Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/796

 762 D J U D gives a reason for its non-acceptance, which perhaps ope rated with many of the early Christians. He says (Cata log. Scr. Ecd., 4), &quot;Because in it Jude derives a testimony from the book of Enoch, which is apocryphal, it is rejected by most.&quot; Yet the canon of Muratori, the date of which is judged to be about 170 A.D., includes the epistle of St Jude among the canonical books, though Justin Martyr (140), Theophilus of Antioch (180), and Ireneeus (135-200) make no mention of it. It was early included among the acknowledged Christian writings, and was placed without question among the canonical books by the council of Laodicea. 1 The persons to whom the epistle was addressed must have been for the most part Judseo-Christians. This is the reason why the writer styles himself &quot; brother of James,&quot; and the same is apparent from all the illustrations contained in the letter. The deliverance from Egypt, the fallen angels, the cities of the plain, the legend of Michael s con tention with Satan, the references to Cain, Balaam, and Korah, as well as to the prophecy ascribed to Enoch, are all found in so brief a space, and are so touched upon in a manner that could be edifying to none save those who were familiar, not only with Old Testament Scripture, but also with Jewish traditions, that we cannot but conclude that we have here the work of a Jew writing for Jews, although the epistle is included among those called &quot;catholic.&quot; From the notices of the descendants of Jude, the brother of the Lord, preserved by Eusebius (//. E., iii. 19, 20) from Hegesippus, we should conclude that they were resident in Palestine. It seems natural therefore to suppose that the epistle was written in Palestine, and, it may be, for the Jewish converts in some district of that country. But of this we can have no certainty. If, as seems to be intimated by Hegesippus, Jude was dead in the time of Domitian, we perhaps shall not be far wrong in assigning the com position of the epistle to about 80 A.r&amp;gt;. All arguments for an earlier date, based on the assumption that in a letter of this character the writer would not have failed to men tion the destruction of Jerusalem as an illustration, had that event already taken place, must be disregarded. For the brevity of the letter is such as to deprive this reasoning of all force, while the very recentness of the overthrow of Jerusalem would prevent its destruction from entering as yet into such history as might be used for pointing a moral. The epistle of St Jude appears to have been written after the second epistle of St Peter. Of those corrupt teachers about whom St Peter spoke in the future tense, &quot;&quot; there shall be false teachers among you,&quot; St Jude speaks in the past, &quot; certain men are crept in unawares ;&quot; and the like difference is observable throughout the respective letters wherever verbs occur to which it is possible to attach a definite notion of time. But, beside this, St Peter s letter represents all the corruption which he sees likely to break forth among the Christian community as the outcome of false teaching. Destructive heresies are abroad, and through them many shall be induced to follow lascivious doings, and the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. With a promise of liberty which sounds like a perverse employment of some of St Paul s language they will lead their followers astray. But in St Jude s picture the colours seem much darker, and all allusions to teaching, and to the idea that, by lessons such as we know from other sources 1 Many modern critics, following Luther, have questioned the genuineness of the epistle. The libertines against whom it is directed display close affinity to the Carpocratians of the 2d century, of whose heresy Clemens Alexandrinus makes it a prophecy. Mayerhoff, Schen- kel, and Mangold suppose that it was written against that heresy not long before the middle of the 2d century. It is also argued that the Muvatorian canon seems to regard the epistle as pseudonymous in the same sense as the Wisdom of Solomon. the Gnostics did give, these men were being beguiled into evil courses through what appeared to be the gate of greater knowledge, have disappeared. The sinners against whom this epistle is directed were avowed libertines and practical unbelievers ; they mocked at all sacred things ; they were sensual, and had not the Spirit. But stronger than any other reason for believing in the later date of the present epistle is the direct quotation which is made in it from the 2d epistle of St Peter. In verses 17-18 St Jude writes, &quot; But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how that they said to you, In the last time there shall be mockers (e/nTraumu) walking after their own ungodly lusts.&quot; The whole of what is here given as apostolic teaching corresponds very closely indeed with the words of 2 Peter iii. 2, while the word e^Trai/cTai is one that is found noAvhere else in the New Testament until it is here quoted by St Jude. Attempts have been made to prove that St Jude s epistle originally appeared in Aramaic, from which the Greek that we have is a translation. But there seems no sufficient evidence for such a conclusion. No doubt a Jew when writing Greek would not unfrequently give expression to his thoughts in a form more or less moulded after his mother tongue, but there are far more points in the epistle which are satisfactory Greek of the date of the Xew Testament than are the instances which, even after much ingenuity, can be shown to be renderings of Aramaic. See Semler, Paraphrases epp. Jacobi, Petri, ct Judas, 1781; Augusti, Die Katholischcn Brief e, 1801 ; Jessien, De autkentia ep. Jnda?., 1821; Stier, Der Brief Judss, 1850; Wiesinger(in Olshausen s Bibclwcrk), 1854; Hoffmann, Die Brief e Petri, Judd, und&amp;gt; Jacobi, 1875 ; Eeuss, Lcs fipitres Catholiques, 1878. (J. R. L.) JUDGE, an officer appointed by the sovereign power in a state to administer the law. The duties of the judicial office, whether in a civil or a criminal matter, are to hear the statements on both sides in open court, to arrive at a con clusion as to the truth of the facts submitted to him, or when a jury is engaged to direct the jury to find such a conclusion, to apply to the facts so found the appropriate rules of laAv, and to certify by his judgment the relief to which the parties are entitled or the obligations or penalties which they have incurred. With the judgment the office of the judge is at an end, but the judgment sets in motion the executive forces of the state, whose duty it is to carry it into execution. Such is the type of a judicial officer recog nized by mature systems of law, but it is not to be accepted as the universal type, and the folloAving qualifying circum stances should be noticed. 1. In primitive systems of law the judicial is not separated from the legislative and other governing functions. 2. Although the judge is assumed to take the law from the legislative authority, yet, as the exist ing law never at any time contains provision for all cases, the judge maybe obliged to inventor create principles applicable to the case. This is called by Bentham and the English jurists judge-made and judiciary law. 3. The separation of the function of judge and jury, and the exclusive charge of questions of law given to the judge, are more particularly characteristic of the English judicial system. During a considerable period in the history of Ptoman law an entirely different distribution of parts was observed. The adjudi cation of a case was divided between the magistratus and QJudex, neither of whom corresponds to the English judge. The former was a public officer charged with the execution of the law ; the latter Avas an arbitrator whom the magis trates commissioned to hear and report upon a particular case. The following are points more specially characteristic of the English system and its kindred judicial systems. 1. Judges are absolutely protected from action for anything that they may do in the discharge of their judicial duties. This is true in the fullest sense of judges of the supreme