Peter's escape to Antioch with John-Mark

I will argue that after Peter escaped from prison he went to Antioch with John-Mark.

Acts 12:25 says that John-Mark accompanied Barnabas and Paul from Antioch to

Jerusalem. At least this is the plain meaning of the most probable text. The main

difficulty is that Mark lived in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12; 13:13). If Mark was in Antioch

before the journey to Jerusalem that is mentioned in Acts 12:25, what was he doing

there, and why does Luke not tell us?

Now, as Stephen Carlson has pointed out, the reading, "he came" in Gal 2:12 is the

best attested and harder reading. If we accept this reading, as I think we should, we

get the following sequence:

1. Peter was in Antioch on one occasion and ate with Gentiles at that time. Then he

left.

2. The men 'from James' arrived. (these could be the men from Judea of Acts 15:1).

3. Peter came to Antioch (again) and Paul opposed him.

Now this is important because it suggests that Peter visited Antioch at some stage

before the Jerusalem council.

So, we have evidence that both Mark and Peter made early visits to Antioch that Luke

does not mention. I would like to offer a simple hypothesis that I think explains why

they went to Antioch and why Luke does not mention it. After Peter escaped from

prison he went to 'another place'. I suggest that he went to Antioch and was

accompanied by Mark.

It is clear, I think, that when Peter went to 'another place' he was going into hiding.

Antioch would have been a likely place for him to go since it was far from Jerusalem

and Peter had many friends there. It had been a place of refuge for many of those who

had been scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen (Acts

11:19). Also, it was a large city so Peter would be able to go unnoticed there.

Now, after Peter escaped from prison he chose to go only to the house of Mark (or

Mark's mother) (Acts 12:12), and I think this is significant. I suggest that Peter chose

to go to this house because he wanted Mark to help him escape. Mark would have

been able to travel to Antioch without arousing suspicion: he would be able to do so on

the pretext that he was visiting his uncle or friend, Barnabas. Also, the house seems

to have been large, so we can assume that Mark's household had money to help Peter

and Mark escape to Antioch. Also, later texts (1 Peter and Papias, as quoted by

Eusebius) suggest that Peter and Mark were close.

Luke's silences now make perfect sense. If he had mentioned this journey by Peter

and Mark to Antioch he would have endangered the church of Antioch and Mark

himself (if he was still alive) by revealing to both friends and foes that they had aided a

fugitive. Luke, I suggest, chose to protect the identities of those who had helped Peter

at this time. His silence about Mark's purpose in Antioch therefore matches his

silence about the name of the city that Peter went to.

Acts 12:25 on its own does not prove that Mark had been in Antioch, and Gal 2:12 on

its own does not prove that Peter escaped to Antioch, but the mention of Mark's

mother's house in Acts 12:12 ties the two hypotheses together such that they give

each other mutual support.