Beginning Sperling

I started S. David Sperling's The Original Torah. Sperling's argument is that many stories in the Torah are political allegories---they stand for a political situation on which they are commenting. This isn't too different from Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?, as Friedman argued that J was supporting the South, whereas E was supporting the North. But, at least so far, Sperling hasn't made much use of the Documentary Hypothesis. But, like Friedman, he does think that the stories are making political points.

In this post, I'll refer to specific stories that Sperling covers, as well as the political point that he believes they were making. I'll also toss in some really cool points that Sperling makes.

1. Sperling dates the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2-3 to the time of Assyrian hegemony---specifically the twelfth-eighth centuries B.C.E.---for the Assyrians were known for their royal pleasure gardens, and, "In the ancient world, it was common to assign the powers and perquisites enjoyed by human royalty to the great gods who populate the myths" (page 38). According to Sperling, that's what's going on in Genesis 2-3: God has his own pleasure garden, as the kings of Assyria had.

I guess this isn't an allegory, but it's a cool point!

2. Moving on to another cool point, before I get into an allegory, Sperling speculates on page 78 about the origin of the Abraham tradition. In the thirteenth century B.C.E., Pharaoh Seti I referred to "aggressors against the Raham group" who "were defeated by the Egyptians" (Sperling's words). What if the Raham group became part of Israel, and the Israelites gave it an ancestor---Ab-Raham (father of Raham)? Over time, the name "Abraham" came to mean "father of a multitude of nations," and its original meaning was forgotten.

Now for some allegory! In Genesis 14, Abram unites with some Amorites to defeat a group of kings. Sperling doesn't consider this story to be historical because v 14 mentions Dan, which did not exist in the time of Abraham. Plus, some of the names appear to be literary (Bera means "In Evil" and Birsha means "In Wickedness"), and there's no external evidence for the battle in Genesis 14. Sperling notes that the last verse of Genesis 13 mentions Abram's residence in Hebron, which was "David's capital for seven years" (page 83), and that Genesis 14 refers to cities that were built in the time of King Solomon. For Sperling, Genesis 14 was a story from the Solomonic period, which sought to justify David. Sperling cites an argument by Yochanan Muffs that there are parallels between Genesis 14 and a story about David in I Samuel 30. Sperling also says that Abram's alliance with Amorites served to justify David's alliance with the Philistines, which was controversial, considering that the Philistines were enemies of Israel. And the honor that Abraham shows to Melchizadek, the king of Salem, served to defend the status of Jerusalem as a holy site, for David had relocated the Israelite cult to Jerusalem.

Sperling argues that something similar is going on in Genesis 21, where Abraham makes a covenant with the Philistines (which, according to Sperling, is anachronistic, since the first reference to the Philistines is from Pharaoh Ramses III, who identifies them as a group that came to the Levant in the twelfth century B.C.E., after the time that Abraham supposedly lived). According to Sperling, the Davidic kingdom was defending David's relationship with the Philistines by saying that Abraham had a covenant with them. At the same time, the story is assuring Israel that David will fight for Israel if necessary, as Abraham stood up to the Philistines to safeguard his water-rights.

3. Like R.N. Whybray, Sperling believes that Hosea 12's picture of Joseph is different from that in Genesis. In Hosea 12, Jacob cheats his brother in the womb, fights with a spirit named Bethel, foolishly worships Bethel after beating him, and establishes a sanctuary that Hosea calls "Delusionville." According to Sperling, Genesis 27 defends Jacob and Bethel, a religious site in the time of Jeroboam. I agree that Genesis 27 is not as negative about Jacob as Sperling's reading of Hosea 12!

4. For Sperling, the Joseph story justifies Jeroboam. Like Jeroboam I, Joseph spent time in Egypt and then gained a position of prominence. And like Jeroboam II, Joseph ruled over Judah. (According to II Kings 14:8-14, Northern Israel defeated Judah shortly before Jeroboam II came into power.) But Sperling believes that Ezekiel 37 reverses the Joseph story to favor Judah: it agrees with the Joseph story that the tribes of Israel will come together after a period of exile and separation, but, unlike the Joseph story, Ezekiel 37 thinks that the tribe of Judah will be boss!

5. According to Sperling, the Exodus was an allegory for Canaanite peasants becoming liberated from Canaanite city-states, which were supervised by Egypt. We know from the fourteenth century B.C.E. Amarna letters (which concern Egyptian control of Canaan) that there was discontent among Canaanite workers. Moreover, Exodus 1:11 uses the term mas in describing Israelite servitude, and the word mas appears in El Amarna letter 365. Exodus 12:40 says that the Israelites served in Egypt for 430 years, which was roughly the amount of time that Egypt controlled Canaan. There is also overlap between what is seen in the Iron I central hill (Israelite) sites and Canaanite language and material culture, and these sites appear in the thirteenth century B.C.E., after a period of turbulence. For Sperling, Israel was a nation of Canaanites, who were previously discontent workers in an Egyptian-run society.

But why would the Israelites tell a story that presented them as outsiders entering Canaan to take over the land? As Sperling asks, wouldn't they want to present themselves as native Canaanites, since that would entitle them to Canaan? As far as I could tell, Sperling did not answer this question straightforwardly. He noted that the Israelites try in the Torah to distinguish themselves from the Canaanites---presenting the Canaanites (and the Egyptians) as immoral perverts. He says that sole devotion to YHWH is a characteristic of virtually all of the biblical writings---from the time when Israel believed in the existence of multiple gods, to the time of her monotheism---so he believes that it was an integral part of the formation of Israelite identity. On page 71, Sperling states that "contemporary scholarship is virtually unanimous in viewing Israel as an ethnically diverse group that arose within Canaan", so perhaps he believes that Israel tried to differentiate herself from the other Canaanites and highlighted the sole worship of YHWH in order to unite disparate groups into a single nation.

6. Numbers 21 is about Israel's defeat of the Amorites in Moab, as Israel took possession of some towns there, along with the city of Heshbon. Sperling does not consider this story to be historical, for there was no royal city of Heshbon in the Late Bronze Age---only "flimsy architectural remains". But Sperling views Numbers 21 as an allegory for "a historical military push by King Omri and his son Ahab into Transjordan early in the ninth century" (page 59). Israelites were making claims to areas in Moab. There was even an Israelite presence there, for the Mesha Stele says that the Gadites had been in Moab forever, and that Omri built them a city. But Moabites were making counter-claims. Israel defended its claims by saying that the Israelites, years before, had taken the property from the Amorites, not the Moabites, and so Israel had dibs on the land.

7. I'm just including this so I have more than six items, as I'm superstitious about the number six!