whole of the NT was written or compiled in the 4th century or a collation of existing documents since the first century?

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that though the various letters and gospels existed earlier, the selection as to which of them would make up the official collection, the NT, wasn't formalized till the 4th century.

3. And based on what scholarship did you assert that the Quran was not a fixed document until two centuries after his death? That would be 832 AD.

As above, I'll get back to you.

And about Pauls letters and the pseudo writers its established scholarship that some letters like Titus and Timothy are not Pauls work. But so far there has never been sound scholarship of the Qur'an that proved this with such certainty. If you try some form of criticism on the text of the Quran it is highly doubtful the outcome would be as expected of the Pauline epistles.

The Qur'an was written by one person.

What independent scholarship says that? As far as I'm aware, that's a claim of faith, not of history.

For example, I've read that the Qur'an contradicts itself to such an extent that the interpretation has a rule that the saying deemed to be the later has the greater authority. I understand this is the case with the prohibition on alcohol, for example ─ the parts that allow drinking are deemed to be earlier.

 

[PruePhillip]

You know what? Do you know what you just touched on? You touched on a big scholarship effort running currently in all kinds of academic environments. This is why I come to this forum because people like you would sometimes randomly bring up something with or without the realisation of how profound it is.

Wow. Not sure if that is good or bad!

 

[PruePhillip]

But Luke was being written in the 80 or even the 90's, so the writer would have been either living in the year 66 AD or still to be born. Paul was definitely writing in and around the year 53-55 so maybe he was not aware of what happened in 66. mark was being written in the 60's.

I understand that Luke wrote Acts plus his Gospel. Gospel came first.
You can see towards the end how Acts was a very personal things to
the author - his boat account tells you that. Acts ends abruptly - and I
suppose it's because the author ended abruptly.

 

[firedragon]

I'll dig out my reference if I haven't lent the relevant book. Meanwhile since Muhammad didn't write anything himself, and he had no named scribal team, the written material was piecemeal and assembled by others. The big edit, though, was two centuries down the track.

Yes of course this is the traditional narrative. Yet, that's not a historical narrative. I am Muslim, and you are exactly quoting my traditional faith narrative. So Personally that's not a problem. But this thread is to take a historical approach. So historically analysing the Qur'an there is nothing that proves what you just said. The piecemeal revelation idea was born several centuries later where scholars tried to make sense of ahadith and piece or fuse it to the Quranic verses. Thus, the concept of one occasion, one verse emerged with it. Its not a 7th century narrative. Manuscript evidence shows that the Quran may very well have been written down physically on velum during Muhammeds lifetime. Also, the compilation does not seem to be in a different form where people had to come up with a chronological or revelation based compilation method centuries later. If you look at the Arabe 328 C manuscript it will provide great insight into this because the folios will clearly show that the Quran was written in the same sequence as we've got today. In fact, if you take all the manuscripts of the 1st century Hijri you cannot miss this. Its impossible.

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that though the various letters and gospels existed earlier, the selection as to which of them would make up the official collection, the NT, wasn't formalized till the 4th century.

Athanasian canon. Well, during the same time, three different codices had three different canons or at least the last two books. Like the epistles of clement, Shepard of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

What independent scholarship says that? As far as I'm aware, that's a claim of faith, not of history.

You are incorrect, with all due respect.

No real scholarship has ever concluded that the Quran has been written by many people. Maybe by saying "Independent scholarship" you meant non-muslim scholarship. If you follow through with that statement along with identifying scholars, not pseudo scholars, you would see that your statement is not factual. Say take some scholars like Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell. Try to apply a form criticism exercise to the Quran or a redaction criticism. You should make an attempt.

 

[firedragon]

Wow. Not sure if that is good or bad!

Nope. Its fantastic.

 

[blü 2]

You know what? Do you know what you just touched on? You touched on a big scholarship effort running currently in all kinds of academic environments. This is why I come to this forum because people like you would sometimes randomly bring up something with or without the realisation of how profound it is.

Since Yahweh doesn't appear in history until c. 1500 BCE, and since Abram / Abraham is directly associated with the early days of Yahweh and has a Semitic name, then while it's true that Ur was a Sumerian city, by 2000 BCE it was no longer primarily Sumerian but Akkadian (Semitic). Indeed, by then Akkadians spoke Sumerian as European cultures later spoke Latin, as a kind of revered ancient tongue.

Likewise, the biblical tale of Noah originated in Sumer no later than the mid-third millennium BCE, later passed to Semitic Akkad, then to Semitic Canaan.

See Andrew George's very fine translation of Gilgamesh.

 

[blü 2]

Yes of course this is the traditional narrative. Yet, that's not a historical narrative. I am Muslim, and you are exactly quoting my traditional faith narrative. So Personally that's not a problem. But this thread is to take a historical approach. So historically analysing the Qur'an there is nothing that proves what you just said. The piecemeal revelation idea was born several centuries later where scholars tried to make sense of ahadith and piece or fuse it to the Quranic verses. Thus, the concept of one occasion, one verse emerged with it. Its not a 7th century narrative. Manuscript evidence shows that the Quran may very well have been written down physically on velum during Muhammeds lifetime. Also, the compilation does not seem to be in a different form where people had to come up with a chronological or revelation based compilation method centuries later. If you look at the Arabe 328 C manuscript it will provide great insight into this because the folios will clearly show that the Quran was written in the same sequence as we've got today. In fact, if you take all the manuscripts of the 1st century Hijri you cannot miss this. Its impossible.



Athanasian canon. Well, during the same time, three different codices had three different canons or at least the last two books. Like the epistles of clement, Shepard of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.



You are incorrect, with all due respect.

No real scholarship has ever concluded that the Quran has been written by many people. Maybe by saying "Independent scholarship" you meant non-muslim scholarship. If you follow through with that statement along with identifying scholars, not pseudo scholars, you would see that your statement is not factual. Say take some scholars like Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell. Try to apply a form criticism exercise to the Quran or a redaction criticism. You should make an attempt.

This must wait till I dig out my source (or fail in the attempt), which will be in the next 48 hours or so.

 

[firedragon]

This must wait till I dig out my source (or fail in the attempt), which will be in the next 48 hours or so.

All good blu. No problem.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Stack exchange? Not valid scholarly source for me but thanks.

Its the internet. Try a library.

 

[firedragon]

Since Yahweh doesn't appear in history until c. 1500 BCE, and since Abram / Abraham is directly associated with the early days of Yahweh and has a Semitic name, then while it's true that Ur was a Sumerian city, by 2000 BCE it was no longer primarily Sumerian but Akkadian (Semitic). Indeed, by then Akkadians spoke Sumerian as European cultures later spoke Latin, as a kind of revered ancient tongue.

Likewise, the biblical tale of Noah originated in Sumer no later than the mid-third millennium BCE, later passed to Semitic Akkad, then to Semitic Canaan.

See Andrew George's very fine translation of Gilgamesh.

Both may have one source. Many of the parallel theories may have one source. If you take both them as simple mythology, it could have one source that both picked up from. So parallelism doesnt mean one was taken from another as fact. Also, which one took from the other? Is it essential for the plagiarism theory that the Bible took from Gilgamesh? Is there some kind of rule or law? Nope. It's an inclination of the critic.

 

[firedragon]

Its the internet. Try a library.

Thanks for the advice. Peace.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

The New Testament used 12 teams of writers (apostles and scribes/helpers). The Qu'ran was given by one person, orally. The Old Testament says to establish facts on the basis of at least two or three witnesses.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Thats Paul. He says all scripture is God Inspired or God breathed. theopneustos. But that's not what you claimed, so this is an invalid statement.

Your Claim: "As regards to new testament, the books tells us, they were authored by disciples of Jesus,"

So any verse that supports your claim?

Your question is irrelevant here.
remember, I was saying, there are "clues"?
Do you know how clues work?

The Text implies that it was authored by disciples of Christ.

Because, The gospels are talking about stories of apostles of Jesus and their experiences with Jesus. So, who else was there to witness such events, if it was not the apostles?

Also, see Book of Revelation. The author is John according its own text.

We have 4 Gospels. Written by some very early believers in christ, who had investigated and came up with narratives. These 4 Gospels agree on many of their stories, so, the stories must have come from the apostles even if they were written later by other disciples. When we say disciples that does not always mean the apostles, but any early or first generation of believers who were at the time of Jesus and the apostles.

And Quran is not any more trustworthy either, if you want to apply same standards. It is a book, which only in very few chapters, names, Muhammad. It is not like in the beginning of every chapter, it says, these are authored by Muhammad, the Messenger of God.
So, how can you trust such a book, when it has no name on most of its chapters, no signature or stamp?
If you say, because according to carbon analysis, its date is at the time of Muhammad, how do you know when Muhammad was born or LIVED? there was no birth certificate.
Even if there was a Muhammad at the time of Quran, that does not prove, Muhammad actually wrote it.
I mean it seems to me, you simply choose to believe what you like. It is your religion, so, you choose to believe and trust Quran.
I hope you can see that.

 

[firedragon]

Your question is irrelevant here.
remember, I was saying, there are "clues"?
Do you know how clues work?

The Text implies that it was authored by disciples of Christ.

Because, The gospels are talking about stories of apostles of Jesus and their experiences with Jesus. So, who else was there to witness such events, if it was not the apostles?

Also, see Book of Revelation. The author is John according its own text.

We have 4 Gospels. Written by some very early believers in christ, who had investigated and came up with narratives. These 4 Gospels agree on many of their stories, so, the stories must have come from the apostles even if they were written later by other disciples. When we say disciples that does not always mean the apostles, but any early or first generation of believers who were at the time of Jesus and the apostles.

And Quran is not any more trustworthy either, if you want to apply same standards. It is a book, which only in very few chapters, names, Muhammad. It is not like in the beginning of every chapter, it says, these are authored by Muhammad, the Messenger of God.
So, how can you trust such a book, when it has no name on most of its chapters, no signature or stamp?
If you say, because according to carbon analysis, its date is at the time of Muhammad, how do you know when Muhammad was born or LIVED? there was no birth certificate.
Even if there was a Muhammad at the time of Quran, that does not prove, Muhammad actually wrote it.
I mean it seems to me, you simply choose to believe what you like. It is your religion, so, you choose to believe and trust Quran.
I hope you can see that.

Sorry. Thats not a valid response. You are making a lot of statements about disciples writing the NT but you are only making claims but are not providing any evidences. And then of course some other claims about my beliefs which I have not stated here so that is a Tu Quoque fallacy.

Please try and engage.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Sorry. Thats not a valid response. You are making a lot of statements about disciples writing the NT but you are only making claims but are not providing any evidences. And then of course some other claims about my beliefs which I have not stated here so that is a Tu Quoque fallacy.

Please try and engage.

Thats not a response though. You are not really engaging and responding to each portion of my post.

 

[firedragon]

Thats not a response though. You are not really engaging and responding to each portion of my post.

No one could respond to irrelevance. And see, you have not given a single piece of evidence to your claims. None.

You claimed "disciples wrote the Bible". You keep saying the scripture says that. Then you said "there are clues". But what is the scripture? What is the verse? What is the clue?

I will not respond to any portion which is not relevant or/and a tu quoque fallacy talking about my beliefs etc. Trying your best to identify someone elses hypocrisy to cook up a tu quoque is not a valid argument. When you make a claim, back that up.

Then its a valid discussion.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No one could respond to irrelevance. And see, you have not given a single piece of evidence to your claims. None.

You claimed "disciples wrote the Bible". You keep saying the scripture says that. Then you said "there are clues". But what is the scripture? What is the verse? What is the clue?

I will not respond to any portion which is not relevant or/and a tu quoque fallacy talking about my beliefs etc. Trying your best to identify someone elses hypocrisy to cook up a tu quoque is not a valid argument. When you make a claim, back that up.

Then its a valid discussion.

I dont think you read my posts carefully or completely. So, you seem not to understand what I said.

 

[blü 2]

Both may have one source. Many of the parallel theories may have one source. If you take both them as simple mythology, it could have one source that both picked up from. So parallelism doesnt mean one was taken from another as fact. Also, which one took from the other? Is it essential for the plagiarism theory that the Bible took from Gilgamesh? Is there some kind of rule or law? Nope. It's an inclination of the critic.

The elements are, (a) angry gods (b) generate a great flood (c) in order to wipe out mankind (d) but one human is forewarned (e) and builds a large floating device (f) and he and one or more family members survive (g) so the gods repent and let them live. As you can see on that link to Andrew George's translation of Gilgamesh, in the chapter "Tablet XI, Immortality Denied" the wise god Ea says to Uta-Napishti (in Sumerian, Ziusudra, in the bible Noah) ─

demolish the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek survival! [...]
Take on board all living things' seed.

The boat you will build,
her dimensions all shall be equal:
her length and breadth shall be the same,
cover her with a roof [...] (24-32)​

Uta-Napishti agrees to do it (line 33). He builds the boat with an area of an acre, a height of ten rods, sides of ten rods, six decks, much tar.

He loads his silver and gold on board and ─

all the living creatures I had I loaded aboard.
I sent on board all my kith and kin,
the beasts of the field, the creatures of the wild, and members of every skill and craft. (84-6)​

The deluge ends after seven days (130). "All the people [outside] had turned to clay".

The boat comes to rest on Mt Nimush (142). Seven days later ─

I brought out a dove, I let it loose:
off went the dove but then it returned,
there was no place to land (148-50).​

The next, a swallow, also returns. The third, a raven, does not (155), and Uta-Napishti gives thanks ─ he offers incense and the gods are drawn to the place.

‘Then at once Belet-ili arrived,
she lifted the flies of lapis lazuli that Anu had made for their courtship:
“O gods, let these great beads in this necklace of mine
make me remember these days, and never forget them! (164-7)​

So even the rainbow is derived from (at the least) the Akkadian version of the Sumerian story.

I don't think there can be any doubt that this earlier tale is the basis of the bible's Noah story, or alternatively that they are from a common and even earlier origin.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@firedragon

Just a little tidbit that I learned long ago, gathered from the peripheries of my mind...

I know that Muslims claim that the Quran we have today is the same unaltered Quran in Arabic that was originally given whereas the Bible has been edited. However, this is not true.

There were in the beginning, many different versions of the Quran when it was first compiled. Caliph Uthman (644-656 A.D. ) decided to tackle this problem by gathering and destroying all the versions of the Quran except the one which survived.

It is also true that there are differences in the Arabic versions today, somewhere between 20 and 30, depending on whom you ask.