**On the face ( and to laymen), the authenticity of Gospels may appear same as of Ahadith.
But the one who is aware/studied the Art of Hadith**, there is a whole world of difference between these two (i.e. Gospels and Authentic Ahadith), because the chain of narrators of Gospels does not go back all the way to or the period of Prophet Jesus Christ (PBUH) whereas every Authentic Hadith has a SANAD/LINK that goes back to the Last Prophet of Islam (PBUH).
To know how authentic Gospels are, it is sufficient to read very INTRODUCTIONS of them in the New American Catholic Bible.
that’s what you think
you seem to use the the more critical of secular research of the Gospel and discard ( or infact, dont even know ) any secular research which says otherwise
if that’s your way to prove anything, than i’ll use the same approach
you are using secular sources, denying church tradition and basicly call the church a liar
we can say the same about islam and the quran :
here’s one :
Dr. Elisabeth Puin gave a lucid, and highly original analysis of an early Koran manuscript from Sana, Yemen, [DAM 01-27.1] in part written over a palimpsest Koranic text. Dr. Elisabeth Puin summarized her findings and their implications,
“
the comparison with the Standard text [Cairo 1924/25 Koran] shows that it still contains many differences in orthography and verse counting; there are even minor textual variants, like, for example, singular instead of plural, wa- instead of fa-, and so on. Some - but by far not all - of those differences were at a later stage corrected by erasure and /or amendments. We cannot suppose that all the differences are only due to the calligrapher’s inattention, being simply spelling mistakes; there are too many of them on every page, and some of them are found repeatedly, not only in this manuscript but in others too. So we must conclude that at the stage when and in the region where the manuscript was written those variants were not felt to be mistakes but conformed to a specific writing tradition.”
basicly it can be changed, if someone had the political power ( like by the kalifah ).
Oral recitation nevertheless remained the preferred mode of transmission, and, as time passed,** variant versions of the text proliferated - the kind of organic change that is endemic to an oral tradition. In addition, because of the nature of the early Arabic script, in which short vowels were not indicated and consonants of similar form were only sometimes distinguished by pointing, writing, too, was subject to misunderstanding, copyist’s error, and change over time**.
Mingana argued that the Qur’an had not been codified in book form until several decades later than was generally accepted, in the reign of the fifth Umayyad caliph, ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwan (65-86 / 685-705). In the 1970s John Wansbrough went much farther, concluding,
on the basis of textual and linguistic analysis, that there is no evidence for a “canonical” version of the Qur’anic text before the very end of the eighth century at the earliest.
In the 1970s John Wansbrough went much farther, concluding, on the basis of textual and linguistic analysis,
that there is no evidence for a “canonical” version of the Qur’anic text before the very end of the eighth century at the earliest.
Nevertheless, with the passage of time, additional variant readings were readmitted, first “the three after the seven,” then “the four after the ten.” The modern Cairo edition, prepared at al-Azhar in the 1920s, is based on one of the seven readings permitted by Ibn Mujahid, that of Abu Bakr ‘Âsim (d. ca. 127 / 745) as transmitted by Hafs b. Sulayman (d. 180 / 796)
and many others…
wonder if you understood Darwin