It is a size comparison, an analogy. I suppose he could have used an elephant or the broad side of a barn.... But "chariot" works.Bernard Muller wrote: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 composer of a piece is usually more conscientious, on average, than its copyists.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?
I talked about that, remember? I said that part of the point of this kind of death is that the body turns against itself, eaten away from within by worms and pus and whatnot. Adding external factors (like chariots) tends to take away from that point a bit (unless the external factor is God himself, or a demon, or something equally spiritual).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.
No need to sugarcoat it for me. Tell me how you really feel.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.
But really, Bernard, you are exaggerating more than Papias (or Apollinarius) here. My explanation regarding the figurative and literal chariots was acceptably brief, to the point, and fitting. I think you are shortchanging it.
You may have a point there.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.
I doubt idle curiosity explains it all; I gave other reasons for detailing Judas' death in this way, and I think they are stronger than mere puzzlement.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.
Yes, that is true. And I cautioned against laying too much on it by itself.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.
Ha. Okay, points for cleverness. Let me repay the favor, using the Catholic method on your resultant sentence: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.
Ben.