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.
JUDAS 559
THE EPISTLE JUDE, IRENAEUS, GOSPEL
OF AND THE OF
worship (v. 12a ; cf. 1 Cor 11,20-22), the answers prima facie call for
a cautious affirmative. Consensus scholarship certainly has it that
Jude pleads for his readers “to contend for the faith†(v. 3) against
infiltrators who, in virtually every modern exegesis, form some kind
of antinomian group who “alter†(metatithentes) or reread the
(received) teaching about “grace†as “license†(aselgeia) or permis-
sion to behave outrageously (v. 4b) 14.
Now it is well known that similar concerns occupy a whole
chapter of the Second Letter ascribed to Peter, where both “false
prophets †and “false teachers†are specified, as bringing “the truth
into disrepute†with their “destructive opinions†(thus haireseis
apoleias) 15 and “revelling in their pleasures†at the table worship of
¯
the faithful (cf. suneuochoumenoi) (2,2–3,13). In this case the pas-
¯
toral assault on carnal licentiousness (of lust, carousals and the pur-
suit of women, esp. vv. 10.13-14) is much more obvious than what
we find in Jude, and the antominian outbreak is minimally con-
nected with conceptual formulae as against fleshly and material de-
sire 16. It is unclear whether a movement, backed by some kind of
“ novel doctrinal†legitimacy, is being referred to here, as against a
corruption or destabilization of leadership, in unspecified quarters,
to use assemblies to satisfy carnal desires.
The sharing of vocabulary, style and content in the near-
invective discourses of 2 Peter and Jude presents a puzzle. It has
seemed impossible, up to now, to decide which epistle comes first,
and which is dependent on the other 17. We will simply cut the Gor-
dian knot by defending Jude’s posteriority. This is quite apart from
a view held by the present author that these are two “generalâ€, “cir-
Fo r typical exegeses, if with different shades of opinion, see
14
J.N.D. KELLY, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (London 1969) 230-231;
G. SELLIN, “Die Häretiker des Judasbriefesâ€, ZNW 77 (1986) 206-225;
T.R. SCHREINER, 1–2 Peter, Jude (NAC, Nashville, TN 2003) 415-416.
Perhaps the first denotation of a Christian ‘heresy’ as we know it (in
15
contrast to other usages of hairesis in the NT such as: ‘party’ (e.g., Acts 5,17);
‘sect’ (e.g., Acts 24,5); ‘dissensions’ and ‘factions’ (e.g., 1 Cor 11,19).
Note how the reference to insulting angels follows upon charges of lust
16
and self-will, v. 10. Cf. Jude 9-10. The accusations of sexual misdemeanour in
Jude are muted at v. 4b (with aselegeia) and v. 7, though more obvious at v. 13.
Arguments for both positions have been well mustered by the more con-
17
servative scholar like D. GUTHRIE, New Testament Introduction (London 31970)
920-927.