# Historical notes and how to read them

These notes accompany an original novel and Codex. They explain where the source record is firm, where interpreters disagree, and where this project makes its own choices. The Mother's priority, Lilith's role, the Omnoid, the Pattern, and the revised moral vocabulary belong to the author's cosmology unless a note explicitly identifies a particular earlier text. A story may argue forcefully for its own truth while its historical apparatus remains precise about the evidence.

The initial catalogue identifies 260 records, including all 66 books in the project's biblical baseline, major additional texts, manuscript collections, and comparative source families. A record can represent a whole work, a component, a family of works, or a research queue. These are discovery and coverage records, not 260 completed readings or 260 independent scriptures. No ancient work has been marked fully read in this initial source pass.

## HN-001 — There is more than one biblical arrangement

The baseline of 66 books is an editorial tracking device. The Catholic list published by the USCCB includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees alongside the other Old Testament books. Sefaria organises the Tanakh under Torah, Prophets, and Writings. Those arrangements affect reading, expectation, and interpretation; they should not disappear merely because the new novel uses a different order. Additional Orthodox and Ethiopian/Eritrean canon claims remain marked for community- and edition-specific verification. [USCCB, “Canonical Order”](https://bible.usccb.org/bible); [Sefaria, “Torah,” “Prophets,” and “Writings”](https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Tanakh).

When a reader looks up a familiar name, the glossary will preserve the source's own identity and indicate the project's chosen form. Similar titles do not guarantee the same work. The catalogue therefore keeps Meqabyan apart from Maccabees, and it flags Esdras numbering for verification in the selected edition.

## HN-002 — A surviving manuscript is not a universal canon list

The Codex Sinaiticus project describes a manuscript whose surviving contents include the New Testament, parts of the Greek Old Testament, and the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. It also explains that substantial early portions are missing, and that its New Testament order differs from familiar modern arrangements. A missing leaf is not evidence of a deliberate exclusion; inclusion in one manuscript does not establish the canonical judgement of every later community. [Codex Sinaiticus, “Content,” paragraphs 1–4](https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/content.aspx).

This distinction matters for the novel's recovered documents. A character may interpret a gap as evidence of suppression. The historical note must identify whether the real evidence is physical loss, an editorial decision, a disputed reconstruction, or simply unknown.

## HN-003 — The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of different kinds of evidence

The Israel Antiquities Authority separates literary compositions, ritual objects, documents, letters, and unidentified fragments. It also describes cases where a manuscript label covers multiple compositions, or where modern scholars initially grouped fragments incorrectly. Its categories are navigational aids rather than a final resolution of every scholarly dispute. [IAA, “Manuscript Types” and “Composition Types”](https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/scrolls-content).

The catalogue consequently keeps a work separate from a physical witness. The same story can survive in more than one copy; several different texts can occupy one physical object. A fictional archive may exploit those possibilities, but the real manuscript identifiers must remain traceable.

## HN-004 — Retelling was already part of the ancient textual world

The IAA uses “parabiblical” for works that retell, expand, or embellish scriptural narratives and laws, including the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees. Such a text is valuable evidence for its own interpretation and setting. It does not become an omitted chapter of Genesis merely because it tells a related story. [IAA, “Non-Biblical Compositions,” paragraph labelled “Parabiblical Texts”](https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/scrolls-content).

Our own retelling will be labelled with the same clarity: an original work that engages earlier writings. The reader should be able to find the original passage, recognise the new scene's alterations, and understand why the author made them.

## HN-005 — Nag Hammadi is not the name of one doctrine

Université Laval's table identifies individual works, codices, tractate numbers, and manuscript pages. It also separately lists the Berlin and Bruce collections. Its collection discussion distinguishes Codex Tchacos from Nag Hammadi and distinguishes its Book of Allogenes from the Nag Hammadi work called Allogenes. These are useful reminders to begin with a named text and witness before asserting a common theology. [Université Laval, treatise tables](https://www.naghammadi.org/en/translations); [“Collections gnostiques coptes,” Codex Tchacos paragraph](https://www.naghammadi.org/collections-gnostiques-coptes).

“The Gnostics believed” will therefore be replaced, wherever possible, with an attributed statement about a particular work, group, or interpretation. Barbelo, Sophia, Bythos, Sige, and the author's Mother may be placed in creative conversation; their equivalence is not assumed as a historical finding.

## HN-006 — A voice in a poem is not automatically an identified deity

The university publisher identifies *Thunder, Perfect Mind* as the second tractate in Nag Hammadi Codex VI, occupying pages 13–21, and describes the interpretive difficulty of its literary and religious setting. The novel may give its voice a particular dramatic identity. That identification must be stated as an authorial interpretation rather than the uncontested identity of the ancient speaker. [Université Laval Press, *Le Tonnerre, Intellect parfait*, description](https://www.pulaval.com/livres/le-tonnerre-intellect-parfait-nh-vi-2-bcnh-textes-no-22).

The historical apparatus will preserve the distinction between the original work, its modern translation, a scholarly reading, and any new poem or expanded scene written for this project.

## HN-007 — A translation is an identified edition, not an invisible window

The Nag Hammadi translation project names its translators and publishers and notes that its online translations can be revised. Brill's catalogue distinguishes the work from its individual manuscript versions and from editions, translations, and commentaries. These are separate textual objects. [Université Laval, “Welcome,” translation and publication paragraphs](https://www.naghammadi.org/en); [Brill, “Overview of works” and “CTS URNs”](https://scholarlyeditions.brill.com/cglo/).

Every passage used in a finished historical note will name the edition and translator, with a stable passage locator. Where a word carries several meanings, the note will explain the choice that matters to the scene. No modern translation is silently treated as the author's own prose, and source availability does not by itself settle reuse terms.

## HN-008 — Narrative time, composition, and manuscript time are different

A tale can be set in a remote past, written or reworked much later, preserved in a still later copy, and discovered centuries after that. The BCNH project distinguishes the proposed period of original composition, translation into Coptic, copying, and discovery, while also acknowledging substantial unknowns about individual works. [Université Laval, “Collections gnostiques coptes,” opening paragraphs](https://www.naghammadi.org/collections-gnostiques-coptes).

The reference timeline therefore keeps source-narrated events, historical estimates, composition/redaction ranges, manuscript dates, and the novel's revelation order on separate tracks. A prophetic vision is not automatically a calendar forecast; a character's recollection is not automatically a reliable chronology. A mystery can remain deliberately unanswered without becoming a continuity error.

## HN-009 — Historical books also have literary and theological purposes

The USCCB's introduction explicitly distinguishes the traditional label “historical” from a promise that every detail can be independently verified. It describes the particular theological interests of the historical collections and the different emphases of Chronicles. The novel should preserve those competing perspectives before choosing how to dramatise shared events. [USCCB, “The Historical Books,” Chronicles paragraph and final methodological paragraphs](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/historicalintroduction/0).

A court record, a victorious king's account, a lament, and a later retelling will not all receive the same evidentiary weight merely because they describe the same catastrophe. In the Codex, fictional speakers may disagree; in the notes, the sources and limits of the disagreement remain visible.

## HN-010 — Dates need attribution, especially where reference tables differ

The USCCB historical introduction gives 722/721 BCE for the destruction of the northern kingdom and 587 BCE for the fall of Judah. The IAA timeline gives 586 BCE for the destruction of the First Temple. The initial project timeline should retain 587/586 BCE as an explicitly attributed dating difference until a focused chronology review resolves which convention a particular note follows. [USCCB, Kings paragraph](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/historicalintroduction/0); [IAA, “First Temple Period”](https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline).

The IAA also supplies useful broad anchors for Persian rule, Pompey's capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 CE, and the Bar Kokhba uprising in 132–135 CE. Those anchors are cited individually; the whole table is not adopted as infallible. [IAA, “Persian Period,” “Roman Period,” and “Post Second Temple Period”](https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline).

## HN-011 — A text's arrangement can compress different moments

The USCCB note on Ezra 3:1–2 distinguishes the apparent early return setting from later renewed Temple work under Darius and discusses editorial arrangement. This is precisely the kind of difference a multidimensional timeline should expose rather than flatten into a single scene date. [USCCB, Ezra 3, note [3:1–2]](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/ezra/3).

The novel can rearrange scenes for dramatic reasons. Its working records will distinguish that choice from the order in a source, and the finished note will explain a consequential departure without turning every paragraph into an academic interruption.

## HN-012 — Comparative religion needs separate voices

Corpus Coranicum separately documents Qur'anic manuscripts, transmitted variant readings, contextual texts, and commentary. That structure provides a useful model: comparison should retain each source's own language, date, setting, and interpretive status. [Corpus Coranicum, “What is being produced?”](https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/about).

The global weave will not treat similar flood stories, divine mothers, serpents, ascents, or creation images as proof of one lost universal religion. Where historical influence is proposed, the note must identify the evidence and the alternative explanations. Where the connection is invented for the novel, it will be identified as such. A tradition earns its place through a consequential encounter or idea, rather than an isolated decorative name.

## HN-013 — Electronic corpora are starting points with their own limits

GRETIL describes itself as a register of standardised electronic texts contributed from sources of varying quality. Its availability supports discovery and comparison, but the underlying edition and contributor must still be checked. Oxford's ETCSL describes a selected corpus of Sumerian literary compositions, not every Mesopotamian text. [GRETIL, “Introduction”](https://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil.html); [Oxford ETCSL, “Introduction”](https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/).

A reliable catalogue therefore preserves unverified rows rather than disguising them as completed scholarship. It also avoids claiming a universal canon for traditions whose textual or oral forms do not fit that model. Living oral traditions require named communities, narrators or custodians, and context-appropriate public sources.

## HN-014 — Lilith in this project

The existing author manuscripts make Lilith's refusal and equality foundational. That is an established feature of these manuscripts and an authorial commitment of the new work. This source pass has not verified a particular ancient or medieval Lilith passage, its date, or its recension. It therefore does not claim that Genesis originally contained that account, that all ancient traditions agreed with it, or that the novel reconstructs suppressed wording.

The catalogue retains separate research records for Genesis, the *Alphabet of Ben Sira*, later Jewish reception, and the author's new Lilith books. A future historical note will quote or paraphrase only after the exact earlier passage and edition have been inspected. The new novel can remain decisive about its values while making this distinction honestly.

## HN-015 — Updated mathematics and moral vocabulary

The project may deliberately revise numbers, chronology, cosmological models, metaphors, and the vocabulary of wrongdoing. Each consequential revision will keep four things visible in the editorial record: the earlier text's number or claim; the author's revised value or meaning; whether the change is literal, symbolic, or fictional; and the effect on other scenes and diagrams.

The IAA describes a prominent 364-day calendrical scheme among the scrolls. Such a scheme is evidence for a textual calendar, not a claim that the modern solar year has that length. [IAA, “Calendrical Texts”](https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/scrolls-content). Similarly, a torus or equation in the author's cosmology can govern the fiction without being presented as an experimentally established account of our universe.

These distinctions leave room for humour, allegory, and conviction. They give readers a way to tell what the source says, what an interpreter proposes, and what this book creates.
