From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Assumption of Moses (otherwise called the Testament of Moses) is a Jewish apocryphal pseudepigraphical work of uncertain date and authorship. It is known from a single 6th century manuscript in Latin that was discovered by Antonio Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library in Milan in the mid 19th century and published by him in 1861. Based on the literal translation of idioms within the text, it is generally accepted that the extant Latin version is a translation from Greek, with the Greek itself probably a translation from Hebrew. The text is in twelve chapters and purports to be secret prophecies revealed by Moses to Joshua when he chose to end his life.

In it, a brief outline of Jewish history up until the 1st century AD is sketched out. The narrative includes a description of a Levite man named Taxo and his seven sons, who, rather than give in to hellenising influences, seal themselves into a cave. Most scholars consequently date the work to the early 1st century AD, contemporary with the latest historical figures it describes. A significant number of others, however, date it to the previous century and suggest that the 1st century AD references are later insertions into the text. A far smaller number of scholars place it in the 2nd century AD, and their motivation for doing so may be ideological in some cases.

Ceriani noticed that one line of the text (1:14) matched a quotation in Gelasius from a hither-to lost work referred to as the Assumption of Moses and based his identification of the text on that, despite the fact that the present text does not describe any assumption. A problem posed by this identification is that both Gelasius (elsewhere) and Origen refer to an incident related in the Assumption of Moses that does not appear in this text. The incident, a dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, is also referred to in the Epistle of Jude (1:9), though not attributed to any specific source. Some Evangelical Christians are uncomfortable with the idea of a canonical work relying on a non-canonical one, and prefer to see a different relationship between the two texts.

The Stichometry of Nicephorus and some other ancient lists refer to both a Testament of Moses and an Assumption of Moses, apparently as separate texts. It is possible that these two were one text at some point, which would explain why the current version at once contains a passage quoted by Gelasius and does not contain the other material referred to by him (or indeed an assumption). If this is the case, then this text is likely to be what Nicephorus called the Testament of Moses, and the Assumption of Moses remains lost.

The Assumption of Moses seems to provide a more consistent account of the Mt. of Transfiguration experience in which both Moses and Elijah appear to Peter, James and John and Jesus is "transfigured" before them, in that none of these individuals are required to be either spirits or resurrected persons. It also provides a consistent view of Jude (1:9) in that the author of that work viewed the dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan as an actual attempt by the devil to kill Moses.

• Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible