{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043025051475634866, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01960363761153054, 'mean_word_length': 4.861956248428464, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Irenaeus's knowledge of the Gospel of Judas: Real or false? An analysis of the evidence in context

This study discusses Irenaeus of Lyon’s testimony of the famous Gospel of Judas , offering both a historical and, in particular, linguistic analysis and retranslation of Against Heresies 1.31.1. On the basis of a detailed philological commentary and textual analysis it is – contrary to most current opinions – concluded that Irenaeus, in all feasibility, had first-hand knowledge of the Gospel and its contents. In other words, Irenaeus appears to have read the text as we now have it (‘a composed work’) and he summarises it in his treatise. According to Irenaeus’s testimony, the Gospel was produced by a group of 2nd century Gnostics who positively venerated Judas as a fellow Gnostic in the same way that they positively venerated Cain. It was because of his particular knowledge of the redeeming act of Sophia as well as the negative characteristics of the creator God in contrast to the superior God that Judas accomplished the ‘mystery of his (= Jesus’) betrayal’, so that ‘through him (= Judas) all things, both earthly and heavenly, have been dissolved.’


Irenaeus's knowledge of the Gospel of Judas: Real or false? An analysis of the evidence in context
This study discusses Irenaeus of Lyon's testimony of the famous Gospel of Judas, offering both a historical and, in particular, linguistic analysis and retranslation of Against Heresies 1.31.1.
On the basis of a detailed philological commentary and textual analysis it is -contrary to most current opinions -concluded that Irenaeus, in all feasibility, had first-hand knowledge of the Gospel and its contents. In other words, Irenaeus appears to have read the text as we now have it ('a composed work') and he summarises it in his treatise. According to Irenaeus's testimony, the Gospel was produced by a group of 2nd century Gnostics who positively venerated Judas as a fellow Gnostic in the same way that they positively venerated Cain. It was because of his particular knowledge of the redeeming act of Sophia as well as the negative characteristics of the creator God in contrast to the superior God that Judas accomplished the 'mystery of his (= Jesus') betrayal', so that 'through him (= Judas) all things, both earthly and heavenly, have been dissolved.' As far as we can tell, the first person in history to give testimony about a certain Gospel of Judas (best editions and studies: Kasser & Wurst 2007;Brankaer & Bethge 2007;Scopello 2008;DeConick 2009;, was Irenaeus of . His testimony has been mentioned often in recent publications and sometimes even discussed at length . For reasons that will become clear, however, a closer rereading of the particular passage in Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) is justified. Such a rereading will be cognisant of both the literary context in which the passage appears and of its relation to other patristic testimonies.
Irenaeus speaks about the Gospel of Judas at the end of his first book, Against Heresies, in a passage immediately following his description of the Valentinians's ancestors. After presenting an overview of Gnostic doctrines, beginning with the arch-heretic, Simon Magus, and concluding with the Gnostics typically known as the 'Ophites', he wraps up by saying: 'Such are the opinions current among those people, from which opinions, like the Lernaean hydra, a many-headed beast has been generated: the school of Valentinus ... ' (Adv. haer. I,30,15). 1 Irenaeus then proceeds by discussing the alii, [others] (i.e. other Gnostics). 2 Modern editions and translations have, rather misleadingly, printed the passage in question as the first paragraph of a new chapter. It should be noted, however, that the division of Adversus Haereses into chapters and paragraphs with their various (sub)headings does not stem from Irenaeus, but was added later (cf. e.g. SC 100, 186-191;SC 210, 47-48;Rousseau & Doutreleau 1979:30ff.;Loofs 1890). 3 The passage as a whole is a fairly literal (if not, clumsy) Latin rendering 4 of the lost Greek text, and reads as follows:  (Rousseau & Doutreleau 1979:364).
3.Oftentimes in recent discussions, the complex question of the chapter headings has not been taken into account, with the result that some scholars maintain on the basis of Irenaeus's testimony (or rather, on the basis of chapter headings that were later added) that the Gospel of Judas stems from the so-called Cainites. Similarly, others would erroneously argue that Irenaeus was wrong in this respect. These scholars fail to acknowledge that, strictly speaking, Irenaeus himself utters not a word of the 'Cainites' in the 'paragraph' pertaining to the Gospel of Judas. Rather, the link between this text and the Cainite Gnostics is to be found in later testimonies (or may be inferred from them; see below).
4.In all likelihood, the translation stems from a person who had little command of Latin, but an excellent mastery of Greek. See for example Doutreleau's remarks -crucial parts of which are based upon the studies of S. Lundström -in the various Sources Chrétiennesvolumes. The literal translation can, more often than not, be retransferred into Greek rather effortlessly, which fully warrants our current use of the Latin translation as a basis for our analysis. As a first step towards a better understanding of the passage, some words and phrases will briefly be annotated. Former English translations of Irenaeus's text will not be ignored in these annotations, especially not the ones that have recently been published in books and other studies on the Gospel of Judas (Wurst :121-135, 2008Gathercole 2007;Turner 2008:190−191;DeConick 2011;see also Roberts & Donaldson [1885Foerster & Wilson 1972:41-42;Layton 1987:181;Unger 1992:102-103 Layton (1987:181) notes: 'Perhaps referring to the union of the anointed (Christ) and Jesus as related in 1. 30.12-13.' Although this view is interesting and has the advantage of relating haec to an essential part of the Gospel's core message, it is highly problematic considering the standard use of this Latin pronoun.
solum prae ceteris cognoscentem ueritatem ...: [he alone knowing the truth above all the others ...]: 'Above' or 'better than the others' refers to the other disciples or apostles, as can be deduced from Theodoret's phrase μόνον ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἀποστόλων (Haer. fab. I, 15). The verb cognoscere (and not scire, for example) yet again refers to a process: 'having become acquainted with', 'having learnt' (cf. Theodoret: ἐσχηκέναι τὴν γνῶσίν). The subject of this initiation process is 'the truth' or the gnosis, as Theodoret aptly calls it. The content of 'the truth' is that of (the essence of) the myth of Sophia. It is not clear from Irenaeus's text whether proditio has any negative connotation in the context of the phrase perfecisse proditionis mysterium (cf. the New Testament's παραδίδοναι). However, Theodoret's phrase τὸ τῆς προδοσίας μυστήριον and, even more so, the traditional expression τῆς προδοσίας μισθόν in his next sentence (cf. ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆ ἀδικίας in Ac 1:18) probably rule out the possibility that proditio bears any positive or neutral connotations in this context. These phrases rather seem to suggest that the concurrent designation of Judas's deed with προδοσία (proditio, [betrayal]) had been adopted here. It might even be likely that the Gnostics themselves already had this designation in mind. In the current context, however, this traditionally negative meaning of proditio/ προδοσία is now (reversely) re-evaluated in a very positive way (and thus fully coincides with the positive meaning of mysterium).
per quem ...: [through him ...]: The Latin per quem refers to Judas and not to the preceding mysterium. If the latter were the case, the Latin would have read 'per quod', which is not an option given from any of the manuscripts collated by Rousseau and Doutreleau (1979), Harvey (1857), Stieren (1848Stieren ( -1853 or Massuet ([1710] 1857). This does not imply, however, that the translation 'by which' is utterly invalid (cf. e.g. Foerster & Wilson 1972:42). In this literary context, the phrase 'by/through him' seems to imply: 'through his deed.' 'Deed' here refers to the deed of the one who did get knowledge of (and hence knows) the truth.  (Foerster & Wilson 1972:42), 'a fabricated work' (Layton 1987:181;Wurst :123, 2008Turner 2008:191), 'a fabricated book' (Gathercole 2007:116) and even 'fiction' (Unger 1992:103;Ehrman 2006:63) or 'second-rate work' (Haardt 1971:65). Rousseau and Doutreleau (1979:387)  The first meaning of the verb is fingendo efficere comminisci. From its many testimonies, it would certainly appear that fingendo efficere comminisci is the preponderant meaning of confingere. Its second meaning is componere, conficere, which also has a considerable number of testimonies. As such, componere, conficere should also be seen as a central and wellattested meaning of confingere. The testimonies of the second category include examples from Varro 7 and Pliny 'the Elder'. 8 In my opinion, the person who once 9 translated Irenaeus's original Greek into Latin, mainly had this second (largely literal, elementary and basic) meaning in view. The most likely literal meaning of 'con-fictio' is therefore 'com-posite'. The latter could be defined as a work that has been conflated from several components. Evidence to support this claim is primarily found in Epiphanius. In his report of the Gospel of Judas and the Gnostics who adduce (φέρειν) it, he terms it a συνταγμάτιον (Pan. 38 ;Holl 1915:63). This Greek description seems to indicate a (small) work that has been put together from several components. Although it is impossible to deduce from the Latin translation of Irenaeus's testimony that this writing was small, the suggestion thereof, proffered by the word con-fictio, is supported by Epiphanius's συν-ταγμάτιον. It is quite possible that Irenaeus used this word in his original Greek text (cf. Reynders 1954:62). Another possibility is offered by the parallel text Adversus Haereses I, 20, 1 (see below). From that text, one may deduce that Irenaeus's original Greek read something like σύμπλασις. 10 The latter indicates in the first place, a writing moulded or fashioned together. It is only in a secondary and transferred sense that σύμπλασις could also then connote the predominantly negative overtones of 'fabrication' or the completely negative meaning of 'fiction' or 'feigned work'. It is important to note that with regard to the writings of the Marcosians -which he mentions as one of his sources of information -Irenaeus also speaks of writings that 'they adduce' and 'have composed/fabricated'. Adversus Haereses I, 20, 1 is particularly telling in this context: super haec autem inenarrabilem multitudinem apocryphorum et perperum scripturarum, quas ipsi finxerunt, adferunt ... (Rousseau & Doutreleau 1979:288 Lundström (1943Lundström ( , 1948 14.It is interesting to speculate about the comma here. As far as I can tell and based on the editions available to me, the said punctuation mark seems (or better, in view of its likely absence in the mss, is supposed) to be necessary. Theodoret does not have the passage and Epiphanius writes: καὶ ἂλλα τινὰ συγγράμματα (some other written compositions!) ὡσαύτως πλάττονται κατἀ τῆς Ὑστέρας, ἣν Ὑστέραν κ.τ.λ. This passage does not provide any clues that would address the problem at hand. However, if the comma is supposed to be absent, Irenaeus states that he has collected other writings of these Gnostics where they also speak of (the theme of) dissoluere.
15.See the use of iam in widely-read (and imitated) writers like Cicero and Vergil, who not only use the word to denote 'already', but also 'moreover' or 'indeed'.
16.Although 'other' is not literally present in the text by means of, for instance, the adjective aliae, a translation like the one given here is quite naturally justified by the context (and perhaps, also by the rather emphatic et). Cf. the French translation in Rousseau and Doutreleau (1979:387): 'J'ai pu rassembler d'autres écrits émanant d'eux.' 17.Cf. below the discussion on the possible sources from which the passage might have been taken, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that Irenaus had firsthand knowledge of such writings.
Such a conclusion is doubtful. If the report is read as it stands, without it having been influenced by an anachronistic subdivision of the text (cf. Rousseau & Doutreleau 1979:386;Roberts & Donaldson [1885Foerster & Wilson 1972:42), an entirely different conclusion turns out to be much more likely. 18 Irenaeus makes mention of the Gospel of Judas and, immediately thereafter, states that he has even made a collection of the (other) writings of the Gnostics who 'adduced' it. The first and, apparently, main characteristic of these writings is that they exhort to dissolve the works of the Creator. 19 This activity of dissoluere is also described as a central tenet of the Gospel of Judas: 'through him (= Judas) all things, both earthly and heavenly, have been dissolved.' Hence, the word dissoluere 20 seems to signify an essential relation between the contents of various Gnostic writings. Irenaeus is clearly of the opinion that a number of writings, not least of all the Gospel of Judas, stem from one and the same Gnostic group. The close relation between these writings is revealed most prominently by the fact that similar concepts are central to all of them. Such concepts include not only Hystera and dissoluere, but also Factor and Fabricator, as well as diligenter cognouisse and scientia perfecta, among others. Such closely related subject matters oblige the unavoidable conclusion that these writings are intimately linked.
This brings us to the obvious follow-up question: Did Irenaeus personally read these texts? Few doubt the probability that Irenaeus actually read the writings he so emphatically said to have collected. It is fairly safe to assume that a person who not only intentionally collects certain texts, but is also able to communicate central tenets from their contents, would have read those texts.
But does the same hold true for the Gospel of Judas? I can think of no compelling or feasible reasons for doubting this either. When conveying the contents of various 'Valentinians' and other Gnostics, the writings of whom Irenaeus also explicitly claims to have had access to, he uses the same communicatory procedures as in Adversus Haereses I, 31. 21 In his discussion of the Gnostics represented by the Gospel of Judas, Irenaeus discloses and betrays a familiarity with some of their core doctrines. He also repeatedly and with a fair bit of emphasis 18.In many recent references to and discussions of Irenaeus's testimony (e.g. , this sentence is not mentioned at all. It is also conspicuously absent in Layton (1987:181 If measured according to our standards (and eagerness to know), Irenaeus's information about the tenets of the Gnostic group under discussion and about their view of Judas might seem somewhat brief. However, if it is recognised that his description of the relevant Gnostics occurs within the context of an appendix to his overview of the 'Valentinians's' ascendants, one cannot help but conclude that his remarks are not noticeably brief or conspicuously vague at all. In fact, they appear to be rather detailed.
Before continuing with the present discussion of our topic, we first need to halt at a vexing and (still) much disputed issue. Oftentimes in previous research, it has been claimed that Irenaeus is dependent on a non-Gnostic source for his overview of the ascendants of 'the Valentinian school ' (Adv. Haer. I,  writing (see Wisse 1971:205-223, esp. 214-215). However, already with regard to Adversus Haereses I, 29-30 (on the socalled 'Barbelo-Gnostics' and the Gnostics termed 'Ophites' in later tradition), one may side with those who argue that Irenaeus, yet again, refers to sources that were contemporary to these Gnostics, writings he was personally acquainted with (Perkins 1976:193-200, esp. 197-200;cf. Hilgenfeld [1884cf. Hilgenfeld [ ] 1963. Such conclusions are based on Irenaeus's style and his rather detailed summary. The very same impression is given by the section that immediately follows (Adv. Haer. I, 31, 1-2). 23 In order to indicate, firstly, that they are also a branch of the multitudo Gnosticorum and, secondly, that they are similar to the previously described ' 29,[1][2][3][4], Irenaeus introduces the 'Ophites' (I, 30, 1-14) as some other alii.
In exactly the same manner, Irenaeus also introduces the Gnostics of the If it is assumed that he did copy from a heresiological source, then Irenaeus would turn out to be a very clumsy 'author'. Yet, there is more than enough evidence from Irenaeus's literary heritage of his rhetorical skill (see Perkins 1976:194-197;Reynders 1935:5-27;Schoedel 1959:22-32). Such skill would undoubtedly have prevented him from making such a blunder. Since Irenaeus was not a clumsy author, and since his first readers were very likely intelligent people, and lastly, since it is extremely difficult to accept that later manuscript writers would have been inattentive enough to overlook this sentence, 26 it may be concluded with a fair amount of certainty that the combined evidence points only in one direction: Irenaeus intended to communicate to his audience that he personally collected and read the writings he then goes on to discuss and even quote. There also seems to be no reason for reaching any other conclusion concerning the Gospel of Judas: Irenaeus not only would have had first-hand knowledge of its existence and content, but he also appears to have read the text.
23.Or, perhaps more precise: Adv. haer. I, 30, 15-31, 2. Cf. both the division and the heading 'Sectes apparentées' preceding the French translation of this section in Rousseau and Doutreleau (1979:384-387 On the basis of these remarks, the most important particulars transmitted by Irenaeus may be summarised as follows: • there is a Gospel of Judas • this Gospel is linked to certain Gnostics, who considered themselves to be ascendants of the (positively-evaluated) Old-Testament figure Cain (and persons related to him) • these Gnostics had knowledge of a superior Principle and spoke about the Creator in a negative way • they told of Sophia and her activity • Judas was believed to be well acquainted with (parts of) a myth in which Sophia is seen as a redeemer figure • it was for this reason that Judas was characterised as 'knowing the truth', in other words, as a real Gnostic, in contrast to 'the others' (i.e. the other apostles) • because of this knowledge, Judas 'accomplished the mystery of the betrayal' • 'through him', that is, because of his deed of 'betrayal', 'all things, both earthly and heavenly, have been dissolved' • a special group of Gnostics (called 'Cainites' in later tradition) developed a writing to this effect, which they named 'the Gospel of Judas' • this writing is explicitly referred to as 'a composed work'.
An essential crux of Irenaeus's report is the word huiusmodi that appears near the end of the passage: 'Et confi(n)ctionem adferunt huiusmodi, Iudae Euangelium illud uocantes.' I translated the sentence as follows: 'And they adduce a composed work to this effect, which they call "the Gospel of Judas".' One may also translate: a composed work 'of that kind' or 'of/in that manner'. The question is: Does the word huiusmodi, being a further specification of the Gospel's contents, indicate that it only dealt with Judas, his particular gnosis, his 'betrayal', and its cosmic effects? Or does huiusmodi also refer to a comprehensive mythological story of which Irenaeus presents an outline? On the basis of the preceding word haec (Et haec Iudam proditorem diligenter cognouisse dicunt: [And they say that Judas the betrayer was thoroughly acquainted with these things]), I deem the latter possibility to be the most likely one (see above, the annotation to: 'haec ...: these things ...'). Hence, according to Irenaeus, the Gospel of Judas did not only talk about Judas, his gnosis, his performance of the betrayal-mystery (which was based on that gnosis), and its earthly and heavenly consequences. It also contained a myth in which, either explicitly or (at least) implicitly, Sophia (and her redeeming activity), the bad Creator and the superior Principle each had a significant role.
Based on our former discussion of the word haec, which word refers primarily to Sophia and her activity, it is illegitimate to deduce from Irenaeus's passage with any degree of certainty that the Gospel of Judas spoke about Cain and other Old Testament figures like Esau, Korah and the Sodomites. Irenaeus simply suggests these particular Gnostics venerated the person of Judas in the same positive way they venerated Cain and the others. As happens to be the case with Judas, 'they confess' that 'all such people are their cognates.' In other words, Judas is of the same race as Cain and the other people. All of these persons are considered to be the real Gnostics.
A final remark concerns Irenaeus's designation of the Gospel of Judas as a confin(c)tio. As previously indicated Theodoret states that the 'Cainites' 'composed' (συντεθείκασιν) the Gospel and Epiphanius speaks of a συνταγμάτιον. All these designations seem to have a negative connotation. Nonetheless, they also seem to indicate genuine characteristics of the writing's literary structure. According to Epiphanius, it was a short work. Both Theodoret and Epiphanius appear to confirm Irenaeus's specification of the writing as a composition. Once again, if considered within the context of Irenaeus's testimony in Adversus Haereses, this feature seems to have important consequences. The Gnostics who not only 'adduced', but in actual fact also seem to have 'produced' the Gospel, apparently did so by putting together several (Gnostic) traditions. A hint to this conclusion may be Irenaeus's remark: quemadmodum et Carpocrates dixit (Adv. haer. I, 31, 2;Rousseau & Doutreleau 1979:386), which not only seems to suggest that Irenaeus sees a parallel with the doctrines of the previously discussed Carpocrates and his followers (Adv. haer. I, 25, 1-6), but might also indicate that the Gnostics under discussion were partly indebted to Carpocrates's teachings. If the Gospel of Judas is indeed a composite of several (Gnostic) traditions and, moreover, if Irenaeus (and also Epiphanius and Theodoret) speak of the very same Gospel of Judas that was recently discovered, 27 a decidedly 'Sethian' interpretation of its contents would be inherently flawed. Although the myth transmitted by the newly-discovered text undoubtedly contains 'Sethian' characteristics, 28 Irenaeus's testimony, if read in context, teaches us that the Gnostics of the Gospel of Judas are others (alii) than, for instance, the 'Barbelo-Gnostics', discussed earlier. The Gnostics represented by the Gospel of Judas -in later tradition unequivocally termed 'Cainites' -seem to have made use of 'Sethian' tenets. 29 But much of their content and system -if their diverse doctrines 30 may be indicated as such -convinced Irenaeus to discuss them in a separate section of his Adversus Haereses. 31