Wikipedia has a discussion about this [slightly modified below]:
Some ancient writers, including Gelasius (verse 2,21,17) and Origen (
De principiis, III,2,1), cite the
Assumption of Moses1 with reference to the dispute over the body of Moses, referred to in the Epistle of Jude 1:9, between the archangel Michael and the devil.
This dispute does not appear in Ceriani's manuscript [the single 6th century manuscript discovered by Antonio Ceriani in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan in th emid 19th C]; this could lend support to the identification of
[that
] manuscript with the
Testament of Moses, but could also be explained by the text's incompleteness (it is believed that about a third of the text is missing).
An alternative explanation is that Jude is compounding material from three sources:
- general Jewish traditions about Michael as gravedigger for the just as in the Apocalypse of Moses [aka the Life of Adam and Eve]
- contrast with the accusation by Michael of Azazel in the Book of Enoch
- contrast with the angel of the Lord not rebuking Satan over the body of Joshua the High Priest in Zechariah 3.
This explanation has in its favour three arguments:
- Jude quotes from both 1 Enoch 1:9 and Zechariah 3;
- 'Jeshua'[/Iesous] in Zechariah 3 is dead - his grandson is serving as high priest. The change from "body of Iesous" (ie. the Greek spelling of 'Jeshua') to "body of Moses" would be required to avoid confusion with Jesus-Iesous, and also to reflect the historical context of Zech. 3 in Nehemiah concerning intermarriage and corruption in the "body" of the priesthood; and
- The example of Zech. 3 provides an argument against the "slandering of heavenly beings", since the Angel of the Lord does not do in Zech. 3 what Michael is reported to do in 1 Enoch 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumptio ... le_of_Jude
- Apparently Clement of Alexandria is the first person known to refer to or cite the Epistle of Jude
- Apparently
In the remarkable use of the word mesites in the Epistle to the Galatians (iii.19) some have seen a reference to, or evidence of acquaintance with,
[the
Assumption of Moses]
https://biblehub.com/library/deane/pseu ... _moses.htm
[Previously]
Whence did the
[author of
E.Jude
] derive the story to which he refers? And what was the occasion of the dispute? To the latter question a conjectural answer alone can be given. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the burial of Moses, we see that it was intended to be a secret transaction. The Lord, we are told (Deut. xxxiv.6), "buried him in a valley of the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor; but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day." Doubtless there was a good reason for this secrecy. The, proneness of the Jews to idolatry, the likelihood that the body of their great leader might become an object of adoration, even as the brazen serpent drew their hearts away in later time, the tendency to follow the creature-worship and to pay that undue reverence to relics which they had seen in Egypt, -- these considerations may have led to the concealment of the body of Moses. And the devil wished to frustrate this purpose. He saw an opportunity of using the mortal remains of Moses to draw away the Israelites from true religion. He would have no mystery about the burial. The people should be shown their leader's resting place; of the result he had no doubt whatever. And Michael, the appointed guard of the grave, as the Targum says, resisted this evil attempt of Satan, and firmly carried out the purpose of God. Using the words which God Himself had employed when the wicked spirit endeavoured to withstand His act of clothing Joshua, the high priest, in festal garments (Zech. iii.), Michael answered, "The Lord rebuke thee." And in the unknown spot the body rested; or, at any rate, it was seen no more till it appeared to the wondering three on the Mount of Transfiguration ...
Also called the Testament of Moses, this work [the
Assumption of Moses] begins with a brief outline of Jewish history up until the first century C.E., with particular emphasis on the Hasmonean dynasty, whose leaders it indicts for priestly corruption. It portrays the tyrannical reign of Herod the Great and his sons as the result of God's wrath due to the sins of the Hasmonean rulers and their Sadducean priests. Finally, it predicts a terrible persecution by the Romans and the coming of a Levite man named Taxo who seals himself and his sons in a cave to die rather than sin through forced apostasy. This act sparks the coming of God's kingdom through the coming of the Messiah. The text concludes with a depiction of Moses' final moments with Joshua
[Iesous
].
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... n_of_Moses
Also
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Assumption-of-Moses -
The tone of the work is decidedly negative toward the fusion of politics with religion and condemns the Hasmonean leaders who ruled Judaea after the Maccabean revolt of 167–142 BC. The most striking feature of the work is the writer’s scathing condemnation of the priesthood before, during, and after the Maccabean period, obviously meant as an attack on the Sadducean high priests of his own time.
The narrative loses its concreteness after it reaches the time of Herod’s sons. The author predicts that eventually the true Jewish religion will be persecuted by a mighty king, and in response a certain Taxo of the tribe of Levi shall appear, exhorting his seven sons to withdraw with him to a cave and die rather than transgress the law of God; God will avenge them, the author claims, and then the kingdom of God shall be established.
... The book does not mention the actual ascension of Moses, but it is clear from other evidence that the work must have described the actual assumption in chapters that have been lost. Several passages, moreover, are incomplete.
The Britannica entry goes on to say the
Assumption was probably written in Palestine but M David Litwa says that, with Clement, Origen and Didymus of Alexandria being the first witnesses to it, it was likely written in Egypt