JUDE, EPISTLE OF, a book of the New Testament. As with the epistle of James (q.v.) it is uncertain whether the epistle is by one of the "brethren" of Jesus or whether it is pseudony mous. Hegesippus (ap. Philip Sidetes) has it that the only survivors of the family, late in the i-eign of Domitian (81-96), were two grandsons of this same Jude, named James and Zoker (Zacharias). An authentic letter of Jude would therefore belong to an early date. To this both external and internal evidence are decidedly opposed. The language is not that of an unschooled Galilean, nor is it translated from Aramaic. As F. H. Chase has pointed out : the terms &Trot., rio-ns, o-cornpia, have attained their later, technical sense ; (2) "the writer is steeped in the lan guage of the LXX.," employing its phraseology independently of other N.T. writers, and quoting not only from the canonical books but from the broader Alexandrian canon; (3) "he has at his command a large stock of stately, sonorous, sometimes poetical words," which prove him to be a "man of some culture, and, as it would seem, not without acquaintance with Greek writers." More over, the avowed object is to defend the purity of the "deposit of the faith (v. 3) against the demoralizing perversions of the false teachers who have "crept in privily" to corrupt the Church. These have diverted the writer from addressing his readers (the Church catholic) on the general subject of "our common salvation," and compelled him to undertake his apologetic.
The statement explains why so obscure a name as that of Judas "the brother of James" should be chosen, inasmuch as the writer clearly aims at following the example set in the larger "general" epistle, while making the aim more specific. The series is con tinued by 2 Pet. (q.v.), which incorporates the substance of Jude in its middle chapter. 2 Pet. directs the denunciation still more specifically against those who (according to Polycarp's complaint) "denied the resurrection and judgment." Thus James, Jude and 2 Pet. form a group of post-apostolic writings which use the authority of apostolic names against (I) "vain talk," (2) "law lessness," and (3) Hellenizing opposition to the apocalyptic type of eschatology which the Church had inherited from Judaism. These are the three forms of error which were regarded by Church leaders of the first half of the 2nd century as most dangerous. If this late date is correct, the entire group must be regarded as pseudonymous.
This relatively late date (I00-120?) is confirmed in the case of Jude by the literary connections, which are remarkably abundant for so brief a writing. The references to Enoch (v. 14=Eth. En.
i. 9, but cf. F. H. Chase in Hastings' Diet. Bible, s.v. "Jude") and the Assumption of Moses (v. 9) have a certain bearing on the place of origin, since the stricter canon of the Palestinian syna gogue excluded these apocryphal books of 90 B.C. to A.D. 4o. A relatively late date is implied by the free use of the Pauline Epistles, especially I Cor. x. 1-13, Rom. xvi. 25 seq., and probably both Eph. and Col. Moreover, the writer explicitly refers to the apostolic age as already past, and to the fulfilment of the Pauline prediction (I Tim. iv. 1 seq.) of the advent of heresy (v. 17 seq.). The Pauline doctrine of "grace" has been perverted to lascivious ness, as by the heretics whom Polycarp opposes (Ep. Polyc. vii.), and this doctrine is taught for "hire" (vv. I 1, 12, 16; cf. I Tim. vi. 5). The unworthy "shepherds" (v. 12; cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 8; Joh. X. 12 seq.) live at the expense of their flocks, polluting the "love feasts," corrupting the true disciples. Clement of Alexandria sees in this a portrait (written prophetically) of the Carpocratians, an antinomian Gnostic sect of c. 150. We too may recognize the portrait, but should not limit it too closely to the Carpocratians, for Rev. ii. 14, 20 shows that as early as A.D. 93 ultra-Paulinists had already given rise to similar scandals in the Church. It is clear, however, that for our author both Pauline teaching and its perversion lie in the past, as is apparent also in Jas. ii. 1-14.
A terminus ad quern is furnished by the fact that practically the whole of Jude is taken up into 2 Pet., the later author merely avoiding, so far as he observes them, the quotations from apocry phal writings. The erratic attempt of Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Lit. d. Urchristentliums, ii. 409-410 to ascribe priority in this case to 2 Pet. has been sufficiently refuted by F. H. Chase, loc. cit. p. 803. Unfortunately the date of 2 Pet. is itself so difficult to fix that the employment only indicates a date prior to c. A.D. 150.
The history of the reception of the epistle into Church canons is similar to that of James. It is quoted as the work of Jude by Clement of Alexandria (Paed. iii. 8), referred to by Tertullian (De cult. fern. i. 3), and endorsed more or less hesitantly by Origen ("if one might adduce the epistle of Jude," In Matt. tom. xvii. 3o). Unlike James, Jude is admitted by the Muratorian Canon (18o-200). Eusebius classed the epistle among the "dis puted" books, declaring that "not many of the ancients have mentioned it" (H.E. ii. 23, 25).