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 229
2. Luke 21,1-4
At first blush, Luke’s pericope strikes the reader as being very
similar to mark’s version. With the help of recent commentaries by
marshall (1978), Johnson (1991), Diefenbach (1993) and Green
(1997), we believe that the pericope is, with a few exceptions, quite
similar in content and in narrative context.
As in mark, Luke’s Jesus observes charitable donations by Jews at
the Temple Treasury (21,1), although Luke’s Jesus appears to be stand-
ing, not seated, and he “looks up” to see the donations. Like mark,
Luke has Jesus react to the scene of wealthy donors, albeit donors who
offer not specifically “money” (calco,n) but “gifts” or “donations”
(ta. dw/ra) 18, followed by the poor (penicra,n) widow and her two coins.
Like mark’s Jesus, Luke’s Jesus replies with a pointed contrast between
the shameful, absolute giving by the rich, and the praiseworthy, elative
giving by the widow (21,4). As in mark, Luke’s Jesus here commends
the woman, even though commentators such as Green have argued that
Jesus condemns the widow’s giving as the exploitative by-product of
the scribes 19. The similarities also extend to the units which immedi-
ately precede them. Like mark, Luke also deliberately contrasts the
widow’s generosity with the selfishness of the scribes (in 20,45-47),
linking the two units with repeated references to widows 20.
As we can see in a synopsis, the narrative context of Luke is quite
similar to that of mark 21. in both, the Widow’s mite is the penultimate
unit in Jesus’ Jerusalem ministry, a long string of episodes often marked
by conflict between Jesus and the Jerusalem Temple establishment 22.
These include Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19,28-40; cf. mark
11,1-10); Jesus’ “weeping” over Jerusalem (19,41-44 [not in mark]);
Jesus’ entry into the Temple and protest there (Luke 19,45-46, cf. mark
18
mark has already used this phrase earlier (7,11) to denote “an offering”
to God in the Temple. in this context, mark does not appear to use the term either
positively or pejoratively. LSJm, s. v., notes the sacred connotations that the term
can have.
19
J. B. GrEEn, The Gospel of Luke (niC; Grand rapids, mi – Cambridge
1997) 728. i am not convinced by Green’s interpretation.
20
See L. T. JOHnSOn, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Collegeville 1991) 316.
GrEEn, Luke, 728, acknowledges this as a possibility.
21
On the similarity see JOHnSOn, Gospel of Luke, 316, 317. For Luke’s context
see GrEEn, Luke, 696-697, and, similarly, m. DiEFEnBACH, Die Komposition des
Lukas-Evangeliums unter Berücksichtigung antiker Rhetorikelemente (FTS 43;
Frankfurt am main 1993) 119.
22
JOHnSOn, Gospel of Luke, 316-317; cf. GrEEn, Luke, 696-697.