I didn't vote to close it. However, the accepted answer for the Gospels was "no", part of the logic being that they were written a generation or more after the fact. I realize there was some vocal disagreement, but this was the accepted answer.
Given that, the answer to a work written 600 years later, that could have nothing to rely on any closer than those selfsame Gospels, would clearly be "no" as well, would it not? There doesn't seem to be much point in asking.
As you mention, now that you pointed it out, the community apparently decided to go back and close the first one too, for consistency's sake. Happy now? :-)
Any question that asks us to take a critical examination of the religous beliefs of a rather large amount of humanity (including SE participants), is a rhetorical minefield. Answers have to be really really careful, or the entire question will devolve into unhelpful arguing. Sadly, I don't think the original text of my answer was anywhere near up to that standard, so that's precisely what happened. (My bad there. I've since improved it I think, but its probably far too late now).
I'd like to see an answer here from an actual closer, but I think I can make a rough guess that this was about worries of both questions emitting more heat than light.
Ideally we should be able to dispassionately examine questions like this and come up with good answers. However, as long as we have to rely on messy humans to do the job for us, there are going to be problems around emotional topics.