Who's got more manuscripts: Qur'an or Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Senyorico
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not my position that the Qur’an is true or the authors of the New Testament were right because they came first. I think being first doesn’t lead to that conclusion, it leaves us inconclusive. However, with other lines of reasoning, I still believe that Christianity is true but I want to study each claim that challenges my belief.
 
Senyorico said:
I’m a Catholic that still puts my faith into test of truth, how trustworthy are our traditions? And how sure can we date them back to the earliest Christians
Click to expand...
Trustworthy enough for generations of Catholics to have based their lives and actions on them, and to have grown closer to the Exalted because of this.
 
Senyorico said:
determine the reliability of a text
Click to expand...
The number is not as important as the content comparison. And what it is measuring is not reliability but consistency. A text can be very consistent and absolutely false. And you may notice that I originally said nothing about reliability at all - I am speaking to whether it is true or not.
 
So the Christian faith was founded by Jesus almost 2000 years ago. There is ample evidence of his life both from inside and outside of the Bible which is a compilation of books, both Old and New Testament. The Bible gets its authority from the Church that did the compilation and imprimatur of what should or should not be in the Bible.

The Qur’an was written 800 years after Jesus came to the Earth.
It is a far newer book. In the interim the Christian faith endured almost 400 years of persecution from the most powerful empire ever existed. Their manuscripts were destroyed when found and Christians were fed to the wild beasts or crucified.
Compare this to the expansion of the Muslim empire. Although not free from internal strife they did not have to endure what Christianity had to.

So, do they have more (quantity of manuscripts) than Christianity has?
Who cares this is truly a case were Quality trumps Quantity.
Peace!
 
I am not at all saying that is the sole criterion, rather part of the criteria. I am simply analyzing each criterion not at all relying into it solely.
 
That is why I’m saying this is a red herring. Again, that is a whole different discussion, and we may even agree. However, I am studying the reliability of the text and it would be a sloppy job for me to divert my attention to a whole new other topic.
 
You’ve gotten several good answers on this thread already, but I thought I’d chime in.

“Who’s got more manuscripts?”

The Bible, and specifically the New Testament, has the most amount of discovered manuscripts of any work of ancient literature.
Senyorico said:
Recently, I have read that Qur’an has approximately 250,000 manuscripts and most of it are not 2 centuries older after Muhammad died.
Click to expand...
This is false.
Senyorico said:
we only have around 5,000 and only 500 of those are early.
Click to expand...
No, we have quite a few more manuscripts than that.
Senyorico said:
thus making it better for us to trace the original text since Qur’an has far less variants?
Click to expand...
The Qur’an manuscripts does have fewer variants than the Biblical ones, but this has to do with the fact that most discovered are rejected versions that have not been in use, and therefore survived. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these variations are trivial, and the conclusion from virtually all scholars is that the Bible has been remarkably well preserved from ancient times until now.
 
This might give the context of the transmission of the texts! Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Senyorico said:
That is why I’m saying this is a red herring
Click to expand...
Which “this” are you speaking of? My contention is that the documents were produced so far apart in time and under such different overall conditions (political, social, etc.) that there is no way that sheer number of copies is relevant to determining anything except number of copies, even if there were some relevance under other circumstances, which I also dispute.
 
You might look into the work of the Jesus Seminar whose purpose was to decide on the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus Christ. They eliminated a certain percentage of the gospel. Their work is not well respected among a lot of people.
 
Your contention was about consistency rather than reliability, but consistency is a criterion of reliability. My inquiry is all about the validity of a claim based on a criterion. Anything that dodges it, may be considered red-herring. I do get your point but it’s not what the discussion is about. Thank you! 🙂
 
Theban said:
Ancient literature
Click to expand...
Consistency is what you’re trying to argue, what I’m bringing up is reliability. And indeed consistency is a criterion of reliability, as much as the availability of manuscripts. Even Trent Horn uses the argument of the amount of manuscripts New Testament have.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
You have consistently misinterpreted what I say. I don’t know why and I don’t care any more. Muting thread.
 
whatistrue said:
The number is not as important as the content comparison. And what it is measuring is not reliability but consistency.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t be more clear how the change of gears happened. Apologies if I have misunderstood it but the topic is the amount being part of the criterion and yet it is your argument that we should somehow disregard it. If it’s not a change of subject, I don’t know what it is. Still, thanks for the thoughts brother! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top