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.)
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
