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 561
THE EPISTLE JUDE, IRENAEUS, GOSPEL
OF AND THE OF
To grasp something specific affecting Jude’s argument, it is cru-
cial to realize that, whereas 2 Peter lists instances of retribution in
the Bible against propagators of falsities — against the fallen angels,
against the ungodly before the Flood, against Sodom and Gomorrah,
and further on Balaam (Jude 2,4-8.15) — Jude shifts the focus and
order of things. While retribution always hangs in the air for evil-
doers (Jude 4a.5-6b.10b.11b.14b-15) as the premise he received from
the warnings in 2 Peter, Jude intriguingly moves beyond straightfor-
wardness and a tendency to stereotype by tackling and refuting
‘twisted positions’ about Old Testament characters and situations
with his own distinctive materials. The simple pattern of retribution
fades away: there is no mention of the Flood, or of Noah and Lot
being saved, and the chronological ordering apparently no longer
serves the argument. Now the impression is that the subverters of
the Gospel (“discontented murmurers†— v. 16a) are deliberately
putting themselves on the side of, or “walking the [same] way asâ€
(v. 11a) those who once opposed the Father, and thus inevitably
reject the “most holy faith†and “eternal life†(vv. 20-21). While
they are not in such a neat, expected order, at least we can list these
oppositional figures: Cain, who looks rather seminal in context
(v. 11; om. 2 Pet; cf. 1 John 3,12); implicitly the peoples of Sodom
and Gomorrah (v. 7, cf. 2 Pet 2,6) “and neighbouring towns†(om. 2
Pet) 21, certainly Balaam (v. 11; cf. 2 Pet 2,15) and Korah (v. 11; cf.
v. 5, om. 2 Pet) at least as far as ‘more ordinary’ historical figures
are concerned, and we may include the fallen angels (v. 6 ; cf. Pet
2,10) and the Devil as antagonist against archangel Michael (v. 9,
om. 2 Pet). Jude’s effort to consolidate Enoch’s pure standard, too,
by making him prophesy the judgement of the wicked (vv. 14-15, cf.
Gen 5,22-24; 1 Enoch 90–91) is in all likelihood because of the mal-
contents’ appeal to Enoch the son of Cain, after whom the first city
was named (Gen 4,17; Jub 4,9). They probably deliberately con-
flated the two Enochs into one person, thus explaining Jude’s other-
wise inexplicable assigning of Enoch to the “seventh [generation]
apocalypse in Peter’s name (Eusebius, Hist. eccles., VI, xiv,1; cf. Nag Ham-
madi Apoc. Pet., and the Ethiopic Apoc. Pet.). But the debate goes on.
Presumably Admah and Zeboim, following Deut 29,23, Hos 9,8, and Jub
21
16,5, and thus alluding to the well known area of geophysical interest for those
to whom the letter was addressed — churches, one suspects, in the Levantine
and Jordan Valley regions.