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.