(c) For the title Akeldama and its interpretation see separate article, s.v.
It remains to remark that St. Peter's expression, as recorded in his address, and the apostolic prayer of ordination, for which he was probably responsible and the mouthpiece, breathe much more of the spirit of primitive Christianity in their restrained and chastened style than the more outspoken and
** Copyright, 1016, by Charles Scribner's Sons.
almost vindictive statements of w.^^- ^^, so that one would not be altogether surprised to find that the latter are, as has been suggested, a less genuine tradition of a later age. C. L. Feltoe.
JUDE, THE LORD'S BROTHER.— The list of the
Lord's brothers is given in Mk 6^ as 'James, and Joses, and Judas [AV 'Juda'], and Simon,' in Mt 13^^ as 'James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas.' Itwould be precarious, even apart from the variation in order, to infer that Judas was one of the younger brothers of Jesus ; still, this is not improbable, especially if, as the present writer believes, 'the brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph and Mary. We know practically nothing of his history. If the statement in Jn 7^ can be trusted, that at that time the brethren of Jesus did not believe in Him, he cannot be identified with ' Judas, the son of James,' who is mentioned in Luke's fist of the apostles (Lk 6^^ Ac 1^^), and described in Jn 14^2 as 'Judas (not Iscariot).' We may assume from Ac 1^* that in the interval between the incident recorded in Jn 7^"^° and the Ascension, Jude and his brothers had recognized the Messiahship of Jesus. We gather from 1 Co 9^ that 'the brethren of the Lord' were married to Christian wives, by whom they were accompanied on missionary journeys. Pi'esumably these references included Jude. He seems to have taken no very prominent position in the Church, being overshadowed, hke Joses and Simon, by James. _ The date of his death is un- certain, but the evidence of Hegesippus, quoted in Euseb. HE iii. xx., suggests that he died before Domitian came to the throne. Eusebius informs us that the grandchildren of Jude were brought before Domitian, as descendants of David, but released when the Emperor discovered that they were horny-handed husbandmen, who were ex- pecting a heavenly kingdom at Christ's Second Coming. They survived tiU the reign of Trajan. The last statement suggests that a considerable interval elapsed between the interview with the Emperor and their death; and, inasmuch as the reign of Domitian (a.d. 81-96) was separated from that of Trajan (a.d. 98-117) only by Nerva's short reign of two years (a.d. 96-98), we should probably place the interview quite early in Domitian's reign. Since not Jude alone but presumably the father of these grandsons was apparently dead at the time, it is hardly hkely that the death of Jude occurred at a later date than the decade a.d. 70-80, when he would be well advanced in years. This has an important though not decisive bearing on the question whether the Epistle of Jude is rightly assigned to him (see following article).
** JUDE, EPISTLE OF.— 1. Relation to 2 Peter.—
The striking coincidences between this Epistle and the Second Epistle of Peter, covering the greater part of the shorter Avriting, raise in an acute form the question of relative priority. It is best, how- ever, to investigate each Epistle independently before approaching the problem of their mutual relations. Since, however, the present writer, in spite of the attempts made by S])itta, Zahn, and Uigg to prove tlie dependence of Jude on 2 Peter, is convinced, with the great majority of critics, that 2 Peter is based on Jude, the discussion of tliis question is not raised in this article but postponed to that on Peter, Epistles of.
2. Contents. — The writer of the Epistle seems to have been diverted from tlie project of a more ex- tensive composition by the urgent necessity of exhorting his readers ' to contend earnestly for the faith whicli was once for all delivered unto the saints ' (v.^). Whether he had made any progress with his work on ' our common salvation,' or, if so, whether he subsequently completed his interrupted
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
659
enterprise, we do not know. In any case, we possess no other work from his hand than this brief Epistle. The urgency of the crisis completely absorbs him. His letter is wholly occupied with the false teachers and their propaganda, which is imperilling the soundness of doctrine, the purity of morals, and the sanctities of reUgion. He does not refute them ; he denounces and threatens them. Hot indignation at their corruption of the true doctrine and loathing for the vileness of their per- verted morals inspire his fierce invective. The situation did not seem to him appropriate for academic discussion; the imsophisticated moral instinct was enough to guide allwho possessed it to a right judgment of such abominations. History shows us their predecessors, and from the fate which overtook them the doom of these reprobates of the last time can be plainly foreseen (w.^"''* ^^). Indeed, it had been announced by Enoch, who in that far-off age had prophesied directly of the Divine judgment that would overtake them (v.^''^- ) .
But, while nothing is wanting to the vehemence of attack, we can form only a very vague im- pression as to the tenets of the false teachers. The WTiter assumes that his readers are famihar with their doctrines, and his method does not require any exposition of their errors such as would have been involved in any attempt to refute them. It is, accordingly, not strange that very divergent views have been held as to their identity. Our earliest suggestion on this point comes from Clement of Alexandria {Strom, iii. 2), who taught that Jude was describing prophetically the Gnostic sect known as the Carpocratians. Grotius (Propp. in Ep. Judce) also thought that this sect wasthe object of the writer's denunciation; but, since he held that Jude was attacking contemporary heretics, he assigned the Epistle to Jude the last Bishop of Jerusalem, in the reign of Hadrian. This view has found Uttle, if any, acceptance ; but the identification of the false teachers with the Carpocratians has been widely accepted by modern scholars. There are certainly striking points of contact.