In a recent comment on an old post of mine concerning the overblown claims about the attestation of NT works, Robyn Goss wrote (among other things):

There is an ignored massive network of early non-biblical writings (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatious [sic] of Antioch, Papias), translations (Vetus Latina, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Bohariic [sic], Codex Sinaiticus), and historical catalogs that document (Muratorian Fragment), and quote from the New Testament texts.

First off, I’m not sure why she listed the Codex Sinaiticus as part of the “ignored massive network,” since I mentioned it in the post and since it isn’t a translation. Perhaps we should chalk it up to the thrill of sprinting through a Gish Gallop. In fact, the translations listed do indeed “witness” to the Greek manuscripts they were translated from. But again, we know precious little about how they came to be. The who, the when, the where, and the why are all inferred.

Second, I will remind readers that my post compared the quality of attestation versus the quantity of attestation. Given a choice between the two, I’ll choose quality over quantity every time. To argue against my thesis by re-asserting the quantity of NT attestation misses the point entirely, I would think. I’ll admit that I have sometimes argued, in the Marxian tradition, that quantity can be a quality of its own, but not here.

While we’re on the subject of good, reliable attestation, let’s talk about Papias. He can hardly be part of the “ignored massive network,” since every commentary of Mark I’ve ever read (and that’s a lot) mentions him. Those writers who lean toward the apologetic (possible, ergo must be true) side of the spectrum tell us that Mark was Peter’s translator, and that he wrote down what he remembered, but not necessarily in the right order. More skeptical commentators have written similar things, but with all sorts of caveats. They acknowledge we have many unanswered questions about what Papias actually meant.

This fantastic story of a wide-as-a-wagon Judas was likely told to Papias. Through how many iterations did this legend travel before it reached his ears? We’ll never know.

Honest scholars will immediately remind us that we have no extant original writings from Papias. And the quote that everyone leans on comes from Eusebius, who isn’t exactly the most reliable witness. While discussing Papias’s references to Mark, few will mention that he is the same guy who related this tall tale about Judas Iscariot:

Papias’ description of the death of Judas goes to great lengths to highlight the exaggerated grotesqueness of his bodily form. His head alone was so bloated that it could not fit through a thoroughfare intended for wagons, and his eyelids were so swollen ‘that he could not see the light’ (τὸ φῶς μὴ βλέπειν). His eyes were not only obscured from view by his eyelids but were so sunken beneath the surface of his face that they could not be seen even with the aid of doctor’s tools. His penis, too, was disfigured by the swelling and when he urinated ‘pus and worms’ (ἰχῶράς τε καὶ σκώληκας) passed from every part of his body. After his eventual death the place of his passing was perpetually marred by the stench of his body. According to Papias’ source, ‘To this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground.’ [5]

5. Papias, Frag 4.2-3 [trans. Ehrman, LCL]. The corresponding verses in A. W. Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on the Context and Concern of Acts 1.15-26 (WUNT 2/187; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 112-15 are Frag 3.4-13.

(Moss 2019, 1-2, bold emphasis mine)

Did he invent this legend? Probably not. If we can believe what Eusebius wrote, Papias trusted oral witnesses over the written word. This fantastic story of a wide-as-a-wagon Judas was likely told to Papias. Through how many iterations did this legend travel before it reached his ears? We’ll never know.

Papias was wrong about Matthew being written in Hebrew (or Aramaic, if you insist that this is what he really meant). You can waste many hours reading arguments by scholars who twist themselves in knots trying to make sense of his assertion. But if you read the plain text, you have essentially two choices: Either he didn’t have any idea about how Matthew was written, or else his Matthew wasn’t our Matthew. In either case, Papias was probably told these things by someone. He learned about it from a second- or third-hand source.

So from my perspective, I’ve always looked at the supposed gospel references in Papias as an unreliable historian quoting from an unreliable author who gained his information via word of mouth. However, I recently discovered that I was wrong.

It’s worse than I thought.

In Luke Stevens’s paper, “Did Eusebius Read Papias?,” he makes a strong case that Eusebius did not actually have direct access to Papias’s works, but instead used an intermediate source. I cannot do justice to his well-reasoned arguments here in a condensed format, but I would highly recommend reading the article. If he’s right, and I think he is, then we must add yet another layer.

Eusebius, an unreliable historian, quoted without citation from an unknown intermediary source who quoted Papias, an unreliable source who gained his information via word of mouth and who showed himself incapable of evaluating the veracity of his sources.

I’m not speaking for anyone but myself here. I don’t mean to imply in any way that any scholar would agree with the above sentence. Most would use squishy, circumlocutory language to downplay the problem here. They would no doubt insist, “We must use these sources carefully,” whatever that means.

In any case, my original point stands.

[R]eal ancient historians value manuscripts using other criteria. Essentially, they value quality over quantity. They certainly would wish for more, but so would NT scholars. So would we all. But if we were honest, we’d admit we don’t really need another scrap like 𝔓⁵². As far as NT manuscripts go, we’d give anything to have a document approaching the quality of Venetus A.

Moss, Candida R., “A Note on the Death of Judas in Papias,” New Testament Studies, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 388-397, 2019.

Stevens, Luke J., “Did Eusebius Read Papias?” The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 70, Pt 1, April 2019

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!