Someone has asked a question about Apollinarius’ quotation of Papias:
Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows:
Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface.
His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large. When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages. After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place. And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now. And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands. Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.
-A catena compiled by Cramer vol 3 p12
Here are the details.
The quotation exists in multiple forms, some longer than others.
The longest, which is what is translated above, is given in a catena found in Cramer vol 3 p12 and also by Theophylact in his Exposition on the Acts of the Apostles PG125 p522. However Theophylact does not attribute the first paragraph to Apollinarius but Theophylact makes it seem as if they are his own words. He quotes Papias directly in paragraphs two and three.
Oecumenius does the same as Theophylact but omits the last sentence in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles PG118 p57.
Another catena is quite similar to the passage at hand but omits the last sentence, it is given in Anecdota Graeca volume 2 p464. I scanned this page myself.
A similar but not identical catena ascribes only the first sentence of the second paragraph to Papias and the rest of the three paragraphs to, seemingly, Apollinarius Cramer vol 1 p.231
A scholia on Acts 1.18 compiled in S. Lvcae Actvs apostolorvm graece et latine Riga 1782 p. 304 by Matthai gives a shortened variation of the first and second paragraph and attributes it to Apollinarius, and also has a different passage associated with Eusebius, but neither mention Papias.
Kirsopp Lake The Beginning of Christianity p24 says that Bar-Salibi quotes Papias in a fragment in the American Journal of Theology vol 4.3 1900 p501.
Zigabenus alludes to the passage at hand in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles PG129 p.1280 and Matthai p294-295.
What does this mean? Did Theophylact (11th/12th century) and Oecumenius (early 7th century) use Papias directly? Or did they use Apollinarius and omit his name (perhaps due to his heretical history)? Or were they using a catena like the one translated from Cramer above? Its impossible to know, but Oecumenius’ early date (early 600′s) suggests that he was not using a catena, but either used Apollinarius or Papias. However Oecumenius’ date and authorship are disputed, so if he wrote several centuries later (or if someone else wrote the work ascribed to Oecumenius) then a catena could have easily been used. There are other possibilities, like if Oecumenius quoted Papias and in the course of time a catena falsely attributed it to Apollinarius, or both Oecumenius and Apollinarius quoted Papias independently, etc. It seems likely to me that Apollinarius quoted Papias and that his name was slowly dropped out due to his heretical association. Oecumenius likely quotes from Apollinarius directly because the first paragraph of his quote is essentially Apollinarius’ wording. However Oecumenius could be using a catena . There are obviously many other possibilities as well.
I’m glad you’re running with this one. My impression is that Oecumenius should be dated early. The catena movement starts around the same time, so we may take it that he has access to Apollinarist works.
Quotations by heretics appear in all the catenas, especially often extracts from Apollinaris. But the words indicating author often drop out of catenas, even when quite orthodox. It is most likely this is the reason for the confusion. We have no real evidence of anyone reading Papias directly at this date, so it seems unnecessary to suppose it. But we know that Papias was extant in the times of Eusebius, ca. 320. Apollinaris was active ca. 360 in the reign of Julian the Apostate, so he could easily have had access to the text.
I suggest, therefore, that early catenists like Oecumenius are responsible for transmitting a passage of Apollinaris, which contains the words of Papias, and is copied thereafter in shorter or longer forms, depending on the damage caused by loss of author symbols on the copies.
I still have trouble believing that Papias would believe a nonsense story like this, especially considering that he was a disciple of St. John. The entire tone of this extract is completely different than any other of his extracts and sounds like nonsense that arose during medieval Christianity. I personally question whether this is an authentic quotation of Papias.
Perhaps, but stories like this this could be one of the reasons Euesbius did not like Papias and why his books were not copied or used much.
Andrew: You probably haven’t read quote of Papias in Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 33). Papias did indeed believe such nonsense, and considered this belief to be factor that differences true Christian from “traitor like Judas”. I’d say Eusebius skipped this part of Papias’ legacy on purpose, to lend more credence to Papias as first extant witness of existence of Mark’s and Matthew’s gospel. This also casts doubt on whether Papias really met with someone who knew Jesus, and thus on dating of Papias.
Hi Martin,
I don’t think that Papias quote contained in Irenaeus is that fabulous, portions of the Old Testament claim similar things like Isaiah 55:12.
For you will go out with joy
And be led forth with peace;
The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you,
And all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
One could easily argue that Jesus (or Papias) is simply adapting an Old Testament practice. No one would interpret the above verses claiming that the hills will literally shout for joy, in context the quote from Irenaeus may be similar to this (the context however is unavailable to us).
Unless more fragments are discovered or even the entire work of Papias, I think it is wise to withhold judgment about whether he was an uncritical fabulist or a compiler of historical tradition.