MARK 14:30-72 PETER'S DENIALS

Q: This passage is paralleled in Matthew 26:58-75; Luke 22:54-72; and John 18:15-27.  I read somewhere that Peter denied knowing Jesus six times instead of two. Where did they get that idea from?

The problem begins with Jesus' warning in Mark 14:30, which differs from that in the other gospels.

Mark: “Before the cock crows two times, you shall deny me three times.”

Other gospels: “Before the cock crows (at all), you shall deny me three times.”

Next look at the differences in the denials found in the four parallel accounts:

Matthew

A. To a maid: “I do not know what you are saying.”

B. To another maid: “I know not the man” (with an oath).

C. “I know not the man.” (with cursing and swearing) (Cock crows.)

Mark

D. To a maid: “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” (Cock crows.)

E. To the same maid: (He again denied it.)

F. “I know not this man of whom you speak.” (with cursing and swearing) (Cock crows again.)

Luke

G. To a maid: Woman, I know him not.

H. Man, I am not (one of them).

I. Man, I know not what you are saying. (Cock crows.)

John

J. To a maid: I am not (one of his disciples).

K. I am not (one of the disciples).

L. (Peter denied that he was in the garden with Jesus.) (Cock crows.)

The explanation you heard probably came from The Life of Christ in Stereo by Johnston Cheney. The author calls his approach the “Principle of Minute Supplementation.” Critics would call it a case of “Extreme Harmonization.” According to that point of view, each of the Gospels is literally accurate, even down to the smallest detail, and all apparent differences between parallel Gospel accounts completely disappear when one understands them properly.

Thus, this approach starts out by explaining that obviously Peter was warned two times, once before leaving the Last Supper (as in Luke and John) and once after leaving (Matthew and Mark).

Next is the fact that there were actually six denials, three before each cockcrow.

1. J

2. K

3. A = D = G (First cockcrow)

4. B = H

5. E

6. C = F = I = L (Second cockcrow)

Problems with this approach:

1. It doesn't really account for the discrepancy in the number of cock crows in Matthew and Luke.

2. It is more than a little strange that each of the four accounts would for some reason leave out three of the denials.

3. It appears like a very forced explanation: You need to group together several accusations and several denials in order to make it work.

4. Even that approach fails to give an exactly literal agreement in all details. For example, one of the stated accusations in Matthew says, “This man, too, was with Jesus of Nazarene,” but the supposedly same account in Luke says “...with him.”

By contrast, most evangelical Christians don't demand exact correspondence between the four gospels and are quite willing to live with a little ambiguity as far as the exact details (especially since in this case, no major theological truths are at stake). The minor differences actually demonstrate that there are at least four witnesses who attest independently to the events taking place. That should give us more confidence in the facts than if all four accounts followed one another word for word. A close parallel can be found in the court of law. When separate witnesses parrot one another's testimony down to the letter, there is the strong suspicion that they have all been carefully coached ahead of time and are lying.

By insisting on six denials rather than three (as all four accounts attest), it robs all of the meaning out of Jesus' three-fold question to Peter at the end of John's Gospel: “Do you love me?” Jesus is allowing Peter to completely atone for his earlier three-fold denials in order that he can serve Christ in the future without further guilt.