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.
240 ALEx DAmm
Such stylistic changes continue in 21,4. Although Luke continues
to render mark more concise in certain ways, he also accentuates par-
allels between the two clauses, heightening their contrast. He adds
ou-toi in v. 4a to parallel au[th in v. 4b (cf. mark 12,44). moreover, by
adding eivj ta. dw/ra in 21,4a, Luke helps to repeat the contrast between
the rich and the poor widow, made earlier in 21,1 (ta. dw/ra . . . lepta.
du,o) and now again in 21,4 (eivj ta. dw/ra . . . pa,nta).
Before we close our survey of Luke, let us note that he also clarifies
mark in at least two places. For one, Luke replaces mark’s term for
“truly” (avmh,n: a Semitic and so potentially a less clear term) with a
more universally clear Greek term: avlhqw/j 48. For another, Luke, ac-
cording to marshall, replaces mark’s uncommon Greek term u`ste,rhsij
with a relatively common and so clearer synonym, u`ste,rhma 49. What
is more, in his closing verse (21,4), as Fitzmyer observes, Luke
“slightly improves . . . [mark’s] Greek style” 50; Luke possibly intends
to clarify by advancing mark’s appositive phrase “her whole liveli-
hood” to a position immediately after “all” or “everything” (pa,nta).
Vi. Assessing Luke’s Adaptations of mark
We know that Luke’s stylistic motive for fostering clarity and con-
ciseness is rhetorically plausible, as is his theological motive of pre-
serving the contrast between rich and poor. As we did in the case
of mark, so we must now evaluate the propriety of Luke’s changes,
namely (1) whether Luke’s expressive changes are appropriate for his
content; and (2) whether Luke has used all markan material which
he ought to, in order to contrast the rich and the poor widow.
48
While one could argue that changing Luke’s “secular” Greek avlhqw/j to the
more tradition-specific, Jewish term avmh,n proves equally clear and intuitive for
mark’s own community (above), Luke’s change still looks more conspicuously
like a rhetorical clarification. For Luke’s tendency under the 2DH to “secularize”
mark’s Greek, see n. TUrnEr, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 4 Style
(Edinburgh 1976) 57; and J. FiTZmyEr, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. A new
Translation with introduction and Commentary (AB 28; new york 1981) 107-108.
Turner (p. 57) and Fitzmyer (p. 113) rightly observe that Luke keeps or even adds
Semitic phrases to mark in places; but we must consider Luke’s motivations
in each individual case. On the importance of literary context for determining
choices in composition, see TUrnEr, Grammar of New Testament Greek, 51, and
m. GOULDEr, Luke. A new Paradigm (JSnTSup 20; Sheffield 1989) 115, 512.
49
mArSHALL, Luke, 752.
50
FiTZmyEr, Luke X-XIV, 1322; see n. 38, above.