In conversation with friends yesterday, the question came up about the post I wrote yesterday concerning Jesus walking on the water. As I wrote, I kept expecting to hear from Peter, who also walked on the water at Jesus’ invitation.
Peter’s name is not mentioned in John’s account. So, is that a contradiction in the Bible?
No. It is simply an account written from the point of view of John, who presented Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Savior. Peter’s participation in this event is chronicled in other gospels, according to each writer’s point of view.
I did a little research on a forum in which this question was asked, and found a very good answer here:
"Jesus walking on water" account is not included in Luke. This episode is covered in Matthew 14:22-33 in Mark 6:45-52 and in John 6:16-21. However, the account of "Peter walking on the water" is not included in Mark, Luke and John. Matthew was one among the 12 disciples of Jesus and he got the first hand information that he had seen Peter walking on water. Peter as a fisherman who knew how risky it was to attempt to walk on water. But he ventured because he knew who called him (Mt 14:24-29). Matthew wanted to add the following message to his audience. Even when we don't know who calls us, we run to the telephone the moment it rings! Many times it will be a wrong number call! Mark on the other hand Jesus' step brother (Mt.13;55) who was a convert of Peter (1 Peter 5:13). He later worked with Paul(Col 4:10-11, 2 Tim 4:11; 1:24). He should have gotten the information Peter. He had NOT seen the episode of Peter walking on the water. Matthew is written primarily for Jewish community where as Mark’s gospel meant for Gentiles (Roman believers). Mark wrote as a pastor to Christians who previously had heard and believed the Gospel (Romans 1:8). In a nutshell, there are four different re-tellings from four different perspectives. Now granted, there are some differences. For instance, we might liken the account of Matthew and John to eye-witness accounts whereas Mark was the second-hand telling of the story (there is strong indication that Mark probably wrote his Gospel based off the teaching of Peter), and Luke would perhaps be better likened to a reporter who interviewed numerous people who had witnessed the crime and then compiled the data to give an accurate account. But the point remains the same. We have four testimonies that supply information about the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They provide varied details, much commonality, they never contradict, and they stand as a very reliable set of witnesses to the person of Jesus. In God’s wisdom, He inspired four Gospels to be written by men with different vantage points and with knowledge of specific information that sometimes varied so that when the life of Jesus would be put on trial, as it so often is these days, we could show just how strong these testimonies really are about Jesus of Nazareth. (https://ebible.com/questions/14585)
I also consulted The Harmony of the Gospels, by Bradley Galambos, which gives essentially the same answer as the one above.
In my opinion, there is no contradiction here. No one is leaving Peter out for any other reason than the leading of the Holy Spirit on each writer, who was recording his version of the story of Jesus according to a specific purpose:
Matthew: Jesus as Israel’s Messiah; Son of David
Mark: Jesus as the servant of God; Son of Man
Luke: Jesus as the perfect man; Son of Adam
John: Jesus as God in the flesh; Son of God
And so we get the complete picture of Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, from the perspectives of four different men used by God, led by the Spirit, to increase our understanding and encourage our faith.