How come there is no Gospel of Peter, if he was the "Rock" of the church.?

Question

He should have written something down. To tell his side of the events and times he spent with Jesus.

Answer 1

The Acts Of Peter, a book of the Christian Apocrypha can surly be found on the internet and various books about the gnostic books, the Jewish psudopigrapha and the Christian Apocrypha. Plus you should check out the book The OTHER Bible; Says: For the first time in one volume::
Ancient Alternative Scriptures
Gnostic Gospels
Dead Sea Scrolls
Visionary Wisdom Texts
Christian Apocrypha
Jewish Pseudepigrapha
Kabbalah

All of this is subjective and may or may not be written by the said authors.


Check out the Book of Enoch some time too, you may find it to be very interesting as well.

Answer 2

There is a Gospel of Peter, it just didn't make it into the canonical Bible. There is also the Acts of Peter in Christian Apocrypha. It really is a moot point to your question though. None of the Gospels were actually written by the people they are attributed to. They were all written by anonymous authors, and most were written after the apostle they are attributed to had died.

BTW, Peter established a Jewish Christian faith that quickly died out. The modern Church is based on the theology of Paul, not Peter.

EDIT: Luke was not a follower of Peter, he was a follower of Paul.

Answer 3

He did write an epistle; however, it was not Peter that was the rock, but his statement that Jesus is the Son of God.
What Luke wrote could have been what he learned from Peter.
The Catholic church did not leave out some of the books; a list of the generally accepted writings was compiled about 180 AD and when the RCC was formed, they did not leave out any of the books in the previous list, but they added a few.

Answer 4

How about 1 Peter and 2 Peter and Philemon letters.

Outside of the bible how about the Didache.

Also Luke was a follower of Peter, who never met Jesus so those were more then likely Peters stories retold which would also make Peter's story as part of the Narrative of Acts.

Answer 5

Good question. I was just studying that John Mark (the writer of the Gospel of Mark and cousin to Barnabas) was known to travel with Peter and was very likely the "voice" of Peter and wrote Peter's version of what happened.

Answer 6

He did write two letters. And there is evidence that Mark got much of his information from Peter. :

Mark was not one of the 12 apostles, and he was not an immediate companion of Jesus. Where did he get the intimate details that make his account of Jesus’ ministry really live from beginning to end? According to the earliest tradition of Papias, Origen, and Tertullian, this source was Peter, with whom Mark was closely associated. Did not Peter call him “my son”? (1 Pet. 5:13) Peter was an eyewitness of practically all that Mark recorded, so he could have learned from Peter many descriptive points that are lacking in the other Gospels. For example, Mark speaks of “the hired men” that worked for Zebedee, the leper entreating Jesus “on bended knee,” the demonized man “slashing himself with stones,” and Jesus’ giving his prophecy about the ‘coming of the Son of man with great power and glory’ while he was sitting on the Mount of Olives “with the temple in view.” (Mark 1:20, 40; 5:5; 13:3, 26)Peter himself was a man of deep emotions and so could appreciate and describe to Mark the feelings and emotions of Jesus. So it is that Mark frequently records how Jesus felt and reacted; for example, that he looked “around upon them with indignation, being thoroughly grieved,” that he “sighed deeply,” and that he “groaned deeply with his spirit.” (3:5; 7:34; 8:12) It is Mark who tells us of Jesus’ sentiments toward the rich young ruler, saying that he “felt love for him.” (10:21; 9:36; 10:13-16) Some of Peter’s characteristics are to be seen in Mark’s style, which is impulsive, living, vigorous, vital, and descriptive. It seems he can hardly relate events fast enough. For example, the word “immediately” occurs again and again, carrying the story along in dramatic style.

Answer 7

There was a gospel known as the gospel of peter but it didnt make it into the new testament apparently:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html

F. F. Bruce writes (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 93):


The docetic note in this narrative(the gospel of peter) appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death. It carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. (We shall see an echo of this idea in the Qur'an.) Then the cry of dereliction is reproduced in a form which suggests that, at that moment, his divine power left the bodily shell in which it had taken up temporary residence.

Answer 8

The catholic church has hundreds of gospels, but not all of them made it into the bible. A bunch of religious leaders got together about three hundred years after christ's death and decided what went in and what didn't. So there probably is a gospel of peter.

Answer 9

True, he didn't write one of the four gospels, but he did write a few other books. (1 Peter, 2 Peter, etc.)

Answer 10

The Gospel of Peter,

But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor any one of his judges. And when they had refused to wash them, Pilate rose up. And then Herod the King Commandeth that the Lord be taken saying to them, "What things soever I commanded you to do unto Him, do.

The above is the first paragraph of Peter's Gospel.