William Smith.

A dictionary of the Bible; comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history online

. (page 313 of 316)
Online LibraryWilliam SmithA dictionary of the Bible; comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history → online text (page 313 of 316)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


bought was the same as that in which the traitor
met so terrible a death.

The life of Judas has been represented here in
the only light in which it is possible for us to look
on it, as a human life, and therefore as one of
temptation, struggle, freedom, responsibility. If
another mode of speaking of it appears in the N. T. ;
if words are used which imply that all happened
as it had been decreed; that the guilt and the
misery were parts of a Divine plan (John vi, 64,
xiii. 18; Acts i. 16), we must yet remember that
this is no single, exceptional instance. All human
actions are dealt with in the same way. They
appear at one moment separate, free, uncontrolled ;
at another they are links in a long chain of causes
and effects, the beginning and the end of which are
in the " thick darkness where God is," or deter-
mined by an inexorable necessity. No adherence
to a philosophical system frees men altogether from
inconsistency in their language. In proportion as
their minds are religious, and not philosophical, the
transitions from one to the other will be frequent,
abrupt, and startling.

With the exception of the stories already men-
tioned, there are but few traditions that gather
round the name of Judas. It appears, however, in
a strange, hardly intelligible way in the history of
the wilder heresies of the second century. The
sect of Cainites, consistent in their inversion of all
that Christians in general believed, was reported to
have honoured him as the only Apostle that was



JUDE, OE JUDAS



1163



in possession of the true gnosis, to have made
him the object of their worship, and to have had a
Gospel bearing, his name (comp. Neander, Church
Ilistorij, ii. 153, Eng, transl. ; Iren. adv. I-Lter. i,
35 ; Tertull. de Praesc. c. 47). For the general
literature connected with this subject, especially
for monographs on the motive of Judas and the
manner of his death, see Winer, Rwh. For a
full treatment of the questions of the relation in
which his guilt stood to the Ufe of Christ, comp.
Stiin-*s Words of the Lord Jesus, on the passages
where Judas is mentioned, and in particular vol.
vii. pp. 40-67, Eng. transl. [E. H. P,]

JUDE, or JU'DAS, LEBBE'US and
THADDE'US ('loiiSas 'la/cc^/Sou : Jwins Ja-
cobi: A. V. "Judas the brother of James"), one
of the Twelve Apostles ; a member, together with
his namesake " Isc'ariot," James the son of Al-
phaeus, and Simon Zelotes, of the last, of the three ■
sections of the Apostolic body. The name Judas
only, without any distinguishing mark, occurs in
the lists given by St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i, 13;
and in John xiv. 22 (where we find " Judas not
Iscariot" among the Apostles), but the Ajiostle
has been generally identified with " Lebbeus whose
surname was Thaddeus " {Ae^^aTos 6 iTTLKXrjdels
OaSSaTos), Matt. x. 3 ; Mark iii, 18, though
Schleiermacher {Grit. Essay on St. Luke, p. 93)
treats with scorn any such attempt to reconcile
the lists. In both the last quoted places there
is considerable variety of residing ; some JISS.
having both in St, Matt, and St. Mark Ae)3^a?os,
or 0a55a?os- alone; others introducing the name
'lovBas or Judas Zelotes in St. Matt., where-
the Vulgate reads Thaddaeus alone, which is
adopted by Lachmann in his Berlin edition of
1832. This confusion is still further increased
by the tradition preserved by Eusebius {H. E. i,
13) that the true name of Thomas (the twin) was
Judas (*Iou5as b koX ©w^uSy), and that Thaddeus
was one of the " Seventy," identified by Jerome in
M'ttt.x. with "Judas Jacohi" [Thaddeus] ; as
well as by the theories of modern scholars, who
regard the " Levi " (Aeub b rov ^AXcpaiov) of
Mark ii. 14; Luke v. 27, who is called "Lebes"
(AejS^s) by Origen {Cont, Ceis. 1. i, §62), as
the same with Lebbaeus, The safest way out of
these acknowledged difficulties is to hold fast to the
ordinarily i-eceived opinion that Jude, Lebbaeus,
and Thaddaeus, were three names for the same
Apostle, who is therefore said by Jerome (m
Matt. X.) to have been " trionimus," rather than
introduce confusion into the Apostolic catalogues,
and render them erroneous either in excess or
defect.

The interpretation of the names Lebbaeus and
Thaddaeus is a question beset with almost equal
difficulty. The former is interpreted by Jerome

"hearty," corculum, as from D?, cor, and Thad-
daeus has been erroneously supposed to have a cog-
nate signification, hoirw pectorosus, as from the Sy-
riac ^P\, pectus (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 235,
Bengel; Matt. x. 3), the true signification of TH
being mamma (Angl. teat)^ Buxtorf, Lex. Talm,
2565, Winer {Rwb. s, v.) would combine the
two and interpret them as meaning Herzenskind.
Another interpretation of Lebbaeus is the young
lion (leunculus) as from N^H?, lea (Schleusner,
3, v.), while Lightfoot and Baumg, Ci-us. would

4 F 2



1164



JUDE, OE JUDAS



derive it from Lehba, a maritime town of Galilee
mentioned by Pliny {HisL Nat. v. 19), where,
however, the ordinary reading is Jehba. Thad-
daeus appeal's in Syriac under the form Adai, an<.l
Michaelis admits the idea that Adai, Tliad^jiens,
and Judas, may be different representations of the
same word (iv. 370), and Wordsworth {Gr. Test.
in Matt. x. 3) identifies Thaddaeus with Judas, as

both from mirt, "to praise." Chiysostom, Be

Prod. Jud. 1. i. c. 2, says that there was a *' Judas
Zelotes " among the disciples of our Lord, whom he
identifies with the Apostle. In the midst of these
uncertainties no decision can be ai'rived at, and all
must rest on conjecture.

Much difference of opinion has also existed from
the earliest times as to the right interpretation of the
words 'loiJSas ^laK^^ou. The generally received
opinion is that there is an ellipse of the word
aBe\<p6s, and that the A. Y. is right in translating
** Judas the brother of James." This is defended
by Winer {Rwh. s. v.; Gramm of N. T. Diet.,
Clark's edition, i. 203), Arnaud {Heche r..Crit. sur
VEp. de Jude), and accepted by Burton, Alford,
Tregelles, Michaelis, &c. This view has received
strength from the belief that the *' Epistle of
Jnde," the author of which expressly calls himself
" brother of James,'' was the work of this Apostle.
But if, as will be seen hereafter, the arguments in
favour of a non-apostoUc origin for this Epistle are
such as to lead us to assign it to another author, the
mode of supplying the ellipse may be considered
independently ; and since the dependent genitive
almost uuivei-sally implies the filial relation, and is
so interpreted in every other case in the Apostolic
catalogues, we may be allowed to follow the
Peshito and Arabic versions, the Benedictine editor
of Chrysostom, Horn. XXXII., in Matt. x. 2, and
the translation of Luther, as well as nearly all the
most eminent critical authorities, and render the
words "Judas the son of James," that is, either
"James the son of Alphaeus," with whom he
is coupled Matt. x. 3, or some otherwise unknown
person.

The name of Jude only occurs once in the Gospel
narrative (John xiv. 22), where we find hira taking
part in the last conversation with our Lord, and
sharing the low temporal views of their Master's
kingdom, entertained by his brother Apostles.

Nothing is certainly known of the later history
of the Apostle. There may be some truth in the
tradition which connects him with the foundation of
the church at Edessa ; though here again there is
much confusion, and doubt is thrown over the ac-
count by its connexion with the worthless fiction of
" Abgarus king of Edessa " (Euseb. -ff. E. i. 13 ;
Jerome, Couiiaent in Matt, x.) [TuADUAEUS].
Nicophorus (//. E. ii. 40) makes Jude die a natural
death in that city after preaching in Palestine,
Syria, and Arabia. The Syrian tradition speaks of
his abode at Edessa, but adds that he went thence
to Assyria, and was martyred in Photiiicia on his
return ; while that of the west makes Persia the
field of his labours and the scene of his martyrdom.

The tradition preserved by liegesippus, which
appears in Eusebius, relative to the descendants
of Jude, has reference, in our opinion, to a diifei'-
ent Jude. See next article. [E. V.]

JU'DAS, THE LORD'S BEOTHER.

Among the brethren of our Lord mentioned by the
people of Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3)
occurs a *' Judas,", who has been sometimes idcnti-



JUDE, EPISTLE OF

fied with the Apostle of the same name; a theory
which rests on the double assumption that 'lovSas
'laKctJjSou (Luke vi. 16) is to be rendered "Judas
the brother of James," and that "the sons of
Alphaeus " were " the brethren of our Lord," and
is sufficiently refuted by the statement of St. John
vii. 5, that " not even his brethren believed on
Him." It has been considered with more pro-
bability that he was the writer of the Epistle
which bears the name of " Jude the brother of
James," to which the Syriac vereion incoi"porated
with the later editions of the Peshito adds "and of
Joses " (Origen in Matt. xiii. 55 ; Clem. Alex.
Adumb. 6; Alford, Gk. Test., Matt. xiii. 55).
[Jude, Epistle of ; James.]

Eusebius gives us an interesting tradition of He-
gesippus (//. E. iii. 20, o2) that two grandsons of
Jude, "who according to the flesh was called the
Lord's brother" (of. 1 Cor. ix. 5), were seized and
carried to Rome by orders of Domitian, whose appre-
hensions had been excited by what he hail heaid of
the mighty power of the kingdom of Christ ; but that
the Emperor having discovei'ed by their answere to
his inquiries, and the appearance of their liands,
that they were poor men, supporting themselves by
their labour, and having learnt the spiritual natnre
of Christ's kingdom, dismissed, them in contempt,
and ceased fi"om his persecution of the church,
whereupon they returned to Palestine and took a
leading place in the churches, " as being at the
same time confessors and of the Lord's family "
(ojs Uv 5^ fidpTvpas dfxov koI dirb yeveos uvtos
ToO Kvplov), and lived till the time of Trajan.
Nicephorus (1. 23) tells us that Jude's wife was
named Mary. [E. V.]

JUDE, EPISTLE OF. I. Its authorship.—
The writer of this Epistle styles himself, ver. 1,
" Jude the brother of James" (ASeA^iis 'larcttfjSov'),
and has been usually identified with the Apostle
Judas Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus, called by St. Luke, vi.
16, 'loiiSay 'la/cwjSou, A. V. " Judas the brother of
James." It has been seen above [JuDAS Leb-
baeus] that. this mode of supplying the ellipse,
thougli not directly contrary to the usits loquendi,
is, to say the least, questionable, and that there are
strong reasons for rendering the words " Judas the
son of James :" and inasmuch as the author appears,
ver. 17, to distinguish himself from the Apostles,
and bases his warning rather on their authority than
on his own, we may agree with eminent critics in
attributing the Epistle to another author. Jerome,
Tcrtulliau, and Origen, among the ancients, and
Calmet, CaUin, Hammond, Haulein, Lani^e, Xa-
tablus, Arnaud, and Tregelles, among the moderiis,
agree in assigning it to the Apostle. Whether it
were the worlc of an Apostle or not, it has from
very early times been attributed to " the Lord's
brother" of that name (Matt. xiii. 65; Markvi.3):
a view in which Origen, Jerome, and (if indeed the
Aduiitbnttiimfs be rightly assii::;ned to him) Clemens
Alexandrinus agree ; which is implied in the words
of Chrysostom (7/om. 48 in Joan.), confirmed by
the epigrapli of the Syriac versions, and is accepted
by most modern commentators, Arnaud, Bengel,
Burton,' Hug, Jessien, Olshausen, Tregelles, &c.
The objectifin that has been felt by Nemider {PL
and Tr. i. 392), and others, that if he had been
" the Lord's brother " he would have directly
.styled himself so, and not merely " tlie brother of
James," has been anticipated by the author of the
" Adumbrationes " (Bnnsen, Analect. Antc-Nicaen.
i. 330);, who .says, " Jude, who' wrote the Catholic



JUDE, EPISTLE OF

Epistle, brother of the sons of Joseph, an extremely
religious man, though he was aware of his relation-
ship 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 wais through hu-
mility, and a true sense of the altered relations
between them, and Him who had been " de-
clared to be the Sou of God with power ....
by the resurrection fi-om the dead " (cf. 2 Cor.
V. 16), that both tSt. Jude and St. James forbore to
call themselves the brethren of Jesus. The argu-
ments concerning the authorship of the Epistle are
ably summed up by Jessien {de Authcnt, Ep. Jvd.
Lips. 18'il), and Arnaud {Recher. Crltlq. sur VEp.
de Jude, Strasb. 1851,> translated Urit. and For.
Ev. Rev. Jul. 1859) ; 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, not the Apostle the
son of Alphaeus, but the Bishop of Jerusalem, of
whose dignity and authority in the Church he
avails himself to introduce his Epistle to his readers.

11. Genuineness and cmionicity. — Although the
Epistle of Jude is one of the so called Antilego-
mena, 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 w^as too unimportant to be a
forgery ; few portions of Holy Scripture 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 ijs admission into the
Canon.

This question was gradually decided in its favour,
and the more widely it was known the more gener-
ally was it received as canonical, until it took its
place without further dispute as a portion of the
volume of Holy Scripture,

The state of the case as regards its reception by
the Church is briefly as follows :

It is wanting in the Peshito (which of itself
proves that the supposed Evangelist of Edessa could
not have been its author), nor is there any trace of
its use by the Asiatic Churches up to the com-
mencement of the 4th century ; but it is quoted
as Apostolic by Ephrem Syrus {0pp. Syr. i. p.
136).

The earliest notice of the Epistle is in the famous
Muratorian Fragment (circa A.D. 170) where we
read " Epistola sane Judae et superscript! Johannis
duae in CatholicEi" (Bunsen, Analect. Ante~Nic. i.
l.'^L^, reads " Catholicis") " habentur."
• Clement of Alexandria is the first father of the
Church by whom it is recognised {Faednfj. I. iii.
c. 8, p. 259, Ed. Sylburg. ; Stromat. I. in. c. 2, p.
431, Adumbr. L c). Eusebius also informs us
{II. E. vi. 14) that it was among the books of
Canonical Scripture, of which explanations were
given in the Ilypotyposes of Clement ; and Cassio-
dorus (Bunsen, Analect. Ante-Nic. i. 330-333)
gives some notes on this Epistle drawn from the
same source.

Origen refers to it expressly as the work of the
Lord's brother {Comment, in Matt. xiii. 55, 56,
t. X. §17): "Jude wroto an Epistle of but few
verses, yet filled with vigorous words of heavenly
grace." He quotes it several times {Ilomil. in
Gen. xiii.; in Josu. vii.; in Ezecli. iv. ; Com-
ment, in Matt. t. xiii. 27, xv. 27, xvii. 30 ; in
Joaim. t. xiii. §37 ; in Rom. 1. iii. §6, v. §1 ; De



JUDE, EPISTLE OF 1165

Princip. 1. iii. c. 2, §1), though he implies in one
place the existence of doubts as to its canonicity,
"if indeed the Epistle of Jude be received" {Com-
ment, in Matt. xxii. 23, t. xvJi. §30).

Eusebius (//. E. iii. 25) distinctly classes it
with the Antilegomena, which were nevertheless
recognised by the majority of Christians ; and
asserts (ii. 23) that in common with the Epistle of
James, it was "deemed spui'ious" {voQe\}€TaC),
though together with the other Catholic Epistles
publicly read in most churches.

Of the Latin Fathers, TertuUian once expressly
cites this Epistle as the work of an Apostle {de
Hah. Mulieh. i, 3), as does Jerome, " from whom
(Enoch) the Apostle Jude in his Epistle has
given a quotation" {in Tit. c. i. p. 708), though
on the other hand he informs us that in con-
sequence of the quotation from this apocryphal
book of Enoch it is rejected by most, adding, that
"it has obtained such authority from antiquity
and use, that it is now reckoned among Holy
Scripture" {Catal. Scriptor. Uccles..'). He refers
to it as the work of an Apostle {Epist. ad
Paulin. iii.).

The Epistle is also quoted by Malchian, a pres-
byter of Antioch, in a letter to the bishops of Alex-
andria and Rome (Euseb. II. E. vii. 30), and by
Palladius, the fi-iend of Chrysostom (Chiys. 0pp.
t. xiii., Dial. cc. 18, 20), and is contained in the
Laodicene (a.d. 363), Carthaginian (397), and so-
called Apostolic Catalogues, as well as in those
emanating fiom the churches of the East and West,
with the exception of the Synopsis of Chrysostom,
and those of Cassiodorus and Ebed Jesu.

Various reasons might be assigned for delay in
receiving this Epistle, and the doubts long prevalent
respecting it. The uncertainty as to its author,
and his standing in the Church ; the unimportimt
nature of its contents, and their almost absolute
identity with 2 Pet. ii. ; and the supposed quotation
of apocryphal books ; would all tend to ci'eate a
prejudice against it, which could be only overcome
by time, and the gradual recognition by the leading
churches of its genuineness and canonicity.

At the Reformation the doubts on the canonical
authority of this Epistle were revived, and have
been shared in by modern commentators. They
were more or less entertained by Grotius, Luthei-,
Calvin, Bergen, Bolten, Dahl, Michaelis, and the
Magdeburg Centuriators. It has been ably defended
by Jessien, de Authentia Ep. Judae, Lips. 1821.

III. Time and place of loriting. — Here aU is
conjecture. The author being not absolutely cer-
tain, there are no external grounds for deciding the
point ; and the intemal evidence is but small. The
question of its date is connected with that of its
.relation to 2 Peter (see below, §vi.), and an earlier
or later period has been assigned to it according as
it has been considered to have been anterior or pos-
terior to that Epistle. From the character of the
en-ors against which it is directed, it cannot be
placed very early ; though there is no sufficient
gi'ound for Schleiermacher's opinion that " in the
last time" {iv io'x^'^V XP^^V> "v^^i'- ^8; cf.
1 John ii. 18, ftrxaTf} &pa. ^cti), forbids our
placing it in the j^postolic age at all. Lardner
places it between a.d. 64 and 66, Davidson before
A.D. 70, Credner a.d, 80, Calmet, Estius, Witsius,
and Neander, after the death of all the Apostles
but John, and perhaps after the fall of Jerusalem ;
although considerable weight is to be given to the
argument of De Wette {Einleit. in N.^T. p. 300),



116(3 JUDE, EPISTLE OF

that if the destruction of Jerusalem had already
taken place, some warning would have been drawn
from so signal an instance of God's vengeance on
the " ungodly."

There are no data from which to determine the
place of writing. Burton, however, is of opinion
that inasmuch as the descendants of " Judas the
brother of the Lord," if we identify him with the
author of the Epistle, were found in Palestine, he
probably " did not absent himself long from his
native country," and that the Epistle was published
there, since he styles himself " the brother of
James," " an expression most liliely to be used in
a country where James was well known " {Eccles.
Hist. i. 334).

IV. For what readers designed. — The readers
are nowhere expressly defined. The address (ver. 1)
is applicable to Christians generally, and there is
notliing in the body of the Epistle to limit its
reference ; and though it is not improbable that the
author had a particular portion of the church in
view, and that the Christians of Palestine were the
immediate objects of his warning, the dangers 'de-
scribed were such as the whole Christian world
was exposed to, and the adversaries the same which
had everywhere to be guarded against.

V. Its object, contents, and style. — The object
of the Epistle is plainly enough announced, ver. 3 :
" it was needful for me to write unto you and ex-
hort you that ye should earnestly contend for the
faith that was once delivered unto the saints:"
the reason for this exhortation is giA'eu ver. 4, in
the stealthy introduction of certain " ungodly men,
turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness,
and denying the only Lord God and our Lord
Jesus Christ." The remainder of the Epistle is
almost entirely occupied by a minute depiction
of these adversaries of the faith — not heretical
teachers (as has been sometimes supposed), which
constitutes a marked distinction between this
Epistle and that of St. Peter— whom in a torrent
of impassioned invective he describes as stained
with unnatural lusts, like " the angels that kept
not their first estate" (whom he evidently iden-
tifies with the " sons of God," Gen. vi. 2), and

■ the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah — ai-e
despisers of all legitimate authority (ver. 8) — mur-
derers lilce Cain — covetous like Balaam — rebellious
like Korah (ver. 11) — destined from of old to be
signal monuments of the Divine vengeance, which
he confirms by reference to a prophecy current
among the Jews, and traditionally assigned to
Enoch (ver. 14, 1.5).

The Epistle closes by briefly reminding the
readere of the oft-repeated prediction of the Apostles
— among whom the writer seems not to rank him-
self — that the faitli would be assailed by such
enemies as he has depicted (ver. 17-19), exhorting
them to maintain their own steadfastness in the
faith (ver. 20, 21), while they earnestly sought to
rescue others from the corrupt example of those
licentious livers (ver. 22, 23), and commending
them to the power of God in language which

■ forcibly recalls the closing benediction of the lilpistle
to the Romans (ver. 24, 25 ; cf. Rom. xvi. 25-27).

This Epistle presents one peculiarity, which, as
we learn from St'. Jerome, caused its authority to
be impugned in very early times — the supposed
citation of apocryphal writings (ver. 9, 14, 15).

The former of these passages, containing tlie
refci'ence to the contest of the archangel Michael
and the devil " about the body of Moses," was



JUDE, EPISTLE Ot

supposed by Origen to have been founded on a
Jewish work called the " Assumption of Moses "
{'ADd\ri\l/isMti><r4as), quoted also by Oecumenius
(ii. 629). Oiigen's words are express, "which
little work the Apostle Jude has made mention of
in his Epistle" {de Princip. iii. 2, i. p. 138);
and some have sought to identify the look
with the ne'e nTDB, " The death of Moses,"

which is, however, proved by Mich.ielis (iv. 382) to
be a modern composition. Attempts have also been
made by Lardner, Macknight, Vitringa, and others,
to interpret the passage in a mystical sense, by
reference to Zech. iii. 1, 2; but the similai'ity
is too distant to afford any weight to the idea.
There is, on the whole, little question that the
writer is here malving use of a Jewish tradition,
based on Dent, xxxiv. 6, just as facts unrecorded
in Scripture are referred to by St. Paul (2 Tim. iii.
8 ; Gal. iii. 19) ; by thS wi'iter of the Epistle to
the Hebrews (ii. 2, xi. 24); by St. James (v. 17),
and St. Stephen (Acts vii. 22, 23, 30).

As regards the supposed quotation from the
Book of Enoch, the question is not so cleai' whether
St. Jude is making a citation from a work already
in the hands of his readers- — which is the opinion
of Jerome {I. c.) and TertuUian (who was in con-,
sequence inclined to receive the Book of Enoch as
canonical Scripture), and has been held by many
modern critics — or is employing a traditionary
prophecy not at that time committed to writing
(a theory which the words used, " Enoch prophesied
saying " iirpo^iiTevff^v . . . ''Eyti>x Keyajv, seem
rather to favour), but afterwards embodied in the
apocryphal work already named [Enooii, the
Book op] . This is maintained by Tregelles {Hoi-ne's
Introd. 10th ed., iv. 621), and has been held by
Cave, Hofmann {Schriftbeweis, i. 420), Lightfoot
(ii. 117), Witsius, and Calvin (cf. Jerom. Comment.
in Eph. 0. V. p. 647, 8 ; in Tit. c. 1, p. 70S).

The main body of the Epistle is well charac-
terised by Alford (ff/i. Test. iv. 147) as an im-
passioned invective, in the impetuous whirlwitid
of which the writer is hurried along, collecting
example after example of Divine vengeance on tlie
ungodly ; heaping epithet upon epithet, and piling



Online LibraryWilliam SmithA dictionary of the Bible; comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history → online text (page 313 of 316)