Proof That Daniel 12.1 Is Referring To A Resurrection From The Dead Based On Translation And Exegesis

Proof that Daniel 12.1 is Referring to a Resurrection from the Dead Based on Translation and Exegesis of the Biblical Languages

By Author Eli Kittim

Dan. 12.1 is in the context of the great tribulation of the end times! It’s repeated in Mt. 24.21 as the time of the great ordeal: καιρός θλίψεως (cf. Rev. 7.14).

Daniel Th 12.1 LXX:

καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.

The Theodotion Daniel 12.1 of the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad) as αναστήσεται, which is derived from the root word ανίστημι and means “shall arise.”

Translation:

At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.

My contention that the Greek word ἀναστήσεται (“shall arise”) is referring to a resurrection from the dead has been challenged by critics. My response is as follows.

The first piece of evidence is the fact that Michael is first mentioned as the one who “shall arise” (ἀναστήσεται; Dan Th 12.1 LXX) prior to the general resurrection of the dead (ἀναστήσονται; Dan OG 12.2 LXX). Here, there is solid linguistic evidence that the word ἀναστήσεται is referring to a resurrection because in the immediately following verse (12.2) the plural form of the exact same word (namely, ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Dan 12.2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Dan 12.1!

The second piece of evidence comes from the Old Greek Daniel version of the Septuagint that uses the word παρελεύσεται to define the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad), which is translated as “shall arise.”

The OG Daniel 12.1 LXX reads:

καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.

The OG Daniel version of the Septuagint further demonstrates that Daniel 12.1 is describing a death-and-resurrection theme because the word παρελεύσεται means to “pass away” (to die), thereby indicating the decease of this featured prince at the time of the end! It therefore sets the scene for his resurrection as the so-called “Theodotion Daniel” form of the LXX fills in the gaps by using the word αναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection, to establish the latter day period as the time during which this princely figure will be resurrected from the dead!

Biblical Sin: Not as Behavior but as Ultimate Transgression

By Author Eli Kittim

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in this particular context the phrase “no sin” (2 Cor. 5.21) is referring to Jesus’ action or behavior, it contradicts many New Testament (NT) passages. One that immediately comes to mind is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness by Satan. If Jesus is sinless in the sense that he is born without a sin-nature——and therefore incapable of committing a sin, as the church proclaims——then the so-called temptation of Jesus becomes absolutely meaningless because how can you “tempt” someone who, by definition, cannot be tempted? And would Jesus “be like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he was unable to be tempted? The answer is a resounding no! If by “sin,” the NT is referring to behavior, it would also contradict aspects of human nature and common knowledge. It would imply that in his human development, from childhood to adulthood, Jesus never made a mistake and was without error, which is patently ridiculous (cf. Luke 2.52; 18.19).

So, what does the NT imply when it refers to Jesus being “without sin”? I would like to suggest that this reference has nothing to do with Jesus’ actions or behavior but rather with the nature of his being. According to Robert Mulholland, a NT scholar, “sins” (in the plural) are behavioral symptoms whereas “sin” (in the singular), out of which these symptomatic behaviors and attitudes arise, is a question of being. In this sense, it is a throwback to the garden of eden and the “sin” of Adam and Eve. There’s no particular “action “ or “behavior” that is associated with their transgression except that they accepted the serpent’s advice and partook of the idiomatic apple. Similarly, although It would have been utterly impossible for Jesus to avoid sin as an activity or behavior, nevertheless he did not sin in his being because, during his temptation by Satan, he ultimately did not transgress the law of God as Adam and Eve had done! He kept it!

Just as “Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, … [so] Christ’s one act of righteousness brings [salvation] … for everyone” (Rom. 5.18).

Jesus Never Existed According to Christian Eschatology: He’ll be Revealed in the End-Times

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Bart Ehrman, who believes in “an authentic nucleus,” argues that we don’t have anything whatsoever (not even a passing reference) by any contemporaneous works that mention Jesus of Nazareth. No such records exist to authenticate his historicity. So, why would anyone assume that he existed? If this assumption is based on the earliest New Testament writings, namely, the epistles, let me remind you that they come decades after the purported events and do not contain the later theology of the gospels: there are no magi, no Star of Bethlehem, no slaughter of the innocents, no flight to Egypt, no virgin birth, no infancy narratives, no genealogies, etc. On the contrary, the Epistle to the Hebrews (ca. CE 63) explicitly states that Christ will appear once and for all (άπαξ) “in the end of the world” (9.26b KJV) to sacrifice himself as an atonement for the sins of the world. First Peter 1.20 similarly demonstrates that this is his first visitation because it says that even though he was foreknown from the foundation of the world, he “was REVEALED at the final point of time” (NJB emphasis added)! I’d like to ask why modern scholarship does not accept this EXPLICIT eschatological chronology (as found in Hebrews 9.26b and 1 Peter 1.20) regarding the initial coming and atonement of Christ?

—————

That’s precisely why Paul says that he’s born “at the wrong time” (1 Cor. 15.8 CSB) or beforehand insofar as the temporal order of the event pertaining to Christ is concerned. That’s odd. If Christ came first, followed by Paul, then we would expect Paul to come after Christ, not before. Yet Paul suggests that he’s born before the time. The word used in the Greek text is εκτρώματι, derived from the noun έκτρωμα, which is defined as an abortion and generally interpreted as an untimely birth. In other words, Paul indicates that his birth is BEFORE the right time, not after——just as an abortion occurs before the time of birth, not after. Yet, according to our historical presuppositions, Paul didn’t come before, but AFTER, Christ. By drawing an analogy between miscarriage and the epoch in which he lived, Paul is trying to impress on us the notion that he is born at the wrong time. This would strongly suggest that Jesus was not a historical figure who preceded Paul.

—————

If we want to further understand the precise temporal and linguistic context indicated by the New Testament text, we have to be extremely careful when interpreting phrases like “Christ died,” which appear to be references to past history. For example, a close reading is definitely required for Rom. 5.6 because the Greek text implies that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history (e.g. in a transhistorical context) by using the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. It’s like saying that Christ died at some point in human history, without specifying when. In Rom. 5.6, the verb ἀπέθανεν (died) is an aorist indicative active, 3rd person singular. It means “to be dying,” “be about to die,” etc. In koine Greek, the aorist tense portrays the action in summary fashion without reference to the way it actually unfolds in time, and without any specific qualification. That’s why in 1 Tim. 2.6 the author says that the testimony will come in due time or at the proper time (the future is indicated). We often take for granted the phrase “Christ died for our sins.” We suppose that a literal-historical interpretation is appropriate and valid. But is that the correct exegetical approach? For ex, Paul says:

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3 NRSV).

A close reading of this verse indicates that Paul is not referring to history proper but to written documents (i.e. “Apocalyptic literature”). He claims that he handed on what he himself received, to wit, prophetic writings (γραφάς) about Christ’s death, resurrection, and so on. Therefore, at least in 1 Cor. 15.3, the phrase “Christ died” seems to be in a transhistorical context precisely because Christ’s death was already known in advance and written in the prophetic writings which Paul received, as opposed to the common view that presupposes a literal death occurring in history. The typical objection that it is written in past tense changes absolutely nothing. Isaiah 53 is also written in past tense even though the account is decidedly prophetic! Similarly, Acts 2.23 reads:

“this man, handed over to you according to the definite PLAN and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you crucified and killed” (NRSV emphasis added).

Question: how was this man crucified and killed? Answer: “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” In other words, this man was killed not according to history per se but according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. A “foreknowledge” is by definition a knowledge of something before it happens or exists. So, if he was killed prior to the actual event itself, he was not killed at all. We have simply confused prophetic literature with history.

—————

Most of the evidence is really against the historicity of Jesus, including that derived from the messianic expectations of the Jews who, according to their scriptures, believe that the Messiah will appear for the first time at the end of the world! So, what’s the main reason scholars believe in an authentic nucleus? Answer: Josephus! Yet we don’t really know what the Testimonium Flavianum would have looked like prior to the interpolations. And there’s another problem regarding intertextuality: namely, literary dependence. The New Testament writings were circulating long before Josephus’ Book (Antiquities of the Jews; ca. CE 94) was published. Josephus would have been presumably familiar with the New Testament texts and might have reiterated some of the material therein. Given that he thought of himself as a historian, he must’ve felt obliged to report these purported events. But that wouldn’t constitute factual history, and the same could be said about his references to Jesus and John the Baptist. Moreover, he was not an eyewitness and his so-called “testimony” is far too removed from the purported events to have any bearing. If we can’t learn much of anything about the so-called historical Jesus through the earlier unknown evangelists who never met him or heard him speak, how could a later writer, from the close of the first century, possibly demonstrate his historicity beyond dispute? He cannot! What is truly strange is that scholars typically reject the historicity of many biblical patriarchs——including Noah, Abraham, and Moses——but surprisingly support Jesus’ historicity probably because a non-historical Christ would put them out of business! It would mean that they have spent their entire lives studying someone who never existed!

—————

Islam’s Denial of Jesus’ Crucifixion 2000y ago might be closer to the truth:

“It Was Made to Appear Like that to Them” (Q4:157).

—————

Why Does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, as the “revelation” of Jesus. Why do the New Testament (NT) authors refer to Christ’s coming as a “revelation”? We must first understand what this word means in Greek, and how it is used in the NT. The actual Greek word used in the NT is ἀποκάλυψις (“apokalupsis”). The English word apocalypse comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which means “revelation.” The terms “revelation” or “revealed” indicate the disclosure of something that was previously unknown. Thus, according to the meaning of the term revelation, no one knows the mystery or secret prior to its disclosure.

Therefore, we cannot use the biblical term “revelation” to imply that something previously known is made known a second time. That’s not what the Greek term apokalupsis means. If it was previously revealed, then it cannot be revealed again. In other words, it’s not a revelation if it’s already known. It’s only a revelation if it is still unknown. Thus, the word “revelation” necessarily implies a first time disclosure or an initial unveiling, appearing, or manifestation. It means that something that was previously unknown and/or unseen has finally been revealed and/or manifested. But if it’s already known and happens to reappear a second time, it is not considered to be a “revelation.” Thus, a revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice.

Let’s now briefly look at some NT verses, which mention the future coming of Christ, to examine whether they are referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought:

1 Cor. 4.5; 15.23; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.3; Rev. 2.16; 22.20.

As you can see, a second coming or a return is nowhere indicated in the above-mentioned verses. Conversely, Jesus’ Coming is variously referred to as an appearance, a manifestation, or a “revelation” in the last days, which seems to imply an initial coming, a first coming, and the only coming. Surprisingly, it’s not referred to as a return, a coming back, or a second coming. As N.T. Wright correctly points out, the eschatological references to Jesus in the New Testament don’t mention a second coming but rather a future appearance or manifestation. Why not? We'll explore this question a little later, but for now let’s look at the NT eschatological literature with regard to what Christians have traditionally referred to as the “second coming” of Christ. There are many references to Jesus’ future “coming” in the NT——(variously called “the day of Christ”; cf. 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; Phil. 1.6; 2.16; 2 Thess. 2.2)——but nowhere is it mentioned as a second coming or as a return!

Let’s examine elsewhere whether a second coming is indicated by the NT authors:

Lk. 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil. 1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13; 5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 1.1.

Astoundingly, if we study these verses, none of them refer to Jesus’ second coming. No return was explicitly mentioned. Many verses refer to Jesus’ “revelation,” which was previously unknown and which will become known in the future. As I mentioned earlier, the term “revelation” means something coming to light or being manifested for the very first time!

The wholesale absence of a second coming or return in all these verses must be addressed. If this is in fact the second coming of Christ, as is commonly believed, then why don’t we find appropriate terminology that is consistent with a “coming-again” or a “return”? Why don’t we find, for instance, words such as επανέρχομαι (come again), or επιστρέφω (return), or ἔρχομαι πάλιν (come again/return), etc.? Although these terms are used with some frequency in the NT, they are never applied to the revelation of Jesus Christ. There are, however, some confusing Bible mistranslations (for example, in Acts 1.11) which claim that Jesus “will return.” But Acts 1.11 never mentions Jesus’ return or his coming back to earth. These misleading translations are not faithful to the original Greek text. Some of these inaccurate translations include the NIV, NLT, BSB, CEV, GNT, ISV, AMP, GW, NET Bible, NHEB, & the WEB. All these Bible versions mistranslate the verse as if Jesus “will come back” or “will return.” However, the original Greek uses a word (ἐλεύσεται) that does not imply a “coming back” or a “return.” It simply indicates *one* single coming! The Greek text uses the word ἐλεύσεται, which simply means “will come.” Not only do the NT writers refrain from calling Jesus’ future visitation “a second coming,” but, conversely, they further indicate that this is his first and only advent, a momentous event that will occur hapax (“once for all”) “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), or “at the final point of time” (1 Peter 1.20 NJB).

None of the NT authors referred to the future visitation of Christ as a second coming. They all referred to it as a coming, a manifestation, an appearance, especially a “revelation,” but certainly not a second coming; not a coming again: neither a coming back nor a return. And given what we know about the term “revelation” and its unique meaning, the numerous references to Jesus’ “revelation” is a strong indication that these communities expected Jesus to appear for the first time in the end of the world!

What About the Hebrews 9.28 Reference to Christ Who is Said to “appear a second time”?

The only apparent contradiction to the above-mentioned body of evidence is a single reference to Christ appearing “a second time” in Hebrews 9.28. However, I will demonstrate that it is not a contradiction and that it fits perfectly with the previous material. Let me unpack it for you.

Notice that the word in Heb. 9.28 is not παρουσία (Parousia, i.e. “presence”)——which is commonly interpreted as a “coming”——but rather ἐκ δευτέρου (“a second time”), which is a clue that v. 28 is seemingly pointing back to the previous verse (v. 26), and particularly to the term ἅπαξ (which implies “a first time”).

It’s important that we understand the temporal or eschatological timeline of Hebrews 9.26 before we interpret verse 9.28. For example, it’s clear from the textual evidence that the idiomatic expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (“at the end of the age” Heb. 9.26) is referring to the end of the world (cf. Lampe A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1340; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39–40, 49; Mt. 24.3; Mt. 28.20). Keep in mind that this time period is associated with “the Day of the Lord,” “the day of Christ,” and with Judgment day.

What is more, the book of Hebrews would not explicitly state that Christ will appear ONCE in one verse (v. 26), and then say the exact opposite in the following verse——namely, that he’ll appear TWICE (v. 28). So, that’s another clue that something else is meant by the author. Notice that the term ἅπαξ (“once for all”) is used 3x, once in each verse respectively: in v. 26 to refer to the number of times Christ appears; in v. 27 with regard to how many times people die (in contradistinction to reincarnation); and in v. 28 with regard to how many times Christ dies for the sins of many.

Observe also in Hebrews 1.1-2 that God does not speak to humankind through his Son in Antiquity, but rather ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν “in the last days.” Similarly, Hebrews 9.26b tells us that Christ’s sacrifice is offered hapax “once and for all” at the end of the age (or at the end of the world; see above-mentioned citations). It tells us not only the precise time frame of his visitation but also the reason for his appearance: “to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.” That would be his DEATH!

The next verse (v. 27) tells us that all mortals (including Christ) live once and die once. But it also begins to show an important parallel or analogy between all mortals and Christ that becomes the key to understanding the meaning of the following verse (v. 28). Notice the specific language that is used to draw an analogy between all mortals and Christ: “Just as all mortals,” “so Christ,” and so on. In other words, what applies to mortals applies to Christ. It implies that just as all mortals die once——followed by the resurrection and the judgment——so Christ having DIED ONCE, “will appear a second time” for the resurrection and the judgment. Given the internal consistency and development of the passage in which Christ will die ONCE “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), the next two verses then evoke “the judgment” to signify Christ’s resurrection from the dead:

26b νυνί δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. 27 καί καθ’ ὅσον ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις, 28 οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν. (NA28)

Translation (NRSV):

26b “But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

Conclusion

Just as v. 26 speaks of Christ’s demise, so vv. 27-28 imply his resurrection, which must necessarily follow his death, according to the NT story! Thus, the reference to Christ appearing “a second time” (Heb. 9.28) is referring to his resurrection from the dead, which will “bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (NIV)! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16). The notion that Christ will be the first to be resurrected in the last days is also mentioned in 1 Cor 15:22-28! Similarly, theologian Dennis McCallum writes, “No Old Testament passage indicates that Messiah will come twice.” In his book, Satan and His Kingdom (p. 38), he writes:

"In some cases, predictions about the [OT] suffering servant are immediately next to prophecies about King Messiah, without any mention of a more-than-two-thousand-year gap between them (e.g., cross-reference Isaiah 61:1 ff and Jesus’ commentary in Luke 4:21)."

Thus, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the one and only visitation of Christ will transpire in the last days. This is particularly evident in certain verses which imply that Christ has not yet been revealed (cf. Lk. 17.30)! It is reminiscent of the Epistles, in which Jesus’ long anticipated manifestation is variously referenced as “The revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13):

“And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he [Jesus] is REVEALED we may have confidence and not be put to shame before him at his COMING” (1 Jn 2.28 NRSV emphasis added).

In this verse, notice that Jesus’ •revelation• is exclusively related to his future “coming.” In fact, in John 9.39, the literary Jesus says: “I came into this world for judgment.” In other words, his one and only coming is associated with judgment day!

This brief topical study therefore deserves academic consideration because it presents an original approach to the interpretation of the NT that challenges the way we study the second coming of Christ. It is a new Paradigm Shift!

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

By Author Eli Kittim

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1.10-11 NIV).

BIBLE EXEGESIS

First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the New Testament (NT), since there's no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament (OT). That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:

"It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven."

Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.

Third, and most importantly, observe that "the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" were actually "PREDICTED" (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by "the Spirit of Christ" (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity's sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance——or prophesied, if you will——according to this NT passage!

Here's Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the New Testament

In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was "the gospel concerning his Son" "which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures." This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there's no reference to "the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God . . . concerning his Son" in the OT:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Romans 1.1-3 NRSV).

Also, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!

The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles

By Author Eli Kittim

“The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles” is a scholarly monograph written by Eli Kittim. It is a 30-page academic article based on translation and exegesis of Biblical Greek, meant to be read by scholars, showing that the internal evidence of the Greek New Testament affirms “the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation.” It argues “that the assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age.” This groundbreaking paper uncovers new information that changes everything we thought we knew about Jesus. It is a study that brings out the latest insights into this specific subject of academic research, and it was published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3.