Why do you think M, M, & L didn’t talk a great deal, or any at all, about John the Apostle? When we read John, we discover that it was John who was related to the high priest and was able able to get Peter into the courtyard of Ananias/Caiaphas. On the other hand, Peter plays a fairly prominent role in the Gospels, yet it was said of John, he was the was the one Jesus loved. What do you think?
Hey Brant! Good thoughts. I think that is the beauty of the gospels record. That is why we have four gospels instead of only one. You would actually think something is fishy if they all said the very same things the very same way. As if they sat together and decided to say those things intentionaly and not say other things. In fact even the things that appear contradictory in the accounts add more reliabilty to them.
I think that while narrating a story that huge, with such emotions and with the focus on such an event going on, you are more likely to drop something like that, unless you are John Mark or Matthew or Luke probably didn’t know that piece of information at the time, they just knew that Peter got in! And again this points out to the fact that this is a reliable account not a made-up one, it respects the limitations of the authors resources.
Apparently Peter WAS a prominent figure in the early church. Jesus told him: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
If you read the very first chapters of Acts you will see clearly how his role was so important in the church and preaching the gospel. So, as the accounts were written within years after the resurrection of Jesus, and the beginning of the church, it only makes sense to pay extra attention to the life of the man who had such an impact.
The different gospels were accounts of Jesus’ life that included details that were important to that in dividual. They are all different but were true to the message regarding Jesus. Matthew was written from the prospective of the Jews, Polycarp even stated that it was originally written in Hebrew… Refrences to The Kingdom of Heaven does not use God as the other gospel writers do.but quotes from the Hebrew text not the Septuagint as the other writers do as God’s name was too holy to be…used in regular conversation. You see fulfilled prophecy, Luke is a Historian and a gentile very interested in providing an accurate history as the a secular audience would expect. Mark is a gospel that was actually the preaching of Peter, Mark was a scribe who was a companion of Peter and well aware of Peter’s message and the Early Church leaders saw the disciples being killed or dying and were concerned about keeping his eye-witness account. Peter was not the intellectual the other leaders but a people person that could draw people to him. One of his unique skills was his ability to paint word pictures as he told his stories. This in not real clear in the stories of Mark, Mark did not seem to have Peters story telling ability but there are hints when you read Mark in the Greek, Also Peters use of the present tense draws the listener into the story. The use of “immediately” is also a story tellers technique.assuring the listener there is more of the story. This ability made Peter a great communicator and assisted him in becoming the leader of the disciples and the early church. John writes toward the end of the 1st century when his philosophical and theological perspective of Jesus teaching aided the church answering the philosophical critics, though John writes to gentiles from a Jewish theological background but in a form that gentiles could understand. Paul does much the same as John.