Jude, AoM and Early Christian Thought

From ChatGPT on 3/21/2026. This post presents two responses related to the background of the “Assumption of Moses” (AoM) and the relationship to the tiny Epistle of Jude. The subjects in both show the thought of 1st century Christians and their use of a wider range of “books” than what was deemed by Roman Christianity to be in the Bible.

---

When biblical scholars refer to the “AoM”, they are almost always using shorthand for the Assumption of Moses (sometimes also called the Testament of Moses).

What the “AoM” is

• A Jewish pseudepigraphal work—meaning it is written in the name of a biblical figure (in this case, Moses) but composed much later.
• Likely composed between the late 1st century BCE and the early 2nd century CE, which matches the date range you mentioned.
• Originally written in Greek (probably), but what survives today is mainly a Latin manuscript discovered in the 19th century.

Why it’s called “Assumption of Moses”

• The title comes from an early Christian reference (notably in Epistle of Jude 1:9) that mentions a story about the archangel Michael disputing with the devil over Moses’ body.
• Early church writers like Origen and others attributed that story to a work called the Assumption of Moses.
• However, the extant text we have does not include that scene, suggesting:
  • Either the ending is missing, or
  • There were multiple related traditions/texts circulating under similar names.

Content and themes

• Presented as a farewell discourse of Moses to Joshua.
• Focuses heavily on:
  • Israel’s future history (in a “prophecy after the fact” style)
  • Criticism of corrupt leaders
  • Expectation of divine judgment and vindication
• Often read alongside other Second Temple texts like 1 Enoch for context.

Why scholars cite it

• It provides valuable insight into Jewish thought in the period just before and around the time of Jesus.
• It helps illuminate:
  • Apocalyptic expectations
  • Interpretive traditions behind New Testament references (like Jude 1:9)

Bottom line

“AoM” = Assumption of Moses, a Second Temple Jewish text associated with traditions about Moses’ death and postmortem fate, even though the surviving version is incomplete.

If you want, I can show how specific scholars (e.g., Bauckham, Nickelsburg, or Ehrman) interpret its connection to Jude or early Christianity.

---

---

Here is how several major critical scholars interpret the relationship between the Assumption of Moses (AoM) and the Epistle of Jude 1:9, along with what that implies for early Jewish and Christian thought.

The Key Text in Jude

(NRSV)
“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!’” (Jude 1:9)

This episode does not appear in the surviving AoM manuscript, which is the central problem scholars address.

---

Scholarly Interpretations

Richard Bauckham

(major commentary: Jude, 2 Peter)

• Bauckham argues that Jude is directly dependent on the Assumption of Moses tradition.
• He concludes:
  • The missing ending of the AoM likely contained the dispute scene.
  • Jude is quoting or alluding to a known written text, not inventing the story.

Implication:
Early Christians like Jude were comfortable using non-canonical Jewish texts as authoritative traditions.

---

George W. E. Nickelsburg

(Second Temple Judaism specialist; Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah)

• Nickelsburg is more cautious:
  • He agrees the tradition is related to the AoM, but
  • Suggests it may come from a broader “Moses death tradition”, not necessarily the exact surviving text.
• He emphasizes:
  • The story reflects Jewish interpretive expansion of Deuteronomy’s account of Moses’ death (Deut 34).

Implication:
Jude may be drawing on a circulating oral or written tradition, not strictly a single document.

---

Bart D. Ehrman

(critical NT scholar)

• Bart D. Ehrman uses this passage as a key example of how New Testament authors:
  • Knew and used non-canonical literature
  • Sometimes treated it as authoritative or at least rhetorically useful
• Ehrman notes:
  • Jude also explicitly quotes 1 Enoch (Jude 1:14–15)
  • This strengthens the case that Jude is comfortable drawing from Jewish apocalyptic writings outside the Hebrew Bible

Implication:
This supports the view that early Christianity emerged בתוך (within) a wider Jewish literary environment, not a closed canon.

---

J. C. VanderKam

(Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple expert)

• VanderKam emphasizes:
  • The motif of angelic dispute over bodies reflects broader Jewish traditions about:
    • Angels
    • Burial
    • The fate of the righteous
• He agrees the AoM is the most likely source, but stresses:
  • The textual situation is fragmentary and uncertain

Implication:
The Jude reference is best understood within Second Temple Jewish angelology and narrative traditions, not as an isolated invention.

---

The Core Scholarly Problem

All scholars are trying to explain one fact:

The story in Jude is not in the surviving AoM text.

So the main options are:

1. Lost Ending Theory (Bauckham)
   • The AoM originally included the story
   • The ending was lost in transmission
2. Parallel Tradition Theory (Nickelsburg, VanderKam)
   • The story circulated independently
   • AoM and Jude both draw from a shared tradition
3. General Literary Dependence (Ehrman)
   • Jude uses non-canonical Jewish traditions freely, whether from a specific text or not

---

Why This Matters for Early Christianity

This issue feeds directly into larger scholarly debates:

1. Authority and Canon

• Jude treats material from outside the Hebrew Bible as usable and persuasive
• This shows the canon was not yet fixed

2. Jewish Apocalyptic Influence

• The AoM and similar texts reflect:
  • Angelic hierarchies
  • Cosmic conflict
  • Eschatological judgment
• These themes carry into early Christian writings

3. Scriptural Interpretation Culture

• Second Temple Jews often:
  • Expanded biblical narratives
  • Filled in gaps (like Moses’ mysterious burial)

Jude fits squarely in this interpretive world.

---

Bottom Line

Across critical scholarship, there is broad agreement that:

• Jude 1:9 depends on a Jewish tradition about Moses’ death
• That tradition is closely associated with the Assumption of Moses
• The absence of the story in the surviving text is best explained by either:
  • A lost portion of the AoM, or
  • A shared, now-fragmentary tradition

If you want, I can next connect this directly to how this passage is used in debates about inspiration, canon formation, or early Christology.