What do you think?
Rate this book
The Memoirs of St. Peter: A New Translation of the Gospel According to Mark
"A fresh, vigorous new translation of the Gospel of Mark." — The American Conservative
"Professor Pakaluk provides not only a thrilling new rendering of the ancient Greek text but also provides lively scholarship in the commentary that follows his translation of Mark's sixteen chapters." — The Catholic Thing
"This is a very rewarding version of Mark, and even those who have made long study of the text will find a wise and sensitive guide in Michael Pakaluk." — National Catholic Register
"Pakaluk's translation and commentary offers us a wonderful way to immerse ourselves anew..." — The B.C. Catholic
"Like his translation, Pakaluk's notes do a lot to bring St. Mark and his gospel alive for us."— Aleteia
The Gospel as You Have Never Heard It Before...
At a distance of twenty centuries, the figure of Jesus of Nazareth can seem impossibly obscure—indeed, some skeptics even question whether he existed. And yet we have an eyewitness account of his life, death, and resurrection from one of his closest companions, the Simon Bar-Jona, better known as the Apostle Peter.
Writers from the earliest days of the Church tell us that Peter’s disciple Mark wrote down the apostle’s account of the life of Jesus as he told it to the first Christians in Rome. The vivid, detailed, unadorned prose of the Gospel of Mark conveys the unmistakable immediacy of a first-hand account.
For most readers, however, this immediacy is hidden behind a veil of Greek, the language of the New Testament writers. Four centuries of English translations have achieved nobility of cadence or, more recently, idiomatic accessibility, but the voice of Peter himself has never fully emerged. Until now.
In this strikingly original translation, atten- tive to Peter’s concern to show what it was like to be there, Michael Pakaluk captures the tone and texture of the sherman’s evocative account, leading the reader to a bracing new encounter with Jesus. The accompanying verse-by-verse commentary—less theological than historical—will equip you to experience Mark’s Gospel as the narrative of an eyewitness, drawing you into its scenes, where you will come to know Jesus of Nazareth with new intimacy.
A stunning work of scholarship readily accessible to the layman, The Memoirs of St. Peter belongs on the bookshelf of every serious Christian.
"Professor Pakaluk provides not only a thrilling new rendering of the ancient Greek text but also provides lively scholarship in the commentary that follows his translation of Mark's sixteen chapters." — The Catholic Thing
"This is a very rewarding version of Mark, and even those who have made long study of the text will find a wise and sensitive guide in Michael Pakaluk." — National Catholic Register
"Pakaluk's translation and commentary offers us a wonderful way to immerse ourselves anew..." — The B.C. Catholic
"Like his translation, Pakaluk's notes do a lot to bring St. Mark and his gospel alive for us."— Aleteia
The Gospel as You Have Never Heard It Before...
At a distance of twenty centuries, the figure of Jesus of Nazareth can seem impossibly obscure—indeed, some skeptics even question whether he existed. And yet we have an eyewitness account of his life, death, and resurrection from one of his closest companions, the Simon Bar-Jona, better known as the Apostle Peter.
Writers from the earliest days of the Church tell us that Peter’s disciple Mark wrote down the apostle’s account of the life of Jesus as he told it to the first Christians in Rome. The vivid, detailed, unadorned prose of the Gospel of Mark conveys the unmistakable immediacy of a first-hand account.
For most readers, however, this immediacy is hidden behind a veil of Greek, the language of the New Testament writers. Four centuries of English translations have achieved nobility of cadence or, more recently, idiomatic accessibility, but the voice of Peter himself has never fully emerged. Until now.
In this strikingly original translation, atten- tive to Peter’s concern to show what it was like to be there, Michael Pakaluk captures the tone and texture of the sherman’s evocative account, leading the reader to a bracing new encounter with Jesus. The accompanying verse-by-verse commentary—less theological than historical—will equip you to experience Mark’s Gospel as the narrative of an eyewitness, drawing you into its scenes, where you will come to know Jesus of Nazareth with new intimacy.
A stunning work of scholarship readily accessible to the layman, The Memoirs of St. Peter belongs on the bookshelf of every serious Christian.
256 pages, Hardcover
Published March 5, 2019
64 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
About the author
Michael Pakaluk
21 books19 followersMICHAEL PAKALUK is a professor of ethics and social philosophy in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and a member of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. He earned his undergraduate and doctoral degrees at Harvard and studied as a Marshall Scholar at the University of Edinburgh. An expert in ancient philosophy, he has published widely on Aristotelian ethics and the philosophy of friendship and done groundbreaking work in business ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
September 10, 2019
New translations of the Bible, targeted at a broad audience and done by individuals, rather than committees, seem to be a growth industry. This book, a translation of the Gospel of Saint Mark, joins, among others, Sarah Ruden’s excellent recent work, The Face of Water, which offers both commentary on translation and translation itself, and David Bentley Hart’s 2018 translation of the entire New Testament. The author, Michael Pakaluk, has done an outstanding job of writing a translation that is not daunting, yet is very enlightening, and this is a book well worth reading.
Pakaluk’s goal is to restore the “you are there” feel of the text, mostly simply by using the verb tenses and cadences of Mark’s original Greek. This is a much better way to update the feel of older translations than the “contemporary” translations offered in the 1970s and 1980s, which, in the tiresome way of the time, tried to make Christianity “hip” and “relevant,” and probably “groovy” too, a worthless project then as now, since as this translation shows, Christianity is always relevant. Not to mention that the miserable end of that project is what we see today, that those churches most hip are most empty, or filled with mini-golf courses instead of worshipers, as in the case last month of Rochester Cathedral.
The evangelist Mark switches tenses constantly, and most translations consistently use the past tense in English, rather than switching. Pakaluk says, and it seems right, that keeping Mark’s tense changes and treating the Gospel as, in essence, a spoken narrative leads to enhanced understanding. Someone speaking from memory, Pakaluk correctly points out, often switches tenses, especially as he places himself back into the narrative as if he were still there. This explains Mark’s use of the historical present—using the present tense to refer to an event in the past, which creates an effect of immediacy. Pakaluk retains this usage, and the result feels both different and more right than the translations we are used to.
The translation is backed up with short, but powerful, explanatory notes, which cover background explanations of history and culture; interpretations related to phrasing; ties to other passages of Scripture; and pointers to Saint Peter’s authorship. The result is a compelling and valuable read. That said, I think "The Memoirs of St. Peter" should be a starting point, or part of a larger reading program, not an end, even for reading only Mark. A basic truth for Christians, of all stripes, is that it is valuable to read the Bible in part or in whole, and in particular the Gospels. But reading must be accompanied by understanding, and few of us are capable of full understanding without help. Thus, interpretation is necessary, both to enhance understanding and to not fall into error.
Pakaluk does not claim to provide a complete set of interpretations, merely some explanations that are relevant and which fit with his thesis, that Mark’s Gospel is a record of Peter’s own words. He discusses each chapter briefly, then comments on some, but not all, of the verses, grouped by event. So to get extra detail, I coupled this book with a read of the Navarre Bible’s Gospel of Mark, which is the Revised Standard Edition copiously footnoted from a Roman Catholic perspective. Pakaluk cites and uses various other commentaries, especially the Venerable Bede’s (he wrote one on Mark and one on Luke) and that by Theophylact, an Orthodox archbishop of the eleventh century. You can go very far in this direction; my point is that rounding out any commentary with some other commentaries gives a fuller picture.
All these commentaries, including Pakaluk’s, have little in common with modern pseudo-commentaries, such as those offered by the infamous and mis-named Jesus Seminar. Those are a dime a dozen, or were a few years ago. One main dividing line among commentaries is between those who actually have Christian faith and those who do not, but a second fracture line is focus. That is, if the focus is Jesus Christ and the meaning of his ministry, analysis and commentary will necessarily be different than if the focus is on man, especially modern man, the idol of his age. It is that latter that we were offered for a long time. Fortunately, those pseudo-commentaries by pretend Christians seem to have declined in popularity, because they are no longer needed to provide cover, as we become a post-Christian society, and as many supposedly Christian leaders, from Jen Hatmaker to Pope Francis, feel free to simply ignore the Bible and tradition in preference for Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, and feel no need to conceal their own self-exaltation with sophistical and heretical “commentary.”
To me, raised religious (Roman Catholic) and attending a (Dutch Reformed) elementary school where significant memorization of Bible passages was practiced, all of Mark, and for that matter all the Gospels, and Acts, are very familiar. I tend to assume that’s true for everyone, but of course it’s not, anymore, though it certainly used to be, even fifty or sixty years ago, true for nearly everyone. This included non-Christians, since the stories of the Bible were, and are, woven throughout all high Western culture, and were referred to continuously in conversation, popular media, and political speeches, such that even a pure atheist would know all the significant stories of the Gospels. This is true for core episodes, such as the Resurrection, or the Transfiguration, or the death of John the Baptist, but also true for individual phrases, often used as aphorisms, and usually quoted from the King James Version (the cadences of which often influenced earlier politicians, most notably Lincoln). As a result, much is lost, and increasingly lost, both in the richness of modern discourse, and in the ability to understand crucial speeches and writings of the past. Too bad.
As the title of this book indicates, there is a long tradition that Mark’s Gospel was dictated by, or relied upon direct discussions with, Peter. Pakaluk wholly endorses this tradition, and quite a few of his notes comment on portions of the text that support the tradition. So-called modern textual interpretation often rejects the idea that Mark or Peter had much if anything to do with this Gospel, but Pakaluk does not spend time countering such claims, or nattering on about “Q,” though he does briefly discuss the relationship among the snyoptic Gospels. Mark’s Gospel was the earliest Gospel, it appears, and we know enough about their dates of death that certainly it is plausible that Peter cooperated with Mark in its writing. Moreover, it is recorded that Mark was with Peter in Rome around A.D. 60. Pakaluk believes, and makes a strong case, that the origin of the Gospel of Mark was as an exercise of pastoral care by Saint Peter, showing how he thought the life of Jesus was best presented for the formation of Christian souls, for the collective of which he was responsible, having been appointed to that role by Christ himself.
Subtle phrasings used by Mark suggest an eyewitness; when Pakaluk points them out, it seems obvious, even though we’ve read the same text many times before. In general, these are the types of details that an eyewitness would notice and comment on, but an after-the-fact chronicler, even a sympathetic one, would pass over or, more likely, be unaware of. Mark, of course, was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus’s lifetime, except maybe at the very end, so he wasn’t an eyewitness. The tradition from very early was that Peter was the eyewitness for Mark. In fact, Justin Martyr, in A.D. 150, specifically referred to the Gospel of Mark as “the memoirs of Peter”; Pakaluk’s title is not even original. This does not mean that Peter sat down with Mark to write together, as in the painting on the cover of this book—in fact, given suggestions by Irenaeus that the Gospel of Mark was completed after Peter’s death, perhaps Peter wrote notes, or worked on a rough draft with Mark. It doesn’t really matter; the point is, Pakaluk says, that the Gospel of Mark represents the life of Jesus as experienced, first-hand in almost every particular, by Peter.
Evidence for Peter’s authorship includes that only Mark cites actual words in Aramaic used by Jesus in healings; that Peter is often not referred to by name in Mark’s stories when other Gospels do refer to him by name in the same stories, especially when using his name would draw attention away from Jesus, except when the reference shows Peter in a bad light, when Peter is more often named; and that more detail is added in episodes, such as Peter’s denial of Jesus, where only Peter was present. Aside from facts derived from Peter’s eyewitness, Mark also records, as is common in the Gospels, passages that a later chronicler would likely have sanitized, tidied, or interpolated explanatory information to make the Gospels seems more complete or coherent. Instead, they remain in what seems like their original, orally transmitted, “you are there” state. In addition to sometimes presenting the disciples, especially Peter, in a negative light, and the emphasis on the Crucifixion itself, regarded as disgraceful at the time, there are other untidy elements. For example, in Mark 5, the story of the Gadarene Swine, when Jesus casts out a demon, or demons, and they enter pigs, the demon does not immediately leave the possessed man upon Jesus’s initial command, and then the demon, after identifying himself as “Legion,” “begs and begs [Jesus] not to send them out of that district.” What does that mean? We are not sure, as Pakaluk says, but Mark, in Pakaluk’s interpretation, faithfully simply repeats what Peter, who was there, told him.
Mark, it is traditionally held, inserted his own life obliquely into his Gospel. Of the Gospels, only Mark has the story, in the Garden of Gethsemane, of the young man who fled naked when stripped of his cloak during the violent arrest of Jesus. As Pakaluk discusses, this young man is presumed to have been Mark himself, and his inclusion of the story a type of wry signature, since it would be a strange side-note otherwise with no evident reason for inclusion. Mark is also believed to be the “John Mark” mentioned in, among other places, Acts 12:12, the son of a rich widow, and there is a tradition that she owned the Garden of Gethsemane. That would explain Mark’s presence in the Garden, given that he was not a follower of Jesus at the time, or perhaps had only recently come to be one. None of this has theological impact, but it is an interesting personalization of the Gospel stories, showing how these were all real people with real lives, complex and interwoven.
I’m not qualified to parse any of this chapter by chapter, and you’re best off reading it yourself. Still, two items, one general and one specific, stood out to me. First, Pakaluk points out that, beginning from the first chapter, Mark makes Jesus the message—not what Jesus had to say. That is, Jesus was not primarily some teacher of a new set of morals, as facile moderns often would have it, but the Son of God, come to defeat Satan and to bring life to mankind. The moral precepts flow from his being God; they are not, in the manner of some Eastern swami, the main point. Shot throughout Mark is the related concept that Jesus spoke with authority, and people reacted to him as to someone with authority. Thus, for example, when Jesus threw the money-changers out of the Temple, as Pakaluk notes, “There were temple guards who could be summoned to deal with violent people. It is unlikely that the money-changers suffered from a bad conscience.” In order to command, Jesus must have been seen as possessing authority—the authority of the Son of Man. As a general frame for understanding the Gospels, this seems critically important to me.
Second, and more specifically, Pakaluk points out that eschatology is a particular pastoral concern of Peter’s, appearing also in First Peter. As with each of the Gospels, Christ talks about the end of the world, a topic that I, with my apocalyptic bent, am always interested in hearing about. Mark 13 focuses on two final things: the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of Time itself. In Pakaluk’s translation (quite similar to the RSV), in Mark 13:24–25, after talking of false Christs who will arise toward the end of Time, the real Christ tells four of the disciples (the usual trio of Peter, James, and John, plus Andrew), “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened. The moon will not give its light. The stars will be falling from the heavens. The powers which are in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds, with much power and glory.” Pakaluk notes that while the Church Fathers interpreted the “shaken powers” as angels, as science has advanced, the alternate interpretation of some change in the physical laws of the universe, unknown to the Fathers, seems plausible. (The Navarre commentary suggests something similar, but less specific.) As with the Big Bang and Genesis, it is interesting to me that modern science never contradicts the substance of the Bible, as often assumed by those today in the grips of primitive scientism, and that as our knowledge increases, and gaps in our knowledge also appear (such as what started the Big Bang), the interplay of Christianity and science makes Christianity appear more, rather than less, plausible. And, of course, there are the strange lacunae of areas such as quantum mechanics, where it appears that conscious observation is necessary for certain aspects of reality to snap into non-probabilistic existence, suggesting that man is, perhaps, after all, the focus of the Universe, and it made by God for us. Maybe, therefore, when something dramatic happens to the known basic physical laws of the universe, we will know that the End Times are upon us. You and I probably won’t be here to witness it, but who knows? In the meantime, waiting for such drama, we can enrich ourselves by reading this book—so go ahead, buy a copy.
Pakaluk’s goal is to restore the “you are there” feel of the text, mostly simply by using the verb tenses and cadences of Mark’s original Greek. This is a much better way to update the feel of older translations than the “contemporary” translations offered in the 1970s and 1980s, which, in the tiresome way of the time, tried to make Christianity “hip” and “relevant,” and probably “groovy” too, a worthless project then as now, since as this translation shows, Christianity is always relevant. Not to mention that the miserable end of that project is what we see today, that those churches most hip are most empty, or filled with mini-golf courses instead of worshipers, as in the case last month of Rochester Cathedral.
The evangelist Mark switches tenses constantly, and most translations consistently use the past tense in English, rather than switching. Pakaluk says, and it seems right, that keeping Mark’s tense changes and treating the Gospel as, in essence, a spoken narrative leads to enhanced understanding. Someone speaking from memory, Pakaluk correctly points out, often switches tenses, especially as he places himself back into the narrative as if he were still there. This explains Mark’s use of the historical present—using the present tense to refer to an event in the past, which creates an effect of immediacy. Pakaluk retains this usage, and the result feels both different and more right than the translations we are used to.
The translation is backed up with short, but powerful, explanatory notes, which cover background explanations of history and culture; interpretations related to phrasing; ties to other passages of Scripture; and pointers to Saint Peter’s authorship. The result is a compelling and valuable read. That said, I think "The Memoirs of St. Peter" should be a starting point, or part of a larger reading program, not an end, even for reading only Mark. A basic truth for Christians, of all stripes, is that it is valuable to read the Bible in part or in whole, and in particular the Gospels. But reading must be accompanied by understanding, and few of us are capable of full understanding without help. Thus, interpretation is necessary, both to enhance understanding and to not fall into error.
Pakaluk does not claim to provide a complete set of interpretations, merely some explanations that are relevant and which fit with his thesis, that Mark’s Gospel is a record of Peter’s own words. He discusses each chapter briefly, then comments on some, but not all, of the verses, grouped by event. So to get extra detail, I coupled this book with a read of the Navarre Bible’s Gospel of Mark, which is the Revised Standard Edition copiously footnoted from a Roman Catholic perspective. Pakaluk cites and uses various other commentaries, especially the Venerable Bede’s (he wrote one on Mark and one on Luke) and that by Theophylact, an Orthodox archbishop of the eleventh century. You can go very far in this direction; my point is that rounding out any commentary with some other commentaries gives a fuller picture.
All these commentaries, including Pakaluk’s, have little in common with modern pseudo-commentaries, such as those offered by the infamous and mis-named Jesus Seminar. Those are a dime a dozen, or were a few years ago. One main dividing line among commentaries is between those who actually have Christian faith and those who do not, but a second fracture line is focus. That is, if the focus is Jesus Christ and the meaning of his ministry, analysis and commentary will necessarily be different than if the focus is on man, especially modern man, the idol of his age. It is that latter that we were offered for a long time. Fortunately, those pseudo-commentaries by pretend Christians seem to have declined in popularity, because they are no longer needed to provide cover, as we become a post-Christian society, and as many supposedly Christian leaders, from Jen Hatmaker to Pope Francis, feel free to simply ignore the Bible and tradition in preference for Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, and feel no need to conceal their own self-exaltation with sophistical and heretical “commentary.”
To me, raised religious (Roman Catholic) and attending a (Dutch Reformed) elementary school where significant memorization of Bible passages was practiced, all of Mark, and for that matter all the Gospels, and Acts, are very familiar. I tend to assume that’s true for everyone, but of course it’s not, anymore, though it certainly used to be, even fifty or sixty years ago, true for nearly everyone. This included non-Christians, since the stories of the Bible were, and are, woven throughout all high Western culture, and were referred to continuously in conversation, popular media, and political speeches, such that even a pure atheist would know all the significant stories of the Gospels. This is true for core episodes, such as the Resurrection, or the Transfiguration, or the death of John the Baptist, but also true for individual phrases, often used as aphorisms, and usually quoted from the King James Version (the cadences of which often influenced earlier politicians, most notably Lincoln). As a result, much is lost, and increasingly lost, both in the richness of modern discourse, and in the ability to understand crucial speeches and writings of the past. Too bad.
As the title of this book indicates, there is a long tradition that Mark’s Gospel was dictated by, or relied upon direct discussions with, Peter. Pakaluk wholly endorses this tradition, and quite a few of his notes comment on portions of the text that support the tradition. So-called modern textual interpretation often rejects the idea that Mark or Peter had much if anything to do with this Gospel, but Pakaluk does not spend time countering such claims, or nattering on about “Q,” though he does briefly discuss the relationship among the snyoptic Gospels. Mark’s Gospel was the earliest Gospel, it appears, and we know enough about their dates of death that certainly it is plausible that Peter cooperated with Mark in its writing. Moreover, it is recorded that Mark was with Peter in Rome around A.D. 60. Pakaluk believes, and makes a strong case, that the origin of the Gospel of Mark was as an exercise of pastoral care by Saint Peter, showing how he thought the life of Jesus was best presented for the formation of Christian souls, for the collective of which he was responsible, having been appointed to that role by Christ himself.
Subtle phrasings used by Mark suggest an eyewitness; when Pakaluk points them out, it seems obvious, even though we’ve read the same text many times before. In general, these are the types of details that an eyewitness would notice and comment on, but an after-the-fact chronicler, even a sympathetic one, would pass over or, more likely, be unaware of. Mark, of course, was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus’s lifetime, except maybe at the very end, so he wasn’t an eyewitness. The tradition from very early was that Peter was the eyewitness for Mark. In fact, Justin Martyr, in A.D. 150, specifically referred to the Gospel of Mark as “the memoirs of Peter”; Pakaluk’s title is not even original. This does not mean that Peter sat down with Mark to write together, as in the painting on the cover of this book—in fact, given suggestions by Irenaeus that the Gospel of Mark was completed after Peter’s death, perhaps Peter wrote notes, or worked on a rough draft with Mark. It doesn’t really matter; the point is, Pakaluk says, that the Gospel of Mark represents the life of Jesus as experienced, first-hand in almost every particular, by Peter.
Evidence for Peter’s authorship includes that only Mark cites actual words in Aramaic used by Jesus in healings; that Peter is often not referred to by name in Mark’s stories when other Gospels do refer to him by name in the same stories, especially when using his name would draw attention away from Jesus, except when the reference shows Peter in a bad light, when Peter is more often named; and that more detail is added in episodes, such as Peter’s denial of Jesus, where only Peter was present. Aside from facts derived from Peter’s eyewitness, Mark also records, as is common in the Gospels, passages that a later chronicler would likely have sanitized, tidied, or interpolated explanatory information to make the Gospels seems more complete or coherent. Instead, they remain in what seems like their original, orally transmitted, “you are there” state. In addition to sometimes presenting the disciples, especially Peter, in a negative light, and the emphasis on the Crucifixion itself, regarded as disgraceful at the time, there are other untidy elements. For example, in Mark 5, the story of the Gadarene Swine, when Jesus casts out a demon, or demons, and they enter pigs, the demon does not immediately leave the possessed man upon Jesus’s initial command, and then the demon, after identifying himself as “Legion,” “begs and begs [Jesus] not to send them out of that district.” What does that mean? We are not sure, as Pakaluk says, but Mark, in Pakaluk’s interpretation, faithfully simply repeats what Peter, who was there, told him.
Mark, it is traditionally held, inserted his own life obliquely into his Gospel. Of the Gospels, only Mark has the story, in the Garden of Gethsemane, of the young man who fled naked when stripped of his cloak during the violent arrest of Jesus. As Pakaluk discusses, this young man is presumed to have been Mark himself, and his inclusion of the story a type of wry signature, since it would be a strange side-note otherwise with no evident reason for inclusion. Mark is also believed to be the “John Mark” mentioned in, among other places, Acts 12:12, the son of a rich widow, and there is a tradition that she owned the Garden of Gethsemane. That would explain Mark’s presence in the Garden, given that he was not a follower of Jesus at the time, or perhaps had only recently come to be one. None of this has theological impact, but it is an interesting personalization of the Gospel stories, showing how these were all real people with real lives, complex and interwoven.
I’m not qualified to parse any of this chapter by chapter, and you’re best off reading it yourself. Still, two items, one general and one specific, stood out to me. First, Pakaluk points out that, beginning from the first chapter, Mark makes Jesus the message—not what Jesus had to say. That is, Jesus was not primarily some teacher of a new set of morals, as facile moderns often would have it, but the Son of God, come to defeat Satan and to bring life to mankind. The moral precepts flow from his being God; they are not, in the manner of some Eastern swami, the main point. Shot throughout Mark is the related concept that Jesus spoke with authority, and people reacted to him as to someone with authority. Thus, for example, when Jesus threw the money-changers out of the Temple, as Pakaluk notes, “There were temple guards who could be summoned to deal with violent people. It is unlikely that the money-changers suffered from a bad conscience.” In order to command, Jesus must have been seen as possessing authority—the authority of the Son of Man. As a general frame for understanding the Gospels, this seems critically important to me.
Second, and more specifically, Pakaluk points out that eschatology is a particular pastoral concern of Peter’s, appearing also in First Peter. As with each of the Gospels, Christ talks about the end of the world, a topic that I, with my apocalyptic bent, am always interested in hearing about. Mark 13 focuses on two final things: the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of Time itself. In Pakaluk’s translation (quite similar to the RSV), in Mark 13:24–25, after talking of false Christs who will arise toward the end of Time, the real Christ tells four of the disciples (the usual trio of Peter, James, and John, plus Andrew), “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened. The moon will not give its light. The stars will be falling from the heavens. The powers which are in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds, with much power and glory.” Pakaluk notes that while the Church Fathers interpreted the “shaken powers” as angels, as science has advanced, the alternate interpretation of some change in the physical laws of the universe, unknown to the Fathers, seems plausible. (The Navarre commentary suggests something similar, but less specific.) As with the Big Bang and Genesis, it is interesting to me that modern science never contradicts the substance of the Bible, as often assumed by those today in the grips of primitive scientism, and that as our knowledge increases, and gaps in our knowledge also appear (such as what started the Big Bang), the interplay of Christianity and science makes Christianity appear more, rather than less, plausible. And, of course, there are the strange lacunae of areas such as quantum mechanics, where it appears that conscious observation is necessary for certain aspects of reality to snap into non-probabilistic existence, suggesting that man is, perhaps, after all, the focus of the Universe, and it made by God for us. Maybe, therefore, when something dramatic happens to the known basic physical laws of the universe, we will know that the End Times are upon us. You and I probably won’t be here to witness it, but who knows? In the meantime, waiting for such drama, we can enrich ourselves by reading this book—so go ahead, buy a copy.
July 18, 2020
This book reinforces the idea that if I were not so old, I would learn Latin, Greek or Hebrew to be able to read the Scriptures not in translation.
This was a great substitute for that unattainable academic exercise!
This was a great substitute for that unattainable academic exercise!
June 19, 2021
A great meditation on the Gospel of Mark! The books begins with an explanation of the premise for this version: That St. Peter was the source of for St. Mark's Gospel. This theory (grounded in the unanimous testimony of the Fathers) then shapes the commentary throughout. Really a great introduction to the Gospel, whether you have read it many times or are new to reading Scripture.
January 22, 2024
This was everything the description promised — fresh, vibrant, and insightful.
November 23, 2021
A stunningly excellent work. Indispensable for Markan scholars, but a treasure for anyone who loves Mark or the Gospels in general. His translation is magnificent, capturing the fast pace and action of the narrative as told to Mark by Peter. Tremendous insights and exegesis bring to light aspects of the Gospel message I was not aware of or had not considered. As I have often told my Bible study participants, never overlook any words or details of a passage you are studying or contemplating. This approach is exemplified in Pakaluk's book. I am tempted to use this in a Bible study for this reason and so many more. Whether you use it in this way or just for personal knowledge and devotion, I cannot recommend it more highly. He has already written a commentary on John, and Matthew is forthcoming. I look forward to that volume and hope the author completes all the Gospels and more books of the Bible.
January 4, 2021
My path to finding this book and reading it is quite interesting. I don't usually read the articles in THE CATHOLIC THING. But when I saw the title "Doing Justice to St. Joseph" by Michael Pakuluk,
December 22nd, I was intrigued. Toward the end of the article he quotes from St. Jerome, Rabanus and Origen. With a degree of humility he ends the post this way: "Just a few reflections with which to begin the Year of the remarkable St. Joseph."
In the brief information about the author I found out that he is an Aristotle scholar and teaches in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University, but he is author of "His acclaimed book on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter."
Ever since taking a course on Mark's Gospel with Fr. Donald Senior, CP at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, I have continued to study, teach and preach on this Gospel. So I bought this "acclaimed book" and read it in three days. The author's facility with Greek comes through many times, especially in Greek tenses. The review of Brad Miner in the The Catholic Thing was heavy on this aspect of the book and gently touched on the Commentary part.
The top critical view stated: "Ignores most biblical scholarship of the last 80 years. For Catholics and main line Protestants this ought to disappoint. The author lightly employs the Historical-Critical Method of interpretation. Very literal bordering on fundamentalist. Such a reading "misses the Mark" (pun intended)."
This review captures some of my own misgivings about the book. I was troubled that the author goes to the "Divinity" of Jesus right from the beginning and continues to stress this as the commentaries go on. For me Mark presents the "human" side of Jesus very effectively.
"Harmonization" is mentioned quite a few times, but my biblical training has taught me against harmonization.
The author states, p.xxv, "..I am solely interested in what is called the "literal" sense of Scripture." But then he goes on to list four main senses of Scripture: literal, moral, allegorical, and analogical. Only in Chapter 9 does the author, seven times, speak of "the allegorical dimension."
Another reviewer of the book stated: " three stars is for the overt Catholic biases throughout the commentary.... the author points to vague areas to point out why Catholics believe what they believe, which often felt very unconvincing to this lifelong Protestant. The author and I both have our biases of course, but it felt like some of the dogma could have been left out for sure."
I come out of the Roman Catholic tradition, but now identify as "a follower of Jesus." I gave it 3 stars also because of similar reactions to certain commentaries in the book.
Another reviewer recommended reading the author's translation through without interruption from the commentary and reading it a second time with commentary. I intend to do that. I also will have to go back over the markings I have made because they represent which passages spoke most powerfully to me. And there are many.
December 22nd, I was intrigued. Toward the end of the article he quotes from St. Jerome, Rabanus and Origen. With a degree of humility he ends the post this way: "Just a few reflections with which to begin the Year of the remarkable St. Joseph."
In the brief information about the author I found out that he is an Aristotle scholar and teaches in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University, but he is author of "His acclaimed book on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter."
Ever since taking a course on Mark's Gospel with Fr. Donald Senior, CP at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, I have continued to study, teach and preach on this Gospel. So I bought this "acclaimed book" and read it in three days. The author's facility with Greek comes through many times, especially in Greek tenses. The review of Brad Miner in the The Catholic Thing was heavy on this aspect of the book and gently touched on the Commentary part.
The top critical view stated: "Ignores most biblical scholarship of the last 80 years. For Catholics and main line Protestants this ought to disappoint. The author lightly employs the Historical-Critical Method of interpretation. Very literal bordering on fundamentalist. Such a reading "misses the Mark" (pun intended)."
This review captures some of my own misgivings about the book. I was troubled that the author goes to the "Divinity" of Jesus right from the beginning and continues to stress this as the commentaries go on. For me Mark presents the "human" side of Jesus very effectively.
"Harmonization" is mentioned quite a few times, but my biblical training has taught me against harmonization.
The author states, p.xxv, "..I am solely interested in what is called the "literal" sense of Scripture." But then he goes on to list four main senses of Scripture: literal, moral, allegorical, and analogical. Only in Chapter 9 does the author, seven times, speak of "the allegorical dimension."
Another reviewer of the book stated: " three stars is for the overt Catholic biases throughout the commentary.... the author points to vague areas to point out why Catholics believe what they believe, which often felt very unconvincing to this lifelong Protestant. The author and I both have our biases of course, but it felt like some of the dogma could have been left out for sure."
I come out of the Roman Catholic tradition, but now identify as "a follower of Jesus." I gave it 3 stars also because of similar reactions to certain commentaries in the book.
Another reviewer recommended reading the author's translation through without interruption from the commentary and reading it a second time with commentary. I intend to do that. I also will have to go back over the markings I have made because they represent which passages spoke most powerfully to me. And there are many.
February 21, 2025
The Gospel of St Mark is the shortest, roughest, rawest of the Gospels. It’s written in Koine Greek, like the other Gospels, but it’s significantly less polished than the Greek of the other three Gospels. It’s now generally agreed by scholars to be the earliest Gospel to be written.
In this new translation, Michael Pakaluk keeps the original roughness rather than smoothing it out as most translations do. He retains the tense switching, where the Gospel moves in the same scene from the past tense to the present tense and back again. He includes the breathless ‘and thens’ and ‘immediatelys’ and the other connectives. And in doing so he demonstrates well his basic point: that this Gospel is the written record of Peter’s own account of Jesus’s life and death.
In 1977, the actor Alec McCowen, one of the greatest actors of his generation, stood on stage and recited all of Mark’s Gospel, from memory, at the University Theatre in Newcastle. He went on to tell the story at the Riverside Studios, the West End and Broadway. It took about an hour and a half.
Peter, telling his tale to listeners sitting around him, would have taken about the same length of time. Speaking as the witness to these events, he often omits his own name where the other Gospels name him. He includes the actual Aramaic words Jesus spoke. And the whole text is suffused with the sense of breathtaking urgency that comes from someone who watched this all unfold without the slightest notion of how the story would play out.
As such, it’s a way of reading the Gospel in a manner as close as is possible to those first hearers, sitting clustered around the big fisherman telling his story with the same astonished urgency with which he first witnessed it.
In this new translation, Michael Pakaluk keeps the original roughness rather than smoothing it out as most translations do. He retains the tense switching, where the Gospel moves in the same scene from the past tense to the present tense and back again. He includes the breathless ‘and thens’ and ‘immediatelys’ and the other connectives. And in doing so he demonstrates well his basic point: that this Gospel is the written record of Peter’s own account of Jesus’s life and death.
In 1977, the actor Alec McCowen, one of the greatest actors of his generation, stood on stage and recited all of Mark’s Gospel, from memory, at the University Theatre in Newcastle. He went on to tell the story at the Riverside Studios, the West End and Broadway. It took about an hour and a half.
Peter, telling his tale to listeners sitting around him, would have taken about the same length of time. Speaking as the witness to these events, he often omits his own name where the other Gospels name him. He includes the actual Aramaic words Jesus spoke. And the whole text is suffused with the sense of breathtaking urgency that comes from someone who watched this all unfold without the slightest notion of how the story would play out.
As such, it’s a way of reading the Gospel in a manner as close as is possible to those first hearers, sitting clustered around the big fisherman telling his story with the same astonished urgency with which he first witnessed it.
June 22, 2022
Very long but in some parts quite an interesting take on the events. Quite liberal in thought. Example. Jesus healing a woman. He says well surely she had her hands up and helped him. But no where does it say that and if you are to truly believe he is a miracle worker than did she really need to help him! Well there are many instances but if people don’t know the books then what do they know they believe anyone that comes across and explains their version, is that not what the Bible already is.
I do like the format and how they read the text then add “commentary” before the discussion.
Towards the end he thanks everyone and especially the editor and I really cannot see this very long book any longer so I cannot imagine the work of the editor so my special thanks to her. Now, to just add in other people opinions without citations or explanations I’m quite against that and more needs to be explained vs just say Augustine said this or that. Who cares, right.
I do like the format and how they read the text then add “commentary” before the discussion.
Towards the end he thanks everyone and especially the editor and I really cannot see this very long book any longer so I cannot imagine the work of the editor so my special thanks to her. Now, to just add in other people opinions without citations or explanations I’m quite against that and more needs to be explained vs just say Augustine said this or that. Who cares, right.
February 1, 2020
Very enjoyable read. Essentially a commentary along with a new translation. Translation is very readable and the commentary is thought provoking. I believe the author is Catholic, which is new to me, as I more commonly read Evangelical commentary. The areas of similarity and difference were both interesting to note. Obviously I would not interpret some of these passages the same way he did, but he justifies his interpretation and it’s worth a discussion.
Recommend for anyone interested in a good devotional read.
Recommend for anyone interested in a good devotional read.
December 18, 2021
I was surprised by this book when I began reading it. I thought it would be something on the missing Gospel of Peter and instead I was informed by this scholar that he things the Gospel of Mark was a dictation of Peter's story. I loved this book for the insight it had on who Peter was and who he was trying to reach in this the oldest Gospel. The parables, the way Peter told the story, all made for a fascinating reading.
July 26, 2024
What a great writer Pakaluk is - I'm so happy to have found this book. And I'm eagerly in search of other books he's authored that offer a harmonious and rich spirituality behind a quick paced storytelling. If you're looking for a Gospel of St. Mark come to life with unique and deeply meditated context, then pick this one up. You won't be disappointed. Really a quick read and well organized I must say!
March 10, 2022
A really great book. Pakaluk translates the original text as it was written, which was from the spoken word relayed from Peter to Mark. And so it conserves the story telling or as-if-you-were-there nature (the historical present tense). Lots of good little analyses and commentary, like on how certain phrases indicate a first-person witness to the account.
July 12, 2023
I love the Gospel of Mark. When I heard this idea that it’s the remembrance of St Peter, I had to pick up the translation. It took what I loved about Mark, it’s immediacy and veracity, and enhances it mainly by putting the words back into their original tenses, giving it the air of a live recollection over a story.
February 11, 2020
Entirely eye opening and illuminating reading of Mark. Pakaluk's translation is immediate and engrossing and the commentary insightful and penetrating. I especially appreciated the references to Pseudo-Jerome (new to me) and Bede.
I'll be recommending to many friends.
I'll be recommending to many friends.
February 18, 2020
I like the rationale for the book being a translation based on the immediacy of the original writing of an eye-witness account. Also, his extensive commentary was very insightful. Maybe not one for the bookshelf as I don’t see myself reading it again but enjoyable fairly quick read.
October 6, 2020
I couldn’t finish this book. I got a few chapters in and it became clear that the author was more concerned with defending church structure than actually explaining the text. There are some gems, but most of them come from the church fathers.
September 24, 2019
This is an exceptional book! Please, please read it and enjoy it for yourself!
March 21, 2020
My copy of this commentary on the gospel of Mark was audio. It is a great book, but I look forward to getting a hard copy. There is just too much of value in it to remember otherwise.
June 24, 2020
Deep. Hard to speed through, but diligently thought out and very thought-provoking and informative.
February 12, 2022
Excellent book. I really appreciated the new translation as well as the commentary. I did not know previously that Mark was writing Peter's firsthand account. It makes a lot of sense.
January 14, 2023
Very good. Bit Jesusy
April 20, 2019
*Please note that this is a hardcover edition. Goodreads wouldn't let me change from a kindle edition, no matter what I tried to do. I generally prefer hardcovers just for the feeling of holding and marking the book.
This year for my Holy Week reading, I picked a book I had just recently run across, “The Memoirs of St. Peter,” by Michael Pakaluk. The subtitle indicates precisely what this book is about: “A New Translation of the Gospel According to Mark.” Pakaluk’s study is well researched and well written; he provides his—fresh—translation of each chapter of Mark’s Gospel, followed by a commentary on the various phrases, sentences, themes, and ideas in that chapter. He is also able to give us an overview of each chapter because he takes each one as a separate unit, dedicated to providing Christians with a sense of what Jesus was teaching and how He intended His Church to develop. After reading his translations and his erudite commentary, I will never look at St. Mark’s Gospel the same way. Pakaluk’s language and careful attention to things like verb tenses restore the immediacy of the events so that they come alive on the page.
Particularly helpful is the introduction, which explains the tradition of the early Church that saw this Gospel as Mark’s writing down what Peter remembered for audiences that were either not alive or not in Jerusalem at the time of Christ. Pakaluk also examines the internal evidence in the gospel for Peter as the source of the information, and he accounts for divergencies among the synoptic gospels. He makes his case well and does so in the name of devotion, writing “this book for those who seek Christ.” The Christ who emerges from this translation is most definitely the Son of God, always aware of His relationship to the Father, His mission of redemption on earth, and the establishment of His Church on the imperfect rock that is Peter but guided by the Spirit.
My favorite parts were Pakaluk’s explications of the parables, finding in them greater depth than the treatment they are usually given and making it clear which of the teachings should be treated as parables and which not. In addition, he refers to a number of Fathers and Doctors of the Church to substantiate his arguments at important points, and his interpretations of Greek words and phrases is illuminating. He takes great care to analyze the text and pays close attention to the actions and words of the people in this recounting of Jesus’ life, so that any fuzzy or unclear spots are examined and explained. All in all, this is a work of great love and dedication, of deeply held beliefs and principles, and of years of study and energy directed toward one end: understanding Peter’s experience of the Christ and how he carries on the Lord’s teachings after the Resurrection and Ascension. This is a work well worth the time to read and to pore over.
This year for my Holy Week reading, I picked a book I had just recently run across, “The Memoirs of St. Peter,” by Michael Pakaluk. The subtitle indicates precisely what this book is about: “A New Translation of the Gospel According to Mark.” Pakaluk’s study is well researched and well written; he provides his—fresh—translation of each chapter of Mark’s Gospel, followed by a commentary on the various phrases, sentences, themes, and ideas in that chapter. He is also able to give us an overview of each chapter because he takes each one as a separate unit, dedicated to providing Christians with a sense of what Jesus was teaching and how He intended His Church to develop. After reading his translations and his erudite commentary, I will never look at St. Mark’s Gospel the same way. Pakaluk’s language and careful attention to things like verb tenses restore the immediacy of the events so that they come alive on the page.
Particularly helpful is the introduction, which explains the tradition of the early Church that saw this Gospel as Mark’s writing down what Peter remembered for audiences that were either not alive or not in Jerusalem at the time of Christ. Pakaluk also examines the internal evidence in the gospel for Peter as the source of the information, and he accounts for divergencies among the synoptic gospels. He makes his case well and does so in the name of devotion, writing “this book for those who seek Christ.” The Christ who emerges from this translation is most definitely the Son of God, always aware of His relationship to the Father, His mission of redemption on earth, and the establishment of His Church on the imperfect rock that is Peter but guided by the Spirit.
My favorite parts were Pakaluk’s explications of the parables, finding in them greater depth than the treatment they are usually given and making it clear which of the teachings should be treated as parables and which not. In addition, he refers to a number of Fathers and Doctors of the Church to substantiate his arguments at important points, and his interpretations of Greek words and phrases is illuminating. He takes great care to analyze the text and pays close attention to the actions and words of the people in this recounting of Jesus’ life, so that any fuzzy or unclear spots are examined and explained. All in all, this is a work of great love and dedication, of deeply held beliefs and principles, and of years of study and energy directed toward one end: understanding Peter’s experience of the Christ and how he carries on the Lord’s teachings after the Resurrection and Ascension. This is a work well worth the time to read and to pore over.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews