Mark's Gospel: The Gopsel Preached by Peter, funded by and created for sailors?

Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14.6; traditionally translated:

While Peter was preaching the word publicly in Rome
and speaking out the gospel by the spirit,
those who were present,
who were many,
called upon Mark,
as having followed him from far back and remembering what was said,
to write up the things that were said,
and having made the gospel
he gave it out to those who had requested it.

With Greek word pictures and reiteration, it reads loosely as:

Peter, publicly in public places in Rome,
Heralded and preached, crying out the declarative Word
And spirituality (of) the Gospel.

That it go out to Pontus [or rather, to Sea],
Those (persons) present -- in truth, certainly many --
Summoned and invited Mark;
As in which manner, perhaps, an attendant follower who might succeed him
From a place at a distance,
And recall to mind, remembering the (very) licks of the words that were spoken
As public records/ recordings.
The Conclusion - what is made a work or creation, then;
the Gospel, bestowed and imparted, given to the company of those
who had earnestly begged, requesting him (for it).



It appears that the proclamation of exeipontos may be read as if
exeimi (to go out to ), and Pontos (Pontus, Sea).

That is, those sailors who travel and merchant between Pontos of the Black Sea and Rome.

The next break, as I read it, follows anagraphai. The preceding word of lechthenton has a three letter root of interest: Lech, which could be stated as "leicho", used in Luke 16:21's "hapeleichon" (licked), meaning “licks”.

For Mark to have to remember the very “licks” of the words of Peter, he would have to be one who accompanied as also proclaimed, with "the precise licks of the tongue" as "precise enunciations". the same Gospel Peter spoke…and to then remember the very licks or enunciations he spake himself, as he translated or echoed the words Peter proclaimed publicly.

In other words, the Gospel of Mark were not “private” teachings…they were “public” proclamations aimed at conversion of the masses. In the case of Polycarp, a bishop of Smyrna who served under John, the motivation was to save people from damnation to an eternal fire that will never be quenched (in the after-life, which would thence be the after-death or second death of them) if they did not convert.

Eusebius also uses the Gospel proclamation as a “logon”, as though a declarative word or reason of historical reality, the same as Clement of Alexandria did, who mentioned a story that was not a story, but a “logos“ / “ declarative word” in “The rich man who finds salvation”, (.42).
Interestingly enough, in that same opening of Clement of Alexandria's “declarative word“ of the rich man in chapter 42, we see that the use of his word “Tyrant”, when used in “The Martyrdom of Polycarp”, .2, was clearly projected as being the “proconsul” of Asia (.3,9,10,11), named Philip (.12), who ordered Polycarp to his death.

So if the region of Pontus had a like tyrant proconsul, what would be the motivation of Mark to write a Gospel for those from Pontus, since he never settled there…or took authority there…but rather ended up in Egypt? Not much.

Outside of Israel, Alexandria held the largest Israeli / Jewish population/concentration in the Roman Empire (according to Josephus). It was specifically a Judean allied stronghold, and the Apostles were, for the most part, Galilean. A like comparison that we might identify with, is that Galileans (in the eyes of many Judeans) were practically despised, as if their bias was like Yankee northerners by a Confederate south in the post-civil war days of our own history. And remember, even under Herod I the Great, and in the years ff. (such as Judas the Galileean, arch-robber who burned down part of Sepphoris) there were many violent and bloody internal conflicts and civil war surges.

Complications arise in confrontations about the past, or in regard to political-religious persuasions more in some places, rather than others. Perhaps Alexandria, until the mid-50s was such a place. For someone like Mark, there would have been a sort of an attraction to proclaim in a very populous city that was largely untouched by the Apostles. It was ideal.

Mark ended his life a leader and a martyr, not just anywhere...he did so in Egypt, and in the third largest city in the Roman Empire...the bread-basket export and “sailor’s” hub of Rome, as it were.


Therefore, we ought to read Eusebius to this effect:

Peter, publicly in public places in Rome,
Heralded and preached, crying out the declarative Word
And spirituality (of) the Gospel.

That it go out to Sea, [abroad]
Those (persons) present -- in truth, certainly many --
Summoned and invited Mark...

We then have hos an akolouthesanta, which speaks of not just an attendant, but of a student able to carry his teacher’s words and succeed him. This hints to us, that there, in June of 57 A.D., a bunch of merchant sailors offered Mark a position as succeeding Peter as an evangelist, 12 days out to Sea in Alexandria of Egypt, if perhaps he could prove his salt by calling to mind the public proclamations of Peter...as it were.

Satellite Interpreters?

We know that the Apostles and their followers vetted the Gospel of Mark. Mark, the one who "from a distance proclaimed publicly (and interpreted) his teacher as if an echo, was likely -- what I express and call -- a Satellite Interpreter.

What is a Satellite Interpreter? A Satellite Interpreter is a probable, but for now theoretic, application of a literary explanation from the Greek, of how the ancient speakers may be projected as having communicated to great crowds of many tens or hundreds of thousands in ancient times. He would need a clear and loud voice, and a very keen ear.

All of the disciples of Jesus -- if this theory is correct -- should be expected to have fulfilled this very same role in and during the ministry of Christ, on at least dozens of occasions when He spoke to multitudes.

The Satellite Interpreter and other relay speakers would stand at a predetermined distance from the one speaking. Either they would surround the speaker, as though equally spaced satellite around a planet, or they could fan out in a semi-circle. The speaker would say a sentence, perhaps several.

The Speaker would pause. Either the Satellite Interpreter would repeat the words as a megaphone in the same language, or he would exactly interpret, word for word, what the speaker said. In the days of Moses, the Captains of the thousands and hundreds would have had to fulfill this, to project Moses words across a distance area occupied by 600,000 soldiers and their families (numbering well over 2,000,000).

The crowds that gathered multi-nationally (such as even in New Testament Rome) would probably have looked for a flag, banner, or something that distinguished the Satellite Interpreter, so that he or she could gravitate immediately to the language they were familiar with, to understand what was being said.

Thus, the art of mass throng speaking, in these ancient times, was dependent upon being able to strike a speak-and-pause rhythm that would not overtake one’s own Satellites. This art of speaking was also used in the arenas, whether or not megaphones were available.

As you read the Gospel of Mark, you read a work that is based exclusively on the recording (or oral stenography, if you will) of the Satellite Interpreter Mark and the public evangelical utterances of an aged, and disabled by his age, Peter in Rome.


Peter's Age in Rome speculated:

Peter and Paul were killed in Rome under the reign of a (ca.) 20 year old Nero on June 29, 57 A.D.

This was some 27 years after the Crucifixion - Death - Resurrection -Ascension of Jesus.

In Acts 15:7 ff., we see that Peter gives up the reigns of primary evangelical preaching to the Gentiles over to Paul and Barnabas.

As a priest and leader of a neo-Sanhedrin, having created a parallelSanhedrin with like rules and religious observances to a great degree, Peter would have likely had to have stepped down in his leadership role of such a Sanhedrin after age 60.

The last leadership role he appears to have is after the death of James -- between 37 and 44 A.D., when Paul and Barnabas were commissioned to preach to the Gentiles following the death of Herod the tetrarch in ca. 41-44 A.D.

So if we benchmark Peter at age 60 in 44 A.D., or perhaps as old as 70 in the May 47 A.D. (the maximum of 10 years after the death of James, if James died in 37) -- we then see from the 47 A.D. Jerusalem conference of Acts 15, that we can potentially date Peter's birth as something to the effect of circa 24 - 17 B.C.

This would make Peter between 43 and 50 when he was called by Jesus to leave his boat in circa September A.D. 26, and between 46 and 53 years old when Christ was crucified in March of A.D. 30. Peter, then, would have been between 71 and 78 when he assisted Paul in founding the Churches of Rome, and between 73 and 80 when he was crucified in Rome, on June 29, 57 A.D. In the harsh conditions of the First Century, to have maintained such an age must have brought about attentative looks.

This age factor may alsobe used to explain Peter's brashness (in the Gospel accounts) as if he were trying to out-zeal the younger disciples about him, who he felt threatened by (because of his middle age).

This (above) age estimate of Peter also falls perfectly with the prophecy of Jesus in John 21, saying:

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

You are not young now, nor above age 50 as yet. But... you will take up your Cross (literally after a sense) as well.

And following this, when he does so take up his Cross, he will (under a dual application of prophecy) be (potentially) old and feeble (as well), not able to dress himself ...firstly dressed and transported by assistants; and when under arrest, he would be dressed by servants and carried off by the guards on the other.

Remember, John likely wrote this Gospel in the weeks or months just following the deaths of Peter and Paul …so we are also being informed of Peter’s state at the end in a “post-prophecy” hindsight.

Therefore, though an old man performing great miracles and healings and witnessing in Rome from May 55 to May 57 (when he was imprisoned by the 30th of May, 57)...Peter would have had great need for the satellite interpreters, human megaphones, to sound forth the Gospel to a hustling and bustling filthy city of well over one million souls, of every language and dialect, from all over the Empire.

And indeed, this system of "satellite interpreters" would have had to be a reality -- after the Israeli national custom -- dating back to Moses day.

So when Mark went to Alexandria, following his delivering Luke’s writing of Paul’s Gospel (Hebrews) and his own Gospel witness to John in Ephesus of Asia; and his pressing on to Jerusalem where a portion of Mark was then taken in the fall of 57 and preserved in Qumran Cave 7 with Dead Sea Scrolls...after visiting these places, it is likely that Alexandria also saw Mark following the Feast of Tabernacles come among them in the first days of November 57 A.D. There, at the harbor and amongst the sailors who already would have honored him by reputation already...the same method used that was used by Peter in Rome, was now employed by Mark and the students of him, along the docks and public places of Alexandria. And despite Mark dying in or about 62 A.D., the churches he founded by succession exist unto this day in the Coptic Churches of Christianity. And these, too, are our brethren in the L-RD. Welcome to them, and Amen.

Brianroy answers reader's questions: Is Mark's Gospel Reliable?

Recently, someone read a Commentary on the Gospel of Mark and got upset about it. So he asked regarding Mark 2:26’s quote of how the soon to be King David “went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” and the verse from 1 Samuel 21:1 reading “Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why [art] thou alone, and no man with thee?”

The one posing the question then noted that 1 Samuel shows that it was Ahimelech not Abiathar, and then asked if the Gospel of Mark was reliable. He also asked this question by pointing to Mark 8:12, which I will address below my answer to Mark 2:26.

So was and is the Gospel of Mark reliable?
The answer was and is: Yes.
The Gospel of Mark is reliable; and secondly, the reader who cited a commentary by somebody else (which is moot here), did not return to the earliest or approved Greek texts for context.

Mark vindicates Jesus on Abiathar
πως εισηλθεν εις τον οικον του θεου επι Αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως και τους αρτους της προθεσεως εφαγεν, ους ουκ εξεστιν φαγειν ει μη τους ιερεις, και εδωκεν και τοις συν αυτω ουσιν;

Jesus states "epi Abiathar archiereos"

"upon" or "about (the time of) / in (the time of) Abiathar the First Priest".

Abiathar's father, Ahimelech was in the office as high priest at the time, until the massacre of the Priests at Nob by Doeg the Edomite in 1 Samuel 22:18-19.

18And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.

19And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword.


In verse 20, Abiathar joins himself to David and becomes First Priest to David.

20And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

But there are plausible explanations. A plausible explanation is defined as acceptable, deserving of applause or approval having the likelihood of just reason and being true. It is what it is. This is the most likely interpretation that exists as read from the Greek in the context of the Greek, to which; there is NO confusion...only proper context that needs to be understood.

Again,
πως εισηλθεν εις τον οικον του θεου επι Αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως και τους αρτους της προθεσεως εφαγεν, ους ουκ εξεστιν φαγειν ει μη τους ιερεις, και εδωκεν και τοις συν αυτω ουσιν; Mark 2:26

Jesus states "epi Abiathar archiereos" "upon" or "about (the time of) / in (the time of) Abiathar the First Priest".

1) Archiereos in the Greek as applied in the Gospels did not always mean the lone High Priest, but in context it could include the 7 elders of the Sanhedrin. Just look at the next three uses in Mark at 8:31, 10:33, 11:18. That means Abiathar was one of the 7 elders and a Kohen who gave David the Matzos, who in turn took that bread outside to the Courts of the Gentiles and gave the bread unto his men. A Kohen who in 1 Samuel 22:18's context of a First Priest was the 86th sanctified priest who wore the linen Ephod, but escaped the massacre at Nob. 86 being the Gematriac of Elohim: G-D.
2) Epi with the Genitive, applies to "the time of" (Acts 11:28, Hebrews 1:2). If the expression "in the time of King David" had been used, when he was anointed but not yet King, would that be so inaccurate when you realize the Greek "epi" means "upon", hence "upon the time of" or "near to the time of"? How long after the eating of the Matzos were the priests killed? And if David appointed Abiathar his First Priest to minister to he and his men, and that distinction when David became King was to be a co-high priest with Zadok (whom Saul appointed) until David died, what then? Hence, the time difference between 1 Samuel 21 and 1 Samuel 22 is testified as a very short duration, perhaps well less than 3 months, bringing the event into the same "season" or the same seasonal cycle and year.

In the Greek, just by looking at the literalist expression of epi, and the Gospel usage of archiereus (the conditioners upon the name and context of Abiathar in its use); these should clearly dismiss the questioner’s doubt or "alleged" contentions regarding Mark 2:26.

------------------------------------------------------

Now, in regard to a concern over Mark 8:12 by the questioner, let’s look at it and its immediate following verse.

12And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
13And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.

When the reader cited Mark 8:12: Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation, he did not seek out what is the history of the recording of Mark and how does this saying compare with the other Gospels on the same quotation. This background knowledge also assuages / removes doubt.

The Gospel of Mark was written by a satellite interpreter and believer called Mark, who for perhaps 2 years in ROME (perhaps many years more elsewhere if part of Peter's traveling entourage) translated Peter’s speeches in Aramaic into Greek or Latin or perhaps one of the Egyptian dialects for the hearers at the places Peter preached his sermons.

When Peter was arrested at the end of May 57 A.D., Mark was approached by those at the Church of Rome to perhaps record what Peter had preached. Only then, Mark so recorded for those in Rome in 57 A.D. the specifics of what he heard Peter preach. But he wrote no less than what he knew he remembered for sure. Peter at this time was now being imprisoned for the desecration and suicide of a living Roman deity / exposed magician, and the wrath of Rome would have been indicative of assuring certain martyrdom unless Peter renounced his faith and swore to faith in the gods of Roman, as Roman law mandated. Since Peter was certain to never renounce Christ, Peter’s fate was sealed.

In the meantime, Mark neither added, nor intentionally took away from what he set down...and so the statement of Mark 8:12 stands as accurately recorded. It is just as accurate as the Old Testament's lacunae in First Samuel chapters 11 mentioned in Josephus' Antiquities Book 6 as found in Qumran Cave 4's / 4QSam's manuscript extant.
“[Na]hash, king of the sons of Ammon, sorely oppressed the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben, and he gouged out [all] their right eyes and struck [quaking fear] in Israel. There was not left one among the sons of Israel [on the other side of the Jordan, whose] right eye was n[ot put out] by Naha[sh, the king] of the sons of Ammon; except those 7,000 men [fleeing fom] the sons of [A]mmon and (who) entered [J]abesh-Gilead. About a month later.… “{the Dead Sea Scroll text continues, now faithfully following with our received texts from 1 Samuel 21:1 ff.}.

Just because there is a minor absence in the text now, an absence that was previously accurately and soundly recorded, we can state concretely that neither 1 Samuel nor Mark is "unreliable". In fact, quite the opposite…they are sound and trustworthy Scriptures.

Mark (who wrote post Luke 11:29
29And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

of 50 A.D.

and post Matthew 12:39,
39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

And post Matthew 16:4,
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

of 55 A.D.)

wrote his satellite interpreter recollections when Peter was imprisoned for 30 days, and Peter was made aware of it before being executed on June 29, 57 A.D.
Mark then left a Greek copy in Rome, delivered copies to John in Ephesus and likely the Church in Jerusalem (where fragments of Mark's Gospel were counted as among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran Cave 7 in Zierstil script), and then founded the Churches of Alexandria, dying in or about in AD 62 as a martyr).

Zierstil Greek script is that writing which dates from ca. 100 B.C. – ca. 60 A.D., though some have erroneously capped this style at 50 A.D.

I have covered all this in the Redating of the New Testament to 47-57 A.D. for those who are interested in the actual history of when the New Testament works were written, with verifiable dating conclusions more accurate than anything currently offered in the text books until they use my dating of the NT as their timelines.