perfon, who during fo many years had prefided over the church at Jerufalem, was well known both to Jews and to Christians, and appears to have been more celebrated than either of the Apoftles, who were called James. It will be objected perhaps, that the very fame reasons, which I have alleged, to fhew that an Apoftle, of the name of Jude, would have affumed his proper title, will likewife fhew that a perfon, who was called brother of Jefus, would have done the fame, and have ftyled himself Jude the brother of Jefus. To this I answer, that if he was the fon of Jofeph, not by Mary, but by a former wife, and Jude believed in the immaculate conception, he must have been fenfible, that, though to all outward appearance he was brother in law of Jefus, fince his own father was the husband of Jesus's mother, yet in reality he was no relation of Jefus. On the other hand, if Jude, called the brother of Jesus, was the son of Jofeph, not by a former wife, but by Mary, as Herder afferts, I do not fee how the preceding objection can be answered. For, if Jefus and Jude had the fame mother, Jude might, without the leaft impropriety, have ftyled himself brother of Jefus," or brother of the Lord' and this would have been a much more remarkable and diftinguishing title, than that of brother of James.'

A third question ftill remains to be asked on this fubject. The Apostle, whom St. Luke calls Jude, is called Thaddeus by St. Matthew and St. Mark, as I have already obferved. But the Apostle of the Syrians, who first preached the Gospel at Edeffa, and founded a church there, was named Thaddeus or Adæus. It may be asked therefore, whether the author of our Epiftle was Thaddeus the Apoftle of the Syrians, though indeed it is not very probable that he was, fince this Epiftle is not in in the old Syriac verfion.

b

Eufebius relates, that the inhabitants of the city of Edeffa were converted to Chriftianity by a difciple named Thaddæus, who went thither immediately after Chrift's

Hift. Ecclef. Lib. I. c. 13.

Chrift's afcenfion. which Eufebius has given of the converfion of the Syrians, there are feveral circumstances, fuch as the correfpondence of king Abgarus with Chrift, and others of a like nature, which are probably fabulous. But the principal fact, that Thaddeus preached the Gospel at Edeffa, and converted the Syrians to Chriftianity foon after the afcenfion, will hardly admit of a doubt, fince the Syrian writers themselves are unanimous in the affertion, that Thaddeus was their Apoftle". They call him in general Adai (), and relate, that he came to Edeffa foon after the afcenfion, healed king Abgarus of the leprofy, converted him to Chrif tianity, and founded a church. From Edeffa he went into Affyria, where he likewife preached the Gofpel; he then returned to Edeffa, and died there in the twelfth year of his preaching, that is, in the twelfth year after the afcenfion. In refpect to the manner of his death, Syrian authors are not agreed. Some fay, that he died a natural death, while Abgarus was ftill living; but others relate, that he fuffered martyrdom under Maanus, who, though fon and fucceffor of Abgarus, was not, like his father, a convert to Chriftianity. But whatever death he died, the city of Edeffa has always claimed the honour of his burial place.

It is true, that in the accounts,

Moft Syrian writers, as well as Eufebius, reckon this Thaddeus, or Adæus, as the Syrians call him, not as one of the twelve Apoftles, but as one of the feventy difciples. But according to Jerom, he was the Apostle Thaddeus', confequently the Apoftle, whom St. Luke

calls

-See Affemani Bibl. Orient. T. I. p. 317-319. T. II. p. 391394. Tom. III. P. i. p. 299. 302. 306. T. III. P. ii. p. 4—15. and Bayer's Hiftoria Ofthoëna et Edeffena, p. 104-120.

The reafon, why they omit the Th at the beginning, may be feen in my Syriac Grammar,

• Maanus fucceeded Abgarus, in the month of March, A. C. 45.

f In his Commentary on Matth. x. Tom. IV. p. 37. he fays, Thaddæum apoftolum ecclefiaftica tradit hiftoria miffum Edeffam ad Abgarum regem Ofrhoënæ.

calls Jude the brother of James: and Affeman quotes Jefujabas, who lived indeed fo late as the twelfth century, and therefore is of no great authority, in favour of the fame opinion. Jacob, bishop of Sarug, who was born in the year 452, defcribes Adæus as brother of Chrift for in a work, which he has written on the Apoftle Adæus, and king Abgarus,' he expreffes him-. felf thus, After the ever-bleffed bridegroom was exalted to heaven, he refolved, as he had promifed, to fend, out of love, fome one to Abgarus, and he chofe for that purpofe Adai, one of his brothers". Now if the Apostle Jude, the brother of James, is the fame, as the Jude, who was called brother of Chrift, the word Apostle, as used by Jacob, bishop of Sarug, must be taken in its proper fenfe: but if the Apostle Jude, and Jude called the brother of Chrift, were different perfons, or, at least, if Jacob confidered them as fuch, the title Apostle applied by him to Adæus, muft denote, not one of the twelve, but fimply an Apoftle, or converter of the Syrians.

According to fome Syrian writers, two perfons of the name of Thaddæus were employed in their converfion, the one an Apoftle, the other one of the feventy difciples. The latter, they fay, was fent by the Apoftle Thomas to king Abgarus, immediately after Chrift's afcenfion but the former, according to their accounts, went fome years later to Edeffa, whence he travelled into Affyria, and thence returned into Phoenicia, in which country he died a martyr, either at Baruth, or at Arad, for on this head they are not agreed. This Apoftle Thaddeus they generally* call, not the brother, but

Bibl. Orient. Tom. III. P. i. p. 299. 302.

Affemani Bibl. Orient. Tom. III. P. ii. P. 13-15.

* But not univerfally, for according to Haflencamp, p. 43, 44, fome Syrian writers call him Jude the brother of James, who was brother of the Lord.'

VOL. IV.

་

A A

but the fon of James, (a.), a mistake, which arofe from a falfe, interpretation of the words Iedzi Faxa: and this very mistake has been made in the Syriac verfion, for in both places where this title occurs, namely, Luke vi. 16. Acts i. 13. it is rendered Jude the fon of James'.' Now this mistake in the Syriac verfion could not have taken place, if the Syriac tranflator had ever feen the Epifle of St. Jude, in which the author expressly calls himifelf brother of James.' But this Epiftle is not contained in the old verfion, and confequently it was unknown to the tranflator".

From thefe contradictory and uncertain accounts of the Syrians we can form little or no judgement, in refpect to the author of our Epiftle. Adai (-), who was the firft Apoftle of the Syrians, and one of the feventy difciples, could not be the author; for he died in the twelfth year after the afcenfion, whereas our Epiftle was written, as will appear from a following fection, after the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, and therefore long after the death of Adai. Nor do we know, whether this Adai, the firft Apoftle of the Syrians, was alfo called Jude, as well as the other Adai their fecond Apoftle: unless it be faid, that Adai, Thaddai, Juda, are one and the fame name differently' pronounced. And, what is the most decifive, the old Syriac verfion does not contain this Epiftle. Confequently,

However in the Arabic verfion published by Erpenius, it is properly rendered in the latter place by Jude the brother of James.

(يهود اخو يعقوب)

Even without having feen the Epiftle of St. Jude, one might fuppofe, that the old Syriac tranflator, who lived in fo very early an age, could hardly have made a mistake in respect to the Apoftle whom St. Luke calls Ides lanabe, efpecially as this very Jude, or Thaddeus, as St. Matthew and St. Mark call him, was to inftrumental in the converfion of the Syrians, who must have known therefore, whether he was brother, or fon of James. I with that they, who have access to MSS. of the Syriac verfion, would examines whether in fome of them ledas laxwes, Luke vi. 16. Acts i. 13, i not differently rendered.

quently, it is highly probable, that Adai, or Adæus, was not the author: for an Epiftle, written by the great Apostle of the Syrians, would furely have been received into the canon of the Syrian church.

Of the perfons to whom, and of the time when, this Epiftle was written: and whether the author of it had read the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter.

I

AM really unable to determine, who the perfons were, to whom this Epiftle was fent. For no traces are to be discovered in it, which enable us to form the leaft judgement on this fubject: and the addrefs, with which the Epiftle commences, is fo indeterminate, that there is hardly any Chriftian community, where Greek was fpoken, which might not be denoted by it. Though this Epiftle has a very great fimilarity to the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, it cannot have been fent to the fame perfons, namely, the Chriftians, who refided in Pontus, Cappadocia, &c. becaufe no mention is made of them in this Epiftle. Nor can it have been sent to the Chriftians of Syria and Affyria, where St. Jude preached the Gofpel, if he is the fame perfon as the Apoftle of the Syrians: for in this cafe, the Epiftle would not have been written in Greek, but in Syriac or Chaldee, and would certainly have been received into the old Syriac version.

With refpect to the date of this Epistle, all that I am able to affert is, that it was written after the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. But how many years after, whether between 64 and 66, as Lardner fuppofes, or between 70 and 75, as Beaufobre and L'Enfant believe,