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.
574 G.W. TROMPF
The exertions of a group with such an orientation, together with
other brands of libertism cropping up around the same time, might
find sustenance for further development in purveyors of Gnôsis who
fixed their sights on archontic beings as vehicles for overcoming the
misguided (Old Testament) creator of this marred world. That the
Cainites spoke of Sophia, and evidently as the antidote to the Cre-
ator, does not automatically mean they were in the first instance
“ Gnosticizers â€, for Wisdom of the Scriptures (thus Prov 8;
Sap. Sol. ; Lk 3,35) could be seized upon as an alternative power an-
tagonistic to Jehovah, who protected the true lineage of the Cainites
(an implication to be found in Irenaeus, where Sophia looks after
“ her ownâ€). But one can see how beneficial for legitimacy Gnostic
speculations about the aeonic structure of the cosmos would be. The
rationalization of their radically negative position so that it was pre-
sented as a newly respected alternative “school†became very
attractive for further developing their “minority collective visionâ€.
A shift in dualistic outlook comes in for consideration at this point.
The Cainite primary dualism was between their preconceived acqui-
sition of behavioural acceptability as “truth†against unacceptable
Christian constraints, but this polarity was easily rationalized by im-
bibing a cosmic dualism between Powers the Cainites could them-
selves appropriate magically and cultically (through rereading the
Bible and using other new sources) versus the Christians’ deity of
Genesis (who misguidedly took himself to be “the true power
above â€). We can visualize a process, then, by which purely dis-
affected elements blended together and, especially in the interpre-
tative lenses of the ancient heresiologists, coagulated as different
forms of the same great bundle of “Gnosticizing†errors. The sha-
dowy Nicolaiteans can be counted upon to illustrate the overall
tendency, since from their libertinist beginnings they apparently
melt or faded away into the Cainite cluster (thus pseudo-Tertul-
lian) 56 later to emerge among the listings of Gnostic parties.
With his phrases: sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitae; Caiana haereses dicitur
56
(Adv. omn. haer., xxxiii). Cf. also FRIESEN, Imperial Cults, 192-193 on Rev
2,6.15, and on Balaam as a possible symbol of libertinism in Rev 2,14. Cf. 2 Pet
2,15 ; Jude 11. For issues of identity among heterodox groups see: E. IRICINSCHI
– H.M. ZELLENTIN (eds.), Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity (TSAJ 119;
Tübingen 2008).