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.
576 G.W. TROMPF
collection) 59. Since names of those powerful “luminaries†in the
higher realm include Barbelo and Autogenes (2,23; 10,7-10) 60 and
among the rulers and angels named are found Gabriel and Michael,
as well as Saklas, Ialdaboth, Seth and Adonaios 61, the likelihood that
the Gospel reflects early developments in “Sethian lines of Gnostic
thought †has already been proposed 62. None of these names are
mentioned in the heresiological descriptions of the Cainites. Sophia
is there, though (most significantly in Irenaeus and Epiphanius), and
we might expect her to be named in the Judas Gospel (taking it to be
a Sethian text). There, however, she seems to be absent, or perhaps
alluded to (once) in a depreciatory way as “corruptible†(8,7 —
Copt. phtharte) 63 : even if perhaps this omission is due to the poor
¯
state of the codex (with its many lacunae). Nag Hammadi texts,
often putting the Sethian line of thought, in any case, do not appar-
ently give her as prominent a role as the Cainites reportedly did 64. It
naturally supports our argument that she is the acclaimed substitute
for the cosmic Christ in Cainite beliefs, standing as the most crucial
celestial being in combating the Genesis creator figure.
Note esp. the Nag Hammadi Apocryph. Ion., where the greatest similarity
59
in narrative structure is to be found in our Coptic Evang. Iud., i.e., in the epi-
sodic relating of selected ‘events’, each followed by questioning about it, and
then Jesus’ response. Thus G.W. TROMPF, “Decoding the Gospel of Judasâ€
(public lecture, University of California, Santa Cruz, Nov. 3, 2006).
As in Apocrph. Ionn., e.g., [II,1] 4 finis; 8. The Gospel of Judas favours
60
angelos over archon (e.g., 10,17.20; 13,1, yet cf. e.g., 9,22), though note aiôn at
9,21, 10,23.
E.g., 13,12-13 (Michael and Gabriel); 12,10.13,6 (Saklas); 12,9 (Ialda-
61
both) ; 12,6; (Seth); 12,20 (Adonaios), cf. Apocrph. Ionn. [II,1], 9-11; 17 for all
these except Gabriel, including the reference at 10 and 17 to Cain as an
archon. Adamas (10,10), Harmathoth (12,17), Falila (12,18) and Iobel, (12,19),
however, appear in Judas, but are not in Aprocrph. Ionn., except in the first and
third cases as Adam (e.g., 15 and 20) and Kalila (17). Here we may ask whether
Saklas might be the Cainite name for Satan, making the Gospel of Judas all the
more important for them.
See M. MEYER, “Judas and the Gnostic Connectionâ€, Gospel of Judas
62
(eds. KASSER – MEYER – WURST) 166-169.
Translators have different stresses: KASSER wants to highlight sophia as
63
a power (Gospel of Judas, 30, n. 71), KING merely has “perishable wisdomâ€
(115) with no explanation.
Yet note Apocrph. Ionn. [II,1] 9; 23 (with Sophia in a position compara-
64
ble to the one given her by the Valentinians, as key cause of the production of
the faulty Creation), cf. 8 and 28.