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.
238 ALEx DAmm
noteworthy in this regard is that Luke also omits mark’s phrase
“which is a quadrans” (a small roman coin denomination) following
lepta. du,o (21,2). We may interpret this omission similarly as an ab-
breviation of mark’s style 42.
A second illustration of Luke’s conciseness comes in 21,3 where
he omits further phrases from mark. According to mark,
[12,43] kai. proskalesa,menoj tou.j maqhta.j auvtou/ ei=pen auvtoi/j\ avmh.n
le,gw u`mi/n o[ti h` ch,ra au[th h` ptwch. plei/on pa,ntwn e;balen tw/n
ballo,ntwn eivj to. gazofula,kion\
“Having summoned his disciples, he said to them: ‘Truly i tell you that
this poor widow has contributed more than all of those who were con-
tributing to the Temple Treasury’”.
While Luke preserves Jesus’ basic teaching, he omits the reference
to the summoning of the disciples (after all, Jesus is already addressing
the disciples [20,45]), and to the Temple contributions of others 43; hence:
[21,3] kai. ei=pen\ avlhqw/j le,gw u`mi/n o[ti h` ch,ra au[th h` ptwch. plei/on
pa,ntwn e;balen\
“And he said: ‘Truly i tell you that this poor widow has contributed
more than all’”.
Luke goes on to abbreviate mark’s expression in his final verse,
too (21,4): he omits the adjective o[lon from to.n bi,on, creating “her
livelihood” rather than “her whole livelihood”; and he omits mark’s
emphatic adjective auvth/j (“her life”). in these ways, Luke abbreviates
mark’s style, keeping the ideas but removing emphatic and supplemen-
42
For the translation of lepta. du,o as “two small coins”, see FiTZmyEr, Luke
X-XIV, 1322. On the 2GH, we recall, mark clarifies here by adding o[ evstin
kodra,nthj. However, in my judgement, on the 2DH and FH, Luke’s omission of
o[ evstin kodra,nthj does not pose a problem; it is not an obfuscation, for it does
not render the sentence less intelligible. Luke remains sufficiently clear by simply
retaining the phrase “two small coins”.
43
According to GrEEn, Luke, 696-697, Luke wants in the Jerusalem ministry
to show Jesus’ authority over the Jerusalem Temple establishment. now to be sure,
under the 2DH, by omitting mark 12,41a and 12,43a, Luke attenuates the image
of Jesus’ authority. This is a legitimate difficulty. But in Luke’s defence we make
two points. First, Luke has a major and legitimate rhetorical reason for the omis-
sions: to render the chreia more concise. Second, Luke has narrative reasons for
the omissions; mArSHALL (Luke, 751, citing W. GrUnDmAnn, Das Evangelium
nach Lukas [ThHK; Berlin 31970], 377) explains that by omitting mark12,41a
Luke is tightening (making seamless) the sequence of 21,1-4 vis-à-vis 20,45-47.