“The only other questionable choice, from a historical point of view, is the almost total exclusion of Peter”
—
Peter was a relatively minor character in the early church, Paul was pretty much calling all the shots - including having to set Peter straight on at least one notable occasion in Antioch(Galatians 2:11–14).
Peter was the head of the apostles. He was not a minor figure.
Not quite. Peter focused his attention on the church in Judea, centered in Jerusalem while Paul turned his attention to taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. This was an agreement between the two. Peter gave unrestrained authority to Paul in that arena as many of the Jews in the Holy Land did not consider Paul to have any Apostolic authority. The prominence Paul has is due to his letter writing and establishing numerous churches along his missionary trail.
This should up the post count, while the related issue is the Peter of RC propaganda, which has the NT church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning from Rome - which even Catholic scholarship, among others, provides testimony against.
Versus the Peter of Scripture, the street-level non-assertive leader among brethren. Who is hardly mentioned in the NT after Acts 15, much less as the supreme head, and with zero exhortations to specifically pray for or submit to or remember him. Or any manifest preparation for a successor, or for any apostle after Jude (which maintained the original number).
When Paul arrived in Rome he found fellow believers. These were probably as a result of the Day of Pentecost and the believers going back to their home countries to spread the gospel.