Brian Hales as of late has challenged many people to come up with a naturalistic method for Joseph Smith's production of the Book of Mormon. A group I am part of had a detailed post showing how textual study is sufficient alone . With Colby Townsend's permission I repeat his post.

Over the last few years the question about methodology and understanding the composition of the Book of Mormon has come up in several threads by a handful of members of this group. One member in particular inverts that order by not focusing on the text itself but instead by asking questions about Joseph Smith's abilities. That approach is backwards if someone is trying to understand how the BoM itself was written. I don't post here very often but I've been wanting to make this clarification about methodology for those of you who are actually interested in understanding how scholars approach the study of composition and the dating of texts. My training covers a handful of fields. I have two HBA degrees in comparative literature and religious studies (University of Utah), an MA in history (Utah State University), and am now in the PhD program in English at IU Bloomington studying transatlantic literature of the long eighteenth century. I have studied classical Hebrew, ancient Greek, German, and I'm now taking an Old English course. I have read and engaged with literature in biblical studies, Renaissance and Enlightenment history and literature, and seventeenth through the nineteenth century English literature. All of my training deals with how texts are composed and when, focuses on what was going on historically at the time they were composed, and, blended with other literary-critical observations and tools, what all of that means for a twenty-first century academic understanding of the text. When you begin to study second temple Jewish pseudepigrapha, for example, the first realization is that, like the Hebrew Bible, most of the texts are anonymous (and/or pseudonymous). We do not know who wrote them. That does not stop us from understanding how they were written and during what period. Scholars in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, for example, were able to tell that 1 Enoch was written in Aramaic (not Hebrew), even though all that we had at the time were manuscripts in classical Ethiopic and some fragments in Greek and a few other languages. This was confirmed by the discovery of fragments of manuscripts of 1 Enoch at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars had also divided up the authorship and dating of the text into five major sections and one of those they dated last was not found in any of the caves at Qumran. In other words, when it comes to language and composition scholars can be very precise if the right kind of data all comes together even before they have strong manuscript evidence. An important takeaway from this: when you see people using the phrase "naturalistic approach" as a pejorative to describe how someone is approaching the composition of the Book of Mormon that person does not understand what they are describing. A "naturalistic approach" is an academic historical approach. It would be a major methodological flaw for me to attempt an argument about the composition of 1 Enoch by incorporating anything other than standard historical data, so a "naturalistic approach" is literally just a historical approach. With these points in mind, when I study the composition of the BoM I don't need to have anything other than the text itself to understand how and when it was written. I can focus on the narrative form, the sources it uses, the version(s) of those sources, when those date to, historical allusions (both portraying accurate and inaccurate information), and so on. A book as long as the BoM carries a ton of data that can be mined by scholars if they have the right tools and know how to properly use them. Starting off by asking questions about Joseph Smith's abilities goes nowhere precisely because it focuses on things we honestly can't know unless we have data from the historical record that completely confirms those abilities. As a friend of mine once said, that method functionally argues that we can't know whether or not Joseph Smith had diarrhea as a child because no interview or publication in the historical record confirms that he did. If one is going to approach the past seriously then it is necessary to expand one's tools if actually understanding the past is the goal because we have the information available to us to understand how and when texts like the BoM were written. It just takes time, patience, and attention to detail. So, if we are going to be responsible historians and literary critics, wanting not only to understand how the BoM was written and when as well as the variety of ways that it can be read and understood, then the focus has to be on the text itself. I have written hundreds of pages on this and related questions. I have shown how the BoM explicitly recognizes that the Nephites did not have Malachi on the brass plates and yet it is formally quoted by Nephi and other BoM authors, as well as a crucial part of the composition of several other verses throughout the book (https://www.dialoguejournal.com/.../Dialogue_V51N02_14.pdf). In my undergraduate thesis I argued that the author of the BoM did not know just a "brass plates" version of Genesis 2–4 but blended verses from those chapters with other parts of the Hebrew Bible and, even more importantly, a lot of New Testament texts. I also highlighted how much of the use of biblical phrases represents updated readings of these verses in the oral culture of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century (https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=205723). In my master's thesis I argued that Smith, whether or not he was the author of the BoM, edited the version of Eden in the BoM into the first several chapters of the Bible only months after publishing the BoM. From my perspective he did this because throughout the text of the BoM the idea that Cain made a secret pact with Satan drives the narrative about secret combinations, and that leads to the destruction of the Nephites. Without that story in the Bible there is a strong tension between the two books. I also noted that while the connection to anti-Masonry in the BoM is warranted the focus on Masonry is too limiting. Anti-Jacobin literature of the early nineteenth century helps to better lay a foundation to understand the secret combinations and the trope about the council in heaven (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7681/). In my recent publications I have paid similar attention to the composition of the first six chapters of Smith's bible revision of Genesis (known as the Book of Moses in the LDS church), showing how Moses 1 is structurally dependent on Matthew 4, as well as the chapter and Moses 7 are both dependent on other New Testament texts (especially the gospel of John) for the way that they rewrite the story of Moses (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.46.4.0045...). In another essay I questioned the idea that Smith had to know about the major English translation of the Book of Enoch in order to produce his expansion of Genesis 5 into the "Extract of the Prophecy of Enoch" and showed how broadly known and available information on 1 Enoch was in English sources between 1715–1830 (https://www.jstor.org/.../10.5406/dialjmormthou.53.3.0041...). All of this is to say that historians focus on the text when attempting to understanding how a book is written, not by asking tertiary questions about the supposed author's abilities. Once the composition history of the text is understood, if information about the author is known that information can be further help in understanding the text. But, it is not absolutely necessary to explain how the book was composed and when if you have a wealth of data within the text that has not yet been mined.

EDIT: Spelling

O community of Muslims, how is it that you seek wisdom from the people of the book? Your book, brought down upon his prophet—blessings and peace of God upon him—is the latest report about God. You read a book that has not been distorted, but the people of the book, as God related to you, exchanged that which God wrote, changing the book with their hands

As many Muslims claim, and as the Hadith says, the Bible meant something else differently but Jews and Christians changed it over time. But archaeologists have found the earliest copy of the Bible in what is known as the Dead Sea scrolls. What did they find?

While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

That
1) The original Hebrew Old Testament/Tanakh was virtually identical to the modern one 2) The Old Testament/Tanakh wasn’t even compiled before Jesus 3) Nothing in the Dead Sea scrolls directly supports Islam, as Muhammed claimed the original bible would
So... why is it, that Islam’s reason for why the Bible and Quran contradict, that the original bible was different, seemingly contradicts historical evidence? Am I missing something or do the Dead Sea scrolls prove Muhammed wrong?

I apologize if this has been asked before but from what I’ve read both discoveries took place sometime in the 1940s completely by chance correct? Dead Sea Scrolls found in a Qumran cave when a kid was throwing rocks into it. Nag Hammadi was found when a farmer was trying to find his lost goat or something and this occurred within several years of the sea scrolls. Is it me or is this a pretty wild coincidence? Lost for centuries then randomly found at the same time?
I’d like to learn more info about this and find the discoveries alone pretty fascinating. Thanks.

In the time between Jesus’s death and the formation of what came to be modern day Christianity, there were several competing sects of Judaism: some of which were beginning to reflect the profound and newly radical teachings of Jesus, while others were holding fast to the ancient traditions of the Torah and the Jewish people. While early Christianity was primarily focused on the one major difference between traditional Judaism — that Jesus Christ was the Messiah — Gnosticism even took their beliefs a step further.
The name “Gnostic” comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge”, although the translation is closer to an intuitive understanding than to knowledge of the intellect. While the sect that would become Christianity was focused on scripture and faith, the Gnostics were bent on revelatory experiences: experiencing an intimately personal connection with the divine. In some Gnostic sects, this world was considered illusory, and this personal connection was the answer for how to break through the veil between this world and heaven.
Like Christ, they were reforming the way that the Jewish people came to understand God. For example, Marcion was an early Gnostic leader and teacher who taught that the God of the Old Testament was so oppositional to the God that Jesus refers to in the Gospels, that they were actually separate entities entirely. The Heavenly Father referred to by Christ has love falling like rain on the just and the unjust, as opposed to the “jealous”, wrathful Old Testament God instructing the Israelites to dash the heads of their enemies’ innocent babies against the rock. The Marcionites referred to the OT God as a false creator god named “Yaldaboath” who had misled the Jewish people by standing between them and our true Creator, a Transcendent Loving God.
Alongside their theological divergences, the Gnostics had their own gospels about the life and teachings of Christ as well. Ultimately the Gnostics were considered heretics by orthodox bishops, Irenaeus being an exceptionally notorious persecutor. By the fourth century, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria outlined today’s canon, specifying which books became a part of the Bible and which books did not (also referred to as the “apocrypha”, from the Greek “apokryphos” meaning “obscure”). When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, many prominent Gnostic leaders and writers were executed as heretics.
Fortunately for our contemporary civilization, two of the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 20th century were rural shepherds stumbling across ancient leather-bound scrolls near the Dead Sea (in 1945 at Nag Hammadi and in 1946 at Qumran). Local shepherds stumbled upon these texts, many of which belonged to the Gnostics as they were mentioned by name in correspondence between early church fathers. Several of these Gospels we did not have surviving copies of before the 20th century, including the Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars date as early as the Gospel of Mark. Accordingly, they have come to greatly influence how we understand the formation of Christianity as well as these alternative spiritual systems by early followers of Jesus.

Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. — Saying 77, Gospel of Thomas

from:
https://medium.com/@bewherehow/demystifying-mystic-philosophy-3939c804be00

I've been reflecting on the idea of the biblical canon for some time. I used to assume that after God inspires the authors of Scriptures, the Bible becomes 'fixed' and should not be changed. I am starting to change my mind recently...
During Jesus’ time, Jews were split between those who lived in Palestine and those who lived in the wider Roman empire. Palestinian Jews have what is known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which is more or less similar to the Protestant Old Testament. The Jews in the rest of the Roman empire however, have the Septuagint (LXX) as their Scriptures.
There are notable differences between these two versions of the Old Testament

• The LXX included more writings than the Masoretic Text, including Tobit and Judith, Sirach and 1-2 Maccabees.
• Even for books that are similar, there are variations. E.g. both the LXX and the MT have Daniel and Esther. However, the LXX has additions to the book of Daniel and Esther. In the LXX, there is also an additional Psalm called Psalms 151 not present in the MT.

In other words, even by the time of Jesus, the Old Testament canon is not ‘fixed’. Even for books that were written centuries ago, the boundaries for what constitutes the ‘Bible’ is fluid to a certain extent. The clearest evidence of this fluidity comes from Jesus himself:
Jesus in the Gospels quote from both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.
He does not merely favour one version of the Bible as the ‘correct’ version. Instead, Jesus simply quotes from both versions despite their significant differences.
On a side note: Many early Christians used the LXX, which means that for many 1st century Christians, so-called apocryphal texts are indeed Scriptures.
More evidence can be found from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the latter half of the 20th-century. These scrolls are part of a Jewish sect called the Qumran sect. Again, for them, the Bible is not a fixed entity, but can be evolved to some extent. For example the Qumran Temple Scrolls contain legal material from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Likewise, there is a psalm scroll that contains seven non-canonical poems intersperse among the canonical Psalms.
In both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see texts that are considered Scriptures by those communities, but nonetheless, they can be modified and supplemented. These actions are not the dishonest acts of ‘heretics’ trying to ‘destroy the Bible’, rather they are simply the community of God treating the Bible as a living Word, as a text that can be updated to speak to their contemporary situation. The canon is fluid to some extent during those times.

In part 2, we observed that the Old Testament evolved over centuries. Individual books were often written by more than one author over many decades or even centuries. This shows that the Bible has evolved to some extent. Scriptures is not a text that is fixed and unchanging.
Now let us fast forward to the Roman empire during the 1st century: did all Jews have the same ‘Bible’?
The answer is no.
During Jesus’ time, Jews were split between those who lived in Palestine and those who lived in the wider Roman empire. Palestinian Jews have what is known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which is more or less similar to the Protestant Old Testament. The Jews in the rest of the Roman empire however, have the Septuagint (LXX) as their Scriptures.
There are notable differences between these two versions of the Old Testament

• The LXX included more writings than the Masoretic Text, including Tobit and Judith, Sirach and 1-2 Maccabees.
• Even for books that are similar, there are variations. E.g. both the LXX and the MT have Daniel and Esther. However, the LXX has additions to the book of Daniel and Esther. In the LXX, there is also an additional Psalm called Psalms 151 not present in the MT.

In other words, even by the time of Jesus, the Old Testament canon is not ‘fixed’. Even for books that were written centuries ago, the boundaries for what constitutes the ‘Bible’ is fluid to a certain extent. The clearest evidence of this fluidity comes from Jesus himself:
Jesus in the Gospels quote from both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.
He does not merely favour one version of the Bible as the ‘correct’ version. Instead, Jesus simply quotes from both versions despite their significant differences.
On a side note: Many early Christians used the LXX, which means that for many 1st century Christians, books like Tobit and Judith were considered authoritative Scriptures.
More evidence can be found from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the latter half of the 20th-century. These scrolls are part of a Jewish sect called the Qumran sect. Again, for them, the Bible is not a fixed entity, but can be evolved to some extent. For example the Qumran Temple Scrolls contain legal material from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Likewise, there is a psalm scroll that contains seven non-canonical poems intersperse among the canonical Psalms.
In both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see texts that are considered Scriptures by those communities, but nonetheless, they can be modified and supplemented. These actions are not the dishonest acts of ‘heretics’ trying to ‘destroy the Bible’, rather they are simply the community of God treating the Bible as a living Word, as a text that can be updated to speak to their contemporary situation.

INTRODUCTION  
The Interpreters’ Bible – W. A. L. Elmslie  

Chronicles is … courageous and practical – a splendid achievement. But that high valuation depends on understanding that Chronicles is not what it appears to be. Anyone who supposes that it is a history of Judah, which its author wanted or expected his readers to accept as accurate, is almost certain to consider it for the most part dull and frequently incredible. That impression of its character is widely held, and in consequence these two great books [First and Second Chronicles] have become virtually deadwood in the Bible. They come alive when the real intentions of the Chronicler and the peculiar method which he used to make his purpose effective are apprehended… It is the only instance of Hebraic philosophy of history presented on an immense scale. It is theology, powerfully and persuasively inculcating three doctrines: that human life exists under the overruling of an immutable moral order ordained by God; that observance of rightful forms of worship is of paramount importance for the community; and that God’s revelation is given not only in the past time but in the present - a living word of truth. The Chronicler had to urge this philosophy and these doctrines, not by abstract argument, but by a method wholly strange to us although sufficiently clear to his contemporaries. The Chronicler taught by painting a picture of the past, in which sometimes he laid emphasis on the religio-moral causes and consequences of events that actually had happened and sometimes gave a freely imagine delineation of what ought to have happened. Even where he makes use of facts, his aim is to depict “truth of idea.” …
The Chronicler’s pictorial method was, of course, dramatic… Chronicles is essentially a vast and moving drama, ranging from Adam to the destruction of the Judean kingdom. We should see in its first nine chapters a prelude, subtly inviting us to feel that human history from its commencement led up to the radiant morning of David’s reign and the noonday splendor of Solomon, culminating in his dedication of the glorious temple for the rightful worship of God. Thereafter the drama unfolds its grim sequel in the succession of those kings of Judah to whom so much had been entrusted, from whom came so seldom good, so often evil. Again and again light shines, only to be swiftly quenched in darkness. … Toward the end of the drama there are two periods (the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah) when it seems as if victory may rest with good; but they are transient. At the last, black night descends on the tragedy of Jerusalem: the city is captured and destroyed and its temple burned. Its kings and people had persisted in wickedness until there was no remedy. …  
… But they knew that, although seemingly final night had fallen when the Davidic kingdom had been destroyed, light had arisen in darkness. Their people had rallied on a religion purified and ennobled by the thoughts of God and duty which the prophets had demanded. Jerusalem’s temple had been rebuilt; their national consciousness had not ceased. …  
Unless the purpose and method of the Chronicler are thus realized, a modern reader – especially if he compares Chronicles with Samuel and Kings – is likely to be of the opinion that very little of intellectual and spiritual value would be lost if this strange work had been omitted from the Bible … Chronicles on a superficial view seems to be for the most part unnecessary, uninteresting, defective in comparison with Samuel and Kings, and in many matters incredible. …  
Unnecessary: At least to the extent that fully half of Chronicles copies verbatim, or with some adaptations, parts of Genesis, Samuel, and Kings. What advantage is there in being able to ready the same words in two places in the Bible?  
Uninteresting: At least in part. Take a glance at the name lists which fill from end to end I Chr. [Chronicles], and at similar punctilious lists – most of them concerning ancestors of Levites serving the temple in various functions – which recur throughout the book. …  
Defective: Chronicles is lopsided, an exclusive history of Judah which ignores the story of the northern kingdom of Israel, except for a few frowning side glances at times when the doings of certain kings of Israel affected Judah. … If we want to know fully about the Hebrew monarchies, who would not choose Samuel and Kings? … For example, in Samuel, David lives before us, an imperfect but very great and attractive personality. In Chronicles David is an almost perfect saint … there is in Chronicles a large number of passages – many complete chapters – purporting to give information not recorded in Samuel and Kings. … On scrutiny it appears indisputable that they furnish an absolute minimum (if any at all) of reliable new information about the kingdom of Judah. …  
Incredible: Consider the unbelievable features in Chronicles. … For overwhelmingly strong reasons, based on other scriptures, what is related is not credible history. … the Chronicler exaggerates numbers and amounts out of all possibility … the Chronicler declares that between them they [David and Solomon] amassed for the building and decoration of a small temple treasure of such value that it would suffice to meet the modern world’s financial crises. … The Jews for whom the Chronicler wrote were shrewd men … they could, if they chose, compare Chronicles with the plain tale in Samuel and Kings. Obviously the Chronicler expected his readers to look beneath the surface and to perceive a deeper purpose than the attempt to write an accurate account of the past. …  
Our initial difficulty in appreciating the purpose and value of Chronicles is that it is not history in our sense of the word at all. … he created a narrative so obviously idealized that his contemporaries could not fail to recognize it for what it was. … he is portraying the abiding meaning in human life – the reality of God and his righteousness, the continuity of the divine good purpose. …  
…Here are the historical landmarks that would dwell in his own and his fellow’ thoughts. (a) In 721 B.C. the kingdom of Israel had come to an end when the Assyrians captured Samaria and removed into captivity some thirty thousand Israelites, replacing them by alien settlers. (b) In 586 ended the kingdom of Judah when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem, broke down its walls, burned temple and palace, and departed to Babylonia its leading citizens and craftsmen, in number about thirty to fifty thousand persons. (c) In 538, when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, he permitted Jews to go back to Palestine … (d) in 520-516 a substitute temple was built … (e) Thereafter for about 150 years nothing in particular happened, until in 384 – perhaps not 444, as used to be thought – Nehemiah, coming from Babylonia with authority from its Persian king, rebuilt Jerusalem’s walls. (f) Shortly afterward a caravan of some 1,800 Jews led by Ezra (if the event is not exaggerated) returned to Jerusalem from Babylonia …
…
… In conquered Israel the Assyrians in 721 B.C. had prohibited sacrifice to Yahweh at the Hebrew sanctuaries. … Some years after 721 the Assyrians permitted sacrifices to Yahweh, but at one place only in the occupied land, at Bethel. Meantime, many bold Israelites … had accepted an invitation from the Judean King Hezekiah to go to Jerusalem to keep the Passover …  
When the kingdom of Judah was overthrown in 586 its inhabitants were stunned for a time. But in Judah, as earlier in Israel, the mass of the population – perhaps four out of every five Hebrews was left in Palestine. …  
In all probability not very long after 586, and certainly long before 538, worship of Yahweh was resumed at the sacred area in Jerusalem. … As the city revived, and when in 520 the temple was rebuilt, increase of clergy was needed, for the daily ritual required many ministrants and large augmentation was necessary at the times of the three great religious festivals. … One can infer that the permanent staff in Jerusalem began to assert superiority against the ‘occasional’ Levites, especially if they were from Israelitish territory. Against that cruel, narrow-minded, vested interest attitude the Chronicler set his face. …  
Opposed to that horrid, petty antagonism the Chronicler wrote, showing in a picture the goodness of brotherhood and reunion. He urged as the will of God that there should be one Hebrew people. …
…
The outcome of clerical tension in Jerusalem during the fifth century was that certain Levitical families who could claim descent from Levi through Zadok, or, more widely, through Aaron, established themselves as having exclusive sacerdotal rights: they alone were priests unto God,”: in contrast to all other Levites (musicians, singers, custodians, porters) whose status was that of “ministers unto their brethren the priests … The superiority of the Aaronite Zadokites was solemnly documented as carrying the authority of Moses by those portions of the Pentateuch which are termed the Priestly Code, and when the whole Pentateuch was promulgated – apparently not earlier than 450 nor later than 350 B.C. – a final settlement had been reached: this, and neither more nor less, was the law of God given by Moses.  
Prevailing opinion has been that the Chronicler wrote during the succeeding century, 350-250 B.C. This conclusion would follow if he were the compiler of the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, but the reason assigned for that opinion is not cogent … Linguistic features (discussed below) are deemed to imply no earlier period than late in the fourth century. If so, we have to think of the Chronicler as one who lived a long while after the establishment of the system of ritual set forth in the Priestly Code, after the Aaronite Zadokites had attained their supremacy … But if so, how incomprehensible and naïve was the Chronicler’s mentality! … If he did pen such heterodoxy, hoping to induce the entrenched priests to contravene the word of God and admit to their privileges numbers of the inferior clergy, how naïve he was! … If, further, he was the author of the entire text of Chronicles as it now stands, how weakly he advanced his astonishing plea! For whenever he alludes to Levites and ritual in a way not incompatible with the earlier Deuteronomic standpoint, but incompatible with the ultimate orthodoxy of the Priestly Code – always there we find qualifying and contradictory phrases and verses to the effect that nevertheless orthodox procedure had been observed on the occasion. There is, however, virtual unanimity that these phrases and verses were not part of the Chronicler’s original writing, but are corrective additions inserted into this text at a later date. …  
On the other hand, consider whether the Chronicler’s original work may be dated in the circumstances of the fifth century; or, say, 450-350 B.C. It would then have been very relevant, and we could credit him with fine qualities and with making a sensible endeavor … If he wrote before the Aaronite Zadokites had won complete victory, and before the law as it stands in the Pentateuch had been finally written and declared, then his mode of referring to Levites does not perplex. And his idealizing picture of the past was a moving plea to the Judeans and men of Jerusalem to treat all loyalist Israelites … as brethren. This conception of the Chronicler’s purpose and period has been powerfully advocated by A.C. Welch [1939], and, in general, it seems that a date in the latter part of the fifth century, or very little later, should be accepted. It gives naturalness to the ‘Chronicler’s mind, and the great and complex perplexities which otherwise confront us in the basic characteristics of Chronicles vanish.  
A conspicuous problem of style, however, remains to be considered. Chronicles contains many and lengthy quotations from the books of Samuel and Kings. Those books are written in what may be termed “classical” Hebrew, whereas all else in Chronicles – that is, the Chronicler’s own composition – differs startlingly in details of vocabulary and syntax from the Hebrew of Samuel and Kings. … Evidently he wanted his readers to realize without difficulty just when they were reading quotations and when his own idealizing presentation of affairs. The Chronicler’s own diction must be that of ordinary contemporary use, and admittedly it is similar to that found in the latest Hebrew writings in the Old Testament.  
But even by the middle of the third century B.C. vernacular speech in Jerusalem had, it seems, ceased to be Hebrew and become Aramaic. Moreover, at about 400 B.C. a reference in Neh. [Nehemiah] 8:8 to a public reading from the Law probably signified that the people understood clearly only when they were given an interpretation in their everyday terms. It may reasonably be asked. How early did ordinary Hebrew diction begin to diverge from the “classical” literary idiom, and how rapid was the process of change? … Israelitish Hebrew differed in particulars from the Judean: there is evidence as far back as the compilation of the northern records concerning Elijah and Elisha. …
…
The view of the structure of Chronicles indicated above affords a consistent and reasonable criterion for distinguishing the original writing of the Chronicler from the numerous additions which, as all scholars are agreed, were in the course of time introduced into the manuscripts. When the final Law obtained, devout readers were sure to be distressed by passages and verses which conflicted with its provisions, or were ambiguous or perilously vague. … Attempts were therefore made to improve it. What seem to be the consequent corrections and amplifications will be pointed out in the Exegesis.
…
A subordinate and difficult problem is how far, if at all, the Chronicler for is new material availed himself of lost sources, and whether in consequence his work adds anything reliable to what Kings tells about the history of Judah,. In Chronicles there is a great parade of alleged sources, among them notably references to lost prophetic writings… But for the most part these references on investigation merge into one general question – whether the Chronicler had before him a large-scale document other than Kings about the history of Judah and Israel… If he did, it was an edifying rather than a historically trustworthy work; and he did not quote from it, as he does from Kings, but transmuted into his own style what he wanted to reproduce. Its existence is doubtful; its worth for reliable new information is certainly slender. Nevertheless, it is difficult not to feel that the Chronicler was able to avail himself of some written and oral minor sources of information other than Kings, and to some extent of pre-exilic date, which he used as a basis for numerous details regarding ancestors, places, building operations, and certain events and dates. And indeed, evidence to that effect has grown in recent years …
…
The text of Chronicles is in fairly good condition… we know that in the course of manuscript transmission the text in Chronicles was sometimes adjusted to that found in Samuel and Kings: sometimes the reverse process is to be detected.
…
The translators of the Septuagint placed Chronicles after Kings, and in consequence that is its position in our Bibles. But it was very nearly excluded from the Jewish scriptures and was set as the last book. … learned Jewish students would not miss the inner inconsistencies; and whereas Samuel and Kings were indispensable, Chronicles was highly debatable. When toward the end of the first century A.D. the rabbis at Jamnia reached decision as to which writings should be classed as sacred, there must have been anxious discussion about Chronicles. … (Elmslie, 1954, pp. III 341-348)  

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary - Robert North, S.J.Chr  

[Chronicles] is presumed to be the last book to be received into the Hebr [Hebrew] canon, since it is put after Neh [Nehemiah]… Not all Hebr mss. [manuscripts] assign this last place to Chr; the “Palestinian tradition” puts it immediately after the Psalms (whose organization it described) and puts Ezra-Neh at the end of the Writings… The LXX [the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] preserves the natural order of Chr before Ezra … this may prove that Alexandrian Jewry had a canon in that order or that the notion of “canonicity” was of Christian origin before Jewish readers felt its need. Text study has been enriched by the discovery of Aleppo Codex 2 Chr 35:7-36:19 (M Beit-Arié … 1982 ) and of the masorah¹ 1 Chr 4-9 (G. Weil … 1984).  
The Targum has been newly published and its editorial observation is that the theologizing and clarifying aims of the Targum continue those of Chr itself (R. Le Déut …). A special similarity of Chr with the Qumran Temple Scroll has been noted chiefly in the use of particles (T. Yohanan… 1983…). The Chronicles’ matres lectionis ^2] stem not from its author but from the Maccabee period when Jews were showing more interest in the study of Hebrew (… Willi…).
…
There is … general agreement that the author of Chr is a Levite cantor whose own genealogy is probably that given in 1 Chr 3:19-24 … (Robert North, 1990, p. 364)  

FOOTNOTES
¹ Masorah - a vast body of textual criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures including notes on features of writing and on the occurrence of certain words and on variant sources and instructions for pronunciation and other comments that were written between AD 600 and 900 by Jewish scribes in the margins or at the end of texts - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/.  
² matres lectionis (Latin “mothers of reading) - The usage of certain consonants to indicate a vowel in the spelling of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac languages is called. The letters that do this in Hebrew are א (aleph), ה (he), ו (waw) and י (yod). - http://biblicalhebrew.org  
An Amateur's Journey Through the Bible

I found a copy of "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" by Baigent and Leigh (1991) and while it's a fun read, it seems more Dan Brown than Amihai Mazar.
Is there a respectable re-telling of the publication delays that defined so much of the work on the Qumran material since its discovery in 1947?

Cosmic Symbolism in Hellenistic Judaism

A fair amount of evidence has accumulated showing that Jews in the hellenized world were similarly concerned with astrology and the influence of the cosmos. Several early Jewish synagogues have been uncovered with intact floor mosaics that feature images of the zodiac, the seasons, the moon, and the sun in the form of Helios the sun god with his chariot. Jewish amulets from the first century onward feature a personified sun and moon as well as the stars and planets, represented in a manner implying astral piety. In some, the sun is identified as Iaō (Yahweh in Greek). (Goodenough, pp. 116-126)
The great temple in Jerusalem featured astral symbolism as well. According to Josephus, the outer veil of the temple, an enormous curtain 80 feet high, depicted a “panorama of the entire heavens”, i.e. the starry sky (J.W. 5.5.4). According to both Josephus and Philo, the “holy candlestick” (menorah) in the temple had seven branches to represent the seven planets (cf. Philo, Heir of Divine Things, 221-24). Philo also identified the twelve stones on the high priest’s breastplate as symbols of the zodiac, worn in imitation of the true temple, which was the cosmos itself (Som. 1.215). Rabbinical sources averred that the twelve tribes of Israel were an allusion to the zodiac,⁸ as were the various furnishings of the first temple that came in twelves: basins, cups, spoons, oxen, etc. The round brazen sea in the temple was supposed to have represented the cosmos. (See Goodenough, p. 149 for sources.) ...
The Dead Sea Scrolls provide another example of a first-century Jewish community that was interested in the stars. Some of the Qumran documents focus on astronomy for the purposes of keeping religious calendars, and others for astrological purposes. Examples include 4Q186, an astrological handbook, and 4Q318, a document containing a zodiacal calendar with astrological predictions at the end.
Astral immortality — the Platonic conception of the afterlife — also gained a significant following in Judaism during this period. ...

Early Christianity: Jewish Tradition Meets Greek Cosmology

It becomes apparent now (to me, at least) that early Christianity was a form of Hellenistic Judaism that had been released from its ethnic restrictions — a blend of Jewish tradition with Platonic cosmology focused on a heavenly redeemer figure who was reconceived as the saviour not of Israel, but of the entire cosmos. Standing in opposition to Christ were a hierarchy of unruly or ignorant demons and planetary divinities who had corrupted earth and, in some cases, the lower heavenly realms. This can be illustrated through a survey — by no means comprehensive — of early Christian texts.

The Ascension of Isaiah

The early (probably first-century) text known as The Ascension of Isaiah contains a brief proto-Gospel about the descent and ascent of Jesus as revealed to Isaiah in a vision. First, Isaiah is given a tour of the heavens, which consist of seven levels above the firmament, clearly inspired by Platonic models of the seven planets (Wright, p. 158). ...
In the sixth and seven heavens, Isaiah learns about the Lord Christ, God’s Son, who will be called “Jesus” when he descends to the corruptible world (earth). Christ is to take on the form of a man and will be crucified unawares by “the god of that world” (9:14) before conquering the angel of death and ascending again. In keeping with the Platonic models of Aristotle and Plutarch, the realm of the world is corrupt, and the air below the heavenly spheres is filled with demons, which the author calls angels. A bit further on, we read that even the lower levels of heaven are ruled by gods who do not yet glorify Christ. As Christ descends the five lower levels of heaven, he must take on the visual appearance of the angels who inhabit each stage to avoid discovery by the “princes and angels and gods” who control those realms, until he has fulfilled his mission (Asc. Is. 10:12).
The Ascension of Isaiah clearly derives its cosmology and understanding of immortality from the Greek philosophy described above. It differs, however, in that the immortal beings below the firmament are wholly corrupt, and that they have a leader, the angel Samael. These elements clearly come from the Enoch-Jubilees tradition, and the name Samael itself originates in 1 Enoch. Christ as an angelic figure in heaven who descends to save righteous believers also comes from Jewish traditions (previously discussed).

Paul and the Cosmic Gospel

We can conclude from 2 Cor. 12:2, in which Paul describes his vision of Paradise located in the “third heaven”, that the apostle holds to a Platonic cosmology with multiple heavens (Wright, p. 133).

I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven…. And I know that such a person…was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. (2 Cor. 12:2–4)

One of Paul’s core teachings seems to be that Christ offers deliverance from the influence of cosmic entities and forces:

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor archons nor powers … nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:39)

Paul’s vocabulary of angels, archons and powers has cosmic meaning in both Jewish and philosophical texts (see below), and ‘height’ and ‘depth’ are drawn specifically from the astronomical vocabulary of the first century CE (see Lewis, p. 59 for references; Van Kooten, pp. 93ff.).
Cosmic fatalism is also in view when Paul teaches that “when we were children, we were enslaved by the elements of the cosmos” (Gal. 4:3). This cryptic doctrine is readily explained by the contemporary teachings of Plutarch and Philo, who say that mortals are subject to the generative and destructive nature of the elements (Van Kooten, pp. 60–65).
This helps us understand what Paul means in the ensuing verses (Gal. 4:4–9), where he equates the conversion of non-Jewish Galatians to the Jewish law as a return to servitude under the cosmic elements. ...

Principles, Powers, and Forces

Although the eschatological ‘powers’ in Daniel refers to earthly kingdoms, later Jewish and Christian writers applied the term to angelic beings, as does Paul (Van Kooten, pp. 95-96).¹³ In 1 Corinthians, it is combined with two other terms: ‘principles’ (archai) and ‘forces’ (dunameis). These labels sometimes referred to angels in the Septuagint and Hellenistic Jewish texts (Van Kooten, pp. 93-99), but Paul might have their philosophical usage in mind. Philo uses ‘principles’ as a synonym for the four elements, and ‘forces’ sometimes denotes the qualities of the four elements: dry, wet, cold, and hot (see ibid. pp. 100-102 for references). ...

Paul’s Cosmic Crucifixion

As mentioned above, Paul understood the crucifixion as a cosmic event, whatever [or whether] terrestrial story may have underlain it. In 1 Cor. 2:8, he explains that the Lord of glory was crucified by “the archons of this age (aeon)” out of ignorance because they did not understand the secret wisdom (sophia) of God (Lewis, pp. 55ff).

The Epistle to the Colossians

The author of Colossians has a very specific view of Christ’s role in the cosmos. According to him, Christ was the firstborn of creation (as described by Philo), and the entirety of the heavens and earth, including the thrones, dominions, principles, and powers, were created in Christ (Col. 1:15-16).¹⁴ ...
In Colossians, not only is Christ the body of the cosmos, but he is its creator as well (1:15–17; see Talbert, p. 5; Van Kouten, p. 126). This might reflect a trend in the Middle Platonism that attributed creation to a second god, the Intellect (Nous) or Logos of the Supreme God (Dillon, pp. 7, 46). ...

The Gospel of Mark

... embeds cosmological ideas that are key to understanding it.
Jesus’ ministry itself is bookended by cosmological events. It begins with a baptism, during which the heavens are torn apart, signifying the cosmic nature of Jesus:

And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved….” (Mark 1:10–11)

This is, in fact, one half of an inclusio or “Markan sandwich”, because there is a second instance at Jesus’ death where something is similarly torn and a voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God: the tearing of the veil of the temple, which Ulansey (Ulansey 1991) points out must have been, for various reasons, the outer veil on which a panorama of the heavens was depicted.¹⁹ ... it seems reasonable to assume that Mark intends to portray Jesus’ entire ministry and death as an event that alters the cosmos. It also links baptism to Christ’s death as analogous events with cosmic meaning.
The sundering of heaven that herald’s Jesus’ arrival is immediately followed by the temptation of Jesus by Satan, although Mark offers none of the colorful detail that Luke and Matthew add. This is followed a few verses later by Jesus’ first miracle in which he demonstrates his authority over demons by performing an exorcism (1:21–27). More exorcisms follow (1:32–34), and in every case, it is only the demons, with their innate cosmic knowledge, who recognize Jesus’ identity and must be silenced. This secrecy motif, of course, is also present in the Ascension of Isaiah and can be found in other early Christian writings. The positioning of this pericope at the start of Jesus’ ministry signals its importance (Van Oyen, p. 108).
Jesus’ mission to conquer the demonic forces is made even more explicit in the Beelzebul controversy (3:19b–27), following his selection of twelve disciples (a cosmically meaningful number). After identifying Satan as the ruler of the demons, Jesus defends his exorcisms with the analogy of a thief who ties up a house’s owner in order to plunder it. The house clearly represents Satan’s kingdom, the earthly realm, and Jesus is an infiltrator who has come to plunder the world — i.e. to liberate humanity from demonic control. Mark’s depiction of Jesus as cosmic saviour is thoroughly in keeping with Hellenistic religion and cosmology, although the setting and other details are Jewish.

Final Thoughts

... As both an off-shoot of Judaism and a Hellenistic mystery religion, Christianity offered a compelling message about a divine redeemer who had taken on temporary human form to defeat the demonic powers of fate and overcome death. This message is inseparable from the cosmological worldview that allowed it to take shape.
....
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/the-structure-of-heaven-and-earth-how-ancient-cosmology-shaped-everyones-theology/
Posted on August 17, 2019 by Paul D.

General – The previous discovery of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' in the Qumran Caves (above the northwest shore of the Dead Sea) by Bedouin shepherds, becomes known.
1: Jackie Robinson, the first African American in Major League Baseball since the 1880s, signs a contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers / King George II of Greece is succeeded by his brother Paul / The 1947 Royal New Zealand Navy mutinies begin.
4: The International Civil Aviation Organization begins operations.
7: The Arab Ba'ath Party is established by merger in Damascus / Edaville Railroad opens in Massachusetts, as the first railway theme park / The largest recorded sunspot group appears on the solar surface.
9: Multiple tornadoes strike Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, killing 184 and injuring 970 / Civil Rights Movement - The Journey of Reconciliation AKA the first Freedom Ride begins, organized by the Congress of Racial Equality to challenge segregation law on interstate buses.
15: Jackie Robinson becomes the first African American to play Major League Baseball since the 1880s.
16: Texas City Disaster - The ammonium nitrate cargo of French-registered Liberty ship SS Grandcamp explodes in Texas City, Texas, killing at least 581, including all but one member of the city fire department, injuring at least 5,000 and destroying 20 city blocks. Of the dead, remains of 113 are never found, and 62 are unidentifiable / American financier and presidential adviser Bernard Baruch describes the post–World War II tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States as a "Cold War".
18: The British Royal Navy detonates 6,800 tons of explosives, in an attempt to demolish the fortified island of Heligoland, Germany, thus creating one of the largest man-made non-nuclear explosions in history / Mrs. Ples is discovered in the Sterkfontein area in Transvaal, South Africa.
20: King Frederik IX of Denmark succeeds his father King Christian X, on the throne of Kingdom of Denmark.
26: Academy-Award-winning Tom and Jerry cartoon, The Cat Concerto, is released to theatres.

https://imgur.com/a/JWz8c
The writings in “Dead Sea Scrolls” (Qumram Codex) show vastly different “history” than what is found in the Bible. The Genesis Apocryphon (in the Dead Sea Scrolls) is considerably different than the Bible’s Genesis. This scroll is dated from second century BCE to first century CE (writen on sheep hide), whereas the Bible’s account post-dates this by a few centuries.
1-2 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Exodus are VASTLY different in the Dead Sea Scrolls than in the Bible. There are over 30 chances in Jeremiah alone. Entire pages worth of text is missing in the Bible and found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, while entire pages of different text exist in the Bible but are missing in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Bible scholars have known THIS FACT for 40 years, ever since the Cave Four discoveries at Qumran.
The scrolls provide much evidence that that Old Testament, like New Testament, went through many changes engineered by human hands.

"More than 60 years ago, excavations at the Qumran Caves revealed almost one thousand ancient scrolls that offered important glimpses into humanity’s past. Archaeologists were stumped to find one unusual text among these, a scroll that offers clues regarding the demise of the Nephilim. It is called The Book of Giants.
The Bible makes several references to the Nephilim and most of them can be found in the book of Genesis. The bulk of information pertaining to these giants of old come from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. This ancient Jewish religious work is attributed to Noah’s great-grandfather, although some scholars date parts of it to around 300 BC.
Enoch is a puzzling character, to say the least. The book of Genesis tells us he lived on Earth for 365 years, before being taken by God; “he walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him.” During his time down here, our planet was also inhabited by ‘angels’ who interacted freely with humans, eventually interbreeding with the “daughters of man” and giving birth to a race of unnaturally strong and giant hybrids called the Nephilim.
The origin of the word Nephilim isn’t fully understood but scholars have proposed several etymologies: “the fallen”, “apostates”, or “those that cause others to fall down.” Regardless of their name, the Nephilim have always been a synonym for giants.
The Book of Giants found in the Qumran Caves offer a perspective that is different from that of the Book of Enoch. Although incomplete, the scroll fragments paint a grim picture: the Nephilim become aware that, as a result of their violent and deviant ways, they face imminent destruction—and that scares them enough to ask Enoch to speak on their behalf in front of God.
The text begins by detailing how the Nephilim plagued the Earth and all that lived on it. But once they all start receiving prophetic dreams of doom, fear seeps into their hearts. The first one to have these dreams was Mahway, the titan son of the angel Barakel. In his dream, he saw a tablet being submerged in water. When the tabled emerges, all but three names have been washed away. This symbolizes the Flood and subsequent destruction of all but Noah’s sons.
At the time, this fact had not become obvious to the Nephilim so they debated the meaning of Mahway’s dream, but were unsuccessful in interpreting the signs. Soon after, two more giants, Ohya and Hahya, the sons of the fallen angel Shemyaza begin having similar dreams; they dreamed of a tree being uprooted except for three of its roots.
Following this, the rest of the group of giants began having apocalyptic dreams:
THEREUPON TWO OF THEM HAD DREAMS AND THE SLEEP OF THEIR EYE FLED FROM THEM, AND THEY AROSE AND CAME TO […AND TOLD] THEIR DREAMS, AND SAID IN THE ASSEMBLY OF [THEIR COMRADES] THE MONSTERS […IN] MY DREAM I WAS WATCHING THIS VERY NIGHT [AND THERE WAS A GARDEN…] GARDENERS AND THEY WERE WATERING […TWO HUNDRED TREES AND] LARGE SHOOTS CAME OUT OF THEIR ROOT […] ALL THE WATER, AND THE FIRE BURNED ALL [THE GARDEN…] THEY FOUND THE GIANTS TO TELL THEM THE DREAM…”
The giants now realize the prophetic nature of their dreams and seek help from Enoch. Unfortunately, Enoch had already disappeared from the face of the Earth so the Nephilim elected one of their members to undertake a cosmic journey in order to find him.
[MAHWAY] MOUNTED UP IN THE AIR LIKE STRONG WINDS, AND FLEW WITH HIS HANDS LIKE EAGLES […HE LEFT BEHIND] THE INHABITED WORLD AND PASSED OVER DESOLATION, THE GREAT DESERT […]AND ENOCH SAW HIM AND HAILED HIM, AND MAHWAY SAID TO HIM […] HITHER AND THITHER A SECOND TIME TO MAHWAY […]THE GIANTS AWAIT YOUR WORDS, AND ALL THE MONSTERS OF THE EARTH. IF […]HAS BEEN CARRIED […] FROM THE DAYS OF […]THEIR […] AND THEY WOULD BE ADDED […] WE WOULD KNOW FROM YOU THEIR MEANING […] TWO HUNDRED TREES THAT FROM HEAVEN CAME DOWN…”
Pg 2 Unfortunately, parts of the scrolls were damaged beyond repair but the general direction of the text is obvious. One of the Nephilim traveled outside of Earth in search of Enoch and his vision-interpreting powers. The text becomes very interesting if we substitute a few terms and regard it not as an allegorical account, but the description of a real event whose meaning became muddled over time.
If we consider flying “with his hands like eagles” a metaphor, can we hypothesize that Mahway took off from Earth in a space ship? In this case, does “Desolation, the great desert” refer to interstellar space? It depends on how far we’re willing to interpret a fragmentary, 2,000 year-old scroll but ancient alien theorists do more than just take it at face value.
Enoch sends Mahway back where he came from, promising him he will speak to God on their behalf. Unfortunately for the Nephilim, the tablets Enoch sent them as a response did not bring good news:
THE SCRIBE ENOCH […] A COPY OF THE SECOND TABLET THAT [ENOCH] SENT IN THE VERY HAND OF ENOCH THE NOTED SCRIBE […IN THE NAME OF GOD THE GREAT] AND HOLY ONE, TO SHEMYAZA AND ALL [HIS COMPANIONS…] LET IT BE KNOWN TO YOU THAT NOT […] AND THE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE, AND THAT YOUR WIVES […] THEY AND THEIR SONS AND THE WIVES OF [THEIR SONS] BY YOUR LICENTIOUSNESS ON THE EARTH, AND THERE HAS BEEN UPON YOU […AND THE LAND IS CRYING OUT] AND COMPLAINING ABOUT YOU AND THE DEEDS OF YOUR CHILDREN […] THE HARM THAT YOU HAVE DONE TO IT. […] UNTIL RAPHAEL ARRIVES, BEHOLD, DESTRUCTION [IS COMING, A GREAT FLOOD, AND IT WILL DESTROY ALL LIVING THINGS] AND WHATEVER IS IN THE DESERTS AND THE SEAS. AND THE MEANING OF THE MATTER […] UPON YOU FOR EVIL. BUT NOW, LOOSEN THE BONDS BI[NDING YOU TO EVIL…] AND PRAY.”
Whether they prayed or not, the text cannot say. But they don’t appear to be here anymore, once again proving the effectiveness of a global flood."
https://ufoholic.com/forbidden-history/2000-year-old-book-of-giants-describes-how-the-nephilim-were-wiped-out/
The Book of Giants (the orginal Fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/13122315/The-Book-of-Giants-2009-Translation
"One of the most important archaeological discoveries was made at the Qumran Caves over half a century ago. Among the artifacts discovered were thousands of antique scrolls that offered extremely important insight into our past. Many of these scrolls helped complete a lost fragment in Earth’s history.
But in addition to the numerous scrolls, archaeologists were surprised when they stumbled across a rare and unusual text: an ancient scroll that describes the demise of the ancient Nephilim. Called the Book fo Giants, it speaks about the creatures that inhabited our planet in the distant past and how they were destroyed."
https://www.ancient-code.com/2000-year-old-book-of-giants-describes-how-the-nephilim-were-destroyed/

In my last post I pointed out that the title “Deuteronomy” was based on a misunderstanding of Scripture.
Some of you may be thinking, if that’s the case, then why are you even using that title in your blog?
My answer to that question is simple.
I’m using it because for better or worse that’s the term which has become widely used and the one everybody is familiar with.
For instance, it’s the exact same thing with the terms “semite” or “anti-semitic“.
The word “semite” comes from the word “Shem” and literally means a son of Shem.
And the word “anti-Semitic” literally means to be against the sons of Shem.
Since a good portion of the Arab world is also descended from Shem and despise Israel, it is completely incongruent with this words original meaning to use “anti-Semitic” to mean being against the Jewish people.
Yet as divorced as the word has become from its original cultural context, that’s how the word is used today.
Let’s move on to our discussion about Deuteronomy.
Currently, the oldest surviving manuscript of Deuteronomy we have today dates back to the 9th century.
It is called the Masoretic Text and includes the entire TANACH (Hebrew Bible).
Many modern scholars with their nonsensical “literary criticism” or “Textual Criticism” theories have been trying to disprove the authenticity of the five books of Moses for years.
However, I believe a very important event which took place between 1946 and 1956 in a series of twelve caves around a site known as WADI QUMRAN in the West Bank of the Jordan River completely blows apart the ludicrous claims promoted by those who use “textual criticism” to say the Torah is not accurate.
What discovery am I talking about?
I’m talking about the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Here’s what you’ve got to know about these ancient documents.
These scrolls contain many large fragments of the Book of Deuteronomy that are practically identical to the Maoretic Text I mentioned above.
Of course, there are a few minor spelling or copyist errors…
…but for the most part, THEY ARE PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL.
Therefore, we can pretty confident that the Book of Deuteronomy we have in our Bibles is accurate to at least 100-200 B.C.
Now what exactly is this “Textual Criticism” I referred to?
Let me break it down for you nice and simple.
“Textual Criticism” is basically the “science” of examining ancient texts and determining if their content matches the time period it claims it was written in.
What are some of the things these “scholars” look for?
Well, they might see if the contents of a given manuscript matches what is archeologically known about that time period…
…or they will try to see if multiple writers were involved in writing the text by seeing if more than one style of writing is being used…
…or they will see if there are other written documents from other cultures of that same era that would substantiate the claims of Scripture.
This isn’t any more different than an evolutionist looking at some bone (like Lucy) or other scattered artifacts and then jumping to the conclusion that we lived liked the Flintstones thousands and thousands of years ago.
Based on these factors, these bogus scholars now assert that Deuteronomy was probably penned in the 8th century B.C. as opposed to the 13th or 14th century (the period of the Exodus).
Why is higher literary criticism a bunch of hogwash?
Simply because it isn’t scientific.
There is no outside objective standard by which we can measure the truthfulness of what these folks are saying.
If there’s no outside objective standard by which we can measure the truthfulness of a certain claim, do you know what that means?
It means these claims based on “higher literary criticism” are nothing more than pure subjectivity.
Here is one FACT all of these Textual Criticism folks should consider:
EVERY ANCIENT FRAGMENT OF THE TORAH EVER FOUND FROM ANY TIME PERIOD ARE PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH EACH OTHER!!!
Got it?
To be fair however, I will concede this to these bogus scholars.
I will concede that there could very well have been some redactions that took place in the 8th or 9th century (the time Higher Criticism theorists claim Deuteronomy was written).
And of course, I will concede that other writers besides Moses wrote Deuteronomy, this is obvious because part of Deuteronomy deals with what happened AFTER Moses’ death.
However, what I will NOT concede to in any way is the ridiculous claim that a good portion of Deuteronomy was penned about 500 years after Israel’s exodus from Egypt.
That is just nonsense.
For more, google "messianic revolution"! We're the NUMBER ONE SITE under that search term!!!

JEREMIAH  
Introduction  
Almost buried among oracles of doom is the revelation that truth, judgment and justice is the divine manifestation (3:2; 5:5, 27-29; 7:4-9; 9:22(23 in translations)-23(24); 22:3, 13-16). Unjust societies are condemned for the release of evil within them. Religion is empty unless the weak and poor are cared for. Oppression and rapacity create disequilibrium which is resolved by an existential God who is no longer confined to the Holy Land (chapter 29:1-14).  
“Jeremiah lived through one of the most troubled periods of the ancient Near East. He witnessed the fall of a great empire and the rising of one even greater. In the midst of his turmoil, the kingdom of Judah, then in the hands of deplorable kings, came to its downfall by resisting this overwhelming force of history.” (Couturier, 1990, p. 265)  
“I should have entered into a particular discussion relative to the history of those times mentioned by this Prophet, had they not passed already in review in the Books of Kings and Chronicles; in which much of the historical parts of this Prophet has been anticipated; and to which, in order to avoid repetition, I must refer my Readers. What is farther necessary to be added will be found in the following Notes.” (Clarke, 1831, p. IV 3)  
“The Assyrian Empire had been founded in the middle of the eighth century by Tiglath-pileser III, but its last strong king was Ashurbanipal (669-ca [approximately]. 633 B.C.). Assyria was weakened by prolonged wars, internal intrigues, and invasion by barbarians from the north, the Cimerians⁴ and the Scythians. The decisive blow came from the Medes and Chaldeans. In 614 B.C. the Medes captured the city of Asshur and made an alliance with the Chaldeans. Under the attack of these allies Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, fell two years later and the fate of the Assyrian Empire was sealed… The final defeat was delivered by the Chaldeans in the battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.) to the fragments of the Assyrians and to their allies from Egypt under Pharaoh Neco.  
“Control of the countries which had been in the Assyrian orbit now passed to the Babylonians under a Chaldean dynasty. …  
“Nebuchadrezzar is the most famous of the Babylonian monarchs; his name appears not only in the book of Jeremiah, but also in II Kings and Daniel…. The boundaries of his empire were virtually those of the old Assyrian empire; Judah was a tributary…  
“Jeremiah was probably born during the reign of Josiah (640-609). That king is most noted for the religious reforms which he instituted in the year 621 as the result of the finding of the original edition of Deuteronomy. These reforms had an important political aspect: they involved the throwing off of the Assyrian yoke… he died in 609 at the hands of Pharaoh Neco of Egypt as the latter was on his way to give aid to the Assyrians at the Euphrates River…  
“Josiah’s son, Jehoahaz, was placed on the throne of Judah by poplar consent, but ruled for only three months. As the Egyptians returned from their expedition into Mesopotamia, they deposed Jehoahaz and placed Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah on the throne.  
“Jehoiakim was king of Judah during eleven of the most active years of Jeremiah’s life (609-598)… Jehoiakim was subservient to the Egyptians, who had placed him on the throne, until shortly after the battle of Carchemish when he transferred his loyalty to the Babylonians, who were then clearly the dominant power. His vacillation in paying tribute to the Babylonians brought on two invasions of Judah: in about 602 B.C., when marauding bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites invaded the land… and again in 598, when a more formal invasion took place and Jerusalem was besieged. Jehoiakim himself died during the siege.  
“Upon the death of Jehoiakim his son Jehoiachin, succeeded to the throne. After a brief reign of three months he surrendered to the Babylonians who were besieging Jerusalem. He himself, many members of his court, and many of the people of Jerusalem were taken into exile to Babylonia…  
“Upon the surrender of Jerusalem Nebuchadrezzar… appointed as king another son of Josiah, Zedekiah, who ruled for eleven years… He… followed a pro-Babylonian policy for ten years. But he finally gave in to the pro-Egyptian faction in Jerusalem and withheld tribute from Babylonia. This brought the Babylonian army to Judah again. This time many of the towns were devastated, and Jerusalem itself was besieged. After besieging the city for a year and a half… the Babylonians finally captured Jerusalem in August, 587. Much of the city was burned, including the temple and royal place; the king was taken into captivity; and many Jews were exiled. This time Judah was made a province of the Babylonian Empire, with a governor rather than an independent king. The governor appointed by the Babylonians was Gedaliah, of a highly respected Jewish family. After ruling about five years… Gedaliah was assassinated by Ishmael, a member of the royal family, under the goading of the Ammonites. Some of the Jews, fearing Babylonian reprisal, fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them. Little is known in detail of the history of the Babylonian province of Judea after the death of Gedaliah.” (Hyatt, 1953, pp. V 777-778)  
“Jeremiah was born and grew up at Anathoth, a small village two miles northeast of Jerusalem, now marked by the site called Râs el-Kharrûbeh. He was born into a priestly family…  
“While still a young man Jeremiah received call to prophesy, now preserved in 1:4-10…  
“In his second vision he is represented as seeing ‘a boiling pot facing away from the north’ (1:13), and this is interpreted to mean that evil is about to break forth upon the land out of the north. Several of the poems in the early chapters of the book… describe in vivid language the sudden onslaught of a foe from the north, causing great destruction in Palestine. These poems are usually interpreted as depicting the coming of the Scythians, a nomadic people… who invaded western Asia, apparently from the Caucasian steppes, early in the seventh century. According to an account of Herodotus, the Scythians invaded Palestine and tried to enter Egypt, but were bought off by Psamtik, king of Egypt. Some of the Scythians then sacked a temple at Ascalon. Herodotus says that he Scythians ruled Asia for twenty-eight years, but he does not record any invasion of Judah or Jerusalem…  
“When the threat from the Scythians failed to materialize, at least one the scale prophesied by Jeremiah, the young prophet was discredited…  
“The view adopted in the Exegesis differs from the traditional interpretation of the early life of Jeremiah… The foe from the north was not the Scythians, but the Babylonians, and the poems which describe the coming of that foe were uttered in the time of Jehoiakim…  
“If Jeremiah predicted in these poems the coming of the Babylonians, his vision was clear, and his prophecy was ultimately fulfilled.” (Hyatt, 1953, p. V 779)
…
“The prophets did not lose their individuality and personality in performing their office. They were not mystics who became absorbed in the Divine, but retained a vivid consciousness of self over against the Divine.” (Hyatt, 1953, p. V 782)  
“In 1901, B. Duhm (Das Buch Jeremia [Tübingen 1901]) reduced the authentic passages to one fifth of the book. This radical position has been progressively put aside, and now critics recognize a much higher proportion of oracles to be authentic, even though some later additions and transformations can be detected clearly.  
…
“The Greek Version. The LXX of Jer [Jeremiah], according to K. Graf’s calculation (1852), is one-eighth shorter than the MT [Masoretic Text⁵ ]. The discussion of textual criticism has been recently stirred up by the discovery of important fragments at Qumran; at least two are in agreement with the MT, although a long one represents clearly the LXX tradition. We should recognize, then, that there were two different recensions. For both literary and theological reasons, the LXX cannot be understood any longer as an abbreviated form of the MT, and it certainly represents an older form of the text (J. G. Janzen, Studies in the text of Jeremiah [Cambridge MA 1973] …). (Couturier, 1990, p. 266 & 268)  
“It has often been remarked, that although several of the prophecies in this Book have their dates distinctly noted, and most of the rest may be ascertained from collateral evidence; yet there is a strange disorder in the arrangement. ‘There is,’ says Dr. Blayney, ‘a preposterous jumbling together of the prophecies of the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah in the seventeen Chapters which follow the twentieth, according to the Hebrew copies; so that, without any apparent reason, many of the latter reign preceded those of the former; and in the same reign, the last delivered are put first, and the first, last.’
…
“I hope none will suppose that these observations detract any thing form the Divine Inspiration of the Book. The Prophet delivered his discourses at particular times, in select portions, during forty or forty-three years: these were afterwards gathered together and stitched up without any attention to chronological arrangement. Though the Spirit of the Lord directed the Prophet, yet it would be absurd to suppose that it guided the hand of every collector or scribe into whose custody these several parcels might come.” (Clarke, 1831, p. IV 3 & 5)   FOOTNOTES   ⁴ “The Cimmerians or Kimmerians (Greek: Κιμμέριοι, Kimmerioi) were an ancient Indo-European people living north of the Caucasus and the Sea of Azov as early as 1300 BC until they were driven southward by the Scythians into Anatolia during the 8th century BC. Linguistically they are usually regarded as Thracian, Xiongnu or as Iranian, or at least to have had an Iranian ruling class.  
"After their exodus from the Pontic steppe the Cimmerians probably assaulted Urartu (Armenia) about 714 BC, but in 705, after being repulsed by Sargon II of Assyria, they turned towards Anatolia and in 696–695 conquered Phrygia. In 652, after taking Sardis, the capital of Lydia, they reached the height of power. Their decline quickly began, and their final defeat is dated between 637 or 626, when they were defeated by Alyattes of Lydia. Thereafter, they are no longer mentioned in historical sources but probably settled in Cappadocia.” wikipedia  
⁵ "The Masoretic Text (MT, 𝕸, or ) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles, although the Eastern Orthodox continue to use the Septuagint, as they hold it to be divinely inspired. In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.  
"The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Israel (and that is often quoted in the New Testament, especially by the Apostle Paul).  
"The Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) refers to the transmission of a tradition. In a very broad sense it can refer to the entire chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral law), but in reference to the Masoretic Text the word mesorah has a very specific meaning: the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew Bible and concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Hebrew Bible which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words.  
"The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the 9th century CE, and the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of the Masoretic Text, but now missing its Torah section) dates from the 10th century." - Wikipedia   An Amateur's Journey Through the Bible

Chapter 5 (part 2) of The Transmigration of Timothy Archer by Philip K. Dick

 When Kirsten and the bishop had returned to the Bay Area — not permanently but, rather, to deal with Jeff's death and the prob- lems raised by it — I could upon seeing them again notice a change in both of them. Kirsten looked worn and wretched, and this did not seem to me to emanate from the shock of Jeff's death alone. Obviously she was in ill health in purely physical terms. On the other hand, Bishop Archer seemed even more an- imated than when I had last seen him. He took complete charge of the situation regarding Jeff; he selected the burial spot, the kind of gravestone; he delivered the eulogy and all other rites, wearing full robes, and he paid for everything. The inscription on the gravestone came as a result of his inspiration. He chose a phrase which I found quite acceptable; it is the motto or ba- sic statement of the school of Heraclitus: NO SINGLE THING ABIDES; BUT ALL THINGS FLOW. I had been taught in philos- ophy class that Heraclitus himself invented that, but Tim ex- plained that this summation came after Heraclitus, by those of his school who followed him. They believed that only flux, which is to say change, is real. They may have been right. The three of us joined together after the graveside service; we returned to the Tenderloin apartment and tried to make our- selves comfortable. It took a while for any of us to say anything. Tim talked about Satan, for some reason. Tim had a new the- ory about Satan's rise and fall that he apparently wanted to try out on us, since we — Kirsten and I — were the closest people at hand. I presumed at the time that Tim intended to include his theory in the book he had begun working on. "I see the legend of Satan in a new way. Satan desired to know God as fully as possible. The fullest knowledge would come if he became God, was himself God. He strove for this and achieved it, knowing that the punishment would be perma- nent exile from God. But he did it anyhow, because the mem- ory of knowing God, really knowing him as no one else ever had or would, justified to him his eternal punishment. Now, who would you say truly loved God out of everyone who ever existed? Satan willingly accepted eternal punishment and ex- ile just to know God — by becoming God — for an instant. Fur- ther, it occurs to me, Satan truly knew God, but perhaps God did not really know or understand Satan; had He understood him, He would not have punished him. That is why it is said that Satan rebelled — which means Satan was outside God's control, outside God's domain, as if in another universe. But Satan did I think welcome his punishment, for it was his proof to him- self that he knew and loved God. Otherwise he might have done what he did for the reward . . . had there been a reward. 'Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven' is an issue, here, but not the true one: which is the ultimate goal and search to know and be: fully and really to know God, in comparison to which all else is really very little." "Prometheus," Kirsten said absently. She sat smoking and gazing. Tim said, "Prometheus means 'Forethinker.' He was involved in the creation of man. He was also the supreme trickster among the gods. Pandora was sent down to Earth by Zeus as a pun- ishment to Prometheus for stealing fire and bringing it to man. In addition, Pandora punished the whole human race. Epi- metheus married her, he was Hindsight. Prometheus warned him not to marry Pandora, since Prometheus could foresee the consequences. This same kind of absolute foreknowledge is or was considered by the Zoroastrians to be an attribute of God, the Wise Mind." "An eagle ate his liver," Kirsten said remotely. Nodding, Tim said, "Zeus punished Prometheus by chain- ing him and sending an eagle to eat his liver, which regenerated itself endlessly. However, Hercules released him. Prometheus was a friend to mankind beyond any doubt. He was a master craftsman. There is an affinity to the legend of Satan, certainly. As I see it, Satan could be said to have stolen — not fire — but true knowledge of God. However, he did not bring it to man, as Prometheus did with fire. Perhaps Satan's real sin was that upon acquiring that knowledge he kept it to himself; he did not share it with mankind. That's interesting . . . by that line of reasoning, one could argue that we could acquire a knowledge of God by way of Satan. I've never heard that theory put forth before." He became silent, apparently pondering. "Would you write this down?" he said to Kirsten. "I'll remember." Her tone was listless and drab. "Man must assault Satan and seize this knowledge," Tim said, "and take it from him. Satan does not want to yield it up. For concealing it — not for taking it in the first place — he was punished. Then, in a sense, human beings can redeem Satan by wrestling this knowledge from him." I said, "And then go off and study astrology." Glancing at me, Tim said, "Pardon?" "Wallenstein," I said. "Off casting horoscopes." "The Greek word which our word 'horoscope is based on," Tim said, are 'hora,' which means 'hour,' and 'scopos,' which means one who watches.' So 'horoscope' literally means 'one who watches the hours.' " He lit a cigarette; both he and Kirsten, since their return from England, seemed to smoke constantly. "Wallenstein was a fascinating person." "So Jeff says," I said. "Said, I mean." Cocking his head alertly, Tim said, "Was Jeff interested in Wallenstein? Because I have —" "You didn't know?" I said. Looking puzzled, Tim said, "I don't think so." Kirsten regarded him steadily, with an inscrutable expres- sion. "I have a number of good books on Wallenstein," Tim said. "You know, in many ways Wallenstein resembled Hitler." Both Kirsten and I remained silent. "Wallenstein contributed to the ruin of Germany," Tim said. "He was a great general. Friedrich von Schiller, as you may know, wrote three plays about Wallenstein, whose titles are: Wallenstein's Camp, The Piccolominis and The Death of Wal- lenstein. They are profoundly moving plays. This brings up, of course, the role of Schiller himself in the development of West- ern thought. Let me read you something." Setting his cigarette down, Tim went over to the bookcase for a book; he found it after a few minutes of hunting. "This may shed some light on the subject. In writing his friend — let me see; I have the name here — in writing to Wilhelm von Humboldt, this was to- ward the very end of Schiller's life, Schiller said, 'After all, we are both idealists, and should be ashamed of having said that the material world formed us, instead of being formed by us.' The essence of Schiller's vision was, of course, freedom. He was naturally absorbed in the great drama of the revolt of the Low- lands — by that I mean Holland — and —" Tim paused, thinking, his lips moving; he gazed absently off into space. On the couch, Kirsten sat in silence, smoking and staring. "Well," Tim said fi- nally, leafing through the book he held, "let me read you this. Schiller wrote this when he was thirty-four years old. Perhaps it sums up much of our aspirations, our most noble ones." Peering at the book, Tim read aloud. " 'Now that I have begun to know and to employ my spiritual powers properly, and illness unfor- tunately threatens to undermine my physical ones. However, I shall do what I can, and when in the end the edifice comes crashing down, I shall have salvaged what was worth preserv- ing.' " Tim shut the book and returned it to the shelf. We said nothing. I did not even think; I merely sat. "Schiller is very important to the twentieth century," Tim said; he returned to his cigarette, stubbed it out. For a long time, he stared down at the ashtray. "I'm going to send out for pizza," Kirsten said. "I'm not up to fixing dinner." "That's fine," Tim said. "Ask them to put Canadian bacon on it. And if they have soft drinks —" "I can fix dinner," I said. Kirsten rose, made her way to the phone, leaving Tim and me alone together. Earnestly, Tim said to me, "It is really a matter of great impor- tance to know God, to discern the Absolute essence, which is the way Heidegger puts it. 'Sein' is his term: Being. What we have uncovered at the Zadokite Wadi simply beggars description." I nodded. "How are you fixed for money?" Tim said, reaching into his coat pocket. "I'm fine," I said. You're working, still? At the real estate —" He corrected himself. "You're a legal secretary; you're still with them, then?" "Yes," I said. "But I'm just a clerk-typist." "I found my career as a lawyer taxing," Tim said, "but re- warding. I'd advise you to become a legal secretary and then perhaps you can use that as a jumping-off platform and go into law, become an attorney. It might even be possible for you to be a judge, someday." "I guess so," I said. Tim said, "did Jeff discuss the anokhi with you?" "Well, you wrote to us. And we saw newspaper and magazine articles." "They used the term in a special sense, a technical sense — the Zadokites. It could not have meant the Divine Intelligence be- cause they speak of having it, literally. There is one line from Document Six: 'Anokhi dies and is reborn each year, and upon each following year anokhi is more.' Or greater; more or greater, it could be either, perhaps lofty. It's extremely puzzling but the translators are working on it and we hope to have it during the next six months . . . and, of course, they're still piecing together the fragments, the scrolls that became mutilated. I have no knowledge of Aramaic, as you probably realize. I studied both Greek and Latin — you know, 'God is the final bulwark against non-Being.' " "Tillich," I said. "Beg pardon?" Tim said. "Paul Tillich said that," I said. "I'm not sure about that," Tim said. "It was certainly one of the Protestant existential theologians; it may have been Re- inhold Niebuhr. You know, Niebuhr is American, or rather was; he died quite recently. One thing that interests me about Niebuhr —" Tim paused a moment. "Niemöller served in the German navy in World War One. He worked actively against the Nazis and continued to preach until 1938. The Gestapo arrested him and he was sent to Dachau. Niebuhr had been a pacifist originally, but urged Christians to support the war against Hit- ler. I feel that one of the most significant differences between Wal- lenstein and Hitler — actually it is a very great similarity — lies in the loyalty oaths that Wallenstein —" Excuse me," I said. I went into the bathroom, opened the medicine cabinet to see if the bottle of Dexamyls was still there. It was not; all the medicine bottles were gone. Taken to Eng- land, I realized. Now in Kirsten's and Tim's luggage. Fuck. When I came out I found Kirsten standing alone in the liv- ing room. "I'm terribly, terribly tired," she said in a faint voice. "I can see that," I said. "There is no way I am going to be able to keep down pizza. Could you go to the store for me? I made a list. I want boned chicken, the kind that comes in a jar, and rice or noodles. Here; this is the list." She handed it to me. "Tim'll give you the money." "I have money." I returned to the bedroom, where I had put my coat and purse. As I was putting on my coat, Tim appeared from behind me, anxious to say something more. "What Schiller saw in Wallenstein was a man who colluded with fate to bring on his own demise. This would be for the Ger- man Romantics the greatest sin of all, to collude with fate, fate regarded as doom." He followed me from the bedroom, down the hall. "The whole spirit of Goethe and Schiller and — the others, their whole orientation was that the human will could overcome fate. Fate would not be regarded as inevitable but as something a person allowed. Do you see my point? To the Greeks, fate was 'ananke,' a force absolutely predetermined and impersonal; they equated it with Nemesis, which is retributive, punishing fate." "I'm sorry," I said. "I have to go to the store." "Aren't they bringing the pizza?" "Kirsten's not feeling well." Standing close to me and speaking in a low voice, Tim said, "Angel, I'm concerned about her. I can't get her to go to a doctor. Her stomach — either that or her gall bladder. Maybe you can convince her to undergo a multiphasic. She's afraid of what they'll find. You know, don't you, that she had cervical cancer a number of year ago." "Yes," I said. "And a hysterocleisis." "What is that?" "A surgical procedure; the month of the uterus is closed. She has so many anxieties in this area, that is, pertaining to this topic; it's impossible for me to discuss it with her." "I'll talk to her," I said. "Kirsten blames herself for Jeff's death." "Shit," I said. "I was afraid of that." "Coming from the living room, Kirsten said to me, "Add gin- ger ale to the list I gave you. Please." "Okay," I said. "Is the store —" "Turn right," Kirsten said. "It's four blocks straight and then one block left. It's a Chinese-run little grocery store but they have what I want." "Do you need any more cigarettes?" Tim said. "Yes, you might pick up a carton," Kirsten said. "Any of the low-tar brands; they all taste the same." "Okay," I said. Opening the door for me, Tim said, "I'll drive you." The two of us made our way down the sidewalk to his rented car, but, as we stood, he discovered that he did not have the keys. "We'll have to walk," he said. So we walked together, saying nothing for a time. "It's a nice night," I said finally. "There's something I've been meaning to discuss with you," Tim said. "Although technically it's not within your province." "I didn't know I had a province," I said. "It's not an area of expertise for you. I'm not sure who I should talk to about it. These Zadokite Documents are in some respects —" He hesitated. "I would have to say distressing. To me personally, is what I mean. What the translators have come across is many of the Logia — the stings — of Jesus predating Jesus by almost two hundred years." "I realize that," I said. "But that means," Tim said, "that he was not the Son of God. Was not, in fact, God, as the Trinitarian requires us to believe. That may pose a problem for you, Angel." "No, not really," I agreed. "The Logia are essential to our understanding and appercep- tion of Jesus as the Christ; that is, the Messiah or Anointed One. If, as would now seem to be the case, the Logia can be severed from the person Jesus, then we must reevaluate the four Gos- pels — not just the Synoptics but all four . . . we must ask our- selves what, then, we indeed do know about Jesus, if indeed we know anything at all." "Can't you just assume Jesus was a Zadokite?" I said. That was the impression I had gotten from the newspaper and mag- azine articles. Upon the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls, there had been an enormous flurry of spec- ulation that Jesus came from or was in some way connected with the Essenes. I saw no problem. I could not see what Tim was concerned about, as the two of us walked slowly along the sidewalk. "There is a mysterious figure," Tim said, "mentioned in a number the Zadokite Documents. He's referred to by a He- brew word best translated as 'Expositor.' It is this shadowy per- sonage to whom many of the Logia are attributed." "Well, then Jesus learned from him, or anyhow they were derived from him," I said. "But then Jesus is not the Son of God. He is not God Incar- nate, God as a human being." I said, "Maybe God revealed the Logia to the Expositor." "But then the Expositor is the Son of God." "Okay," I said. "These are problems over which I've agonized — although that is rather a strong term. But it bothers me. And it should bother me. Here we have many of the parables related in the Gospels now extant in scrolls predating Jesus by two hundred years. Not all the Logia are represented, admittedly, but many are, many crucial ones. Certain cardinal doctrines of resurrec- tion are also present, those being expressed in the well-known 'I am' utterances by Jesus. 'I am the bread of life.' 'I am the Way.' 'I am the narrow gate.' These simply cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. Just take the first one: 'I am the bread of life. Any- one who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him.' Do you see my point?" "Sure," I said. "The Zadokite Expositor said it first." "Then the Zadokite expositor conferred eternal life, and specifically through the Eucharist." "I think that's wonderful," I said. Tim said, "It was always the hope, but never the expectation, that we would someday unearth Q, or unearth something that would permit us to reconstruct Q, or parts of Q; but no one ever dreamed that Ur-Quelle would manifest itself predating Je- sus, and by two centuries. Also, there are peculiar other —" He paused. "I want to obtain your promise not to discuss what I'm going to say; not to talk about it with anyone. This part hasn't been released to the media." "May I die horribly." "Associated with the 'I am' statements are certain very pe- culiar additions not found in the Gospels and apparently not known to the early Christians. At least, no written record of their knowing these things, believing these things, has passed down to us. I —" He broke off. "The term 'bread' and the term used for 'blood' suggest literal bread and literal blood. As if the Zadokites had a specific bread and a specific drink that they pre- pared and had that constituted in essence the body and blood of what they call the anokhi, for whom the Expositor spoke and whom the expositor represented." "Well," I said. I nodded. "Where is this store?" Tim looked around. "Another block or so," I said. "I guess." Tim said earnestly, "Something they drank; something they ate. As in the Messianic banquet. It made them imortal, they believed; it gave them eternal life, this combination of what they ate and what they drank. Obviously, this prefigures the Eu- charist. Obviously it's related to the Messianic banquet. Anokhi. Always that word. They ate anokhi and they drank anokhi and, as a result, they became anokhi. They became God Himself." "Which is what Christianity teaches," I said, "regarding the Mass." "There are parallels found in Zoroastrianism," Tim said. "The Zoroastrians sacrificed cattle and combined this with an intoxicating drink called 'haoma.' But there is no reason to as- sume that this resulted in a homologizing with the Deity. That, you see, is what the Sacraments achieve for the Christian com- municant: he — or she — is homologized to God as represented in and by Christ. Becomes God or becomes one with God, uni- fied with, assimilated to, God. An apotheosis, is what I'm say- ing. But here, with the Zadokites, you get precisely this with the bread and the drink derived from anokhi, and of course the term 'anokhi' itself refers to the Pure Self-Awarenress, which is to say, Pure Consciousness of Yahweh, the God of the Hebrew people." "Brahman is that," I said. "I beg your pardon? 'Brahman'?" "In India. Brahmanism. Brahman possesses absolute, pure consciousness. Pure consciousness, pure being, pure bliss. As I recall." "But what," Tim said, "is this anokhi that they ate and drank?" "The body and blood of the Lord," I said. "But what is it?" He gestured. "It's one thing to say glibly, 'It's the Lord,' because, Angel, that is what in logic is called a hys- teron proteron fallacy: what you re trying to prove is assumed in your premise. Obviously, it's the body and blood of the Lord; the word 'anokhi' makes that clear; but it doesn't —" "Oh, I see," I said, then. "It's circular reasoning. In other words, you're saying that this anokhi actually exists." Tim stopped and stood, gazing at me. "Of course." "I understand. You mean it's real." "God is real." "Not really real," I said. "God is a matter of belief. It isn't real in the sense that that care —" I pointed to a parked Trans- Am — "is real." "You couldn't be more wrong." I started to laugh. "Where did you ever get an idea like that?" Tim said. "That God isn't real?" "God is a —" I hesitated. "A way of looking at things. An in- terpretation. I mean, He doesn't exist. Not in the way objects ex- ist. You couldn't, say, bump into Him, like you can bump into a wall." "Does a magnetic field exist?" "Sure," I said. "You can't bump into it." I said, "But it'll show up if you spread iron filings across a piece of paper." "The hieroglyphs of God lie all about you," Tim said. "As the world and in the world." "That's just an opinion. It's not my opinion." "But you can see the world." "I see the world," I said, "but I don't see any sign of God." "But there cannot be a creation without a creator." "Who says it's a creation?" "My point," Tim said, "is that if the Logia predate Jesus by two hundred years, then the Gospels are suspect, and if the Gospels are suspect, we have no evidence that Jesus was God, very God, God Incarnate, and therefore the basis of our religion is gone. Jesus simply becomes a teacher representing a partic- ular Jewish sect that ate and drank some kind of — well, what- ever it was, the anokhi, and it made them immortal." "They believed it made them immortal," I corrected him. "That's not the same thing. People believe that herbal remedies can cure cancer, but that doesn't make it true." We arrived at the little grocery store and stood momentarily. "I take it you're not a Christian," Tim said. "Tim," I said, "you've known that for years. I'm your daughter-in-law." "I'm not sure I'm a Christian. I'm now not sure there in fact is such a thing as Christianity. And I've got to get up and tell peo- ple — I have to go on with my ministerial and pastoral duties. Knowing what I know. Knowing that Jesus was a teacher and not God, and not even an original teacher; what he taught was the aggregate belief-system of an entire sect. A group product." I said, "It could still have come from God. God could have revealed it to the Zadokites. What else does it say about the Expositor?" "He returns in the Final Days and acts as Eschatological Judge." "That's fine," I said. "That's found in Zoroastrianism also," Tim said. "So much seems to go back to the Iranian religions . . . the Jews developed a distinct Iranian quality to their religion during the time . . ." He broke off; he had turned inward, mentally, oblivious, now, to me, to the store, our errand. I said, trying to cheer him up, "Maybe the scholars and trans- lators will find some of this anokhi." "Find God," he echoed, to himself. "Find it growing. A root or a tree." "Why do you say that?" He seemed angry. "What would make you say that?" "Bread has to be made out of something. You can't eat bread unless it's made from something." Jesus was speaking metaphorically. He did not mean literal bread." Maybe he didn't, but the Zadokites apparently did." "That thought crossed my mind. Some of the translators are proposing that. That a literal bread and a literal drink is sig- nified. 'I am the gate of the sheepfold.' Jesus certainly did not mean he was made of wood. 'I am the true vine, and my father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes to make it bear even more.' " "Well, it's a vine, then," I said. "Look for a vine." "That's absurd and carnal." "Why?" I said. Tim said savagely, "'I am the vine, you are the branches.' Are we to assume that a literal plant is referred to? That this is a physical, not a spiritual, matter? Something growing in the Dead Sea Desert?" He gestured. "'I am the light of the world.' Are we to assume you could read a newspaper by holding it up to him? Like this streetlight?" "Maybe so," I said. Dionysos was a vine, in a manner of speaking. His worshippers got drunk and then Dionysos pos- sessed them, and they ran over the hills and fields and bit cows to death. Devoured whole animals alive." "There are certain resemblances," Tim said. Together, we continued on into the little grocery store. 

from The Transmigration of Timothy Archer © 1982 by Estate of Philip K. Dick First Mariner Books edition 2011, pp 64-77
(part 1)

It came as no big surprise that the first episode of "Bible Secrets Revealed" was tailored for an audience whose Biblically literacy is questionable. To those of us who are immersed in the world of modern Biblical scholarship—or have even taken a university-level class that covered the Bible—we recognized that everything here is business as usual.
Of course, it's easy to blame this partially on the format. A 40-minute long documentary—or, say, a 150-page book by a mainstream publisher—can only explore the issues in so much depth. But there are at least two responses to this. From the book angle: although it's possible that things like Reza Aslan's Zealot are even more well-known now, there have been several other quite popular books from the past couple of decades that address the same issues, but were much less concise. For example, John Dominic Crossan's classic The Historical Jesus and The Birth of Christianity, published by Harper, both ran over 500 pages; and John P. Meier's immensely popular A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus was published in four volumes!
But surely there's more leeway for challenging content with the more sophisticated book-readin' types that might pick up something like Zealot, right? Yet as I've pointed out in my review/comments on Zealot, there were a plethora of bold, interesting, highly relevant things that he could have explored in his book—things that were in my view necessary to look at, in the course of establishing the case for anti-Romanism in early Christianity—but that were conspicuously missing (see my last few sentences here).
Yes, "Biblical Secrets Revealed" is not a book. But might the principle still stand? Could the mad rush of issues frantically covered not have been slowed, in favor of really penetrating to the scholarly core of a particular issue or two? So now, I wonder: is the failure to do this a failure of courage—or perhaps of creativity: to really challenge the audience intellectually? Here, with some justification, the blame might be placed squarely on the History Channel itself: perhaps no longer able to engage fully in the noble art of pedagogy, but functioning solely as a corporate entity, afraid of alienating the humble (but bountiful) Pawn Stars crowd. I'm reminded here of several scenes from "The West Wing" in which Martin Sheen, as the President, refuses to compromise on presenting his intellectualism in public, God forbid a standard be set to the public for what we're capable of understanding.
But rather than just being pessimistic about things, I'd prefer rather to seize upon those rare occasions that academic Biblical studies infiltrate the mainstream, and use these as opportunities to have some high(er)-level discourse about the issues that have been raised. With this in mind, I'll be going through the various things that were talked about in the first episode, explaining them in a bit more detail, and providing some sources that will help everyone know what scholars who look at these things are really up to.

• The episode began (and ended) by recounting the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course, everyone has heard of the DSS; and by now, everyone can probably recite the truism that the find was the "most significant archaeological discovery of the 20th century." And perhaps everyone also knows that one of the reasons it was such a valuable discovery is because the oldest manuscripts of Biblical texts yet were found among the Scrolls. The episode indeed mentioned this, as well as that some of the newly-discovered copies of Biblical books were found to diverge from the later manuscripts in certain places—the ones from which our modern Bibles have been translated.
  While no specific examples of these variants were given in the program (although this topic has been addressed extensively by scholars like Emanuel Tov and Eugene Ulrich, and in volumes such as this and this), another important thing that was not mentioned was the content of the other scrolls—those that were not simply copies of the Biblical books that we're all familiar with, but noncanonical texts—and how these are relevant for our understanding of the Judaism of the time, and of early Christianity. It would be surprising—even shocking—if the DSS were not returned to in a later episode; especially considering that Robert Cargill is largely at the helm here. So I'll reserve a more detailed discussion of their provenance and their importance for understanding early Judaism and Christianity for when this is returned to.
  In any case, discussion of the DSS was abruptly abandoned to delve into the Biblical texts themselves.
  
• The point of departure was mentioning that the name "Adam" is simply the common Hebrew term for "man" – with a verse from the Genesis creation account (Gen 1:27) being displayed, to show that the creation of Adam was simply the story of the creation of man(kind) (Hebrew ādām). A couple of other things of note here: in Gen 1:27, it's hāʼādām, "the man," that was created—a phrasing which will continue throughout the creation accounts (ādām, without the definite article, is used to refer to collective humankind). Oh, and while on the subject of Gen 1:27, I'm sure everyone also knows that when God proclaims his creation of in the previous verse, he says "Let us make Man(kind) in our image." But that's for another time.
  
• From here, it moved on to the story of David vs. Goliath—in attempt to illustrate that there was a major discrepancy in the Biblical texts here. While everyone is familiar with the form of this story as it appears in 1 Samuel 17, less familiar is the text of 2 Samuel 21:19. Here, the earliest texts of 2 Samuel read "There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elḥanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethleḥemite (Bet-halaḥĕmi) killed Goliath the Gittite [from Gath], the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam" (translation from the NASB). Here, it is not David at all that killed Goliath, but someone named Elḥanan! Yet the stories otherwise cohere: in 1 Sam 17:7, it also says of Goliath that "the shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam."
  But if you look at other modern Biblical translations like the King James Version, the New International Version, etc., you'll find that 2 Sam 21:19 reads that Elḥanan killed "[the brother of] Goliath." While no manuscripts of 2 Samuel actually include that it was "the brother" of Goliath, the situation gets even more complex: in 1 Chronicles 20:5, it says "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elḥanan the son of Jair killed Laḥĕmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." But that there's a brother of Goliath named "Laḥĕmi" here is simply merely a mistake, originating in the Chronicler's misreading of Jair's father being described as Bet-heLAḤĔMI (a Bethlemite).
  And it's been proposed that the idea of the "brother of Goliath" itself actually comes from a further misreading: where the word את (basically an untranslatable participle, which can come before nouns), as appears in the relevant text of 2 Samuel, was misread by the Chronicler as אח, "brother."
  One final note about the David vs. Goliath story: it's also been recognized before that there are some intriguing similarities between this and several stories recounted in the Iliad (and elsewhere). Martin West, in his well-known The East Face of Helicon, compares details with Hector's battle with Ajax (1997:214); and other comparisons might be made with the stories of Nestor and/or Lycurgus, and their battles with Ereuthalion and Itymoneus, respectively (cf. Mühlestein 1971). To this end, elsewhere it's noted
  

  In 2004 Azzan Yadin suggested that the armor described in 1 Samuel 17 is typical of Greek armor of the sixth century BC rather than of Philistines armor of the tenth century. . .Yadin also suggested that the designation of Goliath as a איש הביניים, “man of the in-between” (a longstanding difficulty in translating 1 Samuel 17) appears to be a borrowing from Greek “man of the metaikhmion (μεταίχμιον)”, i.e. the space between two opposite army camps where champion combat would take place.
  

  (Edit: Flubb has some insightful comments on the Yadin article and other things here)
  

CONTINUED IN PART 2

Chapter 5 (part 1) of The Transmigration of Timothy Archer by Philip K. Dick

WHAT I REMEMBER most, in the first newspaper articles to come out, the first intimation we had, anybody beyond the translators had, that this was an even more important find than the Qumran scrolls, was (the article said) a particular Hebrew noun. They spell it two different ways; sometimes it showed up as 'anokhi' and sometimes as 'anochi.' The word shows up in Exodus, chapter twenty, verse two. This is a terribly moving and important section of the Torah, for here God Himself speaks, and He says: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." The first Hebrew word is anokhi or anochi and it means "I"—as in "I am the Lord thy God." Jeff showed me what the of- ficial Jewish commentary is on this part of the Torah: "The God adored by Judaism is not an impersonal Force, an It, whether spoken of as 'Nature' or 'World-Reason.' The God of Israel is the Source not only of power and life, but of consciousness, personality, moral purpose and ethi- cal action." Eve for me, a non-Christian — or I should say a non-Jew, I guess — this shakes me; I am touched and changed; I am not the same. What is expressed here, Jeff explained to me, is, in this single word, one letter of the English alphabet, the unique self- consciousness of God: "As man towers above all the other creatures by his will and self-conscious action, so God 'rules over all as the one completely self-conscious Mind and Will. In both the vis- ible and invisible realms, He manifests Himself as the absolutely free personality, moral and spiritual, who allots to everything its existence, form and purpose.' " That was written by Samuel M. Cohen, quoting Kaufmann Kohler. Another Jewish writer, Hermann Cohen, wrote: "God answered him thus: 'I am that which I am. So shalt thou say to the children of Israel: "I am" has sent me to you.' There is probably no greater miracle in the history of the spirit than that revealed in this verse. For here, a primeval language which is as yet without any philos- ophy, emerges and haltingly pronounces the most pro- found word of all philosophy. The name of God is 'I am that which I am.' This signifies that God is Being, that God is the I, which denotes the Existing One." And this is what turned up at the wadi in Israel, dating from 200 B.C.E, the wadi not far from Qumran; this word lay at the heart of the Zadokite Documents, and every Hebrew scholar knows this word, and every Christian and Jew should know it, but there at that wadi the word anokhi was used in a different way, a way no living person had ever seen it employed before. And so Tim and Kirsten stayed in London twice as long as they had intended to stay, because the very core of something had been located, the core in fact, of the Decalogue, as if the Lord had left tracings in his own autograph, which is to say, his own hand. While these discoveries took place — in the translating stage — Jeff wandered around U.C. Berkeley campus learn- ing about the Thirty Years War and Wallenstein, who had cut himself off progressively from reality during the worst war, per- haps of all wars, except for the total wars of this century; I am not going to say that I have ascertained which particular drive killed my husband, which thrust from the mix got him, but one did or they all did in chorus — he is dead and I wasn't even there at the time, nor did I expect it. My expectation came ini- tially when I learned that Kirsten and Tim had gotten involved in an invisible affair. I said what I had to say then; I took my best shot — I visited the bishop at Grace Cathedral and found my- self outargued with little effort on his part: little effort and pro- fessional skill. It was an easy verbal victory for Tim Archer. So much for that. If you intend to kill yourself you don't require a reason, in the usual sense of the term; just as, to the contrary, when you intend to stay alive, no verbal, articulated, formal reason is necessary, one you can seize on if the issue comes up. Jeff had been left out. I could see that his interest in the Thirty Years War really had to do with Kirsten; his mind, or some portion of it, had noted her Scandinavian origin, and another part of his mind had per- ceived and recorded the fact that the Swedish army was the vic- tor and heroic power of that war; his emotional pursuits and his intellectual pursuits wove together, which was, for a time, to his advantage, and then when Kirsten flew to England he found himself wrecked by his own cleverness. Now he had to confront the fact that he didn't really give a good goddamn about Tilly and Wallenstein and the Holy Roman Empire; he was in love with a woman his mother's age who was sleeping with his fa- ther—and doing that eight thousand miles away, and above and beyond everything else the two of them, to his exclusion, par- ticipated in one of the most exhilarating archeological theology discoveries in history, on a day-to-day basis as the translations became available, as the documents got patched and pasted to- gether and the words emerged, one by one, and again and again the Hebrew word 'anokhi' manifested itself, on unusual con- texts, baffling contexts: new contexts. The documents spoke as if anokhi were present at the wadi. It or he was referred to as here, not there, now, not then. Anokhi was not something the Zadokites thought about or knew about; it was something they possessed. It is very hard to read your library books and listen to a Donovan record, no matter how good, when a discovery of that magnitude is going on in another part of the world, and if your father and his mistress, both of whom you love and at the same time furiously hate, are involved in that unfolding discov- ery — what drove me frantic was Jeff playing and replaying Paul McCartney's first solo album; he liked "Teddy Boy" in partic- ular. When he left me to go live alone in the hotel room — the room where he shot himself — he took the album with him, al- though he had, it turned out, nothing to play it on. He wrote me a number of times, telling me that he was still active in antiwar happenings. Probably he was. I think, though, by and large he just sat alone in the hotel room trying to figure out how he felt about his father and, even more important, how he felt about Kirsten. So that would be 1971, since the McCartney album came out in 1970. But see, that left me alone, too, in our house. I got the house; Jeff died. I told you not to live alone but I am speaking, really, to myself. You can do any goddamn thing you want but I am never going to live alone again. I'll take in street people before I let that happen to me, that isolation. Just don't play any Beatles albums around me. That's the main thing I ask. I can take Joplin, because I think it's funny that Tim thought Joplin was alive and black instead of dead and white, but I do not want to hear the Beatles because they are linked to too much pain in me, inside me, in my life, in what happened. I am not quite rational myself when it comes down to it, to spe- cifically, my husband's suicide. I hear in my mind a mélange of John and Paul and George — with Ringo thumping away in the rear somewhere — with fragments of tunes and their words, critical terms pertaining to souls suffering a great deal, al- though not in a way I can pin down except, of course, for my husband's death — but I suppose that is enough. Now, with John Lennon shot, everyone is pierced as I have been, so I can fuck- ing well stop feeling sorry for myself and join the rest of the world, no better off than they are, no worse off either. Often, when I look back to Jeff's suicide, I discover that I rearrange dates and events in sequences more syntonic to my mind; that is, I edit. I condense, cut bits out, do a fast number myself so that — for example — I no longer recall viewing Jeff's body and identifying it. I have managed to forget the name of the hotel where he stayed. I don't know how long he stayed there. As near as I can make out, he didn't hang around the house very long after Tim and Kirsten flew to London; one early letter came from them, typed: signed by both of them but almost cer- tainly written by Kirsten. Possibly Tim dictated it. The first hint of the magnitude of the find showed up in the letter. I didn't recognize what the news implied but Jeff did. So, perhaps, he left right after that. What surprised me most was to grasp, all at once, that Jeff had wanted to go into the priesthood, but what point was there, in view of his father's role? But this left a vacuum. Jeff did not want to do anything else either. He could not become a priest; he did not care about any other profession. So he re- mained what we in Berkeley called a "professional student"; he never stopped going to Cal. Maybe he left and came back. Our marriage hadn't been working for some time; I have blank spots back to 1968, perhaps a full year missing in all. Jeff had emo- tional problems that I later repressed any knowledge of. We both repressed it. There is always free psychotherapy in the Bay Area and we took advantage of it. I don't think Jeff could be called — could have been called — mentally ill; he simply wasn't terribly happy. Sometimes it is not a drive to die but a failure of a subtle kind, a failing of the sense of joy. He fell out of life by degrees. When he came across someone he genuinely wanted she became his father's mistress, whereupon they both flew to England, leaving him to study a war he didn't care about, leaving him stranded back where he had started from. He started out not caring; he wound up not caring. One of the doctors did say he believed that Jeff started taking LSD during that period after he left me and before he shot himself. That is only a theory. However, unlike the homo- sexual theory, it may have been true. Thousands of young people kill themselves in America each year, but it remains the custom, by and large, to list their deaths as accidental. This is to spare the family the shame at- tached to suicide. There is, indeed, something shameful about a young man or woman, maybe an adolescent, wanting to die and achieving that goal, dead before in a certain sense they ever lived, ever were born. Wives get beaten by their husbands; cops kill blacks and Latinos; old people rummage in garbage cans or eat dog food — shame rules, calling the shots. Suicide is only one shameful event out of a plethora. There are black teenag- ers who will never get a job as long as they live, not because they are lazy but because there are no jobs — because, too, these ghetto kids possess no skills they can sell. Children run away, find the strip in New York or Hollywood; they become prosti- tutes and wind up with their bodies hacked apart. If the impulse to slay the Spartan runners reporting the battle results, the out- come at Thermopylae, rises in you, by all means slay them. I am those runners and I report only three deaths, but three more than were necessary. This is the day John Lennon died; you wish to slay those who report that, too? As Sri Krishna says when he as- sumes his true form, his universal form, that of time: "All these hosts must die; strike, stay ' your hand — no matter. Seem to slay. By me these men are slain already." It is an awful sight. Arjuna has seen what he cannot believe exists. "Licking with your burning tongues, Devouring all the worlds, You probe the heights of heaven With intolerable beams, O Vishnu." What Arjuna sees was once his friend and charioteer. A man like himself. That was only an aspect, a kindly disguise. Sri Krishna wished to spare him, to hide the truth. Arjuna asked to see Sri Krishna's true form and he got to see it. He will not now be as he was. The spectacle has changed him, changed him for- ever. This is the true forbidden fruit, this kind of knowledge. Sri Krishna waited a long time before he showed Arjuna his actual shape. He wanted to spare him. The true shape, that of uni- versal destroyer, emerged at last. I would not want to make you unhappy by detailing pain, but there is a crucial sort of difference between pain and the nar- ration of pain. I am telling you what happened. If there is vi- carious pain in knowing, there is actual peril in not knowing. In aversion lies colossal risk. 

from The Transmigration of Timothy Archer © 1982 by Estate of Philip K. Dick First Mariner Books edition 2011, pp 57-64
http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/374/374_anokhi.pdf
(part 2)