JUDE, EPISTLE OF (jade, e-pTs"1).
(1) Authenticity. Doubts have been thrown upon the genuineness of this Epistle, from the fact that the writer was supposed to have cited two apocryphal books—Enoch and the Assump tion of Moses. But, notwithstanding the diffi culties connected with this point, this epistle 1.vas treated by the ancients with the highest respect, and regarded as the genuine work of an inspired writer. Although Origen on one occasion speaks doubtfully, calling it the 'reputed epistle of Jude,' yet on another occasion, and in the same work (Com. Alatt.), he says, 'Jude wrote an epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of the powerful words of heavenly grace, who at the beginning says, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James."' The same writer (Com. in Rom. and De Princip. i:138) calls it the writing of Jude the Apostle.
The moderns are, however, divided in opinion between Jude the Apostle and Jude the Lord's brother, if indeed they be different persons. Hug and De Wette ascribe it to the latter.
(2) Another Brother of James. The author simply calls himself Jude, the brother of James, and a servant of Jesus Christ. This form of ex pression has given rise to various conjectures.
Hug supposes that he intimates thereby a nearer degree of relationship than that of an apostle.
At the same time it must be acknowledged that the circumstance of his not naming himself an apostle is not of itself necessarily sufficient to militate against his being the apostle of that name. inasmuch as St. Paul does not upon all occasions (as in Philippians, Thessalonians, aryl Philemon) use this title. From his calling him self the brother of James, rather than the brother of the Lord, Michaelis deduces that he was the son of Joseph by a former wife, and not a full brother of our Lord's, as Herder contends. (See JAmes; JUDAS OR JunE.) (3) Coincidence with Epistles of Peter. From the great coincidence both in sentiment and subject which exists between our epistle and the second of St. Peter, it has been thought by
many critics that one of these writers had seen the other's work; but we shall reserve the discus sion as to which was the earlier writing until we come to treat of St. Peter's Epistle.
(4) When Written. Dr. Lardner supposes that Jude's Epistle was written between the years 64 and 66, Beausohre and l.'Enfant between 7o and 75 (from which Dodwell and Cave do not materially differ), and Dr. Mill fixes it at the year Oo. If Jude has quoted the apocryphal book of Enoch, as seems to be agreed upon by most mod ern critics, and if this book was written, as Lucke thinks, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the age of our epistle best accords with the date assigned to it by Mill.
(5) To Whom Addressed. It is difficult to de cide who the persons were to whom this epistle was addressed, some supposing that it was writ ten to converted Jews, others to all Christians without distinction. Nlany of the arguments seem best adapted to convince the Jewish Christians. as appeals are so strikingly made to their sacred hooks and traditions.
(6) Design. The design of this epistle is lo warn the Christians against the false teachers who had insinuated themselves among them and disseminated dangerous tenets of insubordination and licentiousness. The author reminds them, by the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, that God had punished the rebellious Jews; and that even the disobedient angels had shared the same fate. The false teachers to whom he alludes 'speak evil of dignities,' while the archangel Michael did not even revile Satan. He com pares them to Balaam and Korah, to clouds with out water, and to raging waves. Enoch, he says, foretold their wickedness ; at the same time he consoles believers, and exhorts them to perse vere in faith and love. The epistle is remarkable for the vehemence, fervor and energy of its com position and style. (See ANTILEGOMENA.) W. W.