Russell Gmirkin is an independent researcher specializing in the composition of the Torah (or Pentateuch, the first five books of the bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. He is most well known for his defense of the view that the Pentateuch was written in its entirety by a team of Jewish scholars working in the Library of Alexandria in 273-272 BCE, who also published the Septuagint Greek translation of the Torah around the same time.[1]
His father was Vasia Gmirkin, a CIA agent who recruited Soviet defectors and was responsible for the US acquiring night vision technology.[2][3] While a teenager, Gmirkin attended a small, now-defunct Christian liberal arts college named Ambassador College in Pasadena, California. During his time at Ambassador College, he began to increasingly question the religious doctrine of the university, ultimately leading him to leave before graduating. Gmirkin currently lives in Portland, Oregon.[2]
Somehow, the name Gmirkin is familiar to me. I seem to remember someone, possibly an AC student, from way back when, but with a different first name.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, deep condolences to Russell's family.
Anyone who has ever read any Bart Ehrman, or is familiar with the process known as textual criticism, knows that the Old Testament has been revised at more than one point in time throughout its history. This is evident from specific language contained in the text which has been handed down to us today. There are theories regarding those points in time. One compelling theory centers around the time of the Babylonian captivity, a time period when there was great introspection amongst the captured. Scribes anticipated freedom, and were preparing for its eventuality. Some say that the compilations and revisions anticipated the time of the secomd temple, a time during which we now know thatJesus walked the face of the Earth, and often quoted from the Septuagint. There are also theories regarding the intertestamental period.
Now that I'm aware of them, I'll probably study Russell's materials, trying to keep an open mind. It can't hurt. We'll see how compelling they might be. Or not.
BB
A little historical assessment to take as you wish:
DeleteThe historical Jesus was an Essene. Essenes believe that the OT was edited in Babylon in the 500s to omit Moses’ supposedly actual first trip up Mount Sinai and a rather hippie-ish original covenant proposal. Much of Jesus’ teaching is simply a warmed-over version of it (with Matthew playing the lawyer and trying to make it sound like it fits with the Hebrew Scriptures). The practice of holding everything in common is a giveaway as to the Christian movement’s origin. Thus, despite preserved statements upholding the Torah as such, he actually held a different theology. Those statements were like a politician, saying, “I support the Second Amendment!” when he is a member of the Brady group, upholds David Hogg, and talks among his supporters about gun control plans.
Since the NT is predicated on the OT being Scripture (John 5:45-47; 1 Tim 6; and others), if Jesus was right, then… Jesus was wrong! And, of course, if Jesus was wrong, then Jesus was wrong.
Conclusion: Believe the OT or don’t believe it, but either way, Jesus was wrong.
Gmirkin was a real Bible scholar who left a lasting impression on so many people who speak fondly of him. Compare Gmirkin to Bob Thiel, well, actually you can't; one was a real Bible scholar, and Bob Thiel is a diploma mill/Armstrongite proof-texter who does not use sound exegesis.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind knowing what his religious beliefs were. Did he ever get baptized? After all, it would influence his research conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that baptism would have had the effect that you envision, 12:50. Dr. Lester Grabbe is a much more widely known scholar than was Russell Gmirkin, as is also Dr. James Tabor. The research of both those gentlemen put them at odds with HWA/AC theology. Baptism did not prevent them from having the intellectual honesty which drove their curiosity and research.
DeleteBB
It’s possible our anonymous friend could be thinking more about commitment than conversion. To the degree that’s what he means, he makes a certain point. It does have a psychological effect to be baptized into something like Armstrongism, if one is sincere. It does have affect on your thinking.
DeleteAnd it creates a bondage. Like laying on of hands for CG7 members coming over.
The OT is not nearly as old as it claims to be. It was not produced by "scholars" but by fraudsters.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:50 says: Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind knowing what his religious beliefs were. Did he ever get baptized? After all, it would influence his research conclusions.
Baptism makes NO difference to outgrowing the typical Sunday School mentality of Biblical Studies. I suppose you are saying "Well yeah. If he didn't have the Holy Spirit he could not possibly arrive at anything that was actually true". It's that Holy Spirit leads and guides me thing that keeps people from ever stepping out of their self-imposed box to actually learn anything that is truer than when they first believed. IMHO My sincere "conversion" did not stop my curious and inquisitive nature in all things Science, Bible and Theology from outgrowing my youthful naivete'
I see no evidence that any such thing as the holy spirit exists, and I see no evidence that baptism empowers anyone with greater insights. All the supposed evidence seems to come from confirmation bias, i.e. if somebody does not agree with our doctrines, then they just do not understand, so they do not have the holy spirit.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there are so many theories about the who, where, and when of the scriptures reinforces my belief that the scriptures are nothing but that writings of men and are not inspired by a God!
ReplyDelete