Redating the New Testament

to 47 - 57/58 A.D.
(-2/3 John)

Issues with the Chronology of New Testament Dating using the Historical Method
at the same face value as any historical literary sources of antiquity demands that
we date the entire New Testament, with the exception of 2 John, and 3 John to
within an approximate 11 to 12 year overall time frame.
 Preface: An early dating of the New Testament is grounded in the historical
anamnesis and witness of those of the generation, which saw, heard, and physically touched
Jesus Christ. In contrast, it is those who choose to do what the scribes and Pharisees did to the
masses while Jesus taught or performed miracles -- to commit apodokimazo (Gr. "to actively
keep from proving"){1} -- to illegitimately and deceptively proclaim disbelief, which will
potentially turn thousands upon thousands AWAY from Christ.

Part 1: Redating the extra-biblical 1 Clement to circa August/September of 64

A.D.

In order to properly approach the dating of the New Testament, historical markers need to be
established. The most essential historical markers in a proper dating of the New Testament
works, is to properly date the deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul; to establish the time of
death of one of their successors, Mark, who carried on Peter’s Gospel as he preached it in Rome
(the Gospel of Mark); and to establish when the extra-biblical writing of 1 Clement was written
in Rome to the Church at Corinth. Once these various points are established, they lay the
proper foundation for the case to be made for historians to believe the witness that the book of
Revelation was written while Paul was still alive, and prior to his arrest in Jerusalem in May of
54 A.D. under the procuratorship of Felix, then serving in his 7th year as Governor.

Beginning with Clement (bishop at Rome 57 -100/101 A.D.)

Clement is the immediate successor to the Apostle Peter in Rome. He was preceded as Bishop
by both Linus and Anencletus, who died in office while the Apostles Peter and Paul were still
alive and in Rome. We are not given the historical details related to the deaths of the first two
bishops who died while Peter and Paul were jointly their apostolic overseers.

In some legal proceedings, the immediate witnesses of an event are first sought for, followed by
second and then third generation witnesses that can pass on a chain of custody witness testimony.
Once it reaches a fourth generation oral telling, the information may or may not be rejected by
the courts.

By looking first at Clement, I wish to bring you into the First Century from a more proper
outside the New Testament perspective, so that you may see without the purple haze that “Q”
and other theories have placed upon the minds of those looking at the New Testament era.

The bishop of Rome in the first centuries of Christianity was never a pontifex maximus (the top
“high priest”) over Christianity, as Roman Catholicism has re-envisioned history to be. But the
fact of the matter is that 1 Clement was written by Clement, who was THE HEAD of the
Churches at Rome, who confessed more than once, that there was NO PAPACY present.
1 Clement was written prior to A.D. 70 by the THIRD bishop of the Christian Churches at
 Rome. Roman Catholicism incredulously calls him the third pope. If so, by his own words and
closeness to the apostles, Clement’s own words should have the greater weight in our
considerations of debating about the man. In 1 Clement, .34, ( by my reckoning dating to weeks
or months just after the fire of Rome under Nero) we have the citation that could just as easily be
attributed to Revelation 22:12 as to Isaiah 40:10, or 62:11. When the proper dating is
accomplished, possibilities like these must dealt with in the context of the most accurate
timeline, and properly addressed.

1 Clement was most likely in the months following the persecutions by Nero Caesar following
his burning of Rome. There is some debate as to whether that July 18-19 burning of Rome
was in A.D. 64. 1 Clement was most likely written between August and September in the
weeks following the Great Fire of Rome, and the following persecutions and torching of
thousands of Christians both living and visiting there.{2}

Sometime in the two months prior to the letter of 1 Clement, there was a tumult created by some
one or two affluent persons who sought to engage in sedition against the Presbyters at Corinth.

1 Clement, .47 reads thus:

– It is disgraceful…and unworthy of your Christian profession that such a thing should be heard
of as that the most steadfast and the*very* first* Church of the Corinthians should, on account
of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its Presbyters. And this rumor has reached not
only us, but those also who are unconnected (or differ) with us….”

One or two members had raised a sedition against the holy and blameless bishop over the
Corinthian Churches, for no other reason perhaps, than just because they could. The point did not
matter in regards as to whether these men were pretenders of Judaism, Greek philosophy, or
worshippers of Roman or Greek deities. What did matter is that the leaders had to have been men
of great influence within the Church; and at Corinth, and that meant wealth. Whoever these two
men were, they had great wealth and were either great benefactors only, or both benefactors and
Presbyters over their own large congregations. If Presbyters, then as we read that word, we
should translate it as Chief Reverend or Rabbi, so that we might get the modern concept or
understanding of this position. But in context, we come to find that earlier in the Epistle,
Clement confesses of not being over all churches:

“Let us cleave, therefore, to those who cultivate peace with godliness, and not those who
hypocritically profess to desire it…For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of
those who exalt themselves over His flock.” {3}

…let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us
Honor the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of G-D….” {4}
The above quoted words were written and stated when John the Apostle was yet alive. It is also
highly likely that Phillip the Apostle was also alive, but that the social and religious nature was
that the Corinthians wanted a familiar authority, but less than that of an apostle to more meekly
judge their conflict; especially if that someone was familiar with all the players involved in the
conflict; someone like Clement.
It would have followed a more logical order on seeking independent authority outside the
regional nearby major Church cities that the Church having an issue seeking doctrinal clarity
normally would have contacted Jerusalem, now headed by Simeon, son of Cleopas. However,
Eusebius tells us that the Churches of Christ removed themselves to Pella (a city east of the
Jordan River) {5} after heeding prophetical utterance of Jerusalem’s coming destruction
utterances by the same man who is mentioned in Josephus, whose ministry began 7 years before
the taking of Jerusalem, or AD. 63. {6}

And the next quote verifies that as of the writing of 1 Clement, Jerusalem was still actively
sacrificing daily and unmolested; hence, clearly dating not only pre-70, but pre-67 A.D. as well.

“Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to G-D in his own order, living in all good
conscience, with becoming Gravity, and not going beyond the rule of ministry prescribed to him.
Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace offerings, or the sin-
offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem only.” {7}

The Christian denomination of the Hebrew Faith was only 34 years old when Clement dictated
this epistle as one bishop writing to another bishop’s province. Clement himself is identified by
the New Testament as being a former missionary and evangelist under Paul, who helped
establish the Churches while at Corinth.{8} So, in the year 64 A.D. when 1 Clement was
written – following the fires and persecutions at Rome – the Church at Corinth would have
been only about 15 years in existence, and writing for advice from Clement as someone who
helped to establish what the Church Doctrine as given them from Peter and Paul (their founders)
was.

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians some 11 years previously, Paul criticized those whose
congregations were claiming pre-eminence over others in the city. At the time, those factions
divided themselves as followers of the Apostle Paul, followers of the Apostle Peter, and
followers of the Evangelist Apollos. According to Hippolytus, Silas was the appointed bishop
of Corinth of Achaia,{9} and as we can see in this retrospect, it was probably the Presbyters of
the factions of “Apollos” and of “Peter” from 53 A.D., who were (probably) the ones who then
had successfully removed Silas (more the follower of Paul’s way of thinking) in early 64 A.D.
without any just cause or excuse.{10}

Let me reiterate the point that directly dates Clement pre-70 A.D.:
“Let each of you/us brothers, in his proper order give thanks to G-D, maintaining a good
 conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry, but acting with reverence. (2)
Not just anywhere, brothers, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill
offerings, or the offerings for sin and trespasses, BUT ONLY IN JERUSALEM.
And even there the offering is not made in every place, but IN FRONT OF THE
SANCTUARY at the altar, the offering having been first inspected for blemishes.”{11}

Clement speaks in the present tenses of the Greek regarding the Temple. It stands…it exists…it
is not in danger…the sacrifices are occurring…the inspections of sacrifices are on-going. There
is no hint of even a siege, or a shutting up of the city so as to choke the process that he lays out in
41.2. Clement speaks of the ministries as having reverence to Jerusalem, and speaks of
subservience to those higher than themselves.

In I Clement 21.6 (Lightfoot), Clement speaks of “our leaders” / “those who have the rule over
us”.{12} The word of interest there, for our understanding the proper context of the translation,
is Proegoumenous. Proegeomai appears just once in the New Testament in Romans 12:10.
There, Paul uses the same word (Proegoumenoi) to speak of a way of not only out-doing the
righteousness of the Pharisee; but of trying to emulate and outdo the kindness and godly actions
of those (within the Church or Faith) “officials who take the lead by example, as better,
presiding over us; having gone on before us.”

Proegeomai therefore is an idea that is lost in translation from Greek into English; it is of
duplicating works and reverencing those in authority over us by outdoing them, as if they had
become a past twin reflection of us…a mirror image, if you will…and we are simply carrying on
by their illustrious examples. How you treat ‘that one’ will not only enhance or worsen the one
you project ‘love’ or ‘enmity’ to... but that projection of ‘love’ or ‘enmity’ will also ‘mold and
shape’ you (personally, for good or evil) as well.

As we will see momentarily, Clement was in fact referring that he had officials of the Church
higher than he, and one of them was his own presbyter ambassador (when empowered by the
Christian neo-Sanhedrin of Jerusalem). Lost in translation is the fact that the Gospels themselves
(as it were) label the traditional Jewish Sanhedrin of 70 as not just “elders”, but “presbyters”.
Some of these are clearly found in the Greek texts of Matthew 16:21, 26:3; Mark 8:31, 11:27;
Luke 9:22, 20:1.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, in his Epistle to the Church at Tralles,.3

viewed “Presbyters as [those who made up the membership of] the Sanhedrin of GOD.”

The view, which was almost certainly penned or dictated by Ignatius while in Smyrna in the
presence of Polycarp. Hence, we have an “organized” structure of the Christians, based in and
out of Jerusalem until the death of James on Passover 55 A.D. And afterwards, there would form
multiple Sanhedrins, or congresses of 70. These would first evolve out of Antioch of Syria,
Ephesus of Asia, and Corinth of Achaia…each having a 3 day travel radii to participant Christian
synagogues or assemblies, and 70 church leaders to represent their districts and region.

The NT references most clearly used in First Clement, besides the Gospels of Luke and Mark,
are: Romans, I Corinthians, Hebrews, Ephesians, and I Peter. These testify of a relationship of
some correspondence with Corinth and Ephesus.

Therefore, with regard to Luke and Mark, the understanding of whether or not we are to define a
presbyter / elder as a member of the Sanhedrin in the earliest apostolic Churches, is clearly
relevant to the need of having a better comprehension of First Clement. We know that the
Christians started their denomination of Judaism as Jewish-Israeli, and took the position that
Judaism’s leaders were leading Jews and Israel away from the Almighty; and hence, from the
Faith of the Forefathers of them. It also appears that the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 was, in
effect, a neo-Sanhedrin of Christianity‘s own 70, with their own scribes and priests, etc..
Eventually, by the third century A.D., it appears that there evolved multiple systems, where
there were multiple Sanhedrins in Christianity based out of chief churches such as Corinth,
Alexandria, and Rome…having suburbicary distances of influence of 3 days or less journey
(generally 100 miles in any one direction beyond city limits). But in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, it
appears that there was only one central neo-Sanhedrin of Christianity, and that was in
Jerusalem. But in circa 63-64, that Christian leadership in Jerusalem, warned by the Holy
Spirit, removed to Pella beyond the Jordan, and did not return to Jerusalem until after the Civil
War with Rome had ended and Jerusalem was essentially flattened by the Roman armies and
their hired servants.

================================

1 e.g., Matthew 21:42; Mark 8:31 & 12:10; Luke 9:22, 17:25, 20:17

2 cf. Tacitus, Histories, Annals 15. Christians were falsely accused for the fires of Rome. Some
crucified, some placed in animal skins and dogs set on them, others were turned into human
torches (probably an oil grease) and set on fire like candles to illuminate Nero’s vast gardens;
etc.

3 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches - .15, .16

4 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches, .21

5 Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5

6 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.5.3 at the feast of Tabernacles, A.D. 62, Jesus ben Ananus began
his prophesying night and day without ceasing until killed by a Roman catapulted boulder,
 lasting 7 years and 5 months without growing hoarse, even to the moment he died.

7 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches, .41

8 Philippians 4:3 tells us that when the call came from Paul, Clement was in Philippi. The
identification was also made by Origen in his commentary on John 1:29. Of note: Origen says
Clement even spoke of those people who are on the other side of the impassable ocean, which
were called “antichthones” by the Greeks (Origen de principiis, 3.3.6), but as kosmos (peoples /
world) in I Clement, .20. Instead of Paul preaching to Britain, as some few contend…according
to Origen, it was Clement who founded Christianity in Rome by making a trip there at some
unknown time in the 50s or 60s A.D.

9 Hippolytus, on the 70 disciples,.16; lists Silas as that bishop who succeeded Peter and Paul.

10 In 1 Corinthians 1:12, there were three factions in Corinth: those who claimed Paul, those
who claimed Peter, and those who claimed Apollos. Each called their apostle “greater” in order
to net some kind of apparent material gain or ability to place themselves as first in line(and such
nonsense), and were all rebuked by the Apostle Paul for such childish behavior.

11 I Clement 41.1-2 (Lightfoot translation, emphasis mine)

12 Cf. http://www.textexcavation.com/greekclement17-32.html
 Part 2: Points of reference, 30 A.D., 47 A.D., et al.

Eusebius tells us that prior to 67 A.D. -

“The whole body, however, of the Church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a Divine
revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the War, removed from the city, and
dwelt in a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those that believed in Christ,
having removed from Jerusalem as if holy men, had entirely abandoned the Royal City itself,
and the whole land of Judea….” (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5).

This quote also isolates the writing of 1 Clement to a time frame of not just before 70 A.D., but
certainly before 67 A.D. The only great wasting of the Church in ROME relevant to that
timeline is the one that happens in one particular year, and in one particular month, July of A.D.
64.

Indirectly, then, it may be understood that the “presbyter” of Corinth was de facto a neo-
Sanhedrin office, an ambassador to Jerusalem, in behalf of the Churches at Corinth. But why was
Clement contacted by Fortunatus of Corinth?

Philippians 4:3 appears to infer Clement was a fellow-laborer with Paul since at least the
founding days of the Churches of Philippi, and his mention is prominent in that capacity. Since
Clement was likely continuing with Paul in the ensuing years since Philippi, through Corinth and
Asia and Rome, being also present with Paul and Peter at Corinth’s Christian founding, perhaps
there was some sort of unwritten Charter that was specifically relevant to the Churches at
Corinth? This would explain why Clement in Rome (if the sole known survivor, means Luke and
Timothy would have been deceased by this time) was tapped by Fortunatus (but not necessarily).
But alas, this is speculative.

The expression by Clement that “one or two” had overthrown the Corinthian Presbyter {13}
might then suggest perhaps Stephanus and/or Achaicus (I Corinthians 15:17) had seized the
office and household, cast out the existing representative presbyter, and installed their own man.

Therefore, in regard to pre-70 A.D. Jerusalem, we need to adapt our minds to grasp that pre-67
A.D. Christianity still observed Temple Sacrifice and had their own Sanhedrin, as if a parallel
Judaism within Judaism.

The idea, then, of a papacy in Rome or anywhere else, was simply an alien Gentile concept
reserved for much later generations. But like the redating of the New Testament, it appears that
even a contemporary work like First Clement is also a lock...datable from within a few months
following the fires to Rome in 64, to no later than 66 A.D.
From this background of understanding, we can clearly defend the position of dating Clement to
a period when the Temple in Jerusalem yet stood and sacrificed, unthreatened; and was also that
period after the deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome.

Further Dismantling a Modern Late Dating “Spin”

When the Church history and the roll of the bishops of Ephesus were read in circa 207 A.D., (in
the same Third Century A.D. in which some New Testament’s Progressive / Communist /
Atheistic critics contend the NT was “created”), it clearly showed that at its very origin: that is,
along with Ephesus’ first bishop (Timothy), John and his Apocalypse were recorded as being
present at Ephesus’ origin or beginning (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5).

But is this possible?

Timothy, a companion of Silas (bishop of Corinth), whom we know to have been Paul’s disciple,
served as bishop in Ephesus, under Paul, from ca. A.D. 52 – ca. August 53 (the approximate de
facto date of the Ephesians uproar, which some reckon as in the spring months of March to
April).{14}

Timothy then, would have had to continue serving to a certain year as bishop, even after the
uproar had passed, without the guidance of an apostolic overseer, for a period of months. As we
shall see later, I say “months” because this is the testimony of John through Polycarp through
Irenaeus in one of the essential quotes liberal scholarship fears to let you know about. And, as we
shall see in the chronology of Luke’s Book of Acts, John (by inference) returned from his exile
and came back to Ephesus, by April of 54 A.D.

As Hebrews 13:23 testifies,{15} we do know that Timothy at some point left the bishopric of
Ephesus in order to have been arrested elsewhere and set free.

In examining the life of Paul through Acts, I place this as likely being late fall or early winter the
year before Paul died; hence, A.D. 56 (if we accept 2 Timothy 4:6-21 at face value).
 The Jewish writings point to a hostile witness verification of the Crucifixion of Jesus as
being in A.D. 30

Sanhedrin 43a
GEMARA. (rabbinic Interpretation, etc.)

Abaye said; It must also be announced: On such and such a day, at such and such and hour, and in such
and such a place [the offense / alleged crime was committed], in case there are some who know [to the
contrary], so that they can come forward and prove the witnesses….

[In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu  [Munich Codex of the Talmud
adds the Nasarean’.] was hanged.

For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be
stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything
in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’

But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
  

— Ulla retorted: ‘Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence  could be made? Was he not a
Mesith [an enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal
him?

  With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the [‘malkhut’] government.’ “[Some
translate: “near to kingship”, which can be interpreted as the first in the Davidic line should a king be
chosen].

Observations:

Now there are those who say that there was another Yeshu besides Jesus (Yeshua) who lived 130 B.C.  
They then go on to say that the Talmudic use of “malkhut” also is inclusive of the Roman government,
which did not make its appearance into Israel until pre 70 B.C., some 62 years later than such a one as not
being Jesus of  A.D. 30.    We know the Talmuds independently place us the confirmation of the Gospels
by a hostile witness account, and inform us that the Gospels speak of a 30 A.D. crucifixion.

In the Jerusalem Sanhedrin I.1, we read:

“40 years before the destruction of the House [i.e., the Temple], capital
jurisdiction was taken away.”
 In the Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 8b:  
“When Rabbi Yishma’el ben Yossei fell sick, his disciples asked him to leave them some of the
sayings of his father.   He told them,
’40 years before the destruction of the House  [i.e., the Temple], the Sanhedrin
was exiled and sat in a shop.’” (Cf. B.T., Shabbat 15a, Sanhedrin 41b).

But to the Zealot factions, they refused the Roman Government the right to dictate the removal of “capital
punishment”, and claimed the right to execute until the Temple itself was destroyed in 70 A.D.
(Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 52b and Ketuboth 30a; Mekhilta of Shimon bar Yohai, Shemot 21.14).  

In its own defense,  the Babylonian Talmud’s Rosh HaShana 31a; Josephus’ Wars of the Jews 6.2.4,
and even the Book of Acts stoning of Stephen appears to indicate that if capital punishment was
taken away, it only occurred for one year…the only year needed to confirm the Gospel accounts:
A.D. 30.  Not A.D. 45 or 56.  Not any A.D. other than the very one the Gospels can lay claim to as
confirming their transmission of events that had transpired regarding the Sanhedrin and its relations to the
Roman Government’s Pontius Pilate.  

So if that is the case, whether legally or illegally, the right of Sanhedrinal capital punishment was given
up for just one year: in A.D. 30, when Jesus was slain, as according to the Gospel accounts of the
Christians.

  
Maimonides once commented to the effect,  on the Mishna Sanhedrin, that :  “no law may be deduced by
the use of emergency measures” or words to this effect.  This wording vindicates the Gospel accounts of
the night trial of Jesus.  

In other words, the change in parliamentary procedures to try Jesus by night is fully applicable if it is
construed as an “emergency measure”, and does not change the procedures of law already on the books,
nor need be a cause for precedent if it is not so desired.

Again, such is consistent with the Gospel accounts, and as such…we can use even the hostile testimony
against Jesus and the Gospels, in favor of the NT’s historical accuracy and truthfulness in presenting their
side of the matter.  And indeed, we can learn more details about the background that makes our reading of
the Gospel narratives that much richer from the literary historical perspective.

But the point is, from Jewish hostile testimony, we must historically date the crucifixion, death,
resurrection, and ascension of Jesus to A.D. 30. And since the Book of Acts begins its narrative with the
ascension of Jesus a few days before Pentecost, the Book of Acts opens for us, beginning with events
in May 30 A.D.
 Luke and Paul help us isolate particular years of events in the Book of Acts

47 A.D. – The Jerusalem Conference, Pentecost 47 A.D. in Acts 15:7.

Paul gives testimony of his conversion in 1:13-17, explaining that after his conversion, he did not
go up to Jerusalem, but went to Arabia for a period of time and then returned to Damascus.

Galatians 1:18:
“Then after years, 3, I went up to Jerusalem to learn from Peter; and stayed upon up alongside
him days, fifteen.”

Galatians 2:1:
“Then through 14 years, again, I went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas; taking with me also,
Titus.”

Galatians 2:1 identifies that the Jerusalem conference was 14 years after Paul’s conversion (i.e.,
through the use of “dia”/”through” ff.. “meta”/”after” in 1:18).

That means that the calculation isn’t PLUS Galatians 1:18’s “meta”/”after 3 years, as though to
be 17 years…but rather it keeps the 14 as a “total” tally.

Being 14 years prior to 47 A.D., means a conversion of Saul to Paul in 33 A.D. This allows Saul
(who would become “Paul”) about 3 years to persecute Christians viciously in Judea, the coastal
regions, and perhaps Galilee, before setting out for Syria with Sanhedrin letters of authority to do
the same there also.

49 A.D.–The Claudine expulsion of Jews from Rome (Acts 18:1-2.) {16}

49 – 51 A.D. – For the next 18 months (Acts 18:11), until the spring of 51 A.D. Paul is in
Corinth. Paul then sails to Syria (Acts 18:18), and then goes to Ephesus of Asia.

51-53 A.D. – Paul still travels, but his time from this point at Ephesus is reckoned for 2
years (Acts 19:10). This brings us to the summer months of 53 A.D.

Late April to the first days of May 54 A.D., but likely late April – Paul calls for the elders of the
Church of Ephesus by messenger from Miletus (Acts 20:17) and officially announces his
departing (Acts 20:29,32).

A.D. 54 – Paul is imprisoned many days in Israel, but not years (dietia)
 That is the testimony of Luke through the book of Acts. But one of the verses that scholarship
trips up in Acts 24:27.

June 1, 54 A.D. – According to the Roman transfer of proconsuls / governors and Caesars, the
years of service were reckoned from June 1 of a given year. If the year for a Caesar precedes
June 1, that is often calculated as Year 1, and then at June 1, even if that falls but 2 or 4 months
later, that is Year 2 of the reign. It is as if limited by “fiscal” as well as “political” calendars, and
perhaps set by Augustus’ reconstruction and laws guiding Roman governance.

Διετιας δε πληρωθεισης ελαβεν διαδοχον ο Φηλιξ

“Years then being completed/fulfilled [in the sense of duty being accomplished (Acts 12:25) ]
received a successor Felix”...etc. is the literal translation.

Often the changing of the order in varying translations to “(Two) years then being completed,
Porcius Festus came into Felix’s room” (Acts 24:27) confuses those who have not looked to the
Greek manuscripts, because in the Greek, this verse clearly speaks to Felix serving a second
term, not of Paul’s imprisonment.

Twice the article “ho” in the sentence first rests on Felix, and this drives the highlight and theme
of what Luke is conveying. The sentence is about Felix in the Greek, even as in John 1:1c, the
absence of the article on Theos and the use with Logos (kai theos een ho Logos...and G-D was
the Word) tells us that the theme is on the Logos being G-D, but not the complete expression or
totality of G-D (since we have the Father and the Holy Spirit as part of the expression of what
and who G-D is, more than just the Son, the Word or Logos).

To skip the articles of the Greek in which the years are driving the point home on “Felix”, and to
jump to Paul (who is the second to the last word – some 13 words later after two mentions of
Felix – in the entire somewhat lengthy sentence), is a bad reading of the Greek, and sloppy
scholarship in that regard.

Luke then brings us on a winter journey travel to Rome, and an arrival months later, in which
Paul dwells in Rome for 2 whole years in a rented house (Acts 28:30), with all the privileges of a
Roman citizen presumed innocent until trial, but chained to a lone guard (Acts 28:16) freely able
to receive visitors, etc. Thus the Book of Acts ends its chronology with May or June of A.D. 57.
 A Review of this account with Josephus’ Governors of Judea show that this is quite probable.
In a careful reading and redating of Josephus’ Antiquities and Wars of the Jews, we will find:

Pilate served from [June 1,] 24 A.D. – 34 A.D. (Antiquities 18.4.2,6). Two Legion tours of
duty [being 5 years each].

Later, an historically important governor, Cumanus, served from [June 1,] 42 A.D. – [May
31,] 47 A.D. One legion’s term of 5 years.

Felix served from [June 1,] 47 A.D. – [May 31,] 52 A.D. and again from [June 1,] 52 A.D. –
[May 31,] 54 A.D. before being relieved by Festus. One legion’s term of 5 years plus 2 years
into a second term.

Festus lasted only from [June 1,] 54 A.D. – ca. pre-Passover 55 A.D., when James the half-
brother of Jesus, was martyred at the Temple.

That chronology which places Paul in the hands of Festus in or about 54/55 A.D., is virtually the
same as the testimony of Luke through the book of Acts.

The question of filling in the blanks of Paul’s length of imprisonment will be answered later,
because as we shall see, the 2 years Paul will stay in Rome (Acts 28:30) is a FINAL stay. It is
my contention, after having examined all of the evidence, that this year is almost certainly 57
A.D. Critics are given only one other year as a remote possibility: 58 A.D.

Therefore, we are given a timeline of 53-55/56 A.D. in which John the Apostle must be
banished, write the Apocalypse / Revelation, and come to Ephesus with the book in order for
there to be an unbroken succession at Ephesus between Paul the Apostle, and John the Apostle,
as we shall see Irenaeus testify. If Timothy is indeed a Semikah rabbi (disciple) of Rav Paul, then
as long as he remains in Ephesus for up to a year after Paul leaves, it is as if Paul’s rule yet
remains unbroken (though he be temporarily absent), and Irenaeus is vindicated.

But Timothy, indeed, at some point traveled to Rome. There, he was imprisoned for an unknown
offense (Hebrews 13:23), most probably in relation to Paul’s execution on June 29 of that year.
And curiously enough, it was Trophimus, and not Timothy, who was martyred along with Paul
the Apostle.{17}

============================================
13 ANF – I Clement .47, and addressed as if men/persons of means in .57

14 F.F. Bruce, Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 14th
Reprint March 1980, p. 84, citing Duncan, G.S., St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (1929) p. 140.
15 “Know (then that) the brother Timothy, having been freed, with whom if I come sooner, I will
see you.” (Literal Greek to English)

16 cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.2-6.

17 Hippolytus, On the 70 Apostles,.70 “Trophimus, who was martyred along with Paul”.
Although not de facto scholarly considered as written by Hippolytus, the data appears to retain
pertinent and clearly factual data on where many earliest church bishops and relevant figures
ended up., and how some died.
Part 3: The Historical Witness placing Revelation into the 50s A.D.

History from Nicene Era Thyatira tells of a 53-54 A.D. Apocalypse

The post-Nicene 4th century apologist, Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus (born ca. 310 –
died ca. 402/403 A.D.), in Against Heresies / Panarion, declares that the roll of the
bishops (by inference) on the island of Cyprus retained the history that John
wrote his Apocalypse during the (end of the) reign of Claudius Caesar. The
following is my reconstruction of the passages, in order to encapsulate what is being declared.

“Even the people of Thyatira testify this is to be true … [that]… (The Holy
Spirit) did foretell (the Apocalypse) through the mouth of John (the Apostle)…
who indeed did prophesy… during the reign of Claudius Caesar…when he was
upon the isle of Patmos.” Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 4.33.8

“…after his (John’s) return from Patmos, under Claudius Caesar…the Holy
Spirit [not much later] compelled John to publish forth his Gospel…several
years into his residing in [Ephesus of] Asia.” Epiphanius, Against Heresies,
4.12.1

Although this tradition was given through Thyatira of Asia to Epiphanius in the post-Nicene
(post 325 A.D.) era; it was something that could be verified in the manuscripts of more than one
Presbyter of Thyatira’s possession at that time. It would also have been present in the
information left in the roll of the bishops of the Church of Ephesus as was previously known and
mentioned by Tertullian, who in Against Marcion, 4.5. in circa 207 A.D., stated then:

“We also have John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse [the
scroll of Revelation], the order [or succession] of the bishops, when traced up to their origin,
will yet rest on John as their author.”

This information suggests that there was more than just an account of names, but also some
significant historical journalistic details that were noted in the roll of the bishops by which
anyone could easily conclude that John the Apostle resided in Ephesus, and that he wrote
Revelation at such and such a time, etc.

Epiphanius also tells us that John died above the age of 90. If John was recruited by Jesus in late
26 A.D., and died in ca. 96-98 A.D.; then, according to recruitment requirements among Torah
lawyers, John would have had to have been a minimum of 25 years of age for religious service
under his Semikah rabbi.

That is, John the Apostle's birth can now be calculated to the first 7 months of the Julian
year of 1 A .D. or within two years before that date. Hence, a death above 90, but not yet 100,
and a fulfilling of what Epiphanius tells us, is that John was 95-97 at the time of his death. Not,
as some translators of Epiphanius have misrepresented in translating Epiphanius’ passage
here, that John was above 90 when first coming to or from Patmos, or above 90 in the reign
of Claudius Caesar (41-54 A.D.).

Clement of Alexandria, in saving the historically based tale of “A Rich Man who finds
Salvation”, appears to support an early dating of the Apocalypse, saying:

“…This is not a myth, but a Word [logos], handed down and

committed carefully to memory, regarding the Apostle John.
When the tyrant died,

[tou turannou teleuthesantos – “the tyrant came to a lesser End” …perhaps implying natural
causes like a heart attack in his sleep]

he [John] returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus,

and (then) being invited, went away to the neighboring
Districts of the nations:
appointing bishops here, setting Churches in order there,
and ordaining such as were (made known to him) by the Spirit.”

{Clement of Alexandria, “Who is the Rich Man who shall find Salvation?”, .42)

So how old and lacking of vitality is John, when he indeed returned to Asia? At the first entering
of Asia from his banishment by the tyrant (which is lingo for Procurator), John does not go about
like an old man at the end of his life. John vigorously runs a circuit tour, and visits and
reorganizes and appoints beyond Asia, like a ‘man on a mission’, ‘full speed ahead’.

The word “tyrant” speaks clearly that John’s persecutor was a local Procurator, and NOT a
distant Caesar, even if Claudius, who would have banished to Pontia, off the Italian Coast as
Domitian did in the 90s. The assumption that the banishment of John out of Asia to Patmos is
made upon the sloppy presumption taken from Eusebius’ History of the Church 3.18.5 in which
he states that it was “recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter
of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled
with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.”

In Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .54 and Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.18; we see that the
isle of Pontia, off the Italian Coast, was in use from at least the 20s to the 90s A.D. as an isle of
banishment. Caesar would not have allotted John to some obscure island, living almost
comfortably in a fishing village, (which is what Patmos was and is still today), somewhere in the
Aegean. So, we ask, is there more to point to a local Provincial Official as tyrant, and a local
Ephesian or Asian persecution than that of an Emperor?

In the example of the grandsons of Judas, half-brother of Messiah, these were brought to ROME
by the EVOCATUS in Domitian’s reign, but then were despised by the Emperor as “ignorant”
and set free. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.20) In Acts 27:2, this EVOCATUS was then
called in 57 A.D. as the "AUGUSTAN BAND".

We do not have John preserved in any Early Church historical tradition as being known to have
come to Rome and be tried before Caesar as were the grandsons of Judas. Since John was
eminently more important in status to the Early Church, and one of Christ’s three closest
disciples, had the event occurred, it WOULD have been clearly and historically referenced in the
Patristic record. Instead, Tertullian tells us that before being banished from Asia,

“…The Apostle John [in Ephesus] was first plunged, unhurt,

into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island exile.”
(Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, .36)

and thereby indicates, along with the abovementioned quote of Clement of Alexandria, the
extreme likelihood of this specific persecution as being the action taken by a local or provincial
ruler.

John’s own “Revelation” witness: never in bonds or chains on Patmos

And what is the testimony from Revelation 1:9?

" I, John, the brother, even of you, and co-sharer :in the Affliction [thlipsei], and in the
Kingdom, and remaining under Jesus Christ --
came to be in the island of Patmos through the Word of G-D,
and through the bearing of witness to Jesus Christ."

In Patmos, we find that John—in Revelation 1:9 -- experiences the "Affliction" or “Tribulation”
of Thlipsei: from “Thlipsis” (in the Greek). It is not the actual bondage of Chains, as we find
with the Greek “Desmos” (e.g. Acts 26:31, 22:30, and cf. 20:23).

Thlipsis is an emotionally and psychologically horrifying period of stress, where one feels as
though a great weight were crushing down on top of them, while also being squeezed from all
sides. In short, John felt great humiliation. But why?

Well, who else but the goddess Artemis / Diana – a false idol, a mythical / fabricated deity --
would receive the credit for sparing John’s life from the boiling oil among the silversmiths and
the great majority of the Ephesians? The silversmiths, priests, and priestesses of Artemis in
Ephesus would most assuredly point to John and attempt to use his miraculous deliverance for
years to come: citing John as he who was saved from boiling oil by the goddess Artemis. And
whether Jew or Jewish Christian, that stress and humiliation alone is almost enough to drive
some to suicide. So, it seems, John became a recluse in a place where he felt comfortable. That
recovery was accomplished by his fishing in an out-of-the-way fishing community, which still
exists to this day as a witness to us all. And for the purposes of quashing such a myth as what
Ephesians might have called a victory of Diana, John went back to Ephesus for the remainder of
his life after the death of the local Roman governor of Asia in March/April 54 A.D.

So can we demonstrate the year of the Exile of John? Yes. For we know that Paul arrived in
Rome in May 55 A.D. One year earlier, at Pentecost, he was taken up at the Temple while
confirming some Nazarites who were offering up their hair, grown since birth. That was 54 A.D.

We do read in Acts 20:17 ff. how that Paul sent for "the elders of Ephesus", and gave a long
speech. Why did Luke include this speech in his Book of Acts if it was unnecessary? And so, as
for me, I am persuaded that it is at this point that Paul officially hands over the trust of Ephesus
to John the Apostle, and instructs those that had trusted Paul, to now trust John. Therefore, in ca.
April of 54 A.D., as Epiphanius had earlier testified, while Claudius was still Emperor, John
began his permanent residence as Overseer of the Churches in Asia from a residence in or just
outside Ephesus.54 Therefore it is the most likely that, it would be at this time, while on his way
to Jerusalem, that Paul would affirm the Apocalypse of John, having read and approved it, to all
thereafter.

The year prior, in A.D. 53, Paul had been in Ephesus, at the center of mob frenzy, (probably in
July or early August of 53, or perhaps an even earlier month). So then, we ask: "Well, what
happened after that riot?"55 Obviously, because of the tumult, the Governor of Asia must have
come with troops, looking to set an example. And, there is little doubt that poor John stayed
behind after the uproar, and was offered up for sacrifice when the soldiers and Governor came.
Hence, the boiling oil. Hence, upon his miraculous deliverance by YHVeH, John was to be
banished for as long as that particular Governor ruled in Asia.

This succession immediately upon Paul to put down those who would have sown heresies in
Paul's absence, necessitates John's appearance in Ephesus as Paul successor as Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 3.3.4 tells us occurred. In fact, we are given more data to this effect in 398 A.D. by
Jerome, in his Preface to his Commentary on Matthew, where he writes:
“John…when he was in Asia, [he was there] at the time when the seeds of heresy were springing
up (I refer to Cerinthus, Ebion, and the rest…whom the Apostle Paul frequently assails). He
[John] was urged by almost all the bishops of Asia, then living, and by deputations from many
Churches, to write more profoundly concerning our Savior’s Divinity.”

A matter of history being taken literally

The word “history” comes from the Greek “historia” -- which means, “To investigate” and “to
diligently seek out.” Simple referencing to commentaries, for example, is not a reasonable
attempt to research. The failure to “thoroughly search out” would not have preserved us a
Herodotus from Antiquity. Like with the students and teachers of the Talmud, those who accept
commentaries appear to -- more often than not -- put the opinions of men ABOVE the Words of
GOD. That is the danger we must avoid. We are all accountable to attempt the greatest accuracy
on important issues, and this requires both time and laborious effort. Time and effort, which is
often relegated to students and others, with the “scholar” behaving more like an editor than a
researcher on his own merits.
Most scholars and laity are deficient in the proper and full reading of Irenaeus. They oft cite him
as the authority for dating John's Apocalypse, and then ignore his other writings. Why? Perhaps
they are too busy copying the endnotes of their colleagues...perhaps they are too busy...perhaps
philosophic arguments are simple a dinner exercise, and academic truths are as intangible as a
good dinner conversation.

Irenaeus is a third generation witness from Jesus, and a second generation witness from John the
Apostle. When discussing Church history in these first two centuries or the first 150 years of
development, it is ludicrous to leave Irenaeus out.

Irenaeus clearly states that at all points of the Empire in 178-181 A.D., Christianity clearly was
an organized, developed, and communicating religious system. Germany communicates with
Egypt and Spain; the Eastern provinces communicate with Libya and Italy. Gaul communicates
with Greece and Asia...and all the Christians provinces communicate one with another, and
testify faithfully that history - tradition - faith that has been passed down to them from the
Apostles.

And what NT documents are communicated them? If we judge from Irenaeus own quotations
in Against Heresies, we at least have the entire Roman Empire saturated with:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians,
I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians,
I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus,
Hebrews, James, I Peter, 2 Peter,
I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.

In the dating of Revelation to 95 A.D., using Irenaeus as the primary source, I ask those who are
into investigative chronology to name one commentary which cites all three of Irenaeus’ relevant
quotes concerning the dating of John's Revelation to justify its date. Do they even at least expose
any serious reader to a possibility of an early New Testament completely written before A.D. 70?

The noted author, and Christian Lecturer-Evangelist, Josh McDowell, in “Evidence That
Demands A Verdict” and “He Walked Among Us” (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers ©
1972, 1988, respectively) points even the casual lay person to 3 points of interest in considering
the N.T. Dating.

1) Over 40 years ago, William Foxwell Albright dared to tell the world, in
1963, that all the books of the New Testament were written no later than the
80’s A.D. Albright declared that every N.T. book was written by a baptized
Jew in the First Century A.D. {18} “Every N.T. book”, means even the Apocalypse of
John as being pre-90 A.D.

2) 13 years later, a scholar from Cambridge, John A.T. Robinson, released his
 work showing the New Testament was written entirely prior to 70 A.D. {19}
3) This same N.T. Scholar, Robinson, was interviewed by Time Magazine the following year,
where he reiterated his claim, and challenged the academic world to prove him wrong. {20}

Most Academic scholars will lazily use only one quote from Irenaeus to “prove” 95 A.D. as an
earliest possible date for Revelation. Therefore, I will use this same author and other early
witnesses to show that they easily fail to invest a proper amount of time and effort on even just
this one particular and most important topic -- in the dating of the New Testament.

Because the early dating of the New Testament clearly points to the power and effect of the
Cross, and demonstrates down through the ages the veracity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Caius speaks from the past: Revelation was written first, THEN all of Paul’s letters

Caius was a contemporary to Irenaeus, who along with Hippolytus, and others, probably was
exposed to -- and learned directly from -- Irenaeus.{21} Caius, a ca. 190 A.D. Church Leader in
Rome, {22} was what we consider a Third generation hearsay witness. John transmitted his
teaching to Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus, who taught Caius. {23}

What is Caius’s historical or chain-of-custody witness? That Paul wrote to only 7 Churches out
of respect and acceptance of Revelation. That is, Revelation was written before the deaths of
Peter and Paul!

“…The blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes
to no more than 7 Churches by name, in this order:
1) to the Corinthians, 2) to the Ephesians, 3) to the Philippians,
4) to the Colossians, 5) to the Galatians, 6) to the Thessalonians,
7) to the Romans.
Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for
their Correction, it is yet shown – that is, by this Sevenfold Writing -- that there
is One Church spread abroad through the whole world.” {24}

Now, while we can debate the order which Caius presents {25} – what is irrefutable is the
repetitive declaration that John’s book of Revelation was the reason why Paul limited himself to
only 7 Churches, both having read and having approved the Apocalypse prior to his own death in
Rome.
The question then becomes, if we accept the witness that Revelation was written PRIOR to the
death of Paul, could we accurately pinpoint the year Paul died as an early year?

The academic culture believes we need a post 85 A.D. Revelation, because

Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60. They reason that until its full
restoration in A.D. 85, Revelation could not have been written. That is, if
Revelation was written, it was penned before A.D. 60, {26} or after A.D. 85; with
 no room in between. So then, what is the historical witness?

Testimony from Irenaeus

In ca. 181 A.D., Irenaeus, a second-generation hearsay witness from John, writes:

“We have learned from none others than from those whom the GOSPEL –
the Plan of our Salvation -- has come down to us, which they at one time,
did proclaim in public; and at a later period, by the will of GOD,
handed down to us, in the Scriptures – to be the ground and pillar of our
Faith. Matthew indeed issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their Own
dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching in
ROME, {27} and laying the FOUNDATIONS of the CHURCH. {28}

After their departure, {29} Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also
hand down to us {30} in writing, what had been preached by Peter - – and Luke
as well, that companion of Paul,
Who had recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. {31}

Afterwards, John, the Disciple of the LORD – who also leaned upon His breast,
-- did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus of Asia.”
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.)

How soon did John arrive in Ephesus? Was it before or after Paul’s death? In Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 3.3.4., we read:
“Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John
remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness
of the tradition of the apostles”

Latin: Sed et quae Ephesi ecclesia a Paulo quidem fundata Johanne autem permanente apud
eos usque ad Trajani tempora testis est verus Apostobrum traditionis.
http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/images/ah3p010.jpg
(on link...move horizontal bar to right hand side on link page)

Loosely translated and reiterated by me, for more impact:

“Indeed, what is more, those Ephesus called out ones --
of Paul, certainly founded --
John however /moreover permanently in the presence / house of
advanced all the way up to the times of Trajan
as one who gives credible evidence as a true witness,
testifying of the true Apostolic Tradition.”
The purpose of the loose translation with reiteration is to see where the drive of the testimony is.
Irenaeus in the Ante-Nicene Father translation and in the Latin, is claiming
veracity and soundness based on a continued, unbroken, permanent presence
of John...pushing an island exile back to a pre-Neroian era, and to a matter of
months of separation between Paul and the Church of Ephesus. Certainly less
than one year.

Further, we find from Irenaeus that he also had access to and learned from other unnamed elders
and presbyters (beside Polycarp) who had conversed with John for many years. In Against
Heresies 5.30.3., (e.g, cf. http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/images/ah5p052.jpg )

"...it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For
that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of
Domitian's reign."

Reading from the Greek text "Oude gar" - "Not for", we see that there is a continuum of the
expressing John's presence to be asked about the Revelation

"alla schedon epi tas hameteras geneus" /

"up alongside against but opposite to, almost nearly upon our own daylight / time of life".

The which is reiterated and qualified as until

"pros to telei tas Domitianou archas" /

"up alongside the end/completion of Domitian's reign."

This is interpretation is verified by looking at context in the preceding sentence's "di ekeinou an
errathe tou kai tan Apolkaluphin eorakotos," which continues into the oft misquoted Irenaeus,
to force-fit a late date to Revelation. We are clearly talking about "that one there" or a
"he"...not an "it".

The Revelation wasn't some cloud or floating-floaty that haunted Patmos...it was a
proclamation by he, John the Apostle, who was at Ephesus until his spirit was no more in his
head, as it were -- cf. Gen. 2:7 -- (or body).

Notice the text in the Greek directs us to view "the announcement" in regards one who was he
who "announced" the Apocalyptic Vision in the sense of being one who was "stimulated into
action to proclaim forth or feel the need to tell the truth."

For John, the Apocalypse wasn't simply a vision; it was as if part of the Gospel
proclamation and ministry of testifying of and about Jesus Christ.
 If this is indeed the intent of the wording, then, according to the Asiatic view, we must accept
that the Asiatic elders who knew and succeeded John felt that Revelation was part of the package
that included the later Gospel of John (written post Peter and Paul's departure from this life day:
June 29, 57 A.D.).

We, like our predecessors, may take such a view to task (at the first)...but the concept does
deserve some consideration. It may also tie in to a later doctrinal conflict between Asia and
Rome less than 100 years after John's demise.

It appears that we may liken the differences from the Roman and Asiatics, not only in regard to
whether or not they observed the Passover --(Ephesus/Smyrna did, Rome did not except for the
Passover Communion accepted from Polycarp in the 150s) -- but also in principal as to whether
we were looking for a kingdom of G-D on Earth physically now, or one like Revelation and Paul
in Colossians 3:1ff. and I Corinthians 15:51 (et al.) in which "the Church" (the body of all
Christian believers as a whole) is "raptured" or "snatched away" in a deliverance to the
Heavenlies until Judgment and the Day of HASHEM purges the Earth.

This theological difference is foundational to understand why the Roman branch evolved into
what it did, and why they felt a need to artificially create a Papal Office that was non-existent to
the time of Against Heresies' first publication.

================================

18 Christianity Today, magazine, January 18, 1963 “Toward a More Conservative View.”

19 Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976.

20 Time, March 21, 1977.

21 The importance of Irenaeus is that he probably has two direct links to John in his Instruction.
The first is obviously Polycarp, who John declares he saw and learned from in Smyrna (Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, 3.3.4.).
The second link to John was through Papias. Irenaeus had probably met and learned from Papias,
and if he did not, he had access to those who had; and Irenaeus had possession or regular access
to the complete works of Papias’ 5 books and those sayings and teachings of the Apostles and
Jesus that did not make it into the New Testament, but should have (e.g. Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, 5.33.3-4).

22 There may be debate as to Tertullian being a Fourth Generation witness, having learned from
Proculus who learned from Irenaeus, etc. However, the insight granted us by Tertullian in his
work “Against the Valentinians” 3.5. perhaps can be taken either way. Either that Tertullian met
Irenaeus the man, and despised his abrasiveness; thus, elevating Proculus as a better role model.
Or that it was Proculus that had met the meticulous Irenaeus, and transmitted his teachings to
Tertullian. What is important to note, is that by 190 A.D., there was an agreement in ROME (and
perhaps other major Churches) as to the completion of the New Testament canonization.
Caius and other Church Leaders were involved in the Canonization of the New Testament by the
 close of the Second Century. Such was his position in ROME among the Christians. For he
writes in the Muratorian Canon, how that no more books may be added to the prophets or the
Apostles to the end of time, as the number is made complete for those works which ought to be
read in public among the Churches. The one point that shouldn't be missed in all of this is that
when Caius and his contemporaries speak of Christianity being proclaimed in ROME, they speak
of doing so in private meeting places, and not in public streets or squares in ROME. The fact that
Peter and Paul at one time spoke publicly in the streets or wherever, freely, appears to just blow
their minds that such a day ever was.

23 We also have the probability of a secondary transmission of Polycarp to Pius, bishop of

Rome, who also passed along the teaching and book of the Apocalypse in the 150’s A.D,
verifying the veracity of Irenaeus’ teachings. When Polycarp came to Rome, he would have been
a very healthy and well above 110 years old, when he made the trip by ship and donkey drawn
carts.

24 Caius, Fragments 3.3. Clearly the “rule” is established by a manuscript of John’s Patmos
Apocalypse. This is only possible if it preceded John’s 44 year unbroken stay in Asia, as defined
by Irenaeus, whose teacher Polycarp, was one of John’s bishops. (Re: Irenaeus 3.3.4. Cf.,
Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man who finds Salvation, .42).

25 My general evaluation on these Church letter dates correspond as:

1) Corinthians 1 & 2 in 52 –53 A.D. from Asia.
2) Ephesians in October 56 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
3) Philippians in 57 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
4) Colossians in 54 A.D. from captivity in Israel.
5) Galatians in 48 A.D. (unknown location at this time).
6) Thessalonians in 54 A.D. from Asia.
7) Romans in 53 A.D. Unknown. Possible locales include from either Macedonia or the isle of
Troas in the beginning of the year to as late as Israeli imprisonment before being shipped out to
his Caesarian trial from Israel in the Fall. The Communication is heavily to past Corinthian
Church members, to those who co-evangelized Asia with Paul, now in Rome.
Therefore, the phrase, “in this order”, may actually appear to mean: “received among the
Churches as part of the Canon in this order.” If that is the case, and the intent, then we see that by
190 A.D., many of the epistles of the New Testament were already well tested and established in
both its makeup and distribution. We therefore see a 190 A.D. Roman Church, when examined
through Irenaeus, as being familiar with the entire New Testament, with the exceptions of
Philemon and 3 John. Philemon is familiar to Ignatius out of Antioch of Syria, and 3 John
probably only among the Asiatic Churches at the time of Caius’ above evaluation.

26 This thesis was written by me, and as my work product (i.e., my primary manuscript was
copyrighted 03-31-2006). So far, in the contacting of “evangelical” or “apologetic” “Christians”,
I found myself fulfilling Isaiah 53:1’s “Whom shall believe our report? And to whom is the
ARM [YHVeH Messiah] of the LORD revealed?”

27 Matthew is traditionally said to have died on November 16 of an unknown year in Macedonia

according to the Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle. If the date of death were
 correct, then Matthew would most likely have died in A.D. 56 on that date of November 16.
28 That is, laying the ground and pillars of the Scriptures. This will have occurred, as we shall
see, between 55-57 A.D.

29 Their deaths -- in ROME. Another indicator to the early dating of Revelation: In A.D. 62 or
63, Clement, bishop of ROME, tells the Corinthians that Paul had already preached the West (by
inference, ROME, I Clement 5:6-7), and that the purpose of evangelizing was toward achieving
the set number of “elect” {or Israelites}, which would indicate the knowledge of Revelation’s
144,000 quota (I Clement 2:4).

30 Generically “to us in Asia;” Specifically, “to John in Ephesus of Asia.” John is called the
disciple of the LORD, an Apostle, an elder, and is identified as the evangelist by Anatolius as
being the “evangelist John, who leaned on the LORD’s Breast” in Anatolius, Paschal Writings, .
10.

31 The Book of Hebrews. Contrary to later speculation that Paul claimed Luke’s Gospel as his
own.
 Part 4: The Death of Mark isolates the Year of the Death of the
Apostles Peter and Paul, and points us again back to an early date
for Revelation, etc.
AOuZoY7NO2Un 78531822822278 86633638895197

In ca. 190 A.D., Clement from Alexandria, Egypt, supplements (Irenaeus) writing:
“The Gospels containing the genealogies were written first {32} …
[Then] as Peter had preached the Word at ROME publicly,
by the Spirit declaring the Gospel, many who were present
requested that Mark …should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel,
he gave it to those who had requested it…
Last of all, John…being persuaded by his friends, but inspired
by the SPIRIT, composed a Spiritual Gospel.” {33}

So what can we learn in these quotes from Irenaeus and Clement?

1) That Matthew was the 2nd written Gospel, and that by inference, Luke was written
prior to Peter and Paul being in Rome. {34}

2) Mark’s Gospel is actually the 3rd Gospel, not sourcing from either Luke or Matthew,
but from Peter himself (who was the sole source of Mark’s material): all this occurring in
ROME. Twice, Mark is listed as the next to last Gospel, and twice John’s is listed as the last
Gospel to be written.

3) John’s Gospel is written AFTER the deaths of Peter and Paul.

4) The letter of Hebrews is clearly distinguished as “Paul’s Gospel”, penned by his student
Luke.

This book, now known as Hebrews, which bears the message to Ephesus from Luke, “the
brother Timothy [might we add, your (at one time) bishop] is set at Liberty” (Hebrews 13:23), is
understood in the light Irenaeus 3.1.1. that Mark indeed, did hand to John, in Ephesus of Asia, in
writing, the Sermons of Peter and the Gospel of Paul. We receive further affirmation that Luke
penned it, and was called as “Luke’s Digest, even though men [such as Irenaeus] usually ascribe
it to Paul” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5).

A Limit of NT authorship dates set by the death of Mark in 62 A.D.

"Mark,” says Eusebius "dies in the 8th year of Nero’s reign, in Alexandria of Egypt." {35}
 This, we would reckon as A.D. 61-62. In the First Century, the optimum travel time between
Alexandria and Rome was a minimum of 12 days. However, if Mark ran a circuit tour of visiting
various Churches, say Corinth and Philippi and Ephesus and Antioch and Caesarea and
Jerusalem, for example, then his travel would have taken him months before he would have
reached Egypt.

This pushes us back a year to 60-61. Then, it would have taken time for a non-Apostle like Mark
to establish the Church at Alexandria, especially among 400,000 Jews who lived there, and to
ensure its foundation. That Church Organization still exists from Antiquity to this Day, being
only younger than the Roman Church by what is counted on one hand for a difference of years.
And in order to establish and build such a Church, Mark alone would then need twice the time it
took Peter and Paul to establish Corinth or Rome together. This gives us an additional
subtraction of 3-4 years from the death and martyrdom of Mark, pushing us back to Mark
leaving Rome somewhere around 57-58 A.D.

Church Tradition dating to the Third Century, in Rome, strongly adheres to the day of Peter and
Paul's martyrdom as being on June 29 of an unknown year. {36}

The rolls of the bishops would have still been present in Rome in that period, and therefore, the
veracity of the day and month -- being left unchallenged, is probably an attempt at authentication
by its citation. Therefore, we should accept the date of June 29 of 57 or 58 A.D. {37}

Other Considerations:

Peter’s death must precede Mark’s death, and the evoking of the Passion by Jerome

Now, in the mid-Second Century, someone wrote in the Anti-Macionite prologues that:
“Mark…after Peter’s death, wrote down (his) Gospel in the region of Italy.”
In other words, he wrote down perhaps more copies of the original, but NOT in ROME. This
answers the dual testimony of Mark's copying down his Gospel both before and after the death of
Peter in ROME. Then comes the question, “Why did Mark feel compelled to leave ROME to
either make more copies of, or to finalize, his Gospel?”
Ancient Roman historians warn of an out of control Nero, with his raging hormones, whom in
the 50s and 60s A.D. repetitively demonstrated an inability to sanely and rationally to rule as
Caesar. {38}
Tiberius moved to Caprae (Capri) in circa 26-27 A.D. to exercise total dominion and to shield his
perversity, but Nero remained in Rome. Nero was much the more insulated by the Praetorian
Guard than perhaps any Caesar before him, and as a reckless youth, he gradually became
increasingly sociopathic. However, he soon found that much like Tiberius (who had to beg for
the Senate to send Laodicea earthquake relief ca. 17 or 23 A.D) {39}, he, Nero, (but for the
Senate) held near absolute power in only one province, wherever Caesar resided. And for
Nero, that province was ROME. Not in Asia, where the Apostle John resided. Not in Gaul. Not
in Briton. Just in ROME. Nero’s oppression and vices were at times so horrible, that even as one
 passed from inside ROME to outside the city, (unless you ran into the Camp of the Roman
Legion), it probably felt as if you were being liberated.

For, as Tertullian writes,

“…Nero…assailed with the Imperial Sword – the Christian Sect – making progress especially
then at ROME.” {40}

So, unless Nero traveled somewhere else -- such as Corinth, --his power and focus was not
“near-absolute” anywhere where he was not. In jurisprudence, Nero specifically saw cases that
were under his “sphere” only in the years of 55 (for 2 months), then in 57 (for 6 months), then in
58 (for 4 months), and lastly in A.D. 60 (for 6 months). {41}

Therefore, Paul could only have been executed in one of two years, A.D. 57 or 58. Jerome, who
had access to the most ancient manuscript copies of the Church at the time, in A.D. 392, agrees
and writes in “On Illustrious Men” in chapters 1, 5, and 9:

55 A.D. "…In the 25th year after our LORD’s Passion, {42}
55-56 A.D. that is the
2nd year of Nero, {43}
at the time Festus procurator of Judea, {44} succeeded Felix, he
[Paul] was sent bound to Rome, {45}

57-58 A.D.: and remaining for 2 years in Free Custody, [Acts 28:30]
disputed daily with the Jews concerning the Advent of Christ.”

Propaganda: Paul was dismissed by Nero that the Gospel of Christ

might be preached also in the West.

67 A.D.: …He, then, in the 14th year of Nero,

same day:   on the same day with Peter, was beheaded in ROME 
for Christ’s sake, and was buried in the Ostian Way
57 A.D.: the 27th year after the LORD’s Passion.” {46}

Jerome, earlier in his opening in chapter 1 of "On Illustrious Men,” cites a beginning of 42
A.D. for Peter’s reign, and an ending of 67 A.D. Obviously, this is impossible if he and Paul
are co-founding Corinth, or if Peter is to also visit Asia’s Churches. {47} However, the
specific analysis I want you to see is this: where Jerome evokes “the LORD’s Passion”,
(which is on a March 23 according to Lactantius’ Letter to Donatus, .2), Jerome holds
vehemently to a dating of 55-57 A.D. for the presence of Peter and Paul in ROME!
Also of note, in Chapter 9 of “On Illustrious Men”, Jerome also dates John’s death as
“68 years after our LORD’s Passion.” Hence dating both John the Apostle’s death in 98
A.D. and the Passion as 68 years plus, before Trajan became Caesar in Rome after that transition
period of Nerva (who followed Domitian). This is consistent with the testimony of Irenaeus in
his 3 essential quotes in A.H. 2.22.5., 3.3.4., and 5.30.4.

A possible answer to Jerome's 2nd year of Claudius for Peter's arrival in ROME

Emperor Nero was also named “Claudius” after that his uncle had adopted him as his son, as
stated earlier, so that his name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus.

So if Peter came in the 2nd year of the reign of this Nero Claudius, that is following June 1, 55
A.D., (when his second year would start, even after only a partial first), it would square with the
historical record we have just examined throughout.

But let me clarify this one point: I hold Peter to arriving in Rome about a month following Paul,
in the second year of Nero Claudius, but not Simon the Samaritan.

I believe the literary historical record is rigid on these two points:

1) Simon the Samaritan came to Rome in the second half of Claudius Caesar’s reign, between
48-53 A.D., and
2) Simon Peter, also called Cephas, arrived around June (or not much later) of 55 A.D.

It is extremely important that we can distinguish these two facts of the historical records which
were in existence, but apparently misconstrued in later times because much of the information
was rarely readily at one’s fingertips, due to the times in which they lived and the persecutions
which they suffered.

“Simon Peter…in the 2nd year of the reign of [Nero] Claudius, pushed on to
Rome, to overthrow Simon Magus.” says Jerome.

Again, according to the statement by Jerome, Peter came to Rome for what purpose? Not to head
the Churches of Christianity...but to fulfill a personal mission...to take on Simon Magus.

Clearly, Jerome identifies, along with other evidence as we have seen, that Christ was
crucified in A.D. 30. Now, such is the character of Jerome: when evoking the Passion, he
refuses to lie, fearing loss of his eternal soul. Others after him also, refuse to change the
utterance of Jerome where the Passion of Jesus is evoked. This speaks volumes, and tells us,
that even as late as 392, there was a clear knowledge or information still available, that
specifically dated the persecutions and deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul as being quite early
in Nero’s reign.
 To Jerome, when the name of G-D was evoked in such a way as to evoke “the efficaciously
atoning Passion”, not even the Pope (or should we say, Bishop of ROME) could persuade him to
"fudge" Church History. Claudius Nero becomes Claudius, except where the “Passion” of the
LORD is evoked: then the truth is told! Perhaps in A.D. 392, there was a rivalry with the Church
in Alexandria, and therefore a need for a 25 year leadership by Peter to counteract the Church
started by a de facto successor of Peter, Mark. Who knows?

So, Jerome now identifies A.D. 57 for us. And the point of this, as at the beginning, that in dating
John’s Revelation, even from the crucifixion do we see historical testimony from out of the
ancient past. This reinforces that which Caius tells us specifically, how that Paul approved the
Apocalypse before he died, and confined the number of his letters to his Churches, based solely
on the number of Churches written to in the Apocalypse. Therefore, we are limited to a book of
Revelation that was written only within Paul’s lifetime and after the founding of the Churches of
Asia by Paul and other apostles of Jesus Christ.

=========================================

32 Luke’s was completed in Corinth of Achaia in 50-51 A.D., approximately 5 years before
Matthew’s in Jerusalem.

33 Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14 – citing Clement of Alexandria

34 This can be further supported by Jerome. In 398 A.D., in his preface to Commentary on
Matthew, Jerome tells us “Luke the physician…composed his book in Achaia and Boeotia.” That
is: Corinth of Achaia, and near Athens in Boeotia. Prior to going to Athens in Acts 17:16, Luke
goes to Berea in Acts 17:10. I believe that he is so impacted, as his statement in Acts 17:11-12
tells us, that he meets Theophilus in this city of Berea, and by the time Luke reaches Athens in
Acts 17:16, it appears that Luke may have begun to piece together his rough draft Gospel outline
(in part) from the parchments and scrolls of Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:13). These are they, which
probably contain eyewitness testimonies and teachings as early as Acts 13:1 from Antioch. Luke
then would then have conducted various apostolic interviews in Corinth, confirming, adding, and
editing source material, before finally completing his Gospel in either A.D. 50 or by the Spring
of 51 A.D.

35 Eusebius H.O.C., 2.24. In 2.16, Eusebius lists Mark as being the “first” who was sent to
Alexandria, and the “first” to establish churches in that particular Egyptian city.

36 Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. p. 485, “Acts of the Apostles.” Although the story
appears to be just that, there is little or no reason to doubt that such an odd date as June 29 would
have been made up, but rather the author would have wanted to close on one well known fact as
if to justify the reason for observance of the date that was being observed already. This date of
June 29 falls very closely with Paul’s 2 whole years in his own hired house (Acts 28:30). Had he
arrived in May of 55, followed by 2 whole years, and then receiving “a 30 day reprieve for the
condemned” dating from Augustus (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Augustus .32) or the later Senatorial
 reprieve of 10 days for the condemned issued in A.D. 21 (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius .75).
And as Eusebius cites in H.O.C. 5.21, that once any man is brought to trial before Caesar and the
Senate, …”once led to trial, and that would by no means CHANGE their purpose, should not be
dismissed.”

One example that I have not seen anyone yet use in Roman history to date the trials of Peter and
Paul, is that we do know with fair certainty, before even beginning to research the date of Peter
and Paul's trials in Rome, that Peter and Paul were NOT executed in either November or
December of any year, as the Court Calendars were dark in those months in Rome since the time
of Augustus (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Augustus, .32). Further, they would not have been executed
in A.D. 56, because in that year, Seneca -- not Nero -- was Consul in ROME (Grant, Michael
The Twelve Caesars, N.Y.: Barnes & Noble, © 1975, 1996 reprint, p.155).

Suetonius tells us that Nero held 4 consulships, which limits his interactions with the Apostles to
these times:
1) Two months (in A.D. 55)
2) Six months (in A.D. 57)
3) Four months (in A.D. 58)
4) Six months (in A.D. 60) (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, 6.14)

37 Re: Bruce, F.F. “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, © 1943, 14th Edition 1980, p.83 Now, if F.F. Bruce’s assessment is correct, that the
Ephesian riot took place in 54 A.D., the entire dating of the N.T. as I lay out must be bumped up
a year. This could account for Paul’s expectancy of death in and desertion at 2 Timothy 4:16; but
this could just as easily be explained as Paul simply referring to Jerusalem and his trial before
Festus and Felix as the context of what he tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:16.

38 e.g., Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero, .20 - .29

39 Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .8 the earthquake relief / petition of funds was also made in
behalf of Thyatira, and Chios also. Some historians have reckoned this earthquake at 17 A.D.,
while other opinions appear to be 23 A.D.

40 Tertullian, Apology, .5

41 Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero, .14

42 Lactanius, "On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died", .2, tells us that Jesus was
crucified on March 23, "the tenth of the Kalends of April". He also goes on to explain that only
"25 years" lapsed, "until the beginning of the reign of Nero", before Peter and Paul came to
ROME.

43 Claudius died on October 13, 54 A.D. (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .45) This is perfectly
in line with the account given by Epiphanius, as stated earlier, in which John was both exiled to
Patmos, and returned WHILE Claudius was emperor.
 Nero was installed almost as soon as the news of Claudius’ October death was made public
(Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero,.8. Roman Emperors could appear to reckon their reign, like
governors, from June 1 to May 31. Hence Nero’s 1st year could be reckoned in one of TWO
ways: the actual calendar year of 365 days from when he took office in mid-October 54 A.D
(Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .45; Nero .8; or by reckoning the time up to June 1, followed
by the 365 days thereafter.

44 Josephus, 20.8.9. If Nero sent Festus straightway with a Legion in November 54, Paul would
then have been sent from Jerusalem and on his way to ROME no later than January of 55 A.D.,
about one to two months prior to the death of Festus, who used his extra Legion to wage a swift
winter campaign in the Israeli countryside. This still falls well within the timeline needed for a
53 A.D. Revelation authorship, and a death of Peter and Paul in Rome in A.D. 57.

45 More correctly, Paul arrived in Rome in 55 A.D. Luke records his stay as 2 whole years in a
rented house, in which Paul awaited to stand before Caesar. Since Paul died on June 29 of 57
A.D., and if we subtract a 30 day imprisonment in bonds from June 29 in which he and Peter had
time to change their minds toward the deities of Rome -- we reach an arrival date for Paul in
Rome in the latter part of May 55 A.D. By February or early March of 55, Festus was dead. The
martyrdom of James, the bishop of the Christians in Jerusalem, occurs on Passover in A.D. 55
just weeks after the death of Festus. (Re: Hegisippus’ account in Eusebius, H.O.C. 2.23; and
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1.). Paul was on an island for about 3 months, subtracting
to April, then March , then February. Then, allotting travel by ship and by pedestrian means, we
are looking at a date no later than the first week of February, probably mid-late January 55 A.D.
for Paul’s shipwreck experience.

46 Acts 28:30. The emphasis is that Paul stayed in his own rented house. Like Ignatius, in later
times, he would have been chained to a special guard, and allowed to move about the city of
ROME on rare occasions from time to time. The important thing to remember is that Paul’s
house became an instant Church, in which others congregated and or met with him (Acts 28:17
ff.).

47 Jerome, “On Illustrious Men”, .545 Eusebius, H.O.C. 2.25, cites Dionysius of Corinth writing
Soter of Rome, “…Peter, and Paul both sowed in Romans and Corinthians alike. For both of
them sowed in our Corinth and taught us jointly: in Italy too, they taught jointly in the same city,
and were martyred at the same time.” Cf.: I Corinthians 1:12, and I Peter 1:1.
In 44 B.C., Corinth was rebuilt into a “New Corinth”, a forced retirement settlement of former
Legionnaires, Knights (L. “equestor ordo” -those of an upper social class who were senatorial
financiers and contacts), and freedmen. There was an intense connection between Corinth and
Rome when Peter and Paul arrived and stayed just 93-94 years later. It also tells us why that after
the evangelism of Asia, funded by the Corinthians, the next effort was in Rome. Asia was home
to the temples of Emperor Worship. Once the Gospel was clearly victorious in Asia, the
Corinthian sponsors of the missionary efforts felt confident of their ambitions toward converting
the people of Rome also. The noble Erastus was most likely of the “equestor ordo”, a Roman
Knight, and financial sponsor of the Senator of Achaia as well as that of the Christian Churches
funded by Peter and Paul in that region. The success of the evangelism of Asia probably relied
 quite heavily on Erastus’ position of influence in the Empire at the time, and an unspoken
relationship with those around Emperor Claudius.

In what order written / Letter or Book that was written / When Written / From where it
was written

1) Jude / A.D. 47 / Jerusalem, Israel

2) James / A.D. 47, Pentecost / Jerusalem, Israel
3) Galatians / A.D. 48 / Philippi, Greece
4) Gospel of Luke / A.D. 50 / Corinth, Achaia

5) I Thessalonians / February - July, A.D. 52 / Ephesus, Asia

6) I Corinthians / July - November, A.D. 52 / Ephesus, Asia
7) Revelation / Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53 / Patmos, Aegean
Cannot be written and sent later than April 54 A.D.

8) Romans / October - November, A.D. 53 / Corinth, Achaia

                    or  June - November A.D. 54 / Caesarea, Israel  

9) Titus / February, A.D. 54 / Troas, Aegean Sea

10) Colossians / May - November, A.D. 54 / Jerusalem, Israel
11) I Timothy / May - November, A.D. 54 / Jerusalem, Israel

12) II Thessalonians / August - December, A.D. 54 / Ephesus, Asia

13) Gospel of Matthew / May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56 / Jerusalem, Israel
14) Philemon / A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy

15) II Timothy / October, A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy

16) Ephesians / October, A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy
17) Philippians / February - April, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
18) I Peter / March - April, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

19) Gospel of Mark / June, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

20) II Peter / June, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
21) Acts of the Apostles / July, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

22) Hebrews / July, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

23) I John (severed intro) / August - October, A.D. 57 / Ephesus, Asia
24) Gospel of John / August - October, A.D. 57 / Ephesus, Asia

25) 2 John /A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 / Ephesus, Asia

26) 3 John / A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 / Ephesus, Asia
 

Appendix
 

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 also be 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.