_THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE._
"Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that
are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:
mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied."--ST. JUDE 1, 2.
Precisely as in the case of the Epistle of St. James, the question as
to the authenticity of this letter resolves itself into two parts: Is
the Epistle the veritable product of a writer of the Apostolic age? If
it is, which of the persons of that age who bore the name of Judas is
the author of it? Both of these questions can be answered with a very
considerable amount of certainty.
Let us remember the right way of putting the first of these two
questions. Not, Why should we believe that this Epistle was written by
an Apostle or a contemporary of the Apostles? but, Why should we
refuse to believe this? What reason have we for rejecting the verdict
of ecclesiastics and theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries,
who were well aware of the doubts which had been raised respecting the
authority of the Epistle, and after full and prolonged consideration
decided that it possessed full canonical authority. Not only were they
in possession of evidence which is no longer available, and which
rendered it probable that their decision would be correct; but the
universal acceptance of their decision in all the Churches proves that
their decision was admitted to be correct by those who had ample means
of testing its soundness.
The Epistle of St. Jude, like that of St. James, is reckoned by
Eusebius as one of the six or seven "disputed" (ἀντιλεγόμενα) books
of the New Testament, which fact, while it proves that misgivings had
existed in some quarters respecting the authority of the letter, at
the same time proves that it was not admitted into the canon by an
oversight. The difficulties respecting it were well known, and were
considered to be by no means fatal to its otherwise strong claim to be
accepted (see above, pp. 15-18). And the difficulties respecting the
two Epistles were similar in kind. 1. Many Churches remained for a
considerable time without any knowledge of one or other of the two
Epistles; but whereas it was in the West that the Epistle of St. James
was least known, it was Eastern Churches that remained longest without
knowledge of that of St. Jude. 2. Even when the Epistle did become
known it remained doubtful whether the writer was a person of
authority. He was possibly not an Apostle, and if he was not such,
what were his claims to be heard? 3. To these two difficulties, which
were common to both Epistles, must be added another which was peculiar
to that of St. Jude. It may be stated in Jerome's words. "Because in
it Jude derives a testimony from the Book of Enoch, which is
apocryphal, it is rejected by some"[102] (_Catal. Scr. Eccl._ iv.). As
we shall see hereafter, it probably makes use of yet another
apocryphal book; and it was not unreasonably doubted whether an
Apostolic writer would compromise himself by the use of such
literature. If he were inspired, he would know it to be apocryphal,
and would abstain from quoting it; and if he did not know its
apocryphal character, how could he be inspired, or his words be of any
authority?
That so brief a letter should remain for a considerable time quite
unknown to some Churches, is not at all surprising. Its evident Jewish
tone would render it less attractive to Gentile Christians. Its making
no claim to Apostolic authority raised a doubt whether it had any
authority whatever, and this doubt was increased by the fact that it
quotes apocryphal writings. Consequently those Christians who knew the
Epistle would not always be ready to promote its circulation. Even if
we were compelled to infer that silence respecting it implies
ignorance of its existence, such ignorance would in most cases be very
intelligible: but this perilous inference from silence in some cases
can be shown to be incorrect. Hippolytus may _possibly_ have remained
ignorant of it; but if, as Bishop Lightfoot suggests,[103] he is the
author of the supposed Greek original of the Muratorian Canon, he
testifies strongly (note the _sane_) to the general reception of the
Epistle. This holds good, however we may deal with the ambiguous _in
catholica_, which may possibly mean "in the Catholic Church," or be a
mistake for _in catholicis_, "among the Catholic Epistles." Cyprian,
who never quotes the Epistle of St. Jude, must have known of it from
the celebrated passage in "the master" Tertullian, whose works he was
always reading. And it is quite incredible that Chrysostom, who in all
his voluminous writings does not chance to quote it even once, was not
familiar with its contents. The brevity of the Epistle is sufficient
to explain a great deal of the silence respecting it.
The most serious item in the external evidence against the Epistle is
its absence from the Peshitto, or ancient Syriac Version. The
considerations already mentioned go a long way towards explaining this
absence, and it is a great deal more than counterbalanced by the
strong external evidence in its favour. This is surprisingly strong,
especially when compared with that in favour of the Epistle of
St. James. In both cases the troubles which overwhelmed the Church of
Jerusalem and Jewish Christianity in the reign of Hadrian interfered
with the circulation of the letters; but it is the shorter letter and
the letter of the less-known writer which (so far as extant testimony
goes) seems in the first instance to have obtained the wider
circulation and recognition. The Muratorian Canon, as we have seen,
contains it; so also does the old Latin Version. Tertullian (_De Cult.
Fem._ I. iii.) vehemently contends that the Book of Enoch ought to be
accepted as canonical, and he clenches his argument with the fact that
it is quoted by "the Apostle Jude." This appeal would have seemed
dangerous rather than conclusive, if in North Africa there had been
any serious misgivings about the authority of Jude's Epistle.
Tertullian evidently entertained nothing of the kind. In a similar
spirit Augustine asks, "What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not
the canonical Epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied?"
(_De Civ. Dei_, xviii. 38). Clement of Alexandria quotes it as
Scripture (_Pæd._ III. viii., and _Strom._ III. ii.), and commented
upon it in his _Hypotyposeis_ (Eus. H. E. VI. xiv. 1), of which we
probably still possess some translations into Latin made under the
direction of Cassiodorus. Origen, although he was aware that it was
not universally received, for in one place he uses the cautious
expression, "If any receive the Epistle of Jude," yet accepted it
thoroughly himself, as the frequent citations of it in his works show.
In one passage he speaks of it as "an Epistle of but few lines, yet
full of the strong words of heavenly grace" (_Comm._ on Matt.
xiii. 55). Athanasius places it in his list of the canonical
Scriptures without any mark of doubt. And Didymus, head of the
Catechetical School at Alexandria, and instructor of Jerome and
Rufinus, condemns the opposition which some offered to the Epistle on
account of the statement respecting the body of Moses (ver. 9), just
as Jerome virtually condemns those who opposed it because of the
quotation from the Book of Enoch.
This evidence, it will be observed, is mostly Western. The blank as
regards the East is to some extent filled by the letter of the Synod
at Antioch against Paul of Samasota, A.D. 269. Portions of this letter
have been preserved by Eusebius, and Malchion, the presbyter who
chiefly composed it, seems to have had the Epistle of Jude in his mind
when he wrote. This is chiefly evident in the tone of the letter; but
here and there the wording approaches that of St. Jude; _e.g._
"denying his God [and Lord]" reminds us of "denying our only Master
and Lord" (Jude 4); and "not guarding the faith which he once held"
may be suggested by "contend earnestly for the faith which was once
for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). The quotations from Jude
in Ephrem Syrus (_c._ A.D. 308-73) are somewhat discredited, for they
occur only in the Greek translations of his works, some of which,
however, were made in his lifetime; but the quotations may be
insertions made by translators.
That so short a letter should have so much testimony in its favour is
remarkable; and although it may be a slight exaggeration to say, with
Zahn, that about A.D. 200 it was accepted "in the Church of all lands
round the Mediterranean Sea" (_Gesch. d. Neutest. Kanons_, I., p.
321), yet even Harnack admits that this is not much in excess of the
truth. The only abatement which he suggests is that the misgivings to
which Origen on one single occasion bears witness, show that the
Epistle was not _everywhere_ in the East part of the New Testament
Scriptures (_Das N.T. um d. Jahr 200_, p. 79). We may take it,
therefore, as sufficiently proved that this letter was written by one
who belonged to the Apostolic age. Had it been a forgery of the second
century, it would not have found this general acceptance. Moreover, a
forger would have chosen some person of greater fame and greater
authority as the supposed writer of the Epistle, or would at least
have made Jude an Apostle; and above all, he would have betrayed some
_motive_ for the forgery. There is nothing in the letter to indicate
any such motive. Renan accepts the Epistle as a genuine relic of the
Apostolic age, and indeed places it as early as A.D. 54; yet his view
of it would lead other people to regard it as a forgery, for it
supplies a strong motive. Renan considers it to be an attack on
St. Paul. The Clementine literature shows us how a heretic of the
second century can make a covert attack on the Apostle of the
Gentiles; and if we could believe that the writer of this Epistle had
St. Paul in his mind when he denounced those who "in their dreamings
defile the flesh, and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities,"
we should be ready enough to believe that he was not really "Judas,
brother of James," but one who did not dare to say openly in the
Church the accusations which he tried to insinuate. But no critic has
accepted this strange theory of Renan's, and it is hardly worth while
asking, Why was not St. Peter or St. John taken as the authority
wherewith to counteract the influence of St. Paul? Of what weight
would the words of the unknown Jude be in comparison with his? Renan's
literary acuteness recognizes in this Epistle a veritable product of
the first century: his prejudices respecting anti-Pauline tendencies
among the Apostolic writers lead him amazingly astray as to the
meaning of its contents.
It remains to consider the second part of the question respecting the
authenticity of this Epistle. We are justified in believing that it is
a writing of the Apostolic age, by a person bearing the name of Judas
or Jude. But to which of the persons who bore that name in the first
age of the Church is the letter to be assigned? Only two persons have
to be considered--(1) "Judas not Iscariot," who seems also to have
been called Lebbæus or Thaddæus, for in the lists of the Apostles
Thaddæus or Lebbæus (the readings are confused) stands in Matthew x.
and Mark iii. as the equivalent of "Judas [the son] of James" in Luke
vi. and Acts i.; and (2) Judas one of the four brethren of the Lord;
the names of the other three being James, Joseph or Joses, and Simon
(Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). These two are sometimes identified, but
the identification is highly questionable, although the Authorized
Version encourages us to make it by giving to "Judas of James" the
improbable meaning, "Judas the _brother_ of James," instead of the
usual meaning, "Judas the _son_ of James."[104] In other words, the
Authorized Version assumes that the writer of this Epistle is the
Apostle "Judas not Iscariot;" the writer calls himself "brother of
James," and the Authorized Version makes this Apostle to be "the
brother of James."
We have seen already that both Tertullian and Augustine speak of the
writer of this Epistle as an Apostle. So also does Origen, but only in
two passages, of which the Greek original is wanting (_De Principiis_,
III. ii. 1; _Comm. on Romans_ v. 13, vol. iv., 549). In no passage of
the Greek works, and in no other passage of the Latin translations,
does he call Jude an Apostle; so that the addition of Apostle in these
two places may be an insertion of his not very accurate translator
Rufinus. But even if the authority of Origen is to be added to that of
Tertullian and Augustine, the opinion that the author of this letter
was an Apostle is not probable. Had he been such, it would have been
natural to mention the fact as a claim on the attention of his
readers, instead of merely contenting himself with naming his
relationship to his much more distinguished brother James. It is not
to the point to urge that St. Paul does not always call himself an
Apostle in his Epistles. He was a well-known person, especially after
his four great Epistles had been published, in all of which he styles
himself an Apostle. In the two to the Thessalonians he does not,
probably because he there associates Silvanus and Timothy with himself
(but see 1 Thess. ii. 6). St. Jude was comparatively unknown, having
written nothing else, and having probably travelled little. The
charge, "Remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the
Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ" (ver. 17), although it does not
necessarily imply that the writer himself is not one of these
Apostles, yet would be more suitable to one who did not possess
Apostolic rank. And when we ask what _James_ is meant, when he styles
himself "brother of James," the answer cannot be doubtful; it is James
the brother of the Lord, one of the three "Pillars" of the Jewish
Christian Church, first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, and
author of the Epistle which bears his name. The Epistle of Jude is
evidently by a Jewish Christian, who, while writing to all that have
been called to the faith, evidently has Jewish Christians chiefly in
his mind. To such a writer it was well worth while to mention that he
was brother of that James who was so revered by all his fellow
countrymen. Reasons have been given already for believing that this
James was not an Apostle (pp. 27-29), and these will confirm us in the
opinion that his brother Jude was not such. The question of their
relationship to Jesus Christ has also been discussed (pp. 31, 32), and
need not be reopened here. If it be argued that, had St. Jude been the
brother of the Lord, he would have mentioned the fact, we may securely
answer that he would not have done so. "As the author of the
_Adumbrationes_ centuries ago remarked, religious feeling would deter
him, as it did his brother James, in his Epistle, from mentioning
this. The Ascension had altered all Christ's human relationships, and
His brethren would shrink from claiming kinship after the flesh with
His glorified body. This conjecture is supported by facts. Nowhere in
primitive Christian literature is any authority claimed on the basis
of nearness of kin to the Redeemer. He Himself had taught Christians
that the lowliest among them might rise above the closest of such
earthly ties (Luke xi. 27, 28); to be spiritually the "servant of
Jesus Christ" was much more than being His actual brother."[105]
We may suppose that Jude, like the rest of his brethren (John vii. 5),
did not at first believe in the Messiahship of Jesus, but was
converted by the convincing event of the Resurrection (Acts i. 14). We
know that he was married, not merely from the general statement made
by St. Paul respecting the brethren of the Lord (1 Cor. ix. 5), but
from the interesting story told by Hegesippus, and preserved by
Eusebius (_H. E._ III. xx. 1-8), that two grandsons of Jude were taken
before Domitian as being of the royal family of David, and therefore
dangerous to his rule. "For," says Hegesippus, "he was afraid of the
appearance of the Christ, as Herod was." In answer to his questions,
they stated that they were indeed of the family of David, but were
poor and humble persons, who supported themselves by their own labour;
in proof of which they showed their horny hands. When further
questioned respecting the Christ and His kingdom, they said that it
was not earthly, but heavenly, and would arise at the end of the
world, when He came to judge the living and the dead. Whereupon
Domitian contemptuously dismissed them as too simple to be dangerous,
and ordered that the persecution of the descendants of David should
cease. These two men were afterwards honoured in the Churches, both as
confessors and as being near of kin to the Lord. A fragment of Philip
of Side (_c._ A.D. 425) lately discovered says that Hegesippus gave
the names of these two men as Zocer and James (_Texte und
Untersuchungen_, V. 2, p. 169).
This narrative implies that both St. Jude and the father of these
grandsons were already dead, and this gives us a terminus respecting
the date of the Epistle. St. Jude was almost certainly dead when
Domitian came to the throne, in A.D. 81, and therefore this letter was
written before that date. Whether, as Hilgenfeld and others would have
us believe, the Epistle is aimed at Gnostic errors which did not arise
until the second century, will be considered hereafter, when the
nature of the evils denounced by St. Jude is discussed; but the
evidence which has been examined thus far entirely agrees with the
supposition that the letter was written during the Apostolic age.
It is not impossible that in calling himself "brother of James"
St. Jude is thinking of his brother's _Epistle_, and wishes his
readers to consider that the present letter is to be taken in
conjunction with that of St. James. Both letters are Palestinian in
origin and Jewish in tone; and they are almost entirely practical in
their aim, dealing with grave errors in conduct. Those which are
denounced by St. Jude are of a grosser kind than those denounced by
St. James, but they resemble the latter in being errors of behaviour
rather than of creed. They are to a large extent the _outcome_ of
pernicious principles; but it is the vicious lives of these "ungodly
men" that are condemned more than their erroneous beliefs. St. Jude,
therefore, may be appealing not only to his brother's position and
authority as a recommendation for himself, but also to his brother's
Epistle, which many of his readers would know and respect.
The attempts which have been made to find a locality for St. Jude's
readers altogether fail. Palestine, Asia Minor, Alexandria have all
been suggested; but the letter does not offer sufficient material for
the formation of a reasonable opinion. "To them that are called,
beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ," is a formula
which embraces _all_ Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, and whether
inside or outside Palestine. The topics introduced are such as would
chiefly interest Jewish Christians, and it is probable that the writer
has the Jewish Christians of Palestine and the adjoining countries
chiefly in his mind; but we have no right to limit the natural meaning
of the formal address which he himself has adopted. All Christians,
without limitation, are the objects of St. Jude's solicitude.
[102] _A plerisque rejicitur._ Possibly this means "is rejected by
_very many_;" it certainly ought not to be rendered "is rejected by
_most_." "Most" is the classical meaning of _plerique_; but in Tacitus
it means no more than "very many" (_Hist._ iv. 84, etc.), and in
Jerome and his contemporaries it need mean no more than "some." Thus
in Jerome's letter to Dardamus (_Ep._ cxxix.) we have _licet plerique
eam vel Barnabæ vel Clementis arbitrentur_ (of the Epistle to the
Hebrews), where _plerique_ = the τινές of Eusebius and Origen (_H. E._
VI. xx. 3; xxv. 14).
[103] See the _Academy_ of September 21st, 1889, where he shows how
much of the Fragment can be turned quite literally into Greek verse,
and suggests that the εἰς πάσας τὰς γράφας, "Odes referring to all
the Scriptures," mentioned among the works of Hippolytus whose titles
are inscribed on his chair (see Kraus, _Real. Encykl. der Chris.
Alterthümer_, I., pp. 661-64), refers to metrical compositions on the
contents of the Old and New Testaments. The Fragment says respecting
this Epistle, "Epistola sane Iude et superscrictio (_sic_) Iohannis
duas in catholica habentur", where _superscrictio_ is a clerical error
for _superscripti_, "the John mentioned above."
[104] The Genevan Version introduced this rendering. Previous versions
either leave the meaning doubtful, "Judas of James," as Wiclif, or
translate "James' _sonne_," as Tyndale and Cranmer. Luther also is for
"son."
[105] These words are quoted from a commentary which the writer of
this volume wrote in 1879 for Messrs. Cassell, in the _New Testament
Commentary for English Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott (p. 505),
of which, through the courtesy of the publishers, he is allowed to
make use for the present work.