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 233
strengthens the contrast between the poor and rich, the widow and the
wealthy. Second, mark extends Luke’s closing sentence. While Luke
writes, “this one was putting in everything from her need which she
had, her livelihood (pa,nta to.n bi,on o]n ei=cen e;balen)” (21,4), mark
extends the sentence to say “this one was putting in everything from
her need, as much as she had, her whole livelihood (o[sa ei=cen e;balen
o[lon to.n bi,on auvth/j)” (12,44b) 29. By adding a relative adjective (pa,nta
o[sa ei=cen: “everything, as much as she had”; or “everything, which she
had”) 30, the adjective o[lon (“her whole livelihood”), and the pronoun
auvth/j (“her . . . livelihood”), mark emphasizes more than Luke the
extent to which the poor woman had to give 31.
in summary, mark alters Luke’s style in order to make his special
theological point. mark’s resulting expression is more verbose and
complex than Luke’s. Still, there are a couple of places where mark
appears to clarify Luke. One is in mark 12,42, for, as Farmer has ob-
served, mark, under the 2GH, clarifies his source by adding the syn-
onym, o[ evstin kodra,nthj (“that is, a quadrans” [12,42b]); mark’s aim
must have been to provide a Latin coin reference with which his readers
would be more familiar 32. A second clarification might be found in
mark 12,41b, where his word order (pw/j . . . calco,n) appears more
conventional than that found in Luke 21,1 (with its postponement
of part of the object phrase, plousi,ouj, to the end of the sentence) 33.
iV. Assessing mark’s Adaptations of Luke
To assess whether mark has plausibly adapted Luke, we must first
ask whether mark has plausible motives. in a word, he does: mark’s
mainly biographical and theologically motivated changes are plausible.
We often find these motivations in rhetorical adaptations of sources,
29
For bi,oj as “livelihood”, see m. ZErWiCK – m. GrOSVEnOr, A Grammatical
Analysis of the Greek New Testament i (rome 1974) 265; GUnDry, Mark, 729; mAr-
SHALL, Luke, 752; and J. A. FiTZmyEr, The Gospel According to Luke X-XIV. A new
Translation with introduction and Commentary (AB 28A; new york 1985) 1322.
30
LSJm, o[soj s. v.
31
moreover, GUnDry, Mark, 729-730, notes that “[T]he addition of an appos-
itive, ‘her whole livelihood’, even though the main verb has intervened”, helps
emphasize the widow’s poverty and the extent of her giving.
32
W. r. FArmEr, Jesus and the Gospel. Tradition, Scripture and Canon
(Philadelphia. PA 1982) 68-73; cf. GUnDry, Mark, 729.
33
On clear word sequences, see DAmm, Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic
Problem, 72.