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 239
tary expressions. Because Luke’s omissions, while numerous, never
affect the basic content but only the manner of expression, we may
conclude that at least part of his reasoning was to foster conciseness.
What is remarkable about Luke’s adaptations is that, while Luke
abbreviates mark, he simultaneously adapts mark for a second reason:
to retain mark’s contrast between the ignobility of the rich and the no-
bility of the poor widow. Luke replaces mark’s verbosity with alternative,
briefer ways of contrasting rich and poor. in this way, Luke preserves
mark’s contrast, while at the same time condensing mark’s wordy style 44.
in turn, Luke also preserves the contrast between the scribes, who
associate with the rich, and Jesus, who associates with the poor 45.
it is important to survey Luke’s varied stylistic changes (omissions,
additions and rearrangements) to this end, beginning with 21,1-2, for
he does numerous things which strengthen or at least preserve mark’s
contrast between the rich and the poor 46. By omitting mark’s phrase
that Jesus “was watching how the crowd was contributing money”
(12,41), Luke sharpens the contrast between Jesus’ sight of the rich
(21,1) and his sight of the poor (21,2). To further sharpen the contrast,
Luke heightens the parallelism between the two sentences (v. 1 and v.
2), opening both with ei=den de,, followed by a similar sequence: the
direct object plus participle (v.1 tou.j ba,llontaj . . . plousi,ouj 47; v. 2
tina ch,ran penicra.n ba,llousan); the location of giving (v. 1 eivj to.
gazofula,kion; v. 2 evkei/); and finally the object / amount given (v. 1 ta.
dw/ra auvtw/n; v. 2 lepta. du,o; Luke’s removal of o[ evstin kodra,nthj
enhances the parallelism). The resulting parallelism is conspicuous and
striking, and, while it is awkward to compare mark directly with Luke
on this count since their expressions are distinctive, Luke retains the
contrast in an appropriately concise form.
44
That is, Luke’s changes offset and help account for his abbreviations of
expressions which, in mark, contrast the rich and the poor.
45
For these associations, see JOHnSOn, Gospel of Luke, 317, 318-319.
46
mArSHALL, Luke, 752, observes that Luke converts mark’s description of
the rich and poor to show Jesus directly watching rich and poor. i do not think
that in itself this is a significant difference; it is the mechanism by which Luke
collapses (see above) mark’s first three sentences into two.
47
Luke, however, delays completion of the direct object in v. 1 (plousi,ouj;
“rich people”) to the end of the sentence (for which see ZErWiCK – GrOSVEnOr,
Grammatical Analysis, 265). The resulting expression is a kind of ornament which
highlights the “rich” (on which see BDF § 473). in effect, Luke adds ornate
expression into the first verse of the chreia, something which, according to Theon,
he is entitled to do.