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.
230 ALEx DAmm
11,11.15-17); the plot to eliminate Jesus (Luke 19,47-48; cf. mark
11,18-19); the debate over authority (Luke 20,1-8; cf. mark 11,27-33);
the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke 20,9-19; cf. mark 12,1-12);
the debate regarding taxes (Luke 20,20-26; cf. mark 12,13-17); the
debate over the resurrection (Luke 20,27-40; cf. mark 12,18-27) 23;
the question regarding the son of David (Luke 20,41-44; cf. mark
12,35-37a); and the woes against the Scribes and Pharisees (Luke
20,45-47; cf. mark 12,37b-40). Both mark and Luke’s pericopae
also give way to Jesus’ eschatological discourse (his prediction of the
Temple’s demise), in which Jesus’ anger at the Jerusalem Temple
establishment climaxes with the prediction of its end, followed imme-
diately by the Passion narrative.
Johnson indicates that in Luke’s account of the Jerusalem ministry,
vis-à-vis mark, we see a relatively heated conflict between Jesus and
the scribes (Jewish legal scholars and teachers), even though Luke still
sets Jesus against several Temple-centred communities. As he observes,
Luke puts an accent in the Jerusalem ministry (Luke 19,2 – 21,38)
on the deep hostility which the scribes have for Jesus and vice versa,
focusing on their very different teachings. This hostility manifests itself
in a tighter sequence of episodes than in mark’s Gospel: Luke removes
mark’s unit on the Great Commandment (in which Jesus actually com-
mends a Jewish scribe) 24.
iii. mark’s Use of Luke: The Two Gospel or Griesbach Hypothesis
According to the Two-Gospel or Griesbach Hypothesis (2GH),
mark has added much expression to Luke. A glance at a synopsis re-
veals the bulkier and wordier character of mark. This difference in style
begs the question: Why does mark adapt Luke in this way? For this, in
the main, is what mark does: he renders Luke’s style more expansive.
He appears to do this for essentially two reasons.
1. Highlighting Jesus’ Authority or Presence
From a viewpoint informed by rhetoric, several of mark’s alleged
changes to Luke appear biographically motivated: they aim to highlight
Jesus’ authority or presence. Gundry explains that mark composes his
23
mark inserts Jesus’ curse of the fig tree and its demise (mark 11,12-14.20-
26), and Jesus’ saying on the great commandment (mark 12,28-34).
24
JOHnSOn, Gospel of Luke, 316, 317.