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

[firedragon]

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.

What are the clues?

 

[firedragon]

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.

This is not about taking the text and its teachings seriously.

The Birmingham folios are from the same manuscript of Arabe 328 also found in France. This shows that the statistical probability of over 90% dating back to the time of Muhammed by carbon14 dating.

You quoted Will Jones who is no scholar of the Quran so he makes statements ab, out the authorship without any analysis whatsoever. Who is this "Will Jones"? What is the analysis? He is no Quran scholar, he is said to have done a "Diploma" in biblical studies and is an academic in political philosophy, not manuscript studies or linguistics. If you read through the same article you have presented shows very clearly that he has no clue how a palimpsest works or any scholarship on the matter. So he mixes a lot of things up to make his statements like "most likely". But he seems to not have any knowledge in even non-muslim scholarship on the Quran and its text. Absolutely not.

When we go quick searching on the internet we will find a lot of rhetorical articles saying a lot of things. Its not valid to believe them blindly.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What are the clues?

The clues are in Quran and the Bible. The Text of Quran tells us, there was a man named Muhammad, who claims to be Messenger of Allah, and that He was conveying the message of Allah to people.
Also, the recorded traditions, tell us, Muhammad was a messenger, and was conveying messages.
For example, these recorded traditions tell us, there were a group, who memorized Quran, and later put them together, and a Khaliph eventually choose one, out of many.
We cannot prove if such recorded traditions are true, or accurate. But these are the clues we have.

As regards to new testament, the books tells us, they were authored by disciples of Jesus, and the Gospels are the words and some acts of Jesus and encounters, described by the disciples.
The testimonies that we have from early Christianity, is, there were disciples who were witnesses to Jesus.
Agains these are clues. We cannot prove directly if they are true or accurate, the same way, as we cannot directly take recorded traditions as a proof that Muhammad was really the author, or if there were really the Hafizes, who memorized them.

 

[stvdv]

o 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

I fully agree with this. IF God is the Creator and Sustainer of All then He is the Doer of All; and also inspiring all Divine Scriptures

 

[firedragon]

As regards to new testament, the books tells us, they were authored by disciples of Jesus, and the Gospels are the words and some acts of Jesus and encounters, described by the disciples.

Which verse?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Which verse?

@adrian009 is more knowledgeable to answer this.

In my view, The Text itself tells us, all Scriptures are inspired by God.
A claim, somewhat similar to the Quran. Here we have a Person, called Jesus who claims to be sent by God. The same is claimed by Quran, that Muhammad is sent by God.

The difference is, Quran makes it appear in many instances that God is revealing the stories of past to Muhammad.
In Gospels, For example Luke 1, we have an author who does not introduce himself. But tells us, he investigated everything, and is narrating an orderly accounts of what happened at the time of Jesus ministry.


Is, the author of Luke, whoever he is, telling us truth? Are the stories he is telling regarding life of Jesus, His encounters, sayings, and stories of apostles true?

It depends on us to believe it or not. But I dont see if it can be proved.
Likewise, the Quran, claims to tell stories of the past prophets and people.
Are they true stories? It depends on us if we believe it or not. But I dont see how it can be proved.

My personal perception tells me, these books were all work of divine.

 

[PruePhillip]

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 would have thought that the earliest NT document that could be reliably dated was one of Paul's letters,
maybe Corinthians. It was written about 20 years after Jesus. Luke's Gospel and his Acts was written
prior to his death about AD66 - same for Paul.
Having a document written as something actually is supposed to have happened doesn't necessarily
shed any more light on the subject.
I hold that the Qur'an is a blend of the Old and New Testaments with Arab mythology and culture tossed
in. It bends the bible to support conquest and temporal powers. I find it offensive, personally.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

I hold that the Qur'an is a blend of the Old and New Testaments with Arab mythology and culture tossed
in. It bends the bible to support conquest and temporal powers. I find it offensive, personally.

You know they say the same thing about the Old Testament itself being a rip off of Babylonian, Sumerian and Canaanite mythology (Yahweh and El afterall where literally deities in their pantheon) created to support conquests (read Joshua, 1&2 Kings, Chronicles, etc) and temporal powers (from the Torah itself to the Davidic line, etc).
In the New Testament, Jesus later on being the resurrection of sun-god godman mythologies complete with the virgin birth motif, dying-and-rising-god pagan motif and adherence to the state (render unto Caeser...)

So be careful when you throw those stones. Remember Jesus supposedly said: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" which you haven't payed attention to.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is not about taking the text and its teachings seriously.

The Birmingham folios are from the same manuscript of Arabe 328 also found in France. This shows that the statistical probability of over 90% dating back to the time of Muhammed by carbon14 dating.

You quoted Will Jones who is no scholar of the Quran so he makes statements ab, out the authorship without any analysis whatsoever. Who is this "Will Jones"? What is the analysis? He is no Quran scholar, he is said to have done a "Diploma" in biblical studies and is an academic in political philosophy, not manuscript studies or linguistics. If you read through the same article you have presented shows very clearly that he has no clue how a palimpsest works or any scholarship on the matter. So he mixes a lot of things up to make his statements like "most likely". But he seems to not have any knowledge in even non-muslim scholarship on the Quran and its text. Absolutely not.

When we go quick searching on the internet we will find a lot of rhetorical articles saying a lot of things. Its not valid to believe them blindly.

A better reference to the carbon dating find is in Smithsonian Magazine. Carbon Dating Reveals One of the Oldest Known Copies of the Quran | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine After that I am out. I'm not providing any more information nor debating you. I don't care for the topic. If you want information about something which has so little data available you're going to have to inquire of people who are archeologists.

Stack exchange asks about the date for the Quran, and the only answer given there is that the oldest Quran is from 19 years after. They say it is the Uthman Quran, but this contradicts the carbon dating find. The question gets only seven upvotes, and only one person answers. Its not a popular question. With so little information there is not much outside of traditional claims, and you aren't asking for traditional claims since you want to talk about historical verifiable facts.

From which original source was Quran compiled?

 

[Milton Platt]

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 would think different people wrote all of the individual stories compiled into the Bible and at least one different individual wrote the Quran. Sound evidence to the contrary is invited.

 

[firedragon]

A better reference to the carbon dating find is in Smithsonian Magazine. Carbon Dating Reveals One of the Oldest Known Copies of the Quran | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine After that I am out. I'm not providing any more information nor debating you. I don't care for the topic. If you want information about something which has so little data available you're going to have to inquire of people who are archeologists.

Stack exchange asks about the date for the Quran, and the only answer given there is that the oldest Quran is from 19 years after. They say it is the Uthman Quran, but this contradicts the carbon dating find. The question gets only seven upvotes, and only one person answers. Its not a popular question. With so little information there is not much outside of traditional claims, and you aren't asking for traditional claims since you want to talk about historical verifiable facts.

From which original source was Quran compiled?

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

 

[firedragon]

In my view, The Text itself tells us, all Scriptures are inspired by God.

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?

 

[firedragon]

I would have thought that the earliest NT document that could be reliably dated was one of Paul's letters,
maybe Corinthians. It was written about 20 years after Jesus. Luke's Gospel and his Acts was written
prior to his death about AD66 - same for Paul.
Having a document written as something actually is supposed to have happened doesn't necessarily
shed any more light on the subject.
I hold that the Qur'an is a blend of the Old and New Testaments with Arab mythology and culture tossed
in. It bends the bible to support conquest and temporal powers. I find it offensive, personally.

Paul was writing 20 to 22 years after Jesus passed. True. But this is dating by text, not carbon dating. So we are taking two different things into consideration.

The Quran is Carbon Dated to 645 latest date in the case of Arabe 328 manuscript. And if you understand carbon dating and statistical probabilities you would know that dating will very well be during the sources life time. Thats Carbon Dating. The earliest manuscript is as I have already given in the OP. That is based on palaeography.

The thread is not about copying and demonising Islam which is a very common apologetic approach of many. Hope you understand that.

 

[firedragon]

It depends on us to believe it or not. But I dont see if it can be proved.
Likewise, the Quran, claims to tell stories of the past prophets and people.
Are they true stories? It depends on us if we believe it or not. But I dont see how it can be proved.

Please try and understand that this discussion is not about if what the book says in these old stories are all true. This is not the argument, and definitely not the discussion.

Your claim was that the NT says "Jesus's Disciples" wrote it. Where does it say so?

 

[firedragon]

@adrian009 is more knowledgeable to answer this.

In my view, The Text itself tells us, all Scriptures are inspired by God.
A claim, somewhat similar to the Quran. Here we have a Person, called Jesus who claims to be sent by God. The same is claimed by Quran, that Muhammad is sent by God.

The difference is, Quran makes it appear in many instances that God is revealing the stories of past to Muhammad.
In Gospels, For example Luke 1, we have an author who does not introduce himself. But tells us, he investigated everything, and is narrating an orderly accounts of what happened at the time of Jesus ministry.


Is, the author of Luke, whoever he is, telling us truth? Are the stories he is telling regarding life of Jesus, His encounters, sayings, and stories of apostles true?

It depends on us to believe it or not. But I dont see if it can be proved.
Likewise, the Quran, claims to tell stories of the past prophets and people.
Are they true stories? It depends on us if we believe it or not. But I dont see how it can be proved.

My personal perception tells me, these books were all work of divine.

What could I say. I respect your faith. All Good.

 

[blü 2]

Did we receive the Quran and the Bible the same exact way?

No, not exactly, but there are some parallels.

There is no evidence of an historical Jesus; it's possible that there was one, but if so, his message can only be guessed at. There is a very small amount of evidence for an historical Muhammad, but that's a long way ahead of Jesus' none.

Jesus wrote nothing. Muhammad wrote nothing.

None of the writers of the NT ever met an historical Jesus. The sources of the Qur'an are purported records of Muhammad's words, and while it's possible he said some of the things attributed to him, there's no way to distinguish which are the more authentic.

Both the NT and the Qur'an are the work of editors who chose what appealed to them from a larger body of candidates ─ in Jesus' case in the late fourth century, in Muhammad's case some of the materials are alleged to have been written in his lifetime but the Qu'ran was not fixed as a document until two centuries after his death.

And both editorial processes entailed a lot of the politics of their respective religions at the time.

Except for the authentic letters of Paul, all the other NT writers are anonymous. Certain of the letters attributed to Paul, and the letters attributed to Peter, are written later, by others. I don't know how closely this parallels the case with the Qur'an.

 

[firedragon]

No, not exactly, but there are some parallels.

There is no evidence of an historical Jesus; it's possible that there was one, but if so, his message can only be guessed at. There is a very small amount of evidence for an historical Muhammad, but that's a long way ahead of Jesus' none.

Jesus wrote nothing. Muhammad wrote nothing.

None of the writers of the NT ever met an historical Jesus. The sources of the Qur'an are purported records of Muhammad's words, and while it's possible he said some of the things attributed to him, there's no way to distinguish which are the more authentic.

Both the NT and the Qur'an are the work of editors who chose what appealed to them from a larger body of candidates ─ in Jesus' case in the late fourth century, in Muhammad's case some of the materials are alleged to have been written in his lifetime but the Qu'ran was not fixed as a document until two centuries after his death.

And both editorial processes entailed a lot of the politics of their respective religions at the time.

Except for the authentic letters of Paul, all the other NT writers are anonymous. Certain of the letters attributed to Paul, and the letters attributed to Peter, are written later, by others. I don't know how closely this parallels the case with the Qur'an.

Hmm. Good post. I appreciate it. But I have some questions.

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

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.

 

[PruePhillip]

Paul was writing 20 to 22 years after Jesus passed. True. But this is dating by text, not carbon dating. So we are taking two different things into consideration.

The Quran is Carbon Dated to 645 latest date in the case of Arabe 328 manuscript. And if you understand carbon dating and statistical probabilities you would know that dating will very well be during the sources life time. Thats Carbon Dating. The earliest manuscript is as I have already given in the OP. That is based on palaeography.

The thread is not about copying and demonising Islam which is a very common apologetic approach of many. Hope you understand that.

Sure, I understand your point about 'demonizing' but that Carbon has got me. In the NT
we have documents written by people who did not live for two or three hundred years.
In fact, with the exception of Revelations, there is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem and
the temple - a seismic event to these people. I think Paul, Peter and Luke were all gone
about 66 AD, and the temple fell four years later.

 

[PruePhillip]

You know they say the same thing about the Old Testament itself being a rip off of Babylonian, Sumerian and Canaanite mythology (Yahweh and El afterall where literally deities in their pantheon) created to support conquests (read Joshua, 1&2 Kings, Chronicles, etc) and temporal powers (from the Torah itself to the Davidic line, etc).
In the New Testament, Jesus later on being the resurrection of sun-god godman mythologies complete with the virgin birth motif, dying-and-rising-god pagan motif and adherence to the state (render unto Caeser...)

So be careful when you throw those stones. Remember Jesus supposedly said: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" which you haven't payed attention to.

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.

 

[firedragon]

Sure, I understand your point about 'demonizing' but that Carbon has got me. In the NT
we have documents written by people who did not live for two or three hundred years.
In fact, with the exception of Revelations, there is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem and
the temple - a seismic event to these people. I think Paul, Peter and Luke were all gone
about 66 AD, and the temple fell four years later.

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.