u/Ben_Ezra

Hello everyone,

I had something that crossed my mind recently about the maximalist views on biblical stories and I wondered wether you felt the same:

I feel like nowadays maximalist try to find a historical kernel rather than proving the whole narrative. The best example is the Exodus and the Desert wandering.

I believe that the Exodus might have a historical kernel but with a very small population of canaanites fleeing from Egypt and without the plagues and the parting of the sea and so on. I do believe that most stories in every culture is based on historical events but massively exaggerated over the centuries.

Hope I have been understandable,

What is your stance? Do you feel differently about this?

Hello, as-Salam Aleykoum,

I wondered, when the Arabs started identifying themselves as “Ishmaelites”?

We know that Assyrians called northern arabs “shummu’il” and biblical scholars believe that it gave the name Ishmael for the Hebrews who then linked Abraham with Northern Arabs by his son.

But this is how the Arabs were painted. So do we know when the Arabs started calling themselves “Ishmaelites”? Is it with the Christianisation of the Middle East and East Africa?

Does anyone have any work recommendation ?

Hello everyone, As-Salam Aleykoum,

There is something that crossed my mind recently: you all know that according to the traditional narrative, the third Caliph Uthman burnt every other codices and asked everyone to rely only on his own manuscript.

I don’t want to question the traditional narrative (I stand with the Uthmanic canonisation), however I wondered if the burning of other codices was an undeniable fact.

Because the Sanaa palimpsests were not destroyed and I know that in some Jewish practices, unreliable manuscripts were buried rather than burnt because in spite of the mistakes, there were still remains of divine scripture.

What do you think ?