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.
242 ALEx DAmm
(calco,n: “copper”, “copper coin” or “money” 55; and polla,: “large
sums” [nrSV]), for these form a ready-made, clear contrast with lepta.
du,o (“two very small coins”). But Luke’s choice of ta. dw/ra does not
really blunt the contrast with lepta. du,o, and, as marshall suggests,
Luke’s “vaguer reference to ‘gifts’ (dw/ron) . . . allows for more valuable
coins being given by the rich” 56. Hence, it affords an arguably more
vivid contrast between the donations of rich and poor 57. While it might
have been useful to retain mark’s polla, for its emphasis upon the
wealth of the rich donors, perhaps Luke omits it also to remove the
potential for alliteration. it is hard to tell in this instance if Luke has
overlooked useful material here or not.
Vii. Conclusion
in one sense, the results of this study are equivocal. For the most
part, mark and Luke’s adaptation of the other’s Gospel appears rhetor-
ically plausible. moreover, in a handful of places, it is possible that
Luke obfuscates his markan source in areas that demand clarity, and
overlooks markan material that he should have used. These uncertain-
ties i have indicated in the footnotes.
in the end, however, i believe that Luke has rhetorically improved
mark. i say this from the convergence of three observations. First,
Luke’s major motivation for adapting mark is rhetorically plausible 58.
He repeatedly reduces mark’s verbose style to a more appropriately
concise style. Second, Luke’s clarifications of mark appear more con-
spicuous than mark’s alleged clarifications of Luke. With the (possible)
exception of penicra,n (21,2), Luke adjusts mark more towards rhetor-
ical perspecuitas in ways that rhetoric would have us expect, namely
through substituting more common terms (avlhqw/j [21,3], u`ste,rhma
[21,4]). Third, whatever might be Luke’s possible oversights, under
the 2GH mark’s oversight of the adjective ou-toi (Luke 21,4a) seems
55
This is the translation in ZErWiCK – GrOSVEnOr, Grammatical Analysis,
149-150.
56
mArSHALL, Luke, 751-752.
57
i am unsure why Luke would have replaced mark’s imperfect tense verb
evqew,rei (12,41) with the aorist tense verbs ei=den, ei=den (21,1-2); for mArSHALL,
Luke, 751, Luke’s choice “suggests . . . a sudden glance rather than a conscious
gaze”. i am also unsure why Luke replaced mark’s indicative mood verbs, ba,llei,
e;ballon and e;balen (12,41-42), with the participles, ba,llontaj and ba,llousan
(21,1-2), although i do not believe that the change is significant.
58
As are mark’s motivations for adapting Luke.