Epistle of St. Jude
The present subject will be treated under the following heads:
I. The Author and the Authenticity of the Epistle:
(1) Jude in the Books of the New Testament;
(2) Tradition as to the Genuineness and the Canonicity of the
Epistle;
(3) Difficulties Arising from the Text;
(4) The Relation of Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter;
(5) Vocabulary and Style;
II. Analysis of the Epistle;
III. Occasion and Object;
IV. To Whom Addressed;
V. Date and Place of Composition.
I. THE AUTHOR AND THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE
(1) Jude in the Books of the New Testament
In the address of the Epistle the author styles himself "Jude, the
servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James". "Servant of Jesus
Christ" means "apostolic minister or labourer". "Brother of James"
denotes him as the brother of James kat exochen who was well-known
to the Hebrew Christians to whom the Epistle of St. Jude was
written. This James is to be identified with the Bishop of the
Church of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 13; xxi, 18), spoken of by St. Paul
as "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. i, 19), who was the author of
the Catholic Epistle of St. James. and is regarded amongst
Catholic interpreters as the Apostle James the son of Alpheus (see
JAMES THE LESS, SAINT). This last identification, however, is not
evident, nor, from a critical point of view, does it seem beyond
all doubt. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the
"Judas Jacobi" ("Jude, the brother of James" in the D.V.) of Luke,
vi, 16, and Acts, i, 13 -- also called Thaddeus (Matt. x, 3: Mark,
iii, 18) -- referring the expression to the fact that his brother
James was better known than himself in the primitive Church. This
view is strongly confirmed by the title "the brother of James", by
which Jude designates himself in the address of his Epistle. If
this identification is proved, it is clear that Jude, the author
of the Epistle, was reckoned among the Twelve Apostles. This
opinion is most highly probable. Beyond this we find no further
information concerning Jude in the New Testament, except that the
"brethren of the Lord", among whom Jude was included, were known
to the Galatians and the Corinthians; also that several of them
were married, and that they did not fully believe in Christ till
after the Resurrection (I Cor., ix, 5; Gal., i, 10; John, vii, 3-
5; Acts, i, 14). From a fact of Hegesippus told by Eusebius (Hist.
eccl., III, xix, xx, xxii) we learn that Jude was "said to have
been the brother of the Lord according to the flesh", and that two
of his grandsons lived till the reign of Trajan (see, however,
BRETHREN OF THE LORD).
(2) Tradition as to the Genuineness and the Canonicity of the
Epistle
The Epistle of Jude is one of the so-called antilegomena; but,
although its canonicity has been questioned in several Churches,
its genuineness has never been denied. The brevity of the Epistle,
the coincidences between it and II Peter, and the supposed
quotation from apocryphal books, created a prejudice against it
which was gradually overcome. The history of its acceptance by the
Church is briefly as follows:
Some coincidences or analogies exist between Jude and the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers -- between Barnabas, ii, 10, and Jude, 3,
4; Clemens Romanus, Ep. xx, 12; lxv, 2, and Jude, 25; Ep. ad
Polyc., iii 2; iv, 2, and Jude, 3. 20, Mart. Polyc.,, xx, and
Jude, 24 sq. It is possible, though not certain, that the passages
here noted were suggested by the text of Jude. The similarity
between "Didache" ii, 7 and Jude, 22 sq., does not seem to be
accidental, whilst in Athenagoras (about A.D., 177), "Leg.", xxiv,
and in Theophilus of Antioch (d. about 183), "Ad Autol." II, xv,
there is a clear reference to Jude, 6 and 13 respectively.
The earliest positive reference to the Epistle occurs in the
Muratorian Fragment, "Epistola sane Jud� et superscript� Joannis
duae in catholica [scil. Ecclesia] habentur." The Epistle was thus
recognized as canonical and Apostolic (for it is Jude the Apostle
who is here meant) in the Roman Church about 170. At the end of
the second century it was also accepted as canonical and Apostolic
by the Church of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, "P�d.", III,
viii, followed by Origen), and by the African Church of Carthage
(Tertullian). At the beginning of the third century the Epistle
was universally accepted except in the primitive East Syrian
Church, where none of the Catholic Epistles were recognized, nor
the Apocalypse.
This remarkably wide acceptance, representing as it does the voice
of ancient tradition, testifies to the canonicity and the
genuineness of Jude. During the third and fourth centuries doubt
and suspicion, based on internal evidence (especially on the
supposed quotation from the Book of Henoch and the "Assumption of
Moses"), arose in several Churches. However the prejudice created
against the deuterocanonical Jude was soon overcome, so that the
Epistle was universally accepted in the Western Church at the very
beginning of the fifth century (see CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT).
In the Eastern Church Eusebius of C�sarea (260-340) placed Jude
among the antilegomena or the "disputed books, which arc
nevertheless known and accepted by the greater number" (Hist.
Eccl., II xxiii; III, xxv); he incorporated all the Catholic
Epistles in the fifty copies of the Bible which at the command of
Constantine, he wrote for the Church of Constantinople. St.
Athanasius (d. 387) and St. Epiphanius (d. 403) placed Jude among
the canonical and Apostolic writings. Junilius and Paul of Nisibis
in Constantinople (513) held it as medi� auctoritatis. However, in
the sixth century the Greek Church everywhere considered Jude as
canonical.
The recognition of Jude in the Syriac Church is not clear. In
Western Syria we find no trace of Jude in the fifth century. In
Eastern Syria the Epistle is wanting in the oldest Syriac version,
the Peshito, but it is accepted in the Philoxenian (508) and
Heracleon (616) versions. Except among the Syriac Nestorians,
there is no trace of any ecclesiastical contradiction from the
beginning of the sixth century till the Council of Trent, which
defined the canonicity of both the proto- and deutero-canonical
books of the New Testament.
(3) Difficulties Arising from the Text
The wording of verse 17 -- which some critics have taken as an
evidence that the Epistle was written in the second century --
does not imply that the recipients of the Epistle had, in a period
that was past, received oral instructions from all the Apostles,
nor does it imply that Jude himself was not an Apostle. The text
ton apostolon implies only that several of the Apostles had
predicted to the readers that such "mockers" as are described by
the writer would assail the Faith; it is not separation in time,
but distance of place, that leads Jude to refer to the scattered
Apostles as a body. Nor does he exclude himself from this body, he
only declares that he was not one of those prophesying Apostles.
The author of II Peter, who often ranks himself among the
Apostles, uses a similar expression ton apostolon humon (iii, 2),
and certainly does not mean to imply that he himself was not an
Apostle. Many Protestant scholars have maintained that the false
teachers denounced in Jude are Gnostics of the second century.
But, as Bigg rightly says: "It is not really a tenable view" (op.
cit. infra). St. Jude does not give any details about the errors
denounced in this short letter any more than does St. Peter, and
there is no ground for identifying the false teachers with any of
the Gnostic sects known to us. There is nothing in the references
made to false doctrines that obliges us to look beyond the
Apostolic times. The use made of apocryphal writings, even if
proved, is not an argument against the Apostolicity of the
Epistle; at most it could only invalidate its canonicity and
inspiration. Verse 9, which contains the reference concerning the
body of Moses, was supposed by Didymus ("Enarr. in Epist. Jud�" in
P. G., XXXIX, 1811 sqq.), Clement of Alexandria (Adumbr. in Ep.
Jud�), and Origen (De Princ., III, ii, 1), to have been taken from
the "Assumption of Moses", which is unquestionably anterior to the
Epistle of Jude. Jude may possibly have learned the story of the
contest from Jewish tradition. But, at any rate, it is evident
that Jude does not quote the "Assumption" as a written authority,
and still less as a canonical book.
As regards the prophecy of vv. 14 sq., many Catholic scholars
admit it to be a loose and abbreviated citation from the
apocryphal Book of Henoch, i, 1, 9, which existed a century before
St. Jude wrote. But here again St. Jude does not quote Henoch as a
canonical book. There is nothing strange, as Plumptre remarks (op.
cit. infra, 88), in Jude making use of books not included in the
Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, "as furnishing illustrations
that gave point and force to his counsels. The false teachers,
against whom he wrote, were characterized largely by their
fondness for Jewish fables, and the allusive references to books
with which they were familiar, were therefore of the nature of an
arqumentum ad hominem. He fought them, as it were, with their own
weapons." He merely intends to remind his readers of what they
know. He does not affirm or teach the literary origin of the
apocryphal book, such is not his intention. He simply makes use of
the general knowledge it conveys, just as the mention of the
dispute between Michael and the Devil is but an allusion to what
is assumed as being known to the readers. By no means, therefore,
does either of the passages offer any difficulty against the
canonicity of the Epistle, or against the Catholic doctrine of
inspiration.
(4) The Relation of Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter
The resemblance as to thought and language between Jude and II
Peter, ii, is quite sufficient to make it certain that one of the
two writers borrowed from the other: the hypothesis that both
writers borrowed from a common document must be put aside, as
having no support whatsoever. The question remains: Which of the
two Epistles was the earlier? The priority of II Peter, as well as
the priority of Jude, has found strong advocates, and much has
been written about this intricate question. The following
arguments, however, lead to the conclusion that the Epistle of
Jude was the earlier of the two:
� It is not uncommon for St. Peter to throw a light on the more
obscure passages of the Epistle of Jude, or to interpret the more
difficult passages. At one time he puts them in a shorter form or
uses more general terms; at another, while adducing in general the
same arguments, he adds a new one or omits one or another used in
Jude. This shows that St. Peter had probably read the Epistle of
St. Jude. Compare especially II Peter, ii, 12, with Jude, 10.
� This may also be confirmed not only by II Peter, i, 17,
compared with Jude, 13 -- where St. Peter doubles Jude's
comparison and puts more strength into it, whilst Jude has more
similitudes -- but also by comparing the style of both, for,
whereas the style of Jude is always the same, that of St. Peter
differs somewhat from his usual way of writing, and the reasons
for this change seem to be the matter he writes about and the
influence of the Epistle of St. Jude.
� Finally, is more probable that St. Peter has embodied in his
work the text of Jude's Epistle than that Jude should have
included in his writing only a part of St. Peter's Epistle. If
Jude wrote later than Peter and found the same state of things,
why did he omit the remaining questions, e.g. the doubts about the
parousi�? Or why should he, in order to combat the same heretics,
give only a summary of St. Peter's Epistle, omitting entirely the
strongest arguments?
(5) Vocabulary and Style
The vocabulary of Jude proves that the author was a Jew, saturated
with the Old Testament, using Hebraisms, yet acquainted with the
koine dialektos -- the "common dialect". Thirteen words found in
Jude do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. Some words of
the new Christian dialect appear in Jude as well as in the Pauline
Epistles, but literary affinity or direct quotation cannot be
proved. The style, although sometimes poetical, always evinces the
severe and authoritative tone of a man of Apostolic rank, held in
high honour.
II. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE
(a) Exordium
Address and good wishes (vv. 1-2), occasion and purpose of the
Epistle (3-4).
(b) First Part
He inveighs against the pseudo-teachers; describes their life and
errors (5-16). They will be severely punished, as is evident from
the severe punishment of the unbelieving Israelites in the desert
(5), of the wicked angels (6), and of the inhabitants of Sodom
(7). He mentions their wicked teaching and life (8), and opposes
the modesty of Michael the Archangel (9) to their pride (10). He
foretells for the heretics the punishment of Cain, Balaam, and the
sons of Core, for they have imitated their errors (11-3). Enoch
has already prophesied the judgment of God upon them (14-6).
(c) Second Part
He exhorts the faithful (17-23). They must remember the teaching
of the Apostles, by whom they had been warned of the coming of
such heretics (17-19). They must maintain the Faith, keep
themselves in the love of God, and wait for life everlasting (20-
21). What their behaviour should he towards Christians that have
in any way fallen away (22-23)
(d) Epilogue
A most beautiful doxology (24-25).
III. OCCASION AND OBJECT
Occasion
The Epistle was occasioned by the spread of the dogmatico-moral
errors amongst the Hebrew Christians; pseudo-doctors "are secretly
entered in", who abuse Christian liberty to give themselves over
to intemperance; moreover "denying the only sovereign Ruler, and
our Lord Jesus Christ" (4).
Object
Jude's intention was to caution his readers, the Hebrew
Christians, against such depraved teaching, and to exhort them to
keep faithfully the teaching of the Apostles.
IV. TO WHOM ADDRESSED
The dedicatory address runs as follows: tois en Theo patri
hegapemenois kai Iesou Christo teteremenois kletois (to them that
are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and
called). Which are the kletoi, or "called", becomes manifest from
the context. They are not all the Christians of the whole
Christian world, but those of a particular Church (vv. 3, 4, 17,
22). Several commentators think that St. Jude's Epistle was
addressed to the same churches of Asia Minor to which St. Peter's
Epistle was written. This opinion, according to these
commentators, is to be held because in both Epistles the same
errors are condemned, and also because Jude (v. 17) appears to
have known II Peter, and shows that the prophecy of the Prince of
the Apostles has been verified. But we have already proved that
the second argument is of no value (see above I, 4); as for the
first, there are two objections:
� the errors condemned in the Epistle of St. Jude and in II Peter
may have spread in countries outside Asia Minor;
� we find in Jude several reasons for believing that the Epistle
was addressed, not to the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor, but to
the Hebrew Christians of Palestine or of a neighbouring country.
V. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION
Date
It is difficult to state the exact time at which St. Jude wrote
his Epistle. But the doctrines against which he inveighs, and the
looseness of morals or the so-called antinomismus, seem to
indicate the end of the Apostolic age. Jude seems on the other
hand to have written before A.D. 70; otherwise in vv. 5-7 he would
have spoken of the destruction of Jerusalem. In those verses St.
Jude mentions the different punishments of prevaricators, and
therefore in this exhortation to Hebrew Christians he could not
have passed over in silence so dire a calamity. Moreover we have
shown that the Epistle of St. Jude was written before II Peter,
which latter was probably written A.D. 64 (65). Therefore St. Jude
must have written shortly before 64 (65).
Place of Composition
Here we can only guess, but we prefer the opinion that the Epistle
was written in Palestine, and probably in Jerusalem.
A. CAMERLYNCK
Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
