Note: You can watch this teaching on CrossWalk’s YouTube channel.
The account of Moses and the exodus from Egypt to the Promised Land is the central, epic journey of the Jewish people that served to inform them (building on Genesis’ foundation) about who they are, who they can be (good and bad), who they are called to be, who God is, what covenant with God is, what faithfulness means, and what God’s faithfulness looks like through it all. After 400 years in Egypt as slaves, things were terrible for the people of Israel. They cried out to God, God heard them, and God worked to redeem them using Moses as their primary leader. This central story would serve to remind Israel that God hears them in their time of struggle and works to free them from their oppressor. God is not bound by geographical constraints and is bigger and stronger than any other gods that may be worshipped in any other place. They would also be reminded that the redemption they sought required something of them – obedience, faithfulness, loyalty, honor. When they honored the way God laid out and followed, things went well (even though not free from terror). When they chose not to trust God and veered off course, things did not go well for them. When they experienced the consequence of their disobedience, however, God would always be open to restoring the relationship, starting over, and moving forward. Each time that happened, one of the stories of the exodus would repeat itself. Over and over and over and over and over and…
Moses, after being rescued from infanticide as a baby and raised in Pharaoh’s household, grew up, learned that he was Jewish, stood up for a Jewish man who was being mistreated and ended up killing an Egyptian soldier. Realizing that he would be held accountable for the murder, he fled to a distant land where he settled, got married, raised his kids, and lived his life as a rancher. He experienced God speaking to him in a burning bush, at which time God explained that God had heard the cries of Israel and was going to rescue them. This massive redemption process required a leader. God invited Moses to embrace that role. Think major life change. Moses, quite naturally, freaked out:
“What if they won’t believe me or listen to me? What if they say, ‘The Lord never appeared to you’?”
Then the Lord asked him, “What is that in your hand?”
“A shepherd’s staff,” Moses replied.
“Throw it down on the ground,” the Lord told him. So Moses threw down the staff, and it turned into a snake! Moses jumped back.
Then the Lord told him, “Reach out and grab its tail.” So Moses reached out and grabbed it, and it turned back into a shepherd’s staff in his hand.
“Perform this sign,” the Lord told him. “Then they will believe that the Lord, the God of their ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—really has appeared to you.” (Exodus 4:1-5 – NLT)
What would come next – the plagues, the exodus from Egypt, the wandering in the desert, all the way to the edge of the Promised Land – began with accepting an invitation. Moses heard God call him to a new way of being, a new role, which meant he had to choose to leave a former way and role. The former was represented by his staff.
In the journey of faith we are all invited to new ways of being and behaving. Repeatedly. For our entire lives. The invitation is similar every time, with God in some way stating that there is a better way forward if we want it. We won’t be alone should we take the new path – God will be with us – and it will turn out to be the best route. The only catch is that we have to accept the invitation, choose to actually go in that new direction, which is represented in Moses’ exchanged about his staff.
Moses’ staff represented his livelihood. His identity. His protection. His strength. His fears. His skills. His limitations. His hopes. His insecurities. His family. His past. His future. When he took the risk and laid it down, it became something quite different – a snake. In antiquity, the appearance of a snake was a signal that teaching moments were around the corner. Opportunities to gain wisdom were on the horizon. Those who first heard the story surely picked up on this, as they would have in the story of Adam and Eve and the slithering tempter in the Garden of Eden. It was time for Moses to move forward, out of the comfort of his self-imposed exile, and into the role he needed to play for himself and the world in need.
The truth of the matter is that we all are extended the same invitation as Moses, even if the circumstances are quite different. We are all invited to lay down what is familiar in order to embrace what God is offering us. What does it mean for you to offer your “staff” to God? What are you being asked to lay down so that you might see things differently, think differently, live differently, so that what happens in your life is a “better different” for you and those you can touch, those who need God’s redemption? What is your staff? What might God’s invitation mean for you and others?
Notes to Nerd Out On…
From the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Dewey M. Beegle):
MOSES (PERSON) [Heb mōšeh (מֹשֶׁה)]. The man chosen by God to lead the Hebrew people out of Egyptian bondage, to preside over the Sinai ceremony constituting those people as the people of God, and to lead the Hebrew people to the promised land. As such, Moses is arguably the most prominent person in the Hebrew Bible, and he looms large in early Jewish and Christian writings. This entry consists of two articles. The first surveys primarily Moses as a figure in the OT and in early Judaism. The second concentrates specifically on the portrayal and role of Moses in the NT.
OLD TESTAMENT
A. Historicity of Moses
1. Critical Analysis
2. Historical Analogy
3. Possibilities and Probabilities
4. More Probable Probabilities
B. Biblical Portraits of Moses
1. Yahwist-Elohist Traditions
2. Deuteronomic Tradition
3. Priestly Tradition
C. Post-biblical Portraits of Moses
1. Hellenistic Judaism
2. Palestinian Judaism
3. Rabbinic Judaism
A. Historicity of Moses
No portion of the Bible is more complex and vigorously debated than the story of Moses, and few persons have evoked such disparate views. No extant non-biblical records make reference to Moses or the Exodus, therefore the question of historicity depends solely on the evaluation of the biblical accounts.
One interpretation is the assumption of early Jewish and Christian traditions that the Pentateuch is an accurate historical record written by Moses himself. This conservative view persists in both traditions today along with a rejection of all the claims of critical scholarship. Apparently there is no inclination to ask, “How is it possible for 200 years of critical research to be completely wrong?” K. A. Kitchen declares, “Now, nowhere in the Ancient Orient is there anything which is definitely known to parallel the elaborate history of fragmentary composition and conflation of Hebrew literature (or marked by just such criteria) as the documentary hypothesis would postulate” (1966: 115). Following the suggestion of W. W. Hallo (1962: 26), J. H. Tigay traces several stages of the Gilgamesh Epic over a period of 1,500 years and concludes, “The stages and processes through which this epic demonstrably passed are similar to some of those through which the Pentateuchal narratives are presumed to have passed. What is known about the evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic shows that some of the results of biblical criticism are at least realistic” (1985: 27).
The opposite extreme is J. Van Seters’ declaration: “The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend” (EncRel 10: 116). The basis for this radical claim is his conviction that the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr) and the three histories based on it (J, P, and Chronicles) have no accurate, authentic material earlier than the last preexilic period (1983: 361–62).
While Van Seters is correct in claiming that some units are collections of disparate data by later editors attempting to make a complete story, his basic theory goes too far. Ancient sources have linguistic fingerprintsand in reworking the texts the editor-authors did not smudge or erase all the fingerprints. Z. Zevit affirms that Dtr’s sources “contained high-quality intelligence of a type that a later creative author would have been unable to concoct on his own.” To assume, moreover, that these fingerprints “are due to the conscious archaizing of late exilic authors who had no pre-exilic literary models … is to attribute a linguistic sophistication to the ancient historians unparalleled elsewhere” (1985: 77).
1. Critical Analysis. In between the two extreme positions is a whole spectrum of views combining historical and critical concerns.
Early scholars, using mainly source analysis (J, E, D, and P), were critical of the Moses narratives, but they believed that behind the biblical text was a historical core with Moses as Israel’s leader during the Exodus, Sinai covenant, and desert wanderings. Polarization of scholars began in the 20th century with H. Gunkel’s form-critical approach, and the gap widened with the tradition-history studies of G. von Rad and M. Noth.
This change, according to von Rad, was “the result of the investigation of the history of traditions; and this has only been brought into full play in our own time.” Thus, for him, the attempt to isolate an “actual historical course of events … has turned out to be mistaken” (ROTT 1: 3). Behind the Hexateuch, von Rad sees, “… only certain interpretations and conceptions of older traditions which originate in milieux very different from one another and which must also be judged, from the point of view of form-criticism, as completely diverse” (ROTT1: 4). Consequently, in von Rad’s opinion, “We can no longer look on it as possible to write a history of the tradition attaching to Moses, and of where it was at home” (ROTT 1: 291). If we try to date the Moses traditions “we are seldom able to advance beyond very general datings, if we are not in fact altogether in the dark” (ROTT 1: vi).
Because the cultic recitals in Deut 26:5–9; 6:20–24; and Josh 24:2–13 make no reference to the revelation of Yahweh at Mt. Sinai, von Rad concludes that the Sinai story was a very late insertion into the redemptive story of the Exodus and settlement in Canaan (PHOE, 3–8, 13). He claims that these traditions, joined first by the Yahwist (PHOE, 54), had canonical patterns and became cult-legends at separate sanctuaries: Sinai with the Feast of Booths at the Shechem covenant festival, and Exodus/settlement with the Feast of Weeks at Gilgal (PHOE, 43, 45). While the cult had some later influence on the formation of these legends, it did notproduce them (PHOE, 22).
M. Noth, expanding on von Rad’s work, determines to penetrate into the preliterary phase of the traditions in order to ascertain the origins and first stages of growth in the development leading to the Pentateuch (HPT, 1–2). He isolates five themes, fixed during oral transmission, which were essential for the faith of the separate Israelite tribes: patriarchs, exodus, wanderings, revelation at Sinai, and Conquest/occupation. Since he considers all material connecting these themes as secondary, and observes that the name “Moses” occurs “with striking infrequency” outside of the Pentateuch (HPT, 156), he comes to the radical conclusion that Moses is an editorial bracket binding all the themes together (HPT, 160–61). For Noth, the most historical reality of the person Moses is his death and burial in Transjordan (HPT, 173).
However, this pessimistic view hinges on some very subjective interpretations. In fact, Noth states explicitly that his conclusions about the Sinai tradition are “not conclusive arguments” because one could speak only “in terms of a certain probability” (HPT, 62).
A number of younger scholars, using Noth’s tradition-history approach, reject his conclusion that all the themes are independent and the binding material secondary. W. Beyerlin, on the basis of Exod 20:2, claims that “the Decalogue originated somewhere where we can count on the presence of those who experienced both the Exodus and the meeting with God on Sinai” (1965: 145).
In his Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God, G. W. Coats claims that the Moses narratives “constitute a body of tradition with valid form-critical character” (1988: 38). Working with the whole range of literary methods, Coats takes issue with Noth’s claim that Moses is a secondary redactional bracket: “Moses cannot be eliminated so readily from the various themes of tradition, and, as a consequence, the assumption of independence collapses” (1988: 37).
B. Childs is concerned to highlight the fundamental dialectic of the canonical process within Israel whereby “the literature formed the identity of the religious community which in turn shaped the literature” (IOTS, 41). He favors a sociological understanding of Moses’ role:
Especially in such passages as Ex. 20:18–20 and Deut. 19:15ff., that which is being described is not simply a historical event, but rather an etiology for the establishment of something institutional and ongoing. Moses’ role as covenantal mediator in the Sinai tradition has a decided cultic stamp which seems to point to an office within an institution (Exodus OTL, 355).
In this connection, Coats’ comments are also instructive:
The issue at stake … is whether a standing office has influenced the shape of the Moses traditions. Is the cultic office of covenant mediator the proper Sitz im Leben for this facet of the Moses tradition? Or was the tradition shaped basically by a popular literary process as a narrative convention for depicting the leader with at best only tangential contacts with the cult? (1988: 138).
The most thoroughgoing sociological approach is N. K. Gottwald’s The Tribes of Yahweh. He acknowledges his debt to Noth and observes (1979: 72) that Noth (HPT, 259) leaves unanswered “the problem of what brought about the unity ‘Israel’ and the common Israelite consciousness.” The purpose of Gottwald’s study is “to begin with the tantalizing enigmatic questions with which Noth’s provocative analysis of the Pentateuchal traditions ends” (1979: 72). Gottwald believes that biblical scholars, given to “hyperspecialization” of detailed studies with limited scope, have not adequately addressed this historical-sociological problem, and insofar as it has been treated “it has been ‘answered’ by theological fiat” (1979: 5–7, 73). Thus he contends that “the valid intention of biblical theology can only be fulfilled by ‘biblical sociology’ ” (1979: 911). In following up on this approach, Gottwald (1979: 78) declares:
The proclamation of the themes in the cult was a communal speech-act, … of a special kind, which we have called cultic-ideological … It was meaning-charged speech elucidating the identity of Israel, … speech that proclaimed the divine power in which the community was grounded, … speech that addressed the community with its most fundamental obligations and reminded it of its most fundamental resources … even speech which allowed for the direct declamation of the divine word to the community.
Then he adds the caveat, “We must necessarily view the finished product of these early historical traditions … as ‘unplanned’ by any one person or group of persons within any single context” (1979: 78).
2. Historical Analogy. In opposition to tradition-history proponents, a number of mediating scholars maintain that historical analogy should play a role in the literary-sociological study of Scripture, especially in connection with the Moses story. Human experience shows that observation and understanding of key events varies with the personality, training, and insight of the participants. This was undoubtedly true of those who followed Moses; therefore, it is highly probable that two or three variant traditions developed fairly soon after the Exodus and Sinai events. From this viewpoint, the variant biblical traditions need not be understood as originating in “completely diverse milieux.” Moreover, while culture has influence on gifted persons, it does not initiate their innovative ideas and movements. Rather, the initial impact toward change is made by creative individuals, not culture. Furthermore, all great leaders of people and movements have had to play a number of roles, consequently it is not feasible to squeeze highly talented people into any single mold.
In addition to source criticism, the use of stylistic criteria (poetic form, syntax, and spelling) for dating texts (YGC, 1–52), and data from archaeology and inscriptions for portraying the background of the biblical narratives, W. F. Albright employs historical analogy because it “plays a particularly important role” for the study of the Bible (1966: 11). He recognizes that it “does not constitute proof when taken alone” (1965: 268), but he concludes that the biblical tradition about Moses “is strongly supported by historical analogy, and is now being confirmed by a rapidly increasing mass of evidence uncovered by archaeologists and philologians” (1976: 120).
Similarly, J. Bright, a student of Albright, reacting to the reductionist views of von Rad and Noth, claims:
Over all these events there towers the figure of Moses. Though we know nothing of his career save what the Bible tells us, the details of which we have no means of testing, there can be no doubt that he was, as the Bible portrays him, the great founder of Israel’s faith. Attempts to reduce him are extremely unconvincing. The events of exodus and Sinai require a great personality behind them. And a faith as unique as Israel’s demands a founder as surely as does Christianity—or Islam, for that matter. To deny that role of Moses would force us to posit another person of the same name! (BHI, 126–27).
W. Eichrodt comes to a similar conclusion, “At the very beginning of Israelite religion we find the charisma, the special individual endowment of a person; and to such an extent is the whole structure based on it, that without it it would be inconceivable” (ETOT, 292).
3. Possibilities and Probabilities. Because of the complexities of the biblical text and the lack of certain data, conclusions about a historical Moses are narrowed to possibilities and probabilities.
For some scholars the question of historicity begins with the name “Moses.” The biblical writer apparently did not know that it was a shortened Egyptian name, but assuming that Pharaoh’s daughter knew Hebrew, he had her use popular etymology to base the name on the verb māšâ (“to draw out”): “Because I drew him out of the water” (Exod 2:10). The name actually stems from the Egyptian verb msy “to give birth” and appears as “Mose” with the name of a god: e.g., Tuthmosis “Toth is born” and Rameses “Re is born.” Since the Egyptians often shortened such names to “Mose,” it is implicit that “Moses” was longer at first, but there is no indication as to the deity involved (e.g., no “Yamses”). While the name is proper for the circumstances of the Exodus story, it alone does not prove that Moses was a historical figure.
R. de Vaux, holding more to probabilities, affirms that traditions (myth or history) “were not created by cult—cultic practices simply helped to recall traditions” (EHI 1: 185). He realizes that oral tradition can be forgetful and at times invents a great deal, yet “it is faithful in some ways” (EHI 1: 184). The tradition of Moses in Midian is early and has a historical basis (EHI 1: 330). Moreover, Moses was involved with the Exodus and Sinai: “There is … no impelling reason for eliminating Moses from any of these traditions; on the contrary, there is positive evidence for believing that they are closely interconnected” (EHI 1: 453).
The “quest for the historical Moses” presents more of a difficulty for Childs (IOTS, 178), and very little of his commentary on Exodus attempts to wrestle with historical problems and data. Yet, notwithstanding some expansion of the text in Exodus 3, due to the later prophetic office, Childs affirms that the call of Moses was authentic:
It (tradition) recognized correctly that a new element entered with Moses which set it apart from the patriarchal period … Moses’ call recounts the deep disruptive seizure of a man for whom neither previous faith nor personal endowment play a role in preparing him for his vocation (Exodus OTL, 56).
Coats does not attempt a reconstruction of an original Moses tradition because his goal “is to describe the various images used by various texts in the Old Testament for depicting the characteristics of this giant” (1988: 36). It is implicit, however, that he gives credence to Moses as lawgiver: “The earliest picture of Moses available, perhaps the only picture of Moses from the period before the monarchy, depicts Moses as lawgiver (Deut 33:4)” (1988: 199). As another indication, Coats observes, “There is no law tradition without Moses” (1988: 169). It is also implicit that the mediation of Moses in giving the law to the people has its counterpart in his heroic representation of the people before Yahweh with respects to their concerns and intercession for their sins (1988: 159, 165–66).
Gottwald recognizes some historical traces in the text, “Moses is recalled as an actual person who was of Levitical kinship, who intermarried with Midianite ‘semi-nomads,’ who led a slave revolt, who was reportedly buried in Transjordan” (1979: 35). On the contrary, he contends that “we are not in a position to calculate the part that the historical Moses played in introducing Yahweh, in explicating him as a deliverer from opposition, as one with whom to covenant, and as a law-giver” (1979: 37). Then he comments, “Possibly the later tradition is correct in believing that Moses had the decisive part to play in all these respects. But only possibly” (1979: 37).
Since Gottwald is more confident about a proto-Israelite “Moses group” than the specific person Moses, he makes some additional suggestions:
… it is highly probable that the notion of Yahweh as a god who delivers from oppression was introduced first among a group of proto-Israelites for whom Moses was one, although not necessarily the only, leader … it is at least possible, conceivably probable, that notions of covenanting between god and people and of divine law-giving were introduced in some form among that same group of proto-Israelites in which Moses was a leader (1979: 36).
Gottwald thinks that covenanting and law giving in this group “were relatively undeveloped,” and even if they did occur at Sinai, we do not know how they were understood and practiced (1979: 36–37). See also COVENANT; MOSAIC COVENANT.
4. More Probable Probabilities. It is evident from this survey that all critical theories and reconstructions involve probabilities, and so the issue of Moses’ historicity must attempt to ascertain which probabilities are more probable.
For Noth, the first historical fact about Israel is that the twelve-tribe confederation settled in Canaan after the occupation and worshipped as a community. There the various tribes told their own unique stories and in time “all Israel” came to feel that it had shared in all of these experiences (HPT, 43–45). Gottwald attempts to solve Noth’s problem of accounting for “the unity ‘Israel’ and the common Israelite consciousness” by attributing to the cultic gatherings a special kind of speech-act filled with the charisma of Israel’s identity, obligations, resources, and even a divine word. There is no doubt that such issues were discussed in the development of Israel, but can its origin be explained by ecumenical-like worship services and consultations without the primary input of a Yahwistic, covenant group inspired by the Exodus and Sinai experiences under the leadership of Moses? In spite of lapses from some members, the Song of Deborah (Judges 5, ca. 1150–1125 b.c.) indicates that fairly early the Israelite tribal league was a functioning unity motivated by the Yahwistic faith. Bright comments:
Indeed, had not the nucleus of Israel, already in covenant with Yahweh, appeared in Palestine and, banding with disaffected elements there with whom it made common cause, won notable victories, it is difficult to see why groups of such mixed origin, and geographically so scattered, would have come together in confederation under Yahweh’s rule at all (BHI, 168).
For von Rad, the fusion of the exodus-settlement and Sinai traditions occurred first by the Yahwist, thus blending “the two fundamental propositions of the whole message of the Bible: Law and Gospel” (PHOE, 54). Whether articulated or not, human existence (individual, familial, and cultural) has had to deal with the issues of justice and mercy. Is it feasible to separate this reality into monolithic strands and claim that for 200 years separate traditions consistently preserved a half of the dialectic truth without recognition of or concern for the other half? Accordingly, mediating scholars wonder why it is impossible for these two facets to be involved in the difficult experience of the Yahwistic group in the desert after deliverance from Egypt. As R. F. Johnson notes, “But it is easily possible to consider the biblical account of Mosaic leadership a more credible explanation of Israel’s early period in Palestine than any other available thesis (IDB 3: 442).
In summary, the evaluation of the evidence and counterclaims in the scholarly debate about Moses seems to favor, as the most probable conclusion, a modified form of the Moses story. In response to Yahweh’s call in Midian, Moses—the Hebrew with the Egyptian name—led his people out of Egypt, constituted them as a people of God by mediating the covenant at Mt. Sinai, interceded for them during the desert wanderings, and brought them to Moab where he died.
B. Biblical Portraits of Moses
The issue of various portraits of Moses, like the question of historicity, depends on one’s interpretation of the biblical text, and again there is great diversity.
The conservative tradition holds that the interchange of divine names is the intention of the author, not the result of separate sources. “We may assume,” U. Cassuto claims, “that in each case the Torah chose one of the two Names according to the context and intention” (1961: 31). While “Yahweh” reflects Israelite theology and traditions about God and his people, “Elohim” is appropriate for non-Israelites, universal tradition, and those who think of Deity in abstract terms (1961: 31–32). “However,” as Childs observes, “both the extreme artificiality by which meaning is assigned to the use of the names, as well as the constant need to adjust the theory in every succeeding section, does not evoke great confidence in this approach” (Exodus OTL, 53). Cassuto is nearer the truth when he comments:
The stream of this tradition may be compared to a great and wide-spreading river that traverses vast distances; although in the course of its journey the river loses part of its water, … and it is also increasingly augmented by waters of the tributaries that pour into it, yet it carries with it, … some of the waters that it held at the beginning when it first started to flow from its original source (1961: 102–3).
Thus, while Cassuto denies the sources of the critics, he affirms that numerous traditions have come together.
Years of research concerning the source and tributaries of the text resulted in the classical view of source criticism: J and P (southern), E and D (northern) as separate traditions or recensions of Israel’s history. Yet these accounts tend to be one-sided, like a portrait featuring the most attractive profile. An example is von Rad’s separate portraits of Moses in J and E. While recognizing that Moses appears throughout the Yahwist account, he claims: (1) Moses’ call “was only for the purpose of informing Israel in Egypt” about Yahweh’s intentions, and so it would be “utterly wrong if we were to understand Moses’ call as an appointment to be Israel’s leader, for in this source document the leadership of Israel is Jahweh’s alone”; (2) Yahweh effects the miracles “without any assistance from Moses;” (3) “Moses retires right into the background;” and (4) for the narrator no “particular theological stress” is made of “Moses’ function in the various conflicts and crises” (ROTT1: 291–92).
On the other hand, according to von Rad, “There is a noticeable difference in the picture of Moses given by the Elohist:” (1) the idea of Moses’ office has changed, “E has pushed Moses much more into the foreground as the instrument of God in effecting the deliverance;” (2) moreover, “Moses is now the miracle-worker, in fact almost to the point of being a magician;” (3) Moses’ importance is enhanced “by setting Aaron over against him … Moses is God for Aaron, and Aaron the mouth for Moses—Moses is the creative initiator and Aaron only the executive speaker (Ex. 4:16);” and (4) Moses is a prophet in E, but “of a special type—he is much more the prophet of action, taking an active hand in the events” (ROTT 1: 292–93).
In reaction to the atomizing of the text by radical source-critics, a number of scholars have observed wider frameworks and patterns for understanding the text. These are helpful, and, as Childs notes, “to show a larger pattern which cuts across the sources does not disprove their existence” (Exodus OTL, 150). Yet there has been increasing question about E because of its fragmentary nature and the difficulty in determining where it begins and ends. The problem involves the complex history of J and E. In some places, like Exodus 19, it is impossible to untangle them completely. Evidently the two were mixed at times in oral transmission and this condition carried over into the groundwork source behind J and E. In any case, in the growth of these traditions various literate persons, whether working as compilers, redactors, or authors, were prompted by new historical situations to make relevant theological notes about the events described. Thus, after the division of the kingdom, E became the northern counterpart of southern J and such crucial passages as Exod 3:9–15; 20:1–17; and 24:3–8 indicate its distinctive perspective. Some time after the fall of the northern kingdom, the E tradition, even with some of its divergent views, was subsumed within J, and so from the point of view of the J E redactor(s), most certainly in Judah, the E material was understood in the light of J.
Coats affirms that “the classical definition of order in the relationships of the sources holds even in the face of challenges,” thus J is the oldest, D next, and finally P. He deviates by claiming that “in those places where E appears, the source is an expansion of J, thus dependent on J” (1988: 36). Nevertheless, G. Fohrer, building on Wellhausen’s analysis, makes a definitive defense of the E source stratum (1968: 152–58).
A new approach to Exodus-Deuteronomy is the hypothesis of Coats: “The Moses narratives, structured as heroic saga, merge with the narrative tradition about Yahweh’s mighty acts, structured around confessional themes” (1988: 37). “This heroic tradition,” according to Coats, “binds the hero with his people. Either by military might, or by skillful intercession, or by familiarity with surroundings and conditions, he defends and aids his own. He brings ‘boons’ to his people” (1988: 40). Coats recognizes that the two models are narrative opposites, at times complementary, at times contradictory, but his concern is to define “the relationship between these two structural patterns. Moses is the heroic man and the man of God” (1988: 42). The series of praises to Yahweh for the mighty acts in behalf of his people came from the ritual of Israel’s sanctuaries. Yet this tradition was only half of the historical reality. The other half was preserved by common folk who transmitted orally the narratives about Moses. This heroic man was also the man of God because he was the human agent facilitating the acts of God.
Childs, like Coats, values the sources, yet finds great insight in the composite portraits, “The final literary production has an integrity of its own which must not only be recognized, but studied with the same intensity as one devotes to the earlier stages” (Exodus OTL, 224).
1. Yahwist-Elohist Traditions. In highlighting the JE portrait of Moses it will be helpful at times to note how the stories about Moses complement the confessional themes in the Exodus, desert, and Sinai episodes.
Although the folkloristic narratives of Exod 1:15–2:22 lack specific historical references, they declare that Moses, born during the oppression of a Pharaoh and reared in his court, was a Hebrew from the house of Levi who cared for his own people. After his flight to Midian he showed similar concern for the daughters of the priest Reuel (Jethro), then married one of them.
Exod 3:1–12 relates the essence of the actual call and commission of Moses. The burning bush, however understood, is the means of initiating a dialogue with Moses. In vv 7–9 Yahweh sees, hears, knows his people’s plight, and determines to free them and bring them to a good land. In v 10 Moses is commissioned to be his agent, but he demurs and is given a sign to reassure him. When Moses inquires about God’s name he is told, “Yahweh … is my name for ever” (3:15). This new name is an authentic claim of E, in contrast to J where the worship of Yahweh begins with Seth and Enosh (Gen 4:26). The crucial point of the combined JE text is that Yahweh authorizes Moses to confront Pharaoh and free the Hebrews.
According to J E in Exod 5:1–15:21, Moses requests Pharaoh, in Yahweh’s name, to let the Hebrews go into the desert to hold a feast. He refuses and when nine plagues do not change his mind, Yahweh kills the Egyptian firstborn. With a cry of anguish, Pharaoh and the Egyptians urge Moses and his people to leave. Pharaoh changes his mind, however, and pursues them. Yahweh’s miracle at the Reed Sea provides escape for the people and death for Pharaoh’s army.
Behind this composite picture some scholars find two separate accounts. R. de Vaux, for example, holds to an Exodus flight, led by Moses, and an Exodus expulsion, with the death of the firstborn (EHI 1: 373). According to Coats, when the negotiations during the nine plagues fail, Moses has the people acquire silver and gold jewelry from the Egyptians. This spoliation, the beginning of the Exodus, is possible because Yahweh gives the people favor with the Egyptians and Moses is very great in the land (Exod 11:3). Then Moses calls his people to leave in haste under his leadership without the permission or even the knowledge of Pharaoh (1988: 97–98, 108). On the other hand, Childs holds to one exodus after ten plagues, because he shifts Exod 11:4–8 to follow 10:29 so that Moses announces to Pharaoh the death of the firstborn before leaving “in hot anger” (Exodus OTL, 161).
Divine and human participation are combined again in the victory at the Reed Sea. Praises to Yahweh, both in poetry and narrative (probably from the cult), attribute “natural” causes to God: the strong east wind; the clogging of the chariot wheels; and the routing of the army. Moses, on the contrary, performs the “wondrous” events: stretching out his hand (rod) to divide the sea and cause its return. Both aspects appear in J’s summary: “Israel saw the great work which Yahweh did against the Egyptians, … and they believed in Yahweh and his servant Moses” (14:31). Since belief is rooted in trust and willingness to obey, this affirmation goes beyond a cognitive recognition of Moses: they are ready to obey him.
The dominant feature of the desert wanderings is the sojourn at Mt. Sinai. The essential narrative (Exodus 19–24; 32–34) is a very complex conflation of J and E, with only a few verses from P. A crucial fact is that vv 19:4 and 20:2 bind the Sinai event with the Exodus: the appeal for Israel’s covenant obedience is based on God’s gracious act of freeing them from Egypt.
In line with the sources, critics tend to see two different traditions in the Sinai pericope. The dominant theme is from E: when God declares the commandments to the people (20:1–17) they are fearful and urge Moses to mediate God’s word (20:18–20), which he does, functioning as a priest, in the blood ritual ratifying the covenant (24:3–8). The subordinate theme is from J: Yahweh speaks with Moses in the presence of the people so that they will believe him (19:9, 19), then instead of a covenant with the people, Yahweh makes a covenant with Moses in their behalf (34:2–7). For Childs, the two themes, fused in the preliterary stage, are rooted in different settings: E in the covenant renewal ceremony, and J in the tent of meeting (Exodus OTL, 358). Coats, on the other hand, considers the two traditions complementary, stemming from the storytelling of the people (1988: 133).
In addition to its cruciality in Israel’s history, the version of the covenant in E has important clues related to the historicity of Moses. The covenant ceremony opens with a comment that Moses “told the people all the words of Yahweh and all the ordinances” (24:3), yet in the rest of the ceremony only the “words” are involved. It is apparent that originally 24:3–8 followed the “words” (commandments) in 20:1–17. Later, an editor inserted the collection of regulations in 20:22–23:33, considering it a further revelation to Moses at the mountain. While the first part consists largely of conditional “ordinances” (If [when] … then …) related to agricultural, village life, 22:18–23:19 has a number of regulations which, like the commandments, are in the imperative form, “You shall (not).” Childs considers them as premonarchic and notes that “some of the material stems from a very early period which may reach back into the wilderness period” (Exodus OTL, 456). A still later editor, working with the expanded text, added “and all the ordinances” (24:3), to make clear that the whole collection was included in the “Book of the Covenant” (24:7) used by Moses at the ceremony.
Although there are different expansions within the commandments of Exod 20:2–17 (E) and Deut 5:6–21 (D), the two collections come from a common northern tradition. There is no indication how to separate them, nor does it state there were ten. The designation “Ten Words” (Decalogue) comes from Exod 34:28. Each commandment appears elsewhere in the Bible, but in time tradition determined that these were unique and reflected the essence of God’s will. The first three pertain to God and the rest refer to human relations. The eight negative commands set the boundary of covenant life with God. To step beyond these restrictions is rebellion leading to death. The two positive words are instruction for living within God’s will. See TEN COMMANDMENTS.
There is a timeless, transcultural quality about them, and Noth himself acknowledges that “the Decalogue is the only legal entity in the OT which indicates no certain reference to the conditions of life in an agricultural community.” Furthermore, since the writings of the prophets “appear to presuppose the commandments,” Noth comments that “for the pre-prophetic period all possibilities of dating are open,” yet because of his tradition-history presuppositions he rules out any date “before the conquest” (Exodus OTL, 167). If not all, at least some of these stipulations were involved in the desert covenant. Human experience indicates that the guidelines for any religious or political agreement require continual interpretation and additional specifications. Accordingly, it is quite probable analogically that Moses began the process of interpreting the commands, regardless of how many there were. Evidently Joshua continued the process after entering Canaan (Josh 24:25–26). It is possible that this updating, not described explicitly, appears in the collection (20:22–23:33) attributed to Moses.
In any event, after the apostasy concerning the golden calf, Yahweh determines to destroy the people and make Moses a great nation (32:1–10). Moses intercedes for them (vv 11–14), even offering to be blotted out of God’s book if Yahweh does not forgive their sin (v 32). Thus again, the complementary facets of Moses’ role as mediator are highlighted: Moses is both God’s representative to the people—man of God as lawgiver—and the people’s representative to God—heroic man as intercessor. A special feature of Moses’ role as lawgiver is that during the revelation of the law Moses, unknowingly, attains a “shining face.” Since the people draw back from him on his return, he puts on a “veil” (Heb masweh). The only occurrences of this term in the entire Bible are the three uses in this passage (34:29–35). The practice was also probably associated with the Yahweh-Moses conversations at the tent of meeting outside the camp (33:7–13). That tradition was superseded by the priestly tabernacle inside the camp, therefore the veil as a special symbol of Moses is an early feature. As Coats observes, “The heroic man transfigured by the presence of God, … is uniquely the man of God” (1988: 138).
In JE the Sinai narratives separate the desert journeys into two units: Exodus 15–18 and Numbers 10–36. While the rigors of desert life before Sinai evoke murmurings, Yahweh listens to the complaints and supplies the people’s needs. On the other hand, after Sinai the murmurings against Yahweh and Moses provoke God’s anger. Moral responsibility was fixed at the covenant with Yahweh, therefore rebellion results in censure and punishment (Numbers 11–14, 16).
When Moses’ unique authority is challenged by Miriam, an editor comments, “Moses was very meek, more than all the men that were on the face of the earth” (Num 12:3). This meekness (humility) implies that Moses was not overbearing in his role as leader. Yahweh had commissioned him, therefore Yahweh defends him, “With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech” (Num 12:8). Although Moses intercedes for Miriam’s healing, she must spend seven days outside the camp before being restored. When the people believe the majority report of the spies and refuse to leave Kadesh to begin the conquest of Canaan, Yahweh appears at the tent of meeting and threatens again to disinherit his people. Moses makes such an eloquent, rational appeal, Yahweh pardons them, but the adults will pay a price: they will never enter the promised land (Num 13:25–14:23). Even though the designation is not used, Moses functions as the shepherd of his people. He is human, however, and because the load of the murmuring people is too heavy, he objects to Yahweh’s command to carry them “as a nurse carries a sucking child” (Num 11:10–15).
2. Deuteronomic Tradition. While the portrait of Moses in Deuteronomy (D) retains much of the composite picture in J E, there are some distinctive features and emphases. In the summary of the experiences after Horeb (1:6–3:29) Moses is the leader, yet he is no wonder-worker. The reference in 34:11 to signs and wonders is a late addition to D. At the request of the people, Moses continues to be their mediator (5:5, 27), yet a new feature appears in the preface to the book: Moses purposes to explain what Yahweh has commanded (1:5). Thus Moses is not only a lawgiver: he becomes the law’s interpreter. This claim is basic to the structure of the book. After the commandments are given, the text is largely a series of homilies by Moses. The topic in chap. 6 is the commandment, a restatement of the negative first commandment in a positive form (6:4–5), and chaps. 6–11 spell out its meaning and implications. The same is true in chaps. 12–26 for the statutes and ordinances. Thirty-six times in chaps. 4–30 Moses states “I command you,” therefore these interpretations, while rooted in the Torah of Yahweh, tend to become the Torah of Moses.
The purpose of the instructions is more than didactic, however. Moses strives to elicit obedience from his stubborn people. His persuasive pleas are laced with enticements: “that it may go well with you” or “that you may prolong your days in the land.” To ensure that future generations have his teachings, Moses commands the people to keep them foremost in their consciousness and to use every occasion to teach them to their children (6:6–9).
In J E the call of Moses and the communication of God’s words to his people indicate that he is a prophet, but in D this role is specifically stressed. To counter the anticipated temptations of pagan divination in Canaan, Moses promises that Yahweh “will raise up for you a prophet like me, … him you shall heed” (18:15). It is implicit in Moses’ promise of another prophet and his command to teach the next generation that his task is nearing completion.
As Moses reminds the people of their rebellious history, he reviews, in a paraphrase of Exod 32:11–14, his traumatic intercession with Yahweh, pleading for forty days and nights to disregard the stubbornness, wickedness, and sin of the people (9:25–29). Yahweh spares the people, but he prohibits Moses from entering the promised land: “Yahweh was angry with me also on your account, and said, ‘You shall not go in there’ ” (1:37). Thus the intercessor becomes the suffering mediator. Moses does not complain, but he intercedes for himself: “Let me go over, I pray, and see the good land beyond the Jordan” (3:25). Although D never explains why Moses has to pay the price, Yahweh rebuffs him, “Speak no more to me of this matter” (3:26).
Thus, Moses vicariously bears Yahweh’s wrath against his people. His death alone in Moab takes on a vicarious quality as well. Yahweh buries him and “no one knows the place of his burial to this day” (34:6). There can be no sacred monument where pilgrims can share in a memorial ceremony for Moses. He must live in the hearts of the people as the greatest prophet of all, the one with whom Yahweh spoke “face to face” (34:10).
3. Priestly Tradition. The last source to be incorporated into the Hebrew Bible was P. Features in common with J E and D point to a tradition shared during oral transmission and indicate that P has some early material. Its distinctive differences stem from a long history of separate development in Jerusalem. During the Babylonian exile, the priests had no temple in which to serve, so they turned their attention to preserving and authenticating the priestly traditions and way of life. The J E and D traditions were subsumed within the P framework to form a new composite story of Israel’s early history. Still later, probably after the exile, more additions were made by priestly redactors. We know nothing of the various priests involved in this process, but it is clear that they had the last word in forming the Pentateuch. Consequently, the P portrait of Moses will highlight some different features.
The first major change in the picture is Exod 6:2–7:7, originally a doublet of Exod 3:1–4:17 (J E). P is more explicit than E (Exod 3:15) that Yahweh is a new name for the God known to the patriarchs as El Shaddai(6:3). The E version of Aaron’s commissioning (Exod 4:14–16) is shortened and given a prophetic nuance: “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet” (7:1). In P, moreover, Moses is relieved of the physical aspects in confronting Pharaoh and his magicians: Moses gives the orders, but Aaron, with his rod, effects some of the plagues (7:19). Furthermore, Pharaoh is hardened so that Yahweh can multiply the signs (11:9–10).
The most radical shift in perspective occurs in the Sinai narratives. In Exod 24:16–18, P notes that Moses enters the cloud of Yahweh’s glory on Mount Sinai and stays there forty days and nights. When Yahweh finishes speaking with Moses he hands him “the two tablets of the testimony … written with the finger of God” (Exod 31:18). Between the two passages P inserts the lengthy instructions for making the tabernacle and its equipment. It is P’s method of declaring that the blueprints for the tabernacle came from Yahweh himself. When Moses, on seeing the golden calf and the dancing people, shatters the two tablets (Exod 32:19) he is doing more than symbolizing the broken covenant. For P this is a traumatic loss of the blueprints. It is imperative that they be written again. When Moses returns with the second set of tablets (Exod 34:29), the tabernacle, designed by God, can be constructed (Exod 35:1–40:33).
In the tabernacle instructions, Yahweh requests, “And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst” (Exod 25:9). Therefore, when the cloud of Yahweh’s glory fills the priestly tabernacle, the new tent of meeting, it is a confirmation that Yahweh is moving from Mount Sinai to his new residence. Another clue for understanding P’s claim is Yahweh’s statement in connection with the instructions for the tabernacle furniture: “There I will meet with you, and … from between the two cherubim … I will speak with you of all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel” (Exod 25:22). Accordingly, Lev 1:1 and Num 1:1 claim that Yahweh reveals the priestly insights and regulations to Moses at the tent of meeting. R. Knierim notes incisively:
From now on, Yahweh would meet Moses from the sanctuary in Israel’s midst, and no longer on Sinai. The mountain belonged to the past. The presence belonged to the sanctuary. Its legitimacy and identity were secured by the continuity of the revelation of God from the mountain. And now, Yahweh could give the ultimately decisive instructions concerning the ongoing life of Israel. These instructions have two foci: the provision of the atonement institution for the continuous liberation from the destructive burden of guilt and pollution (Leviticus 1–16), and the regulations for Israel’s societal life as a “holy” community (Leviticus 17–27). The Sinai-pericope aims at the book of Leviticus. This book is the center of the Pentateuch (1985: 405).
In short, Exodus-Numbers is dominated by the P portrait of Moses as Yahweh’s unique mediator communicating all of God’s Torah (commandments, statutes, and ordinances) to the people.
Whereas J E and D recognize the humanity of Moses, P goes on to portray him and Aaron as sinners: “… you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel” (Num 20:12). The fault seems to be based on the rash statement in 20:10: “Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of the rock?” When Moses strikes the rock twice he seems to do so with an assurance he has the power to produce water. In this act he does not really believe in Yahweh, nor does he honor God in the people’s presence, therefore he will never enter the promised land.
Because the priests understood Israel’s history as Yahweh’s divine plan, P was more concerned than J E or D with genealogies and chronological data. Its dates are relative, however, and provide no accurate pegs for setting the dates of Moses. Archaeological surveys of the Sinai peninsula indicate that the only habitation in the Late Bronze and Iron I periods (1500–1000 b.c.) was along the Mediterranean coast and at the mining operations of Serabit el-Khadem. If accurate, the report that Moses did not take the coastal route (Exod 13:17–18) poses a problem for 14th, 13th, and 12th-century dates for the Exodus/Conquest. The scholarly consensus of a 13th-century date for Moses is eroding, but ambiguous data make any alternatives equally tenuous.
C. Post-biblical Portraits of Moses
Since the Torah has a number of intriguing, ambiguous, and even troublesome statements, it was inevitable that thoughtful persons, both common folk and scholars, would feel compelled to expand the portraits of Moses more in line with their own theological and philosophical views.
1. Hellenistic Judaism. Since some Hellenistic and Roman writers were critical of Moses and his laws, scholarly Jews in these cultures countered the false charges and tried to enlighten their opponents.
A prime example is Philo of Alexandria, Egypt (1st century a.d.). He weaves together what he has read and heard in the conviction that he has a better knowledge of Moses than any others. Since Philo believes that Greek philosophy is a development from the God-given teaching of Moses, he uses Greek reasoning and ideas to ensure that his Hellenistic audience will have an accurate understanding of Moses. As a “divine man,” Moses is superhuman. His physical, mental, psychological, and spiritual gifts are supreme, and his experiences in the royal court and in Midian prepare him to be the ideal king for leading the Hebrews. Moreover, as the perfect ruler, Moses has the faculty of legislation, to command and to forbid; the role of high priest, to care for things divine; and the function of inspired prophet, to declare what cannot be understood by reason (Vita Mos II.2.3.187).
The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius writing for a gentile audience, portrays Moses as the “divine man” of Greek culture as well as the Israelite “man of God.” As Israel’s lawgiver he becomes the legislator and founder of a “theocracy,” the ideal society (AgAp 2.16. §165). Josephus claims that Moses’ gifts were so evident to the Egyptians he was made the general of the Egyptian army during a campaign against the Ethiopians. Not only was he victorious; he married an Ethiopian princess (Ant 2.10.2). This tale is one of a cluster of stories expanding on the intriguing claim that Moses had taken a Cushite wife (Num 12:1).
Moses “surpassed in understanding all men that ever lived and put to noblest use the fruit of his reflections.” He found favor “chiefly through his thorough command of his passions, which was such that he seemed to have no place for them in his soul” (Ant 4.8.49). In concluding his eulogy Josephus declares, “As general he had few to equal him, and as prophet none, insomuch that in all his utterances one seemed to hear the speech of God Himself” (Ant 4.8.49).
2. Palestinian Judaism. Since tradition held that the time of prophecy had ceased, Moses became the mouthpiece for some Jews who felt compelled to share their insights. In the Testament of Moses, which reinterprets Deuteronomy 31–34, Moses informs Joshua that God created the world on behalf of his people Israel (T. Mos. 1:12). Moreover, from the beginning of the world God designed him to be the mediator of the covenant (1:14). In Deut 34:5, Moses apparently dies alone, but in alerting Joshua of his impending death, Moses states that he is going to sleep with his fathers “in the presence of the entire community” (1:15). Joshua is upset at the news and grieves at the loss of “that sacred spirit, worthy of the Lord, manifold and incomprehensible, master of leaders, faithful in all things, the divine prophet for the whole world, the perfect teacher in the world” (11:16). No place will be appropriate for his burial because “the whole world is his sepulcher” (11:8). The text in 12:6 is broken, but it seems that Moses is assuring Joshua that even in death he will make intercessions for their sins.
The mystery surrounding Moses’ death perplexed Judaism, and so various expansions of the text appeared. A fragment of one explanation is preserved in Jude 9: “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’ ” Origen (ca. a.d. 185–254) claimed that the passage was from the Assumption of Moses, but unfortunately the text has been lost. Since the end of the Testament of Moses has been lost as well, it is difficult to determine whether the two were separate books, or the Assumption was the concluding part of the Testament.
Jubilees, an expanded commentary on Genesis 1–Exodus 12, purports to be God’s word to Moses on Mount Sinai in addition to the Pentateuch, “the first law” (Jub. 6:22). It is a revelation from God and the angel of the presence, with the sacred time from Adam to Sinai divided into 49 Jubilees of 49 years (seven weeks of years). Moses is addressed by “you” and told his own story (chaps. 47–48). The basic message is the necessity of faithful obedience to the Torah. Moses is informed that the Patriarchs set the standard by rigorously keeping his law.
The Essenes considered themselves the “true Israel” and went into the Judean desert at Qumran as a community “to prepare the way of Yahweh” (Isa 40:3) by devoting itself to the study of the Torah. Their “Teacher of Righteousness,” convinced that end times were near, claimed to have the key for unlocking all the truths hidden in the revelations of Moses and the prophets. The solar calendar, set forth in Jubilees, became the standard for the liturgical year at Qumran because it was based on God’s creation and the authority of Moses. Moreover, the age of Moses becomes the model for the messianic age. The “prophet to come” (Deut 18:15, 18) is an eschatological figure associated with the priestly and Davidic messiahs.
While P claimed that all the laws of Exodus-Numbers were revealed to Moses, later tradition concluded that all of the Pentateuch came from Moses, including the statement of his death and burial. This conviction evoked a probing study (midrash) of the whole Torah. The results of this devotion were classified as: halakah, interpretation of a religious or civil law as a guideline for life; and haggadah, explanation of non-halakic material (genealogies, narratives, poems, parables, and proverbs) as homiletical, edifying, and entertaining narrative. While halakah was mainly under the jurisdiction of the scholars, haggadah was expanded and carried on largely by the common people. Their creativity and ingenuity resulted in some excessive embellishments with which the scholars took issue at times.
An excellent compendium of these Jewish tales is Legends of the Bible by Louis Ginzberg. The birth of Moses is an example of the free rein imagination of haggadah: “At the moment of the child’s appearance, the whole house was filled with radiance equal to the splendor of the sun and the moon. A still greater miracle followed. The infant was not yet a day old when he began to walk and speak with his parents, and as though he were an adult, he refused to drink milk from his mother’s breast” (1956: 288–89). A variant of Josephus’ story about the Cushite wife has Moses fleeing from Pharaoh and coming across Kikanos, king of Ethiopia, and his army besieging a city. He finds favor with them, and when Kikanos dies Moses is made king and given Adoniah, the Ethiopian queen, widow of Kikanos, as his wife. He reigns for forty years then goes on to Midian because he still fears Pharaoh (1956: 299–302).
Moses ascends into heaven three times: (1) from the Burning Bush as an assurance about his call and the promise that he will be given the Torah (1956: 311–12); (2) from Mt. Sinai for forty days and nights to receive and study the Torah (392–98); and (3) from Mt. Nebo to see the reward awaiting him and to visit the Messiah (492–93). By kissing Moses on the mouth, God takes his soul to heaven where he continues as a servant of the Lord. God buries his body in a place, unknown to Moses and Israel, at the end of a passage leading to the graves of the Patriarchs (502).
3. Rabbinic Judaism. It became increasingly evident within the more complex cultures of Persia, Greece, and Rome that Moses’ law needed updating. The problem was to authenticate the growing corpus of new regulations. The rabbis solved the problem by claiming that this oral tradition was revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai along with the written law: “Moses received Torah from Sinai and passed it on to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets passed it on to the men of the Great Assembly” (m. ʾAbot 1:1).
The rabbis accepted the biblical portrayal of Moses, but their preoccupation with the Torah and its implications highlighted Moses’ role as teacher. Although they disagreed among themselves over the centuries, they considered themselves disciples of the “great teacher.”
The haggadah has some amusing tales about the revelation of the Torah. On reaching heaven, Moses finds God ornamenting some letters of the text with crown-like decorations. On inquiring about their meaning he is told: “Hereafter there shall be a man called Akiba, son of Joseph, who will base in interpretation a gigantic mountain of Halakot upon every dot of these letters.” Moses requests to see this man and is permitted to hear Akiba instruct his students. He is grieved, however, because he cannot understand the discussion. Moses is contented when, in answer to a question, Akiba states, “This is a Halakah given to Moses on Mt. Sinai” (Ginzberg 1956: 395). In general, the rabbis recognized the distinctiveness of their interpretations, but to show their loyalty to the written law, they described their conclusions as a mountain of truth suspended by a hair from the Torah.
Bibliography
Albright, W. F. 1965. History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism. London.
———. 1966. Archaeology, Historical Analogy, and Early Biblical Tradition. Baton Rouge.
———. 1976. Moses in Historical and Theological Perspective. Pp. 120–31 in Magnalia Dei: the Mighty Acts of God.Garden City.
Auerbach, E. 1975. Moses. Trans. and ed. R. A. Barclay, and I. O. Lehman. Detroit.
Beyerlin, W. 1965. Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions. Trans. S. Rudman. Oxford.
Buber, M. 1958. Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant. New York.
Cassuto, U. 1961. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch. Trans. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem.
Coats, G. W. 1988. Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God. JSOTSup 57. Sheffield.
Fohrer, G. 1968. Introduction to the Old Testament. Trans. D. E. Green. Nashville.
Ginzberg, L. 1956. Legends of the Bible. Philadelphia.
Gottwald, N. K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY.
Gressmann, H. 1913. Mose und seine Zeit. Göttingen.
Hallo, W. W. 1962. New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature. IEJ 12: 13–26.
Kitchen, K. A. 1966. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL.
Knierim, R. P. 1985. The Composition of the Pentateuch. SBLSP 24: 393–415.
Rowley, H. H. 1950. From Joseph to Joshua. London.
Schmid, H. 1968. Mose: Überlieferung und Geschichte. Berlin.
Tigay, J. H. 1985. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia.
Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History. New Haven.
Zevit, Z. 1985. Clio, I Presume. BASOR 260: 71–82.
Dewey M. Beegle