Chapter X: Part 10

JUBILEE YEAR, an institution in the Roman Catholic Church, observed every twenty-fifth year, from Christmas to Christmas. During its continuance plenary indulgence is obtainable by all the faithful, on condition of their penitently confessing their sins and visiting certain churches a stated number of times, or doing an equivalent amount of meritorious work. The institution dates from the time of Boniface VIII., whose bull _Antiquorum habet fidem_ is dated the 22nd of February 1300. The circumstances in which it was promulgated are related by a contemporary authority, Jacobus Cajetanus, according to whose account ("Relatio de centesimo s. jubilaeo anno" in the _Bibliotheca Patrum_) a rumour spread through Rome at the close of 1299 that every one visiting St Peter's on the 1st of January 1300 would receive full absolution. The result was an enormous influx of pilgrims to Rome, which stirred the pope's attention. Nothing was found in the archives, but an old peasant 107 years of age avowed that his father had been similarly benefited a century previously. The bull was then issued, and the pilgrims became even more numerous, to the profit of both clergy and citizens. Originally the churches of St Peter and St Paul in Rome were the only jubilee churches, but the privilege was afterwards extended to the Lateran Church and that of Sta Maria Maggiore, and it is now shared also for the year immediately following that of the Roman jubilee by a number of specified provincial churches. At the request of the Roman people, which was supported by St Bridget of Sweden and by Petrarch, Clement VI. in 1343 appointed, by the bull _Unigenitus Dei filius_, that the jubilee should recur every fifty years instead of every hundred years as had been originally contemplated in the constitution of Boniface; Urban VI., who was badly in need of money, by the bull _Salvator noster_ in 1389 reduced the interval still further to thirty-three years (the supposed duration of the earthly life of Christ); and Paul II. by the bull _Ineffabilis_ (April 19, 1470) finally fixed it at twenty-five years. Paul II. also permitted foreigners to substitute for the pilgrimage to Rome a visit to some specified church in their own country and a contribution towards the expenses of the Holy Wars. According to the special ritual prepared by Alexander VI. in 1500, the pope on the Christmas Eve with which the jubilee begins goes in solemn procession to a particular walled-up door ("Porta aurea") of St Peter's and knocks three times, using at the same time the words of Ps. cxviii. 19 (_Aperite mihi portas justitiae_). The doors are then opened and sprinkled with holy water, and the pope passes through. A similar ceremony is conducted by cardinals at the other jubilee churches of the city. At the close of the jubilee, the special doorway is again built up with appropriate solemnities.

The last ordinary jubilee was observed in 1900. "Extraordinary"
jubilees are sometimes appointed on special occasions, e.g. the
accession of a new pope, or that proclaimed by Pope Leo XIII. for the
12th of March 1881, "in order to obtain from the mercy of Almighty God
help and succour in the weighty necessities of the Church, and comfort
and strength in the battle against her numerous and mighty foes."
These are not so much jubilees in the ordinary sense as special grants
of plenary indulgences for particular purposes (_Indulgentiae
plenariae in forma jubilaei_).

JÚCAR, a river of eastern Spain. It rises in the north of the province of Cuenca, at the foot of the Cerro de San Felipe (5906 ft.), and flows south past Cuenca to the borders of Albacete; here it bends towards the east, and maintains this direction for the greater part of its remaining course. On the right it is connected with the city of Albacete by the Maria Cristina canal. After entering Valencia, it receives on the left its chief tributary the Cabriel, which also rises near the Cerro de San Felipe, in the Montes Universales. Near Alcira the Júcar turns south-eastward, and then sharply north, curving again to the south-east before it enters the Mediterranean Sea at Cullera, after a total course of 314 m. Its estuary forms the harbour of Cullera, and its lower waters are freely utilized for purposes of irrigation.

JUD, LEO (1482-1542), known to his contemporaries as Meister Leu, Swiss reformer, was born in Alsace and educated at Basel, where after a course in medicine he turned to the study of theology. This change was due to the influence of Zwingli whose colleague at Zürich Jud became after serving for four years (1518-1522) as pastor of Einsiedeln. His chief activity was as a translator; he was the leading spirit in the translation of the Zürich Bible and also made a Latin version of the Old Testament. He died at Zürich on the 19th of June 1542.

See _Life_ by C. Pestalozzi (1860); art. in Herzog-Hauck's
_Realencyklopädie_, vol. ix. (1901).

JUDAEA, the name given to the southern part of Palestine as occupied by the Jewish community in post-exilic days under Persian, Greek and Roman overlordship. In Luke and Acts the term is sometimes used loosely to denote the whole of western Palestine. The limits of Judaea were never very precisely defined and--especially on the northern frontier--varied from time to time. After the death of Herod, Archelaus became ethnarch of Samaria, Idumea and Judaea, and when he was deposed Judaea was merged in Syria, being governed by a procurator whose headquarters were in Caesarea.

For a description of the natural features of the country see
PALESTINE; for its history see JEWS and JUDAH. Cf. T. Mommsen, _The
Provinces of the Roman Empire_, ch. xi.

JUDAH, a district of ancient Palestine, to the south of the kingdom of Israel, between the Dead Sea and the Philistine plain. It falls physically into three parts: the hill-country from Hebron northwards through Jerusalem; the lowland (Heb. _Shephelah_) on the west; and the steppes or "dry land" (Heb. _Negeb_) on the south. The district is one of striking contrasts, with a lofty and stony table-land in the centre (which reaches a height of 3300 ft. just north of Hebron), with a strategically important valley dividing the central mountains from the lowland, and with the most desolate of tracts to the east (by the Dead Sea) and south. Some parts, especially around Hebron, are extremely fertile, but the land as a whole has the characteristics of the southern wilderness--the so-called "desert" is not a sterile Sahara--and was more fitted for pastoral occupations; see further G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geog. Holy Land_, chs. x.-xv. Life in ancient Judah is frequently depicted in the Bible, but much of the Judaean history is obscure. In the days of the old Hebrew monarchy there were periods of conflict and rivalry between Judah and Israel--even times when the latter incorporated, or at least claimed supremacy over, the former. Later, from the 5th century B.C. there was a breach between the Jews (the name is derived from Judah) and the Samaritans (q.v.). The intervening years after the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.), and after the destruction of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), were probably marked by closer intercourse, similar to the period of union in the popular traditions relating to the pre-monarchical age. The course of Judaean history was conditioned, also, by the proximity of the Philistines in the west, Moab in the east, and by Edom and other southern peoples extending from North Arabia to the delta of the Nile. Judah's stormy history, continued under Greek and Roman domination, reached its climax in the birth of Christianity, and ended with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (see JEWS, PALESTINE).

In conformity with ancient methods of genealogy (q.v.), Judah is
traced back to a son of Jacob or Israel by Leah and along with other
"tribes" (Dan, Levi, Simeon, &c.) is included under the collective
term Israel. Thus it shares the general traditions of the Israelites,
although Judah appears as an individual in the story of his "brother"
Joseph (on ch. xxxvii. seq., see GENESIS). Its boundaries in Joshua
xv. are manifestly artificial or imaginary; they include the
Philistines and number places which are elsewhere ascribed to Simeon
or Dan. The origin of the name (_Yehudah_) is quite uncertain; the
interpretation "praised" is suggested in Gen. xxix. 35 (cf; xlix. 8
seq.), but some connexion with allied names, as Yehud (Yahudiya, E. of
Jaffa), or Ehud (a Benjamite clan) seems more probable. That Judah,
whatever its original connotation, underwent development through the
incorporation of other clans appears from 1 Chron. ii., iv., where it
is found to contain a large element of non-Israelite population whose
names find analogies or parallels in Simeonite, Edomite and other
southern lists.[1] Indeed, underlying the account of the Israelite
exodus (q.v.) there are traces of a separate movement of certain
clans--apart from the Israelite invasion of Palestine--who are
ultimately found in the south of Judah; and the traditions in
Chronicles themselves allow the view that the incorporation of these
elements began under David, when Judah first occupies a prominent
position in biblical history (cf. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._, col. 2618
seq., and see CALEB, JERAHMEEL, KENITES). But such movements were not
necessarily limited to one single period, and the evidence connecting
(a) the non-Israelite clans of Judah with Levites, and (b) both with
the south, is found in narratives referring to several different ages
and might point to an unceasing relationship with the south. On the
other hand, clans, which in the traditions of David's time were in the
south of Judah, about five hundred years later (in the exile) are
found near Jerusalem (e.g. Caleb), so that either these survived the
strenuous vicissitudes of half a millennium or all perspective of
their early history has been lost. In Gen. xxxviii. a curious
narrative points to the separation of Judah "from his brethren" and
his marriage with Shua the Canaanite; two sons Er and Onan perish and
the third Shelah survives. From Judah and Er's widow Tamar are derived
Perez and Zerah, and these with Shelah appear in post-exilic times as
the three representative families of Judah (Neh. xi. 4-6; 1 Chron. ix.
4-6). This story, amid a number of other motives, appears to reflect
the growth of the tribe of Judah and its fluctuations, but that the
reference is to any very early period is unlikely, partly because the
interest of the story is in post-exilic families, and partly because
the scenes (Adullam, Chezib and Timnah) overlap with David's own
fights between Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. xxi. xxiii.; see DAVID,
_ad fin._).[2] Even David's conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam. v.)
conflicts both with the statement of its capture by Judah many years
previously (Judges i. 8), and with the traditions of the Israelite
heroes Joshua and Saul. Consequently, the few surviving data are too
uncertain for any decisive conclusions regarding the origin of the
tribe of Judah. Judah as a kingdom may have taken its name from a
limited district, in which case its growth finds a parallel in the
extension of the name Samaria from the city to the province. The
location of Yehud and Ehud in the light of 1 Kings iv. 8-19 (perhaps
the subdivisions of the Israelite kingdom, see SOLOMON), would
necessitate the assumption of a violent separation from the north;
this, however, is quite conceivable (see JEWS, §§ 11-13). On the
bearing of South Judah upon the historical criticism of the Old
Testament, see especially N. Schmidt, _Hibbert Journal_ (1908), pp.
322-342, "The Jerahmeel Theory and the Historic Importance of the
Negeb, with some account of personal exploration of the country"; also
JEWS, § 20. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See especially Wellhausen, _De gentibus et familiis Judaeorum_
(Göttingen, 1869), the articles on the relative proper names in the
_Ency. Bib._, and E. Meyer, _Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_,
pp. 299-471 (much valuable matter).

[2] For the principle of the Levirate illustrated in Gen. xxxviii.,
see RUTH. Lagarde (_Orientalia_, ii.) ingeniously conjectured that
the chapter typified the suppression of Phoenician (viz. Tamar, the
date-palm) and the old Canaanite elements (Zerah = _indigena_) by the
younger Israelite invaders (Perez = "branch"). For other discussions,
apart from commentaries on Genesis, see B. Luther in Meyer, _op.
cit._, pp. 200 sqq.

JUDAS ISCARIOT ([Greek: Ioudas Iskariôtês] or [Greek: Iskariôth]), in the Bible, the son of Simon Iscariot (John vi. 71, xiii. 26), and one of the twelve apostles. He is always enumerated last with the special mention of the fact that he was the betrayer of Jesus. If the generally accepted explanation of his surname ("man of Kerioth"; see Josh. xv. 25) be correct, he was the only original member of the apostolic band who was not a Galilean. The circumstances which led to his admission into the apostolic circle are not stated; while the motives by which he was actuated in enabling the Jewish authorities to arrest Jesus without tumult have been variously analysed by scholars. According to some (as De Quincey in his famous _Essay_) the sole object of Judas was to place Jesus in a position in which He should be compelled to make what had seemed to His followers the too tardy display of His Messianic power: according to others (and this view seems more in harmony with the Gospel narratives) Judas was an avaricious and dishonest man, who had already abused the confidence placed in him (John xii. 6), and who was now concerned only with furthering his own ends.

As regards the effects of his subsequent remorse and the use to which his ill-gotten gains were put, the strikingly apparent discrepancies between the narratives of Matt. xxvii. 3, 10 and Acts i. 18, 19 have attracted the attention of biblical scholars, ever since Papias, in his fourth book, of which a fragment has been preserved, discussed the subject. The simplest explanation is that they represent different traditions, the Gospel narrative being composed with more special reference to prophetic fulfilments, and being probably nearer the truth than the short explanatory note inserted by the author of the Acts (see Bernard, _Expositor_, June 1904, p. 422 seq.). In ecclesiastical legend and in sacred art Judas Iscariot is generally treated as the very incarnation of treachery, ingratitude and impiety. The Middle Ages, after their fashion, supplied the lacunae in what they deemed his too meagre biography. According to the common form of their story, he belonged to the tribe of Reuben.[1] Before he was born his mother Cyborea had a dream that he was destined to murder his father, commit incest with his mother, and sell his God. The attempts made by her and her husband to avert this curse simply led to its accomplishment. At his birth Judas was enclosed in a chest and flung into the sea; picked up on a foreign shore, he was educated at the court until a murder committed in a moment of passion compelled his flight. Coming to Judaea, he entered the service of Pontius Pilate as page, and during this period committed the first two of the crimes which had been expressly foretold. Learning the secret of his birth, he, full of remorse, sought the prophet who, he had heard, had power on earth to forgive sins. He was accepted as a disciple and promoted to a position of trust, where avarice, the only vice in which he had hitherto been unpractised, gradually took possession of his soul, and led to the complete fulfilment of his evil destiny. This Judas legend, as given by Jacobus de Voragine, obtained no small popularity; and it is to be found in various shapes in every important literature of Europe.

For the history of its genesis and its diffusion the reader may
consult D'Ancona, _La leggenda di Vergogna e la leggenda di Giuda_
(1869), and papers by W. Creizenach in Paul and Braune's _Beitr. zur
Gesch. der deutschen Sprache und Litteratur_, vol. ii. (1875), and
Victor Diederich in _Russiche Revue_ (1880). Cholevius, in his
_Geschichte der deutschen Poesie nach ihren antiken Elementen_ (1854),
pointed out the connexion of the legend with the Oedipus story.
According to Daub (_Judas Ischariot, oder Betrachtungen über das Böse
im Verhältniss zum Guten_, 1816, 1818) Judas was "an incarnation of
the devil," to whom "mercy and blessedness are alike impossible."

The popular hatred of Judas has found strange symbolical expression in
various parts of Christendom. In Corfu, for instance, the people at a
given signal on Easter Eve throw vast quantities of crockery from
their windows and roofs into the streets, and thus execute an
imaginary stoning of Judas (see Kirkwall, _Ionian Islands_, ii. 47).
At one time (according to Mustoxidi, _Delle cose corciresi_) the
tradition prevailed that the traitor's house and country villa existed
in the island, and that his descendants were to be found among the
local Jews.

Details in regard to some Judas legends and superstitions are given in
_Notes and Queries_, 2nd series, v., vi. and vii.; 3rd series, vii.;
4th series, i.; 5th series, vi. See also a paper by Professor Rendel
Harris entitled "Did Judas really commit suicide?" in the _American
Journal of Philology_ (July 1900). Matthew Arnold's poem "St Brandan"
gives fine expression to the old story that, on account of an act of
charity done to a leper at Joppa, Judas was allowed an hour's respite
from hell once a year. (G. Mi.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Other forms make him a Danite, and consider the passage in
Genesis (xlix. 17) a prophecy of the traitor.

JUDAS-TREE, the _Cercis siliquastrum_ of botanists, belonging to the section _Caesalpineae_ of the natural order Leguminosae. It is a native of the south of France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Asia Minor, and forms a handsome low tree with a flat spreading head. In Spring it is covered with a profusion of purplish-pink flowers, which appear before the leaves. The flowers have an agreeable acid taste, and are eaten mixed with salad or made into fritters. The tree was frequently figured by the older herbalists. One woodcut by Castor Durante has the figure of Judas Iscariot suspended from one of the branches, illustrating the popular tradition regarding this tree. A second species, _C. canadensis_, is common in North America from Canada to Alabama and eastern Texas, and differs from the European species in its smaller size and pointed leaves. The flowers are also used in salads and for making pickles, while the branches are used to dye wool a nankeen colour.

JUDD, SYLVESTER (1813-1853) American Unitarian clergyman and author, was born in Westhampton, Massachusetts, on the 23rd of July 1813. He bore the same name as his father and grandfather; the former (1789-1860) made an especial study of local history of the towns of the Connecticut valley, and wrote a _History of Hadley_ (1863). The son lived in Northampton after his tenth year, was converted in a revival there in 1826, graduated from Yale in 1836, and taught in 1836 at Templeton, Mass., where he first met Unitarians and soon found the solution of his theological difficulties in their views. He entered the Harvard divinity school, from which he graduated in 1840. In the same year he was ordained pastor of the Unitarian church of Augusta, Maine, where he died on the 26th of January 1853. His widest reputation was as the author of _Margaret, a Tale of the Real and the Ideal, including Sketches of a place not before described, called Mons Christi_ (1845; revised 1851), written to exhibit the errors of Calvinistic and all trinitarian theology, and the evils of war, intemperance, capital punishment, the prison system of the time, and the national treatment of the Indians. This story, published anonymously, attracted much attention by its true descriptions of New England life and scenery as well as by its author's earnest purpose. _Richard Edney and the Governor's Family_ (1850) is in much the same vein as _Margaret_. A poem entitled _Philo, an Evangeliad_ (1850) is a versified defence of Unitarianism. He published, besides, _The Church, in a Series of Discourses_ (1854). As a preacher and pastor he urged the desirability of infant baptism. He lectured frequently on international peace and opposed slavery.

See Arethusa Hall, _Life and Character of the Rev. Sylvester Judd_ (Boston, 1857) published anonymously.

JUDE, THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF, a book of the New Testament. As with the epistle of James, the problems of the writing centre upon the superscription, which addresses in Pauline phraseology (1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. 1. 2) the Christian world in general in the name of "Jude, the brother of James" (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). The historical situation depicted must then fall within the lifetime of this Judas, whose two grandchildren Zoker and James (Hegesippus _ap._ Phil. Sidetes) by their testimony before the authorities brought to an end the (Palestinian) persecution of Domitian (Hegesippus _ap._ Eus. _H. E._ iii. 20, 7). These two grandsons of Judas thereafter "lived until the time of Trajan," ruling the churches "because they had (thus) been witnesses (martyrs) and were also relatives of the Lord." But in that case we must either reject the testimony of the same Hegesippus that up to their death, and that of Symeon son of Clopas, successor in the Jerusalem see of James the Lord's brother, "who suffered martyrdom at the age of one hundred and twenty years while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor," "the church (universal) had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin" free from "the folly of heretical teachers"; or else we must reject the superscription, which presents the grandfather in vehement conflict with the very heresies in question. For the testimony of Hegesippus is explicit that at the time of the arrest of Zoker and James they were all who survived of the kindred of the Lord. True, there is confusion in the narrative of Hegesippus, and even a probability that the martyrdom of Symeon dated under Trajan really took place in the persecution of Domitian, before the arrest of the grandsons of Jude, for apart from the alleged age of Symeon (the traditional Jewish limit of human life, Gen. vi. 3, Deut. xxxiv. 7), the cause of his apprehension "on the ground that he was _a descendant of David_ and a Christian" (Hegesippus _ap._ Eus. _H. E._ iii. 32, 3) is inconsistent with both the previous statements regarding the "martyrdom" of Zoker and James, that they were cited as the only surviving Christian Davididae, and that the persecution on this ground collapsed through the manifest absurdity of the accusation. But even if we date the rise of heresies in the reign of Domitian instead of Trajan,[1] the attributing of this epistle against corrupting heresy to "Jude the brother of James" will still be incompatible with the statements of Hegesippus, our only informant regarding his later history.

The Greek of Jude is also such as to exclude the idea of authorship in Palestine by an unschooled Galilean, at an early date in church history. As F. H. Chase has pointed out: (1) the terms [Greek: klêtoi, sôtêria, pistis], have attained their later technical sense; (2) "the writer is steeped in the language of the LXX.," employing its phraseology independently of other N.T. writers, and not that of the canonical books alone, but of the broader non-Palestinian canon; (3) "he has at his command a large stock of stately, sonorous, sometimes poetical words," proving him a "man of some culture, and, as it would seem, not without acquaintance with Greek writers."

If the superscription be not from the hand of the actual brother of Jesus, the question may well be asked why some apostolic name was not chosen which might convey greater authority? The answer is to be found in the direction toward which the principal defenders of orthodoxy in 100-150 turned for "the deposit of the faith" (Jude 3) in its purity. The Pastoral Epistles point to "the pattern of sound words, even the sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Tim. vi. 3, &c.), as the arsenal of orthodoxy against the same foe (with 1 Tim. vi. 3-10; cf. Jude 4, 11, 16, 18 seq.). Ignatius's motto is to "be inseparable from Jesus Christ and from your bishop" (_ad Trall._ vii.), Polycarp's, to "turn unto the word delivered unto us from the beginning" (cf. Jude 3; 1 John ii. 7, iii. 23, iv. 21), "the oracles of the Lord," which the false teachers "pervert to their own lusts." Papias, his [Greek: hetairos] (Irenaeus), turns in fact from "the vain talk of the many," and from the "alien commandments" to such as were "delivered by the Lord to the faith," offering to the Christian world his _Interpretation of the Lord's Oracles_ based upon personal inquiry from those who "came his way," who could testify as to apostolic tradition. Hegesippus, after a journey to all the principal seats of Christian tradition, testifies that all are holding to the true doctrine as transmitted at the original seat, where it was witnessed first by the apostles and afterwards by the kindred of the Lord and "witnesses" of the first generation. All these writers in one form or other revert to the historic tradition against the licence of innovators. Hegesippus indicates plainly the seat of its authority. For the period before the adoption of a written standard the resort was not so much to "apostles" as to "disciples" and "witnesses." The appeal was to "those who from the beginning had been eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke i. 2); and these were to be found primarily (until the complete destruction of that church during the revolt of Barcochebas and its suppression by Hadrian) in the mother community in Jerusalem (cf. Acts xv. 2). Its life is the measure of the period of oral tradition, whose requiem is sung by Papias. Hegesippus (_ap._ Eus. _H. E._ iii. 32, 7 seq.) looks back to it as the safe guardian of the deposit "of the faith" against all the depredations of heresy which "when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away ... attempted thenceforth with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, 'the knowledge which is falsely so-called ([Greek: pseudônymos gnôsis]).'" For an appeal like that of our epistle to the authority of the past against the moral laxity and antinomian teaching of degenerate Pauline churches in the Greek world, the natural resort after Paul himself (Pastoral Epp.) would be the "kindred of the Lord" who were the "leaders and witnesses in every church" in Palestine. Doubtless the framer of Jude 1 would have preferred the aegis of "James the Lord's brother," if this, like that of Paul, had not been already appropriated. Failing this, the next most imposing was "Judas, the brother of James."

The superscription in the case of Jude, unlike that of James, takes hold of the substance of the book. Verse 3 and the farewell (v. 24 seq.) show that Jude was composed from the start as an "epistle." If this appearance be not fallacious, the obvious relation between the two superscriptions will be best explained by the supposition that the author of Jude gave currency to the existing homily (James) before composing under the pseudonym of Jude. On the interconnexion of the two see Sieffert, _s.v._ "Judasbrief" in Hauck, _Realencykl._ vol. ix.

Judas is conceived as cherishing the intention of discussing for the benefit of the Christian world (for no mere local church is addressed) the subject of "our common salvation" (the much desiderated authoritative definition of the orthodox faith), but diverted from this purpose by the growth of heresy.

Few writings of this compass afford more copious evidence of date in their literary affinities. The references to Enoch (principally ver. 14 seq. = _Eth. En._ i. 9, but cf. F. H. Chase, _s.v._ "Jude" in Hastings's _Dict. Bible_) and the _Assumption of Moses_ (v. 9) have more a geographical than a chronological bearing, the stricter canon of Palestine excluding these apocryphal books of 90 B.C. to A.D. 40; but the Pauline writings are freely employed, especially 1 Cor. x. 1-13, Rom. xvi. 25 seq., and probably Eph. and Col. Moreover, the author explicitly refers to the apostolic age as already past, and to the fulfilment of the Pauline prediction (1 Tim. iv. 1 sqq.) of the advent of heresy (v. 17 seq.). The Pauline doctrine of "grace" has been perverted to lasciviousness, as by the heretics whom Polycarp opposes (_Ep. Polyc._ vii.), and this doctrine is taught for "hire" (vv. 11, 12, 16; cf. 1 Tim. vi. 5). The unworthy "shepherds" (v. 12; cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 8; John x. 12 seq.) live at the expense of their flocks, polluting the "love-feasts," corrupting the true disciples. According to Clement of Alexandria this was written prophetically to apply to the Carpocratians, an antinomian Gnostic sect of _c._ 150; but hyper-Paulinists had given occasion to similar complaints already in Rev. ii. 14, 20 (95). Thus Paulinism and its perversion alike are in the past. As regards the undeniable contact of _Didache_ ii. 7 with Jude 22 seq. (cf. _Didache_, iv. 1, Jude 8) priority cannot be determined; and the use of 1 John iii. 12 in Jude 11 is doubtful.

On the other hand, practically the whole of Jude is taken up into 2 Pet., the author merely avoiding, so far as he discovers them, the quotations from apocryphal writings, and prefixing and affixing sections of his own to refute the heretical eschatology. On the priority of Jude see especially against Spitta _Zur Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums_, ii. 409-411, F. H. Chase, _loc. cit._ p. 803. (On 2 Pet. see PETER EPISTLES OF.) Unfortunately, the date of 2 Pet. cannot be determined as earlier than late in the second century, so that we are thrown back upon internal evidence for the inferior limit.

The treatment of the heresy as the anti-Christ who precedes "the last hour" (v. 18), reminds us of 1 John ii. 18, but it is indicative of conditions somewhat less advanced that the heretics have not yet "gone out from" the church. The treatment of the apostolic age as past, and the deposit of the faith as a _regula fidei_ (cf. Ign. _ad Trall._ ix.), the presence of antinomian Gnosticism, denying the doctrine of lordship and "glories" (v. 8), with "discriminations" between "psychic" and "pneumatic" (v. 19), strongly oppose a date earlier than 100.

Sieffert, on account of the superscription, would date as early as 70-80, but acknowledges the hyper-Pauline affinity of the heresy, its propagation as a doctrine, and close relation to the Nicolaitan of Rev. ii. 14. To these phenomena he gives accordingly a correspondingly early date. The nature of the heresy, opposed, however, and the resort to the authority of Jude "the brother of James" against it, favour rather the period of Polycarp and Papias (117-150).

The history of the reception of the epistle into church canons is similar to that of James, beginning with a quotation of it as the work of Jude by Clement of Alexandria (_Paed._ iii. 8), a reference by Tertullian (_De cult. fem._ i. 3), and a more or less hesitant endorsement by Origen ("if one might adduce the epistle of Jude," _In Matt._ tom. xvii. 30) and by the _Muratorianum_ (_c._ 200), which excepts Jude and 2 and 3 John from its condemnation of apocryphal literature, placing it on a par with the Wisdom of Solomon "which was written by friends of his in his honour." The use of apocryphal literature in Jude itself may account for much of the critical disposition toward it of many subsequent writers. Eusebius classed it among the "disputed" books, declaring that as with James "not many of the ancients have mentioned it" (_H. E._ ii. 23, 25).

The _Introd. to the New Test._ by Holtzmann, Jülicher, Weiss, Zahn,
Davidson, Salmon, Bacon and the standard _Commentaries_ of Meyer and
Holtzmann, the _International_ (Bigg) and other series, contain
discussions of authorship and date. The articles s.v. in Hastings's
_Dict. Bible_ (Chase) and the _Ency. Bib._ (Cone) are full and
scholarly. In addition the _Histories of the Apostolic Age_, by
Hausrath, Weizsäcker, McGiffert, Bartlet, Ropes and others, and the
kindred works of Baur, Schwegler and Pfleiderer should be consulted.
Moffat's _Historical New Testament_, 2nd ed., p. 589, contains a
convenient summary of the evidence with copious bibliography. One of
the most thorough of conservative treatments is the _Commentary on
Jude and Second Peter_ by J. B. Mayor (1907). (B. W. B.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] On this point (date of the outbreak of heresy) there is some
inconsistency in the reported fragments of Hegesippus. In that quoted
below from Eus. _H. E._ iii. 32. 7 seq., it is expressly dated after
the martyrdom of Symeon and death of the grandsons of Jude under
Trajan. In iii. 19 the "ancient tradition" attributing the
denunciation of these to "some of the heretics" is perhaps not from
Hegesippus; but in iv. 22 the beginning of heresy is traced to a
certain Thebuthis, a candidate for the bishopric after the death of
James, as rival to Symeon. The same figure of the church as a pure
virgin is also used as in iii. 32. But as it is only the envious
feeling of Thebuthis which is traced to this early date, Hegesippus
doubtless means to place the outbreak later.

JUDGE (Lat. _judex_, Fr. _juge_), in the widest legal sense an officer appointed by the sovereign power in a state to administer the law; in English practice, however, justices of the peace and magistrates are not usually regarded as "judges" in the titular sense. The duties of the judge, whether in a civil or a criminal matter, are to hear the statements on both sides in open court, to arrive at a conclusion 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 law, 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 recognized by mature systems of law, but it is not to be accepted as the universal type, and the following qualifying circumstances 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 existing law never at any time contains provision for all cases, the judge may be obliged to invent or 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 Roman law an entirely different distribution of parts was observed. The adjudication of a case was divided between the _magistratus_ and the _judex_, neither of whom corresponds to the English judge. The former was a public officer charged with the execution of the law; the latter was an arbitrator whom the magistrates 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 courts. "It is a principle of English law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly." Other judicial officers are also protected, though not to the same extent, against actions. (2) The highest class of judges are irremovable except by what is in effect a special act of parliament, viz. a resolution passed by both houses and assented to by the sovereign. The inferior judges and magistrates are removable for misconduct by the lord chancellor. (3) The judiciary in England is not a separate profession. The judges are chosen from the class of advocates, and almost entirely according to their eminence at the bar. (4) Judges are in England appointed for the most part by the crown. In a few cases municipal corporations may appoint their own judicial officer.

See also LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR; LORD CHIEF JUSTICE; MASTER OF THE
ROLLS, &c., &c., and the accounts of judicial systems under country
headings.

JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL, an officer appointed in England to assist the Crown with advice in matters relating to military law, and more particularly as to courts-martial. In the army the administration of justice as pertaining to discipline is carried out in accordance with the provisions of military law, and it is the function of the judge-advocate-general to ensure that these disciplinary powers are exercised in strict conformity with that law. Down to 1793 the judge-advocate-general acted as secretary and legal adviser to the board of general officers, but on the reconstitution of the office of commander-in-chief in that year he ceased to perform secretarial duties, but remained chief legal adviser. He retained his seat in parliament and in 1806 he was made a member of the government and a privy councillor. The office ceased to be political in 1892, on the recommendation of the select committee of 1888 on army estimates, and was conferred on Sir F. Jeune (afterwards Lord St Helier). There was no salary attached to the office when held by Lord St Helier, and the duties were for the most part performed by deputy. On his death in 1905, Thomas Milvain, K.C., was appointed, and the terms and conditions of the post were rearranged as follows: (1) A salary of £2000 a year; (2) the holder to devote his whole time to the duties of the post; (3) the retention of the post until the age of seventy, subject to continued efficiency--but with claim to gratuity or pension on retirement. The holder was to be subordinate to the secretary of state for war, without direct access to the sovereign. The appointment is conferred by letters-patent, which define the exact functions attaching to the office, which practically are the reviewing of the proceedings of all field-general, general and district courts-martial held in the United Kingdom, and advising the sovereign as to the confirmation of the finding and sentence. The deputy judge-advocate is a salaried official in the department of the judge-advocate-general and acts under his letters-patent. A separate judge-advocate-general's department is maintained in India, where at one time deputy judge-advocates were attached to every important command. All general courts-martial held in the United Kingdom are sent to the judge-advocate-general, to be by him submitted to the sovereign for confirmation; and all district courts-martial, after having been confirmed and promulgated, are sent to his office for examination and custody. The judge-advocate-general and his deputy, being judges in the last resort of the validity of the proceedings of courts-martial, take no part in their conduct; but the deputy judge-advocates frame and revise charges and attend at courts-martial, swear the court, advise both sides on law, look after the interests of the prisoner and record the proceedings. In the English navy there is an official whose functions are somewhat similar to those of the judge-advocate-general. He is called counsel and judge-advocate of the fleet.

In the United States there is also a judge-advocate-general's department. In addition to being a bureau of military justice, and keeping the records of courts-martial, courts of inquiry and military commissions, it has the custody of all papers relating to the title of lands under the control of the war department. The officers of the department, in addition to acting as prosecutors in all military trials, sometimes represent the government when cases affecting the army come up in civil courts.

See further MILITARY LAW, and consult C. M. Clode, _Administration of
Justice under Military and Martial Law_ (1872); _Military Forces of
the Crown_ (2 vols., 1869).

JUDGES, THE BOOK OF, in the Bible. This book of the Old Testament, which, as we now read it, constitutes a sequel to the book of Joshua, covering the period of history between the death of this conqueror and the birth of Samuel, is so called because it contains the history of the Israelites before the establishment of the monarchy, when the government was in the hands of certain leaders who appear to have formed a continuous succession, although the office was not hereditary. The only other biblical source ascribed to this period is Ruth, whose present position as an appendix to Judges is not original (see BIBLE and RUTH).

_Structure._--It is now generally agreed that the present adjustment of the older historical books of the Old Testament to form a continuous record of events from the creation to the Babylonian exile is due to an editor, or rather to successive redactors, who pieced together and reduced to a certain unity older memoirs of very different dates; and closer examination shows that the continuity of many parts of the narrative is more apparent than real. This is very clearly the case in the book of Judges. It consists of three main portions: (1) an introduction, presenting one view of the occupation of Palestine by the Israelites (i. 1-ii. 5); (2) the history of the several judges (ii. 6-xvi.); and (3) an appendix containing two narratives of the period.

1. The first section relates events which are said to have taken place after the death of Joshua, but in reality it covers the same ground with the book of Joshua, giving a brief account of the occupation of Canaan, which in some particulars repeats the statements of the previous book, while in others it is quite independent (see JOSHUA). It is impossible to regard the warlike expeditions described in this section as supplementary campaigns undertaken after Joshua's death; they are plainly represented as the first efforts of the Israelites to gain a firm footing in the land (at Hebron, Debir, Bethel), in the very cities which Joshua is related to have subdued (Josh. x. 39).[1] Here then we have an account of the settlement of Israel west of the Jordan which is parallel to the book of Joshua, but makes no mention of Joshua himself, and places the tribe of Judah in the front. The author of the chapter cannot have had Joshua or his history in his eye at all, and the words "and it came to pass after the death of Joshua" in Judg. i. 1 are from the hand of the last editor, who desired to make the whole book of Judges, including ch. i., read continuously with that which now precedes it in the canon of the earlier prophets.[2]

2. The second and main section (ii. 6-xvi.) stands on quite another footing. According to Josh. xxiv. 31 the people "served Yahweh" during the lifetime of the great conqueror and his contemporaries. In Judg. ii. 7 this statement is repeated, and the writer proceeds to explain that subsequent generations fell away from the faith, and served the gods of the nations among which they dwelt (ii. 6-iii. 6). The worship of other gods is represented, not as something which went on side by side with Yahweh-worship (cf. x. 6), but as a revolt against Yahweh, periodically repeated and regularly chastised by foreign invasion. The history, therefore, falls into recurring cycles, each of which begins with religious corruption, followed by chastisement, which continues until Yahweh, in answer to the groans of his oppressed people, raises up a "judge" to deliver Israel, and recall them to the true faith. On the death of the "judge," if not sooner, the corruption spreads anew and the same vicissitudes follow. This religious explanation of the course of the history, formally expounded at the outset and repeated in more or less detail from chapter to chapter (especially vi. 1-10, x. 6-18), determines the form of the whole narrative. It is in general agreement with the spirit as also with the language of Deuteronomy, and on this account this section may be conveniently called "the Deuteronomic Book of Judges." But the main religious ideas are not so late and are rather akin to those of Josh. xxiv; in particular the worship of the high places is not condemned, nor is it excused as in 1 Kings iii. 2. The sources of the narrative are obviously older than the theological exposition of its lessons, and herein lies the value and interest of Judges. The importance of such documents for the scientific historian lies not so much in the events they record as in the unconscious witness they bear to the state of society in which the narrator or poet lived. From this point of view the parts of the book are by no means all of equal value; critical analysis shows that often parallel or distinct narratives have been fused together, and that, whilst the older stories gave more prominence to ordinary human motives and combinations, the later are coloured by religious reflection and show the characteristic tendency of the Old Testament to re-tell the fortunes of Israel in a form that lays ever-increasing weight on the work of Yahweh for his people. That the pre-Deuteronomic sources are to be identified with the Judaean (J, or Yahwist) and Ephraimite (E, or Elohist) strands of the Hexateuch is, however, not certain.

To the unity of religious pragmatism in the main stock of the book of Judges corresponds a unity of chronological scheme. The "judges," in spite of the fact that most of them had clearly no more than a local influence, are all represented as successive rulers in Israel, and the history is dated by the years of each judgeship and those of the intervening periods of oppression. But it is impossible to reconcile the numbers with the statement elsewhere that the fourth year of Solomon was the 480th from the exodus (1 Kings vi. 1). See BIBLE: _Chronology_.

The general introduction (ii. 6-iii. 6) is a blend of Deuteronomic and
other sources. The intimate relation between it and the separate
narratives (Josh. xxiv. 1-27, a late [Ephraimite] record inserted by a
second Deuteronomic hand, and xxiii., D) appears both from their
contents and from the fact that Judg. ii. 6-10 is almost identical
with the narrative appended to Joshua's address (Joshua xxiv. 28-31).
Judg. i.-ii. 5, however, is not touched by D, and hence was probably
inserted in its present position at a later date. According to the
highly intricate introduction the Hebrews were oppressed: (a) to
familiarize them with warfare--it is assumed that they had
intermarried with the Canaanites and worshipped their gods (iii. 2,
6); (b) to test their loyalty to Yahweh (ii. 22; iii. 1); or (c) to
punish them for their marriage with the heathen and their apostasy (D
in ii. 12; cf. Josh. xxiii., and ibid. v. 12).

To this succeeds a noteworthy example of the Deuteronomic treatment of
tradition in the achievement of Othniel (q.v.) the only Judaean
"judge." The bareness of detail, not to speak of the improbability of
the situation, renders its genuineness doubtful, and the passage is
one of the indications of a secondary Deuteronomic redaction. The
case, however, is exceptional; the stories of the other great "judges"
were not rewritten or to any great extent revised by the Deuteronomic
redactor, and his hand appears chiefly in the framework.[3] Thus, in
the story of Ehud and the defeat of Moab only iii. 12-15, 29-30 are
Deuteronomic. But the rest is not homogeneous, vv. 19 and 20 appear to
be variants, and the mention of Israel (v. 27b) is characteristic of
the tendency to treat local troubles as national oppressions, whereas
other records represent little national unity at this period (i., v.).
See further EHUD.

According to the Septuagint addition to Josh. xxiv. 33, Moab was the
first of Israel's oppressors. The brief notice of Shamgar, who
delivered Israel from the Philistines (iii. 31), is one of the later
insertions, and in some MSS. of the LXX. it stands after xvi. 31. The
story of the defeat of Sisera appears in two distinct forms, an
earlier, in poetical form (v.), and a later, in prose (iv.). D's
framework is to be recognized in iv. 1-4, 23 seq., v. 1 (probably), 31
(last clause); see further DEBORAH. The Midianite oppression
(vi.-viii.) is contained in the usual frame (vi. 1-6; viii. 27 seq.),
but is not homogeneous, since viii. 4, the pursuit of the kings,
cannot be the sequel of viii. 3 (where they have been slain), and
viii. 33-35 ignores ix. The structure of vi. 1-viii. 3 is particularly
intricate: vi. 25-32 does not continue vi. 11-24 (there are two
accounts of Gideon's introduction and divergent representations of
Yahweh-worship); vi. 34 forms the sequel of the latter, and vi. 36-40
(with "God") is strange after the description of the miracle in vv. 21
seq. (with "Yahweh"). Further, there are difficulties in vi. 34, vii.
23 seq., viii. 1, when compared with vii. 2-8, and in vii. 16-22 two
stratagems are combined. There are two sequels: vii. 23 seq. and viii.
4; with the former contrast vi. 35; with viii. 1-3 cf. xii. 1-6, and
see below. Chapter viii. 22 seq. comes unexpectedly, and the refusal
of the offer of the kingship reflects later ideas (cf. 1 Sam. viii. 7;
x. 19; xii. 12, 17). The conclusion, however, shows that Jerubbaal had
only a local reputation. Finally, the condemnation of the ephod as
part of the worship of Yahweh (viii. 27) agrees with the thought in
vi. 25-32 as against that in vi. 11-24. (See EPHOD; GIDEON.) Chapter
ix. (see ABIMELECH) appears to have been wanting in the Deuteronomic
book of Judges, but inserted later perhaps by means of the
introduction, viii. 30-32 (post-exilic). It has two accounts of the
attack upon Shechem (lx. 26-41 and 42-49).

After a brief notice of two "minor judges" (see below), follows the
story of Jephthah. It concludes with the usual Deuteronomic formula
(xii. 7), but is prefaced by a detailed introduction to the oppression
of Israel (x. 6 sqq.). By the inclusion of the Philistines among the
oppressors, and of Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim among the oppressed (x.
7, 9), it appears to have in view not merely the story of Samson, a
hero of local interest, but the early chapters in 1 Samuel. This
introduction is of composite origin (as also ii. 6-21; Josh.
xxiii.-xxiv. 25), but a satisfactory analysis seems impossible. As it
stands, it has literary connexions with the late narrative in 1 Sam.
(vii. seq., xii.), and appears to form the preface to that period of
history which ended with Samuel's great victory and the institution of
the monarchy. But this belongs to a later scheme (see SAMUEL), and the
introduction in its earlier form must have been the prelude to earlier
narratives.[4] The story of Jephthah's fight with Ammon is linked to
the preceding introduction by x. 17 seq.; for the framework see x. 6
(above), xii. 7. Chapter xi. 12-28 (cf. Num. xx. seq.) is applicable
only to Moab, vv. 29 and 32 are variants, and Jephthah's home is
placed variously in Tob. (xi. 3) and Mizpeh (v. 34). In xi. 1-10 the
outlaw stipulates that he shall be chief of Gilead if successful, but
in vv. 12-28 a ruler speaks on behalf of Israel. Both Moab and Ammon
had good reason to be hostile to Gilead (Num. xxi.), but the scene of
the victory points rather to the former (v. 33, possibly conflate).
There is a general resemblance between the victories of Gideon and
Jephthah, which is emphasized by the close relation between viii. 1-3
and xii. 1-6, the explanation of which in its present context is
difficult. See further JEPHTHAH.

The old stories of Samson the Danite have been scarcely touched by the
redaction (xiii. 1; xv. 20; xvi. 31b, where he is a "judge"); only
xiii. appears to be rather later (v. 5 represents him as a forerunner
of Samuel and Saul), and gives a rather different impression of the
hero of the folk-tales. The cycle illustrates some interesting customs
and is in every way valuable as a specimen of popular narrative. See
SAMSON.

Grouped among these narratives are the five so-called "minor judges"
(x. 1-5; xii. 8-15). By the addition of Shamgar (iii. 31) the number
is made to agree with the six more important names. They are not
represented as having any immediate religious importance; they really
lie outside of the chronological scheme, and their history is plainly
not related from such lively and detailed reminiscence as gives charm
to the longer episodes of the book. The notices are drawn up in set
phraseology, and some of the names, in harmony with a characteristic
feature of early Hebrew history, are those of personified families of
communities rather than of families.[5]