MOSES
is
evidence
which
shows
that
the
Israelites
who
went
to
Egypt
at
the
time
of
the
famine
did
not
comprise
the
whole
nation.
Whether
this
be
so
or
not,
however,
there
is
no
sufficient
reason
for
doubting
the
Hebrew
tradition
of
an
emigration
to
Egypt.
Again,
if
Israelites
obtained
permission
—
as
foreign
tribes
are
known
to
have
done
—
to
occupy
pasture
land
within
the
Egyptian
frontier,
there
could
be
nothing
surprising
if
some
of
them
were
pressed
into
compulsory
building
labour;
for
it
was
a
common
practice
to
employ
foreigners
and
prisoners
in
this
manner.
But
in
order
to
rouse
them,
and
knit
them
together,
and
persuade
them
to
escape,
a
leader
was
necessary.
If,
therefore,
it
is
an
historical
fact
that
they
were
in
Egypt,
and
partially
enslaved,
it
Is
more
hkely
than
not
that
the
account
of
their
deliverance
by
Moses
also
has
an
historical
basis.
It
is
impossible,
in
a
short
article,
to
discuss
the
evidence
in
detail.
It
is
in
the
last
degree
unsafe
to
dogmatize
on
the
extent
to
which
the
narratives
of
Moses'
life
are
historically
accurate.
In
each
particular
the
decision
resolves
itself
into
a
balance
of
probabilities.
But
that
Moses
was
not
an
individual,
but
stands
for
a
tribe
or
group
of
tribes,
and
that
the
narratives
which
centre
round
him
are
entirely
legendary,
are
to
the
present
writer
pure
assumptions,
unscientific
and
uncritical.
The
minuteness
of
personal
details,
the
picturesqueness
of
the
scenes
described,
the
true
touches
of
character,
and
the
necessity
of
accounting
for
the
emergence
of
Israel
from
a
state
of
scattered
nomads
into
that
of
an
organized
tribal
community,
are
all
on
the
side
of
those
who
maintain
that
in
its
broad
outlines
the
account
of
Moses'
leadership
is
based
upon
fact.
(ii.)
Moses
as
the
Promoter
of
the
religion
of
Jahweh.
—
Throughout
the
OT,
with
the
exception
of
Ezk
40-48,
the
forms
and
ceremonies
of
J"
worship
observed
in
every
age
are
attributed
to
the
teaching
of
Moses.
It
is
to
be
noticed
that
the
earliest
writer
(J)
uses
the
name
'Jahweh'
from
his
very
first
sentence
(Gn
2*'')
and
onwards,
and
assumes
that
J"
was
known
and
wor-shipped
by
the
ancestors
of
the
race;
and
in
Ex.
he
frequently
employs
the
expression
'J"
the
God
of
the
Hebrews'
(S's
53
7"
9i-
'^
iQs).
But,
in
agreement
with
E
and
P,
he
ascribes
to
Moses
a
new
departure
in
J"
worship
inaugurated
at
Sinai.
E
and
P
relate
that
the
Name
was
a
new
revelation
to
Moses
when
he
was
exiled
In
Midian,
and
that
he
taught
it
to
the
Israelites
in
Egypt.
And
yet
in
3=
E
represents
J"
as
saying
to
Moses,
'
I
am
the
God
of
thy
father
'
[the
God
of
Abraham,
the
God
of
Isaac,
and
the
God
of
Jacob
(unless
this
clause
is
a
later
insertion,
as
in
'".
45)].
And
in
6'
P
states
categorically
that
God
appeared
unto
Abraham,
Isaac,
and
Jacob,
but
He
was
not
known
to
them
by
His
name
'Jahweh.'
All
the
sources,
therefore,
imply
that
Moses
did
not
teach
a
totally
new
rehgion;
but
he
put
before
the
Israelites
a
new
aspect
of
their
religion;
he
defined
more
clearly
the
relation
in
whicn
they
were
to
stand
to
God:
they
were
to
tBink
of
Him
in
a
peculiar
sense
as
their
God.
When
we
go
further
and
inquire
whence
Moses
derived
the
name
'Jahweh,'
we
are
landed
in
the
region
of
conjectures.
Two
points,
how-ever,
are
clear:
(1)
that
the
God
whose
name
was
'
Jahweh
'
had,
before
Moses'
time,
been
conceived
of
as
dwelling
on
the
sacred
mountain
Horeb
or
Sinai
(3'-=-
'^
19');
(2)
that
He
was
worshipped
by
a
branch
of
the
Midianites
named
Kenites
(Jg
1'=
4"),
of
whom
Jethro
was
a
priest
(Ex
3'
IS').
From
these
facts
two
con-jectures
have
been
made.
Some
have
supposed
that
Moses
learned
the
name
'Jahweh'
from
the
Midianites;
that
He
was
therefore
a
foreign
God
as
far
as
the
Israelites
were
concerned;
and
that,
after
hearing
His
name
for
the
first
time
from
Moses
in
Egypt,
they
journeyed
to
the
sacred
mountain
and
were
there
admitted
by
Jethro
into
the
Kenite
worship
by
a
sacrificial
feast
at
which
Jethro
officiated.
But
it
is
hardly
likely
that
the
Israelites,
enslaved
in
Egypt,
could
have
been
so
rapidly
roused
and
convinced
by
Moses'
proclamation
of
an
MOSES
entirely
new
and
foreign
deity.
The
action
taken
by
Jethro
in
organizing
the
sacrifice
might
easily
arise
from
the
fact
that
he
was
in
his
own
territory,
and
natu-rally
acted
as
host
towards
the
strangers.
The
other
conjecture,
which
can
claim
a
certain
plausibility,
is
that
J"
was
a
God
recognized
by
Moses'
own
tribe
of
Levi.
From
Ex
i"'-
"'
it
is
possible
to
suppose
that
Aaron
was
not
in
Egypt,
but
in
the
vicinity
of
Horeb,
which
he
already
knew
as
the
'mountain
of
God.'
If
Moses'
family,
or
the
tribe
of
Levi,
and
perhaps
(as
some
conjecture)
the
Rachel
tribes,
together
with
the
Midianite
branch
of
Semites,
were
already
worshippers
of
J",
Moses'
work
would
consist
in
proclaiming
as
the
God
of
the
whole
body
of
IsraeUtes
Him
whose
help
and
guidance
a
small
portion
of
them
had
already
experi-enced.
If
either
of
these
conjectures
is
vaUd,
it
only
puts
back
a
stage
the
question
as
to
the
ultimate
origin
of
the
name
'Jahweh.'
But
whatever
the
origin
may
have
been,
it
is
difiicult
to
deny
to
Moses
the
glory
of
having
united
the
whole
body
of
Israelites
in
the
single
cult
which
excluded
all
other
deities.
(iii.)
Moses
as
Prophet
and
Lawgiver.
—
If
Moses
taught
the
Israelites
to
worship
J",
it
may
safely
be
assumed
that
he
laid
down
some
rules
as
to
the
method
and
ritual
of
His
worship.
But
there
is
abundant
justification
for
the
beUef
that
he
also
gave
them
injunctions
which
were
not
merely
ritual.
It
is
quite
arbitrary
to
assume
that
the
prophets
of
the
8th
cent,
and
onwards,
who
preached
an
ethical
standard
of
rehgion,
preached
something
entirely
new,
though
it
is
probable
enough
that
their
own
ethical
feeling
was
purer
and
deeper
than
any
to
which
the
nation
had
hitherto
attained.
The
prophets
always
held
up
a
lofty
ideal
as
something
which
the
nation
had
failed
to
reach,
and
proclaimed
that
for
this
failure
the
sinful
people
were
answerable
to
a
holy
God.
And
since
human
nature
is
aUke
in
all
ages,
there
must
have
been
at
least
isolated
individuals,
more
high-souled
than
the
masses
around
them,
who
strove
to
live
up
to
the
light
they
possessed.
And
as
the
national
history
of
Israel
postulates
a
leader,
and
their
religion
postulates
a
great
personality
who
drew
them,
as
a
body,
into
the
acceptance
of
it,
so
the
ethical
morality
which
appears
in
the
laws
of
Exodus,
and
in
a
deeper
and
intenser
form
in
the
prophets,
postulates
a
teacher
who
instilled
into
the
nucleus
of
the
nation
the
germs
of
social
justice,
purity,
and
honour.
Moses
would
have
been
below
the
standard
of
an
ordinary
sheik
if
he
had
not
given
decisions
on
social
matters,
and
Ex
18
pictures
him
as
so
doing,
and
33'-"
shows
that
it
was
usual
for
the
people
to
go
to
him
for
oracular
answers
from
God.
It
is
in
itself
probable
that
the
man
who
founded
the
nation
and
taught
them
their
religion,
would
plant
in
them
the
seeds
of
social
morality.
But
the
question
whether
any
of
the
codified
laws,
as
we
have
them,
were
directly
due
to
Moses
is
quite
another
matter.
In
the
life
of
a
nomad
tribe
the
controlling
factor
is
not
a
corpus
of
specific
prescrip-tions,
but
the
power
of
custom.
An
immoral
act
is
condemned
because
'it
is
not
wont
so
to
be
done'
(Gn
34',
2
S
13").
The
stereotyping
of
custom
in
written
codes
is
the
product
of
a
comparatively
late
stage
in
national
Ufe.
And
a
study
of
the
history
and
development
of
the
Hebrew
laws
leads
unavoidably
to
the
conclusion
that
while
some
few
elements
in
them
are
very
ancient,
it
is
impossible
to
say
of
any
particular
detail
that
it
is
certainly
derived
from
Moses
himself;
and
it
is
further
clear
that
many
are
certainly
later
than
his
time.
4.
Moses
in
the
NT.
—
(i.)
All
Jews
and
Christians
in
Apostolic
times
(including
our
Lord
Himself)
held
that
Moses
was
the
author
of
the
Pentateuch.
Besides
such
expressions
as
'The
law
of
Moses'
(Lk
2"),
'Moses
enjoined'
(Mt
8<),
'Moses
commanded'
(Mt
19'),
'Moses
wrote'
(Mk
12i»),
'Moses
said'
(Mk
7'°),
and
so
on,
his
name
could
be
used
alone
as
synonymous
with
that
which
he
wrote
(Lk
16™-
"
24").
(ii.)
But
because
Moses
was
the
representative
of
the
