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 227
1. Mark 12,41-44
in what follows we take up Joel marcus’ careful summary of mark
12,41-44 in his recent commentary in the Anchor Bible Series. Granted,
little commentary is necessary to appreciate the basic thrust or intended
teaching of the markan Jesus in the chreia on the Widow’s mite. Based
on his observation of people donating to the Jewish Temple (the “Temple
Treasury” [gazofula,kion]), Jesus observes that a donation by a poor
woman, while small in absolute terms (“two very small coins”), is mag-
nanimous in relative terms, that is to say, magnanimous in relation to her
very humble means, and thus far superior to donations by wealthy bene-
factors, which are big in absolute terms (polla,, “large sums” [nrSV])
but represent a minute fraction of what they could give. As Jesus puts it,
Truly i say to you that this poor widow was contributing more than all
of those contributing money to the Temple Treasury. For everybody
was contributing out of their abundance, but this one was contributing
everything out of her need, as much as she had during her whole life
(12,43b-44).
if we permit ourselves to abstract and simplify a little, mark’s point
is that relative giving surpasses absolute giving; what matters is not the
absolute amount of wealth that one contributes to others’ well-being,
but rather the relative amount 14. marcus fills in the picture in two ways.
First, mark writes this pericope against the ancient backdrop of the so-
called “Two Ways”, a pervasive form of pagan and Jewish instruction
which contrasts a good or moral way with an evil or immoral way. mark
embraces the form of teaching by praising relative giving over absolute
giving, and he also embraces “Two Ways” traditions which exhort peo-
ple to give as much as they can. Second, mark contrasts the widow’s
generosity with the selfishness of the scribes as described in the pre-
ceding pericope (12,38-40) through repeated references to “widows” 15.
12,41-43a / Luke 21,1-2), reports what Jesus sees, and approximates a judicial
speech’s statement of facts (narratio), the instructional part of a speech which re-
quires a plain — clear, concise and plausible — style. The saying portion of the
chreia (mark 12,43b / Luke 21,3) and its rationale (mark 12,44 / Luke 21,4) ap-
proximate respectively a judicial speech’s thesis (propositio) and proof (probatio).
Both of these parts of a judicial speech aim to instruct, and so require a plain style.
14
See the summary in J. mArCUS, Mark 8–16. A new Translation with intro-
duction and Commentary (AB 27A; new Haven, CT – London 2009) 861. See
also r. H. GUnDry, Mark. A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand
rapids, mi 1993) 728, 729.
15
See mArCUS, Mark 8–16, 859, 861-862, where he comments on how