to follow the calculations of his worldly wisdom, and the schemes of his worldly ambition.' 3. JUDAS, or JUDE, surnamed BARSABAS, a Christian teacher sent from Jerusalem to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas (Acts xv. 22, 27, 32). He is supposed to have been one of the eventy disciples, and brother of Joseph, also surnamed Barsabas (son of Sabas), who was proposed, with Matthias, to fill up the place of the traitor Judas (Acts i. 23). Judas and Silas (who was also of the party) are mentioned together as prophets' and chief men among the brethren.' 4. JUDAS. [JUDE.] 5. JUDAS, a Jew of Damascus, with whom Paul lodged (Acts ix. 11). 6. JUDAS, surnamed the Galilæan (Acts v. 37), so called also by Josephus, and likewise the Ganlonite.' In company with one Sadoc he attempted to raise a sedition among the Jews, but was destroyed by Cyrenius (Quirinus), then proconsul of Syria and Judæa. JUDE, OR JUDAS. There were two of this name among the twelve Apostles-Judas, called also Lebbæus and Thaddeus (Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 18, which see), and Judas Iscariot. Judas is the name of one of our Lord's brethren, but it is not agreed whether our Lord's brother is the same with the Apostle of this name [JAMES]. We are not informed as to the time of the vocation of the Apostle Jude to that dignity. Indeed, the only circumstance relating to him which is recorded in the Gospels consists in the question put by him to our Lord (John xiv. 22). Judas saith unto him (not Iscariot), Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world?' Nor have we any account given of his proceedings after our Lord's resurrection, for the traditionary notices which have been preserved of him rest on no very certain foundation. It has been asserted that he was sent to Edessa, to Abgarus, king of Osröene, and that he preached in Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia; in which latter country he suffered martyrdom. JUDE, EPISTLE OF. Doubts have been thrown upon the genuineness of this Epistle from the fact of the writer having been supposed to have cited two Apocryphal books-Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. But notwithstanding the difficulties connected with this point, it was treated by the ancients with the highest respect, and regarded as the genuine work of an inspired writer. Although Origen on one occasion speaks doubtfully, calling it the reputed Epistle of Jude,' yet on another occasion, and in the same work, he says, Jude wrote an Epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of the powerful words of heavenly grace, who at the beginning says, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James." The same writer calls it the writing of Jude the Apostle. The moderns are, however, divided in opinion between Jude the Apostle and Jude the Lord's brother, if indeed they be different persons. The author simply calls himself Jude, the brother of James, and a servant of Jesus Christ. This form of expression has given rise to various conjectures. Hug supposes that he intimates thereby a nearer degree of relationship than that of an Apostle. At the same time it must be acknowledged that the circumstance of his not naming himself an apostle is not of itself JUDGES necessarily sufficient to militate against his being the Apostle of that name, inasmuch as St. Paul does not upon all occasions (as in Philippians, Thessalonians, and Philemon) use this title. From his calling himself the brother of James, rather than the brother of the Lord. Michaelis deduces that he was the son of Joseph hy a former wife, and not a full brother of our Lord's, as Herder contends [JAMES, JUDE]. From the great coincidence both in sentiment and subject which exists between this Epistle and the second of St. Peter, it has been thought by many critics that one of these writers had seen the other's work; but we shall reserve the discussion as to which was the earlier writing until we come to treat of St. Peter's Epistle. Dr. Lardner supposes that Jude's Epistle was written between the years 64 and 66, Beausobre and L'Enfant between 70 and 75 (from which Dodwell and Cave do not materially differ), and Dr. Mill fixes it to the year 90. If Jude has quoted the apocry phal book of Enoch, as seems to be agreed upon by most modern critics, and if this book was written, as Lücke thinks, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the age of our Epistle best accords with the date assigned to it by Mill. It is difficult to decide who the persons were to whom this Epistle was addressed, some supposing that it was written to converted Jews, others to all Christians, without distinction. Many of the arguments seem best adapted to convince the Jewish Christians, as appeals are so strikingly made to their sacred books and traditions. The design of this Epistle is to warn the Christians against the false teachers who had insinuated themselves among them and disseminated dangerous tenets of insubordination and licentiousness. The author reminds them, by the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, that God had punished the rebellious Jews; and that even the disobedient angels had shared the same fate The false teachers to whom he alludes speak evil of dignities,' while the archangel Michael did not even revile Satan. He compares them to Balaam and Korah, to clouds without water, and to raging waves. Enoch, he says, foretold their wickedness; at the same time he consoles believers, and exhorts them to persevere in faith and love. The Epistle is remarkable for the vehemence, fervour, and energy of its composition and style. JUDGES. This name is applied to fifteen persons who at intervals presided over the affairs of the Israelites during the 450 years which elapsed from the death of Joshua to the accession of Saul. The station and office of these rulers of the people,' as the original literally signifies, are involved in great obscurity, partly from the want of clear intimations in the history in which their exploits and government are recorded, and partly from the absence of parallels in the history of other nations, by which our notions might be assisted. They may be briefly described as faithful men, who acted for the most part as agents of the Divine will, regents for the Invisible King of the chosen people; and who, holding their commission directly from him, or with his sanction, would be more inclined to act as dependent vassals of Jehovah than kings, who, as members of royal dynasties, would come to reign with notions of independent rights and JUDGES royal privileges, which would draw away their attention from their true place in the theocracy. In this greater dependence of the judges upon the Divine King we see the secret of their institution. The Israelites were disposed to rest upon their separate interests as tribes; and having thus allowed the standing general government to remain inoperative through disuse, they would in cases of emergency have been disposed to forget that Jehovah had taken upon himself the function of their Supreme Ruler, and to make themselves a king like the nations,' had their attention not been directed to the appointment of officers whose authority could rest on no tangible right apart from character and services, which, with the temporary nature of their power, rendered their functions more accordant with the principles of the theocracy than those of any other public officers could be. And it is probably in this adaptation to the peculiar circumstances of the Hebrew theocracy that we shall discover the reason of our inability to find any similar office among other nations. With regard to the nature of the office held by these judges, it is usual to consider them as commencing their career with military exploits to deliver Israel from foreign oppression; but this is by no means invariably the case. Eli and Samuel were not military men; Deborah judged Israel before she planned the war against Jabin; and of Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, it is at least uncertain whether they ever held any military command. The command of the army can therefore be scarcely considered the distinguishing characteristic of these men, or military exploits the necessary introduction to the office. In many cases it is true that military achievements were the means by which they elevated themselves to the rank of judges; but in general the appointment may be said to have varied with the exigencies of the times, and with the particular circumstances which in times of trouble would draw the public attention to persons who appeared suited by their gifts or influence to advise in matters of general concernment, to decide in questions arising between tribe and tribe, to administer public affairs, and to appear as their recognised head in their intercourse with their neighbours and oppressors. In nearly all the instances recorded the appointment seems to have been by the free unsolicited choice of the people. The only cases of direct Divine appointment are those of Gideon and Samson, and the last stood in the peculiar position of having been from before his birth ordained 'to begin to deliver Israel.' Deborah was called to deliver Israel, but was already a judge. Samuel was called by the Lord to be a prophet, but not a judge, which ensued from the high gifts which the people recognised as dwelling in him; and as to Eli, the office of judge seems to have devolved naturally, or rather ex-officio, upon him; and his case seems to be the only one in which the high-priest appears in the character which the theocratical institutions designed for him. The following clear summary of their duties and privileges is given by Jahn:- The office of judges or regents was held during life, but it was not hereditary, neither could they appoint their successors. Their authority was limited by the law alone; and in doubtful cases they were directed to consult the Divine King through the priest by Urim and Thummim (Num. xxvii. 21). They were not obliged in common cases to ask advice of the ordinary rulers; it was sufficient if these did not remonstrate against the measures of the judge. In important emergencies, however, they convoked a general assembly of the rulers, over which they presided and exerted a powerful influence. They could issue orders, but not enact laws; they could neither levy taxes nor appoint officers, except perhaps in the army. Their au thority extended only over those tribes by whom they had been elected or acknowledged; for it is clear that several of the judges presided over separate tribes. There was no income attached to their office, nor was there any income appropriated to them, unless it might be a larger share in the spoils, and those presents which were made them as testimonials of respect (Judg viii. 24). They bore no external marks of dig. nity, and maintained no retinue of courtiers, though some of them were very opulent. They were not only simple in their manners, moderate in their desires, and free from avarice and ambi tion, but noble and magnanimous men, who felt that whatever they did for their country was above all reward, and could not be recompensed, who desired merely to promote the public good. and who chose rather to deserve well of their country than to be enriched by its wealth. This exalted patriotism, like everything else connected with politics in the theocratical state of the Hebrews, was partly of a religious character, and those regents always conducted themselves as the officers of God; in all their enterprises they relied upon Him, and their only care was, that their countrymen should acknowledge the authority of Jehovah, their invisible king (Judg. viii. 22, sq.; comp. Heb. xi.). Still they were not without faults, neither are they so represented by their historians; they relate, on the contrary, with the utmost frankness, the great sins of which some of them were guilty. They were not merely deliverers of the state from a foreign yoke, but destroyers of idolatry, foes of pagan vices, promoters of the knowledge of God, of religion, and of morality; restorers of theocracy in the minds of the Hebrews, and powerful instruments of Divine providence in the promotion of the great design of preserving the Hebrew constitution, and, by that means, of rescuing the true religion from destruction.' The times of the judges would certainly not be considered so turbulent and barbarous, much less would they be taken, contrary to the clearest evidence and to the analogy of all history, for a heroic age, if they were viewed without the prejudices of a preconceived hypothesis. It must never be forgotten that the book of Judges is by no means a complete history. This no impartial inquirer can ever deny. It is, in a manner, a mere register of diseases, from which, however, we have no right to conclude that there were no healthy men, much less that there were no healthy seasons; since the book itself, for the most part, mentions only a few tribes in which the epidemic prevailed, and notices long periods during which it had universally ceased. Whatever may be the result of more accurate investigation, it remains undeniable that the condition of the Hebrews during this period perfectly corresponds throughout to the sanctions of the law; and they were always prosperous when they complied with the conditions on which prosperity was promised them; it remains undeniable that the government of God was clearly manifested, not only to the Hebrews, but to their heathen neighbours; that the fulfilling of the promises and threatenings of the law were so many sensible proofs of the universal dominion of the Divine King of the Hebrews; and, consequently, that all the various fortunes of that nation were so many means of preserving the knowledge of God on the earth. The Hebrews had no sufficient reason to desire a change in their constitution; all required was, that they should observe the conditions on which national prosperity was promised them. The chronology of the period in which the judges ruled is beset with great and perhaps insuperable difficulties. There are intervals of time the extent of which is not specified; as, for instance, that from Joshua's death to the yoke of Chushan-rishathaim (ii. 8); that of the rule of Shamgar (iii. 31); that between Gideon's death and Abimelech's accession (viii. 31, 32); and that of Israel's renewal of idolatry previous to their oppression by the Ammonites (x. 6, 7). Sometimes round numbers seem to have been given, as forty years for the rule of Othniel, forty years for that of Gideon, and forty years also for the duration of the oppression by the Philistines. Twenty years are given for the subjection to Jabin, and twenty years for the government of Samson; yet the latter never completely conquered the Philistines, who, on the contrary, succeeded in capturing him. Some judges, who are commonly considered to have been successive, were in all probability contemporaneous, and ruled over different districts. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to fix the date of each particular event in the book of Judges; but attempts have been made to settle its general chronology, of which we must in this place mention the most successful. The whole period of the judges, from Joshua to Eli, is usually estimated at 299 years, in order to meet the 480 years which (1 Kings vi. 1) are said to have elapsed from the departure of the Israelites from Egypt to the foundation of the temple by Solomon. But St. Paul says (Acts xiii. 20), God gave unto the people of Israel judges about the space of 450 years until Samuel the prophet.' Again, if the number of years specified by the author of our book, in stating facts, is summed up, we have 410 years, exclusive of those years not specified for certain intervals of time above mentioned. In order to reduce these 410 years and upwards to 299, events and reigns must, in computing their years of duration, either be entirely passed over, or, in a most arbitrary way, included in other periods preceding or subsequent. This has been done by Archbishop Usher, whose system, here peculiarly faulty, has been adopted in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures. He excludes the repeated intervals during which the Hebrews were in subjection to their enemies, and reckons only the years of peace and rest which were assigned to the successive judges. For example, he passes over the eight years of servitude inflicted upon the Hebrews by Chushan JUDGES rishathaim, and, without any interruption, connects the peace obtained by the victories of Othniel with that which had been conferred on the land by the government of Joshua; and although the sacred historian relates in the plainest terms possible that the children of Israel served the king of Mesopotamia eight years, and were afterwards delivered by Othniel, who gave the land rest forty years, the archbishop maintains that the forty years now mentioned began, not after the successes of this judge, but immediately after the demise of Joshua. Nothing certainly can be more obvious than that in this case the years of tranquillity and the years of oppression ought to be reckoned separately. Again, we are informed by the sacred writer, that after the death of Ehud the children of Israel were under the oppression of Jabin king of Hazor for twenty years, and that afterwards, when their deliverance was effected by Deborah and Barak, the land had rest forty years. Nothing can be clearer than this; yet Usher's system leads him to include the twenty years of oppression in the forty of peace, making both but forty years. All this arises from the obligation which Usher unfortunately conceived himself under of following the scheme adopted by the Masoretic Jews, who, as Dr. Hales remarks, have by a curious invention included the four first servitudes in the years of the judges who put an end to them, contrary to the express declarations of Scripture, which represents the administrations of the judges, not as synchronising with the servitudes, but as succeeding them. The Rabbins were indeed forced to allow the fifth servitude to have been distinct from the administration of Jephthah, because it was too long to be included in that administration; but they deducted a year from the Scripture account of the servitude, making it only six instead of seven years. They sank entirely the sixth servitude of forty years under the Philistines, because it was too long to be contained in Samson's administration; and, to crown all, they reduced Saul's reign of forty years to two years only. The necessity for all these tortuous operations has arisen from a desire to produce a conformity with the date in 1 Kings vi. 1, which, as already cited, gives a period of only 480 years from the Exode to the foundation of Solomon's temple. As this date is incompatible with the sum of the different numbers given in the book of Judges, and as it differs from the computation of Josephus and of all the ancient writers on the subject, whether Jewish or Christian, it is not unsatisfactory to find grounds which leave this text open to much doubt and suspicion. We cannot here enter into any lengthened proof; but that the text did not exist in the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Scripture till nearly three centuries after Christ, is evident from the absence of all reference to it in the works of the learned men who composed histories of the Jews from the materials supplied to them in the sacred books. This might be shown by reference to various authors, who, if the number specified in it had existed, could not fail to have adduced it. It only remains to arrange the different systems of the chronology of this period so as to exhibit them in one view to the eye of the reader. It has been deemed right, for the better apprehension of the differences, to make the table embrace the JUDGES, BOOK OF, the third in the list of the historical compositions of the Old Testament. It consists of two divisions, the first comprising chaps. i.-xvii.; the second, being an appendix, chaps. xvii.-xxi. That the author, in composing this work, had a certain design in view, is evident from ch. ii. 11-23, where he states the leading features of his narrative. He introduces it by relating (ch. i.) the extent to which the wars against the Canaanites were continued after the death of Joshua, and what tribes had spared them in consideration of a tribute imposed; also by alluding (ch. ii. 1-10) to the benefits which Jehovah had conferred on Samson and Eli are supposed to have been judges simultaneously during 20 years of this period. 1014 591 592 612 600 4784 1012 them, and the distinguished protection with which he had honoured them. Next he states his leading object, namely, to prove that the calamities to which the Hebrews had been exposed since the death of Joshua were owing to their apostacy from Jehovah, and to their idolatry. They forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth' (ch. ii. 13); for which crimes they were deservedly punished and greatly distressed (ch. ii. 15). Nevertheless, when they repented and obeyed again the commandments of the Lord, he delivered them out of the hand of their enemies by the 'judges' whom he raised up, and made them prosper (ch. ii. 16-23). To illustrate this theme, the author collected several fragments of the Hebrew history during the period between Joshua and Eli. Some episodes occur; but in arguing his subject he never loses sight of his leading theme, to which, on the contrary, he frequently recurs while stating facts, and shows how it applied to them; the moral evidently being, that the only way to happiness was to shun idolatry and obey the commandments of the Lord. The design of the author was not to give a connected and complete history of the Hebrews in the period between Joshua and the kings; for if he had intended a plan of that kind, he would also have described the state of the domestic affairs and of the government in the several tribes, the relation in which they stood to each other, and the extent of power exercised by a judge; he would have further stated the number of tribes over whom a judge ruled, and the number of years during which the tribes were not oppressed by their heathen neighbours, but enjoyed rest and peace. The appendix, containing two narratives (that of Micah with his house of gods,' and the brutal outrage committed by the Benjamites of Gibeah), further illustrates the lawlessness and anarchy prevailing in Israel after Joshua's death. If the first and second divisions had been by the same author, the chronological indications would also have been the same. Now the author of the second division always describes the period of which he speaks thus: In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes' (ch. xvii. 6; xviii. 1; xix. 1; xxi. 25); but this expression never once occurs in the first division. If one author had composed both divisions, instead of this chronological formula, we should rather have expected, In the days of the judges,' At a time when there was no judge,' &c., which would be consonant with the tenor of the first sixteen chapters. The style also in the two divisions is different, and it will be shown that the appendix was written much later than the first part. All modern critics, then, agree in this, that the author of the first sixteen chapters of our book is different from him who composed the appendix. The authorship of the first sixteen chapters has been assigned to Joshua, Samuel, and Ezra. There is no evidence, however, in support of any of these opinions, and various conclusive reasons can be assigned to show that they are incorrect. But though we cannot determine the authorship of the book of Judges, still its age may be determined from internal evidence. The first sixteen chapters must have been written under Saul, whom the Israelites made their king in the hope of improving their condition. Phrases used in the period of the Judges may be traced in them, and the author must consequently have lived near the time when they were yet current. He says that in his time the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem' (ch. i. 21): now this was the case only before David, who conquered the town and drove out the Jebusites. Consequently, the author of the first division of the book of Judges must have lived and written before David, and under king Saul. If he had lived under David, he would have mentioned the capture of Jerusalem by that monarch, as the nature of his subject did not allow him to pass it over in silence. The omission, moreover, of the history, not only of Samuel but also of Eli, indicates an JUDGES, BOOK OF author who, living in an age very near that of Eli, considered his history as generally known, because so recent. The exact time when the appendix was added to the book of Judges cannot indeed be determined, but its author certainly lived in an age much later than that of the recorded events. It was published at a time when the events related were generally known, and when the veracity of the author could be ascertained by a reference to the original documents. Several of its narratives are confirmed by the books of Samuel (comp. Judg. iv. 2; vi. 14; xi., with 1 Sam. xii. 9-12: Judg. ix. 53 with 2 Sam. xi. 21). The Psalms not only allude to the book of Judges (comp. Ps. lxxxiii. 11, with Judg. vii. 25), but copy from it entire verses (comp. Ps. lxviii. 8, 9 ; xcvii. 5; with Judg. v. 4, 5). Philo and Josephus knew the book, and made use of it in their own compositions. The New Testament alludes to it in several places (comp. Matt. ii. 13-23 with Judg. xiii. 5; xvi. 17; Acts xiii. 20; Heb. xi. 32). This external evidence in support of the authority of the book of Judges is corroborated by many internal proofs of its authenticity. All its narratives are in character with the age to which they belong, and agree with the natural order of things. We find here that shortly after the death of Joshua the Hebrew nation had, by several victories, gained courage and become valorous (ch. i. and xix.); but that it afterwards turned to agriculture, preferred a quiet life, and allowed the Canaanites to reside in its territory in consideration of a tribute imposed on them, when the original plan was that they should be expelled. This changed their character entirely: they became effeminate and indolent-a result which we find in the case of all nations who, from a nomadic and warlike life, turn to agriculture. The intercourse with their heathen neighbours frequently led the uncultivated Hebrews to idolatry; and this, again, further prepared them for servitude. They were consequently overpowered and oppressed by their heathen neighbours. The first subjugation, indeed, by a king of Mesopotamia, they endured but eight years; but the second, more severe, by Eglon, lasted longer: it was the natural consequence of the public spirit having gradually more and more declined, and of Eglon having removed his residence to Jericho with a view of closely watching all their movements (Joseph. Antiq. v. 5). When Ehud sounded the trumpet of revolt, the whole nation no longer rose in arms, but only the inhabitants of Mount Ephraim (ch. iii. 27); and when Barak called to arms against Sisera, many tribes remained quietly with their herds (ch. v. 14, 15, 26, 28). Of the¦ 30,000 men who offered to follow Gideon, he could make use of no more than 300, this small number only being, as it would seem, filled with true patriotism and courage. Thus the people had sunk gradually, and deserved for forty years to bear the yoke of the Philistines, to whom they had the meanness to deliver Samson, who, however, loosed the cords with which he was tied, and killed a large number of them (ch. xv.). It is impossible to consider such an historical work, which perfectly agrees with the natural course of things, as a fiction: at that early period of authorship, no writer could have, from fancy, depicted the character of the Hebrews so conformably with |