Mark, who was interpreter to Peter, wrote down very accurately what he

stated regarding the words and deeds of Christ. But he did not write
them in chronological order, because he had neither heard the Lord nor
followed Him. He paid particular attention to one point, that is, to omit
nothing of what he had heard, nor to add any falsehood to them
(Enchiridion Patristicum, 95).
The Church’s tradition associates the second Gospel with the city of Rome.
We
may, therefore, surmise that Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of the
faithful
who wished to possess in writing what St. Peter had preached. Evidence of
its
composition outside of Palestine is the fact that Hebrew words are explained
by
giving their Greek equivalents. Also, comments are made about Jewish
customs
(for example 5:41, 7:3, 14:12, 15:22, 34, 42) for the benefit of people
unfamiliar
with Judaism.
There are indications that St. Peter had a hand in writing this Gospel. Thus
the
events are related as by an eyewitness. There are more references to Peter
than in
any other Gospel. Though other events are given only briefly, Peter’s denial
of his
Master is narrated in great detail, while passing over Peter’s special
commission
from Christ.
The second
Mark, who was interpreter to Peter, wrote down very accurately what he
stated regarding the words and deeds of Christ. But he did not write
them in chronological order, because he had neither heard the Lord nor
followed Him. He paid particular attention to one point, that is, to omit
nothing of what he had heard, nor to add any falsehood to them
(Enchiridion Patristicum, 95).
The Church’s tradition associates the second Gospel with the city of Rome.
We
may, therefore, surmise that Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of the
faithful
who wished to possess in writing what St. Peter had preached. Evidence of
its
composition outside of Palestine is the fact that Hebrew words are explained
by
giving their Greek equivalents. Also, comments are made about Jewish
customs
(for example 5:41, 7:3, 14:12, 15:22, 34, 42) for the benefit of people
unfamiliar
with Judaism.
There are indications that St. Peter had a hand in writing this Gospel. Thus
the
events are related as by an eyewitness. There are more references to Peter
than in
any other Gospel. Though other events are given only briefly, Peter’s denial
of his
Master is narrated in great detail, while passing over Peter’s special
commission
from Christ.
The second
Mark, who was interpreter to Peter, wrote down very accurately what he
stated regarding the words and deeds of Christ. But he did not write
them in chronological order, because he had neither heard the Lord nor
followed Him. He paid particular attention to one point, that is, to omit
nothing of what he had heard, nor to add any falsehood to them
(Enchiridion Patristicum, 95).
The Church’s tradition associates the second Gospel with the city of Rome.
We
may, therefore, surmise that Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of the
faithful
who wished to possess in writing what St. Peter had preached. Evidence of
its
composition outside of Palestine is the fact that Hebrew words are explained
by
giving their Greek equivalents. Also, comments are made about Jewish
customs
(for example 5:41, 7:3, 14:12, 15:22, 34, 42) for the benefit of people
unfamiliar
with Judaism.
There are indications that St. Peter had a hand in writing this Gospel. Thus
the
events are related as by an eyewitness. There are more references to Peter
than in
any other Gospel. Though other events are given only briefly, Peter’s denial
of his
Master is narrated in great detail, while passing over Peter’s special
commission
from Christ.
The second