Garry W. Trompf, «The Epistle of Jude, Irenaeus, and the Gospel of Judas», Vol. 91 (2010) 555-582
A detailed case that the New Testament Epistle of Jude was written against the socalled Cainite sectaries, who were in possession of a Gospel of Judas as Irenaeus attests is presented here. Because the names Judas and Jude were the same, the good name of Iouda, especially as being that of a relative to Jesus, needed clearing, and subversive teachings — making Cain, Judas and other Biblical figures worthy opponents of the (Old Testament) god — had to be combatted. Since a Gospel of Judas has come to light, within the newly published Tchacos Codex, one is challenged to decide whether this was the gospel appealed to by the Cainites, and, if it was, to begin to grasp how they read a text which did not readily match their interests.
558 G.W. TROMPF
perhaps tou Ioudou) 11, that current scholarship places in the mid-
second century, if not earlier 12.
II. The Nature of the Group worrying the Author of Jude
The debate over dates seems bound to be affected by infor-
mation gained from Jude as to whether its author is concerned about
some kind of discrete movement, or just attitudes of a highly dis-
turbing kind. Significantly, Jude is the only text in the New Testa-
ment almost wholly devoted to criticizing “certain persons†who
“ make a secret entry†(pareiseduesan ... tines anthropoi) and “god-
¯ ¯
less ones†(asebeis) (v. 4) who constitute “blemishes†(spilades) in
worship and thus threaten the message of salvation (vv. 12a.20, cf.
v. 2). In all its vehemence, admittedly, the epistle is short, but still,
other New Testament epistolary polemic is contained within larger
frames of more positive instruction (cf. e.g., 1 Tim 6,20; 1 John
2,26-7 ; 2 John 7-9). Jude’s core content is overwhelmingly strident,
even if we have to remember that the author’s arguments are deliv-
ered as a warning to readers who are very much cherished (v. 2) and
who the author does not want to stumble (v. 24) 13. Questions await
answers, then, as to whether those who cause the anxiety form a dis-
tinct coterie and are contending for leadership, not only introducing
unacceptable ideas but also affecting the cultic life of some early
ekklesiai. Considering the use of the phrase hodos tou Kain (v. 11;
¯
cf. Acts 9,2; 19,23; 2 Pet 2,15b), the term poimanontes (v. 12, cf.
John 10,14-16) and allusions to the attempts to pervert the spirit of
Significantly not therefore kata Ioudan, as with the canonical Gospels,
11
translating the Coptic prefixual attribution n. Regarding the grammatical possi-
bilities of the original title, cf. E. HATCH – H.A. REDPATH, A Concordance to
the Septuagint, etc. (Oxford 1897-1906), Append. A, 86a; and on Epiphanius
see infra.
Cf. G. WURST, “Irenaeus of Lyon and the Gospel of Judasâ€, The Gospel
12
of Judas (eds. R. KASSER – M. MEYER – G. WURST (Washington, DC 2006)
133-134.
Note how v. 5 is a call to remember (both texts and the tradition) cor-
13
rectly. On Jude’s discourse, cf. esp. R.R. LYLE, Ethical Admonition in the Epi-
stle of Jude (Studies in Biblical Texts 4; New York, 1998) 49-54, 81-82, 92-93;
R.A. REESE, Writing Jude. The Reader, the Text, and the Author in Constructs
of Power and Desire (Biblical Interpretation Series 51; Leiden 2000).