THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
highly estimated; not only did he liberate Israel and thus help it to a national existence, but he was, according to a unanimous tradition which no criticism can overthrow, the human author of theocracy in its national form.
To what extent the law as existent in the Pentateuch is of Mosaic origin can not be satisfactorily determined, but Moses may safely be regarded as the originator of the divine ordinances
g. Moses contained therein. It is certain that
as Law- he was better qualified for this work, giver. both by education and by divine guidance, than any other Israelite. As a legislator educated in Egypt, it may be assumed that he wrote down the divinely inspired laws from the very beginning, or at least the essential portions. Reminiscences of Egypt abound in the law (Ex. xx. 2; Lev xix. 34; Num. xv. 41; Deut. v. 15). The legislation does not imply a complex civilization, but is adapted to a people devoted to agriculture and cattle-raising (cf. Ex. xxi., xxii.) and so rude as to require the sternest repressive laws (cf. Ex. xxi. 24-25); at the same time it breathes a simple and childlike faith. Nevertheless, the law, in its present form, was as little written at one time as were the historical parts of the Pentateuch. There were additions and supplementary laws which may belong to post-Mosaic times (see Hexateuch). For example, it is clear that the royal laws did not exist in Samuel's time (I Sam. viii.), indeed, they seem to have been composed by him (cf. P. Kleinert, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker, Bielefeld, 1872). The conclusion is legitimate that not only was the oral tradition from Moses' time written down and edited later, but that prophets who proclaimed laws in the spirit of God incorporated these in the code of Moses. Still the foundation of the Torah is Mosaic, above all, its simplest form, the Decalogue (q.v.); this, however, heads the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.xxiii.), which is especially archaic and is arranged on the same numerical scheme. This section is now generally regarded as the oldest part of the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy is in clearer accord with it than are the remaining laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and although in its present form it must be assigned to a later period, we do not doubt that Mosaic tradition told of a parenetic repetition of the law in the fields of Moab; in thought and spirit this body of laws is thoroughly Mosaic. The remaining Elohistic legislation, more priestly than prophetic in its character, may have been edited, as the modern theory assumes, at a late period.
Moses may also be regarded as the first Hebrew
historian. Naturally, the story of his life and work
as given in the Pentateuch can not be by him, but
the recital of the battle with the Amalekites (cf.
Ex. xvii. 14) and the list of stations
io. As (Num. xxxiii. 2 sqq.) are stated to be
Historian from his hand. These ancient texts and make it probable that Moses recorded
Religious historical events, more especially since,
Founder, besides Moses' song, there are three songs in Num. xxi. unquestionably belonging to this time. The tablets of Tell Amarna (see Amakna Tablets) prove that such notices
were written down in the outlying provinces of Egypt in this period. The blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii.), despite critical attacks, is probably authentic (verses 1-5 show a later hand) and the Song of Moses seems to be by him and is unmistakably related to Ps. xc. As the mediator of the Old Covenant, Moses occupies an exceptional place in the New Testament also, not simply as the highest authority for the Jews (e.g., John v. 45, viii. 5, etc.), but also for Christ and the apostles. The essential fact was not his authorship of the Pentateuch (Luke xxiv. 44; Mark xii. 26), but his theological significance as the founder of the divine rule under the law of which he was the mediator. The Old Testament is personified in Moses in its positive and prophetic significance (John. v. 45-46) and in its temporary and incomplete quality (cf. Matt. xix. 8; II Cor. iii. 7; Gal. iii. 19). " The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ " (John i. 17). C. von Oeelli.
Bibliography: The subject is, of course, treated in the works on the history of Israel named under Ahab ; and Israel, History of. Further discussion will be found in the commentaries on Exodus to Deuteronomy, and in the works on O. T. theology; and his relation to the laws and narrative SfTne Hexateuch is set forth in the works on Biblical Introduction (q.v.) and on the Hexateuch (q.v.). Further light may be gained in this connection from the literature given under Hammurabi and His Code. Consult further: J. Reiner, Moses und sein Werk, Berlin, 1907; B. Beer, Leben Moses nach Auffassung der jildischen Sage, Leipsic, 1863; A. P. Stanley, Jewish Church, i. 86-173, London, 1863; G. Rawlinson, Moses, his Life and Times, ib. 1887; F. Vigouroux, La Bible et decouvertes modernes, ii. 280-592, Paris, 1896; K. Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, New York, 1899; D. G. Hogarth, Authority and Archaiology, pp. 54-79, London, 1899; J. W. Rothstein, Moses als Mensch und Prophet, Erlangen, 1901; H. P. Smith, O. T. History, pp. 55-65, New York, 1903; E. Stucken, Astralmythen der Hebriier, part v., Mose, Leipsic, 1907; C. F. Kent, Student's O. T., vol. i., iv. 1-48, New York, 1907; P. Volz, Mose. Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung uber die Ursprilnge der israelitischen Religion, Tubingen, 1907. For Mohammedan views: G. Weil, The Bible, Koran and the Talmud, London, 1846. For the Assumption of Moses see Pseudepigrapha, III., 6, and cf. Charles' ed. of that work, pp. xiv.-xvii., London, 1897. Consult further: DB, iii. 438-448; EB, iii. 3203-19; JE, ix. 44-57; F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, xxvii. 1190-1215, Paris, 1906.
MOSES OF CHORENE (MOSES CHORENEN- SIS). See Armenia, II., § 3.
MOSHEIM, mes'haim, JOHANN LORENTZ VON: German Lutheran church historian; b. at Liibeck Oct. 9, 1694 or 1695; d. at Gottingen Sept. 9, 1755. He attended the gymnasium at Liibeck 1707-12, where interest in his mother tongue and a fondness for poetry seems to have been awakened, and in 1716 he entered the University of Kiel, and as a student attracted the attention not only of his professors, but also of men like Leibnitz, Buddeus, and Lacroze. In 1719 he became a member of the faculty of philosophy, and in 1723 accepted a call as professor to Helmstadt. In 1726 he became abbot of Marienthal, 1727 of Michaelstein. In 1729 he was entrusted with the leadership of all school affairs and obtained a decisive influence over the whole church. In 1 72(5 he was induced to promise not to leave Helmstadt without the consent of the government. He became more and more the main support and pillar of this university, the influence