Just because its in print…

…doesn’t make it true. While doing some datamancy into old snippets of things I wrote and pseudonyms I went by I came across several dozen references to some running historical fiction pieces I did three to five years ago, mostly alternative early judeo-christian, apocrypha and that sort thing. Image my surprise to see how these bits had been referenced and morphed.

Firstly, apparently many third party readers that came across these writings believed it to be a real archaeological text (it was presented as a series of translations and relics). Next they adopted the text verbatim to support or detract various theories they themselves were obviously heavily invested into.

Some of the more peculiar ones include: Noah as a Celt, pre-Judaic Christianity, alternative life of Jesus Christ, ancient super sciences, pre-Egyptian magical societies and some strange theories of pre-human races stuff that even I couldn’t make heads or tails of.

Is it any wonder that our renditions of actual ancient historical sources are so garbled and contrary? If a handful of fictional works by an obscure 20th century geek can morph so much in just a few years, imagine the inaccuracies that real fragments of writings of thousands of years ago have suffered through the ages.

I briefly considered posting a “Hey, this is my old fiction, please don’t take it seriously.” but frankly the threads are years old and so vastly convoluted I rather doubt it would make the least bit of difference.