So I have been diligently studying the incident in Gethsemane, where Jesus was arrested.  And I have found that the only things the three Gospel writers all agree on are: the one that lost an ear was a servant of the High Priest; that the Door Girl was the first to call Peter out as a follower; and that Peter followed the group as they led Jesus to the trial.  What does all that mean?  Nothing.  I recently heard a former skeptic who applied the California Police Template for witness accounts to the four stories.  This takes into account for differences in perspective, and the results led him to Faith in Christ, not doubt.

Another question on this part of the story was, "Why was John the only one to name Peter as the ear-chopper?" That one is disposed of easier- John wrote 30 years later, and those who might have been damaged by name dropping in the 50's and 60's AD were likely passed on by the 90's.   And this is why we have a more important item brought up by John.

Joh 18:10  Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) 

Two things of note here:  First, only John and Luke mention it was Malchus's right ear. Luke, being a doctor, probably as a clinician mentioned it- after all, he was the only one who mentions that Jesus healed him. John may have had another reason. The Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary says:

As to the right ear, specified both here and in Luke (Luk_22:50), the man was “likely foremost of those who advanced to seize Jesus, and presented himself in the attitude of a combatant; hence his right side would be exposed to attack. The blow of Peter was evidently aimed vertically at his head” [Webster and Wilkinson].

I don't agree that he was likely posing as a threat to Jesus; but if you look it up, Malchus's name can mean "Councillor"; I'm thinking he's likely the one who delivered the charge against Jesus.  I just wonder if Peter was still half-asleep ( after all, Jesus had just woke them from sleeping while He prayed for the third time), because I know if I was him, I'd have took a swing at Judas Iscariot first.  And, according to Luke, Peter wasn't the only sword happy Disciple:

Luk 22:49  And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?"
Luk 22:50  And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.

I've got to imagine Luke's "those who were around Him" were James and John himself; after all...

Luk 9:53  And they did not receive Him, because His face was going toward Jerusalem.
Luk 9:54  And seeing, His disciples James and John said, Lord, do You desire that we command fire to come down from Heaven and consume them, even as Elijah did?
Luk 9:55  But He turned and rebuked them and said, You do not know of what spirit you are.

And yet, no one but John mentions that HE followed the crowd, as well as Peter.  Why?  Back to the same story as before: Peter was essential to this part of the story, but John was alive and might have been endangered.  After all, not only did he know Councillor Malchus's name- he also knew that the last to identify Peter as a follower was a relative of Malchus. Any other relative might have went after John as a traitor- after all, not only was he conversant with the High Priest's staff, he had enough pull to get Peter in the garden of the HP in the first place (John 18:16).

And one more difference:  Why is it that while they all tell the story of Peter's three denials, only John leaves out, "He went out and wept bitterly"- choosing to end it at, "Immediately a rooster crowed"?

Honestly, to me, this is John's way of preserving his friend's manhood. As much as a cursory look at this Gospel might make one think there was a rivalry here, I think John went out of his way to Preserve Peter's strong standing- remember John leaves off the the incident when Jesus told Peter to "Get behind me"; He made a point of saying that, while he arrived at the tomb first, he allowed Peter first entry.  I think that, instead of rivalry, there was intense friendship- most of the first section of Acts show them as partners in ministry.  And when we get to this famous post-resurrection passage...

Joh 21:17  He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Joh 21:18  Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go."
Joh 21:19  (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, "Follow me."
Joh 21:20  Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"
Joh 21:21  When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?"
Joh 21:22  Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!"

Maybe this, instead of a "is he getting off easy?" comment as I've always thought, perhaps it is a, "I hope that doesn't happen to him!" remark.  But that is getting ahead of our story.  And that story reaches the climax next time.