06-03-2008, 07:44 AM
[ p.109-110; 112, Mark]
In what sense did Mark become the ???interpreter??? of Peter? The word in itself (??????????????????????) can mean either interpreter of the words, a translator, or interpreter of the thought, a kind of amanuensis or secretary. Both these interpretations are acceptable and in fact have been accepted. After all, it is possible that both apply successively in that Peter ??? who in the first years of his apostolate outside Palestine must have known little Greek and less Latin ??? could have used Mark first as an interpreter in the modern sense of the term and later as an amanuensis and secretary ???..
Later testimony confirms and defines that of the Presbyter and Papias. In the middle of the second century, St. Justin Martyr, in citing a fact contained only in this Gospel (Mark 3:17), says that it is in the ???Memoirs??? (???????????????????????????????) of Peter (Dial. cum Tryph., 106); this designation does not suggest that Justin is referring to some apocryphal writing ??? for which in any case there exists no evidence ??? but rather proves that he considers the writing of the ???interpreter??? of St. Peter a faithful reproduction of the latter???s teaching ???..
Many other later testimonies confirm this same point ???..
As for internal evidence, there are notable traces of this Gospel???s particular origin ???..
Mark???s description of events is vivid and straightforward, and he includes unexpected details often lacking in the other two Synoptics; yet his Greek is poor, his sentences unadorned and even crude, his style elementary and uniform. We seem to be reading the letter of an intelligent rustic who is describing the wonderful events he has witnessed. The narrative of such a writer will be all the more vivid and direct the more profoundly he has been impressed and the more simple and limited are the literary mechanics at his disposal ???..
While Peter needed Mark as an ???interpreter???, the latter in his turn must have had a bare working knowledge of foreign languages, being neither an accomplished man of letters nor even a writer with the experience of Luke or Paul or the stylist of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the course of his instructions Peter had told his story in the simple but powerfully effective manner of the eyewitness, and his interpreter set it in writing with whatever ingenuous skill he possessed.
In what sense did Mark become the ???interpreter??? of Peter? The word in itself (??????????????????????) can mean either interpreter of the words, a translator, or interpreter of the thought, a kind of amanuensis or secretary. Both these interpretations are acceptable and in fact have been accepted. After all, it is possible that both apply successively in that Peter ??? who in the first years of his apostolate outside Palestine must have known little Greek and less Latin ??? could have used Mark first as an interpreter in the modern sense of the term and later as an amanuensis and secretary ???..
Later testimony confirms and defines that of the Presbyter and Papias. In the middle of the second century, St. Justin Martyr, in citing a fact contained only in this Gospel (Mark 3:17), says that it is in the ???Memoirs??? (???????????????????????????????) of Peter (Dial. cum Tryph., 106); this designation does not suggest that Justin is referring to some apocryphal writing ??? for which in any case there exists no evidence ??? but rather proves that he considers the writing of the ???interpreter??? of St. Peter a faithful reproduction of the latter???s teaching ???..
Many other later testimonies confirm this same point ???..
As for internal evidence, there are notable traces of this Gospel???s particular origin ???..
Mark???s description of events is vivid and straightforward, and he includes unexpected details often lacking in the other two Synoptics; yet his Greek is poor, his sentences unadorned and even crude, his style elementary and uniform. We seem to be reading the letter of an intelligent rustic who is describing the wonderful events he has witnessed. The narrative of such a writer will be all the more vivid and direct the more profoundly he has been impressed and the more simple and limited are the literary mechanics at his disposal ???..
While Peter needed Mark as an ???interpreter???, the latter in his turn must have had a bare working knowledge of foreign languages, being neither an accomplished man of letters nor even a writer with the experience of Luke or Paul or the stylist of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the course of his instructions Peter had told his story in the simple but powerfully effective manner of the eyewitness, and his interpreter set it in writing with whatever ingenuous skill he possessed.