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 569
THE EPISTLE JUDE, IRENAEUS, GOSPEL
OF AND THE OF
Cainite dependence on these other better known, more widespread
sectaries 40, because the latter lack the libertine elements of the
former 41. Even though all these groups look to heavenly powers for
succour, the Cainites show a resentful impetus to act immorally or
amorally in affiliation with Yahweh’s enemies; and besides, we
must remain cautious about pinning the tag ‘Gnostic’ on the Caintes
too pre-emptively.
Now to return briefly to Jude, one finds clear defensiveness
about a scripturally pre-conceived picture of the traditional Hebrew
God’s supreme authority over the angelic powers, yet with unusual
deferences to pseudepigraphical texts, more particularly a (non-
extant) version of The Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch, texts we
know were found valuable in early Jewish Christian theologizing
(and which could have been of speculative interest to some Gnosti-
cizing groups as well) 42. What is of great interest here is Jude’s
strong defence of the archangel Michael against the subversives’ ap-
parent criticism of him, for, although Satan blasphemed against
Moses (as the troublemakers in Jude’s epistle also were by inference
doing), Michael merely rebuked the Blasphemer 43. Jude’s defence
fits into the matrix of our argumentation precisely because Michael
was so commonly used in Jewish Christian theology as the linchpin
connector between Yahweh/Elohim/Adonai and Jesus as Messiah.
Here concurring with H.-C. PUECH, “Gnostic Gospels and Related Docu-
40
ments â€, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. E. HENNECKE) (London 1963) I, 314,
against E. DE FAYE, Gnostiques et Gnosticisme. Étude critique des documents
du gnosticisme chrétien aux IIe et IIIe siècles (Paris 21925) 371.
On Valentinian ethics, for instance, see esp. Evang. Verit. [I,iii] 33; cf.
41
M. HAVRDA, Grace in Valentinian Soteriology (Institute for Antiquity and
Christianity Occasional Papers 50) (Claremont, CA 2006) 20-21, 24.
See M. STONE, Scriptures, Sects and Visions (London 1980) esp. chs.
42
10-11; B. PEARSON, “The Problem of ‘Jewish Gnostic’ Literatureâ€, Nag Ham-
madi (eds. HEDRICK – HODGSON), 25. Jude’s utilizations of these texts were to
make Jude suspect nevertheless.
The debate is not found in the extant version of Assum. Mos. (cf. 10,1-2
43
for the only direct reference and an allusion to Micah as “the Angelâ€). Yet cf.
Scholiast, in Novum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum (ed. A. HILGEN-
FELD) (Leipzig 21884) I, 128, and for references to a text of Assum. or
Ascen. Mos. containing the relevant scenario, see Clement of Alexandria, In
Epist. Iud. Cath. v, 9; Strom. vi,5; Origen, De Princip. III, ii,1; Homil in Josh.
II, 1. The number of scholars who assume direct use of the extant Assum Mos.
without checking its contents is considerable.