The Sequel That Should Never Have Been Written (YMMV) (Potential spoilers that I tried hard to not make spoilers.)
I like, no I love Douglas E. Richards. He's great writer. He interacts with his readers and fans. His first books, "Wired" and "Amped" were absolutely stellar, the Nick Hall trilogy made for truly riveting reading (flaws and all) and he's continued to write fascinating books, some but not all of them as equally well-written, but all with truly interesting premises, and careful attention to the details, and, generally attention-holding. So it is with regret that I have to say that, for the first time, Douglas E. Richards lost me halfway through a book. Not for lack of effort, nor lack of painstaking research, lack of moral and ethical dilemmas , lack of technological speculation based on actual avenues of scientific exploration., etc. In the first book in the series, there is time travel that takes us back to Nazi Germany. Not an unvisited premise in speculative fiction, but one generally well-handled by the author in "The Enigma Cube." It was an okay if not original choice for the moral and ethical quandaries being explored.
Doug generally provides long afterwards laying out the science and explaining other choices he has made in writing his books, and this book is no exception. Doug surprised even himself with his choice to take the path he took in this book, he states he expected to take some flak for it, and thinks he still might be mad for having made this choice. Well yes, Doug, you're right, but it's not that it was a mad choice–it was the wrong choice. It was the wrong choice because the choice itself became a distraction and drew attention from the writing and the story. From the point that the setting and premise was revealed, it is impossible to truly pay attention to the story without that choice looming over it (a story which is, I will admit, well-crafted, with Doug's usual attention to detail. The historical setting and characters involved simply overwhelm the story, and are always hanging around in the back of the mind as you read. This was my experience, and your mileage may vary, as they say. This isn't a bad book, and many may find it a perfectly acceptable read .
WARNING: IF YOU READ FURTHER YOU WILL ENCOUNTER POTENTIAL SPOILERS, AND THOUGH I HAVE TRIED HARD TO NOT FULL REVEAL THINGS, YOU MIGHT FIGURE THINGS OUT.
Doug, with all of history to play with, why choose this little piece of history that isn't really about history? Would you have chosen Moses and the burning bush, or the revelation at Sinai? Unlikely. There's no actual history there to reference. The Bible is not a book of history, it is a story of the encounter between humans and a deity. I say this as a believing person of faith with a theology degree. Why not Egypt in the 18th dynasty, say during the time of Amenhotep IV/Ahknaten and Nefertiti? That might have been a better setting here if you wanted to touch on matters of religion and faith (would there even be Jewish monotheism without it's development in Egypt for a brief period? Or why not just some aspect of Greek or Roman history? Instead, you chose a nexus of time that is a mish mash of history and faith, little of it actually contemporaneous, rather than keeping them distinct. Therein lies the distraction and the major flaw in the book. A book of speculative fiction, dealing with the possible consequences of modern and near-future technologies, and of time travel, is not the place to be discussing the human or divine status of a central religious figure. Oh, you did your research Doug. Not nearly as deep as possible, but enough for your purposes, as long as you insisted in pursuing this reckless choice. A lot of the resources you mention in your afterwards are really not intended as "scientific" or "historical" explorations, but as means of supporting or challenging religious narratives and interpretations. Things that may appear to lack bias in the eyes of the layman are not as innocent in the eyes of true biblical scholars, biblical archaeologists, and historians.
So now I must reveal a fact about myself. I may be a biblical scholar and theologian with a masters degree from a nominally Christian and well-respected divinity school, and I known New Testament and Christian religious history, but I am also a practicing Jew and Jewish educator. (No, to be absolutely clear, I am not Messianic, which is just another form of Christianity.) Numerous rabbis, Jewish scholars and others have chosen to study at Divinity Schools in order to learn about other religions and to engage in theological discussions and debates, and more importantly, to foster serious interreligious dialogue that openly acknowledges the differences rather than painting them over in well-meaning but not particularly effective "kumbaya". moments.) While it might be easy to assume that my discomfort with your choices in this book are based on my religious faith and outlook, the fact that I chose to become equally knowledgeable in Christianity (and other religions as well) speaks, I hope, to the fact that this is not the source of my discomfort. It's as a reader of science and speculative fiction that I argue you made a poor choice. The choice distracts from the science and the morality because it is shrouded in religious mystery. Science fiction is replete with religious engagement. Explore the intersection of science fiction and religion if you will, but look at the hundreds of examples available to you already in this genre. From masters who were agnostic, even atheists, to believers of all stripes. From Walter Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz," or Clarke's "The Nine Billion Names of G"d," Herbert's "Dune" series, Zelazny's "Lord of Light," Dick's "Valis," or the more obvious works like those of C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'engle. Read pretty much anything by Terry Pratchett. Read through Admiral Heinlein's entire output for the hundreds of religious bon mots (both positive and negative.) Your choice to explore this particular intersection of science fiction and faith was not an optimal one. There are so many others that could have worked and have been far less distracting. Also, to nitpick, I might have opted for a non-western religious figure to avoid having a reading audience that might feel itself threatened by your attempted unbiased representation of this central religious figure. I say attempted unbiased because, ultimately, and as you reveal in the afterwards, you are not entirely unbiased in this regard, or are at least rethinking your views on the matter.
I love your work Doug, and i will keep reading it, recommending it, reviewing it, and calling you to task for the weaknesses I perceive. (You're getting better at the info-dumps, but there's still too much of it for my taste. The afterwards help, but they're still sometimes used as an ancillary info dump.) However, this is a sequel too far, and I honestly believe would have been better left unwritten in its present form.