We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 May 2010
Despite this renewed attention, scholars have avoided situating their analyses of this pericope within the major debates about Papias' work. The question of whether Papias employed the methods of Greek rhetoric sits as the most relevant issue for this discussion. Though many scholars champion rhetorical readings of Papias, detractors contend that they overstate his ostensibly technical vocabulary (e.g., τάξις, συντάσσω, χρεία, διάλεκτος, ἑρμηνευτής in Frag. 2). They generally construe these as Papias' colloquial or historical characterizations of Gospel narratives. Whether and how Papias testifies to source-critical concerns for Synoptic studies—such as the Sayings Gospel Q, a proto-Matthew, and the oral transmission of Jesus' life—depends on their interpretation. Opposition primarily disputes the meaning of individual words in the context Papias provides them, so that his rhetorical forms and flourishes remain relatively unscathed from criticism. Papias' death of Judas has never figured into this discussion, but it nonetheless points in favor of a rhetorical backdrop.
1 Author's translation. The text of Papias and its versification are from Zwiep, A. W., Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on the Context and Concern of Acts 1.15–26 (WUNT 2/187; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 112–15Google Scholar. I assume that only Frag. 3.4, 6–13 are verbatim original to Papias. I extend my gratitude to Dennis R. MacDonald for offering comments and insight on earlier versions of this study.
2 Some recent advocates for Papias' rhetoric include Bauckham, R., Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 210–21Google Scholar; Cameron, R., Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James (HTS 34; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 93–9Google Scholar; Kürzinger, J., Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments (Eichstätter Materialien 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1983) 9–87Google Scholar; W. R. Schoedel, ‘Papias’, ANRW 27.1.255–65. See the criticisms and alternate proposals in Black, M., ‘The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew’, JSNT 37 (1989) 31–8Google Scholar; Hengel, M., ‘Probleme des Markusevangeliums’, Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vorträge vom Tübinger Symposium 1982 (ed. Stuhlmacher, P.; WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983) 244–52Google Scholar; Körtner, U. H. J., Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frühen Christentums (FRLANT 133; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pesch, R., ‘Zuschreibung der Evangelien an apostolische Verfasser’, ZKT 97 (1975) 56–71Google Scholar.
3 I.e., Papias on Judas (Frag. 3); Josephus on Herod the Great (Ant. 17.6.5); Eusebius on Galerius (H.E. 8.16.3–5); Memnon on Satyrus (FGrHist 434.2.4–5); Lucian on Alexander the false prophet (Alex. 59).
4 Aelius Theon, Prog. 7; translation from Kennedy, G. A., ed., Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 47Google Scholar.
5 Hermogenes Prog. 10 (of 12); Aphthonius Prog. 12 (of 14); Nicolaus Prog. 11 (of 13).
6 Aphthonius Prog. 12; translation from Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 117.
7 Papias Frag. 3.10: φέρεσθαι δὲ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τοὺς ἐξ ἅπαντος τοῦ σώματος συρρέοντας ἱχώρας καὶ σκώληκας εἰς ὕβριν δι᾿ αὐτῶν μόνον τῶν ἀναγκαίων. Text lightly revised from Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias, 113.
8 See Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles (Oxford: Clarendon, 2d ed. 1954) 22–4Google Scholar.
9 Webb, R., ‘Rhetoric and the Novel: Sex, Lies and Sophistic’, A Companion to Greek Rhetoric (ed. Worthington, I.; Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007) 526–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. the comments on ekphrasis and the comically obscene in Elsner, J., Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton: Princeton University, 2007) 177–99Google Scholar.
