Apollinaris of Laodicea, Papias, and the death of Judas.

[Ben C. Smith]

Papias:
"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."
Acts:
"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."

Here, I think that Papias was trying, as an apologist, to explain the death of Judas, as told by 'Acts': how could someone, even very fat, can have his bowels gushed out by just falling on the ground?
Papias brought a solution, but rather awkward & introducing more problems: Judas got stuck and was crushed by a chariot.
How could someone be so wide, and a chariot so fast on a narrow trail?
But that looks like a typical apologist explanation for a "difficult" passage and suggesting that 'Acts' (& therefore gLuke) was written before Papias' times.

The translation given above is from the Apostolic Fathers volume of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Roberts and Donaldson. The original text comes from Apollinarius, according to Cramer's Catena on Matthew 27. Here is the translation again, for convenience:

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

This version of the death of Judas is indeed very awkward. It starts off by using the chariot simply as a way of describing how fat Judas grew: he could not pass through an opening that a chariot could fit through easily; the chariot is just a point of comparison so far. But then it comes right out and claims that Judas "was crushed by the chariot," as if the chariot had been an actual part of the story all along. I agree that this story is secondary.

But I do not necessarily agree that it is secondary to the story in Acts. Rather, it is (probably) secondary to another version of the same story, also by Apollinarius, according to Cramer's Catena (same catena) on Acts 1 (translation by Bart Ehrman on pages 105-106 of The Apostolic Fathers II):

But Judas went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon—not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh. And his genitals became more disgusting and larger than anyone's; simply by relieving himself, to his wanton shame, he emitted pus and worms that flowed through his entire body. And they say that after he suffered numerous torments and punishments, he died on his own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited because of the stench. Indeed, even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding his nose. This was how great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground.

In this especially grotesque version, the chariot really is just a point of comparison; Judas dies of his own bodily afflictions, not by being struck by a chariot.

Cramer's Catena on Matthew 27 actually includes these extra details, but it does so as a separate entry from Apollinarius.

Two trajectories are thus possible:

1. Papias wrote the shorter version, with both the figurative chariot and the literal one, and Apollinarius elaborated on this story in sickening detail; at some point, these extra details were treated as if Papias himself had written them, got integrated into the story, and shoved out the death by chariot.
2. Papias wrote the longer version, with only a figurative chariot, and somebody at some point thought that, since a chariot was mentioned, a chariot must have done the deed (along the lines of what Bernard proposed above: to explain how someone can have their bowels spill out just from being fat); once the chariot was introduced, that was naturally interpreted as the end of the story, and the rest of the details became a separate commentary by Apollinarius.

I personally think that the second option makes more sense. For one thing, as I have mentioned, the figurative chariot turning into a literal chariot in the shorter version seems pretty strained, and unlikely to have been devised by a single author. For another, I think the whole point of the grotesquerie is that Judas died of his own sin and shame; his own body turned on him and disintegrated into a pile of pus and maggots. To turn his fatness into the mere cause of his getting run over by a chariot takes away some of the punch of the anecdote.

(Why did Papias want Judas to die such a horrible death? Because he played the traitor to Jesus, of course, but there is probably more. I owe the following to Dennis R. MacDonald in Two Shipwrecked Gospels: Papias may have wanted to contradict the Matthean account in which Judas repented before his death. Matthew had to hold out repentance for Judas because of a saying that he and only he had included at 19.28 to the effect that the twelve disciples with Jesus would rule Israel on twelve thrones. How can this happen if Judas is no longer one of the twelve? Well, Judas has to repent. Not everyone would be happy with this solution, though, and both Papias and Acts repudiate it by denying Judas both his repentance and his suicide.)

There is also some direct support for the longer version being original to Papias. Kirsopp Lake writes on page 24 of The Beginning of Christianity:

The matter cannot be settled with certainty, but J. Rendel Harris has tried to bring the balance of probability to the side of the attribution of the longer version by pointing out in the American Journal of Theology, July 1900, p. 501, that Bar Salibi in his commentary on Acts quotes the passage about the σκώληκας, and definitely ascribes it to Papias. It is extremely improbable that Bar Salibi used the catena of Andreas, so that this is independent evidence that the passage was taken from Papias by Apollinarius.

Lake himself thought that the shorter version was probably the original, but he did so simply on the basis of what he called "general probability", which I take to be his own sense that the story would grow, not shrink, thus explaining the additions as "due to a desire to pile up horrors and to make the death of Judas similar to that of other notoriously evil men." But I regard this line of argumentation as rather weak. For one thing, surely Papias himself could already experience "the desire to pile up horrors" for Judas. The only trick is in explaining how the horrors got separated from the story (for recall that they were not actually removed; they were simply allocated to the separate entry from Apollinarius that immediately followed the snippet from Papias), and we have already seen that the addition of the literal chariot already explains that: once Judas dies by chariot, it is natural to assume that the Papian story has ended, and the succeeding comments about Judas and his personal hygiene naturally come to be treated as distinct explanatory expansions by Apollinarius to that story.

Because the fate of Judas in Papias is so similar to his fate in Acts 1.15-22, especially when contrasted with Matthew 27.3-10, the question will naturally arise: does Papias depend upon Acts, or Acts upon Papias, or do they both depend upon a third source (or oral tradition)?

Partly from my reading of MacDonald and partly from my own resources, let me make a case for Acts depending upon Papias.

First of all, in History of the Church 3.39.1-17 Eusebius preserves samples of Papias for us in which the Hieropolitan father discusses writings which have preceded him, namely those of Matthew and Mark. Not only are Luke and Acts conspicuously absent (and Eusebius was very interested in tracing the reception of the canonical texts through the early church period), but Papias actually states that he preferred to get his primary information from oral sources. Fine and dandy, but this does not mean that every single event he discusses has to come from oral sources, right? He may have dipped into written texts from time to time. Except that in the case of Judas he seems to be telling us that he got the story of his death from oral sources, for he relates that the details are what "they say" (φασί). Of course, it is possible that those oral sources were recounting the story from Acts itself, with lots of changes, but then we must envision his sources, at whatever remove, knowing about a text that he apparently does not. Possible, but probably not the best solution.

Second, the death of Judas is modeled, as is the case with so many early Christian stories, on scripture, and one of the scriptures involved is Psalm 69.25 (68.26 LXX):

May their homestead be made desolate [ἠρημωμένη]; may there be no dweller [μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν] in their tents.

In Acts 1.20, this scriptural source is made explicit when Peter actually quotes this verse:

May his homestead be desolate [ἔρημος]; may there be no dweller [μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν] in it.

This quotation, apparently drawn (as is typical for Luke-Acts) from the LXX, makes three changes to the LXX:

1. "Their" homestead is now "his" homestead; this change is completely understandable, since Peter is talking about Judas alone.
2. Instead of no dweller being "in their tents", there is no dweller "in it," that is, in the homestead; again, this change is completely understandable, as adding tents to the story would complicate matters.
3. Instead of ἠρημωμένη (literally "having been made desolate", a participle), we find ἔρημος ("desolate", a simple adjective). But why this change?? What does it accomplish?

That change (in #3) from ἠρημωμένη to ἔρημος may simply be a cognate variation, but maybe there is another explanation. After all, whether or not Papias is aware of this scriptural source for some of the details of the story he has received, his wording at one point reveals the underlying Psalm in paraphrase: "he died on his own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited [ἔρημον καὶ ἀοίκητον, literally, "desolate and undwelt"]." Here we have two cognate variations on the Psalm: ἔρημον for ἠρημωμένη and ἀοίκητον for μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν. But Papias is not quoting the Psalm; he is at most paraphrasing it or summarizing its effects; this is where we should expect such variations, no special explanations necessary.

Acts 1.20, on the other hand, is directly quoting the Psalm but using a term from Papias instead of the actual term used in the Psalm. It is possible that Acts introduced this variation (ἔρημον), and that Papias picked up on it and added another variation of his own (ἀοίκητον). But it seems easier to imagine the opposite trajectory: Papias, never intending to quote the Psalm, paraphrased it throughout, and Acts betrays its familiarity with this paraphrase by using one of the words in its quotation of the Psalm.

Notice also that, despite the story being based in part on this verse from the Psalms, Papias does not quote the Psalm while Acts does. Luke-Acts as a whole is certainly no stranger to recognizing the text that underlies a story and placing that text on the lips of a main character as a scriptural quotation. In Luke 22.37, for example, Luke takes the line about being numbered with the transgressors in Isaiah 53.12, which lies unexpressed and below the surface in Matthew and Mark (except for a very slender textual variant at Mark 15.28), and places it on the lips of Jesus as a quotation. In Luke 4.17-19, Luke takes Isaiah 61.1-2, a text which summarizes important elements of the entire ministry, and places it on the lips of Jesus in the synagogue in Nazareth. So it ought not to be a surprise that Acts 1.20 may have done the same thing with the Judas story, bringing the scriptural referent to the surface in a quotation. In the very same verse, Peter also quotes Psalm 109.8 (108.8 LXX), which will become the basis for the next pericope, the lottery to replace Judas.

Is all of this a slam dunk in favor of Papian priority with regard to Luke-Acts? No, I do not think so. But I do think some of these arguments ought to be reckoned with. At the very least, the facile assumption that Papias gave us the shorter version of the death of Judas, with its attendant internal difficulties, is highly suspect, and ought not to figure into the argument.

Ben.

PS: Herebelow is the comparative Greek text from Lake of both versions of the Judas story from the Catena:

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
A much simpler solution (similar to your first trajectory) would be "Luke" gave a short description on how Judas died, then Papias elaborated on it in order to explain how someone can have his bowels gushed out by just falling, then that catena text elaborated even more, stressing Judas' bodily afflictions, still mentioning a chariot/wagon (question: does the 3 versions have the same Greek word for chariot/wagon?) but avoiding to say that chariot/wagon crushed Judas.
The (first) trajectory can be explained as such:
Luke's version was seen problematic & unrealistic.
Then,
Papias corrected one problem, introducing a chariot & Judas' bodily hugeness, but also other unrealistic elements.
Then,
the catena text, even if its Judas' description is grotesque and exaggerated (including the "eternal" stench!), picked up & expanded on Judas' bodily hugeness, but avoided the unrealistic elements in Acts & Papias by not describing Judas' death.

I reviewed your explanations (laborious and complicated) for your second trajectory, and I'll comment on it in the morning or afternoon.

Cordially, Bernard

[toejam]

I've already sorted this one. The accounts of Judas' death in Matthew, Acts, Papias and the Gospel of Judas can all be harmonised if one is willing to accept all four accounts as inspired scripture.

Judas hung himself (Matthew). While he was doing this, the disciples threw stones at him (Gospel of Judas). One of sharper stones hit the rope, causing it to snap. As he was falling, a chariot passed knocking him over (Papias), changing his trajectory. This is how he was able to fall headlong (Acts).

Deep down we all know this is true. Those who claim otherwise are simply suppressing the truth due to their sin nature.

[Ben C. Smith]

A much simpler solution (similar to your first trajectory) would be "Luke" gave a short description on how Judas died, then Papias elaborated on it in order to explain how someone can have his bowels gushed out by just falling, then that catena text elaborated even more, stressing Judas' bodily afflictions, still mentioning a chariot/wagon (question: does the 3 versions have the same Greek word for chariot/wagon?) but avoiding to say that chariot/wagon crushed Judas.

Your reconstruction ignores several bits of information. (I know it is complicated.) First, both of the passages assigned to Papias are, in the form I gave from Kirsopp Lake, from Cramer's Catena. When you call one of them Papias and the other one "the catena text," there is confusion going on somewhere. Second, your explanation does not account for the issue of the figurative and literal chariot that I highlighted. Third, you fail to address the evidence of Bar Salibi and various other witnesses to both forms of the text. Fourth, you ask about the 3 versions of the Papian text... but I gave only 2 versions, the longer and the shorter. I do not think you have a full grasp of the issue yet. Nevertheless, yes, both versions use the Greek word ἅμαξα (which you will also find translated as "wagon"). (Maybe the third version you had in mind was that of Bar Salibi? But he wrote in Syriac, not in Greek.)

I reviewed your explanations (laborious and complicated) for your second trajectory, and I'll comment on it in the morning or afternoon.

What? The explanation for the curtailing of the narrative by the addition of the literal chariot is elegant and simple. Maybe you did not understand it fully...?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

Whenever discussing things which have an Aramaic or Hebrew origin it is always interesting to consult with the Peshitta. Interestingly the explanation of the Hebrew terminology yields us with the likely root of the second part of Judas's name Iscariot (= ish + qryta):



qryh noun sg. abs. or construct
qryh, qrytˀ (qiryā/quryā, qrīṯā/qiryǝṯā(qartā?)) n.f. city, town
highly irregular: abs.: qrē (see s.v. qry #3), qu/iryā; const: Syr. ܩܸܪܝܲܬ܂ ܩܘܪܝܲܬ ; emph.: OfAEg., JLA, JPA קַרתָּא ; Syr. ܩܪܝܼܬܵܐ ; pl.: Qum.; קוריא , Syr., LJLA ܩܘܼܪ̈ܝܵܐ , OfAEast qry, PTA קירויה ,קורייה ,קורוייה

1 city, town Com.
2 village Com.
3 field, agricultural property Syr. --(a) ܩܪ̈ܝ ܡܕܝܢܬܐ : territory of a city Syr.
4 fig. (usually with dhb) : circular crown or other head ornament PTA, LJLA.

I am sure that complicates things immensely but there is nothing like the facts to get in the way of a good theory. Papias (or some later source) is developing a Hebrew or Aramaic etymology to get in the way of what was originally a more ancient explanation of why Judas was so called. Let me break it down a little more. In Jewish Aramaic qrytˀ only means city http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1420. But in Syriac, the language that Irenaeus and other Church Fathers spoke it can also mean 'field.' The whole business about him 'dying' in the field is a corruption or a deliberate attempt to lead us away from the fact that 'iscariot' was not a distinguishing name of Judas. It must have been a throwaway comment in the original Hebrew that 'Judas' was 'Jewish' (that he was from Jerusalem). Let me look at the business about him bursting his bowels in Syriac and I will tell you more.

[DCHindley]

A little story about military vehicles.

In WW2 or its lead-up, the US military encountered the prospect or actuality of fighting going on in old cities of Europe where the width of a street was about half of what we consider norbal* here in the USA (and I assume many other places where the towns and cities are built in modern times, where automobiles are expected to occupy two directions of travel) and alleys were barely wide enough to handle two directions of travel by foot. The Willis 4WD General Purpose vehicle was purposely built small with a high undercarriage clearance so they could be driven along those narrow alleys.

A chariot, presumed to be military, is only so wide, usually occupied by a commander or archer with a driver. If in an urban center, where arrows or spears could be rained down from rooftops onto street level traffic, I imagine the driver could go pretty fast to make them a moving target for the enemy.

So, our poor Judas was presumed to be in an alley at a time when a military vehicle might be rushing past. Just as I am sure there were WW2 civilian deaths caused by collision with a rushing military vehicle in an alley, so Judas is envisioned to have died. I could well imagine guts being spread about. The question them becomes, why a chariot? This suggests that he is being portrayed as dying during the Judean War when Jerusalem was being overrun by the Romans in 70 CE. But isn't this part of the theme found in Hegesippus, Origen and Eusebius, that Vespasian attacked Jerusalem immediately after the death of James the Just. This suggests that Judas did not commit suicide after all, but died as a result of the bad decisions of the Judeans that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Death by hanging can be self inflicted, or imposed by governing authorities and treated as the victim's just deserts, or the fulfillment of a death wish, so to speak, implied by negative views about decisions he had made. So, even here his death by hanging could be imagined to be the aftermath of a military or government action. A landowner being hanged on his own property by a governing body, civilian or military, would be imposed on account of something he did that the imposers thought was bad. During the Judean war, quite a few wealthy (landowners) met their deaths by "kangaroo courts " under the authority of Zealots, Idumeans, and other factions who fought for control of the city of Jerusalem. See also the sentences imposed by revolutionary courts on wealthy landowners during the French and Russian revolutions. Even so, falling from the gallows is not likely to cause the bowels to gush out, unless the hanging took place over a cliff, which is not impossible.

If the elements of death by chariot in a narrow alley AND death by hanging in a field are both present, then this is a conflation of two stories.

Gotta leave for a picnic at my niece's house about 90 minutes away.

Bye!

*Mad Magazine gag about a diary of an acid trip, where the writer has come down from his trip and "all has returned to norbal". The funny part is that his misspelling of "normal" was not normal, and that he is worse for wear from it.

[Secret Alias]

My guess would be that we might be able to reconstruct the rest of the account in Acts chapter 1 through a similar misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the Hebrew in Syriac. So when we consult the Peshitta the term for 'to burst' = ܦܪܬ in Syriac if taken as Hebrew would mean פֹּרָת֙ = fruitful (cf. Genesis 49:22). So when you go back to the original saying in Acts it probably had something to do with Judas being rewarded with the world (earth ארז = ארעא translated as 'field' by the Syriac editor) and then through a play on words he was פֹּרָת֙ 'fruitful' we probably see a connection with another statement in Papias about the fruitfulness in the age to come:

Papias refers to the horrible end of Judas (cf. above, iii. (e)) in the fourth book of his ‘Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord’ (Cramer, Catena in Matthew 27). From the same book Irenaeus (adv. Haer. v. 33. 3f.) quotes an ‘unwritten’ saying of Jesus, foretelling days when the earth shall be marvellously fruitful, and the animals shall be at peace. Papias further says that ‘when the traitor Judas did not give credit to these things, and put the question, “How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord?” the Lord declared, “They who shall come to these [times] shall see.”

It's hard to know for certain about any of these things. Sorry. But it is all lost in the switch from Hebrew to Syriac and then Greek. Again, none of us is ever going to marry a supermodel, neither are we going to unravel all these mysteries.

[Michael BG]

When Matthew was creating his story about Judas as well as being influenced by his possible Q saying (Mt 19:28 – ‘Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”’ Par Lk 22:28-30 – ‘"You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”’) and so having Judas repent it is clear he was influenced by Jeremiah 32:6-15, 18:2-3 and Zechariah 11:12-13 for the purchase of the potter field.

While Luke has Peter quoting LXX Psalm 68:26, 108:8 (69:25 109:8) there does not seem to be an Old Testament parallel to Judas’ death by bursting open.

Luke, Matthew and Papias all call the field – “the Field of Blood”, which again does not seem to have an Old Testament parallel. I wonder if there was an older tradition that linked Judas to the field of blood, and both Matthew and Luke changed the tradition in different ways because Mark had created the story that Judas was the betrayer.

You imply that Papias didn’t know of Luke’s gospel, but Peter Kirby seems to have quotes from Papias where he talks of Luke’s gospel, one from Charles Hill 1998 – “7. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels”, and from S.C. Carlson – “Luke, however, began from Zacharias the priest so that he would declare the divinity of Christ to the gen-tiles by the miracle of the birth of his son and by the office of so many preachers.” (http://peterkirby.com/putting-papias-in-order.html).

[Peter Kirby]

Always read the fine print...

These are "hypothetical fragments." One is a quote from Eusebius, and the other is from Victor of Capua ("Pseudo-Polycarp").

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/polyc ... 1_text.htm

Any connection to Papias is, at best, "hypothetical." And if so, they would not be quotes from Papias but instead quote from others that might have derived from reading Papias.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Papias:
"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."
Acts:
"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."

Here, I think that Papias was trying, as an apologist, to explain the death of Judas, as told by 'Acts': how could someone, even very fat, can have his bowels gushed out by just falling on the ground?
Papias brought a solution, but rather awkward & introducing more problems: Judas got stuck and was crushed by a chariot.
How could someone be so wide, and a chariot so fast on a narrow trail?
But that looks like a typical apologist explanation for a "difficult" passage and suggesting that 'Acts' (& therefore gLuke) was written before Papias' times.

The translation given above is from the Apostolic Fathers volume of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Roberts and Donaldson. The original text comes from Apollinarius, according to Cramer's Catena on Matthew 27. Here is the translation again, for convenience:

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

This version of the death of Judas is indeed very awkward. It starts off by using the chariot simply as a way of describing how fat Judas grew: he could not pass through an opening that a chariot could fit through easily; the chariot is just a point of comparison so far. But then it comes right out and claims that Judas "was crushed by the chariot," as if the chariot had been an actual part of the story all along. I agree that this story is secondary.

Why would Papias mention Judas was larger than a chariot, if he did not intend to suggest him negotiating slowly a narrow passage (or being stuck in it) and then having him being crushed by the (speeding) chariot? The "the" in front of "chariot" is problematic & awkward for sure but if that did not bother an alleged interpolator (who could have easily written "a" chariot instead), why would that bother Papias?

But I do not necessarily agree that it is secondary to the story in Acts. Rather, it is (probably) secondary to another version of the same story, also by Apollinarius, according to Cramer's Catena (same catena) on Acts 1 (translation by Bart Ehrman on pages 105-106 of The Apostolic Fathers II):

But Judas went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon—not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh. And his genitals became more disgusting and larger than anyone's; simply by relieving himself, to his wanton shame, he emitted pus and worms that flowed through his entire body. And they say that after he suffered numerous torments and punishments, he died on his own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited because of the stench. Indeed, even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding his nose. This was how great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground.

In this especially grotesque version, the chariot really is just a point of comparison; Judas dies of his own bodily afflictions, not by being struck by a chariot.

Cramer's Catena on Matthew 27 actually includes these extra details, but it does so as a separate entry from Apollinarius.

Anyway, that grotesque description looks to be a commentary on the first part of Papias' account (that is Papias' account without the alleged interpolation), as an expansion on it. I also note the cause of Judas' death is not explained (not necessarily related to Judas' bodily problems), leaving open the possibility its author accepted Judas was crushed by a chariot.

The rest of your posting is just speculations from you and some scholars (sometimes with divergent opinions!) about possibilities, with many assumptions and lack of direct evidence. Rather complicated, wordy and leading nowhere.
When I described my methodology, I wrote: "o) Look somewhere else if you need long discussions to justify your position." http://historical-jesus.info/author.html
However, I note:

Papias actually states that he preferred to get his primary information from oral sources. Fine and dandy, but this does not mean that every single event he discusses has to come from oral sources, right?

I think that many times, probably most of the times, when an author in antiquity claimed or suggested he got his info from oral traditions, that author was making up that oral tradition for his own benefit. And Papias is no different than other apologists of his times:
- Papias explained why the logias of Matthew came in different (Greek) versions. Why? Just to inform his readers about something he got from oral tradition? That's a naive proposition. No, most likely because the differences were causing concerns in his community.
- Papias explained why Mark's gospel looked out of order, again probably because that was causing concerns in his community. BTW: as compare to what? "Luke", in the preface of his/her gospel, claimed it was "in order".
- Papias explained how food would become so plentiful of earth (after the kingdom comes), again probably in order to answer questions about some sayings of Jesus which mention the great availability of food at that time.
There is a pattern here, and what follows fits well with that:
Papias attempted to answer the problem of Acts version of Judas' death, because some in his community were puzzled about it.

BTW, there are so many uncertainties about this particular saying of Papias, that I never used it in my website or blog. But you are the one who brought it up.

And I would reword your conclusion (using Marcion's method ):
Is all of this a slam dunk in favor of Papian priority with regard to Luke-Acts? [deleted] the [deleted] assumption that Papias gave us the shorter version of the death of Judas, with its attendant internal difficulties, [deleted] ought [deleted] to figure into the argument.

Cordially, Bernard