The Assumption of Moses (otherwise called the Testament of Moses) is a Jewish apocryphal pseudepigraphical work of uncertain date and authorship. It is known from a single 6th century manuscript in Latin that was discovered by Antonio Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library in Milan in the mid 19th century and published by him in 1861. Based on the literal translation of idioms within the text, it is generally accepted that the extant Latin version is a translation from Greek, with a the Greek itself probably a translation from Hebrew. The text is in twelve chapters and purports to be secret prophecies revealed by Moses to Joshua when close to the end of his life. In it, a brief outline of Jewish history up until the 1st century AD is sketched out. In Judeo-Christian theology, the word apocrypha (Greek απόκρυφα, neuter plural of απόκρυφος, hidden) refers to texts that are not considered canonical, part of the Bible, but are of roughly similar style and age as the accepted Scriptures. ... Pseudepigrapha (from the Greek words pseudos = lie and epigrapho = write) is a text or a number of texts whose claimed authorship or authenticity is incorrect. ... 1861 is a common year starting on Tuesday. ... Moses or Móshe (מֹשֶׁה, Standard Hebrew Móše, Tiberian Hebrew Mōšeh, Arabic موسى), son of Amram and his wife, Jochebed, a Levite. ... Joshua or Yehoshúa (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ The LORD of/is help/court, Standard Hebrew Yəhošúaʿ, Tiberian Hebrew Yəhôšuªʿ) is a Biblical character, much of whose life is described in the Book of Joshua. ...

Most scholars date the work to the early 1st century CE, contemporary with the latest historical figures described in it. A significant number of others, however, date it to the previous century and suggest that the 1st century CE references are later insertions into the text. A far smaller number of scholars place it in the 2nd century CE, and their motivation for doing so may be ideological in some cases.

Ceriani noticed that one line of the text (1:14) matched a quotation in Gelasius from a hither-to lost work referred to as the Assumption of Moses and based his identification of the text on that, despite the fact that the present text does not describe any assumption. A problem posed by this identification is that both Gelasius (elsewhere) and Origen refer to an incident related in the Assumption of Moses that does not appear in this text. The incident, a dispute between the angel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, is also referred to in the Epistle of Jude (1:9), though not attributed to any specific source. Some Evangelical Christians are uncomfortable with the idea of a canonical work relying on a non-canonical one, and prefer to see a different relationship between the two texts. Origen was a Christian scholar and theologian and one of the most distinguished of the Fathers of the early Christian Church. ... Guido Renis archangel Michael (in the Capuchin church of Sta. ... Gustave Dores depiction of Satan from John Miltons Paradise Lost Satan (שָׂטָן Standard Hebrew Satan, Latin Sátanas, Tiberian Hebrew Śāṭān; Aramaic שִׂטְנָא Śiṭnâ: both words mean Adversary; accuser) is an angel, demon, or minor god in many religions. ... The brief Epistle of Jude is a book in the Christian New Testament canon. ...

The Stichometry of Nicephorus and some other ancient lists refer to both a Testament of Moses and an Assumption of Moses, apparently as separate texts. It is possible that these two were one text at some point, which would explain why the current version at once contains a passage quoted by Gelasius and does not contain the other material referred to by him (or indeed an assumption). If this is the case, then this text is likely to be what Nicephorus called the Testament of Moses, and the Assumption of Moses remains lost.