Michael
in Parabiblical Literature
The spiritual forces in play, however, are more reflective of now-parabiblical
tradition than the Hebrew Bible, and some ancient ecclesiastical writers
approved of Jude particularly for the credibility it lent to texts such as 1
Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Even aside from Jude’s reference to Michael,
Bauckham argues the author’s “use of Jewish apocryphal works is at least as
extensive as his use of the OT” and that, in addition, he was likely familiar
with other Jewish paraenetic and haggadic tradition. Despite Jude’s brevity,
two verses cite, and much of the remaining text arguably alludes to, the text
of 1 Enoch. Robinson has even argued that 1 Enoch serves as the “thematic and
structural backbone” of the entire letter of Jude. Charles has also
detailed Jude’s use of pseudepigraphal material as an explicit literary
strategy, arguing that “[t] he writer moves freely within the world of Jewish
apocalyptic thought, a reflection of the theological-literary milieu out of
which his readers more than likely come.” There is no shortage of linkages to
now-paracanonical material in Jude.
In contrast to his opaque presence in the Hebrew Bible, Michael plays
a more definitive role in what is variously called the Testament, Assumption,
or Ascension of Moses, a part of a testamentary work in which Moses, before his
death, passes down wisdom to Joshua about the leadership of Israel. In the
Assumption, Michael serves as a chief messenger and mediator between God and
humanity. The conflict may be over the devil’s accusation against Moses for
having murdered an Egyptian (cf. Exod 2:11– 15), making him undeserving of a
proper burial, or that Moses’s fleshly body cannot ascend to heaven. Other such
accounts of conflict between an angel and the devil that expand the now-canonical
text are extant, including one in which Satan tries to ensure that Isaac is
sacrificed (cf. Jub 17:15– 18:16). The claim that the devil may have wanted
Moses’ body in order to make it an idol for the people of Israel to worship may
also be an attempt to explain the secret location of Moses’s grave at the end
of Deuteronomy.
The Assumption is a fragmentary text, and, while its extant form does
not include the Michael/ devil conflict, ancient references to both the
Assumption and Jude’s use of the Michael example offer evidence that it did
indeed contain such a story. Testamentary texts typically include a scene of
the death and burial of their subject (TAbr, TJob), and while references to
Moses’s death and body can be found throughout the Testament, the fragmentary
ending does not preserve the narrative, suggesting that the lost ending would
contain the events of Moses’s death and burial and/ or his assumption (either
bodily or otherwise) into heaven (cf. TMos 1:15– 16; 10:11– 12; 11:5– 8). This,
along with references in other ancient sources to the burial of Moses and the
Michael– devil conflict that ensued, citing the Assumption, would seem to
indicate that the Assumption may comprise at least a portion of the lost ending
of the Testament.
Ancient sources further corroborate Jude’s reliance on such a text.
Origen and Clement of Alexandria explicitly link Jude to the Assumption,
referring to Michael’s debate with the devil over Moses’s body (Clement, Frag.
2 on Jude; Origen, De princ 3.2.1). Dochhorn argues that Jude
functions for Origen and Clement of Alexandria to legitimize the use of the
Assumption, particularly on the issues of pneumatology and angelology. Didymus
the Blind, writing on Jude, gives the link to Michael as the reason some “take
exception to the present epistle” and to the Assumption. The example of
Michael, then, along with the cited prophecy of Enoch, troubles the status of
Jude for those who would reject its source material.
The Assumption therefore benefited from its ties to Jude, which lent
credibility to its otherwise paracanonical view of the spiritual realm. Jude’s connection
with now-parabiblical literature is further emphasized by its history of
interpretation among some Patristic writers such as Clement and Origen, who
defended the use of the Assumption on the basis of its use by Jude. While I
have called attention to the two- sided coin of stability and malleability when
it comes to the characterization of scriptural exempla throughout the Catholic
Epistles, Michael also helps to demonstrate the porousness of the “canonical”
boundary. The story recounted by Jude is not presented in the now-canonical Old
Testament, and yet this has not resulted in Michael’s argument with the devil
being understood as reflecting “canonical” tradition, but rather in Jude being
pushed toward the margins of the now-canonical New Testament. (Kelsie G.
Rodenbiker, Scriptural Figures and the Fringes of the New Testament Canon [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2025], 178-81)
