101 أسطورة توراتية

by Gary Greenberg, دينا إمام (Translator)

يلجأ البشر لقراءة الكتاب المقدس لأباب شتى فبعضهم يبحث عن الهدى والرشاد فى حكمه المبطنة ، وبعضهم يسعى لتذوق فنه الأدبى الذى يعد من أجمل ما كتب فى الشعر والسرد المرسل ، ولم يزل البعض الآخر يرى فيه صورة من صور التاريخ المكتوب عن أصل جذورنا الحضارية فيما يرنو له الكثيرون لتبصر أحوال حضارات غابرة ومطالعة حياة شعوبها .
لكنه ؛ يظل بالنسبة للملايين كلمة الرب المعصومة من الخطأ التى يجب إطاعة وصاياها بكل تقوى والتى لابد لتعاليمها أن ترشدنا لتنظيم مجتمعنا ، مع ذلك فهناك من يدرسون علوم الكتاب المقدس لأهداف بحثية ترمى لتحديد شخصيات كتبته وعصور كتابته وما فيه من وقائع حقيقية وكيفية تحولها للشكل الحالى ، بالنسبة لهؤلاء تبدو تلك المهمة كأنها مجموعة معقدة من الأحاجى التى يبقى معظمها مستغلقاً على الحل .
هذا الكتاب يعرض الجوانب العديدة لتطور التاريخ التوراتى من هيئته الأولى وحتى شكله الحالى وكيفية حدوث ذلك ، يتناول الكتاب قصص العهد القديم بالفحص والتمحيص لإظهار الطابع الأسطورى لهذه الروايات ، يحاول الكتاب أن يبسط العديد من الفرضيات التى يتفق على صحتها معظم علماء اللاهوت إلا إنه يعرض فى العديد من الحالات الأخرى وجهات نظر جديدة تجاه بعض الأمور المحيرة التى لم يبحثها المجتمع الأكاديمى بشكل جيد بعد ، لينصب اهتمام البحث بشكل خاص على إظهار التأثير العظيم للأساطير والكتابات المصرية القديمة على التاريخ المبكر للعهد القديم ، وهو الأمر الذى تم تجاهله .

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, History, Christianity, Mythology, Atheism, Theology

310 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2013

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the goodreads data base.

Gary Greenberg is the author of several highly-praised books on biblical history, including the popular biblical classic "101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History." His works have been translated into many languages. His most recent book, "Who Wrote the Gospels? Why New Testament Scholars Challenge Church Traditions", will be released by Pereset Press in June 2011.

He is President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York and a Fellow of the Jesus Project, an organization of biblical scholars concerned with issues related to the "historical" Jesus. National Geographic Television's Science of the Bible series retained Greenberg as a consultant to the series and featured him in a documentary on the story of Cain and Abel. He has also been a guest on numerous radio and television shows, including Tony Brown's Journal on PBS, and proved to be a provocative and entertaining speaker and skilled debater.

He is a member of several scholarly organizations, including the Society of Biblical Literature, the Archaeological Institute of America, the Historical Society, and the American Research Center in Egypt. He has published articles in several scholarly journals, including the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, KMT, and Discussions in Egyptology and has presented papers at several scholarly conferences, including the annual meetings of the International Society of Biblical Literature and the American Research Center in Egypt. His essay, "Did Pre-Gospel Christians Believe Judas Betrayed Jesus?" has been posted on the "Bible and Interpretation" web site at http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/j....

Reviews

[Nina · Rating 2 out of 5]

Greenberg draws interesting parallels, but fails to substantiate them. Some of these parallels are so loose that he cannot claim what he so confidently claims without help from secondary sources. Alas, he does not cite any. There is no bibliography (though there is a "Suggested Reading" section), no footnotes, no end notes. There are a lot of assumptions based on comparison of the Bible to Egyptian mythology. Again, this would be a good comparison had the author bothered to back it up. A line from one source next to the line from another, not too similar to it, does not prove very much. Greenberg may very well be right, but without research he cannot prove it.

[G. Branden · Rating 2 out of 5]

I decided a few years back to start doing something about my lack of Biblical literacy. On the bright side, Greenberg's 101 Myths of the Bible was not such a poor first step that I was turned off from the endeavor. However, it did not make for a terribly auspicious start.

This book's primary enterprise is to illuminate parallels between several dozen Biblical stories and the myths of other ancient societies with whom the ancient Hebrews had contact. Greenberg rests his burden heavily upon the ancient Egyptians, which if we don't reject the legend of Hebrew exile in Egypt as itself a myth, seems a reasonable avenue for research. Greenberg's larger agenda appears to be the collection of circumstantial evidence in favor of his thesis that the Pharaoh Akhenaten's failed experiment with monotheism was co-opted by the exiles, and transmogrified into their "native" religion. This is a neat idea but Greenberg doesn't really make a case for it in this book, instead referring the reader to other titles of his own and not, sadly, to any indication of broader scholarly support for it.

That failing brings me to my biggest problem with this book--it doesn't specifically cite its references. A "Suggested Reading" section at the end is helpful, but this is no substitute for footnotes for each of the assertions Greenberg makes in his accounts of the 101 myths.

The author's approach also seems a little strange; the title is flagrantly provocative, which prompted my skeptical mind to wonder if I was being manipulated--but in his preface and conclusion, he seems to be at pains to defend his pious aims.

Because so many people believe the authors of the various Bible books were divinely inspired, and since this book explores the sources for many Bible stories, I prefer to think of this collection as a restoration of God's footnotes for the Bible, putting back in the source citations the authors left out. (p. xiii)

...while biblical history does not meet our current standard for historical writing, the record shows that, despite Herodotus's reputation as the father of history, early Hebrew writers such as J, E, P, and D, invented the genre and were the first true historians. They integrated massive amounts of documentation and tradition, wrote grand epic accounts of Israel's origins that spanned many generations and produced beautiful literature in the process. Ironically, it is the very act of incorporating all the mythical material into their histories that enables us to validate so much of what is missing from the historical record. (p. 299)

While 101 Myths of the Bible presumes what I would guess is a Sunday School-level familiarity with many prominent Bible stories--a grounding I lacked at the time and which limited its accessibility to me--the above language is not the sort that will calm the easily-angered literalists and fundamentalists, nor does the effusing over ancient Hebrews being the first or greatest at this or that impress the secular mind. On top of the gratuitous dogging of Herodotus, a gesture that seems reminiscent of ancient Jewish internal squabbles over "Hellenization", Greenberg is either ignorant of, or willfully disregarding, the Chinese historical tradition, which also has a long pedigree.

Interestingly, the author is not a historian or scholar by training, but a practicing attorney, whose back-matter biography boasts at length of his legal credentials, and takes time to note the fact of his appearances on Court TV. I am unsure how any of this burnishes his authority as a Biblical scholar.

Another oddity is that in the otherwise seemingly-reasonable "Suggested Reading" section in the back matter, no mention is made of Oxford University's numerous reference books on the Bible, which are highly regarded by both the general public and Christian seminaries of many denominations.

Furthermore, Greenberg treats only the Authorized Version of the Bible (a.k.a. the KJV, "King James Version"), and given how members of the King-James-Only movement will overflow with reasons not to read this book before they even crack the cover, Greenberg's self-imposed limitation leaves me wondering again who he thought his audience was. Even if one rejects the NRSV as "too liberal", the NIV and NASB are both popular in the United States. If Greenberg is attempting to reach a Jewish audience, no reference to the JPS betrays this intent.

On top of everything else, like so many books claiming to be about "The Bible", Greenberg's work confines itself almost entirely to early books of the Bible (in the Christian ordering, Genesis through First Kings). Esther and Daniel get one entry each, with Daniel's being the not-so-shocking (to folks who have read a at least a smattering of Biblical criticism) revelation that his "prophecies" were written after the events he predicted, and the account backdated to establish his prescience.

Conservative believers will have no time for this or any other book on religion that isn't the KJV (excepting, of course, the Revelation According to LaHaye and Jenkins). To secular readers, I cannot recommend Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible highly enough. (Caution: its page count is about one thousand pages higher than Greenberg's, so it's an undertaking.) Asimov, like Greenberg, was no Biblical scholar, and despite having a reputation as an egoist, was humble about his credentials with respect to his own undertaking. While Asimov, too, eschews footnote references for the most part, he does not purport to be forwarding his own pioneering research in the history of ancient Hebrew religion (which Greenberg does suggest--see above). Most importantly, unlike Greenberg, Asimov really does treat the whole Bible--Old and New Testaments, with several Apocryphal books thrown in for good measure. Best of all, Asimov doesn't assume you've already read the Bible or attended a sufficient quantity of religious services to know all of its most famous stories, unlike Greenberg.

Greenberg's book was a bit of a blind alley for me, and apart from those who already believe his theory of the origin of Hebrew religion, I cannot think of anyone for whom it wouldn't be. Secular folks will not be gobsmacked every time he finds parallels between the mythoi of adjacent, contemporaneous ancient cultures, and traditional believers will be insulted by the very attempt to look for them--when it is their own myths being so explored.

[Lyron · Rating 4 out of 5]

I must admit that this book is interesting. It draws very interesting parallels between two different (but very related) cultures. I enjoyed the book very much, even though it's not a scientific read.
The book does not contain strong and clear evidence for its conclusions, but I still think it stands if you know the Jewish culture or read the Old Testament.
I recommend this book to anyone that wants to read a very interesting approach of understanding where Jewish and Israelite culture came from.

[Shaimaa Ali]

هدفى من قراءة هذا الكتاب كان التعرف على نسبة التشابه بين القصص الدينية والأساطير القديمة (المصرية ، البابلية..الخ) .. يوجد الكثير من التشابه يكاد يصل الى التطابق فى بعض القصص .. تطابق مريب يكاد لا يُصدق!
عموماً لم يكن هدفى هو التشكيك فى الكتاب المقدس ، فبعض قصص العهدى القديم والجديد متطابقة مع القرآن الكريم ..
استنتاج المؤلف جاء فى بعض الأحيان غريباً أو غير مترابط ، وفى بعض الأحيان يُعتد به .. مثلاً قى قصة كبناء هارون للعجل الذهبى يستنتج المؤلف بعد العديد من المقدمات انه لا يمكن لهارون وجماعته بناء هذا العجل وانه لابد من أن جماعة أخرى تكون هى التى قد بنته .. من الواضح هنا ان لا وجود لشخصية مثل السامرىّ فى كتابات العهد القديم !
استنتاجات أخرى مثل قصة الطوفان وتشابهها مع أسطورة مصرية هيرموبوليتية وملحمة جلجامش البابلية يثير من الحيرة والتعجب الكثير!!
لا أستطيع وضع تقييم للكتاب كما هى عادتى مع الكتب المثيرة للجدل ، وان كان مفيداً أن تقرأه لا سيما أن الكاتب قد أفرد خاتمة بديعة ملخصاً فيها مجموع أساطير الكتاب وملحقاً به عدداً كبيراً من المراجع والكتب والمواقف الدينية والتاريخية.
مجهود رائع من المؤلف ومن المترجمة التى جعلت قراءة كتاب ثقيل مثل هذا عملاً شيقاً ..

[Lee Harmon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book wasn’t quite what I expected when I bought it, but I nevertheless enjoyed reading it. In my opinion, you won’t read conclusive evidence that the stories are myths; what you’ll read are possible explanations for 101 of the Bible’s legends, for scholarship has hardly settled upon many of the conclusions Greenberg draws. But he does make you think, and that’s the purpose of my writing as well. An occasional idea for my daily blog post originates from this book; yesterday’s post combines two such ideas from Greenberg.

Greenberg’s specialty may be Egyptian mythology, because in many of the Bible’s stories, he finds Egyptian roots. This is not a new line of thought; others have proposed that Christianity, at its core, derives from even more ancient Egyptian beliefs. Perhaps this can be explained by Israel being a breakaway nation from Egypt—Moses led the children of Israel out of slavery there. Some examples may be helpful.

The Myth: God planted a tree of life and a tree of knowledge. The Reality: These two special trees symbolically represent the Egyptian deities Shu and Tefnut.

The Myth: God formed Adam from the dust of the earth. The Reality: The biblical editors confused the birth of Atum in Egyptian mythology with the birth of the first human.

The Myth: Jacob wrestled with a stranger. The Reality: The wrestling story reflects the daily struggle between Egyptian figures Horus and Set.

For each of the 101 “myths,” Greenberg provides two or three pages of explanation. The result is a fascinating peek below the surface of the Bible’s stories, making them even more interesting than you had imagined!

[Sara · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting, but I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions - he forces Egyptian myth onto ancient Hebrew myth and I found that difficult to believe. It seemed the author had an idea in his head and he wanted to find facts to fit that idea.

[Melanie Franklin · Rating 1 out of 5]

The so-called "Myths" of the bible are lacking credibility. I don't recommend this book.

[David Buckley · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is basically a book for browsing in, not a start-to-finish read. It deals essentially with the problem of "doublets" (twin versions of the same story) as they appear in the Bible (or, more precisely, The Torah). These "doublets" have long been known to scholars although theologians and mainstream "religious" types have tended to ignore or gloss over them ... for obvious reasons: Such contradictions are not likely to assuage the anxiety of those who feel the need to believe that the Bible is literally "the Word of God," or that it was written by Moses.

In his "Introduction" (pages xv to xxvi) Greenberg provides a coherent outline of what's called "the Documentary Hypothesis": Because some stories in the Torah refer to god as Yahweh, and others refer to "him" as Elohim, scholars argue there are two "authors" of the Torah: J (the Jaweh source) and E (the Elohim source). In addition, there is a Priestly (P) strand within E (dealing largely with priestly matters of ritual etc), and a later source D which is evident in the Book of Deuteronomy only. Scholars have long claimed (plausibly) that, as Greenberg puts it "Many of the doublets in E and J reflect the political and religious propaganda wars between Israel and Judah after those two nations split apart." (xviii) (Although "nation" is a loaded and anachronistic term under the circumstances).

In any event, Greenberg's book goes beyond these well-established parameters and tries to establish Egyptian (first) and Babylonian (later) roots for many of the "myths" in the Torah. I find his arguments eminently plausible, but I'd feel better if his book had received the "blessing" of at least one well-known scholar. No favorable reviews are quoted on the back cover, and this publisher is not exactly a major or reliable source of scholarly work. In addition, Greenberg is known as something of a controversialist in these matters. So, despite my own enthusiasm for his arguments here (and in his earlier work), I'd caution all readers that this book is interesting but speculative ... despite the fact that it is well-written, and plausibly argued. [I'm no expert in these areas myself:]


Because western conceptions of god as author (of "the" Book), creator (of ... Everything!), realtor (Promised Lands for Chosen People etc), and all-round 'miracle' worker (he intervenes in human affairs to "save the day" -sorta- on odd occasions) -- because this tradition strike me as childish and intellectually dishonest, I favor any attempt to view the Bible as just another secular "historical" source, albeit one which needs to be handled with a great deal of care. For that reason alone I'd recommend this work as a worthwhile read, especially for those whose conception of God is not reduced to the silly dimensions that dominate our so-called "public discourse".

[Arlene Whitlock · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is definitely for those who want to dig deeper into the history of the Bible. At first, I felt like having myths in the title was a bit misleading. However, after reading and finding that some of the Old Testament parallels Egyptian mythology, then the title is quite appropriate. The parallels are very compelling. Greenberg’s research is exhaustive. Turns out, he’s something of a polymath: undergrad in mathematics, career as an attorney, author, and president of the Biblical Archaeology Society. I believe he also ran for political office too!

Highly recommended.

[Lloyd Downey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really didn't hold out much promise from this book. Any book that deals with 101 of anything, in my experience, has to try too hard to fit everything into the fixed number or is padding it out to reach the number. But I needn't have worried. Greenberg has done a pretty good job of tailoring his cases to the number without it becoming too repetitive or boring. I thought I knew the Bible pretty well....I've systematically read it from cover to cover twice and have read individual sections, probably, hundreds of times. But, even so I was oblivious to the fact that there are two different accounts in genesis of THE genesis. And they differ and are contradictory. And, I always have the dictum in the back of my mind that if two accounts agree then it's possible that they might both be true or both be in error. But if they contradict each other then at least one of the accounts has to be false. As Greenberg says, "structurally, Genesis 1-11 presents a fascinating insight into how the Bible evolved....At its core are two separate biblical source documents, P and J, each presenting contradictory accounts of events and very different points of view about deity.....and... the biblical editors tried to integrate the two sources into a single seamless narrative". For example in the first Genesis account of the creation it says that the fowl emerged from the waters. By contrast in the second version of Genesis attributable to the J source, it says.."and out of the ground the lord god did form every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" (Gen.2:19). The water based origins reflects Egyptian mythology about water being the source of life and the land based story reflect the Babylonian mythology in which land played a more significant role.
Apparently biblical scholars generally agree that there were at least two different source documents for the five books of Moses (though Deuteronomy describes the death and burial of Moses ...so it couldn't have been written by him). One of these source documents is known as the J document (because it refers to Jahweh..the name of the Hebrew god.....the other, the E document, because it uses Elohim as the word for god. However, later research has shown that there were at least 4 source documents integrated into the books of Moses...and there are many "doublets".......same story appearing twice with different wrinkles.The E document appears to have had two separate sources...and embedded in the E source is the P (or priestly) source....very much promoting the cause of Aronite wing of the Levites as priests.The other source document is the D source (from Deuteronomy) and it belongs to a much larger collection of works including the biblical books of Joshua, 1 & 2 Samuel, and 1 & 2 Kings which presents a history of the Hebrews from Moses (c.1300 BC to the Babylonian captivity c. 622 BC...and presumably was written during the reformist regime of King Josiah after the Hebrews (or some of them) returned from Babylon.
Greenberg cites 16 biblical authors specifically referring to reference works that they relied upon in composing their work...for example the Book of Jasher cited in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18)....the first is the incident where Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and the second where David taught the children of Israel how to use the bow....More than 300 years separate the events. This tells us that the Book of Jasher was written no earlier than the time of King David yet has information about Joshua...300 years earlier. So where did the writer of Jasher get his information?
Anyway, the underlying theme is that some author or set of authors (redactors) have put together the work that we have as the bible by combining different documents (frequently with overlapping and conflicting stories reflecting political differences at the time) and they tried to make it into a coherent narrative. (Not always successfully).
A major thrust of Greenberg's thesis is that many of the stories in the bible can be traced either directly or indirectly to the myths of the Egyptians or the Babylonians. J's roots go back to the Egyptian city of Heliopolis. Joseph was married to the daughter of the Chief Priest The P document has adopted the creation philosophy associated with the Egyptian city of Thebes. For the most part the Egyptians shared certain common ideas about the creation....a universal flood from which emerged a mountain and on this mountain the process of creation moved forwards. The major cult centres of Egypt each associated their local deity with the first acts of creation. The Hebrews in essence engaged in a form of reverse-engineering to fashion a coherent cosmogony. Although polytheistic, the Egyptian myths were very philosophical and scientific. They tried to define the physical nature of the universe and explain how it evolved and was transformed into its present situation. So the Hebrew philosophers separated the deities from the phenomena and where for example the Egyptians had a flaming serpent upon the mountain emerging from out of the flood...the Hebrew replaced this with light appearing while a firmament arose out of the primal flood. Sometimes, I think, Greenberger has to press his arguments a bit far and maybe there are a few rather far-fetched calls in comparing the earlier Egyptian/Babylonian mythology with it's transformation into Jewish stories in the bible.....but on the whole...his claims seem reasonable and one can see the obvious linkages.
And, as Greenberg points out.....in 587 BC the remnants of the Hebrew kingdom were forcibly removed to Babylon where they became immersed in the learned culture of the Babylonians and had to meld (for example) their myth of the flood story with the equivalent Babylonian flood story....except they had to move the Hebrew version from the creation to the tenth generation of bibical humanity. But traces of the original polytheism escaped the sharp eyes of the redactors and remain embedded in the text. He suggests that the P creation story flows from images in the Theban creation myth...it unfolds with the same sequence of events.
Likewise through the whole of the 101 "myths" Greenberg draws parallels between the mythology of the Egyptians and the mythology of the babylonians superimposed on it......always interpreting the polytheistic gods actions as attributes of the monotheistic Hebrew god.
I've just been going through the King James Version of Genesis and comparing with the New International Version and comparing with what Greenberger is claiming about the creation of Adam and Eve. He suggests that there are conflicting stories between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and that seems correct. In Genesis 1 man and woman (Not necessarily Adam and Eve) are created on the 6th day (or maybe the 7th if you notice the strange omission in Genesis 1:25 of the formulaic ..."And God saw that it was good ...and the evening and the morning were the sixth day". As Greenberg points out that Genesis 2:2 says "On the seventh day God ended his work"......meaning that he was still working on the 7th day and (if the formulaic omission referred to above is real) presumably created man and woman on the 7th day and then rested....on the 8th day? But maybe the redactors were trying hard to reconcile these myths with the practice of a holy sabbath day...so had god rest on the seventh day, (How come an omnipotent God needs to rest?).
Greenberg draws attention to the fact that Genesis 1:11-12 has vegetation appearing before the sun....which has a few problems with a lack of photosynthesis......But he says that the reality is that the Genesis story just follows the Egyptian creation sequence in putting the appearance of vegetation before the sun.
The conflicts between Cain and Abel are recast as similar conflicts between Egyptian gods Set and Osiris but subsequently the story was influenced by Sumerian myths about the shepherd names Dumuzi.
Ok...sometimes Greenberg pushed the analogies fairly hard to make his case but overall it's a very believable story backed by a mountain of evidence and in most cases one can easily draw the parallels.....especially if one gives some credence to the way myths can morph over time. So what's the bottom line? Well, pretty clearly the early books of the Bible are very largely mythological in nature; they are the works of very human redactors trying to cobble together a bunch of source documents into a coherent whole....but with some obvious local political overtones and they are almost certainly not the inspired words of God handed to or written by Moses. So the consequences of Greenberger's debunking have severe implications for a number of the major religions.
Happy to give the book five stars. It certainly made me think.

[Marwa Ahmed · Rating 3 out of 5]

بداية لا أؤمن بالتوراة الحالية ولكن اؤمن بوجود توراة فقدت نزلت على نبي الله موسى رغم عدم تشكيكي في بعض القصص الخاصة بالأنبياء الذين ورد ذكر قصصهم مع القرآن
بدأ الكاتب كتابه بالحديث عن مصادر كتابة التوراه وهي أربعة : اليهوي والكهنوتي والالوهيمي والتثنوي وان كل مصدر منها كان تأثير واضح على كتابة ما احتوته التوراة من قصص و أساطير ثم أورد للحواشي التي اعتمد أو استقى منها محررو العهد القديم في كتابة الاسفار وفقدت بعد كتابة التوراة الحالية منذ زمن بعيد وقد قسم الكاتب الاساطير إلى ثلاثة أقسام القسم الأول تحدث عن اسطورة الخلق التى نرى فيها التشابه الغريب بينها وبين اسطورة الخلق لدى المصريين القدماء ثم تحدث عن اسطورة خلق آدم وحواء و الحية التي تقمصها الشيطان وفي رأيي إن هذه الأسطورة فيها تأثر شديد جدا بأخرى بابلية ثم تحدث عن اسطورة قايين وهابيل وتأثر الكتبة بالادب البابلي والادب المصري في ضوء الصراع بين حورس وست
إما القسم الثاني فتحدث فيه عن أساطير آباء إسرائيل وكيف تأثر الكتبة بالاساطير البابلية ومحاولتها نزع تاثرهم بالاساطير المصرية حتى جعلوا ان خروج إبراهيم كان من مدينة اور الكلدانيين رغم بنائها بعد إبراهيم بقرون ثم تحدث عن الصراع بين يعقوب وعيسو ومدى تشابهه بالصراع بين حورس الاكبر وست ثم استعرض قصة موسى واستحالة ان يكون هارون هو من صنع العجل لبني إسرائيل وفي ذلك إشارة للصراع بين ملوك إسرائيل وكهنة شيلوه ثم نراه في القسم الثالث يتحدث عن أساطير الابطال مثل شمشون الذي لاشك يوضح التطابق بين هذه الشخصية الأسطورية وشخصية هرقل الإغريقي وعرج على سفر دانيال ثم تحدث عن اسطورة استير والتي كتبها المحررون رغم ان شخصيتها خيالية ليبرروا به احتفالهم بعيد بوريم الذي هو في أصله عيدا بابليا

[Billy Kangas · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book, but the scholarship is so unsubstantiated. The author makes many assertions based on his work as an egyptologist but doesn't supply the evidence.

If you're looking for a book to believe on blind faith this is a good place to start.

This book needs footnotes but does not include them. Almost every argument he makes seems to be built on a house of cards.

I appreciate The author's desire to dig into the historical context and authorial intent of the biblical narratives. However, you can't just make stuff up. That seems to be what happened in many cases here.

[C. Varn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting but highly speculative

Greenberg confidently asserts that most of the Hebrew bible is reworked versions of Egyptian mythology as are most of historical Patriarchs. While definitely plausible, Greenberg asserts this as truth and doesn't really document in detail enough for the levels of confidence he seems to have. It's still fascinating despite this flaw.

[Elliott Bignell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book to be readable and well-structured, and will quite likely reference it routinely in the future to recall specific points. The book is broken down into the 101 items the title suggests, so each is rather short - usually two to three pages - making it natural to bite it off a myth or two at a time. I have to say, though, that after about 50 points it was becoming hard to recall much of the information; rather than a structured argument one is confronted by a persistent light drizzle of examples which does not promote deep understanding and therefore retention. This is the reason for the missing star.

As I am new to the field, I encountered plenty of new information and would recommend it to any other novice or casual reader in the fields of biblical exegesis or analysis. Having a very thin education in Bible myth, Egyptian and Babylonian mythologies and Jewish history equally, there was plenty to make this book worth reading. The author makes his case strongly for the most part and leaves little doubt as to the origins of the Bible stories in these earlier tellings. In many cases, it is almost a case of the Bible myth being an Egyptian polytheistic myth with the Gods' names slightly altered and their natures changed to those of human prophets.

[Jim Razinha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and likely to spark vigorous discussion, if anyone ever read it. Published in 2000, and found a couple of weeks ago at a HPB, I don't think its readership was wide. Greenberg does a nice job contrasting biblical positions/stories with other ancient stories and in many cases actual history, but he doesn't cite specifics in the text, so,academics might have a problem with his explanations. He does provide a "suggested reading" list at the end,but we don't benefit from his work in being able to cross check or dig further, because sometimes I either want to check...or pull the thread myself.

[Geoff Glenister · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent collection of scholarly conclusions regarding the Biblical stories, their parallels with other myths, and other archaeological evidence. The problem is that this might not be convincing to apologists who come in with an adversarial attitude - the reasons being that this book functions as a bit of a whirlwind tour, and doesn't spend a very long time arguing every point and meticulously pointing out the evidence. Also, it needs footnotes. But for someone who has already realized the fact that the Biblical writers borrowed from other mythologies, this book is a good reference.

[Tom Hill · Rating 2 out of 5]

This appeared to be an interesting book based on the title but ended up being rather tedious to read. I don't know if it was just the format used or that the explanations all seemed similar. Disappointing.

[Alicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting. Using editorial markers he discusses who wrote what parts of the Bible and why. Great counter to other books discussing biblical history.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

Garbage, NOT worth the time to read. PERIOD.

[Anne · Rating 1 out of 5]

just couldn't get into it.
seemed to have too much of a negative tone to it

[Regina Hunter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Funny, very and to the point. I wish some of my friends would read it.

[Rogius · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book 3 years ago,tried to read it 2 times in every year and in every time I feel bored. Finally I finished it.

[Saúl · Rating 2 out of 5]

1. En esta época son muy importantes las fuentes. Los historiadores antiguos, verificaban ellos mismos y no dejaban esa tarea al lector: tal era su oficio. En las disputas teológicas de la Biblia son necesarias y el autor prescinde muchas veces de ellas.

2. Se nos intenta mostrar de dónde salen todos estos mitos: "Los sacerdotes hebreos adoptaron la visión egipcia de la creación pero eliminaron las referencias a los dioses egipcios o retuvieron únicamente los atributos de los dioses, eliminando los nombres" o bien, "El texto contiene relatos contradictorios, al basarse unas veces en la visión o cultura egipcia y otras en la perspectiva babilónica". La premisa está muy bien.

Pero su puesta en práctica no tanto.

3. Diversas versiones de la biblia ya explican a su favor las diferentes dudas que puedan surgir en relación a su traducción: "Hombre está tomado en sentido colectivo" (Gn 1, 27) , "La luz no es la solar, sino la de la aurora, que los antiguos creían independiente del sol" (Gn 1, 4), "-A nuestra imagen- no son palabras sinónimas. Imagen es la representación de una cosa. Semejanza es como una aposición que indica la proporción entre ambas, excluyendo la paridad" ...

Explicaciones sencillas a favor de las Escrituras. Gary Greenberg hace lo mismo a favor de los mitos; pero de manera menos precisa y más enrevesada.

[SierraKiloBravo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Link to my review: https://sierrakilobravo.wordpress.com...

I am fascinated by history and how it has shaped our modern world. I love reading about how things that happened hundreds of years ago still have effect on us in our modern day. Many of the traditions that we have today are very old, and have been handed down for many generations and have ancient origins.

One of the best books that I have read on this subject is The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P Hall (thanks for the recommendation Ninja), but I have just finished another strong contender: 101 Myths of the Bible by Gary Greenburg.

The difference between the two is that Secret Teachings explains how ancient paganism and mythology has created many of the common practices found in modern religion, whereas 101 Myths explains and demonstrates that the key elements of the New Testament are lifted almost entirely from ancient Egyptian mythology and at times from the Greek, Assyrian, and Persian mythologies.

It is a fascinating read, and takes you on a journey from the seven days of creation through to the acts of David, Samson, and Esther. It is incredible how the stories recounted in the bible are often nearly exactly the same as the much older myths of ancient civilisations, how these ancient stories were adapted to make up an authentic sounding history and recorded in a book that has gone on to shape the course of human history.

Greenberg has laid out the book well and it is not hard to read. He uses plain English, and backs up his assertions with literary, archaeological, and logical proof. I highly recommend it if you would like to learn more about where the most famous book in the world originated.

[Walid Hussein · Rating 4 out of 5]

قرأت كتاب "101 أسطورة توراتية" (جاري جرنبرج، بريطانيا، 2003)، وهو عمل جريء يعيد النظر في العديد من القصص التي وردت في العهد القديم، محاولًا تفكيكها من منظور تاريخي وأثري بعيدًا عن التفسيرات الدينية التقليدية. يعتمد المؤلف على دراسات علمية ونصوص قديمة لمقارنة الروايات التوراتية بأساطير شعوب الشرق الأدنى القديم، مما يطرح تساؤلات حول أصل هذه القصص ومدى تأثرها بثقافات سابقة.

يركز الكتاب على تحليل 101 قصة توراتية، مثل الطوفان، وبرج بابل، والخروج من مصر، مقدمًا أدلة على أن العديد منها لها أصول سابقة في الأساطير السومرية والبابلية والمصرية. يستخدم جرنبرج منهجًا نقديًا يجمع بين الدراسات الأثرية والمقارنات النصية ليكشف عن التشابهات والاختلافات بين الروايات الدينية والنصوص القديمة، مما يجعل القارئ يعيد التفكير في المصادر الأصلية لهذه الحكايات.

تكمن أهمية هذا الكتاب في أنه يزود القارئ العربي بأداة تحليلية علمية لدراسة النصوص التوراتية، بعيدًا عن التفسيرات العقائدية، مما يعزز الفهم التاريخي للدين والتأثيرات الثقافية المتبادلة بين الحضارات. كما يساعد على تفكيك بعض المفاهيم السائدة حول الروايات الدينية من منظور علمي، مما يجعله مرجعًا مهمًا لمحبي التاريخ والأديان المقارنة.

هل قرأته؟ أخبرنا برأيك أم ستقرأه قريبًا ولماذا؟

[Leon Barbee · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is utter trash. There is no bibliography, there are no footnotes, there is no substantiation period.
This man is a lawyer, not a scholar, nor does he have any background in any scholarly effort in the field that he is trying to debunk. The Egyptians wrote their history based on their Pharaoh at the time. Basically the Pharaoh would say "so as I said, so it shall be written". The problem is that if a new pharaoh said something different, then that was the way things were. The carbon dating system is woefully incorrect, as it is full of false premises and theories, and has been proven to be erroneous.
I've been doing my own research concerning the Bible for over 40 years (I'm now 80) and if you want true history, try reading the Annals of the World by Archbishop James Ussher and The Chronology of the Old Testament (a dissertation) by Dr Floyd Nolen Jones. But this book has no merit at all, it reads like someone making up a story as they go along.

[Mohamed Gamal · Rating 2 out of 5]

الكاتب بيلوي عنق الميثولوجيا المصرية علشان يثبت التأثير المصري علي العهد القديم، منقدرش ننكر ان ممكن يكون في تأثير مصري علي بعض اجزاء نصوص العهد القديم خاصة في النصوص الشعرية و سفر القضاة لكن التأثير الاساسي بلا شك هو للميثولوجيا الرافدية و ليس المصرية.
النجمتين لاسلوب الكاتب السلس و المقدمة المفيدة اللي حطها في مقدمة كل قسم من الاقسام الثلاثة لكن الطرح المقارن ما بين الميثولوجيا المصرية و العبرانية انا شايفه غير موفق في اغلب الحالات، اما القول بان اصل العبرانيين من مصر فهو شطط من الخيال.

[Sarah Spell · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked the first part that describes the different versions of the creation story (and understand the cultural context behind it) as well as the third that goes into political divides of Israel, but like one-third was just shallow parallels to Egyptian myths, like "this Biblical story has four men and four women, and this Egyptian story has four men and four women, and they're loosely about the same idea, so they must be the same story"

[Fcsuper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of well crafted explanations about how the bible took its current form. A good read for someone looking for a viewpoint that the bible is really just a collection of ancient writings by us and not inspired beyond that. The drawback to this book is that is is not well organized in how it is sourced (most sourcing occurs in the text itself with out bibliographic information for follow up).

[Sajjeev Antony · Rating 1 out of 5]

Title is interesting ... the contents are disappointing. The author seems to have intended the masses only as his readers. Far better are the scholarly books such as "Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein.