At 10:59 PM 6/1/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>I hate to recycle my old posts, but I believe that there is at least
>one Matthean account that has a more heightened sense of irony than
>the parallel account in Mark. Here is the old post:
>----
>I was looking at Mt20:20-28 [= Mk10:35-45], the incident where the
>mother (Mt20:21) of the sons of Zebadee comes to Jesus and asks him
>to declare that her two sons will sit (KAQISWSIN) at his right (EK
>DEXIWN SOU) and left (EX EUWNUMWN SOU). Jesus responds that they
>didn't know (OUK OIDATE - note plural) what they were asking for
>(Mt20:22 = Mk10:38), then affirms that they will indeed drink from
>his cup (Mt20:23=Mk10:39), but the right and left have already been
>prepared for someone else by the Father.
>
>Now I had always assumed that "on the right and left of Jesus" meant
>positions of honor with regard to Jesus, and most of the commentaries
>agree with that. After all, Stephen saw "the Son of Man standing at
>the right hand of God" (Ac7:56). The problems I'm having with this
>interpretation are (a) the Greek idiom usually makes "hand" explicit,
>which it is not here, and (b) I can't recall how being on the *left*
>of someone is a good thing. Compare this with Mt25:33 where the sheep
>are on the right and the goats on the left.
In Mt 20:21 the context is one of desiring to sit within Jesus' kingdom, by
which I surmise the compiler of Matthew meant being in heaven with Jesus,
after death. Within that kingdom, all is supposed to be glorious and good,
with no evil there, and so it could scarcely be any worse to be on Jesus'
left there than on his right; perhaps only a lesser degree of importance or
prestige on the left. This contrasts with Mt 25:33&41, where those on the
left will be tossed out of the kingdom and proceed straight to hell.
>Furthermore, the presense of their mother in Matthew's version seems
>quite odd. Who asks for an important position through his mother?
This is a good indication of it being a Matthean redaction.
> I
>don't exactly buy the common explanation that Matthew is trying to tone
>the anti-disciple aspect of Mark's version by putting the request on
>the lips of their mother. That can't be right, because Mt20:22 is >clear
>that Jesus understood immediately who really was behind the request,
>and, I said earlier, it seems even worse for the reputation of such
>important disciples to be hiding behind their mother.
This is of course consistent with the AH and Matthew possessing an extensive
source which he was redacting when forming his gospel. It is also
consistent with Pierson Parker's conclusion that this is but another of many
examples wherein the writer of Mark cast the disciples in a more disparaging
light than does Matthew. That is, it was the writer of Mark who then
removed the mother from the scene so as to show the Jewish disciples in a
poorer light. I think Parker wss correct here, since the additional show of
disrespect for Jesus by the two sons in Mk 10:35b also does not occur in
Matthew.
>So, the request is a puzzle, and the fact that the mother makes the
>request in Matthew is also puzzling. I've come up a possible way to
>understand this story that seems to make sense, but I'd like all of
>your input on it.
As I see it, one aim of the writer of Matthew here was to present another
pericope that would justify his "the last will be first..." saying, with Mt
20:23 conveying another aim. But your argument below might take higher
priority.
>The request to sit at the right and left of Jesus is loaded with
>irony: this is made clear by Jesus' response: you don't know what
>you're asking for. The next time we see the mother of John and
>James is at the crucifixion (Mt27:56 = Mk15:40 [called Salome]),
>where, sure enough, Jesus has someone at his right and his left
>(Mt27:38 = Mk15:27). This connection is brought out quite subtly
>in Matthew, who uses her to link the two passages, but very much
>lacking in Mark. Although she (or they) may not have know it at
>the time, their request is yet another (ironic) prediction of the
>crucifixion, occuring immediately after the third passion prediction
>by Jesus. {...]
This is quite interesting and perceptive. From my point of view, it
can explain why the mother of the Zebedee sons is mentioned explicitly as
being present at the crucifixion, this then being a redaction, as she is not
mentioned within the (alleged pre-Matthean) document I've explored in my web
site. I think it strengthens your suggestion that Mt 20:20-28 did not stem
from Mk 10:35-44. Surely the writer of Mark did not grasp this connotation
that you've set forth, since he added his baptism theme to the "drink the
cup" theme. But as usual, arguments of this sort are reversible.
Jim Deardorff
Corvallis, Oregon
E-mail: deardorj@proaxis.com
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm