Was Πάνταινον a Cryptic Reference to the Secret Gospel?

[StephenGoranson]

Robert M. Grant, "A Note on Papias," Anglican Theological Review (1947) 171-172, which discussed R. O. P. Taylor, The Groundwork of the Gospels (1946) on chreia.
Would it be silly to suggest that the Episcopal priest, Smith, read this?

[Secret Alias]

Thank you. That's the beauty of this forum. Vincent:

The following is from the chapter on Chreia in the Progumnasmata of Theon ( first or second century A.D. ) :

A Chreia is a concise and pointed account of something said or done , attributed to some particular person or felt to be in harmony with some character . For any Gnomē , if concise and attributed to a person , produces a Chreia . And an Apomnemoneuma , too , is an action or remark which is serviceable for the conduct of life . The Gnome differs from the Chreia in the following particulars : ( 1 ) in that the Chreia is invariably attributed to some person , but the Gnomē not at all ; ( 2 ) in that the Chreia sometimes makes a general statement and sometimes a particular , but the Gnomē a general only ; ( 3 ) the Chreia sometimes is a bon mot , not offering good advice , but the Gnome is always concerned with what is a help in life ; ( 4 ) the fourth difference is that the Chreia may be either about an action or a saying , while the Gnome is never anything but a saying . The Apomnemoneuma differs from the Chreia in these two particulars : the Chreia is brief , the Apomnemoneuma is occasionally told at some length : the Chreia refers to particular persons , but the Apomnemoneuma is also told by itself ( ka ' έαUTÒ ,? On its own account , or for its own sake ) . It has received the special name of Chreia because it , more than any other form of words , gives useful guidance for conduct in various circumstances , in the same way as , although there are many poets , we give the title specially to Homer alone . There are three main kinds of Chreia , some recount sayings, some actions and others both . The first class depends for its force on sayings apart from any action , e.g. Diogenes the philosopher , when asked by someone how he could become famous , replied , By thinking as little as possible of fame . Of this class of Chreia there are two kinds : one is a statement pure and simple , the other a reply . Of the former kind , some are spontaneous statements , e.g. Isocrates , the Sophist , used to say that pupils who were naturally clever , were children of the gods . Some again are occasioned by some circumstance , e.g. Diogenes , the Cynic philosopher , seeing a boy who was rich but undisciplined , remarked , Here is mud silver - plated . He did not make the remark at large , but it arose out of what he saw . G The replies are are further divided into four classes . The GREEK FORMS OF INSTRUCTION 83

Grant's "note" is on two recent books on Papias where Taylor only takes up a couple of paragraphs.

Two recent studies of Papias of Hiera- polis illuminate his writings and should be drawn to the attention of students of the New Testament and early church history . The latest should be noticed first . This is a quite conservative treat- ment of gospel origins by the late R. O. P. Taylor , The Groundwork of the Gos- pels ( Oxford : Basil Blackwell , 1946 ) . Much of his little book deals with the meaning of Papias ' terminology , or rather that of John the Elder . Mark " followed " Peter ; this means that he was his intimate disciple , who produced his mater's instructions from memory . In calling Mark " interpreter , " John does not mean that he merely translated Peter's words into Greek but that like the ( cf. Acts 13 : 5 ) he acted as a translator of the scriptures , the Hebrew Old Testament , and only secondarily improved Peter's Greek . When John says that Mark drew up the lessons πρὸς τὰς χρείας , Taylor finds a direct reference to the Greek rheto- rical form chreia , a " concise shrewd statement of a recollection , referred to some particular person " ( Aphthonius ). And the chreia can be developed into a parable . It is a normal form employed in Greek education ( pp . 75–90 ) . synagogue - interpreter We may observe that it would be na- tural for John Mark to be attached to Peter in Rome . After the conflict at Antioch Paul had rejected his services ( Acts 15:37 ) , and Mark presumably re- mained with Barnabas and the pro - Pe- trine gentile Christians . And whether or not Sylvanus was responsible for the good Greek of I Peter ( as Selwyn ar- gues ) , Peter must have needed help in his ordinary catechetical instruction . The suggestion of a definite literary form is rather attractive , for the same form - or what could be so classified- is used in the synoptic gospels ( M. Di- belius , From Tradition to Gospel [ New York , 1935 ] , 152–64 ) . And E. Schwartz long ago pointed out Papias ' acquaint- ance with Greek rhetoric ( Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedaei [ Göttingen , 1907 ] , 9 f ) . So did F. H. Colson , " Táže in Papias ( The gospels and the rhetorical schools ) " in JTS 14 ( 1912-13 ) , 62–69 . Papias may perhaps have made its ac- quaintance in the Johannine school , al- though one hesitates to associate Greek rhetoric with millenarian apocalyptic . And is the expression necessarily tech- nical ? A recent article in Vivre et Penser ( the wartime Revue biblique ) by Mon- signor L. Gry may provide a solution for our problem . In discussing " Le Papias des belles promesses messiani- ques " ( Vivre et Penser 3 [ 1943-44 ] , 112-24 ) , Gry publishes part of his forth- coming commentary on the Syriac Apo- calypse of Baruch ( see also his article , " Hénoch X , 19 et les belles pomesses de Papias , " Revue biblique 53 [ 1946 ] , 197– 206 ) , since Baruch 29 : 5-6 is very similar to Papias as quoted by Irenaeus , Adv . haer . v . 33. 3-4 . But Papias contains more apocalyptic - eschatological matter than does Baruch ; he rounds out the story of miraculous fertility with a ques- tion by an incredulous disciple ; and he ascribes the whole to John the Lord's disciple , an 171 A Note on Papias Grant 62.

Not sure that this has any bearing on the Letter to Theodore other than to prevent me from claiming that Smith "could not have known" about chreia. Thank you. You will get a thank you in my paper. In theory Smith could have read Grant and/or Taylor. The only Taylor mentioned in Smith's Book is Vincent Taylor:

T a y lo r: V . T a y lo r, The Gospel According to Alark, L o n d o n , 1952
T a y lo r, Beginning: T . T a y lo r, “ T h e B egin n in g o f Jew ish Proselyte B ap tism ,” N T S 2 (1955)
i93ff
T a y lo r, Origin: V . T a y lo r, “ T h e O rig in o f the M ark an Passion S ayin gs,” N T S 1 (1954)
J59ff

[Secret Alias]

Thanks to Goranson I have now found a historical context for the argument that Papias's chreia were part of an education program https://books.google.com/books?id=tED7D ... ia&f=false My perspective is that IF it is argued that Smith read Taylor he must have "bet the farm" on the idea in forging the Letter to Theodore prior to/up to 1958. I remember reading Robbins and other author and noting how revolutionary their ideas were in the 1980s. Here's what Robbins wrote about the intervening thirty years between the publication of "modern papers" on the subject:

During the past thirty years interpreters have explored many items observed above using redaction criticism and composition criticism. The question is whether it might be possible, using an approach informed by Hellenistic rhetoric, to explore the inner dynamics and logic of such abbreviation, expansion, and elaboration. The authors of this volume think such a possibility is on the horizon. The research recounted above as well as other more recent studies have set the stage. One of these more recent studies appeared in 1962, when William R. Farmer explored five sections in Luke and one in Matthew containing a sequence of units that have a close relation to one another.“ Much of our discussion above concerned a process of internal expansion or abbreviation of units.

In other words (1) Taylor wasn't at all influential and (b) the next major writer to pick up on the idea wrote after the discovery of the Letter to Theodore. So Smith again had to have "supernatural powers" - Satanic powers from black magic - to know to latch on this particular idea if indeed he was even aware of it.

[StephenGoranson]

Again, one way, and not the only way, Morton Smith could have known before 1958 what you imagined and asserted that he could not have known then
is in an 1947 Anglican, Episcopal, Journal.

[Secret Alias]

A sentence about a theory that only gained widespread acceptance in the late 80s. Look at translations of Papias before 1990. Betting the farm on an ignored theory. Come on. You guys give Morton smith supernatural Satanic powers. Ask Robbins when this theory gained widespread acceptance. Wasn't 1958.

[Secret Alias]

And assuming Smith read this journal and paid attention to this two page article and caught sight of the sentence that deals with chreia. So what? You never watched While You Were Sleeping? It's the 90s equivalent to the Purloin Letter.

[youtube]nsJxyUvkB_E?si=se9AvCIxxmupUr1Y[/youtube]

I can't get the links to work

[Secret Alias]

This understanding only became popular in the late 1980s https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Dq1tuYNLJx is it possible that Smith was instructed by his Lord Satan during a Ouija board session with Oscar Wilde, Jimmy Page and Aleister Crowley. Maybe. If you believe in the occult. It's certainly is unlikely and less likely that the proper chreia understanding was unknown to Smith and therefore he didn't write the letter.

[StephenGoranson]

In addition to the probability that Episcopal priest Morton Smith read that 1947 Anglican Theological Journal article, and that Morton Smith did not need to wait for a concept to win anyone's estimate that it was common knowledge, I suggest that Morton Smith personally knew the article's author, Robert McQueen Grant, who was also an Episcopal priest, also a NT scholar, also an SBL member and conference attender, also a graduate of Harvard, also formerly taught at Columbia,
etc.

And, Smith may have read the 1946 book by Robert Oswald Patrick Taylor, The Groundwork of the Gospels.

[arnoldo]

. . .You never watched While You Were Sleeping? It's the 90s equivalent to the Purloin Letter.

[youtube]nsJxyUvkB_E?si=se9AvCIxxmupUr1Y[/youtube]

I can't get the links to work

[StephenGoranson]

And the Columbia Univ. Library has a copy of Taylor's 1946 book. From the introduction:

"No movement of thought can be understood without some knowledge of the community in which it originated. This applies to the advance of thought, represented by the Gospels, just as much as to any other of the great movements which have permanently affected the the mind of the world. But, since the Gospels have had so great an educative value, and were shaped in a community which had had a unique education, it is particularly necessary to give some consideration to the process by which the mind of that community had been taught and trained"