JUDE, EPISTLE OF. The last in order in the Canon of the Catholic epistles.
Canonicity.—This epistle is not cited by any of the apostolic Fathers; the passages which have been adduced as containing allusions to it (Henn., Past. Vis., iv. 3 ; Clem. Rom., Ep. ad Car., cll. xi. ; Polycarp, Ep. aa' Phil., ch. iii.) presenting no certain evidence of being such. It is, however, formally quoted by Clement of Alexandria dog, p. 239, ed. Sylburg. ; Strom. p. 431), and Eusebius testifies (II. F,., vi. 14) that he treated it in his Hypotyposes ; it is also treated in the Adumbrationes, ascribed to Clement, and preserved in a Latin version. Tertullian refers to the epistle as that of Jude the Apostle (De Habit. ltfulieb., ch. iii.) It appears in the Muratori Fragment among the Canonical books. Origen repeatedly refers to it, and occasionally as the work of the Apostle Jude (Hom. in Matt., xiii. 55, Qv., ed. De la Rue, iii. p. 403 ; Com. in Ep. aa' Rom., Opp. iv. p. 519 • Him. yos., Opp. p. 411 ; De p. 138, etc.) ; though in one place he speaks as if doubts were entertained by some as to its genuineness (in Matt. xxii. 23 ; Opp. p. 814). It is not in the Peshito, and does not appear to have been known to the Syrian churches before the 4.th cen tury, near the close of which it is quoted by Eph raem Syrus (opp. Syr., i. p. 136). Eusebius ranks it among the Antilegomena, but this rather because it was not universally known than be cause where known it was by any regarded with suspicion (Hist. Eccl., ii. 23; iii. 25). By Jerome it is referred to as the work of an apostle (in Tit. ; Ep. ad Paulin, iii.), and he states that, though suspected by some, in consequence of containing; a quotation from the Apocryphal book of Enoch, it had obtained such authority as to be reckoned part of the canonical Scriptures (Cato!. Script. Eccl.) From the 4th century onwards, the place thus conceded to it remained unquestioned (Jessien, De abOurtg Ep. yudce Comni. Grit., Lips. 1821 ; Arnaud, R e.cherches Critiques szir Pip. de `Jude, etc., Strasb. 1851).
There is nothing in the epistle itself to cast sus picion on its genuineness ; on the contrary, it rather impresses one with the conviction that it must have proceeded from the writer whose name it bears. Another, forging a work in his name, would have hardly omitted to make prominent the personality of Judas, and his relation to our Lord, neither of which comes before us in this epistle (Bleek, Ein/. in d. T, p. 557).
2. Authar.—The writer desig,nates himself Judas, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.' The former of these designations affords no help in detennining whether the writer was the Apostle Jude or another person of the same name; for the phrase SoAos 'I. X. is neither peculiar to
an apostle, nor does it exclude the supposition that the party to whom it is applied was an apostle. It is to the other designation that we must look for the decision of this question. Now, were we sure that Jude the brother of James' is the same person who is designated Jude of James' ('Icaas. 'laKWPov) by Luke (vi. 16 ; Acts i. 13), the evidence that the writer of this epistle was the Apostle Jude would be conclusive. But there are difficulties in the way of this conclusion. For one thing, the words 'IoaSas 'Icuccbpou are more naturally in accordance with the usage of the language, translated Jude, the SOIL of James,' than Jude, the brother of James.' It is, moreover, extremely improbable that an apostle of the Lord would, in writing an epistle of warn ing and reproof to Christians, designate himself by his family relationship to a fellow-creature, instead of assuming 'the authority which his divine com mission as an apostle would have at once expressed and claimed. 'fo this it may be added that, in ver. 17th, the writer seems to speak of the apostles of the Lord as a class to which he himself did not belong ; for though one of their number might have expressed himself as the writer does here, the probability is on the other side. If on these grounds we conclude that the writer of this epistle was not the Apostle Jude, we are led to inquire whether he may not be the other Jude mentioned in the gospels as among the brethren of Jesus ' (Matt. xiii. 55), and as a younger brother of James. This would remove all difficulty, were it not that it remains in dispute whether the two brothers, James and Judas, who were apostles, are not identical with the James and Judas who were among the brethren of our Lord. Into this question we can not enter minutely here, but must refer for details to other articles in this book where both sides of the question are advocated [JAmEs, 3 ; JAMES, EPISTLE OF ; JESUS CHRIST]. Our own opinion inclines to the view that the brethren of our Lord were really sons of Joseph and Mary, and conse quently, that James the son of Cleophas, and Judas [the son] of James, who were apostles, are not to be identified with the persons bearing the same names among the brethren of our Lord. We incline also to think, that the James who presided over the church at Jerusalem was not the surviv ing apostle of that name, but the other James, the Lord's brother,' as he is expressly termed (Gal. i. 19). The question may be thus briefly stated. Discounting James the son of Zebedee, respecting whom there is no dispute, the other Jameses and the Judes (omitting Judas Iscariot) may be placed thus :— I. James, son of Alphus Apostles.