Gary Greenberg
Author of The Judas Brief, The Case for a Proto-Gospel, The Moses Mystery, 101 Myths of the Bible and other books and articles.
Address: New York, United States
Address: New York, United States
less
Related Authors
Interests
Related Authors
Uploads
Papers by Gary Greenberg
the standard (High) chronology
It will be my argument that John 11:45-54 introduced a significant plot change to the synoptic Passion accounts and that John had to make many changes to the synoptic narrative in order to make his alternative plot work. More specifically, in the synoptic gospels, the priests want to kill Jesus because they see his actions in the Temple as a threat to their authority. Jesus is an earthly political rival. In John, Jesus’ popularity in the final days stems from the raising of Lazarus, a heavenly power, and the priests want to kill Jesus because they fear that his popularity from raising Lazarus will cause Rome to destroy the Temple and the nation. John places the plot to kill Jesus in the context of his gospel message about eternal life. To present this alternative plot, John needed to eliminate the conflicting and distracting issue of earthly political rivalry.
In the course of the paper I will look at how John 11:45-54 interacts with several troubling issues in John’s gospel, including John’s s account of Jesus’ last visit to Jerusalem, the money-changers scene, and what appears to be disguised elements of a Jewish trial,
Most Egyptologists and biblical scholars who study this report easily recognize that it tells of events during the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten, but they uniformly reject the identification of Moses with Osarseph. By concentrating solely on the passage identifying these two figures as one and the same, however, I submit that scholars have overlooked many additional passages that have literary parallels in the biblical Exodus account, but which switch the role of villain and hero.
The above quote from Gen. 2:4 introduces us to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Many biblical scholars believe that the next few verses contain a slightly different version of Creation than that contained earlier in Gen. 1. What is especially unusual is the reference to the “generations of the heavens and the earth.” In the several other instances when Genesis says, “These are the generations of . . .”, it refers to information about a parent and their children. This would imply that Genesis 2 is about the Children of the Heavens and Earth, a polytheistic throwback to an earlier cosmogony. But whose cosmogony?
The Egyptian goddess Neith has a reputation as both a military figure and as a mother goddess and nurse, characteristics that caused the Greeks to identify her with the goddess Athena. In Hebrew, Deborah means “Bee” and that symbol is closely identified with Neith. A Temple to Neith was called “House of the Bee”, and the Bee was the symbol of kingship in Lower Egypt.
In this paper I will argue that both Deborahs were mythological figures based on Hebrew recollections of the goddess Neith, the goddess who ruled in the area of Egypt where Israel dwelled in earlier times. In support of this argument I will draw upon some materials in Plutarch’s account of the Osiris myth, which suggests that Neith may have been associated with a Tree of Weeping. I will also make other mythological comparisons between Neith and the two Deborahs.
Talks by Gary Greenberg
the standard (High) chronology
It will be my argument that John 11:45-54 introduced a significant plot change to the synoptic Passion accounts and that John had to make many changes to the synoptic narrative in order to make his alternative plot work. More specifically, in the synoptic gospels, the priests want to kill Jesus because they see his actions in the Temple as a threat to their authority. Jesus is an earthly political rival. In John, Jesus’ popularity in the final days stems from the raising of Lazarus, a heavenly power, and the priests want to kill Jesus because they fear that his popularity from raising Lazarus will cause Rome to destroy the Temple and the nation. John places the plot to kill Jesus in the context of his gospel message about eternal life. To present this alternative plot, John needed to eliminate the conflicting and distracting issue of earthly political rivalry.
In the course of the paper I will look at how John 11:45-54 interacts with several troubling issues in John’s gospel, including John’s s account of Jesus’ last visit to Jerusalem, the money-changers scene, and what appears to be disguised elements of a Jewish trial,
Most Egyptologists and biblical scholars who study this report easily recognize that it tells of events during the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten, but they uniformly reject the identification of Moses with Osarseph. By concentrating solely on the passage identifying these two figures as one and the same, however, I submit that scholars have overlooked many additional passages that have literary parallels in the biblical Exodus account, but which switch the role of villain and hero.
The above quote from Gen. 2:4 introduces us to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Many biblical scholars believe that the next few verses contain a slightly different version of Creation than that contained earlier in Gen. 1. What is especially unusual is the reference to the “generations of the heavens and the earth.” In the several other instances when Genesis says, “These are the generations of . . .”, it refers to information about a parent and their children. This would imply that Genesis 2 is about the Children of the Heavens and Earth, a polytheistic throwback to an earlier cosmogony. But whose cosmogony?
The Egyptian goddess Neith has a reputation as both a military figure and as a mother goddess and nurse, characteristics that caused the Greeks to identify her with the goddess Athena. In Hebrew, Deborah means “Bee” and that symbol is closely identified with Neith. A Temple to Neith was called “House of the Bee”, and the Bee was the symbol of kingship in Lower Egypt.
In this paper I will argue that both Deborahs were mythological figures based on Hebrew recollections of the goddess Neith, the goddess who ruled in the area of Egypt where Israel dwelled in earlier times. In support of this argument I will draw upon some materials in Plutarch’s account of the Osiris myth, which suggests that Neith may have been associated with a Tree of Weeping. I will also make other mythological comparisons between Neith and the two Deborahs.