Article

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament
Not over Moses’ Dead 2017, Vol. 40(2) 192­–213
© The Author(s) 2017
Body: Jude 9, 22-24 and the Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Assumption of Moses in their DOI: 10.1177/0142064X17740003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X17740003
https://doi.org/

journals.sagepub.com/home/jsnt
Early Jewish Context

Ryan E. Stokes
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, USA

Abstract
Jude 9 refers to a story in which the archangel Michael disputes with the devil about the
body of Moses. Although the story cited by Jude has not been preserved, the literature
of early Judaism contains several traditions that can inform one’s understanding of Jude’s
source. This article explores these traditions, especially early Jewish interpretations of
Zech. 3, in an effort to throw light on this story and its use in the epistle of Jude. These
traditions suggest that the disagreement between Michael and the devil over Moses’ body
pertained not to the burial of Moses’ corpse, as previous scholarship has assumed, but
to Moses’ bodily ascent into God’s presence. In this ascent account, the devil would have
opposed Michael on the grounds that Moses’ fleshly, human body was inadequate for
God’s presence. Further, it is probable that Jude 22-24 alludes to the same ascent story.

Keywords
Ascent, assumption, body, devil, Jude, Moses

Jude 9 mentions a story in which the archangel Michael disputes with the devil
about the body of Moses:

But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the
body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but
said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’1

1. Unless otherwise specified, biblical quotations in this article are from the NRSV.

Corresponding Author:
Ryan E. Stokes, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001 W. Seminary Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76115, USA.
Email: rstokes@swbts.edu
Stokes 193

The dispute between Michael and the devil to which Jude refers does not appear
in the Hebrew scriptures. It is an ‘extracanonical’ Jewish legend, one of the many
to which the epistle of Jude alludes. Unfortunately, it is also one that has not been
preserved among the literary remains of early Judaism.2 Nevertheless, several
related traditions that have been preserved in the literature from this period can
contribute much to one’s understanding of the story.
The present study situates Jude 9 and the story to which this verse refers
among such early Jewish traditions. These include traditions about Moses’ body,
as well as those about the nature and activity of the Satan figure. Most significantly,
since Jude’s source was one that made use of Zech. 3, this prophetic text and
early interpretations of it provide especially helpful points of comparison with
Jude 9. These early Jewish traditions indicate that the dispute between Michael
and the devil over Moses’ body pertained not to the burial of Moses’ corpse, as
previous scholarship has assumed, but to Moses’ bodily ascent to God’s glorious
presence. The point of contention in the dispute between Michael and the devil
would have been the fleshly nature of Moses’ body, which needed to be exchanged
for a glorious heavenly form if Moses was to stand in God’s presence. This
reconstruction of Jude’s source enhances one’s understanding of Jude 22-24,
which also seems to allude to this ascent account.

Jude 9 in Christian Literature

Scholarly efforts to reconstruct Jude’s source have hitherto depended almost
entirely on Christian writings from a much later period for their data. While
space limitations prohibit a full discussion of what early and medieval Christian
interpreters say about Jude 9, the evidence, as it pertains to the present discus-
sion, is here summarized.3
The earliest Christian interpreters of Jude 9, those writing in the second
through the fifth centuries, all associate the dispute between Michael and the
devil with a story of Moses’ assumption (ἀνάλημψις) or ascension (ascensio).4

2. The story that Jude cites either derives from a work that is entirely lost to us or, as some have
suggested, it belonged to a lost portion of a work that is otherwise extant. With regard to the
latter possibility, scholars have hypothesized that the story constituted part of the lost ending
of a work discovered in the Milan Ambrosian Library and published in 1861 by A.-M. Ceriani
(1861–63), which has been labelled by scholars variously as the Assumption or the Testament
of Moses. Though it is hoped that the present study will contribute to the discussion of whether
this work might in fact be Jude’s source, space does not permit us here to address the
question.
3. For the relevant primary texts, the reader may consult the following: Charles 1897: 107-10;
Denis 1970: 63-67; Bauckham 1983: 65-76; Bauckham 1990: 249-64.
4. Four commentators from this period mention the story cited by Jude. At least three of them
refer to the story by the title Assumption (Didymus the Blind, Enarrat. Ep. Jud.; Gelasius
Cyzicenus, Ecc. Hist. 2.21.7) or Ascension (Origen, Princ. 3.2.1) of Moses. The fourth,
194 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

These interpreters, however, are ambiguous on several key points. They do not
state exactly how the dispute between Michael and the devil related to Moses’
ascent. They do not specify whether Moses’ journey was bodily or spiritual.5 Nor
do they reveal whether Moses’ ascent into God’s presence took place at the end
of his time on the earth or at an earlier point in his life.
The questions left unanswered by earlier literature are addressed with increas-
ing detail by later interpreters, whose reliability is quite dubious. The first com-
mentator to associate the dispute between Michael and the devil explicitly with
Moses’ death and interment is the sixth-century Severus of Antioch, whose inter-
pretation of the passage appears to be no more than mere speculation.6 Those
texts that elaborate on why Michael and the Devil would disagree about how to
dispose of Moses’ corpse are also of questionable value as witnesses to the story
to which Jude refers.7 Dating from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, they are
quite late.8 They also bear the markings of Christian attempts to make sense of
Jude’s enigmatic reference, not those of independent witnesses to Jude’s source.9

Clement of Alexandria (as mediated by Cassiodorus’s Latin translation), is somewhat ambig-

uous: ‘Hic confirmat assumptionem Moysi’ (Adumbr. 2). It is possible that Clement, in a
fashion similar to the other early commentators, refers to a document by the title Assumption
of Moses. It is also possible to translate Clement’s statement as, ‘Here he confirms that Moses
was assumed’ (Tromp 1993: 273-74).
5. On the ambiguity of the Greek ἀνάλημψις, see van Stempvoort 1958: 32-33 and Lohfink
1971: 66–67. It should be pointed out that van Stempvoort overestimates the evidence for
ἀνάλημψις and its cognates with reference to an ascent of the soul rather than the body. Some
of the examples he cites actually refer to a post mortem bodily ascent (e.g., T. Job 39.13) or
are ambiguous as to whether the ascent is bodily or not (e.g., T. Levi 18.3; Philo, Mos. 2.291
[cf. 288, which will be discussed below]). What van Stempvoort demonstrates, however, is
that ἀνάλημψις itself does not exclude the possibility of a post mortem ascent.
6. Severus, whose comments on Jude 9 come to us through the ninth-century Cramer’s Catena,
actually suggests three possible interpretations of the ‘body’ of Moses in Jude 9. He proposes
that Moses’ ‘body’ could refer to the Law of Moses, to the people of Israel, or to Moses’
corpse. None of these proposals appears to constitute more than a guess as to the nature of the
story cited by Jude, and it is unlikely that Severus had independent access to the story behind
Jude 9. So Tromp 1993: 278-79.
7. These include Palaea Historica, which says that Sammael wanted to make Moses’ body an
object of worship for the Israelites, and Cramer’s Catena, (Pseudo-)Oecumenius, and Slavonic
Life of Moses, which explain that Satan objected to Moses’ burial on account of the fact that
Moses murdered an Egyptian.
8. This is not to claim that late medieval texts cannot possibly preserve an early tradition. Flusser
(1971: 79), for example, argues that, while Palaea Historica is very much ‘a product of the
spirit of the Middle Ages’, it preserves some material from Jewish Hellenistic literature. It is
methodologically precarious, nonetheless, to rely solely on such late material for fundamental
facets of one’s reconstruction of Jude’s source. In contrast, this study will make limited use of
medieval Jewish material and will do so only in a supplementary fashion to corroborate con-
clusions drawn from the earlier literature.
9. On the dubious nature of these explanations of the conflict, see, e.g., Muddiman 2007:
171-72.
Stokes 195

Despite the dubious nature of the later Christian sources, modern scholars
have relied heavily on them for their reconstructions, particularly in assuming
that Moses’ ‘body’ in Jude 9 is Moses’ corpse.10 One should opt, however, for a
more careful approach. One can conclude with confidence only that the dispute
between Michael and the devil mentioned in Jude 9 was early on connected by
interpreters with a story of Moses’ assumption. Beyond this, the Christian testi-
mony alone does not warrant confident assertions.

Jude 9 and the Assumption of Moses in the Context of

Early Jewish Literature
The writings of early Judaism provide us with the necessary context for resolv-
ing many of the ambiguities surrounding Jude 9. Traditions in this literature per-
taining to Moses’ body, the Satan and Zech. 3 lend their support to the claims of
early Christian commentators that Jude’s source narrated a disagreement between
Michael and the devil concerning Moses’ ascent into God’s presence. These
writings also help to fill in some of the gaps in one’s reconstruction of Jude’s
source, offering a plausible scenario for a disagreement between Michael and the
devil over Moses’ body in the context of such an ascent. The body at issue in this
reconstruction, however, is Moses’ living rather than his dead body.

The Body of Moses in Early Jewish Tradition

It is to be expected that a figure as important as Moses would attract the attention
of interpreters in antiquity, especially given the extraordinary claims made about
Moses in the biblical literature. Moses is depicted as one who had a unique rela-
tionship with the Deity. According to Deuteronomy, he was the only prophet in
Israel’s history whom the Lord knew ‘face to face’ (34.10). Moses’ appearance
also was transformed by his encounters with God. It radiated to such an extent
that Moses was required to veil his face (Exod. 34.29-35).
The theme of Moses’ glorification is developed in several early Jewish and
Christian texts. Ben Sira reports with regard to Moses, ‘[God] made him equal in
glory to the holy ones’ (Sir. 45.2). The Enochic Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85-90)
similarly relates that Moses obtained angelic status. In its allegorical presenta-
tion of human history, sheep represent the people of Israel and humans represent
angels. 1 Enoch 89.36 narrates that the sheep representing Moses transforms into

10. See, e.g., Charles 1897: 105-10; Bauckham 1990: 235-80; Tromp 1993: 270-85. Cf., how-
ever, Tromp 2010: 971, which states that the dispute between Michael and the devil pertained
to Moses’ assumption and that the devil possibly objected to Moses’ ascent into heaven on
account of Moses’ corruptible, human nature.
196 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

a human, indicating the promotion of Moses from human to angelic form.11 Philo
also speaks of Moses’ metamorphosis, though he locates the event at the time of
Moses’ death:

Afterwards the time came when he had to make his pilgrimage from earth to heaven,
and leave this mortal life for immortality, summoned thither by the Father who
resolved his twofold nature of soul and body into a single unity, transforming his
whole being into mind, pure as the sunlight (Mos. 2.288).12

The transfiguration accounts of the Synoptic Gospels (Mt. 16.29–17.8; Mk. 9.1-
8; Lk. 9.27-36), in which Jesus is transformed into a glorious form in the pres-
ence of Moses and Elijah, likely presume the belief in a glorified Moses. Luke
relates explicitly that Elijah and Moses appear on the mountain ‘in glory’
(9.30-31).
Given such high esteem for the person of Moses in the biblical literature and
in Jewish tradition, the report of his death in Deut. 34 may have been dissatisfy-
ing to some readers. According to the biblical narrative, since Moses is forbidden
to enter the land that God was giving Israel on account of his sin at Meribath-
kadesh, before his death God shows him the land from atop Mount Nebo in
Moab. Once Moses has seen the land, Deuteronomy narrates, ‘then Moses, the
servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord’s command. He
was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, but no one knows
his burial place to this day’ (34.5-6). Despite what appears to be a rather straight-
forward report of Moses’ death and interment, many Jewish interpreters imag-
ined that something much more spectacular must have taken place on Mount
Nebo. According to some accounts, for instance, just before his death Moses is
shown the course of history (Sifre Deut. 357.1-7) or various mythological sites in
the heavens and on the earth, including paradise (LAB 19.10).

11. Perhaps 4QApocrPent. B (4Q377) 2 ii 10-11 is also relevant here: ‘And Moses, the man of
God, was with God in the cloud. And the cloud covered him because [ ] when he was
sanctified, and like a messenger (‫ )מלאך‬he would speak from his mouth, for who of fles[h ]is
like him…’ (Translation is that of VanderKam and Brady 2014). With regard to his glorious
nature, Moses traditions in some respects resemble those pertaining to Noah. The Ethiopic
version of the Animal Apocalypse also depicts Noah as a bull that becomes a human (1 En.
89.1, 9). The statement concerning Noah’s transformation in 89.1, however, does not appear
in the Aramaic of 4QEne as reconstructed by Milik (1976: 238-39). One should also compare
1 En. 106.2-12 and Genesis Apocryphon 2–5, in which Noah’s angelic appearance as a child
leads his father Lamech to suspect that Noah is a child of one of the watchers, with those texts
that claim that Moses’ parents protected him when he was born rather than allowed him to be
put to death on account of his impressive appearance (LXX Exod. 2.2; Philo, Mos. 1.9; Acts
7.20; Heb. 11.23).
12. Translation is that of Colson and Whitaker (1929–62).
Stokes 197

Interpreters were especially intrigued by the mysterious location of Moses’

remains. A number of medieval rabbinic and targumic texts report that God or
the angels were personally involved in Moses’ death and burial (e.g., Tg. Yer.
Deut. 34.6).13 The most fantastic of claims with regard to Moses’ whereabouts
was that upon his death he was taken up to heaven or that he never actually died,
but ascended to heaven in the fashion of Elijah or Enoch.14 The clearest evidence
for the belief that Moses never died is found in rabbinic and early Christian texts.
Sifre Deuteronomy comments, ‘And some say, “Moses did not really die, but he
is alive and serving God above”’ (357.10).15
There is evidence for this belief as early as the first century ce. According to
Josephus, the following events transpired on Nebo:

while [Moses] bade farewell to Eleazar and Joshua and was yet communing with them,
a cloud of a sudden descended upon him and he disappeared in a ravine (Ant. 4.326).16

The implication of this account is that Moses is taken alive to God, not that he
died.17 The event of Moses’ disappearance from a mountain top after being sur-
rounded by a cloud also occurs in the synoptic transfiguration accounts (Mt.
16.29-17.8; Mk 9.1-8; Lk. 9.27-36). These accounts supply further evidence of
the belief that Moses had not come to his end on Nebo. In these stories, Moses
appears alive and well along with Elijah on the mount of transfiguration. In addi-
tion to the fact that Moses is clearly alive on the mountain, Moses’ company
(Jesus and Elijah) suggests that the gospel authors considered him to be among
those who had ascended to God’s presence. It is not clear, however, whether the
gospel authors supposed that Moses did so without first dying, as in the case of
Elijah, having been raised from the dead, as the gospel authors report of Jesus, or
in some other post mortem fashion.

13. Cf. T. Moses 11.5-7. That God or angels would be personally involved in Moses’ burial has an
exegetical basis in the text. The MT reports Moses’ burial with the words ‫‘( ויקבר אתו‬he
buried him’). The LXX and certain Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts have the plural ‘they
buried him’. The NRSV takes the construction correctly as an impersonal passive (‘he was
buried’), but some earlier interpreters supposed that God or the angels were the subject of the
verb and were responsible for Moses’ burial. This scenario would also serve to explain why
no one knew the location of Moses’ tomb.
14. Loewenstamm (1976) discusses the various Jewish traditions pertaining to the death of
Moses. See also Purvis 1973; Stone 1973; Haacker and Schäfer 1974.
15. Translation is that of Neusner (1987). For similar claims about Moses’ ascent to heaven, see
b. Sot. 13b and Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy 2.7.31.
16. English translation of Josephus is that of Thackeray et al. (1926–65).
17. Josephus goes on to explain that the biblical version reports that Moses died only so that
people would not think too highly of Moses: ‘But [Moses] has written of himself in the sacred
books that he died, for fear lest they should venture to say that by reason of his surpassing
virtue he had gone back to the Deity’ (Ant. 4.326).
198 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

Other texts, while they clearly state that Moses died, assert that he nonetheless
ascended to heaven (e.g., Philo, Mos. 2.288-91).18 Some second- and third-century
Christian writers speak of two Moseses, one who died and one who was transported
to heaven (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.15 [132.2]; Origen, Adnot. Jes. Nav. 2.1).
An entirely different episode in the life of Moses that relates to our investiga-
tion is his journey from Sinai to Egypt narrated in Exod. 4. According to the
MT’s account of the journey, God, having just commissioned Moses to return to
Egypt to deliver Israel, attempts to kill Moses. ‘On the way, at a place where they
spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him’ (Exod. 4.24). Moses’ wife
Zipporah saves her husband’s life by circumcising her son and touching Moses’
feet with the foreskin. The Septuagint’s rendering of this verse clarifies just who
it was who tried to kill Moses on that occasion: ‘On the way, at the lodging place,
the angel of the Lord met him and tried to kill him’. Interestingly, the second-
century bce book of Jubilees has the Prince of Mastema (= Satan) try to kill
Moses on his journey to Egypt.19 We will return to this story below.
Early Jewish literature evinces much speculation regarding the body of Moses.
Scholars have assumed that it is Jewish speculation about Moses’ burial that lies
behind Jude 9. While there appears to have been some concern in rabbinic texts
about the location of Moses’ dead body, many of the earliest literary traditions
concerned rather his living body: its near death at the hand of one of God’s super-
human agents, its glorification, and its ascension into heaven.

Satan in Early Jewish Tradition

As for the nature of the Satan figure in early Jewish literature, a recent study has
demonstrated lexically that the Hebrew noun ‫ שטן‬does not mean ‘adversary’ in a
generic sense, as is typically assumed. Nor does it mean ‘accuser’, as scholars
frequently claim. Rather it refers to a physical ‘attacker’ and, in certain contexts,
an ‘executioner’ (Stokes 2014). The notion of a superhuman executioner or
attacker seems to be presupposed by the Satan tradition(s) of the Hebrew scrip-
tures. This can be observed most clearly in Num. 22, where the angel of Yhwh
informs Balaam, who is on his way to Moab to curse Israel:

I have come out as a ‫ שטן‬because your way is perverse before me. The donkey saw me
and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me,
surely just now I would have killed you and let her live’ (22.32b-33).20

18. Several rabbinic texts relate that God commissioned the angel of death to retrieve Moses’
soul, but that the angel was unable to do so. Eventually, the angel learns that God has person-
ally hidden Moses’ soul in heaven (e.g., Sifre Deut. 305).
19. For the identification of the Prince of Mastema with Satan, see Jub. 10.11.
20. NRSV has ‘I have come out as an adversary…’
Stokes 199

This understanding of the Satan figure can also be discerned in the story of Job,
where the Satan’s activity includes an attack on Job’s property, children and on
Job’s flesh.21
Although beliefs about this figure evolved considerably over time, the idea
that the Satan would attack a person’s flesh or kill someone remained fundamen-
tal to the tradition. See, for instance, Jub. 10.1-14, where the Prince of Mastema
is given charge of harmful spirits who mislead, blind and kill humans. So also in
the Enochic Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71) the Satan is assumed to be someone
who would bring about the death of human beings (53.3-5).
Even in Christian literature of the first century, the Satan’s activity continues
to include causing death and other sorts of fleshly afflictions. Passages from the
New Testament that seem to assume such a notion of Satan include 1 Cor. 5.1-5
and 2 Cor. 12.7. The author of the letter to the Hebrews, as well, conceives of the
Satan figure as one whose jurisdiction includes the death of fleshly humans:

Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the
same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of
death, that is, the devil (Heb. 2.14).

From the earliest attestation of the Satan tradition in the Hebrew scriptures and
throughout the remainder of the period that produced the Jewish and Christian
scriptures, (the) Satan was regarded as one whose activity consisted of execution
and other sorts of physical attack.
Scholars, however, have overlooked this aspect of the early tradition, paying
more attention to those satanic activities that are more familiar from Christian
tradition, namely temptation (e.g., Mk 1.12) and accusation (Rev. 12.10). Perhaps
also scholars have unconsciously fallen into the error of thinking of the Satan as
later writers would depict him, as God’s archenemy and proponent of anything
and everything that is evil. Whatever their reason, interpreters have overesti-
mated the centrality of certain aspects of the early Satan tradition and have
underestimated the degree to which Satan was conceived as an attacker or execu-
tioner in the early tradition. For instance, the assumption that Satan is fundamen-
tally an ‘accuser’ serves as the basis for much of Bauckham’s argumentation.22

21. In Job and Zechariah, the antagonist goes by the title ‫‘ השטן‬the Satan’, rather than by the
name ‘Satan’. It is not clear exactly when ‘Satan’ came to be used as a name, though this
seems to have taken place by the time of the composition of the New Testament writings. This
study will use ‘the Satan’ and ‘Satan’ interchangeably.
22. See Bauckham 1990: 239, 246-47, 251-52, 253-54, 273-74. Bauckham’s assumption that
Satan was an ‘accuser’ guides in particular his interpretation of the statement in Jude 9 that
Michael ‘did not dare to bring a condemnation (κρίσιν) of slander (βλασϕημίας)’ against the
devil. The question pertains to the nature of the genitive βλασϕημίας. It is typically understood
to be a ‘genitive of quality’, and the expression is translated as a ‘reviling judgment’ (RSV).
200 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

Tromp similarly declares confidently, ‘The presentation of the devil as an accuser

probably agrees with the story in the original ending of As. Mos., because another
role for the devil in this context cannot be conceived’ (Tromp 1993: 277, italics
mine). This misconception of the Satan tradition has skewed discussions of the
story to which Jude refers.
The notion of the Satan as an attacker or executioner in this period is an impor-
tant clue as to the nature of the disagreement between Michael and Satan in
Jude’s source, which pertains to Moses’ ‘body’. ‘Body’ (σῶμα), of course, can
refer equally to a person’s living or lifeless body. As we noted above, Severus of
Antioch in the sixth century is the first writer explicitly to connect the dispute
between Michael and the devil with Moses’ burial. Earlier authors do not specify
whether the conflict pertains to Moses’ living or dead body. Given the nature of
the Satan figure in early Jewish literature, however, it is far more likely that the
dispute would have to do with Moses’ living body, which the Satan would have
intended to harm, than with Moses’ dead body. It is difficult to envision a sce-
nario in which the Satan figure, as conceived in the late Second Temple period,
would have been concerned with a person’s lifeless corpse, despite the ingenious
attempts of medieval Christian commentators. A contest over a dead body is not
the sort in which one would expect this Satan to engage, but one would very
much expect for this Satan to be at odds with Michael concerning the fate of a
living person’s body.

Zechariah 3 and its Early Interpretations

Zechariah 3.  While much about the source of Jude 9 remains the object of specu-
lation, one certainty is that this source appropriates Zech. 3. Zechariah 3 and
early Jewish adaptations of this text, then, provide necessary points of compari-
son for any attempt to comprehend the story that Jude cites.

Bauckham (1990: 273-74), in contrast, assuming that the devil is fundamentally an ‘accuser’
in early Jewish tradition, reconstructs Jude’s source accordingly and argues that κρίσιν
βλασϕημίας in Jude 9 is better translated, ‘a judgment for slander’. According to his interpreta-
tion, Michael refuses to condemn the devil for slandering Moses. The typical understanding of
the passage, according to which Michael refuses slanderously to condemn the devil, is to be
preferred. In addition to the fact that this translation is not based on a misunderstanding of the
Satan tradition, it accords much better with the context of Jude, where Michael’s behavior is
contrasted with those who ‘slander (βλασϕημοῦσιν) the glorious ones’ and ‘slander
(βλασϕημοῦσιν) whatever they do not understand’ (Jude 8, 10). This interpretation also reflects
the earliest known interpretation of Jude 9, that of 2 Pet. 2.10b-11: ‘Bold and willful, they are
not afraid to slander the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do
not bring against them a slanderous judgment (βλάσϕημον κρίσιν) from the Lord’.
Stokes 201

1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and

the Satan standing at his right hand to execute him (‫)לשטנו‬. 2 And the Lord said to the
Satan, ‘The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke
you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?’ 3 Now Joshua was dressed with
filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing
before him, ‘Take off his filthy clothes’. And to him he said, ‘See, I have taken your
guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel’. 5 And I said, ‘Let them
put a clean turban on his head’. So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him
with the apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the
Lord assured Joshua, saying 7 ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my
ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my
courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here
(Zech. 3.1-7).

The above translation follows the NRSV, but differs from it and most modern
translations in one significant regard. Modern translations of the passage are
uniform in that they have the Satan standing on Joshua’s right to ‘accuse’ him. It
is better, however, to translate the verb ‫ שטן‬in this verse as ‘execute’.23 The trans-
lation ‘execute’ is based in part on the semantic analysis of the root ‫ שטן‬men-
tioned above, but it also has strong support from parallel passages in the Hebrew
scriptures (Exod. 28.43, 2 Sam. 19.18-23; Isa. 6.1-13). Isaiah 6 is perhaps the
most instructive. In both Isa. 6 and Zech. 3, an individual stands before (the
angel of) the Lord and is in peril on account of his uncleanness. Then one of the
divine attendants present takes action to remove the individual’s contamination.
In the case of Isaiah, a seraph touches his unclean lips with a coal taken from the
altar. In the case of Joshua, one of the attendants removes Joshua’s filthy clothes
and replaces them with good, clean clothes. In each case, a declaration is made
that the person’s guilt has been removed. Once the individual’s guilt has been
eliminated, he then receives a commission from God.24
In Zech. 3, Joshua’s life is in danger on account of his unclean clothes as he
stands before the angel of Yhwh in the same way that Isaiah’s life is in danger on
account of his unclean lips in Isa. 6. The Satan is the agent of the Deity who
would carry out Joshua’s execution in Zechariah’s vision, but the angel of Yhwh
intervenes on Joshua’s behalf, sparing the high priest’s life. This passage sup-
plies one with an important component of the context for comprehending the
conflict between Michael and the devil to which Jude refers. The dispute between
Michael and the devil in Jude’s source is rooted in the tradition of a conflict

23. See the arguments in Stokes 2014. The translation above also differs from the NRSV and
most modern translations in rendering ‫ השטן‬as the title ‘the Satan’ rather than as the name
‘Satan’.
24. For a fuller discussion of the parallels between Zech. 3 and Isa. 6 and their significance, see
Stokes 2017.
202 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

between the angel of Yhwh and the Satan in Zechariah. Zechariah 3 also sug-
gests a plausible scenario for a dispute between the devil and Michael regarding
Moses’ assumption. Just as the Satan intends to kill Joshua for standing in God’s
presence in an unworthy fashion, so the devil might deem Moses unworthy to
ascend to God’s presence. Scenarios such as this appear in a number of early
Jewish texts that draw from Zech. 3.

Early Interpretations of Zechariah 3: The Angel versus the Satan.  Several texts make use
of Zech. 3 as they depict conflicts between Michael or a related figure on one
side and the Satan or a related figure on the other. Some of these texts speak of a
satanic figure leading the forces of evil against Michael and the forces of good.
Jubilees retells the exodus story, explaining that the Prince of Mastema stirred up
the Egyptians to attack Israel who is aided by the Angel of the Presence (e.g.,
Jub. 48.12-19). In the War Scroll, Belial leads the ‘sons of darkness’ against
Michael and the ‘sons of light’ (e.g., 1QM 17.6-8). The book of Revelation tells
of a battle in heaven, with Michael and his angels on one side of the conflict and
Satan and his angels on the other (e.g., Rev. 12.7-8).
Other texts resemble Zech. 3 and Jude’s source more closely in that they speak
of conflicts between Satan and Michael, or related figures, over individuals.25 A
scene in the third-century bce Visions of Amram is pertinent, though its fragmen-
tary condition prevents one from ascertaining many of the narrative’s details.26
In this passage, Moses’ father Amram recounts a dream in which he sees two
superhuman figures disputing over him: ‘and there were two figures arguing over
me, and saying [this] and holding a great dispute over me’ (4Q544 10-11).27
Visions of Amram and Jude’s source appropriate Zech. 3 in a similar way, in that
a good and an evil superhuman figure contest the fate of a human.28 Since Amram
is Moses’ father, both the scene in Visions of Amram and the story that Jude cites
relate at least indirectly to Moses. It is also important to note, for our purposes,
that the dispute in Visions of Amram does not appear to be occasioned by Amram’s
death (or impending death), but takes place at some point during Amram’s life-
time.29 As observed above, neither Jude 9 nor its earliest interpreters specify the

25. Several later Christian texts describe a conflict between good and evil superhuman figures
over the fate of a person’s soul at death. On this tradition, see Berger 1973 and Bauckham
2013.
26. Visions of Amram must have been composed prior to the latter half of the second century bce,
the time to which three manuscripts of the work have been dated paleographically (Puech
2001: 285-87).
27. Translation is that of Cook 2014.
28. Though Milik (1972: 95) suggested that Jude is dependent upon Visions of Amram, it is more
likely that both of these texts make use of a common tradition. So also Berger 1973 and
Bauckham 1990: 248-49.
29. So Noll 1979: 44 and Bauckham 1990: 248. Contra Kobelski 1981: 24, 77.
Stokes 203

occasion of the dispute as Moses’ death, so one should remain open to other pos-
sible settings in which such a dispute might take place.
Two pericopes in the second-century bce book of Jubilees speak of contests
between the Angel of the Presence and the Prince of Mastema over the life of an
individual. According to Jubilees’ version of the Aqedah, it is the Prince of
Mastema who arranges for Abraham to kill his son Isaac. In a scene reminiscent
of Zech. 3, however, the Angel of the Presence stands opposite Abraham and the
Prince of Mastema to save Isaac’s life (18.9-12). Even closer to the tradition of
Jude 9 is Jubilees’ retelling of Moses’ strange and perilous journey from Sinai to
Egypt based on Exod. 4, mentioned above. Rather than Yhwh, as in the Masoretic
Text, or the angel of the Lord, as in the LXX, it is the Prince of Mastema in
Jubilees’ version of the story who tries to kill Moses. The Angel of the Presence,
however, protects Moses, preventing the Prince of Mastema from killing Israel’s
leader (48.2-4). Both of these passages in Jubilees refashion a challenging text in
which God appears unjustifiably malevolent. Drawing on Zech. 3 for assistance,
these passages depict a conflict in the superhuman realm between the Prince of
Mastema and the Angel of the Presence. Jubilees 48, apropos our study of Jude 9,
speaks of a time when the Prince of Mastema intended to kill Moses, but was
prevented from doing so by the Angel of the Presence.

Early Interpretations of Zechariah 3: The Human Body’s Ascent into God’s Presence.  Perhaps
the most peculiar component of the story as reported by Jude has yet to be ade-
quately explained: the fact that the dispute between Michael and Satan pertains
explicitly and specifically to Moses’ ‘body’. To be sure, based on the texts sur-
veyed up to this point, it would not be unexpected for the devil to play the role
of executioner or attacker in an early Jewish work and to attempt to harm Moses’
body. Nor would it be surprising that Moses’ body in such a story would receive
protection from Michael. It is not entirely strange, then, that Moses’ body would
be mentioned in the context of Jude 9. Even so, that Jude would bother to specify
the body as the disputed issue, rather than simply Moses himself or his life, is in
want of a more satisfactory explanation. Another set of texts that are indebted to
Zech. 3 provides the missing link here. These texts appropriate the language and
imagery of Zech. 3 to speak of the transformation of the human body in the con-
text of ascents into God’s presence.
A number of early Jewish and Christian works borrow the language and
imagery of the early chapters of Zechariah in ascent accounts. One of these is
Rev. 12, which was cited above as an example of a passage in which Michael and
Satan lead their respective armies in war against each other (12.7-12). Just prior
to the report of this war, Satan attempts to kill a child who is instead caught up to
heaven (12.1-6).30 The preceding chapter of Revelation also contains an ascent

30. Cf. the Elijah ascension account in the Animal Apocalypse: ‘and they [i.e., the sheep repre-
senting Israel] wished to kill it [i.e., the sheep representing Elijah]; but the Lord of the sheep
204 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

account. The two witnesses of this chapter are modelled on the figures of Moses
and Elijah. They are identified as well with figures from Zech. 4, ‘the two olive
trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth’ (11.4; cf.
Zech. 4.1-14).31 These two witnesses are killed by a beast that has come up from
the pit, but three days later they come back to life and ascend to heaven as their
enemies watch. An ascent narrative drawing on the early chapters of Zechariah
and depicting Satan (or a related figure) as threatening a person’s life, like the
two ascent passages in Rev. 11–12, is a likely candidate for Jude’s source.
Other ascent accounts address the complications presented by a human body
being translated into God’s presence. 2  Enoch borrows from Zech. 3 in its
account of the transformation that Enoch had to undergo in order to stand in
God’s presence:32

And Michael, the Lord’s greatest archangel, lifted me up and brought me in front of
the face of the Lord. And the Lord sounded out his servants. The Lord said, ‘Let
Enoch come up and stand in front of my face forever!’ And the glorious ones did
obeisance and said, ‘Let him come up!’ The Lord said to Michael, ‘Take Enoch, and
extract (him) from the earthly clothing. And anoint him with the delightful oil, and put
(him) into the clothes of glory’. And Michael extracted me from my clothes. He
anointed me with the delightful oil; and the appearance of that oil is greater than the
greatest light, its ointment is like sweet dew, and its fragrance like myrrh; and its
shining is like the sun. And I gazed at myself, and I had become like one of the
glorious ones, and there was no observable difference (2 En. 22.6-10).33

Several components of this passage recall Zechariah’s vision of Joshua the high
priest, though Enoch replaces Joshua in the present text. Enoch stands before the
face of the Lord, just as Joshua stood before the (angel of) the Lord. Other divine
attendants are present. Also, as with Joshua in Zech. 3, Enoch requires a change
of clothing so that he may stand before God. This passage also shares additional
points of contact with Jude that are not found in Zech. 3, including the name
Michael, the identification of Michael as an ‘archangel’, and the reference to
‘glorious ones’. Most notably, however, the clothing that must be dealt with so
that Enoch can stand in God’s presence is not literal clothing, but Enoch’s human

saved it from the hands of the sheep and brought it up to me [i.e., Enoch] and made it dwell
(there)’ (1 En. 89.52).
31. On the various proposals for the identification of the two witnesses, see Aune 1998:
598-603.
32. 2 Enoch is typically dated by scholars to the first century ce (Orlov 2010: 589), but this date
is not certain. Even if this work comes to us from a slightly later period, it is nonetheless use-
ful in our discussion since it is clearly independent of Jude. In this way, it differs from much
of the Christian material which likely derives from attempts to interpret Jude.
33. Translation is that of recension A in Andersen 1983–85: 139.
Stokes 205

body. For him to stand before God forever, his earthly form must be exchanged
for a form such as that of the ‘glorious ones’.34
In the Apocalypse of Abraham (late first or early second century), the wicked
angel Azazel opposes Abraham on Horeb, warning the patriarch that if he ascends
to heaven he will be destroyed by fire (13.3-5; cf. Zech. 3.2).35 The angel Iaoel
then shames Azazel, telling Azazel that he has authority neither to harm
Abraham’s body nor to deceive him (13.10-13). Iaoel also informs Azazel,
‘behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for
[Abraham], and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you’ (13.14).
Once this matter has been resolved, Iaoel takes Abraham into heaven.
Also dated to the late first or early second century, the Christian Ascension of
Isaiah employs Zech. 3 in an expansion of the vision of Isa. 6.36 As Isaiah
approaches the seventh heaven, he hears an angel objecting to his admission
there: ‘How far is he who dwells among aliens to go up?’ (9.1).37 A variant of this
passage appearing in some manuscripts reads, ‘How far is he who dwells in flesh
to go up?’38 Whatever the earlier reading, it becomes clear in the verses that fol-
low that the problem with Isaiah’s ascent to the seventh heaven is that he does
not have the requisite heavenly body. He is, nevertheless, granted admission into
God’s presence by Christ, who refutes the objecting angel: ‘The holy Isaiah is
permitted to come up here, for his robe is here’ (9.2). Arriving in the seventh
heaven, Isaiah sees an innumerable host of angels and all of the righteous stand-
ing in glory, having been stripped of their robes of flesh and clothed in robes like
the glorious angels (9.6-9). Isaiah also sees in the seventh heaven additional
robes, which are reserved for those who will obtain them by believing in Christ
(9.24-26).39
These ascent accounts are indebted to Zech. 3 in their concern for the ‘cloth-
ing’ of an individual entering God’s presence.40 This concern is sometimes

34. On the transformation of Enoch’s body in 2 Enoch, see Alexander 1998: 102-104.
35. Asael/Azazel is one of the watchers who descends to the earth to teach humans sinful crafts
in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36). In Apocalypse of Abraham, this figure has been
combined with that of the Satan. Azazel is portrayed both as a deceiver and as one who pun-
ishes sinners.
36. On the date of Ascension of Isaiah, see Hall 2010: 773.
37. English translations of Ascension of Isaiah are from Knibb 1983–85.
38. Latin, Slavic and Greek versions of this passage have ‘flesh’ instead of ‘aliens’, which appears
in the Ethiopic of 9.1. According to Norelli (1995: 451), the Ethiopic version’s ‘aliens’ is
more likely the original reading.
39. Cf. the promise of robes for the righteous in 4.14-17; 9.17-18; 11.40.
40. To be sure, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether an ancient author made a conscious
decision to borrow concepts or language from Zech. 3 or instead borrowed from this text
indirectly via other traditions and perhaps without being conscious of it. Even in the latter
scenario, such texts can be considered as part of the reception history of Zech. 3 and as rele-
vant to our study of Jude 9 and its source.
206 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

addressed, as in Zechariah, in the form of an angelic dispute. The image of cloth-

ing for earthly and heavenly bodies was widespread in Jewish and Christian lit-
erature in antiquity and is often derived from Zech. 3.41 The notions of angelic
opposition to a human entering God’s presence, also based on Zech. 3, would
enjoy great popularity as well, especially in later ascent texts.42 In some texts,
such as Apocalypse of Abraham and Ascension of Isaiah, both of these Zech. 3
traditions are present.
Zechariah 3 was a text appropriated in early Jewish literature in contexts
where a person’s life is threatened by the Satan, where a visionary is caught up
into God’s presence, and where a person’s earthly form is exchanged for a
glorified, heavenly form – the very things that early Jews claimed that happened
to Moses. These traditions provide the proper context for understanding the story
to which Jude 9 refers.43

Reconstructing the Story behind Jude 9

The reconstruction that emerges from the analysis above is one that, like many
ascent texts from this period, draws on Zech. 3. In this story, the devil is likely
one of the ‘glorious ones’, and he objects to Moses’ admission into God’s pres-
ence. Though the specific grounds for the devil’s objection are not certain, it
pertains in some way to Moses’ body. It is unlikely that the problem is with
Moses’ dead body, as scholars have assumed. Rather, the issue is with Moses’
living, fleshly body, which the devil deems to be unsuitable for God’s presence.
Perhaps, the devil even threatens to kill Moses. Michael, however, intervenes on
Moses’ behalf, speaking the words, ‘the Lord rebuke you!’ to the devil. The
conflict is then resolved, very probably by Michael replacing Moses’ fleshly
body with (or transforming it into) a more glorious, heavenly body.
Other pieces of this story remain unclear. The precise setting of this narrative
in Moses’ life is not certain. It is possible that the conflict between Michael and
the devil took place during Moses’ journey from Sinai to Egypt, as in Jubilees
48. This setting, however, does not easily accommodate an ascent narrative.
More likely, the ascent would have taken place either from Nebo, at the

41. See, e.g., 1 En. 62.15-16; 1QS 4.6-8; 1 Cor. 15.35-58; 2 Cor. 5.1-10; Rev. 3.4-5; 2 Esd. 2.39,
45. 1 Corinthians 15, in particular shares many terms with Jude 8-9, 22-24. It should be added
that early Jewish interpreters did not look exclusively to Zech. 3 for their information about
fleshly and glorious garments, but also to Gen. 3.21, where God makes the first human couple
‘garments of skin’. See Kugel 1998: 114-20, 132-36.
42. See, e.g., b. Šabb. 88b-89a; 3 En. 1-2; Hekhalot Rabbati 224, 229.
43. An additional text that is pertinent to this discussion, but not discussed above, is Origen,
Homilies on the Gospel of Luke 14.4-5. Origen interprets Zech. 3 Christologically and brings
it into conversation with 1 Cor. 15.43-44. He regards Joshua’s filthy clothing in Zech. 3 as
proof that Jesus took on an actual human body, not merely a spiritual body.
Stokes 207

conclusion of Moses’ time on the earth, or from Sinai, earlier in Moses’ life.
Either scenario, an ascent from Nebo or Sinai, is compatible with the early tradi-
tions surveyed above and receives support from later literature.44 If the setting is
Nebo, it is further unclear whether Moses’ ascent was post mortem (in resur-
rected or spiritual form) or, alternatively, he eluded death altogether and ascended
into God’s presence without having died. That the devil is thwarted by Michael
suggests that Moses avoided death altogether in this account. A scenario in which
a person’s resurrection from the dead counts as failure for the devil is not, how-
ever, beyond the realm of possibility (e.g., Rev. 11–12). Whether Moses ascended
to God’s presence without ever dying or ascended despite his dying, his journey
would have been ‘bodily’ in one sense or another. While some of the specifics
remain a mystery, that the tale to which Jude refers was a story of Moses’ bodily
ascent into God’s presence makes the most sense of Jude 9 in its early Jewish
context.

Another Allusion to Jude’s Source in verses 22-24

The present study may also shed light on the concluding portion of Jude’s
epistle:
22 And have mercy on some who are disputing; 23 save others by snatching them out of
the fire; and have mercy on still others with fear, hating even the tunic defiled by their
flesh. 24  Now to him who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand
without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God our
Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before
all time and now and forever. Amen.45

The first two verses of this passage (22-23) are widely thought to allude to
Zech. 3.46 The points of contact between these verses and Zech. 3.2-4, in which

44. On the notion of an ascent from Nebo, see the literature on Moses’ body cited earlier in this arti-
cle. On the possibility of an ascent from Sinai, see the traditions that speak of Moses’ transforma-
tion during his lifetime (e.g., 1 En. 89.36), the tradition of Abraham’s ascent from Sinai in
Apocalypse of Abraham 13, and the numerous later texts that speak of angelic opposition to
Moses’ ascent into God’s presence to receive the Law (e.g., b. Šabb. 88b-89a; Pesiq. Rab. 20; cf.
Severus’s proposal that Jude 9 refers to the devil’s opposition to Moses’ reception of the Law).
For a discussion of the tradition of angelic opposition to Moses on Sinai, see Schultz 1971.
45. The translation above diverges from the NRSV in that it renders διακρίνομαι in v. 22 as ‘to
dispute’ (consistent with the translation of διακρίνομαι in v. 9) rather than the NRSV’s ‘to
waver’. On the problems with ‘waver/doubt’ as a translation of διακρίνομαι, see Spitaler 2006.
The translation also differs from the NRSV, rendering σαρκός as ‘flesh’ rather than as ‘body’.
Verses 22-23 also present a text-critical challenge, on which see Green 2008: 128-29. The
text-critical question, however, does not affect the argument of this article.
46. See, e.g., Bauckham 1983: 114-15; Harrington 2003: 223-24; Schreiner 2003: 488; Davids
2006: 101; Green 2008: 125-27.
208 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

Joshua is wearing filthy clothes and is said to be one rescued from the fire, are
obvious enough. It is more likely, however, that Jude is not alluding directly to
Zech. 3, but to the ascent story he has already adduced in v. 9. The points of
contact between vv. 22-23 and Zechariah would in this case be mediated by
Jude’s source. Not only is it simpler to suppose that Jude refers to the same work
twice (as he does with the Book of the Watchers in vv. 6, 14-15) than that he
introduces an entirely new story to the discussion in these closing verses, but the
language of vv. 22-24 in some respects resembles the scenario of Jude 9 more so
than it does Zech. 3 (e.g., διακρίνω).47 That Jude alludes to a story in which some-
one receives a heavenly body allowing him to stand in God’s presence also
explains very well the wording of Jude’s benediction in v. 24: ‘Now to him who
is able …to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with
rejoicing’. It is possible that Jude’s source resembled Ascension of Isaiah, prom-
ising that the righteous will receive glorious bodies that enable them to stand in
God’s presence (9.24-26). Whether or not this promise was explicit in his source,
Jude apparently regarded Moses’ transformation as paradigmatic for the trans-
formation his readers would one day experience.

Zech. 3 Jude 9 Jude 22-25 Other ascent texts

Then he showed me the high
priest Joshua standing before
the angel of the Lord, and
the Satan standing at his right
hand to execute him.
And the Lord said to the
Satan, ‘The Lord rebuke you,
O Satan! The Lord who has
chosen Jerusalem rebuke
you!’
The life of a human is
in danger on account of
entering God’s presence.
This is likely assumed
by several texts, but
danger is explicit in the
following:
Apoc. Ab. 13.3-7
b. Šabb. 88b-89a
Pesiq. Rab. 20
But when the archan- And have mercy on Superhuman beings
gel Michael contend- some who are disput- disagree regarding the ap-
ed (διακρινόμενος) ing (διακρινομένους); propriateness of a human
with the devil and entering God’s presence.
disputed about the Apoc. Ab. 13.7-14
body of Moses, he Ascen. Isa. 9.1-2
did not dare to bring Pesiq. Rab. 20
a condemnation of
slander against him,
but said, ‘The Lord
rebuke you!’

47. The image of a ‘tunic defiled by the flesh’ in v. 23 also connects well with Moses’ ‘body’ in
v. 9. Furthermore, those elements of Jude 22-23 that are shared with Zech. 3 but not men-
tioned in Jude 9 are attested in multiple ascent accounts, and it is highly plausible that they
appeared in the story of Moses’ ascent to which Jude 9 refers. These include deliverance from
fiery peril (Apoc. Ab. 13.4-5; b. Šabb. 88b; Pesiq. Rab. 20) and a new garment/body that ena-
bles a person to stand in God’s presence (2 En. 22.7-10; Apoc. Ab. 13.14; Ascen. Isa. 9.2, 6-9,
24-26).
Stokes 209

‘Is not this man a brand
plucked from the fire?’
Now Joshua was dressed
with filthy clothes as he stood
before the angel. The angel
said to those who were stand-
ing before him, ‘Take off his
filthy clothes’. And to him
he said, ‘See, I have taken
your guilt away from you,
and I will clothe you with
festal apparel’. And I said,
‘Let them put a clean turban
on his head’. So they put a
clean turban on his head and
clothed him with the apparel;
and the angel of the Lord was
standing by …
Then the angel of the Lord
assured Joshua, saying, ‘…
I will give you the right of
access among those who are
standing here’.
save others by snatch- Human is threatened by
ing them out of the fire.
fire; Apoc. Ab. 13.4-5
b. Šabb. 88b
Pesiq. Rab. 20
‘body’ of Moses and have mercy on still Human’s earthly, fleshly
others with fear, hating body is replaced with a
even the tunic defiled glorious, heavenly body.
by their flesh. 2 En. 22.8-10
Apoc. Ab. 13.14
Ascen. Isa. 9.2
Now to him who is Glorification enables
able to keep you from human(s) to stand in
falling, and to make God’s glorious presence.
you stand without 2 En. 22.5-7
blemish in the pres- Ascen. Isa. 9.8-9
ence of his glory with b. Šabb. 88b
rejoicing …

Conclusion
Our analysis has situated Jude 9 within the context of various early Jewish tradi-
tions that have been underutilized in previous studies of this verse and recon-
structions of the story behind it. These traditions pertain to Moses, to Satan and
to Zech. 3. Early Jewish literature has much to say about Moses. He appears in
these writings as one whose life is threatened by the Prince of Mastema, as one
who has ascended into God’s presence, and as one whose body has become glori-
ous like a heavenly being. The Satan figure occupies various roles in early Jewish
literature, but frequently appears as one who intends to harm humans physically.
Zechariah 3 was a resource for a great deal of speculation both about conflicts
between heavenly beings and about ascents into God’s presence. In some of this
literature, the Satan and Michael (or related figures) dispute over individuals,
with the Satan intending to harm a person under Michael’s protection. In other
texts, Zech. 3 serves as a paradigm for a human being’s perilous ascent into
God’s presence. In several of these accounts, angelic beings object to a person’s
admission into heaven. At issue is the person’s fleshly body, which must be
replaced with a glorious body if the person is to stand before God. Together,
these traditions point to a story in which Moses ascends to heaven, but is opposed
by the devil on account of his fleshly body. Such a story is also consistent with
210 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

the earliest Christian commentators on Jude 9, who associated this verse with a
story of Moses’ assumption into heaven, not with his burial on the earth. For
Jude, this story served as a pattern for how the recipients of his letter should
interact with their opponents, both human and superhuman. It also served as a
pattern for how God would one day qualify each of them to stand without blem-
ish in God’s glorious presence.48

References
Alexander, Philip S.
1998 ‘From Son of Adam to Second God: Transformations of the Biblical Enoch’, in
Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures outside the
Bible (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International): 87-22.
Andersen, F.I.
1983–85 ‘2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch’, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testa-
ment Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday): I, 91-213.
Aune, David E.
1998 Revelation 6–16 (WBC, 52b; Nashville: Thomas Nelson).
Bauckham, Richard
1983 Jude, 2 Peter (WBC, 50; Waco, TX: Word).
1990 Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
2013 ‘The Dispute over Abraham’, in Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila and Alex-
ander Panayotov (eds.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical
Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans): I, 53-58.
Berger, Klaus
1973 ‘Der Streit des guten und des bösen Engels um die Seele: Beobachtungen zu
4QAmrb und Judas 9’, JSJ 4: 1-18.
Ceriani, A.-M.
1861–63 Monumenta Sacra et Profanai (2 vols.; Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana).
Charles, R.H.
1897 The Assumption of Moses (London: Adam and Charles Black).
Colson, F.H. and G.H. Whitaker
1929–62 Philo (11 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Cook, E.
2014 ‘4Q544 (4QVisions of ‘Amramb ar)’, in Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov
(eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (2nd edn, revised and expanded; Leiden:
Brill): I, 888-91.

48. I would like to express my appreciation to Jeremy Hultin, who provided much insightful
feedback on an earlier draft of this study. Any deficiencies that remain, of course, are my own.
This article is dedicated gratefully to Joseph L. Trafton, who introduced me to early Jewish
literature and inspired me to appreciate its importance for New Testament studies.
Stokes 211

Davids, Peter H.
2006 The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Denis, Albert-Marie
1970 Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca (PVTG, 3; Leiden: Brill).
Flusser, David
1971 ‘Palaea Historica: An Unknown Source of Biblical Legends’, in Joseph Heine-
mann and Dov Noy (eds.), Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature (ScrHier, 22;
Jerusalem: Magnes): 48-79.
Green, Gene L.
2008 Jude and 2 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Haacker, Klaus and Peter Schäfer
1974 ‘Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose’, in Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker and
Martin Hengel (eds.), Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem anti-
ken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht):
147-74.
Hall, Robert G.
2010 ‘Isaiah, Ascension of’, in John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (eds.), Eerdmans
Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans): 772-74.
Harrington, Daniel J.
2003 Jude and 2 Peter (SP, 15; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Knibb, M.A.
1983–85 ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testa-
ment Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday): II, 143-76.
Kobleski, Paul J.
1981 Melchizedek and Melchireša‘ (CBQMS, 10; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical
Association).
Kugel, James L.
1998 Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common
Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Loewenstamm, Samuel E.
1976 ‘The Death of Moses’, in George W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies on the Testa-
ment of Abraham (SCS, 6; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press): 185-217.
Lohfink, Gerhard
1971 Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungs-
texten bei Lukas (Munich: Kösel-Verlag).
Milik, J.T.
1972 ‘4Q Visions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origène’, RB 79: 95.
1976 The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Muddiman, John
2007 ‘The Assumption of Moses and the Epistle of Jude’, in Axel Graupner and
Michael Wolter (eds.), Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions (BZAW,
372; Berlin: de Gruyter): 169-80.
212 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(2)

Neusner, Jacob
1987 Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Noll, S.F.
1979 ‘Angelology in the Qumran Texts’ (PhD dissertation, University of Manchester).
Norelli, Enrico
1995 Ascensio Isaiae (CCSA, 8; Brepols: Turnhout).
Orlov, Andrei A.
2010 ‘Enoch, Slavonic Apocalypse of (2 Enoch)’, in John J. Collins and Daniel C.
Harlow (eds.), Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans): 587-90.
Puech, Émile
2001 ‘Visions de ‘Amram’, in Qumrân Grotte 4, 22 (DJD, 31; Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press): 283-405.
Purvis, James D.
1973 ‘Samaritan Traditions on the Death of Moses’, in George W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.),
Studies on the Testament of Moses (SCS, 4; Cambridge: MA: Society of Biblical
Literature): 93-117.
Schreiner, Thomas, R.
2003 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC, 37; Nashville: Broadman and Holman).
Schultz, Joseph P.
1971 ‘Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses and the Revelation of the Law’,
JQR 61: 282-307.
Spitaler, Peter
2006 ‘Doubt or Dispute (Jude 9 and 22-23): Rereading a Special New Testament Mean-
ing through the Lens of Internal Evidence’, Bib 87: 201-22.
Stempvoort, P.A. van
1958 ‘The Interpretation of the Ascension in Luke and Acts’, NTS 5: 30-42.
Stokes, Ryan E.
2014 ‘Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner’, JBL 133: 251-70.
2017 ‘Airing the High Priest’s Dirty Laundry: Understanding the Imagery and Message
of Zech. 3:1-7’, in Joel Baden, Hindy Najman and Eibert Tigchelaar (eds.), Sibyls,
Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy (Leiden: Brill): 1247-64.
Stone, Michael E.
1973 ‘Three Armenian Accounts of the Death of Moses’, in George W.E. Nickelsburg
(ed.), Studies on the Testament of Moses (SCS, 4; Cambridge, MA: Society of
Biblical Literature): 118-21.
Thackeray, Henry St. J., Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren and L.H. Feldman
1926–65 The Jewish Antiquities (10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press).
Tromp, Johannes
1993 The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP, 10;
Leiden: Brill).
Stokes 213

2010 ‘Moses, Assumption of’, in John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (eds.), Eerd-
mans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans): 970-71.
VanderKam, J. and M. Brady
2014 ‘4Q377 [4QApocrPent. B]’, in Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov (eds.), The Dead
Sea Scrolls Reader (2nd edn, revised and expanded; Leiden: Brill): I, 1046-49.