Brian LePort recently wrote a post about χρεία wherein he quotes material from David B. Gowler’s essay “The Chreia” in The Historical Jesus in Context (eds. Amy-Jill Levine, et al.; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006). Brian finished his post asking:
This sounds like the pericopes we find in the Gospels, yes? There is an effort to remain true to the source, the person, their character and qualities, while contextualizing the teaching (i.e. making it useful) for a new audience. Should we not see the Evangelist as doing this basic thing?
I responded by saying, “Here’s something to ponder since you’re studying the Synoptic Problem: What if Mark’s pericopae are chreiai (that’s the plural of this word, right?)* wherein he’s seeking to abbreviate Jesus’ words and deeds as found in Matthew’s pericopae?” You gotta admit, it’s possible.
B”H
*I just checked the Gowler essay that Brian cited and chreiai is in fact the plural of chreia; hooray for me!
Disagree with the idea, reject it in the end or whatever else, but you have to keep Matthean priority as at least an option.
There is a PhD thesis from the Department for the Study of Religion at the U of Toronto online that examines the rhetorical form of the chreia and what it can contribute to the Synoptic Problem (https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/24735/1/Damm_Alex_L_201006_PhD_thesis.pdf). The paper argues that this gives yet more evidence for the standard scholarly solution of Markan priority.
Kyle: Agreed.
Mike: Thanks for pointing that thesis out! What a fantastic resource for a discussion like this.
Pingback: Elsewhere (08.31.2011) | Near Emmaus