Since the Gospel of Judas reentered the public eye, Papias' account of the disciple's demise has seen a resurgence of interest. Its absurdly gruesome content provides a self-evident explanation for the attendant curiosity:
[Frag. 3.4] But Judas wandered around the world as a prominent example of impiety. [6] His flesh was so bloated that he couldn't go through where a chariot could easily do so—not even the massiveness of his head! [7] For they say that his eyelids were so swollen that he couldn't see any light at all [8] and that his eyes couldn't be seen even with a doctor's lens, because they were buried too deep from the surface. [9] And his penis looked larger and more disgusting than all such members, [10] but pus and worms flowed from each part of his body through him into his genitals [lit. ‘to his shame’], causing such alone to be brought through it with pain. [11] And they say after many tortures and torments that he died on his own land. [12] This land has been deserted due to its stench and is now uninhabited—[13] why, even to this day no one can go past that place unless they remember to plug their nose!Footnote 1
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).Footnote 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.
The five longest narratives of skolekosis (death by worm-consumption) from antiquity use the same rhetorical device of ekphrasis, a systematic form of elaborate description.Footnote 3 On the surface, ekphrasis supplements the visualization of its subject, which Aelius Theon (I C.E.) says may vary from a person's gait, to events such as a plague, to places like a meadow. When writing an ekphrasis, the most important considerations are ‘clarity and a vivid impression of all-but-seeing what is described; next, one…should make the style reflect the subject, so that if what it describes is colorful, the word choice should be colorful, but if it is rough or frightening or something like that, features of the style should not strike a discordant note with the nature of the subject’.Footnote 4 Ekphrases were not usually narratives, but often contrasted before and after images of their subjects. The curriculum of the progymnasmata involved a progressive increase in difficulty and built upon previous exercises. Ekphrasis required some skill, being the antepenultimate assignment in three of the four surviving progymnasmata.Footnote 5
Aphthonius' lessons (IV C.E.) on the topic confirm that Papias' death of Judas is an ekphrasis. Though writing after Papias, his handbook offers the most comprehensive delineation of the perfect ekphrasis. He declares that when ‘making an ecphrasis of persons one should go from first things to last, that is, from head to feet; and in describing things, say what preceded them, what is in them, and what is wont to result…’Footnote 6 Papias does precisely this: his description of Judas' body begins at the head and works its way down, while simultaneously writing with linear chronology. Papias' central concern in this passage was the description of Judas immediately before his death, but he also narrated events before his disease struck and after his death. Papias further followed the conventions of ekphrasis by using uninterrupted sentences: Frag. 3.12 contains 31 words and Frag. 3.13 has 42. The bishop also followed the custom of using sounds to imitate the things described. Rather hilariously, he employed no less than twelve sibilants when insinuating Judas' enuresis.Footnote 7 Papias' wordplay (e.g., ὕβρις as both Judas' genitals and resultant shame in Frag. 3.10) and nuanced use of the Greek particles ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ (Frag. 3.13; cf. ἀλλὰ μηδέ in Frag. 3.6) also suggest a degree of literacy typical of individuals rhetorically educated.Footnote 8 This background finds support in Ruth Webb's observation that writers often used ekphrasis to depict extreme death scenes during the Second Sophistic.Footnote 9
