MICHAEL AND THE DEVIL

The source of Jude’s scene of conflict is not extant, although ancient commentators such as Clement of Alexandria identify it as stemming from the Assumption of Moses: “Hic confirmat assumptionem Moysi. Michael autem hic dicitur, qui per propinquum nobis angelum altercabatur cum diabolo” (GCS 3.207; see Origen, De Princ. 3.2.1). The substance of Michael’s remark to the devil derives from Zech 3:2. More important, however, is the general tradition about angels and contests, which is reflected in Jude 9. Michael in particular enjoyed the role of Israel’s patron and defender (Dan 12:1; 1 QM 17:6–8; Rev 12:7); and many writings tell of a contest between God’s angels and Beliar or his angels (Zech 3:1; CD 5:17–18; T. Asher 6:4–6; 1 QS 3:18–25; Hermas, Mand. 6.2.1). Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter, 65–76) collected a detailed list of ancient legends about Moses’ death, whereas Berger (“Der Streit,” 1–18) gathered texts illustrative of angelic judgment scenes. There is no doubt that Jude is drawing on distinctively Jewish lore at this point.

Ancient lists of noncanonical books often contain reference to both a Testament of Moses and an Assumption of Moses (J. Priest, OTP 2.924–25), presumably two different documents. R. H. Charles argued that the two works were conflated and the whole came to be known as the Assumption of Moses (The Assumption of Moses, xlv–1; APOT 2.407–8). In a recent study, Bauckham (Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 238–70) analyzed a host of fragments and excerpts from catenae which seem to deal with the battle over Moses’ body. He posits two distinct traditions which are embodied in two distinct works, the Testament of Moses and the Assumption of Moses. In the former, Samma’el contends that Moses’ body should not receive an honorable burial because Moses committed murder (Exod 2:12–14). In the latter work, the devil, as a type of Demiurge, demands Moses’ material body. Bauckham maintains that both works contain Michael’s response to the devil, “The Lord will rebuke you.” According to his reconstruction, Jude 9 would appear to derive from the Testament of Moses primarily because of the remark about the devil’s slander (blasphēmias). Bauckham has offered a plausible way to distinguish and separate the conflated traditions of Moses’ death, which offers a reasonable historical answer to the source of Jude 9. Yet because our extant texts of this ancient work are all fragmentary, no conclusive judgment can be made at this time about the precise contents of either the Testament of Moses or the Assumption of Moses.

The context into which Jude inserts this scene has much to say about how Jude understood and used it. If Jude 8 contains a slate of crimes, v 9 records their eventual punishment; or if v 8 is the challenge to the Lord’s orderly system, Jude 9 is the formal riposte. Indeed there are many links between vv 8 and 9 that help us discern the author’s point: (1) although the “glorious ones” are insulted (v 8), the archangel Michael acts out his role in v 9; (2) although “authority” is flouted in v 8, the Kyrios exercises it in v 9; (3) “insults” (blasphēmousin, v 8) are eventually avenged (krisin blasphēmias, v 9). Hence, Jude seems uninterested in the state of Moses’ soul at death, but rather focuses both on Michael’s “not daring” and especially on the Lord’s eventual judgment.

Although in some cases “daring” reflects the classical virtue of courage, we can best understand it here in cultural terms. From the perspective of honor and shame, those who challenge Jesus “dare” to do so; and when Jesus has given adequate riposte, they “do not dare” to challenge him anymore (Matt 22:46; Mark 12:34; Acts 5:13; 7:32). Those who “dare” are perceived as stepping beyond group norms and so making honor claims or challenges (1 Cor 6:1; 2 Cor 10:12; 11:21). From the perspective of purity systems, Michael “does not dare” to overstep the role and authority ascribed to him, in contrast to other angels who did not keep to their place (v 6). Michael, then, serves as a foil to Jude’s opponents: they challenge the honor of the Lord and his agents and they step “out of place” by virtue of their claim to role and status.

If Michael’s role does not consist in judgment, that role belongs to the Lord. Hence, the heavenly agent defers to his Master’s honor when he proclaims, “The Lord will rebuke you,” the same Lord who was “denied” according to v 4. Honor challenged requires a defense. The judgment predicted in v 9 probably echoes the “proscribed” judgment announced in v 4, for Michael’s words derive from Zech 3:2.

Since dualistic contrasts constitute much of Jude’s perception, Michael versus the devil might well serve as a cipher for Jude himself versus his opponents. Hence, he would be implying their association with the devil and accusing them of sorcery (B. J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names [Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988], 3–4); such accusations, whether implied or expressed, are important weapons of social control in situations of intense rivalry.

If there is any substance to my arguments that Jude perceives a general attack on authority (and judgment) by his opponents, the choice of this specific legend serves an apologetic purpose. We suggested that Jude’s understanding of the insulting of “the glorious ones” had to do with challenging their role in the Lord’s judgment, either as recorders of good and bad deeds, gatherers of the flock for judgment, weighers of souls, or so forth. Berger’s collection of materials on the role of angels concerning the souls of the dead confirms this. The scenario in Jude 9 affirms some specific role of both Michael and the devil over the dead Moses in regard to judgment; that role is not the judgment itself, which is reserved for “the Lord.” Hence, Michael’s remark serves to confirm the traditional roles which Jude perceives as threatened, either those of the Lord, the angels, or Jude himself.