It was once thought that the apostle Peter wrote the two epistles known as First Peter and Second Peter. It was also suggested that Mark wrote the gospel that now bears his name, based on the memoirs of Peter.Most scholars now accept that Peter did not write First Peter and Second Peter. It is also accepted that Mark was unlikely to have been the author of Mark's Gospel, which was originally anonymous and which was not written until approximately 70 CE. So the position now is that Saint Peter made no contribution to writing the New Testament.
A:The Gospel of Mark was originally anonymous, so we can not really say who wrote it, in spite of the second-century attribution to Mark. Nevertheless, New Testament scholars say that the gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed, which means Peter certainly could not have written it. In any case, by about 70 CE, when Mark was written, Peter was most unlikely to have still been alive.
ANSWER:John:1:40: One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.Matthew:4:18-20: And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.Matthew:10:2: Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother.Answer In Matthew's Gospel and Mark's Gospel, Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee when he called the brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew. They were the first disciples.In Luke's Gospel, Peter seems to have been the first disciple.In John's Gospel Andrew, and another of the disciples of John the Baptist were the first disciples of Jesus. Peter was the third.AnswerThe four Gospels each list the disciples in a different order. The ONLY ONE that occupies the same place in that order is PETER (also called Simon and Simon Peter). Yes Andrew went and found Peter and brought him to Jesus but it was not a situation of first in line gets to be it. Jesus told Peter "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone". Jesus chose Peter as his first disciple.
AnswerAround 130 CE, Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, named Mark as the author of the hitherto anonymous gospel (From Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39). Since that time, Mark has traditionally been accepted as the author of what is now known as Mark's Gospel.Paul had mentioned a person called Mark, as one of his fellow workers, in his letter to Philemon. Then, in the first epistle of Peter (l Peter 5:13), a peudonymous document from the second century, a Mark is mentioned as Peter's son. Presumably these were thought to have been one and the same person.
The earliest gospel, which was attributed by the second-century Church Fathers to Mark, is traditionally thought likely to have been written in Rome. This is firstly because Mark was thought to be the son of Peter and that Peter went to Rome, where he was executed, and secondly because the book contains some words that suggest a familiarity with Latin.However there is no good reason to believe that Mark's Gospel was really written in Rome. The gospel was originally anonymous and although it was later attributed to Mark, there is no apparent justification for this attribution. Moreover the link between Mark and Peter is disputable, and Peter does not seem likely to have actually gone to Rome at all. If the gospel was written in Rome, by someone familiar with the Latin language and for Latin speakers, it can be expected to have been written in Latin, yet it was written in Greek Koine.Greek Koine was a dialect used throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. It is here that the first gospel is likely to have been written.
The Gospel of Mark was originally written anonymously and only attributed by the Church Fathers to the apostle whose name it now bears later in the second century. There is no good reason to believe that the author was the apostle Mark, but if this was the author, the pseudepigraphical epistle, 1 Peter, says that Mark was the son of Peter.First, it is most unlikely that the author of Mark's Gospel was called Mark, and biblical scholars believe that the author seems not to have been close to anyone who was an eyewitness to the events that his gospel portrays. Second, if the Church Fathers were correct in attributing the epistle to Mark, he may have known Paul, but would not have met Jesus. 1 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter and therefore can not be relied on as evidence that Mark was even related to Peter.
A:By the end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria said that Mark wrote the Gospel in Rome. However, since there was by then a strong tradition that Peter was martyred at Rome, his claim may have been an imaginative derivation from the connection that Papias made between Mark and Peter.
The Gospel of Mark is traditionally placed in the New Testament between those of Matthew and Luke, although it was actually written first. St Mark's Gospel does not identify its author and it was not until the second century that an attempt was made to assign an author to the Gospel, when it was attributed by the Church Fathers to the Apostle Mark, thus giving this previously anonymous Gospel the name by which it is now known.Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says that it was Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor (ca.130), who named Mark as the author of the gospel and the 'interpreter' of Peter. It seems likely that he was influenced by the first epistle of Peter, a pseudonymous document from the second century, where a Mark is mentioned as Peter's son (l Peter 5:13). Since 1 Peter is now known not to have really been written by the apostle Peter, this just adds another level of unsupported conjecture to the quest for the author of Mark's Gospel.
A:Mark's Gospel was the first New Testament gospel to be written, and there is no suggestion in this gospel or in Matthew's Gospel that any of the apostles ever saw the empty tomb.In Luke's Gospel, Peter ran alone to the tomb, bent down and looked inside, and saw that it was empty.The account in John's Gospel is loosely based on that in Luke's Gospel but adds the 'disciple whom Jesus loved'. Peter and the beloved disciple ran together to the tomb and the beloved disciple, arriving first, bent down and looked inside to see that it was empty. Although not the first to see the empty tomb of Jesus, Peter was the first to go inside. The author of John's Gospel never identifies the beloved disciple, but he is traditionally thought to have been John.
OpinionFrom early times, Mark was accepted as the author of the Gospel that bears his name. He was a disciple of Peter and it is thought that the two conversed about the events in Jesus' life. Further to this, Mark and his family were associated with Jesus and his disciple in Jerusalem and would have had direct information and tesimonies of his own to rely on.
Books considered to have been written in the second century include: Acts of the Apostles, John's Gospel, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Luke's Gospel may have been written quite early in the second century. There is no clear consensus on which book was written last, but 2 Peter is clearly later than 1 Peter and Jude, and was probably written by 130 CE, or a little later.
A:The Gospel of Peter is an important non-canonical gospel believed to have been written in the second century. Just as we now know that Matthew and Luke were dependent on Markand that John was dependent on both Luke and Mark, scholars have established that Peter was dependent on all four canonical gospels. The most interesting scene in Peter that is absent from the New Testament gospels is one in which the risen Jesus is actually seen leaving the sepulchre. With parallels to Matthew, the priests worry about how to keep from the ordinary people of Jerusalem the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.
Some of the gospels that were not included in the New Testament are:Marcion's Gospel - simply known as "the Gospel", but substantially based on what is now known as Luke's GospelGospel(s) of Bartholomew (There appear to have been two distinct versions)Gospel of the EbionitesGospel of the EgyptiansGospel of the HebrewsGospel of MaryGospel of MatthiasGospel of the NazareansGospel of Nicodemus (also known as Acts of Pilate)Gospel of PeterGospel of PhilipGospel of the SaviourGospel of ThomasGospel of TruthMost of these were gospels from the Gnostic branch of Christianity, and were rejected by the proto-Catholic-Orthodox Church, since the theology was usually very different from its own. Although the Gospel of Thomas contained much material that was comparable to the accepted gospels, it was regarded as being basically a gnostic work.
A:In Luke's Gospel, Peter ran alone to the tomb (Luke 24:12) and found that it was empty as the women had said. In this first account of Peter going to the tomb, there was no other disciple to outrun him.John's Gospel was loosely based on Luke, but for theological reasons it adds the 'disciple whom Jesus loved', saying that he outran Peter and was the first to look inside. We do not know who the beloved disciple was, but the second-century Church Fathers noticed that the fourth gospel never mentions the apostle John, who was so important in all the earlier gospels, and so decided that the disciple who outran Peter must have been John. They then decided that the failure to mention the beloved disciple's name must have been out of modesty, so perhaps the author of this gospel was himself John, son of Zebedee.
A:The 'disciple whom Jesus loved is found in the fourth gospel, which was, like the other three gospels, originally anonymous. Later in the second century, as the Church fathers sought to establish who in their opinions probably wrote each of the gospels, they noticed that the disciple John was never mentioned within this gospel. This led them to believe that the beloved disciple was probably John, and furthermore that John himself wrote this gospel. The logic was that John must have been too modest to use his own name in the gospel that he wrote.Modern scholars say that the gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed. Elaine Pagels (Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas) says that although the author of John's Gospel grudgingly accepted Peter as leader, he frequently has the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' surpass Peter, as if the author wished to undermine Peter. On this view, the beloved disciple was created by the author for theological purposes. John can be ruled out, both as author and as the 'disciple whom Jesus loved'.
Books considered to have been written in the second century include: Acts of the Apostles, John's Gospel, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Luke's Gospel may have been written quite early in the second century. There is no clear consensus on which book was written last, but 2 Peter is clearly later than 1 Peter and Jude, and may be the last written of those books that were eventually included in the New Testament canon.
What little we know about Christian conduct towards the apostle Peter comes from the four New Testament gospels and from Acts of the Apostles. However, these were written long after the time associated with the life of Peter, and probably tell us more about the attitudes of their own times and communities than about the attitudes of early Christians during the life of Peter.Paul's Epistle to the Galatians shows that Peter was one of the 'pillars' of the Jerusalem Church, but apparently not its leader - this seems to have been James. However, the gospels show that Peter seems to have been regarded as the leading disciple among later Christians.Mark's Gospel, believed to have been written around 70 CE, portrays all the disciples as somewhat slow to understand, Peter at least as much as the rest. However, this may not necessarily reflect the attitudes of Christians in Mark's community at that time.Matthew's Gospel, believed to have been written in the 80s of the first century, is particularly favourable towards Peter, saying (16:18) "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Not only was Peter the leader among the disciples, he was clearly the favourite of Jesus.Luke's Gospel, written around the end of the first century, also portrays Peter as the leading apostle. In Acts of the Apostles, Peter is able to perform miracles that seem to exceed even those performed by Jesus. However, once again this need not have represented the general view of the community in which the author lived - there is some evidence that Acts of the apostles was intended to raise Peter above the apostle Paul, and some of the miracles may have been literary devices.John's Gospel, believed to have been written shortly after Luke's Gospel, seems to regard Peter as too strongly venerated among the communities known to its author. Whereas the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) in one way or another give Peter the honour of being the first called by Jesus as an apostle, John says that he was really only the third and that it wasPeter’s brother Andrew who called him, not Jesus. In this gospel, Peter is frequently compared to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is always bested by the other disciple.Thus, the gospels show that Peter was regarded highly by the early Christians of the post-apostolic period, and even venerated to the point that the author of John's Gospel seems to have felt it necessary to portray him as a lesser apostle.
A:The synoptic gospels say that immediately after his baptism, Jesus went into the wilderness, where he remained for forty days. After he returned, he chose Simon Peter and Andrew as his first two disciples. The synoptic gospels have Jesus call on Peter and Andrew while they were together fishing Although John is considered to have been inspired by Luke's Gospel, and by Mark to a lesser extent, the author felt free to alter the text and sequences much more freely than did the authors of Matthew and Luke when copying from Mark. This gospel omits the story of the temptation in the wilderness, allowing Jesus to return the day after his baptism to John the Baptist, who was standing with two of his disciples, one of whom was Andrew. On John's instructions, the two followed Jesus. Andrew then went and brought his brother, Simon Peter, to follow Jesus. The significant difference is not where or how the two disciples were called, but the fact that Peter was not first.John's Gospel seems to have been written in part to downplay the importance of Peter in early Christianity, possibly because the author saw what he regarded as unhealthy veneration of Peter at the time he was writing, early in the second century. For the same reason, John also has an unknown disciple, the 'disciple whom Jesus loved', who appears in the gospel only when he can be compared favourably with Peter, once again subtly playing down the importance of Peter as a disciple of Jesus.The author of John's Gospel believed the 40 days in the wilderness to be of little importance and, by omitting it, was able to portray Peter as not being the first disciple, but only the third, called by the perhaps more pious Andrew.
A:The fourth gospel refers several times to a "disciple whom Jesus loved". The Gospel was originally anonymous, but during the later part of the second century, Church Fathers came to the conclusion that this disciple must have been John, and subsequently attributed the Gospel to John.
A:The 'disciple whom Jesus loved' appears only in the Gospel of John, and only in comparisons made with the apostle Peter. A first possibility is that the beloved disciple was a literary device used by the author to demonstrate that Peter was not the greatest of all disciples, perhaps in order to minimise what he believed to be the excessive veneration of Peter. Whenever the beloved disciple and Peter are placed in a position to be compared, the unknown disciple is always more worthy than Peter. The second-century Church Fathers were convinced that the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' was indeed a real person, and set out to establish who he could have been. They noticed that John, an important disciple in the synoptic gospels, was never mentioned in this Gospel. By a process of elimination, they had arrived at the conclusion that the beloved disciple was John, son of Zebedee. They then decided that the hitherto anonymous gospel must have been written by this disciple, John, who was too modest to use his own name in the gospel.There is no evidence that the view of the Church Fathers was correct, and modern scholars say that the Gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed.
A:Conservative Christians regard Mark as the translator who took Peter's experiences and wrote them down in the Gospel that now bears his name, but this is not the scholarly view. The conservative view arose because Mark is mentioned in the pseudonymous epistle, 1 Peter (5:13) as Peter's son, and Papias said that he was also the 'interpreter' for Peter. However, both are second-century sources and rely on Mark having actually been the author of the gospel that now bears his name.The New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and it was not until later in the second century that the Church Fathers thought to attribute authors, by which time any evidence as to who the authors were was long lost. The tradition that Mark was the author of the gospel that now bears his name arose around 130 CE, when Papias supposed that he was probably the author. Studies of this gospel have identified probable sources for some of the material in the gospel, good evidence that whatever the various sources were, they were not the words of Peter. So, although it is possible that Mark may have worked with Peter, he was not the writer of a gospel
John's Gospel was written for what is now called the Johannine community. Luke's gospel also seems to have been written for a limited community, although it may also have been intended to demonstrate to outsiders, such as the Roman authorities, the antiquity and virtues of Christianity. Some believe that Matthew's Gospel was written for a Jewish community, and if so this would have been a diaspora community. Mark's Gospel shows no indication of having been intended for a limited community, and in fact this gospel was known to the authors of all the other New Testament gospels - Matthew, Luke and John. So, Mark was the most universal of the gospels.
AnswerApart from the four gospels that were finally accepted into the New Testament canon, there have been many gospels about Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas is often considered to be the 'fifth' gospel because there was strong early support for its inclusion. There are several other gospels from the second century that could have been included and could therefore be called the 'sixth' gospel, had Ireneus not insisted that there must be exactly four gospels.
The first pope was considered to have been St. Peter the Apostle.
The gospel is and always has been "repent for the kingdom is near."