Recently, I heard Craig A. Evans talk about chreia in the ancient world and how this may impact our understanding of the Gospels. I was pleased to see a chapter dedicated to this subject by David B. Gowler titled “The Chreia” in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Levine, Allison, and Crossan. In this chapter Gowler cites Aelius Theon of Alexandria (middle to late first century) and Hermogenes of Tarsus (second century) who discusses chreia. These are the quotations he shares and then I’ll give you his commentary:
“A chreia is a brief statement or action that is aptly attributed to some person or something analogous to a person.” (Theon 3-4)”
“A chreia is a remembrance of some saying or action or a manifestation of both that has a concise resolution for the purpose of something useful.” (Hermogenes 3-4)
“A chreia is a concise remembrance aptly attributed to some person. Since it is useful, it is called a chreia.”
Gowler makes four observations about chreia:
(1) “First, the remembrance (or “reminiscence”) formally denotes a saying, an action, or a combination of both…”
(2) “Second, a chreia is brief or concise.”
(3) “Third, a chreia must be ‘aptly attributed’. On one hand, the chreia needed to suit the character of the person who spoke or acted it….On the other hand, the chreia needed to be ‘well aimed’ in the sense that it was appropriate to the situation that it addressed.”
(4) “Fourth, the chreia was not used merely as an anecdote…The chreia thus was used not only to capture the character and the quick wit of a person who spoke or acted; it also was used (but not always) as an example to hearers/readers for how they should– or should not–act or behave.” (pp. 132-133)
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?
the archives near Emmaus 
Nice post. I was introduced to the chreia through George Wesley Buchanan’s work on the historical Jesus. This is certainly an overlooked aspect of NT studies in the Gospels and should receive much more attention by students of the NT.
If my memory serves me right, Papias is one early Christian that said Peter preserved Jesus’ saying in chreia form, and interestingly enough, many of the Jesus sayings in Mark are found in chreia form. This in itself is quite significant when one considers how chreia were used and handled in Greek rhetoric. Not only this but Buchanan also gives examples of how chreias were preserved through a long transmission of copying. No real changes affected the meaning of the chreia until, roughly speaking, 5 or more centuries transpired from the original composition. So the chreia is certainly a reliable literary device.
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?
@Ivan and @Nick: It is interesting how you both related this to the Synoptic Problem and to some extent the question of Matthean Priority. I haven’t spent enough time with the data to think through this deeply, but it is something I will keep in mind, since it seems like a plausible explanation for how Matthew may have been the first gospel.