The short Epistle of Jude references a non-canonical work in respect to the dispute which took place between Michael and the devil over the body of Moses:
Many in the early church and scholars of today believe that Jude was citing from the work Assumption of Moses. In order to help the readers appreciate what and where this quotation comes from, I cite from the most comprehensive scholarly tome written on this pseudepigraphal work:
“But even Michael, the leader of the angels, didn’t dare to say these things. He didn’t even say these things when he argued with the devil about the body of Moses. Michael didn’t dare to judge the devil. He didn’t say the devil was guilty of saying evil things. Instead, Michael said, ‘May the Lord judge you!’” Jude 1:9 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
The Latin text of the only surviving manuscript of As. Mos. is incomplete. Especially at the end, a portion of the text of some length is missing. Several scholars–including Charles, James, Loewenstamm and Bauckham1–have attempted to reconstruct the lost ending of the work. All these scholars recognize the speculative character of such reconstructions, but this view does not prevent them from giving detailed reconstructions of the lost ending. Bauckham even reconstructs two conclusions, attributing one to the Testament of Moses, and the other to the Assumption of Moses. In this chapter, however, it will be shown that reliable traces of As. Mos. in ecclesiastical literature are few, and that they allow only very modest conclusions with regard to the ending of this work2.
(1) The extant text of As. Mos. displays all the characteristics of the testament form. Therefore, the sequel to the dialogue between Joshua and Moses (chapters 11-12) must have contained some account of the way in which Moses ended his earthly life.
(2) As. Mos. 1:15 and 10:14 state that Moses himself expected his imminent death. These passages also suggest that As. Mos. included an account of Moses’ death. Perhaps et palam omnem plebem in 1:15 is meant to stress that many people witnessed Moses’ death, and that, therefore, there can be no doubt about that event.
(3) In As. Mos. 11:7, Joshua asks how a human being would dare to bury Moses’ body. This may be an allusion to the well-established tradition of Moses’ burial by God or by angels. In the fragments of the lost conclusion, Moses’ body (soma) is mentioned as the object of a dispute between Michael and the devil (see below, section b). Consequently, the presence of Michael probably means that the archangel was sent in order to bury Moses’ body.
(4) It is not at all improbable, however, that Michael also came in his function as psychopomp, that is, as someone who was to transport Moses’ soul to heaven1. The extant fragments do not strictly support this possibility, but they do not exclude it either. Moreover, the tradition that Moses was given a heavenly existence after his death is well documented in Jewish literature of the period.
a. The Greek fragments
Later Greek authors who quote, or allude to, As. Mos. shed light on the contents of the lost ending. Students of As. Mos. have detailed many such passages from ecclesiastical literature, and these have been conveniently arranged by A.-M. Denis in his Fragments Pseudepigraphorum Graecorum of 1970. As will be shown below, however, there are only four passages that derive with certainty from As. Mos., three of which occur in Gelasius’ Ecclesiastical History, one in the Epistle of Jude.
Gelasius Cyzicenus (ca. 476), whose quotation from As. Mos. 1:14 ensures the identification of our text as the ‘Analepsis Moseos (see the Introduction, section V, a), includes two more quotations referring to a dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil which come from what must have been the end of As. Mos. Since a comparison of Gelasius’ abundant quotations from biblical books with the Septuagint text shows that they conform to the latter with great accuracy, we can also assume that these two quotations from the Assumption of Moses are trustworthy. They refer to a dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil. Since Jude 9 contains a passage which corresponds almost word for word to Gelasius’ quotation concerning the quarrel between Michael and the devil, it can safely be assumed that Jude 9, too, goes back the lost ending of As. Mos. The quotation from As. Mos. in the Epistle of Jude enables to deduce that the dispute concerned Moses’ body.
Here we may be reasonably certain that the following sentences were taken from As. Mos.
(1) Moses proskalesamenos ‘Iesoun hyion Naue kai dialegomenos pros auton ephe … kai proetheasato me ho theos pro kataboles kosmou einai me tes diathekes autou mesiten.
(2) apo gar pneumatos hagiou autou ektisthemen.
(3) apo prosopou tou theou exelthe to pneuma autou, kai ho kosmos egeneto.
(4) epitimesai soi kyrios.
Quotations (2) and (3) occur in a single passage in Gelasius’ Ecclesiastical History:
en Biblo de analepseos Moseos Michael ho archangelos dialegomenos to diablo legei ‘apo gar pneumatos hagiou autou ektisthemen’, kai palin legei ‘apo prosopou tou theou exelthe to pneuma autou, kai ho kosmos egeneto’.1
In the book of the Assumption of Moses, the archangel Michael, in a discussion with the devil, says: “For by his Holy Spirit, all of us have been created“, and further he says: “God’s spirit went forth from his face, and the world came into being.”
Quotation (4) is found in Jude 9, where a dispute between Michael and the devil is mentioned.
‘Ho de Michael ho archangelos hote to diabolo diakrinomenos dielegeto peri tou Mouseos somatos ouk etolmesen krisin epenegkein blasphemias, alla eipen ‘epitimesai soi kyrios.
And the archangel Michael, when he was in dispute with the devil over Moses’ body, did not dare to declare him guilty of slander, but said: “May the Lord rebuke you.”
The way in which the dispute between Michael and the devil is described is almost verbally identical in quotations (3) and (4). Therefore, it is likely that both Gelasius and the author of Jude used the ending of As. Mos. It may be concluded from Jude 9 that the discussion between Michael and the devil was in fact about Moses’ body. (Johannes Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition With Commentary (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, Vol 10) [Brill Academic Pub, 1992], pp. 270-272; bold emphasis mine)
1 Ecclesiastical History II, 21, 7, ed. Loeschcke & Heinemann, GCS 28, p. 86. In Gelasius’ Ecclesiastical History, a quotation from a Biblos logon mustikon Moseos (see Denis, Fragments, pp. 64-64), but there is no relation to As. Mos. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria twice refers to opinions of the mustai (Denis, Fragments, p. 64), but in these cases it is not even sure whether Clement refers to a book. (Ibid., p. 272)
Despite the pseudepigraphal nature of this work, it’s statements regarding God’s Holy Spirit creating the world and mankind are truly remarkable. It gives us an insight as to what the Jews of that time believed about the Holy Spirit, a view that is thoroughly biblical (Cf. Gen. 1:1-2; 2:4-7; Job 26:13; 27:3; 32:8; 34:14-15; 33:4; Psalm 104:29-30).
FURTHER READING
JUDE’S EPISTLE VERSUS ARIANISM
Answering Islam Blog 
2 thoughts on “JUDE & MOSES’ ASSUMPTION”