Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary 

    Eusebius also tells us that the faithful of Rome not only  resorted to appeals of every kind,  but also did not 

 let him go till they had persuaded him. 

637

 Where was Mark going that the faithful of Rome should detain 

him until he agreed to write the Gospel? Clearly Mark intended to go on a long journey, for if it were a short 

journey, the faithful of Rome would not have been so anxious to have the Gospel in writing. Could this 

journey have been one of Peter's missionary journeys to those places mentioned in 1 Peter 1:1 (modern day 

Turkey)? No, if Mark did not accompany Peter, because the faithful had already persuaded him before Peter 

departed, then Peter would have known that Mark was writing the Gospel, which was not the case. 

Furthermore, Peter certainly returned to Rome after journeying to various places to preach Christ. If Mark had 

journeyed with Peter, he also would have returned, so that the faithful would not have been so anxious to have 

his teaching in writing. 

    Where did Mark intend to go after he wrote the Gospel? Mark likely intended to go on a long journey 

without Peter, a journey from which he might not return. For this reason, the faithful of Rome were anxious to 

persuade him to write the Gospel. Eusebius wrote that they sought to convince Mark  to leave them in writing 

a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth. 

638

 This phrasing indicates that Mark 

intended to go somewhere distant and perhaps never return, so that the faithful would no longer have access to 

Mark's teaching by his spoken words. Since Peter was away on a long journey of his own, and Mark was 

about to depart also, the faithful of Rome wanted Peter and Mark's teaching in writing. In this way, the 

Gospel of Mark came to be written. 

    Mark did make a long journey from which he did not return; he traveled to Egypt to preach the Gospel. 

 So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria 

he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of 

Christ to his example. 

639

 Mark completed his Gospel before going to Egypt, and, after preaching there for 

many years, he suffered a martyr's death. Mark's Gospel was written sometime before Mark traveled to Egypt. 

One possibility, then, is that the faithful of Rome delayed Mark's missionary journey to Egypt by convincing 

him to first write the Gospel of Mark. 

    It is not possible that Mark's missionary journey of Acts 15:39 was the journey delayed by the writing of the 

Gospel. Just prior to that time, Peter was in Jerusalem for a Council of the Church (

A.D.

 35:1 21). A journey 

to Rome with Peter could not have been the journey which Mark delayed taking in order to write the Gospel, 

because then Peter would have known that Mark was kept from journeying with him in order to write the 

Gospel, which was not the case. Thus the delayed journey could not have been one which Peter and Mark 

intended to take together, but rather one which Mark intended to take alone (and one from which he was not 

likely to return). 

    Nor was the delayed journey the one where Mark joined Barnabas in traveling from Antioch to Cyprus 

(Acts 15:39). Mark is not mentioned in the earlier passage about the Council, but Paul and Barnabas are 

mentioned (Acts 15:1 21). Mark does not seem to have been with Paul and Barnabas at this time. He is also 

not mentioned in the subsequent passage, the one that names those sent to Antioch (Acts 15:22 35). More 

significantly, Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch for some length of time teaching before they decided to set 

out on a missionary journey. Yet Paul would not accept Mark to accompany them on that journey. Paul's 

reason for not accepting Mark was that Mark had  withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone 

with them to the work.  (Acts 15:38). If Mark had been teaching and serving along with Paul and Barnabas in 

Antioch, Paul would have been very unlikely to reject Mark for withdrawing and not doing the work of 

spreading the Gospel. If Paul had accepted Mark to preach with them in Antioch, then he would have 

accepted Mark to preach with them elsewhere. On this basis, I conclude that Mark was not at the Council in 

Jerusalem with Peter, nor did he spend much time with Paul and Barnabas in Antioch. Rather, Mark was 

elsewhere and came to Antioch at a later time, about the time that Paul and Barnabas were planning another 

journey. This journey most likely occurred in spring of 

A.D.

 36, rather than late 

A.D.

 35. Paul and Barnabas 

spent time in Jerusalem in 

A.D.

 35 for the Council. Then they spent much time in Antioch preaching so 

much time that it seemed to them a break from their missionary journeys, and thus did they decide to begin 

missionary journeys anew, as Acts 15:36 tells us. The spring would be a likely time to begin traveling again, 

after wintering in Antioch. Thus, Mark was in Antioch in early 

A.D.

 36, but he was probably not in Jerusalem 

or Antioch in 

A.D.

 35. 

152