LiTEaxTCBE.— <1) On the reception of the Ep. in the Ohurch, Bee Charloris. CanonicU];, p. 331 ff. (based on the next named); Kirchhoft-r, iJifUfiuaimnlxtnij, § xxxii. ; Iteuss, Ge^ch. d. hnt. Hc/irijten .V/', §233; Wcatcott, Uinlorj/ of tlie Canon of the S T ; Z;iliii, fjtmchu:ht< lies yi' Kanoiu, e^ipeciully i. 1, p. 3lif ft.
(2) Commentaries: (a) Ancient. —Clenu-nt of Alex., Uypoty. pos'-ti (Zahn, Forgchun^jen, iii. pp. 83 IT., O.'jff.): Didymusof Alex. (Mil^ne, /'at. Gr. xxxix. 1811-1S18, Latin version, with a few OreettfrajiiuenU*); Oecumeniu8(Mih'ne,/'o(.fir.cxix.); Theophy- lacL (.Nli^iie, Pat. Gr. cxxvi.) ; fi-afjment* and bcholia iti O. F. Matlhiui, iVm'. Trst. v., 1782, Scholia in Ep. Calh. (>. 234 ft., and in Cramer, Catena, 1840; Bede(MiLrne, Paf. Lat. xciil.). (t) .Modern. —The KeformaCion period— LutTier, 1623 ; Calvin, 1651. The 17th century — tirotiiis, Annotalioneji, ll>60. Tlie present century (in alphiiiietical order) — Briiclcner, 1805 (ed. 3); K. Burj^er in .Strocli- Z«n;I<ler. KurZ'jefa9Ster Komnuntar, 1805 (ed. 2); Fronmiiller In Ijint-e, BibelxKrk, 1862, 1880 (ed. 4), also Eng. tr., Edinburch, 187U; J. C. K. Uofmann, 1875; liuther in Meyer, 1852, also En^;. tr., Eilinburxb. 1881 ; Launuann, 1818 ; Ltmjby in SpfaicfTB Cominmrnlary, 1881; C. F. Keil, 18S:i ; E. Kuhl In Wiisa- Mever, 1897 (od. 6); A. Plummerin Ellicotfs Com rn, /or F.nnligh UrmiiTs, 1883, the same in KxpotUur't DMe, 18111 ; Pluiiiiitrs in Camb. Bible far ScliooU, l.siO; Itaiupl, 1854 : 11. F. Sadler, 1891 ; .SolinecltenhTirger, 1832 ; Schott, 1863 ; von Soden In Uand- Coiiunenlar. 1892 (ed. 2); Sticr, 1860 ; O Wandel, 1898; Wiesinger in nlshuusen, liiMtcerk, 1802.
(i) tJeneral.— The relevant sections iti Uie Introductions to the NT, especially the foUowiMj; :— Bleek, Uavidson, Ilil^eiifrld, Holtzniann. Jiili<-tier, Salmon, B. Wcisa. de Wette (i-<l. lS(;ii), Zalm • ; art. 'Jude' in Uncy. Brit. (Lnmliy), the arts, in HerzOK (Sieflert). Smith (ed. 1895, A. Plununer), Schenkel (Sclieni<el) : also the foUowint; tK>okB and articles; — E. Arnaud, Dm Cil'tliorui apocr. de Jude, 1849, the same, Recherfhm rritujUftt mtr it^p. de Jude avec comin/nitaire, 1851 (also Enu. tr. in Brit, and Foreign Koang. Heveit; July 18.'>9); L. A. Arnaud, h'snai cril. rur Caut^ien. 1836; IteyscblaK. Artt- (<•»(. Theol. 1802 (ii. pp. 48.3-(S0) ; Deissmann. Bil'els:udi.-n, 1895
* The second vol. of Zalin's Einleituiu/ appeared after this article was in print It contains (pp. 42-llu) a very full dis- cussion of the tpiestlons conneotwl with Jude and 2 I*. The chief conclusions at which Xahn arrives are as follou-s 2 P was written by St. Peter liefore, atwut the autumn of a d. o;>, ho visited Uome, i.e. 0<>-tKl. It was address*Hi to Cbupches mainly Jewish in or near Palestine. Ep. Jude was the work of the Ix^ni's brother, and was uddresswl to the same Chun-hos OS 2 P. The lii>ertinea of Jude are folse teachers, and exactly corresjiond to the jiicture drawn by antici|iation in 2 P, lo wbidi, lndce<l, reference is made in Jude*- '7. Zahn take« Jude* to refer to tlie deliverance of a pcnule (an.-vrthrous Xm.^) bv 'Jesus ' (best supported readinn) from tlie spiritual E^-pt of sfu, and to tiiesut>se<iuent Jud;,nucnl on the unlielievinir In the destruction cf Jer»i».-uem. The ilate, llierefore, ol the Kp. ntusl Ih? after 70, and is protabh' al>out 75. It niay In? added that /jkbn thinks that Jude used the Hebrew or Aroiuaic orit^lnal of Enoch.
The writer of the article would gladly have considered ^ahn'a ]>osition in greater detail. Btit he d^x-s not find any reason to 1 mwltty his own orifumenta or oonclusiont.
806
JUDGE, JUDGING
JUDGE, JUDGING
(D. 188 fl ) ; Ewald, Subm StnUehreiben, 1870 ; Fanur, Eariv Day' "f ChrUtianiti/, 1882 (I. pp. 22I>-2'1S); Qlong, In. trod to Uu CatA. Hpiitla, 1887; Harnack, />« Lthrt der zunHf Apo'tUl ('TexU u. UnUmuch.' li. 1, 2), 1SS4 (p. 1051.}, the wme, Dit Chnmologie, 1897 (pp. 465-489); Jeasien, De «u«i.t,^ <p Juda, 1821; Mainel, Gnottic Ueraia, 1875 (p. onft.); McOiBert, //«<. of Chritlianity in the Apoitolu! Age, 1897 (up. 685-683); Mayerholl, Die J'etrinuchen Schriflm, 1S35 (pp. 1.1- 18") • Keandcr, Plantitig o/ the Chrietian Church (Enf. tr. in Bohn'8 seriis, p. 391 (.) ; Pflelderer, Urchrintmthum, 1.SS7 (pp. 885-843) ; liormn, St. Paul, 1869 (p. S(X)0.) ; RiUchl in SK, ISlll (p 103 fl , ' Ucber die im briefe (ie» Judos chaiacterislrten Anti- nomisttn'); B. Weiw In SK, 1S«6 (p. 2568., 'Die Petrinische Frage, Das Verhaltnisa turn Judasbriet'); Zdckler, Bandb. d. Theol. Wueenech., 1883, L p. 4191. (Schulze).
F. n. Chase.
JUDGE, JUDGING.— Among the early Israelites the official organization of the administration of justice wa.s entirely unknown. There were no courts of law, no otlicial judjjes, no codified laws. Disputes were settled by the natural heads of families and tribes, in accordance with the customs that had grown up in the course of their develop- ment. These customs were connected with («) the family, and (b) religion. In the earliest book of flebrew history (JE) the pictures of patriarchal times rejiresent the father or head of the family as possessing supreme power over his property (Gn 27), his slaves (Gn 21), and the members of his own family (Gn 22. 38*"). Disputes between families were settled by an appeal to force, or by an amicable covenant between the heads of the families (Gn 21 ; cf. the story of Jacob and Esau in Gn 32). But J" Himself is also represented as acting as supreme judge, and that not only in the case of peoples (Babel, Sodom), but also of indi- viduals (Gn 20^). So also refractory members of a family were solemnly dedicated to God's wrath (Gn 49"^).