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.
234 ALEx DAmm
as i have tried to show, for instance, in the work of Plutarch and
Josephus 34. Significantly too, mark’s occasional effort to clarify Luke
is also plausible. Second, we must ask: (i) whether mark’s expressive
changes are appropriate for the unit’s content; and (ii) whether mark
has used all Lukan material which he ought to have used in service of
his adaptive aims.
1. Stylistic Propriety (D.1)
A striking feature of mark’s work is that he repeatedly embellishes
Luke’s expression. We recall that some ancient texts encourage orna-
ment or “artfulness” in a chreia, while others do not. Different rhetor-
ical traditions give us different impressions. i wish simply to note
mark’s repeated addition of expressions, some of which are artful and
embellished. mark is entitled to emphasize biographical or theological
images through embellishing Luke’s style. it is the nature and conspic-
uous quality of that emphasis that deserves further comment.
On the one hand, mark adds conspicuous embellishment, namely
figures of speech (ornatus) to Luke. Two changes stand out in this re-
gard. First, when saying in 12,41 that Jesus “sat down, opposite the
Treasury”, mark adds alliteration (kai. kaqi,saj kate,nanti)..). Second,
mark adds conspicuous alliteration in his sentence: “many rich people
were contributing many things” (polloi. plou,sioi . . . polla,), while he
also creates a rather conspicuous parallelism of word order in vv. 42-43.
On the other hand, there is something similarly noteworthy about
the frequency with which mark expands Luke’s style to underscore his
biographical and theological aims. mark adds or significantly extends
fοur phrases within a mere four verses. This repeated expansion is strik-
ing. Let us review mark’s changes. (1) To underscore Jesus’ authority,
mark stretches Luke’s participle avnable,yaj to the longer phrase kai.
kaqi,saj kate,nanti tou/ gazofulaki,ou (mark 12,41, cf. Luke 21,1). (2)
To underscore the difference between rich and poor, mark adds an en-
tire sentence, replacing Luke’s ei=den tou.j ba,llontaj with pw/j o` o;cloj
ba,llei (12,41, cf. Luke 21,1). (3) To underscore this difference further,
mark adds the phrase tw/n ballo,ntwn eivj to. gazofula,kion (mark
12,43b, cf. Luke 21,3). (4) To highlight Jesus’ authority further, mark
adds the phrase, kai. proskalesa,menoj tou.j maqhta.j auvtou/ ei=pen auvtoi/j
(mark 12,43a, cf. Luke 21,3). mark supplements these additions, more-
34
See DAmm, Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem, 167-169; and chapters
2 and 3.