Alex Damm, «Ancient Rhetoric as a Guide to Literary Dependence: The Widow’s Mite», Vol. 97 (2016) 222-243
This essay applies conventions of ancient rhetoric to the analysis of the literary sequence of Mark and Luke’s Gospels. With an eye on basic and more advanced rhetorical handbooks, I outline two significant rhetorical conventions for improving upon literary sources: clarity (perspecuitas) and propriety (aptum). When we ask whether the evangelist Mark has applied these principles to the adaptation of Luke's Gospel (following the Griesbach Hypothesis), or whether Luke has applied these principles to the adaptation of Mark (following the Two-Document and Farrer Hypotheses) in the pericope of the Widow's Mite, we find that the latter scenario is more plausible.
AnCiEnT rHETOriC AS A GUiDE TO LiTErAry DEPEnDEnCE 237
Luke must have abbreviated mark for some reason. Significantly, com-
mentators have remarked that Luke “regularly streamline[s] mark’s
narrative while adding much teaching of Jesus”, including in this
chreia. This implies that Luke wants to render mark more concise 39.
From a perspective informed by rhetoric, this reasoning is correct.
Luke adapts mark in order to render mark’s style more concise. While
preserving mark’s essential content — Jesus’ observation and com-
mentary on the value of relative giving over absolute giving — Luke
repeatedly omits markan expressions which are redundant for making
this point. Crucially, conciseness and clarity are key rhetorical virtues
in instructional material, and Luke cultivates these virtues. A first
illustration comes in 21,1-2. recall that Luke’s source, mark 12,
41-42, describes the actions of the wealthy and the poor widow. mark
reads as follows:
[12,41] Kai. kaqi,saj kate,nanti tou/ gazofulaki,ou evqew,rei pw/j o` o;cloj
ba,llei calko.n eivj to. gazofula,kion kai. polloi. plou,sioi e;ballon polla,\
[12,42] kai. evlqou/sa mi,a ch,ra ptwch. e;balen lepta. du,o o[ evstin
kodra,nthj.
Luke makes two significant changes here. On the one hand,
he omits most of mark’s opening phrase (kai. kaqi,saj kate,nanti tou/
gazofulaki,ou [12,41a]), retaining only the participle and adapting it
to avnable,yaj (“having looked up” [21,1]) 40. On the other hand, Luke
collapses mark’s first three sentences (1. Jesus observes the crowd;
2. Jesus observes the rich; 3. Jesus observes the widow), into two sen-
tences (1. Jesus observes the rich; 2. Jesus observes the widow). in this,
Luke preserves the essential contrast between the rich and the widow,
but he does so far more concisely 41:
[21,1] avnable,yaj de. ei=den tou.j ba,llontaj eivj to. gazofula,kion ta.
dw/ra auvtw/n plousi,ouj.
[21,2] ei=den de, tina ch,ran penicra.n ba,llousan evkei/ lepta. du,o . . . .
39
GUnDry, Mark, 731, citing mArSHALL, Luke, 750-752.
40
i am uncertain why Luke speaks of Jesus “looking up”.
41
When he collapses the first three sentences into two, Luke renders the chreia’s
perspective more consistent. mark reports first that Jesus was “watching,” and
then he offers a description of the rich and poor (on which see mArSHALL, Luke,
752). Luke simplifies by reporting this only from Jesus’ perspective: Luke repeats
that “Jesus saw” (ei=den . . . ei=den).