the chief centre. This was the scene of the “strife” at Meribah (striving) where Yahweh “shewed himself holy” (Num. xx. 1–13); a parallel account joins the name with Massah (trial, proof) where Yahweh “proved” the people (Exod. xvii. 1–7). These two names (Deut. ix. 22, xxxii. 51) with their significant meanings recur with varying nuances (Ps. lxxxi. 7, xcv. 8 seq.). Here also in the wilderness of Shur, and possibly at En-mishpat (well of judgment, i.e. Kadesh, Gen. xiv. 7), Yahweh made for Israel “statute and judgment” and “proved them.” This is apparently Viewed as the goal of the three-days' journey (Exod. xv. 22–25). In this district the defeat of the Amalekites is more naturally located (Exod. xvii.; cf. 1 Sam. xxvii. 8) and here, finally, for some cause, now obscured, Moses and his brother Aaron (q.v.) incurred Yahweh’s displeasure (Num. xx. 12, xxvii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 51; Ps. cvi. 3). Pisgah or Mt Nebo (the name suggests a foreign god), to the north-east of the Dead Sea became the scene of the death of Moses; his burial-place was never known (Deut. xxxiv.).
In estimating the work of one who stands at the head of the religious and legal institutions of Israel, it is necessary to refrain from interpreting the traditions from a modern legal standpoint or in the light of subsequent ideas and beliefs for which the sources themselves give no authority. Much confusion has been caused by attributing to Moses more than the Pentateuch itself claims, and by misunderstanding the meaning of later references (Mat. xix. 8; Mark vii. 10, x. 5; xii. 26; Luke xx. 37; John vii. 22). Moreover, it is necessary to allow that the traditions relating to both Moses and Aaron underwent change. The priesthoods of Shiloh and Dan could boast of an illustrious origin (1 Sam. ii. 27 seq., Judges xviii. 30), but the religious practices associated with the former especially were not those of the purest type. When Aaron himself is connected with the worship of the golden calf, and when to Moses is attributed a brazen serpent which the reforming king Hezekiah was the first to destroy, it is evident that religious conceptions developed in the course of ages. Although Moses was venerated as a prophet (Hos. xii. 13), a mediator (Jer. xv. 1) and a leader (Mic. vi. 4; Isa. lxiii. 11), much of the legal procedure ascribed to him must belong on internal grounds (religious, ethical and sociological evidence) to a post-Mosaic age. Many of the Mosaic laws find parallels and analogies in all ages outside the sphere of Israelite influence, notably in the laws codified several centuries previously by the Babylonian king Khammurabi (see Babylonian Law). The practice of finding in ancient authority a precedent for institutions new and old (cf. the law of booty, 1 Sam. xxx. 25, with that ascribed to Moses in Num. xxxi. 25 sqq.) is quite in accordance with Oriental custom and explains the growth of the present extremely complex sources. But this very development of Mosaism implies the existence of an original nucleus or substratum, although the recovery of its precise extent is very difficult. The legislation on Mt Sinai (Horeb) which apparently occupies a very important place in tradition (Exod. xx. sqq.) is really secondary (cf. W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, p. 111); more prominence is evidently to be ascribed to the influence of the half-Arabian Jethro or Hobab, and this must be taken into consideration with what is known of Kenite and kindred clans (Exod. xviii.; Num. x. 29–33; see Jethro; Kenites).[1] Yahweh appears to have been known to them before he revealed himself to Moses, and the ancestors of the Israelites are recognized as worshippers of Yahweh, but are on another level (Exod. vi. 3). The traditions would seem to point to the institution of new principles in the religion of Yahweh, and would associate with it not merely Moses but those foreign elements which are subsequently found in Israel and Judah. See Jews, §§ 5, 14, 20.
Bibliography.—See further articles, Aaron; Decalogue; Hebrew Religion; Levites. For the introductory questions, W. Robertson Smith’s Old Test. in Jewish Church and Prophets of Israel are most helpful; see also J.-M. Lagrange, Hist. Crit. and the Old Testament (Eng., E. Myers, 1905), pp. 148–179; Wellhausen’s Prolegomena is a conclusive elaboration of the initial stages of criticism. All subsequent studies vary according to the writer’s standpoint; W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea (Internat. Critical Commentary), pp. 84 sqq., gives a convenient summary. Among particular discussions may be named Cheyne, Ency. Bib. s.v., E. Meyer, Israeliten, pp. 1–103; and the mythological treatment by H. Winckler, Gesch. Isr., ii. 86–95; A. Jeremias, Alte Test., loc. cit.; and Ed. Stucken, Astralmythen d. Hebräer, &c., p. 431 sqq. For Jewish and other legends (to which Jude 9 alludes), see Beer, Leben Moses (1863), M. Grünbaum, Neue Beiträge z. sem. Sagenkunde (1893), pp. 152 sqq.; the Assumption of Moses, ed. R. H. Charles (1897); W. Tisdall, Sources of the Qur’an (1905); and Ency. Bib. col. 3218, § 21 (with references). For the stories of Manetho, &c., Ewald, Hist. Isr., ii. 76 sqq.; Kittel, Hist. i. 26 seq., may be supplemented by Willrich, Juden u. Griechen vor d. makkab. Erhebung (1895), pp. 55 sqq.; G. Maspero, Rec. de travaux (1905), xxvii. I3 sqq., 22 seq. (S. A. C.)
MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF, an extra-canonical apocalyptic work of the Old Testament. The Assumption or Ascension of Moses (Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως) is a prophecy of the future relating to Israel, put into the mouth of Moses, and addressed to Joshua just before the great lawgiver died. Founded upon the book of
Deuteronomy, it is brief and unpoetical. But it seems to have
been large at first, for according to Nicephorus it consisted of
1400 stichs. It contains a brief history of Israel from Moses to
the Messianic age. The most striking feature in this work is the
writer’s scathing condemnation of the priesthood before, during,
and after the Maccabean period, and an unsparing depreciation
of the Temple services.
This book was lost for many centuries till a large fragment of it was discovered and published by Ceriani in 1861 (Monumenta sacra I. i. 55–64) from a palimpsest of the 6th century. Very little was known about the contents of this book prior to this discovery. One passage found in this fragment is quoted in the Acta synodi Nicaenae, ii. 18. Most of the other references relate to the strife of Michael and Satan about the body of Moses, and ascribe it to the Ascensio Mosis, i.e. Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως.
Various other works have been attributed to Moses, such as the Petirath Moshe, the βίβλος λόγων μυςτικῶ Μωυσέως, The Exodus of Moses (in Slavonic), &c. See Charles, Assumption of Moses, pp. xiv.–xvii.; Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes, iii. 220–221.
Date.—The book has been assigned to most dates between the death of Herod the Great and that of Bar-Cochba. But this text precludes any date after A.D. 70. The true date appears to lie between 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Herod is already dead (vi. 6), hence it is after 4 B.C.; and Herod’s sons are to rule for shorter periods than their father, hence it must have been composed before these princes had reigned thirty-four years—i.e. before A.D. 30. But there are grounds for assuming that A.D. 7 is probably the earlier limit (see Charles, op. cit. lv.–lviii.).
Author.—The author was not an Essene, for he recognizes animal sacrifices and cherishes the Messianic hope. He was not a Sadducee, for he looks forward to the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom (x.). Nor yet was he a Zealot, for the quietistic ideal is upheld (ix.), and the kingdom is established by God Himself (x.). He was clearly a Pharisaic Quietist, a Pharisee of a fast disappearing type, recalling in all respects the Chasid of the early Maccabean times, and upholding the old traditions of quietude and resignation. His object is to protest against the growing secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of popular Messianic beliefs and political ideals. But his appeal was in vain, and so the secularization of the Pharisaic movement culminated in due course in the fall of Jerusalem.
The Latin Version a Translation from the Greek.—That our Latin text is derived from the Greek there can be no question. Thus Greek words are transliterated, as “chedrio” from κεδρόω, “heremus” from ἔρημος; Greek idioms are reproduced, as “usque nos duci captivos,” = ἔως τοῦ ἡμᾶς αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι, and retranslation into Greek is frequently necessary in order to correct the misrenderings of the translator or the corruptions already inherent in the Greek. Finally, fragments of the Greek version are still preserved.
The Greek a Translation from the Hebrew.—That the Greek was in turn derived from a Semitic original was denied by Hilgenfeld, Volkmar and others. But Ewald, Schmidt-Merx, Colani, Carrière, Hausrath, Dalman, Rosenthal and Burkitt decide in favour of a Semitic. R. H. Charles (op. cit. xxxviii.–xlv.) is of opinion that it is, possible to prove that the Greek goes back not to an Aramaic but to a Hebrew original, on the following grounds: (1) Hebrew
- ↑ See K. Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, ch. i. According to Gen. iv. 26, so far from the name Yahweh having been made known to Israel by Moses (Exod. iii. 13 sqq., vi. 2 sqq.), the worship goes back to the earliest ages.
