Biblical studies and scholarly work is an area in academia (and independent research for that matter) where different theories are bound to stir the waters of many ponds, and in this day and age places like YouTube are a breeding ground of "experts" on whatever historical or religious subject you can think of, without actually having any real academic background on the subjects theorized about. Russell Gmirkin is an independent researcher whose case about the Hellenistic influences in the Pentateuch, backed by huge amount of data, can seem overwhelming to many bible scholars, but this is a field of research which is constantly developing, shifting historical dates and eras, while shedding light on many perplexing parts of the first Books of Moses and beyond.
Hey Russell! How are you on this day of February 2022? Where are you writing this from, and how is the situation over there when it comes to this viral plague of our time?
I am writing this in outdoor seating at my local Starbucks coffee shop at a little table in a spacious outdoor patio area, underneath a tree that usually has birds hidden underneath its leaves but is now beautifully skeletal in a brisk winter setting. I always bring assorted cashews, pecans and other nuts that I place on the surrounding wall and crush with a small flat black stone to feed my crow friends, Shadow and Sidekick, who often visit me. As a writer this is my one cautious indulgence in these times of the pandemic. Omicron is sweeping the nation, fueled by the co-morbidities of politics and stupidity that are even more dangerous threats in America in these troubled times. I mostly stay happily at home with my talented wife of 25 years Carolyn Tracy, also a writer, and a constant delight.
What sparked your interest in ancient history, and biblical topics especially? Your grandfather and your father lived extremely fascinating lives (certainly deserving wonderful biographies), but have their actions or your general upbringing overlapped with the field of your research in any major way?
My grandfather Constantine Gmyrken was a high ranking White Russian (Cossack) who rose to high governmental office in Sinkiang Province, China after the Communist Revolution. He took part in the defense of Urumchi in a Muslim uprising in 1933 and when Stalinist forces were invited in to put down the revolt, Constantine was arrested and executed. Fortunately he had sent his family to safety, although their caravan was captured and held for ransom a couple times.
The Gmirkins emigrated to America, and both my father Vasia and uncle Leonard had distinguished careers in the CIA. My father was involved in several undercover operations that earned him a reputation as a sort of American James Bond. However, growing up I only knew that he traveled the world as an employee of the State Department.
I think maybe the common theme with my other historical research is that I have had to actively use my investigative skills to uncover my own immediate family history from books and articles and other resources, some only recently declassified.
As a young adult I acquired an extensive background in biblical, classical Greek and ancient Near Eastern literature along with ancient history and archaeology, and with many other fields of interest, just because I was a prolific reader at the time. I used to hang out in university libraries up and down the west coast, researching various topics of interest. Sadly, once I became a writer I’ve found I don’t have time to indulge in my former recreational reading habits. The transition came about when I accidentally came upon various Greek sources with striking parallels to biblical materials, despite their authors clearly never having been exposed to Jewish traditions. I began to seriously consider whether it was possible that the biblical tradition was influenced by Greek literature, especially after learning about the possible late date of the Hebrew Bible as argued by Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen.
If we summarize one of your theories (based heavily on information available to all), it suggests the first Books of Moses were heavily influenced by Hellenistic (Platonic to be exact) thinking, in the form of laws, religious concepts of divinity, tales of major heroes and so on, to the point one could plausibly argue the writers were influenced mostly by what they possibly learned in Alexandria circa 270 BCE?
Yes, in my first book, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus (New York: T & T Clark, 2006), I argued that the Pentateuch utilized various earlier historical sources from the early Hellenistic era, including Hecataeus of Abdera (320-315 BCE), the Egyptian priest Manetho (ca. 285 BCE), the Babylonian priest Berossus (ca. 280 BCE) and other more obscure Greek sources of slightly later date, indicating that the Books of Moses were written in 273-272 BCE, using Greek sources available at the Great Library of Alexandria.
Meanwhile, other traditions credibly claimed the Septuagint translation of these same books for the Great Library from Hebrew into Greek by a team of Jewish scholars invited to Alexandria for that purpose took place around the same time, dateable to 273-269 BCE. This led me to the surprising conclusion that the same group of Jewish and Samaritan educated elites, knowledgeable in both Greek and Hebrew, both wrote the Books of Moses at the Great Library of Alexandria and immediately translated it into Greek.
Uncovering the likely specific historical circumstances behind the creation of the Pentateuch was a conclusion of great importance. This hypothesis was reinforced by my later book Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Routledge, 2017) that demonstrated that the Mosaic laws drew not only on ancient Near Eastern law codes (as is widely known), but Greek laws, and in particular on Plato’s Laws, his last dialogue of ca. 350 BCE, a theoretical treatise on how to effectively establish a new nation with its constitution, laws and other institutions.
If your theory is correct, it suggests the creation of the Jewish theocracy in those times was not so different from birth of nationalism and the nation states in Europe much later?
Plato’s Laws detailed a new theocratic form of government he invented, in which the laws and constitution would be attributed to the gods in the ancient past, and which in the present would be ruled by a council of divine ruling class educated elites trained in theology, philosophy, government and ethics, similar to the philosopher kings of Plato’s Republic. They themselves would pursue the highest reaches of philosophical knowledge, but the mass of ordinary citizenry would be programmed in ethical and theological beliefs through a carefully constructed sacred literature in order to render them pious, obedient and patriotic through lifelong education in virtuous religious values and myths.
This agenda for nation-building was consciously implemented in the reinvention of Jewish society as a theocracy under the rule of a high priest and senate around 270 BCE, and in the creation of the Hebrew Bible as a new national literature.
However, the Jewish theocracy established in the early Hellenistic era was imperfectly established (a possibility Plato feared in Laws) and did not incorporate philosophical training in its ruling classes, but was ruled by theologians under the exclusive guidance of its national literature, leaving Judaism as the first religious belief system and its government as an implementation of that belief system. Christianity to a large extent imitated Judaism as a belief system governed by an authoritative religious literature.
The first instance of a Christian theocracy was the Roman Empire under the successors of Constantine the Great in which Christianity was made the official religion. The Holy Roman Empire of the early Middle Ages and the later Protestant kingdoms were all influenced by the notion of theocratic rule that erased the separation of church and state and viewed the king as divinely ordained. But while Jewish theocracy was nation-building as a conscious implementation of Plato’s Laws, these later nations were only indirectly and one might say accidentally influenced by Plato.
One detail or area you have discussed which has really got me thinking is the creation myth of Bereshit with its God as the creator of heaven and earth, and God in the garden as Elohim (plural), compared to Platonic concepts of the Demiurge or the Monad as the source or creator of the universe and the other "lesser" Greek gods involved in more human affairs. While the term Gnostic would not be very useful here, it does change the religious bigger picture to a more so-called mystical perspective?
My latest book Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts (Routledge, forthcoming) argues that the two biblical creation accounts draw directly on Plato’s Timaeus: first the creation of the present world by the eternal Demiurge or craftsman and then the creation of mortal life by his offspring, the ordinary terrestrial gods and goddesses. The local terrestial god Yahweh of Genesis 2-3, residing on earth, later dining with Abraham and so forth, was one of these lesser gods, as my book brings out, along with the sons of God also residing on earth in Genesis 6:1-4. It was only in Exodus-Joshua that this local national god Yahweh was identified or conflated with the cosmic eternal Creator of the heavens and earth.
In Genesis one has a benevolent polytheism along Platonic lines, with all the lesser gods dividing up the world and ruling in their respective realms (Eden being one among many). In Exodus-Joshua the other gods were characterized as wicked, contrary to Plato’s view of the divine realm as universally good. This later led to ideas about wicked fallen angels and demons and false gods. This also led to the later Jewish notion of monotheism that arose by around 200 BCE that denied the other gods even existed.
Gnosticism was also intellectually indebted to Plato’s Timaeus. But Gnosticism viewed the entire material realm as evil, and therefore not the creation of the ethical supreme god of Plato. Nor did Gnosticism characterize all the gods as intrinsically good, as Plato did. Rather, Gnosticism claimed that the material realm was created by lesser evil gods, the archons.
On the other hand, Plato’s view of the divine realm as different from and above the material realm, basically how Christians describe ”heaven”—also influenced Gnosticism and other forms of mysticism in a more positive way. Plato held that human’s highest aim was to contemplate the divine, to make direct intellectual contact with the divine heavenly realms, and that this was essentially the path to salvation, to residing among the gods at death rather than returning to earth in an endless cycle of reincarnation. The Gnostics also held that gnosis = ”knowledge” of the divine was the means to salvation. Other mystic religions and disciplines also sought to make direct mental or spiritual contact with the divine.
Another source or literary work where we can find descriptions of "lesser gods" interacting with men are the Books of Enoch, found from Ethiopia and caves of Qumran, but would you say they contain more Greek or Mesopotamian influences?
I would say both Greek and Mesopotamian. The Watcher myth that interpreted the sons of God of Genesis 6:1-4 as angels from heaven who brought divine wisdom to humans are clearly based on the Mesopotamian apkallu, semi-divine beings who revealed knowledge to humanity in the pre-flood world in Mesopotamian myth. Scholars today fully recognize this, and Henryk Drawnel has pointed out that the categories of knowledge revealed by the Watchers in 1 Enoch 6-8 correspond closely with areas of expertise among the Mesopotamian ummanu or scholars. My own research shows the oldest portions of the Astronomical Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 72-82), also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Aramaic, actually represents a surviving example of Watcher literature by Mesopotamian scholars that was later domesticated by attributing it to Enoch. The authors of 1 Enoch thus both condemned Watcher lore as evil, forbidden knowledge, but in other cases accepted it as divine revelation. I hope my discussion of this interesting material will eventually appear in book form, although I have a couple other books to complete first.
1 Enoch also has Greek influences, as scholars have brought out (such as VanderKam and Nickelsburg in their commentaries on 1 Enoch). In particular, Enoch’s tour of heavenly realms in the Book of Watchers (specifically, 1 Enoch 17-36) was influenced by Greek pictures of heaven and hell and the afterlife, especially the Myth of Er in Plato’s Republic book 10.
Speaking of Qumran, you have also written about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Where do you think the consensus lies at the moment regarding the theories about this perhaps still elusive community Were they actually battling with the Romans?
It used to be widely agreed that the archaeological site of Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in adjacent caves and other caves along the nearby cliffs, was occupied by Essenes, maybe even the mysterious Teacher of Righteousness. Now the scrolls are not universally identified as Essene, especially in light of special relationship of some of the halachah or legal materials with Sadducee positions. My own study shows a clear relationship between the Essenes as described in Josephus and a single Dead Sea Scroll, the Community Rule (1QS). I think the halachic material can be directly equated with Sadducee law, but dating from a period before the Pharisees and Essenes broke off as separate sects.
Yadin, the Israeli general and biblical scholar who published the critical edition of the War Scroll (1QM), correctly identified Roman influences in the weaponry, tactics and military formations of the War Scroll. He thought that this could only have come about after 63 BCE, when Judea came under Roman rule, and that the Kittim of the War Scroll who were the opponents of the Army of the Sons of Light must therefore be the Romans. But my article “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” DSD 3 (1996) 89-129, shows that the Roman weapons, tactics and formations were those of the pre-Marius army (before 100 BCE), not the later Roman cohort army as Yadin believed. This article pretty much won immediate acceptance among scrolls scholars, and the ”Kittim of the north” are mostly now agreed as the earlier Seleucids of the Hellenistic era. But a later date and identification with the Romans occasionally still has its advocates, but not based on a close analysis of the military data.
Besides the Hellenistic ones, there are of course many themes and influences in the Pentateuch from the times of the Exile as well, such as the amount of days (including the day of rest) it took for the creation of the heavens and earth, or the clear correlations and parallels of practical life of man as the keeper of the garden with the Babylonian gardens of the kings or priests?
The seven day week and sabbath appears to be based on Mesopotamian hemerologies or lists of lucky and unlucky days in each month. In one of these, the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days of each 30-day or 31-day month had a list of unlucky activities the king should refrain from which correspond closely with biblical sabbath regulations. It would appear (according to my research) that the seven-day week and sabbath was a simplified hemerology that arose in Assyrian/Babylonian Samaria, took root among the Samaritans, and was later incorporated into the Hebrew Bible (and the biblical creation story).
There appear to be possible elements of Mesopotamian influence in the premise that humans are required to till the ground in Genesis 2:5. And while the translation of the ”garden” of Eden as a ”paradise” (from a Persian word for the royal gardens) suggests Mesopotamian influence, the description of Eden as a land of streams and gardens and animals where the gods lived among humans appears more directly dependent on Greek sources, and Plato in specific, as I bring out in my forthcoming book.
Another important Babylonian influence is the story of Abraham emigrating from Ur of the Chaldees. This has no correspondence to anything in Jewish history—they were one of the many local ”Canaanite” peoples of the land—but appears to reflect the Babylonians who arrived at Assyrian Samaria in a population exchange with the Israelite ruling elites after the fall of Samaria to Shalmaneser V and Sargon II in the late 700's BCE.
The prominent Babylonian and Assyrian heritage of the biblical authors is also shown by the occasional Mesopotamian law that shows up the the Laws of Moses.
One example of parallel myths I learned from you is the clear similarities of the vision of Ezekiel with depictions of the god Marduk, meaning while we might consider Merkabah mysticism to be a sort of "Jewish shamanism", it might perhaps also be considered to be "Babylonian shamanism" as well? Or do you think it is just pure mythology with no correlation to any historical religious mystical practice?
Right, the Chariot Vision of Ezekiel 1 has very close affinities to KAR 307, a Mesopotamian mystical scholarly text describing Marduk’s throne in the heavens. The rabbis thought this passage so contrary to Jewish ideas that they forbade its reading or exposition except in the presence of a rabbi. I think Ezekiel 1 probably came from a Mesopotamian text in Aramaic brought by the influx of Babylonian educated ruling class elites exiled to Samaria in the late 700's BCE. It definitely influenced the later Merkabah mysticism. I am not sure whether its incorporation into Ezekiel (which I date to the late 200's BCE in its final form) reflects Jewish mysticism at that early date, but the Enoch literature supports pretty early purported heavenly visions, such as the tour of heaven in the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36) that dates to around 250 BCE. One also sees some mysticism in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are also components of Jewish mysticism in the literature of the later Mandaeans (Nazoreans) of the lower Euphrates river. But I haven’t extensively studied mysticism or shamanism or traces all the historical connections.
There are as many independent biblical researchers as the amount of different theories on any historical and mythical events within Judaism and Christianity you can think of, but they rarely have any real proof to back up their claims. Considering the amount of information and research (and fact-checking from other academics) you have put into your work, how long and workfilled journey has it been for you in your own opinion to get these ideas out there?
It takes me about 5-10 years per book, unfortunately, considering that I still have another four major academic titles and two general audience titles I am working on. I think my last book had about 6500 citations from ancient and modern authors, which is about average for me.
In my opinion, there are only three valid elements to an academic theory: raw basic facts, in my field taken from archaeological, inscriptional and literary data, with critical analysis; arguments based upon those raw facts; and conclusions. Drawing all the connections so that others can evaluate the whole process is a hugely detail-intensive process.
I think my strong background in mathematics, science and formal logic influences my books, which often read like a long, elaborate mathematical proof.
Of course many studies also include a fourth element, assumptions, that the authors either fail to recognize or consider unimportant to acknowledge in a transparent way, especially if these assumptions are part of the present scholarly consensus or paradigm. Much of real scholarly progress occurs by identifying and challenging commonly held assumptions that don’t have any real basis in fact.
In academia, when someone suggests moving the dates of important historical events or eras (especially of religious importance to millions), that person is bound to receive some negative criticism. How would you compare the amount of positive reactions to the amount of negative ones, regarding your work and publications?
Surprisingly, I have received little or no negative criticism for my research, except for a bit of trolling in online discussion groups (both academic and non-academic) that I occasionally visit to see if there are any new theories or literature I should be aware of. Pretty much all such trolling comes from those who have never actually read my work (including in academic discussion groups). A few academics have pushed back on my theories, mainly in defense of consensus scholarly thinking or their own body of published work, but that is normal and healthy for academia: debate always brings out the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and my theories have fared well on academic sites on occasions when they are discussed.
I try to avoid commenting on others’ beliefs whenever possible, since anyone in belief mode is not really open to reasonable discussion due to their emotional investment. It doesn’t pay to challenge others’ beliefs: change only occurs when a person decides it is time to examine and challenge their own beliefs. I think my avoidance of challenging others’ beliefs or religious belief systems has largely protected me from negative reactions.
Today there is a huge amount of information available online, especially in YouTube, which results in huge variations in academic quality of the information distributed. While the positive side of the phenomenon is that more people are getting familiar with history and theories regarding these religious themes which affect the lives of millions in many cases, the negative side is that a lot of the good information might not be taken seriously in academia. What do you think of these tools of the modern world, in regards of spreading information?
There are three ingredients to good research: creativity, a strong factual background or expertise in an area, and critical thinking skills. On the one hand, formal academic training should guarantee a basic expertise in a field and mastery of its facts. Unfortunately, university education is pretty useless without intellectual creativity and critical thinking skills.
Meanwhile, on the internet and in self-publishing one sees a lot of creativity that sadly is often accompanied by neither a strong factual competence or by critical thinking. A real problem is that many original people are able to criticize others but don’t subject their own cherished theories to a good solid criticism.
I have found that people with only a single original idea are the most defensive about it, while the best researchers welcome lots of criticism.
On the other hand, there are also some excellent, solidly researched self-published books by independent researchers with no academic affiliation. I myself have neither a PhD nor a university position, but I publish almost exclusively in highly reputable peer-reviewed academic journals and publishers. As some scrolls scholars told me at a Dead Sea Scrolls conference in Jerusalem where I was an invited speaker in 1997, once you publish solid valuable research, that’s all academics really care about. I’ve always been welcomed at conferences where I’ve spoken based on my published work.
Regarding the internet, it is a powerful tool for both research and publication. I used to go on photocopy raids on university libraries up and down the west coast, or abroad in conference cities. Now I just research mainly on the internet, and whatever books and articles I can’t get there I request by interlibrary loan.
However, there is a danger in the modern trend to ”do your own research.” Anti-vaxxers, Qanon and other types of conspiracy theorists all proudly proclaim ”I do my own research,” which usually means they tune in to right wing ”news” services and web sites filled with misinformation.
Like the Bible, whatever your aim in life, whether performing charity and good deeds or hate crimes and acts of genocide towards ”outsiders”, you can always find lots of support if you do your own biblical research—or internet research.
While your books and other work are extremely recommended, it might be difficult to find for some people, or turn out to be too expensive for their wallets (something which is beyond your control of course). Where and how would you recommend people to find your research?
This is a common complaint. Academic presses publish books with relatively small readership, typically in the low hundreds or thousands, and therefore higher costs. But their readers and purchasers are relatively wealthy, namely university libraries and professors. So they charge a lot, more than most average readers can afford.
In America we have a service I recommend to readers called interlibrary loans in which your local library is able to acquire books from any other library in the US, free of charge. I’m not sure how that works in other countries. Many a time I have borrowed a book and photocopied it for my research rather than purchasing it.
Many (pirated) books are also available on the internet from free services such as Z-Library, EPDF, Scribd books and so forth, and substantial portions of many books can often be read on Google Books.
Thank you for this most extremely fascinating interview, which certainly taught me much new and sparked my interest in these topics even further! What are your plans for this year, regarding your research and work, and life in general for that matter?
At the moment I am reviewing the final proofs of my major new book, Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts: Cosmic Monotheism and Terrestrial Polytheism in the Primordial History that should be published in early 2022. I also hope to finish my general audience book, ”Who REALLY Wrote the Bible?” by this summer and acquire an agent and publisher for it. And of course I have many academic research articles and books I am working on. Unfortunately, I am a prolific researcher and slow writer, so I always have a back-log of projects to get into print.
Comments