On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »


But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”

(Judah 9)

It is a quote from the lost Assumption of Moses.


Accordingly:

Joseph of Arimathea == the Archangel Michel

Pilate == Satan.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by MrMacSon »

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:
  1. Jude quotes from both 1 Enoch 1:9 and Zechariah 3;
  2. '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
  3. 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


    1. Apparently Clement of Alexandria is the first person known to refer to or cite the Epistle of Jude
    2. 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
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by schillingklaus »

The Apocalypse of Moses is full of antignostic Christianisms, not a general Jewish tradition.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by andrewcriddle »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:15 pm
<SNIP>

    1. Apparently Clement of Alexandria is the first person known to refer to or cite the Epistle of Jude

      <SNIP>
If, as seems likely, i/ 2 Peter refers to Jude and ii/ 2 Peter is earlier than 180 CE then this would be the earliest referral.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by MrMacSon »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:40 am If, as seems likely, i/ 2 Peter refers to Jude and ii/ 2 Peter is earlier than 180 CE then this would be the earliest referral.
2 Peter refers to things in the future and Jude refers to those same things in the present, so we can conclude that Jude was written after 2 Peter

eta: I don't know where I got this view from, but M David Litwa thinks 2 Peter uses Jude
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by andrewcriddle »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:56 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:40 am If, as seems likely, i/ 2 Peter refers to Jude and ii/ 2 Peter is earlier than 180 CE then this would be the earliest referral.
2 Peter refers to things in the future and Jude refers to those same things in the present, so we can conclude that Jude was written after 2 Peter
There are good arguments IMO for the priority of Jude,
See for example relationship_between_2_peter_and_jude
I'm not sure if you are suggesting that 2 Peter is genuinely by Peter. If so there are major problems with this. If not, then 2 Peter, written pseudonymously but claiming to be written during the lifetime of Peter, must, when referring to problems that first developed towards the end of the 1st century, treat them as future issues.

Andrew Criddle
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by schillingklaus »

Earlier than 180 would also include Bar Kochba and little after, so there is no need to call for a historical Peter.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:01 am
But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”

(Judah 9)

It is a quote from the lost Assumption of Moses.


Accordingly:

Joseph of Arimathea == the Archangel Michel

Pilate == Satan.

From Trompf, 'The Epistle of Jude, Irenaeus, and the Gospel of Judas', 2010,


What is of great interest here is Jude's strong defence of the archangel Michael against the subversaries' apparent criticism of him, for, although Satan blasphemed against Moses (as the troublemakers in Jude's epistle also by inference were doing), Michael merely rebuked the Blasphemer.43

Jude's defence fits into the matrix...because Michael was so commonly use in Jewish Christian theology as the linchpin connector between Yahweh/Elohim/Adonai and Jesus as Messiah.

Michael was the guardian angel of Israel (as the abovementioned pseudepigraphical texts [Assump. Moses and 1 Enoch] attest) and Christ even becomes the 'great angel' substituting for Michael in various Jewish Christian post-biblical writings (from Hermes onwards).44

https://www.academia.edu/30903088/The_E ... l_of_Judas

43 The debate is not found in the extant version of Assump. Moses (cf. 10,1-2 for the only direct reference and an allusion to Micah as "the angel"). Yet c.f. Scholiast, in Novum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum (ed. A Hilgefield) (Leipzig 21984) I, 128, and for reference to a text of Assump. or Ascen. Mos. containing the relevant scenario, see Clement of Alexandria, In Epist. Iud. Cath. v, 9; Strom vi,5; Origen, De Princip. III, ii,1; Homil. in Josh. II,1. The number of scholars who assume the extant Assump. Moses without checking its contents is considerable.

44 See J. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, (London 1964) 121-27 (referring to Christian pseudepigraphical data in 2 Enoch 22,4-9) Ascen. Isa. 22,6; Test. 5,6, etc.); cf. Assump. Moses 10,2.


User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: On the midrashical source of the negotiation with Pilate about the corpse of Jesus

Post by MrMacSon »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 4:42 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:56 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:40 am If, as seems likely, i/ 2 Peter refers to Jude and ii/ 2 Peter is earlier than 180 CE, then this would be the earliest referral.
2 Peter refers to things in the future and Jude refers to those same things in the present, so we can conclude that Jude was written after 2 Peter

eta: I don't know where I got this view from, but M David Litwa thinks 2 Peter uses Jude

There are good arguments IMO for the priority of Jude
  • M David Litwa, and perhaps other scholars, agree with that

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 4:42 am I'm not sure if you are suggesting that 2 Peter is genuinely by Peter.1 If so there are major problems with this. If not, then 2 Peter, written pseudonymously but claiming to be written during the lifetime of Peter, must, when referring to problems that first developed towards the end of the 1st century, treat them as future issues.

Andrew Criddle
  1. No, I wasn't suggesting that.

    Litwa dates 2 Peter ~160 to 200 CE
    (he notes Clement does not acknowledge it)
Post Reply