It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. So was the council that collected these works into the New Testament.
In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.
> It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason.
I'll point out that you just claimed that those four named sources were three people.
> In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers.
That's not that much shorter than the generally accepted time between the time of the events recounted in the gospels and the time that the canonical gospels were written.
> The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.
Again, false information. The Quran was written down during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, as was the Hadith. Both were both transmitted orally and through scribes. We have early scribes that were written during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, and later on narrations that were documented decades after him, and they match perfectly.
There are multiple Qira'aat (recitations) of the Quran, all of which have sound chains of narrations back to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. The variations among certain Ayat (verses) do not change the overall meaning of them. For instance, in one recitation, you would find the word "Malik" (ملك), meaning King or Lord; and in another, you would find "Maalik" (مالك), meaning Master, Possessor, or Only Owner. Both are authentic recitations which the Prophet Peace be upon him recited during his lifetime.
If you study the history of the Arabs and Muslims, you would know that they were extremely strict in how narrations were passed down, even before Islam. We have the chain of narration for the Mu'allaqat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat), and this was pre-Islam.
People recited both from scribes as well as from memory. Memorizing large amounts of information is something very uncommon today, but was common back in the day. There are people who used to memorize hundreds of thousands of Hadiths, with the chain of narration; and some people of that nature still exist to this day, though not as many.
Even today, when children memorize the Quran, they know where what Ayah is on what page. You can ask the child to start reciting from a random page, and he/she would.
Can you show me a reference that the Turks refuse to show the Quran they have to the public, or that there were differences between that one and what was discovered in San'aa?
In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.