Moses, Leadership

The command to go to war against Sihon, even though his territory lies east of the Jordan River (Deuteronomy 2:24–25), seemingly marks the beginning of the conquest of the promised land and reflects a tradition in which Moses, not Joshua, leads it. But instead, Moses asks to cross the land peacefully (vv. 26–29). The Midrash portrays this choice as disobedience that God ultimately validates. A literary critical approach highlights how Moses’s response is a redaction, an inner-biblical midrash, that reconciles different layers of the text.

Moses and Horus are hidden in thickets on the Nile by their mothers; Sargon is placed in a wicker basket and cast away on the Euphrates by his. Yet each survives to become a ruler of their people. The Akkadian legend tells of Sargon of Akkad, 3rd millennium B.C.E., but it serves as an allegory for Sargon II the 8th-century king of Assyria. Similarly, Exodus narrates the story of Moses, who freed Israel from Egypt, but serves as an allegory for King Hezekiah of Judah 8th century B.C.E., who struggled to navigate between Egypt and Assyria.

Moses’ claim that he is “heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue” has been understood as a speech impediment or language difficulty, but his actual concern is about his quick temper.

Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah skillfully structure their petition to inherit land not by confronting the patriarchy, but by couching their request as an attempt to preserve their father’s name.

When Moses sees an Egyptian striking a Hebrew, he kills the Egyptian. Does Moses get involved because he knows he is a Hebrew or does he act out of a sense of justice?

The end of Deuteronomy recounts that at an age of one hundred and twenty Moses says he is no longer able/allowed to lead the people’s journey and will therefore not be carrying them on to cross the Jordan (Deuteronomy 31:2). According to other places in the Torah, however, Moses dies because of a sin – his or of the people.

Evaluating Deuteronomy’s angst about Israel’s future in light of the story of Ahiqar and modern educational research into student resistance.

Dathan and Abiram’s civic rebellion against Moses and Aaron was independent of the Levites’ challenge to their religious demotion in relation to the Aaronides. The composite narrative underscores, more emphatically than either story could do alone, the principle that divinely-appointed leaders are to be accepted by the nation of Israel.