the monographs cited by Volbeding, Index, p. 32. On the iiretcnded Gospel of Thaddaeus, see Kleuker, Apokr. N. T. p. 67 sq. See Lebii-eus.
JUDE, Epistle of. The last in order of the cath- olic epistles.
I. A utlior. — The writer of this epistle styles himself, verse 1, "Jude, the brother of James" {ciSt\(bog 'laKOj- l3ov), and has usually been identified with the apostle Judas Lebbaeus or Thaddajus, called by Luke (vi, 10) 'loiiSag 'laKwliov, A.V. "Judas, the brother ofi James." It has been seen above that this mode of supplying the ellipsis, though not altogether in accordance with the usus loquendi, is, nevertheless, quite justifiable, although there are strong reasons for rendering the words " Ju- das, the son of James." Jerome, Tertullian, and Origen among the ancients, and Calmet, Calvin, Hammond, Hiinlein, Lange,yatablus, Arnaud, and Trcgelks among the moderns, agree in assigning the epistle to the apos- tle. Whether it were the work of an apostle or not, it has from very early times been attributed to " the Lord's brother" of that name (Matt, xiii, 55 ; Mark vi, 3) : a view in which Origen, Jerome, and (if indeed the Ad- umbrationes be rightly assigned to him) Clemens Alex- andrinus agree ; which is implied in the words of Chrv'- sostom {Horn. 48 in Joan.), confirmed by the epigraph of the Syriac versions, and is accepted by most modem commentators— Arnaud, Bengel, Burton, Hug, Jessien, Olshausen, Tregelles, etc. The objection that has been felt by Neander {PL ami Tr. i, 392) and others, that if he had been " the Lord's brother" he would have direct- ly styled himself so, and not merely " the brother of James," has been anticipated by the author of the " Ad- umbrationes" (Bunsen, ^wa^etV. A nte-Nican. i, 330), who says, " Jude, who wrote the catholic Epistle, brother of the sons of Joseph, an extremely religious man, though he was aware of his relationship to the Lord, did not call himself his brother ; but what said he ? ' Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ' as his Lord, but 'brother of James.' " We may easily believe that it was through humility, and a true sense of the altered relations be- tween them and him who had been " declared to be the Son of God with power .... by the resurrection from the dead" (comp. 2 Cor. v, 10), that both Jude and James forbore to call themselves the brethren of Jesus. The arguments concerning the authorship of the epistle are ably summed up by Jessien {De A iithent. Ep. Jitd. Lips. 1821) and Arnaud {Recher. Critiq. sur VEjnst. de Jude, Strasb. 1851, transl. in the Brit, and For. Ev. Bet: July, 1869) ; and, though it is by no means clear of difficulty, the most probable conclusion is that the author was Jude, one of the brethren of Jesus, and brother of James, as also the apostle, the son of Alphajus. See Bketiiren OF OUR Lord.
II. Genuineness and Canonicity. — Although the Epis- tle of Jude is one of the so-called Antilegomena, and its canonicity was questioned 'in the earliest ages of the Church, there never was any doubt of its genuineness among those by whom it was known. It was too un- important to be a forgen,' ; few portions of holy Scrip- ture could, with reverence be it spoken, have been more easily spared ; and the question was never whether it was the work of an impostor, but whether its author was of sufficient weight to warrant its admission into the canon. This question was gradually decided in its favor, and the more widely it ^vas known the more gen- erally it was received as canonical, until it took its place without further dispute as a portion of the volume of holy Scripture. See Antilegomena.
This epistle is not cited by any of the apostolic fa- thers; the passages which hav« been adduced as con- taining allusions to it (Hermas, Past. Vis. iv, 3; Clem. Kom., Ep. ad Cor. ch. xi; Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. ch. iii) presenting no certain evidence of being such. It is, however, formally quoted by Clement of Alexandria {Pceduy. iii,- 239, ed. Sylburg.; Strom, iii, 431), and Eu- sebius testifies {Hist. Eccles. vi, 14) that he treated it in his Hypotyposes ; it is also treated in the Adumbrationef,
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
1066
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
ascribed to Clement, and preserved in a Latin version, there is no sufficient ground forSchleiermacher's opin.
Tertulliaii refers to the epistle as that of Jude the apostle (De Habit. Mulieb. ch. iiij. It appears in the Muraton Fragment amons the canonical books. Ongen repeated- Iv refers to it, and occasionally as the work of the apostle Jude (Iloin. in Matt, xiii, 65, in 0pp., ed. De la Rue, iii, 403 ; Com. in Ep. ad Rom., in 0pp. iv, 519 ; Horn, in Jos., in 6pp. ii,'411 ; Be Prindp., in 0pp. i, 138, etc.) ; though in one place he speaks as if doubts were entertained by some a.s to its genuineness {in Matt, xxii, 23, in 0pp. iii, 814j. It is not in the Peshito, and does not appear to have been known to the Syrian churches before the 4th century, near the close of which it is quoted by Ephra- em Syirus (Opp. Syr. i, 13G). P^usebius ranks it among the Antilegoniena, but this rather because it was not univprsallv" known than because where known it was