What are the substantive differences between the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mark?

Question

Since there are differences, that change the meaning, for example the one where Jesus told Peter that he wouldn't send anyone to hell - does that not throw into suspect the rest of the Gospels since they differ in the message of the Christian's Blessed Jesus?

Answer 1

there is no 'gospel of Peter'
JD? your ignorance is showing.

Answer 2

Well, it depends on how you look at it...

A few scholars would date the Gospel of Peter quite early--to around the middle of the first century, which would make it "fresher" than the canonical gospels which were written towards the end of the first century. Some would grant the pseudipigraphical Gospel of Peter greater authority on this account, and would note that it gives creedence to the idea that Jesus might have survived the crucifixion --in this way, the Gospel of Peter resonates with the Quran that says that Jesus did not really die at this point but that it was made to appear so.

On the other hand, the chief susbstantive difference between the Gospel of Peter and Mark, or any of the other Gospels is the presence of docetism, which is an aspect of second century gnosticism--which then dates the Gospel of Peter much later than the canonical gospels (and this is the more commonly accepted dating of the Gospel of Peter by scholars). So, in this regard, ie the later dating and docetic slant, as well as some odd quirks of the Gospel of Peters account (here the Cross is able to speak and move)--all these tend to diminish the impact that the Gospel of Peter would have on the credibility of the canonical Gospels.

Still, I think that the noncanonical writings are important for us to look at -- they were used by the early church before later councils would ban them, and they give us some insight into the many flavors and blends of Chrisitianity that existed from its earliest days --perhaps helping us to see that even from the start there was diversity and plurality of beliefs that co-existed.

Answer 3

Besides teh POV of who wrote it? Well, each gospel was writen not only by a different person who added their own touch (ie, the doctor (John or Mark, I think) is the only one who says that Jesus sweated blood when he prayed in the garden) but was written for a different audience and focused more on a different aspect of Jesus's teachings (though all four gospels pretty much cover the same events). A good example is one wrote for jews converting to Christianity and gives the geneology of Jesus from David to Joseph (which was important to the Jews to see that he came from the House of David).

Answer 4

You will find many discrepancies in the Bible, because the stories and miracles of Jesus were passed down orally for twenty some-odd years before anything was written down. If you are going to be a follower, you must have faith in the complete word.
And also know that the Gospels were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.
Research the book you put your trust in.
Bart D Ehrman has written several good unbiased books on Christianity.

Live Long and Well........................

Answer 5

The Gospels are the books of Matthew , Mark, Luke , and John. Peter is not one of the Gospels.

Answer 6

Hell is simply an absence of God. Since the only people there now would be the ones who died before the sacrifice of Jesus I am not real sure what you mean. Even those who are there now do not necessarily have to stay. It depends on the 2nd judgement.

Answer 7

Mark is one of three synoptic gospels, while Peter is not.

Answer 8

Peter's gospel got deleted because it was miscategorized =(

Answer 9

Jesus doesn't throw you into hell. It is your unbelief that puts you there not Jesus. He wants you with Him for eternity in Heaven

Answer 10

picking apart the Bible serves no purpose