Excursus: Michael and the Body of Moses
The reference in Jude 9 to a dispute between Michael and the devil (diabolos) over the body of Moses is
couched, as are most textual citations in Jude, as if the readers are familiar
with the story. The difficulty for the modern reader is that, although the
canon contains no reference to such a conflict, in extracanonical Jewish
literature are many versions of this story. Early Christian literature
typically attributes the citation in Jude to the Assumption [analēpsis] of Moses (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Fragment in Epistula Judae; Didymus the
Blind, Epistula Judae enarratio;
Origen, De princ. 3.2.1). This
attribution creates its own problem, because the fragment of the so-called Assumption of Moses that we possess does
not contain this story nor does it make any reference to a coming assumption.
We cannot, therefore, either confirm the attribution or discover what version
of the story might have been provided in the text.
Among the many accounts with their numerous variations, there are
three basic versions of the story. First, the devil wants to return the body of
Moses to the Israelites so that they can bury him in a prominent place and make
a god of him. Michael fights with the devil and wins the body. Michael then
removes the body to an unknown place. Second, the devil denies Moses the rights
to an honorable burial because Moses killed the Egyptian. This conflict is more
legal than spiritual. Michael calls on the authority of the Lord in order to
take possession of the body. Third, the devil does not accuse Moses but rather
asserts his own authority as master of the material world. The devil insists
that all bodies, including that of Moses, belong to him. Michael again calls on
the authority of the Lord to claim the body.
Mixed in with these accounts are references to the rebuke of Satan in
Zech 3:2. Zechariah’s fourth vision contains a dispute between “the angel of
the Lord” and “Satan.” In this dispute, the Lord rebukes Satan with the words
quoted in Jude 9: “May the Lord rebuke you.” Jude cites the text as if the
angel of the Lord and not the Lord states the rebuke. It is possible that the
text Jude was citing read thus. There is nothing about the body of Moses in
Zechariah’s vision. However, this rebuke surfaces in various forms throughout
the accounts of the conflict over the body of Moses. The author of Jude is not
the first one to combine the two accounts.
The question remains: What version of the story was Jude citing? We
can assume that early Christian writers are reliable in their attribution to
the Assumption of Moses. Yet this
does not help much since we only possess a fragment of the text and that
fragment does not contain this story. In the various versions of the story,
language of blasphemy and slander occurs most often in accounts where the devil
accuses Moses of murder. Michael does not return the slander of the devil with
a slander of his own but calls upon the Lord. Given Jude’s use of the semilegal
term diakrinō and its inclusion of
the rebuke from Zech 3:2, this version seems to fit best with the imagery of
Jude 9. (Lewis R. Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude: A
Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2010], 184-85)
