James Charlesworth
"The date of the composition has been a subject of
considerable controversy. Most critics today correctly place the
original sometime in the opening decades of the first century A.D. (cf.
J. J. Collins, no. 1151); but J. Licht ('Taxo, or the Apocalyptic
Doctrine of Vengeance,' JJS 12 [1961] 95-103) and G. W. E.
Nichelsburg, Jr. (no. 471, pp. 28-31, 43-45, 97; no. 1168; cf. 1169, p.
6) have argued for a date during the early stages of the Maccabean
revolt, allowing for interpolations and re-editing in the Herodian
period. Given the incomplete, often illegible state of the extant text
and our fragmentary knowledge of early Judaism it has been impossible to
reach a scholarly consensus regarding the text's provenance or
relationship to a Jewish sect, if any. Scholars have generally concluded
that the original language is Hebrew (Charles, APOT 2, p. 410;
Ferrar, Assumption of Moses, p. 8; D. H. Wallace, 'The Semitic
Origin of the Assumption of Moses,' TZ 11 [1955] 321-28; cf.
idem, no. 1182)." (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research,
pp. 163-164)
John J. Collins
"In its present form the Testament of Moses must be dated
around the turn of the era, since there is a clear allusion to the
partial destruction of the temple in the campaign of Varus in 4 BC (TMos
6:8-9). The document shows no awareness of the final destruction of AD
70. Scholarly opinion is divided as to whether chapters 5-6, which
develop the course of history through the first century BC were part of
the original document or a later insertion. These chapters clearly refer
to the Hasmoneans, Herod and the campaign of Varus. Yet the final
persecution, in chapter 8, is strongly reminiscent of the persecution
under Antiochus Epiphanes. R. H. Charles attempted to resolve this
anomaly by re-arranging the chapters so that 8-9 stood before 5-6. This
proposal is unacceptable since the logic of the book demands that the
divine intervention in chapter 10 should follow directly on the most
sever persecution and especially on the episode of Taxo and his sons.
The specificity of the account of the persecution in chapter 8 suggests
that this is an account of the author's time, rather than a stereotyped
eschatological scenario. In this case we must assume that chapters 5-6
were inserted to update the book. The account of the persecution then
becomes an eschatological scenario in the revised document. Support for
the theory of a second redaction can be found in 10:8 where the phrase
'the wings of the eagle' is an addition, and may allude to the pulling
down of the golden eagle over the temple gate shortly before the
campaign of Varus (Josephus, Ant. XVII.6.3 (155-7))." (Outside
the Old Testament, p. 148)
"In 1861 Antonio Ceriani published a fragmentary Latin manuscript
which he had found in the Ambrosian Library in Milan and which he
identified as the Assumption of Moses. The identification was based on
chapter 1 verse 14, which corresponds to a quotation from the Assumption
of Moses by Gelasius (Ecclesiastical History II.17.17). Gelasius
elsehwere (II.21.7) refers to the dispute between Michael and the Devil
in the Assumption of Moses. This episode is not found in the manuscript
published by Ceriani, but is often referred to in patristic sources and
even already in the New Testament in Jude, verse 9. (The allusion is not
identified in Jude but is specified in Clement, Origen and other
patristic sources.) The Latin manuscript does not refer to the death of
Moses or his subsequent assumption at all and, since it is primarily a
prophecy delivered before death, it is more properly described as a
testament. In fact the Stichometry of Nicephorus and other lists mention
a Testament (Diatheke) of Moses immediately before the
Assumption, and the dominant opinion of scholars is that Ceriani's text
corresponds to the Testament rather than the Assumption. In view of the
citations in Gelasius, some have suggested that the Testament and the
Assumption were combined in a single book. The surviving Latin text is
incomplete, and may have concluded with an account of the assumption of
Moses. Origen (De Principiis III.2.1) uses the title 'Ascension
of Moses' for the document which contains the dispute between Michael
and the Devil, i.e. the Assumption of Moses." (Outside the Old
Testament, p. 145)
Leonhard Rost
"As early as 1868, M. Schmidt and A. Merx described the author as an
Essene, but they were unable to gain acceptance of their hypothesis. The
discovery of the Qumran manuscripts proved them correct to the extent of
confirming that the author belonged to the Qumran milieu (R. Meyer, O.
Eissfeldt). There are particularly close connections with the Damascus
Document and the War Scroll. The association with Qumran means that the
work was composed in Palestine. Since the Temple appears to be still
standing, whereas Herod is dead and his sons appear to be ruling, the
date must fall in the first third of the first century C.E." (Judaism
Outside the Hebrew Canon, p. 148)
Martin McNamara
"The original form of this work probably originated about the same time
as the Book of Daniel. It was once thought that the date to be assigned
to the composition was A.D. 7-30 since chapter 6 clearly speaks of Herod
and his sons. It is highly probable, however, that this section is
interpolated and was inserted when a second edition, so to speak, of
The Testament of Moses was brought out in the first half of the
first century A.D. The Testament of Moses is based on Deut 31-34
and contains Moses' parting words to Israel together with an account of
his death." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 96)
Emil Schürer
"Opinion is very much divided regarding the date of the composition of
this book. Ewald, Wieseler, Drummond and Dillman refer it to the first
decade after the death of Herod; Hilgenfeld calculates that it may have
been written in the course of the year 44-45 A.D.; Schmidt and Merx say
some time between 54 and 64 A.D.; Fritzsche and Lucius trace it to the
sixth decade of the first century A.D.; Langen thinks it must have been
shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (chap. viii. being
erroneously interpreted as referring to this event); Hausrath prefers
the reign of Domitian; Philippi, the second century of our era (the
latter fixing on this date solely with the object of his being able to
ascribe the authorship to a Christian, and of reversing the
relation in which our book and ver. 9 of the Epistle of Jude stand to
each other; see in particular, pp. 177, 182); while Volkmar (in
accordance with his well-known predilection for the time of Barcocheba)
thinks the date would be some time in the course of the year 137-138
A.D. Almost the whole of the critics just mentioned base their
calculation upon the well-nigh illegible fragments of numbers in chap.
vii. But surely one may fairly question the propriety of trying to found
anything whatever upon lines so mutilated as those are; and if we had no
other data but these to help us to fix the date in question, we would
have nothing for it but to abandon the attempt altogether. Still I
cannot help thinking that there are two such data at our disposal. (1)
Toward the end of chap. vi. it is plainly stated that the sons of Herod
are to reign for a shorter period (breviora tempora) than their
father. Now it is well known that Philip and Antipas reigned longer than
their father; and one cannot help seeing the embarrassment to which
those words have led in the case of all those critics who refer the
composition of our book to a latish date. They are capable of being
explained solely on the assumption that the work was written toward the
commencement of the reign of the last-mentioned princes. (2) It is as
good as universally admitted that the concluding sentences of chap. vi.
refer to the war of Varus in the year 4 B.C. When therefore chap. vii.
goes on to say: Ex quo facto finientur tempora, surely there can hardly
be room for any other inference than this, that the author wrote
subsequent to the war of Varus. In that case the enigmatical numbers
that follow in this same chapter cannot be supposed to be a continuation
of the narrative, but are to be regarded as a calculation added by way
of supplement after the narrative has been brought down to the date at
which the author was writing. Only, considering how mutilated those
numbers are, every attempt to explain them must prove a failure.
Consequently the view of Ewald, Wieseler, Drummond and Dillmann with
regard to the date of the composition of our book is substantially
correct." (The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus,
pp. 78-79)
Raymond F. Surburg
"The book purports to give an address delivered by Moses to Joshua. In
it there is a description of how Moses, when he is about to die,
delivers to Joshua the sacred writings. Moses reveals to his successor
prophecies which he is instructed to record but to hide until the
appointed time concerning the Hebrew nation. A panorama of the history
of the Jews up to the author's time is described. He tells how one tribe
shall say to another: 'Lo, is not this that which Moses did once declare
unto us in prophecies? Yea, he declared and called heaven and earth to
witness against us that we should not transgress the commandments of the
Lord, of which he was the mediator to us.' There are references to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., the persecution of Antiochus, the
rule of the Hasmoneans, the divisions between Pharisees and Sadducees,
and the reign of Herod. The book ends on an optimistic note, for the
promise of a happy future is given." (Introduction to the
Intertestamental Period, p. 139)
Tyndale Notes
"This (Tyndale) edition was translated from the Latin sixth
century M5, the unamended text of which is published herewith, together
with the text in its restored and critically emended form, by R.H.
Charles.
Written in Hebrew shortly after the beginning of the Christian era,
this book was designed by its author to protest against the growing
secularization of the Pharisaic party through its fusion with political
ideals and popular Messianic beliefs. Its author, a Pharasaic Quietist,
sought herein to recall his party to the old paths, which they were fast
forsaking, of unobtrusive obedience to the Law. He foresaw, perhaps, the
doom to which his country was hurrying under such a shortsighted and
unspiritual policy. There are twelve chapters, with many footnotes."
James C. VanderKam
"The fact that the predictions extend well into the first century CE
means that the Testament of Moses as we have it was not written
before that time. It has been suggested, however, that a book, dating
from early Maccabean times, was later supplemented by splicing chapters
6-7 into the predictive survey in order to bring it up to date. The
strongest argument for this thesis is that these two chapters seem to
destroy the sequence of the survey. Yet it is possible to read the book
as it stands as an orderly account and to understand chapters 7-9 as
stereotypical depictions of the great evil at the end. These depictions
draw on themes from the Maccabean crisis but are not meant to be
descriptions of it. If so, then the entire book, which does not (in the
surviving form of the text) claim to be revealed by an angel, can be
read as an apocalypse from the first century BCE. It was written under
the impress of events in Herod's time and immediately after; its purpose
was to reassure the readers that God foreknew everything that would
happen, that he is faithful to the covenant, and that he will have
compassion on his people. No less an authority than Moses himself stands
behind the message." (An Introduction to Early Judaism, pp.
114-115)
Torah - Or "TaNaKh", an acronym denoting these three sections:
