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.
560 G.W. TROMPF
cular †or “catholic†epistles responding to reports of antinomian
tendencies, the one letter broadly addressing the Hellenistic-Medi-
terranean communities with which Peter’s authority had become
more connected (though dealing with the relevant problem more en
passant), and the other written for the Aramaeo-Syriac churches
with which Jude was associated (dealing exclusively with the issue
with greater urgency and evidently better knowledge) 18. What I take
to be the most careful and insightful comparative exegesis, initiated
by Charles Biggs, has Jude making special but “hurried†and one
may add highly convenient use of the Petrine missive to meet the
known challenge more effectively, which results in his short out-
pouring of greater argumentative density, indeed striking intensity 19.
This arguable posteriority, of course, relates to the dating question
already mentioned, since 2 Peter has been variously placed in
“ higher critical†circles anywhere between AD 90-175, squaring
with our assessment of Jude’s provenance thus far 20.
Thus note the plainness of the exempla in 2 Peter, and also this epistle’s
18
enlisting of Philonic- and Stoic-looking cosmological frameworks to under-
score evocations of judgement — see TROMPF, The Idea of Historical Recur-
rence in Western Thought (Berkeley 1979) I, 176-177 — in contrast to the use of
allusions only “fully intelligible†to the epistle’s recipient group, and to the
almost exclusively non-Hellenic quality of the Jude text. On this reading Syrian
Christian group memories of the pressing nature of the crises addressed made
for their better knowledge of the lateness of these general epistles; while Jude
(in its Greek version, now in the textus receptus) became support for a strength-
ening “Petrine tradition of authorityâ€. Cf. M.L. SOARDS, “1 Peter, 2 Peter, and
Jude as Evidence of a Petrine Schoolâ€, ANRW XXV 5 (eds. W. HAASE –
.
H. TEMPORINI) (Berlin 1988) 3827-3849.
Cf. C.A. BIGGS, The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC ; London
19
1902) 216-224, 237-244, 312-322, and esp. 338, being fair to the wide variety
2
of assessments, while unexpectedly holding in the end (242) that 2 Peter be-
longs to the Apostolic Age. Of relevance, see the previous note. Also, rightly
against the idea of the author of Jude approaching 2 Peter with a scissors and
paste method, moreover, and reproducing the latter’s stereotypical approach,
see J.D. CHARLES, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (London 1993) 31,
72-74.
Such placement is not just because of the reference to Paul’s letters as a
20
collectivity (2 Pet 3,15-16), or because the imminent end of all things is “dog-
matized †— see E. HENNECKE (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha (Cambridge
1992) II, 578-579 — but also because the testimonia are late (starting especially
2
from Clement, Protrep., x,106, etc., who apparently questioned its rejection by
his master Pantaenus), and because the epistle was sometimes confused with an