mikem

Something positive? Mark 3: 13-18. The calling of "the Twelve" to be with him and empowering them to go out and preach and heal. This in my view is how Mark wants us to view the Twelve - as the ones Jesus chose to be with him in spite of their later failures.
I think Mark was using the 12 AS A WHOLE as an object lesson to his own community in both the rights and wrongs of discipleship, not just Peter. Some scholars think that ithe community Mark was writing for were having a hard and discouraging time of it, and needed encouraging, that despite failure, they would ultimately endure (see Mark 13:13).

I think Peter is portrayed in a more positive light than the others actually. He, along with James and John is present at the Transfiguration according to Mark. Peter, James and John are with Jesus in Gethsemani. When all the others fled, Peter was the only one that followed the guard to the High Priest's house.

Interestingly, in Mark 16:7, the message is "to tell his disciples, AND PETER, that he is going before you to Galilee, where you will see him etc..." Peter is the one who has sunk the lowest, he is the one who is given especial encouragement.

The short ending of Mark is worthy of a thread of it's own I think, but need not imply that Mark did not envisage an appearance to the 12 in Galilee, as Ben has already pointed out.

Amaleq13

The first question I would have is why Paul doesn't use this against "the Pillars" but a later comment may constitute the answer IIUC:

So my second question, offered first, is where do you obtain the idea that Paul rejected Jesus during his lifetime?

Ben C Smith

It would do Paul very little good to use anything from the ministry of Jesus against the pillars. It was not their connection with his ministry that constituted their authority in the church. It was their connection with the risen Christ.

I do not hold to that idea. I said that Paul did not know Jesus during his lifetime (AFAICT). It was James who apparently rejected Jesus during his lifetime.

Ben.

mikem

I am interested to see where you go with this. I have always been puzzled by Mark 14:10-14, not because of any inference to "gnosticism" (I used to think Iknew what that meant too, but I'm damned if I do now!), but because of what it implies about Jesus intentions. Did Mark really want us to think that Jesus didn't WANT people to understand him? Matthew and Luke both just copy this from Mark. Was that their intention too? If you see a gnostic type apologetic in Mark, then it is also in Matthew and Luke.

Amaleq13

Gotcha. I thought you were saying that of Paul.

Not even when his legitimacy as an apostle was apparently questioned? Or when he essentially disregards the "high reputation" of the Pillars? Or when he and Peter got into it about eating with Gentiles, etc.? Or as a way to counter his own problematic past with regard to Christianity?

Maybe it is just me but I don't think I could have helped but say something like "Hey, didn't you abandon Jesus to die alone on the cross? Who are you to tell me how to preach the gospel?" or "Sure I used to persecute Christians but isn't it worse to have abandoned Jesus after following him? Surely, my past is no worse than theirs."

Ben C Smith

My sentence may have gotten a little convoluted.

I do not see why. I think legitimacy as an apostle, at least for the Jerusalem and Antioch groups, depended on an encounter with the risen Jesus, not with what happened before the resurrection.

I am sure you will agree that the message of Galatians 2 is not Paul good, pillars bad, that had Paul wished to convey that message he could have written something like 2 Corinthians 11.13-15. Paul is being diplomatic, tactful even. He may have been thinking some of the things you would like him to have said, but I think that in truth two things were equally true of Paul vis-a-vis the pillars in Jerusalem:

1. Paul regarded them as genuine apostles and fellow laborers for Christ (see Galatians 2.2, 8-9; 1 Corinthians 3.21-22; 15.3-9). They are not the enemy.
2. Paul was in informal competition with them for his reputation as an apostle (see Galatians 1.17; 2.6; 1 Corinthians 9.1-2, 5). His converts could easily see him as rightfully subordinate to them.

That is a tightrope. Diplomacy was called for. The argument from silence (surely if Paul had known about the falling away of the disciples he would have brought it up) is not only inadequate, but also does not sound much like the man who penned 1 Corinthians 1.12.

See below about the checkered past of the great apostle to the gentiles.

We see his way of countering his own problematic past with regard to Christianity in 1 Corinthians 15.8-9: He owns up to it squarely, almost turning his questionable past into the tail end of an early creed.

But, since you brought up his past, I think it fitting to point out that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Why would Paul have wished to bring up what Peter or the others had done in abandoning Jesus? Would that not just open up a ripe opportunity for them to bring up his past?

Paul: You should eat with gentiles, Peter.
Peter: No, I think I will follow Jewish law and custom instead.
Paul: This coming from someone who abandoned Jesus on the cross.
Peter: Speaking of dark pasts, who was it who actually went for the throat?

I do not think Paul would have scored any points at all in opening up that kind of exchange.

According to Galatians 2.2-9 the pillars did not tell him how to preach the gospel; they validated the gospel he was already preaching amongst the gentiles (see verse 2).

I would think that running away from the persecutors like Peter did would be better than actually being one of the persecutors like Paul was, or at the very least no worse. Besides, this tack would work only if one of the pillars had first brought up his past as a mark against his apostleship or reputation. Where do you find evidence that they ever did that?

Ben.

Amaleq13

Yes, I think it is more "Yeah, I eventually checked in with the Pillars and they gave me the green light but, frankly, I wasn't all that impressed. Decent fellows but let's not exaggerate their importance, eh?"

On what basis do you think he differentiated between them and the "false apostles" who apparently also considered following the Law a requirement?

I assume the only reason he mentions his past is because it has been used against him but I can see that doesn't require his accusers to have been the Pillars.

Ben C Smith

He names the pillars and talks about his dealings with them in diplomatic terms. The false apostles he leaves anonymous and rhetorically ransacks.

I have toyed with the possibility that the two groups are the same even so, and that when Paul attacks outright he leaves them anonymous for some reason, but (A) that seems unlikely and (B) for our purposes here it is enough that he leaves them anonymous when he is on the attack, since bringing up their desertion of Jesus during his lifetime would break the anonymity.

Ben.

Edited to add: If any of the pillars is to be cleanly identified with the false apostles, I think it would be James, not Peter. Even so, however, it looks to me like Galatians 2.2-6 differentiates between the pillars (who were in) and the false brethren (who had to sneak in).

JoeWallack

JW:
Mark 16: (NIV)
1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

JW:
The Text Explicitly says that the only people who were told (as opposed to Believed) that Jesus went to Galilee "said nothing to anyone". This is Narrative Action Ben. The Young Man is just giving them Instructions. Giving Instructions is not Narrative Action. And here, the Text Explicitly indicates that the Instructions were not followed. So I not only have the advantage of Explicit Narrative Action over an Implication From Instruction, my Explicit Narrative Action is Directly Responsive to your Implication from Instruction! Keep in mind per you this is one of the best Examples of "Mark's" positive treatment of The Disciples. If this was any Discipline outside of Religion we wouldn't need to have such an Elementary conversation here.

Out of curiousity, in your imaginary ending to "Mark", how exactly do the Disciples meet Jesus in Galilee? Do they just happen to run into him at The Mall while going through Virgin Records?

Also, yours and Mr. Carlson's desire to seek a more satisfactory Ending to "Mark" brings back Memories of how the Christian Canon was decided in the first place. Since we've now apparently expanded the Conversation to unaddressed points would you care to comment on my observation that the Original is Likely to have even less favorable treatment of The Disciples?

Here's another Reason why the Original Gospel Likely Ended with No resurrection sightings. Since the Gospel Resurrection is Impossible
(I tell you the Truth though, I never Believed in any Type of resurrection until I saw John Travolta in "Pulp Fiction") we can be certain that it was not Historical. Since it didn't happen, there were no historical witnesses. When Christianity started to claim a Resurrection, the claim Closest to an event that never happened was just that Jesus was resurrected. Just what we see in "Mark", the original Gospel and original tradition. Once this claim was established Christianity started to add to it with post-resurrection witnessess and even an Autopsy in "John" (what is the correct word anyway for an "autopsy" on someone who isn't alive or dead, maybe we should ask Stephen Colbert?).

This Lack of Resurrection Witness Works just fine for "Mark" because "Mark" consists of two substances, Faith and Evidence, Matter and what doesn't matter. In "Mark" they have an Inverse relationship. The more Faith you have the less Evidence you need. The more Evidence you have the less Faith you need. This is why the Disciples follow Jesus at the start, they haven't received any Evidence, they just have Faith. This is why the Disciples Fail Jesus at the end, they had too much Evidence and not enough Faith. This is true of most of the characters in "Mark". The ones with the least Evidence have the most Faith and Verse-Vice.

Therefore, "Mark" not only doesn't need the Evidence of documented resurrection sighting of Jesus, he doesn't want it. He wants you to Believe on Faith, not Evidence.

I think you're Finished Ben with all your examples of "Mark's" supposed positive treatment of the Disciples. And now, as Jim Belushi said in the classic, The Principal, "My Turn".



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

My turn to clarify. I wasn't asking about your basis for thinking Paul differentiated between the Pillars and the "false apostles", I was asking about what you thought Paul's basis for differentiating them was.

I agree it is difficult to understand Paul as lumping the Pillars in with them but I can't help but wonder what the significant difference between the two could have been given that his primary objection appears to be a requirement (ie purity codes) that both apparently held.