How do we reconcile Jude’s authorship claims with scholarly doubts about whether Jude was truly Jesus’ brother (Jude 1)?

Context and Purpose of Jude’s Letter

Jude 1:1 introduces the writer as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.” From this self-designation, many have concluded that Jude is the same individual mentioned in passages like Mark 6:3, where he is listed among the brothers of Jesus. The epistle addresses believers to exhort them “to contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3). Scholars debate whether this Jude was literally the half-brother of Jesus or whether the term “brother” used in his greeting instead refers to spiritual brotherhood or another close relationship. Below are several major considerations in reconciling these claims and doubts.

Historical Recognition of Jude’s Identity

Early church tradition consistently recognized the author of Jude as one of the brothers of Jesus. Second-century sources indicate that the family of Jesus remained influential in the early Jewish-Christian community. Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History, Book III) mentions that certain relatives of Jesus, likely including Jude’s descendants, played significant roles in the early Zion-based congregations.

This external evidence is significant. While it is typical for letters to identify an author in relation to a prominent church leader, the fact that Jude is only identified as the “brother of James” pairs well with the family tradition that James was also a half-brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19). Therefore, Jude’s reference to himself that way would make sense if he assumed that readers knew James the Just (leader of the Jerusalem church) and that referencing “Jesus” explicitly as a blood relative was unnecessary once James was mentioned.

Linguistic and Familial References

Jude uses the Greek word adelphos (ἀδελφός), typically translated as “brother.” In New Testament usage, adelphos can denote a biological brother or a close spiritual brother. However, when paired with “brother of James” and in light of Mark 6:3—“Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary… and Jude?”—the most straightforward reading is that Jude was indeed a half-brother of Jesus.

Some scholarly doubts arise because Jude does not explicitly say “Jude, a brother of Jesus.” Instead, he introduces himself only as “a servant of Jesus Christ,” which is a posture of humble submission. This approach is consistent with other New Testament writings (e.g., James 1:1) in which the writer, although a sibling of Jesus, identifies first and foremost as His servant.

Why Some Scholars Question Jude’s Authorship

1. Pseudepigraphical Writings: In certain periods, it was not uncommon for writers to attribute their works to revered Apostles or church leaders. Critics claim that Jude might have borrowed his name from someone closely related to Jesus to gain authority.

2. Stylistic Similarities With 2 Peter: Jude and 2 Peter share thematic overlaps and phrases. Some argue this indicates a later editor compiling or modifying material from another source. However, many scholars note that shared themes and language do not necessarily negate Jude’s authenticity, as authors in the early church often drew from common oral or written sources.

3. Early Date vs. Later Historical Context: On a more skeptical trajectory, some suggest that Jude’s letter reflects a late first-century Christian situation. Yet the text’s emphasis on contending for original apostolic teachings aligns well with a scenario in which Jude, as an eyewitness and family member, warns against creeping doctrinal errors relatively early in the life of the church.

Consistent Internal Evidence

The content of the epistle includes quotations from the Old Testament and references to Jewish tradition. This indicates an author familiar with both Palestinian Jewish customs and the emerging Christian fellowship. Considering Jude’s upbringing in Jesus’ own family—and the family’s cultural context—there is credibility to the idea that he would have had deep knowledge of Jewish scriptures and tradition.

Furthermore, the epistle’s concise urgency, coupled with the emphasis on guarding the faith delivered “once for all to the saints” (Jude 1:3), suits someone who was intimately aware of the core doctrines taught among the earliest believers. If Jude were merely a pseudonymous writer, one might expect more elaborate authorial claims to bolster authority. Instead, Jude humbly identifies as a servant of Christ.

Testimony of Early Canonical Acceptance

By the time church leaders were discerning the New Testament canon, the Epistle of Jude was widely circulated, especially in Jewish-Christian congregations. If this short letter had questionable origins, it likely would have met stronger resistance. Instead, early synods and church fathers regarded Jude as authentic Scripture, aligning with the belief that he was closely related to Jesus.

Reconciling Scholarly Doubts

1. Humble Self-Designation: Jude’s calling himself a “servant of Jesus Christ” could perplex some modern readers who would expect a direct statement like “brother of Jesus.” However, the early Christian ethos prized service to Christ above any familial ties. For Jude, the privilege of spiritual relationship with the Messiah outweighed the connection of physical birth.

2. “Brother of James” as Sufficient Identification: Given James’s prominence in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13), being James’s brother immediately connected Jude with trusted leadership. This identification would have naturally implied relationship to Jesus for those in the know, without overshadowing the letter’s spiritual message.

3. Use of Literary Sources: The presence of material also found in 2 Peter does not undermine Jude’s reliability. Early Christian letters were sometimes based on apostolic teaching transmitted through regular worship gatherings. For instance, both letters could have drawn on a common sermon or liturgical hymn. That they share themes about false teachers suggests a common crisis in the church, not a forgery.

4. Overall Consistency Within Scripture: From a broad perspective, Scripture consistently portrays Jesus’ siblings (including James and Jude) as coming to faith after the resurrection. Although John 7:5 indicates they initially did not believe, the post-resurrection appearances—such as those to James (1 Corinthians 15:7)—changed their stance profoundly. Jude’s letter fits this transformation narrative.

Conclusion

When we consider the early church tradition, the straightforward reading of statements like Jude 1:1, the cultural context of humility in ministry, and the manuscript evidence that supports the Epistle’s authenticity, the conservative conclusion is that Jude was indeed the half-brother of Jesus. The scholarly doubts typically revolve around pseudepigraphy, literary parallels, and questions of authorship methods in the ancient world.

However, the consistent testimony of early church fathers, Jude’s modest endorsement as “brother of James,” and the internal coherence of the letter with other New Testament texts all favor the traditional view. From the earliest Christian perspective, Jude’s identity as one of Jesus’ family members who came to faith and boldly exhorted the church to contend for the truth is well grounded in Scripture and supported by historical witness.