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.
228 ALEx DAmm
in the unit, explains marcus, mark not only conveys this basic
teaching but also accentuates certain qualities of Jesus that are impor-
tant to his Gospel as a whole. One of these is Jesus’ teaching authority
(mark 1,22). By describing Jesus’ seated position (kai. kaqi,saj
kate,nanti . . .), mark shows Jesus as not simply a teacher, but a pow-
erful and wise teacher. A second accent is on redundancy or duality.
mark enjoys expressing essentially one idea in two ways, one after the
other. One illustration of this may be found in the sentence: “[t]he
crowd was putting in money [. . .] And many rich people were putting
in much money” (or “large sums” [nrSV/12,41]). Another arguable
illustration is found in the phrases: “Temple Treasury” (12,41a/b), and
“having summoned his disciples, he said to them” (12,43) 16.
in mark’s narrative, the Widow’s mite is the penultimate unit
within a lengthy set of pericopae in which Jesus debates with the Jew-
ish authorities in the context, physical and spiritual, of the Jerusalem
Temple (11,1 – 13,37). Shortly after his entry into Jerusalem (11,1) and
his curse of the fig tree (11,12-14), mark’s Jesus enters into an extended
conflict with Judaism’s Temple establishment. After causing a com-
motion in the Temple with his spoken charges of immoral activities
(11,15-17), Jesus is targeted by “the chief priests and scribes” (11,18-
19), and then he debates with them over the extent of his religious
authority (as the scribes and priests put it: “By whose authority do you
do these things? [11,28]) in 11,27-33. indeed, right after the event
involving the Widow’s mite, Jesus turns to describe the coming
destruction of Jerusalem in the famous eschatological discourse (13,1-
37). The resulting tension regarding the legitimacy of those who claim
to teach on God’s behalf characterizes mark 11–12 and the Widow’s
mite within it. Jesus’ speech in 12,41-44 needs be seen as reflective
of the intense and, perhaps, magnanimous giving that is about to be
displayed in the Passion narrative (mark 14,1 – 16,8) 17.
the Widow’s mite, in its immediate narrative context, further reflects the “Two
Ways” teaching.
16
mArCUS, Mark 8–16, 860, 770. For mark’s interest in Jesus’ authority, see
also GUnDry, Mark, 5-10. The detection of duality in references to the disciples
is my own.
17
For these ideas (the importance of showing conflict and tension; the Jeru-
salem Temple setting; the chreia’s reflection of tension and its anticipation of
Jesus’ passion), see mArCUS, Mark 8–16, 767, 770, 863.