We may also trust the tradition that Moses led Israel first to Kadesh and then to the plains of Moab, but that he died before the invasion of Palestine. The tradition of some sin, of which exclusion from Canaan was the penalty, is too obscure to be interpreted, far less verified. The important and controlling element of Moses’ work for Israel, and through Tsrael for the religion of the world, was the uniting of the various tribes as ‘the people of J”,’ and of J” only, in the faith that J” could control nature and history to His purposes. The mutual loyalty of the tribes to one another had an immense ethical value, of which their common loyalty to J” was the bond and symbol. Hence an ethical character necessarily attached to J” Himself. Ina primitive age a new
departure necessarily had a concrete embodiment ;
Moses therefore provided for J” a sanctuary and a
riesthood. The Tent of Meeting is mentioned by
(Nu 11 ete.) ; and, even apart from P, who has
properly. expanded ancient material, the Ark was y
evidently constructed by Moses; it is conspicuous in JE at the crossing of the Jordan, but entirel absent at the Red Sea. As to the πα πεν Moses clearly placed the care of the Ark and the Tent of Meeting in the hands of his own family. Joshua, indeed, was left in charge of the Tent, but only as the deputy of Moses, who was the real priest, or, as Philo says, high priest. Moses appears (see above) to have left the succession in the priest- hood to his children; it is not clear how tar P’s statement that the family of Aaron was entrusted with the priesthood is derived from ancient tradi- tion, but the ordinary analysis supports this view by giving Dt 10°, Jos 14% to E, but they may belong to RP; see ‘Joshua’ in PB. Cf. ARK, TABERNACLE, ete.
The Pentateuch also states that Moses committed to writing certain laws and records : ‘all the words of J’, Ex 248 (E)— what these ‘words’ were is not stated; the ritual Ten Commandments, Ex 3438 (J) ; the register of the Stations in the Wilder- ness, Nu 33! (Β Ὁ); ‘this law,’ probably the original Deuteronomic Code, Dt 31° (R®). The articles Exopus, DEUTERONOMY, NUMBERS explain why even these sections, at any rate in their present form, are not attributed to Moses. Yet these
assages warrant us in believing that many of the aws and institutions of the Pentateuch originated with Moses, or received his sanction, or are the natural application to later times of the principles involved in his government of Israel.
It is doubtful whether we can regard Moses as an author in the literary sense. His name is indeed found in the OT in connexion with various
Sa viz. Ex 15'8, the Song of Triumygh at the ed Sea; Dt 391: the Song of Moses; Dt 33°; and some other poems in Ex—Dt; Ps 90, the Prayer of Moses; and the whole Pentateuch and the Bk. of Job have been attributed to him by rabbinical and other theories. The reasons why this ascrip- tion of these books and poems to Moses has been for the most part abandoned will be found in the articles on the several books. It is not impossible that he may have composed narratives and poems, and that portions of such work are preserved in the Pentateuch, but we have no means of identify- ing them.
t will be obvious that the question, ‘ What new elements of cult and faith did Moses add ta the religion of Israel?’ can be val? very partially answered. Later times rightly held that, in a sense, they were his debtors for their whole trea- sure of religious faith and life; they were not careful to distinguish between original Mosaism and its developments; but included both alike under the formula, ‘J” said to Moses.’ Modern analysis has not yet succeeded in definitely and certainly separating the one from the other. It has been proposed to determine Mosaism by ascer- taining the nature of the pre-prophetic religion of Israel. But our data for this caleulation are in- adequate ; and even if it were successfully per- formed, we have still to discover the exact state of pre-Mosaic religion, and to establish some prin- ciple by which the credit for the advance from that to prophetic religion is to be distributed between Moses and other teachers, such as Samuel and Elijah. Moses’ work was rather practical than didactic, the influence of an inspired life rather than the inculeation of abstract dogmas. He made the faith, the sanctuary, the Ark of J” the rallying-point of a united Israel. This point is rightly emphasized by E and P in their statements that it was through Moses that the name YAHWEH was made known to Israel. What there was new to Israel in this name, as compared with the divine names they had hitherto used, we cannot at present determine. But, in the natural course of things, each of the tribes of Israel would have developed, like Ammon, Moab, and Edom, its own henotheistic religion. The devotion of so great a group of tribes to J’, and J” only, and the survival of this common devotion when the political unity disappeared, under the Judges and again during the divided monarchy, was a distinct step from henotheism to monotheism. Moreover, the faith that the God whose sanctuary was Sinai could rescue Israel from Egypt, protect and provide for them in the wilderness, ai put them in possession of Palestine, emphasized the truth that J” was not the God of a country, but of a people; and the relation of a deity to a people is far more spiritual than the relation of a deity to a country—J” is of a higher order than Baal. Hence the Mosaic faith, ‘J” is the God of Israel,’ and the realiza- tion of that faith in the events of Israel’s history during the leadership of Moses, constitute a dis- tinct advance in spiritual monotheism.