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.
566 G.W. TROMPF
fiery epistle in the name of Ioudas was intended to undo the de-
famatory effect of a latter-day appeal to the betrayer as a true, not
false hero. This was certainly one of most embarrassing aspects of
the Cainite ideology, while on the other hand one suspects that the
avoidance of any ad hominem polemic over human nomenclatures
in Jude was wise and fitting (all the more so if, as some scholars
suspect, the real author’s name was also Ioudas, whether in lineal
descent from Mary, the mother of Jesus or, as more likely, a bishop
of Jerusalem) 32 The same care, I suggest, was also applied to the
epistle’s handling of a likely deliberate conflation of the two
Enochs.
But then again, one might ask whether Jude’s adversative band
and Irenaeus’ Cainites have anything in common concerning the
place of angels, since the angelogical motif is very strong in Jude.
Irenaeus provides at least two clues. One is that Cain was “said to be
“ redeemed (lelutrosthai) out of the true One Aboveâ€. This could
¯
then mean that he is the father of the group’s accepted post-Adamic
spiritual lineage, which was initiated by reception of “power from
above †(Irenaeus’ anothen) 33 and then presumably ran on from his
¯
son Enoch all the way to Judas. By such an occult inheritance
(Irenaeus’) Cainites could dissociate themselves from ordinary
Christians, or from mere “psychics, having no Spirit†(psychikoi,
Pneuma me echontes, Jude v. 19) 34. Or else it might mean that Cain
¯
and subsequent antagonists of the Creator Being were later
bution (London 22006) 54-58, 115-123. Cf. LYLE, Ethical Admonition, 81-82 on
the urgency of organizing the purified eschatological community.
See Hegesippus apud Eusebius (Hist. eccles. III, xx,1-7, esp. 6), where,
32
incidentally, the text has the original Jude under circumstances that forced him
into hard labour with his hands, and he was thus no writer. For Judas Justus (“a
certain Jewâ€), bishop of Jerusalem (ca. AD 108) mentioned in Eusebius (Hist.
eccles. III, xxxv) and Epiphanius (Panar. LXVI, xx), as a supposedly likely au-
thor, see G. DIX, Jew and Greek. A Study of the Primitive Church (London
1953) 65, who, against Eusebius’ implication, takes Justus to be James’ brother.
I suspect both candidates are too early, and that the last bishop of Jerusalem,
Judas (ca. AD 127-130) (Eusebius, IV v, 3 finis) is the best possibility.
,
On Cain as archon in other systems, e.g., Apocrph. Ionn. (II, 1) 10.24;
33
(IV, 1) 26; Hyp. Archon. (II, 4) 91; Evang. Egypt. (III, 2) 58.
Thus Jude, one suspects, turns their catch-cry on its head. For sarkics/
34
hylics, psychics and spirituals in Gnosticizing literature, see K. RUDOLPH,
Gnosis. The Nature and History of an Ancient Religion (Edinburgh 1983)
91-92.