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 241
1. Stylistic Propriety (D.1)
Luke’s expressive changes are indeed appropriate, for they render
mark more concise in instructional material, material which according
to the rhetorical handbooks should be concise. it is true that in a couple
of places, Luke adds expressions: ou-toi and eivj ta. dw/ra, in 21,4 (cf.
mark 12,44). However, Luke balances those additions with the omis-
sion of about as many expressions in this verse (o[lon, auvth/j). moreover,
what Luke does add strengthens the contrast between the rich and poor.
Granted, i am not certain why Luke here omits markan expressions
which foster this contrast, only to add expressions which foster the
same contrast. i suspect, however, that he does this because his replace-
ments (ou-toi and eivj ta. dw/ra) build stronger verbal parallels, which,
as we have seen, Luke employs quite frequently throughout this chreia.
Such verbal parallels probably fall within the range of acceptable
ornament or embellishment for a chreia.
in one place, Luke’s change of word seems to work against clarity.
Luke replaces one of mark’s uses of ptwch, (“poor”, 12,42) with the syn-
onym penicra,n (“poor”, 21,2) 51. This change appears suspect since i am
not sure that Luke’s substitution of penicra,n conveys the same depth of
poverty. According to marshall (citing Hauck), Luke’s choice conveys
deeper poverty. But i have not found this connotation attested in the lex-
ica 52. moreover, Luke’s term, observes marshall, is a hapax legomenon
in the new Testament, and hence Luke has chosen a quite uncommon,
that is to say, less than clear, word 53. in all, then, Luke’s change appears,
on rhetorical grounds of clarity, somewhat counterintuitive 54.
2. Using All Necessary Material (D.2)
Does Luke use all the markan material which he should use, in
order to foster a contrast between the giving by the rich and by the
poor? For the most part, he does. moreover, potential oversights appear
defensible. in Luke 21,1 for example, one might question why Luke
replaces mark’s expressions (12,41) for rich people’s donations
51
So Fitzmyer, Luke X-XIV, 1322.
52
LSJm s. v.; BAGD s. v.
53
mArSHALL, Luke, 752.
54
JOHnSOn, Gospel of Luke, 316, says that Luke’s insertion, “gave their gifts
(eivj ta. dw/ra), [i]s awkward in Greek, literally ‘threw into their gifts’”. mArSHALL,
Luke, 752, indicates that the meaning here is “into the offering (chest)”. Whether
this would have sounded unclear, i am not certain. mark (12,44a) has no direct
object with which to compare with Luke.