We insist, then, upon a bérith between Jahweh and the people of Israel as the starting-point of Jahwism, and at the same time as the source of its peculiar character. This of itself sets aside the view recently maintained * that there was actually a bérith concluded at Sinai—not, however, between Jahweh and Israel, but between the various Israel- itish tribes. It was only the later theologians, we are told, that misunderstood this, or arbitrarily transformed its meaning to suit their purposes. This hypothesis might perhaps be sufficient to account for the coalition of heterogeneous elements so as to form a nation. But it is wholly inade- quate to explain how it came about that their common religion imparted to this new confedera- tion a wholly peculiar stamp, so that this people of nomads afterwards completely absorbed the advanced civilization of Canaan, instead of being subdued by it.
iv. THE STAMP OF JAHWISM ON OUTWARD ORDINANCES IN THE TIME OF MOSES.—By ‘out- ward ordinances’ we understand not only usages connected with worship in the widest sense, but also the form given by religion to the life of the people in all its aspects. As to both these points, the materials for arriving at a certain conclusion are very meagre, since no account can be taken of the elaborate priestly and ritual enactments of the Priests’ Code, which are merely the theories of later centuries.
1. Even the question whether Moses instituted
* For instance by Schwally, who writes (Semvit. Kriegsalter- ttimer, i. p. 2): ‘Probably some Israelitish tribes entered into a covenant relation with Midian, in connexion with which the national god of the more powerful of the contracting parties Was called to watch over the oath.’ Afterwards, howeyer, we are told (p. 3): ‘The actual course of things faded gradually from men’s memory, and the notion could establish itself that at Sinai what was concluded was not a covenant between Israel and Midian under the protection of Jahweh, but simply a covenant of Jahweh with His chosen people.’—Different, again, is the judgment of Eerdmans (in 7'heol. Tijdschrift, xxxvii. p. 19ff.). According to him, the bérith at Sinai consisted in the union of a number of nomadic clans into a tribal con- federation, accompanied by the invoking of Jahweh as the god to whom part of those tribes considered that they owed their deliverance from Egypt,
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
RELIGION OF ISRAEL 633
a priestly order at all is one which cannot be answered offhand from the early sources. He himself exercises priestly functions on the occasion of the concluding of the bérith (Ex 2448), and as a medium of oracles in the Tent of Meeting (337), This is in harmony with the general presupposition that the founder and mediator of the Sinai religion was the prototype of both of what were afterwards the most important organs of this religion—the priests and the prophets (cf., for the latter, Dt 1818 34 and Hos 124¢*)), Indeed it is only thus that the habit can be explained of tracing back to his per- sonality ad/ codifications of law, even those atiecting the ritual. But the early sources know nothing of Moses having further entrusted to his brother Aaron alone the discharge of priestly functions.* Aaron is indeed called in Ex 4 ‘the Levite,’ which means in all probability ‘the priest’ (for, so far as the tribe was concerned, Moses was also a ‘ Levite’), but it is extremely questionable whether this designation really emanates from an early source. In any case, nothing is there related of him except that he served Moses as speaker in dealing with the people and with Pharaoh (Ex 414m. 27.30 51M ete.), and that he supported him during the battle with the Amalekites (17%). Even in connexion with the idolatrous worship of the golden calf (Ex 32'*-) there is no mention of priestly functions or prerogatives belonging to Aaron. On the contrary, the assistants of Moses at the covenantal sacrifices of Ex 24° are simply young men of the children of Israel, while the guardian of the Tent of Meeting is the Ephraimite Joshua (Ex 33"), who frequently appears else- where also as servant and attendant of Moses.
Leaving Aaron, then, out of the question, we have still, indeed, one passage from E (Ex 329) in which, although the text in its present form is plainly mutilated, it is related that Moses awarded the priesthood to the tribe of Levi in recognition of their fidelity on the occasion of a revolt of the people. But, seeing that in the same chapter we have a parallel narrative to quite a different effect from the pen of the Jahwist, it is impossible to say whether in Ex 32” we have a strictly historical narrative or merely an attempt to supply a_his- torical explanation of the origin of the Levitical priesthood. :
The story of the covenantal sacrifices (Ex 24*") quite gives the impression that Moses simply fol- lowed long-established usage. And this will be true to the condition of things then as well as during the whole of the subsequent period. Not legal prescriptions, but old familiar custom, decided the practice followed in matters affecting the cultus. Even in the monarchical period priests were still unneeded for the offering of sacrifice ; the same usage as had been followed for other gods or ‘demons’ was equally capable of applica- tion to the cult of Jahweh. This does not forbid us to hold that certain ceremonial enactments emanated from Moses, and were orally handed down under hisname. But what was their precise character we are unable to decide, any more than the question whether he is to be regarded as the originator of a particular form of oracular com- munication. At all events, it is worthy of note that in Am 52 (perhaps also Jer 7”) the existence of the practice of sacrifice during the wilderness wanderings is flatly denied. This passage can hardly be explained, with Marti (Gesch. der israel. Religion’, p. 71), to mean that, while sacrifices to Jahweh were abandoned, those were perhaps offered which were peculiar to families and clans, but were not meant for the God of the whole body. Marti urges that the different tribes and clans