The opening words of the Epistle, 'Judas, a
660 JL^DGE, JUDGING (ETHICAL)
JUDGE, JUDGING (ETHICAL)
servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,' constitute a weighty argument in favour of the traditional view that it was written by Jude the Lord's brother. The attempt to treat this as em- bodjang a false claim dehberately made by the author is open to gr^ave objections. Apparently we have to reckon with the deUberate adoption of a pseudon\Tn by the author of 2 Peter. But this case is probably solitary in the NT ; and, unless we are di'iven to adopt such suggestions, it is de- sirable to avoid them as far as possible. Apart from this, however, it is not easy to see why the author should have hit upon a personality so obscure as Jude. If he did so because the relationship to James gave his name prestige, it might be asked why he should not have attributed it to James himself. The suggestion that it was sent to districts where Jude had laboured and was held ia high regard is exposed to the difficulty that the recipients would naturally ask, How is it that we hear of this letter for the first time now that Jude has been some years dead ? We are then reduced to the alternatives of admitting the authenticity, or of supposing that the identification with the Lord's brother was no original part of the Epistle. If the preceding discussion has pointed to the probability that the false teaching assailed was Gnostic in character, and that other phenomena in the Epistle make it unlikely that it was earher than the closing decade of the 1st cent., the second alternative must be preferred. In that case the most probable explanation of the opening words is that the author's name was really Jude, and that the phrase 'and brother of James' was inserted by a scribe who wished to make it clear which Jude was intended. The precise date must of com-se remain very uncertain. Nothing compels us to go below the year a.d. 100. Moreover, the author has apparently a new situation to deal with. It ought, however, to be frankly recognized that the Epistle is quite conceivable as the work of Jude the Lord's brother in the decade a.d. 70-80.
4. Destination. — Nothing is known as to the destination of the Epistle, nor can anything be inferred with confidence. It is not clear whether the Epistle is catholic or is addressed to readers in a definite locaUty, though the former is perhaps the more likely view.
LrrERATiTRE. — Commentaries bv Huther in Meyer 08-52, Eng. tr. from 4th ed., 1 SSI ), Meyer-kuhl (1897), Meyer-Knopf (1912),H.vonSoden(1890,nS99),E. H.Plumptre(Cambridge Bible, 1880), C. Bigg (ICC, 1901), W. H. Bennett (Century Bible, 1901), J. B. Mayor (1907), who also contributes the Commentaryto£'Gr(1910),Hollmann(1907),Windisch(1911): F. Spitta, Der zu-eite Brief des Pelrus und der Brief des Judas, 1885 ; the relevant sections in NT Introductions, especially those by H. J. Holtzmann (nS92) ; A. Julicher (n906, Eng. tr.,1904);T. Zahn (Eng. tr., 1909, ii.); W. F. Adeney (1899), and J. Moffatt (1911) ; artt. by F. H. Cha?e in HDB, Sieffert in PRE\ O. Cone in EBi, R. A. Falconer in SDB.
A. S. PEAKE.
**JUDGE, JUDGING (Ethical).— No account of judging in the Apostolic Church can he complete which is not based on our Lord's prohibition, ' J udge not, that ye be not judged' (Mt T^"*). This is not to be interpreted as a disparagement of the intel- lectual facuhy of criticism per se, but as a limita- tion of it in harmony with the Christian stand- point. In the corresponding passage in Lk 6, the repression of the critical spirit is directly associated with the character of God, who makes no distinc- tions in His gifts, but is kind and merciful to all alike. The section in Matthew has rather a relation to the temper of the Pharisee, which was supercilious and narrowly strict in its judgments of others. The Pharisee ' despised others ' ; hence his incapacity to understand human nature, his judgments being rooted in contempt. The citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, on the other hand, has to avoid the censorious temper and make the best
■ CopyriQht, 1916, hy Charles Scrihner's Sons.
of evervone and everything ; he has to repress the tendency to be uncharitable ; otherwise, when he is obUged to utter a moral verthct, it will be of small weight. But our Lord never countenances the easy-going tolerance which in effect abrogates the right of moral judgment. He does not absolve His followers from discriminating between right and wrong — even in the case of a ' brother ' (Mt 18^^^^) — and indeed urges upon them the duty of 'binding and loosing,' condemning and acquitting, according to the recognized moral standard of the Kingdom.
The teaching of St. James has many echoes of the ethical injunctions of our Lord, and the passage 4"f- in his Epistle recalls the spirit, if not the actual language, of the Sermon on the Mount. We are not to indulge ia the habit of fault-finding: 'Who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?' We are never to judge from any other motive than the moral improvement of the person judged : we are to remember our own defects, and to utter our verdict with a due sense of responsibility ; other- wise we 'speak against the law and judge the law.' The Apostle means by this that there is to be a proper standard of right and wrong, and not a subjective criterion formed out of our own likes and dislikes. If we make our own standard, we set ourselves above the law-giver and the law.