Considering the close relationship between Jesus and Peter, why is there no gospel account of Peter in the bible?

Lol , thats a nice thought

" She who is in Babylon , a chosen one like you , sends you her greetings , and so does Mark, my son " 2 Pet 5:13

The expression " Mark, my son" reveals that he has a very close relationship with Mark , therefore I think he might be the Principal source of information for Mark when writing his gospel . So Peter still played a key role .

Peter wasn't too learn, even his epistle was written in coloquial greek. Mark was his disciple and mouth piece.

ace1:
Considering the close relationship between Jesus and Peter, why is there no gospel account of Peter in the bible?

A fantastic question. As you may know, there is a Gospel of Peter, it was deemed apocryphal around 200 CE. Prior to this the gospel was an integral part of early Christianity, it was used by the Nazarenes as well as the Ebionites. The book probably draws from a common source of the Synoptics although it differs principally in several areas. Like all of the canonical gospels, it is pseudonymous i.e written by somebody purporting to be Peter. The book gives accounts of hugely tall angelic beings and a slightly different account of the crucifixion of Jesus.

In the aftermath of the struggle between Paulinist theology and that of the early church lead by “James the Just” brother of Jesus who followed the “actual” teachings of Jesus, and with the connivance of Rome, the docetist nature of the book lead to it being declared apocryphal by the orthodox Paulinist Church therefore it no longer forms part of acceptable scripture of Christianity.

Jessicha:
Lol , thats a nice thought

" She who is in Babylon , a chosen one like you , sends you her greetings , and so does Mark, my son " 2 Pet 5:13

The expression " Mark, my son" reveals that he has a very close relationship with Mark , therefore I think he might be the Principal source of information for Mark when writing his gospel . So Peter still played a key role .

I'm guessing this is just an assumption. and the passage is 1st Peter and not 2nd Peter. Is Marcus the same person as Mark?

Sarassin:


A fantastic question. As you may know, there is a Gospel of Peter, it was deemed apocryphal around 200 CE. Prior to this the gospel was an integral part of early Christianity, it was used by the Nazarenes as well as the Ebionites. The book probably draws from a common source of the Synoptics although it differs principally in several areas. Like all of the canonical gospels, it is pseudonymous i.e written by somebody purporting to be Peter. The book gives accounts of hugely tall angelic beings and a slightly different account of the crucifixion of Jesus.

In the aftermath of the struggle between Paulinist theology and that of the early church lead by “James the Just” brother of Jesus who followed the “actual” teachings of Jesus, and with the connivance of Rome, the docetist nature of the book lead to it being declared apocryphal by the orthodox Paulinist Church therefore it no longer forms part of acceptable scripture of Christianity.

I'd like to read his own accout. Assuming what you have said is true

ace1:


I'm guessing this is just an assumption. and the passage is 1st Peter and not 2nd Peter.

Thanks .

Is Marcus the same person as Mark?

Yes . Compare translations to get a clearer picture

Sarassin:


A fantastic question. As you may know, there is a Gospel of Peter, it was deemed apocryphal around 200 CE. Prior to this the gospel was an integral part of early Christianity, it was used by the Nazarenes as well as the Ebionites. The book probably draws from a common source of the Synoptics although it differs principally in several areas. Like all of the canonical gospels, it is pseudonymous i.e written by somebody purporting to be Peter. The book gives accounts of hugely tall angelic beings and a slightly different account of the crucifixion of Jesus.

In the aftermath of the struggle between Paulinist theology and that of the early church lead by “James the Just” brother of Jesus who followed the “actual” teachings of Jesus, and with the connivance of Rome, the docetist nature of the book lead to it being declared apocryphal by the orthodox Paulinist Church therefore it no longer forms part of acceptable scripture of Christianity.

Am curious

ace1:


I'd like to read his own accout. Assuming what you have said is true

You can always check what I wrote without having to take assumptions, I would add that there are no surviving records of “actual” written words by Jesus, Peter or any of the other Apostles who walked with Jesus in his lifetime.

What survives today as Gospel are accounts written by anonymous writers who failed to identify themselves probably due to persecution from “Herodian authorities”. Keep in mind that Paul wrote his epistles even before the Gospel writers and they represent the only reliably identified writings of the Christian NT, and even at that, out of all the volumes attributed to Paul up to half are considered pseudonymous.

My point is, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, widely available, though written in the name of Peter are not the actual attestations of Peter, they represent the viewpoint of its author who (like all the other gospel writers) simply wanted to get across certain theological doctrine that prevailed at the time of the early Jerusalem church. Writing in the name of Peter achieved this, unfortunately it went against Pauline doctrine and was therefore banned.

enm:


Am curious

What would you like to know ?

Sarassin:


What would you like to know ?

I'd like to know how the Bible came about. Who put all the different writings together

ace1:


I'd like to know how the Bible came about. Who put all the different writings together

I assume you are asking about the compilation of the Bible and not who actually wrote it.

The Christian Bible as it obtains presently has grown rather organically. The first part which is the Old Testament or (to use its proper term) the “Tanakh” is a compendium of ancient Jewish scripture and quasi Jewish historical accounts documented before during and after the great Hebrew exile, it was written originally in Hebrew and some Aramaic.

The second part of the Bible consists of the New Testaments, it is a collection of Christian writings written originally in Koine Greek, discussing the teachings and life of Jesus of Nazareth. With the exception of the Epistles attributable to Paul and the self-identifying Apocalypse of John, authorship of the writings are indeterminate. What is clear is that they were written by well educated Greek speaking Jews in diaspora.

Compilation was a gradual process and largely as a response to what was perceived as heretical doctrines, between the late 2nd and late 3rd centuries, early church fathers the likes of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Gaul and Hippolytus of Rome were largely responsible for the composition of the canons as we know them today, for instance Irenaeus decreed there were to be four gospels mainly because (according to him) there were four corners of the earth !

The Muratorian canon is perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament it appears to have been compiled around the years 170CE to 4th CE. The unidentified author accepted four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted are the "Acts of all Apostles" and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (the Epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned in the fragment, there was a disavowed 3 Corinthians, and Serapion describes catching a Bishop in the act of forging an Epistle.

In addition to receiving the Apocalypse of John into the church canon, the author remarks that they also receive the Apocalypse of Peter, although "some of us will not allow the latter to be read in church."

ace1:
Considering the close relationship between Jesus and Peter, why is there no gospel account of Peter in the bible?

His Job and ministry as said by Christ is to Feed,tend and feed the sheep and gospel writing is none of that.

ace1:
Considering the close relationship between Jesus and Peter, why is there no gospel account of Peter in the bible?

Non of the gospels were written by close companions of Jesus. In fact, they are all pseudonymous writings as sarassin has pointed out. Pseudonymous means they do not bear the names of the actual authors. The actual authors are unknown.

McSterling:
Non of the gospels were written by close companions of Jesus. In fact, they are all pseudonymous writings as sarassin has pointed out. Pseudonymous means they do not bear the names of the actual authors. The actual authors are unknown.

From what Sarassin wrote, there's a possibility (Here's me assuming again) that the new testament could have been tempered with. Why I say this? I've read articles about some books not included in the bible. Also, the writers of these books could be anybody

Sarassin:

Keep in mind that Paul wrote his epistles even before the Gospel writers and they represent the only reliably identified writings of the Christian NT, and even at that, out of all the volumes attributed to Paul up to half are considered pseudonymous.
My point is, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, widely available, though written in the name of Peter are not the actual attestations of Peter, they represent the viewpoint of its author who (like all the other gospel writers) simply wanted to get across certain theological doctrine that prevailed at the time of the early Jerusalem church. Writing in the name of Peter achieved this, unfortunately it went against Pauline doctrine and was therefore banned.

I don't care about who wrote it. The central message of Christ is what am after. Once I was blind, but now I can see.

ace1:


From what Sarassin wrote, there's a possibility (Here's me assuming again) that the new testament could have been tempered with. Why I say this? I've read articles about some books not included in the bible. Also, the writers of these books could be anybody

books which weren't included didn't pass the criteria set. They were neither written by apostles and some didn't bear apostolic teachings.

Jessicha:
Lol , thats a nice thought

" She who is in Babylon , a chosen one like you , sends you her greetings , and so does Mark, my son " 2 Pet 5:13

The expression " Mark, my son" reveals that he has a very close relationship with Mark , therefore I think he might be the Principal source of information for Mark when writing his gospel . So Peter still played a key role .

As a theologian, Mark was Peter's secretary in his earthly ministry.

ace1:


From what Sarassin wrote, there's a possibility (Here's me assuming again) that the new testament could have been tempered with. Why I say this? I've read articles about some books not included in the bible. Also, the writers of these books could be anybody

I would say it is a certainty that the NT was tampered with. As far back as the 2nd century CE the likes of Tertullian complained bitterly of changes to the composition of the scriptures as did others. Writings like the "Shepherd of Hermas" and the "Clementine Recognitions" were at one time considered canonical, they were removed for very frivolous reasons, the Apocalypse of John (Revelations) only just managed to get into the NT at the very last gasp, it was considered "un-Christian".

Sarassin:


I would say it is a certainty that the NT was tampered with. As far back as the 2nd century CE the likes of Tertullian complained bitterly of changes to the composition of the scriptures as did others. Writings like the "Shepherd of Hermas" and the "Clementine Recognitions" were at one time considered canonical, they were removed for very frivolous reasons, the Apocalypse of John (Revelations) only just managed to get into the NT at the very last gasp, it was considered "un-Christian".

i think u just goofed.

Kindly give me the name chapter and verse of Tertullian pre-heretical writting where he claimed the new testament was tampered with.


Books liked sherpherd of hermas and d clementin works were never universally recognised, many of the ancient church never considered them canonical, the 2nd century had very many writtings flying around many were heretical, among the non heretical ones some where considered canonical others weren't. The most widely accepted works with were ascribe to the apostles were accepted.

Ubenedictus:


i think u just goofed.

Kindly give me the name chapter and verse of Tertullian pre-heretical writting where he claimed the new testament was tampered with.


Books liked sherpherd of hermas and d clementin works were never universally recognised, many of the ancient church never considered them canonical, the 2nd century had very many writtings flying around many were heretical, among the non heretical ones some where considered canonical others weren't. The most widely accepted works with were ascribe to the apostles were accepted.

Here are the words of Tertullian before he turned his back on orthodoxy.

Da Praescriptione haereticorum, 38

"..........Corruption of the Scriptures and of their interpretation
is to be expected wherever difference in doctrine is discovered.
Those who proposed to teach differently were of necessity
driven to tamper with the literature of doctrine, for they could
not have taught differently had they not possessed different
sources of teaching….."


For good measure here is Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth.

".........When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did
so. These the devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some
things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder
then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord
himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts......"

And finally Origen (Commentary on Matthew Bk 15, Chap 14)

"………had been added, although it was not said by the Savior to the ruler. Now it is clear that large differences between the manuscripts were created, either by the negligence of some writers, or by the perverse boldness of others who made corrections to the manuscript, adding or omitting what seemed good to them...."

You may claim that the Shepher of Hermas and the Recognitions were not universally known, but that is a highly subjective claim as they were quoted widely. The fact is they were deemed apocryphal because they contained material which orthodoxy did not agree with.

oh, and we can all make mistakes.

Anas09:
I don't care about who wrote it. The central message of Christ is what am after. Once I was blind, but now I can see.

This of course begs the question, how do you know what the central message of Christ is if you do not know who wrote the message?

Sarassin:



This of course begs the question, how do you know what the central message of Christ is if you do not know who wrote the message?

We know who wrote them.

The effort of scholars, textual critics, removed the corruption that would have damaged Gods word.

JMAN05:


We know who wrote them.

Pray do tell, who wrote the gospels?

The effort of scholars, textual critics, removed the corruption that would have damaged Gods word.

I don't agree, for instance the Sinai Bible (codex Sinaiticus) revealed an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).

Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinaiticus, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts.

The Christian claim is that the resurrection is the fundamental argument for Christian belief yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing" of Christianity.

If Christ has not been raised, all your faith is in vain (1 Cor 5v17)

The encyclopedia biblica has the following to say "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767)

So much for not damaging God's word.

Sarassin:


Pray do tell, who wrote the gospels?

Matthew, mark, john and Luke.

I don't agree, for instance the Sinai Bible (codex Sinaiticus) revealed an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).

Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinaiticus, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts.

The Christian claim is that the resurrection is the fundamental argument for Christian belief yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing" of Christianity.

If Christ has not been raised, all your faith is in vain (1 Cor 5v17)

The encyclopedia biblica has the following to say "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767)

So much for not damaging God's word.

The resurrection of Jesus and his ascension is recorded by other books, not Mark. Mark acknowledged the resurrection, but never went into details. See Matt 28; Luke 24; John 20, 21 for the resurrection account. I don't see the reason for ur quoting 1cor 15:7 as if no such account existed in the gospels.

From mark chapter 16:9, that aspect has been doubtful for long, some translation chose to live it there, not that they do not know it is doubtful. That does not mean that all that is found in the book are false, nope.

The resurrection is a standard truth.

JMAN05:


Matthew, mark, john and Luke.

Surely you are joking?

The resurrection of Jesus and his ascension is recorded by other books, not Mark. Mark acknowledged the resurrection, but never went into details. See Matt 28; Luke 24; John 20, 21 for the resurrection account. I don't see the reason for ur quoting 1cor 15:7 as if no such account existed in the gospels.

From mark chapter 16:9, that aspect has been doubtful for long, some translation chose to live it there, not that they do not know it is doubtful. That does not mean that all that is found in the book are false, nope.

The resurrection is a standard truth.

Lets take a closer look.

I have shown that the resurrection story in the Gospel of Mark is a forgery.

We are all familiar with the insertion of the “Great Commission” in the Gospel of Matthew which is also a forgery.

St. Jerome, who translated the Gospel of Matthew from the original Hebrew into Greek, had the following to say about the Gospel of Luke

“And it also happened that this book having been published by a disciple of Manichaeus, named Seleucus, who also wrote falsely The Acts of the Apostles, exhibited matter not for edification, but for destruction and that this book was approved in a synod which the ears of the Church properly refused to listen to”.
The letters of Jerome vol v

The final Chapter (21) of the Gospel of John, devoted entirely to the description of the resurrection of Jesus is a 6th Century forgery, it is not in doubt.

The Church states:
"The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel"(codeword for forgery)
(New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

I would say it is far from a standard truth.

Sarassin:


Surely you are joking?



Lets take a closer look.

I have shown that the resurrection story in the Gospel of Mark is a forgery.

We are all familiar with the insertion of the “Great Commission” in the Gospel of Matthew which is also a forgery.

St. Jerome, who translated the Gospel of Matthew from the original Hebrew into Greek, had the following to say about the Gospel of Luke

“And it also happened that this book having been published by a disciple of Manichaeus, named Seleucus, who also wrote falsely The Acts of the Apostles, exhibited matter not for edification, but for destruction and that this book was approved in a synod which the ears of the Church properly refused to listen to”.
The letters of Jerome vol v

The final Chapter (21) of the Gospel of John, devoted entirely to the description of the resurrection of Jesus is a 6th Century forgery, it is not in doubt.

The Church states:
"The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel"(codeword for forgery)
(New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

I would say it is far from a standard truth.

Chairman!

You too pour sand for people garri...

Wasn't the Book of Mark the first Gospel written and it was like 100 years after the Christ's death. I think Matthew and Luke basically copied and revised his version, the book of John looks like someone's imagination ran wild.

Sarassin:


Surely you are joking?

Thats not a point.

Lets take a closer look.

I have shown that the resurrection story in the Gospel of Mark is a forgery.

I understand by this you mean the resurrection appearances and Christ's ascension found from Mark 16:9-20. That I agree, but the resurrection of Jesus is attested by the book of mark, but it never went into details. take note.

We are all familiar with the insertion of the “Great Commission” in the Gospel of Matthew which is also a forgery.

St. Jerome, who translated the Gospel of Matthew from the original Hebrew into Greek, had the following to say about the Gospel of Luke

“And it also happened that this book having been published by a disciple of Manichaeus, named Seleucus, who also wrote falsely The Acts of the Apostles, exhibited matter not for edification, but for destruction and that this book was approved in a synod which the ears of the Church properly refused to listen to”.
The letters of Jerome vol v

1. There was no insertion that includes the three titles as is claimed by some, Father, son and holy spirit. These words are found in all the trusted manuscripts.

2. Jerome was not the first translator of the book of Matthew into greek. Matthew is most likely the translator or those closer to him.

3. The manichaeus under discussion and his disciple are not true disciples of Christ. He is the self acclaimed prophet of God who began his journey in the 3rd century AD. Mani promoted his own sect and religion.

You tho quoted the document out of context.

However, We know that Jerome himself made a translation of the gospel and other books. He never considered these false writeup. If not, he would not do the translation and many christians then wouldnt have accepted it. Cant you even ask yourself: How can he translate a work he knew was written by a known heretic.

The final Chapter (21) of the Gospel of John, devoted entirely to the description of the resurrection of Jesus is a 6th Century forgery, it is not in doubt.

The Church states:
"The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel"(codeword for forgery)
(New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

I would say it is far from a standard truth.

Apart from the last Chapter, the previous chapter (ie, chapter 20) spoke of resurrection appearances. I thus, do not understand your disbelief in it.

however, towards the end of the Catholic encyclopedia it states even among critics 'the vocabulary, style, and mode of presentation, together with the subject matter of the passage reveal the common authorship of this chapter and the preceding portions of the fourth gospel'.

There is no good reason to see the work as doubtful. Better still, it could be that John decided to add more information to his account.

Since a manuscript of a late 3rd century has parts of chapter 21, ur 6th century forgery is wrong.

GuyFawkes:
Wasn't the Book of Mark the first Gospel written and it was like 100 years after the Christ's death. I think Matthew and Luke basically copied and revised his version, the book of John looks like someone's imagination ran wild.

100 yrs after? Any evidence?

JMAN05:


Thats not a point.

Ok, let us lay this issue of the Gospel’s authorship to bed once and for all, here is the Catholic Encyclopaedia and within context.

"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

I understand by this you mean the resurrection appearances and Christ's ascension found from Mark 16:9-20. That I agree, but the resurrection of Jesus is attested by the book of mark, but it never went into details. take note.

Noted.

1. There was no insertion that includes the three titles as is claimed by some, Father, son and holy spirit. These words are found in all the trusted manuscripts.

I have no idea what "three titles" you say some are referring to, kindly elaborate.

2. Jerome was not the first translator of the book of Matthew into greek. Matthew is most likely the translator or those closer to him.

It is not clear who conducted a first translation into Greek but it could not have been the author of Matthew, Jerome makes it clear the book was composed in Hebrew characters

“which we recently translated from a Hebrew sermon into Greek and which by many has been declared to be the authentic Matthew” (Comm. to Matthew, II, xii, 13).

3. The manichaeus under discussion and his disciple are not true disciples of Christ. He is the self acclaimed prophet of God who began his journey in the 3rd century AD. Mani promoted his own sect and religion.

You tho quoted the document out of context.

However, We know that Jerome himself made a translation of the gospel and other books. He never considered these false writeup. If not, he would not do the translation and many christians then wouldnt have accepted it. Cant you even ask yourself: How can he translate a work he knew was written by a known heretic.

I have not quoted Jerome out of context, I did make an error though, in my previous quote referring to Manichaeus, Jerome was referring to the Book of Matthew not Luke. I will clarify, the Gospel of Matthew was published by the named Seleucus which as you know was rejected by Jerome, it was however, the original version. Jerome has obviously taken an axe to the original version and amended it to his own liking. Here is an example of what he did, I am quoting from Jerome's book titled "Dialogue against Pelagianos"

"In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea), we find, “Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him?"

As you are aware, this verse is nowhere to be found in the present day book of Matthew. Jerome practically rewrote the Gospel.

however, towards the end of the Catholic encyclopedia it states even among critics 'the vocabulary, style, and mode of presentation, together with the subject matter of the passage reveal the common authorship of this chapter and the preceding portions of the fourth gospel'.

There is no good reason to see the work as doubtful. Better still, it could be that John decided to add more information to his account.

A face-saving gesture by the Church perhaps?

Since a manuscript of a late 3rd century has parts of chapter 21, ur 6th century forgery is wrong

What document is this ?

Sarassin:



It is not clear who conducted a first translation into Greek but it could not have been the author of Matthew, Jerome makes it clear the book was composed in Hebrew characters

There is a dude called Nehemiah Gordon who has gone deep in this and does lectures discussing his research.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmAY-vJGPhc