Sample Page

Bock, Darrell L.. Luke : 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament): 3 (p. 2223, pp. 2225-2226, pp. 2227-2241). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

3. Trial and Denials (22: 54– 71)

This unit is built around three events: Peter’s denials of Jesus (22: 54– 62), the soldiers’ mocking of Jesus (22: 63– 65), and the elders’ conviction of Jesus (22: 66– 71). The events are full of contrast and irony. A highly regarded disciple painfully fails. His failure was predicted by Jesus, indicating his control and awareness of events. The soldiers’ mocking shows in graphic terms the animosity of those who reject Jesus, especially since it is clear that the insults he receives are undeserved. Jesus is taunted to demonstrate his prophetic office— an act that he predicted would take place.

The trial proceeds in a focused way, with only one witness (Jesus), only one answer (his claim that he will sit at God’s right hand), and only one result (conviction). The leadership convicts Jesus on the basis of his own testimony. This decision could not be more simply portrayed. Jesus drives the events that lead to his death. The issue is simply who he is.

These stories about Jesus are mostly a trial scene with a subunit on the mocking of Jesus and a story about Peter (Fitzmyer 1985: 1459; Bultmann 1963: 269– 71). The account also shows Jesus’ prophetic knowledge. The outline of Luke 22: 54– 71 is as follows:

a. Jesus taken to the high priest (22: 54)

b. Peter’s three denials (22: 55– 62)

    i. Setting (22: 55)

    ii. First denial (22: 56– 57)

    iii. Second denial (22: 58)

    iv. Third denial (22: 59– 60a)

    v. The cock crows (22: 60b)

    vi. The Lord looks (22: 61a)

    vii. Peter remembers and weeps (22: 61b– 62)

c. Jesus reviled (22: 63– 65)

    i. Mocking and blindfolding (22: 63– 64)

    ii. Many other blasphemies (22: 65)

d. Jesus condemned before the Sanhedrin (22: 66– 71)

    i. Setting (22: 66)

    ii. First question (22: 67a)

    iii. Jesus’ first reply (22: 67b– 69)

    iv. Second question (22: 70a)

    v. Jesus’ second reply (22: 70b)

    vi. Jesus’ confession yields conviction (22: 71)

Peter provides an interesting paradox in this account. His following Jesus shows that he has some interest and nerve. But when the pressure is on, Peter fails repeatedly to align with Jesus. Jesus’ awareness of events stands out. The disciples face real danger and the possibility of succumbing to pressure.

The disrespect of officials toward Jesus pictures the world’s rejection of him. In fact, the nature of the trial’s audience testifies to the official Jewish rejection of Jesus. In ironic contrast to those wielding authority at the trial, Jesus confesses his supreme authority as Son of Man and Messiah. This confession causes Jesus to witness against himself. Conviction comes because the leadership rejects Jesus’ claim. Jesus is sent to Pilate, and the leadership seeks his death. The Innocent One suffers.

a. Jesus Taken to the High Priest (22: 54)

[22: 54] The crowd that came to make the arrest seizes Jesus, which Luke uniquely expresses with συλλαμβάνω (syllambanō; BAGD 776 §1a; BAA 1550 §1a; elsewhere in the passion narrative at Matt. 26: 55 = Mark 14: 48; cf. Acts 1: 16; 12: 3; 23: 27; 26: 21). The third-person plurals ἤγαγον (ēgagon, they led) and εἰσήγαγον (eisēgagon, they led into) allude to 22: 52. The process of trying Jesus begins as he is brought to the high priest’s house, language that alludes to either Caiaphas or Annas. Luke and Mark 14: 53 agree that Jesus is taken to the high priest’s house. John 18: 13 says that Jesus was led first to Annas’s house, and only later to Caiaphas (John 18: 24). Matthew 26: 57 says that Jesus was led to Caiaphas after the arrest. This difference has generated much discussion. These references in John probably look to an earlier plan to get Jesus (John 11: 47– 53, a meeting that Caiaphas leads). R. Brown (1994: 559– 60) argues that a pre-Marcan tradition moved the initial Sanhedrin investigation of the temple question, which took place earlier, to the night trial for stylistic reasons of simplifying the presentation for topical reasons (e.g., Mark 2: 1– 3: 6). This is possible, but it is more likely that John 18: 13, 24 suggests a better time frame for these discussions, which reviewed the earlier temple events surrounding Jesus. The review fails to get adequate evidence around which to build a case to take to Pilate.

Godet (1875: 2.311– 12) argues that three Jewish trials are present: (1) a brief encounter with Annas (John 18: 13), really an inquiry, where no judgments are made; (2) the meeting with Caiaphas (Matt. 26: 57– 68 = Mark 14: 53– 65); and (3) finally the Sanhedrin meeting (Luke 22: 66– 71 = Matt. 27: 1 = Mark 15: 1). The trials before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin mirror one another because the official decision came before the whole body, which replays the Caiaphas meeting. Three points support this view: (1) no decisions are made at the meeting with Annas, (2) John 18: 24 makes clear the journey from Annas to Caiaphas, and (3) the failure to make any decision during the meeting with Annas can explain why Matthew and Mark do not allude to it, since it has no real effect on the decision. Caiaphas as the active high priest had to play a decisive role in the outcome. For Godet, Luke’s account starts at the high priest’s home, which is the home of both Annas and Caiaphas. He sees Peter’s first denial coming during the meeting with Annas. Catchpole (1971: 169– 72) argues that the house in view is only Annas’s because he is the major figure in relation to Christianity in Luke– Acts (Luke 3: 2; Acts 4: 6). Arguing that Luke and John agree, Catchpole notes that John 18: 24 is against seeing Annas and Caiaphas in the same locale. In sum, the three-trial view sees Luke beginning his description of events with a trial before Annas. This starting point is correct for Luke, but whether one should speak of three Jewish trials is another matter. Annas appears to have held a less official meeting.

Others argue for two trials: one at Caiaphas’s in the night, another in the morning before the Sanhedrin (Ellis 1974: 259; Hendriksen 1978: 993– 97). (Plummer 1896: 515 argues that Annas and Caiaphas share the same house, Hendriksen 1978: 993 for different wings in the same house.) There is so little information that it is hard to answer the question with certainty. The location of the house is also unknown, though some speculate that it was on Jerusalem’s West Hill (see R. Brown 1994: 403– 4). Brown makes a literary suggestion (pp. 417– 23) that a single evening investigation stretching into the morning was presented by Luke as a morning trial to simplify matters. Though possible, I prefer a slightly different view: Luke appears to have only the Caiaphas session and the morning extension; the Annas inquiry was followed by the long evening-into-morning session with Caiaphas presiding throughout.

Any one of the above options is possible, but the more natural reading of the Synoptic tradition is that an initial inquiry before Annas (noted by John and Luke) was followed by a two-part trial: an evening examination (Matthew and Mark) and the official morning trial (Luke). Jesus was thus examined three times, with two points being developed in detail by the Synoptics: the evening examination by Matthew and Mark, the morning trial by Luke. In the midst of all this legal maneuvering, other events, such as Peter’s denial, also occurred. The three-trial approach is thus one of appearance, since the evangelists picked either the beginning or the end of the extended session as the key time indicator.

How do Peter’s denials fit into the picture? In Matthew and Mark, his denials appear to follow the second meeting rather than being associated with the first meeting. John also narrates some of the denials after describing the move from Annas to Caiaphas (John 18: 25– 27), while the first denial precedes the Caiaphas session (John 18: 16– 18). Luke narrates the denials between the initial bringing of Jesus to the high priest’s house and the events of the later, morning trial. Whether Annas’s or Caiaphas’s house is meant is not clear. Since Luke does not note multiple meetings, the difference may be one of appearance (through literary compression) rather than one of substance. The legal activities run throughout the night and into the morning. Since the denials also stretched out over some time (Luke 22: 59), it may be that they encompassed the entire set of legal proceedings. In sum, I argue for two major sessions: the Annas inquiry, followed by the longer, decisive meeting before Caiaphas that extended into the morning before a resolution was reached. In fact, it is likely that this morning session reviewed the central evidence obtained during the evening inquiry. Luke’s portrayal focuses on the culmination of a larger process within a series of events that all the evangelists summarize. The nature of the sessions and their interrelationship make it possible to see them as one session or to distinguish them.

Was this long meeting a trial? The best answer is mostly yes and a little no. It is a trial in that it rendered an official judgment by the Jewish leadership to bring Jesus before Pilate. The high priest’s involvement and the council’s input shows the importance of the meeting. Yet it is not a trial in the sense that the judgment rendered by the Jewish leadership did not settle the matter. Their decision was not binding, since they did not possess the authority to execute Jesus (R. Brown 1994: 363– 72 [Jews could execute only those who violated certain sacred parts of the temple and possibly those who committed adultery]; Blinzler 1969: 229– 44; Sherwin-White 1963: 34– 42). This meeting is thus a formal examination as a result of the morning session and a turning point, even a decisive one, but it does not represent a final trial in the fullest sense of the term (for a summary of the full debate over the issues tied to this question, see R. Brown 1994: 389 n. 142, 423– 26, 548– 60 [who opts for a less formal “interrogation” than is portrayed by all the Synoptic sources as a trial]; Catchpole 1971: 202). Many see Luke presenting something less than a trial because he lacks any formal charge of blasphemy. But he is aware of the official sentence (Luke 23: 50– 51; 24: 20; Acts 13: 27– 28).

As the initial inquiry begins, Luke’s attention moves to Peter, who is said to follow from a distance. Luke lacks the preposition ἀπό (apo, from) with μακρόθεν (makrothen, afar) to express this idea, unlike Mark 14: 54 = Matt. 26: 58. Luke does not say why Peter trails behind; perhaps it was due to fear, curiosity (cf. Matt. 26: 58), or a timid attempt to be at Jesus’ side.

Luke is similar to Mark 14: 53 = Matt. 26: 57 except for one key difference, those present in the high priest’s home: scribes and elders (Matthew) and chief priests, scribes, and elders (Mark). Luke may have not named these groups because the inquiry before Annas was not official and resulted in no real action. Or it may simply reflect a literary choice to condense. Since Matthew and Mark start with the evening trial, they therefore name those in attendance. John 18: 13, 19– 24 suggests that Jesus’ meeting with Annas was a private one, in contrast to that before Caiaphas, which he does not relate but moves directly to the meeting with Pilate for the final decision. Luke never names the high priest, apparently to indicate that the responsibility falls collectively on the leadership (they were noted in Luke 22: 52 and will be mentioned again in 22: 66). No additional detail is given that might prevent blame from being too narrowly placed.

b. Peter’s Three Denials (22: 55– 62)

    i. Setting (22: 55)

[22: 55] The setting of Peter’s denials is the courtyard of the high priest’s home. The syntax is awkward because the two initial participles, περιαψάντων (periapsantōn, kindling) and συγκαθισάντων (synkathisantōn, sitting together), look like genitive absolutes. However, the pronoun at the end, αὐτῶν (autōn, of them), breaks the absolute construction. Nonetheless, the picture is clear. A group kindles a fire (περιάπτω, periaptō; BAGD 645; BAA 1301; a NT hapax legomenon; cf. 3 Macc. 3: 7) and sits down together. Luke does not specify who “they” are, though contextually it seems likely that the term includes the men holding Jesus (cf. Luke 22: 63). This is the group that accompanied those mentioned in 22: 52, with the high priest’s wounded slave being among their ranks. Matthew 26: 58b = Mark 14: 54b = John 18: 18 identifies the group as the servants (John: slaves and servants).

This group has prepared a fire in the courtyard for a cool, midspring Jerusalem evening (1 Macc. 12: 28– 29; John 18: 18). Most significant homes were built around an open courtyard, with the servants gathering in this middle opening and those who examined Jesus being inside the house (Hendriksen 1978: 993; Godet 1875: 2.315). Luke, Matthew, and Mark note that Peter sat at the fire, while John portrays him as standing, having just come in (Matt. 26: 71 = Mark 14: 68 notes that Peter later got up and stood by the gateway). These differences represent various ways to summarize the same event. All the Gospels agree in placing the denials in the evening. They also agree that they take place in the home’s courtyard. Only Matthew lacks a reference to the fire in the courtyard. Matthew 26: 58 states Peter’s motive: he wanted to see the outcome of the event. In other words, he was curious to see what would happen to Jesus.

    ii. First Denial (22: 56– 57)

[22: 56] The pressure falls on Peter. He had committed himself to Jesus in private (22: 33), but now it is time to publicly demonstrate the strength of his commitment. The menacing intimidator is not a ruler or a priest, but a little servant girl. All the Gospels mention that she starts the sequence of denials and all use the term παιδίσκη (paidiskē, servant girl) to describe her (BAGD 604; BAA 1223; used elsewhere by Luke in Luke 12: 45; Acts 12: 13; 16: 16). John notes that she was the doorkeeper at the gateway, while Mark mentions that she was the high priest’s servant.

This girl observes Peter by the light of an evening fire. In short, she stares (ἀτενίζω, atenizō; BAGD 119; BAA 240; elsewhere in the NT only at Luke 4: 20; Acts 1: 10; 3: 4, 12; 6: 15; 7: 55; 10: 4; 11: 6; 13: 9; 14: 9; 23: 1; 2 Cor. 3: 7, 13). Mark 14: 67 notes that she “saw” (ἐμβλέψασα, emblepsasa) Peter warming himself at the fire. Matthew has no such detail.

Each account reports her remarks in slightly different terms. Luke’s is framed as a general accusation: “This one also was with (σύν, syn) him.”[ 6] Mark reports her saying, “And you were with (μετά, meta) the Nazarean, Jesus.” Matthew says, “And you were with (μετά) Jesus of Galilee.” John has her say, “Are you not one of (ἐκ, ek) this man’s disciples?” Each writer summarizes the opening discussion in his own way, as the girl identifies Peter as Jesus’ disciple.

[22: 57] The girl’s question solicits Peter’s first denial, which Luke reports in two steps. First, Peter denies (ἀρνέομαι, arneomai) the girl’s observation (Ellis 1974: 260). Ἀρνέομαι is here used in one of its two basic NT senses (BAGD 107– 8 §3a; BAA 217 §3a): “to challenge or dispute.” It also meant “to abandon” and thus became a description of apostasy (Luke 12: 8– 9; 2 Tim. 2: 12; Schlier, TDNT 1: 469– 71). The use of this verb recalls Jesus’ prediction in Luke 22: 34 (Danker 1988: 359). Second comes the denial proper: “I do not know (οὐκ οἶδα, ouk oida) him, Woman,” which totally denies any knowledge of Jesus. The phrase is like the Jewish ban formulas used against those dismissed from the synagogue (SB 1: 469; Marshall 1978: 842; Catchpole 1971: 273): “We no longer know you,” that is, we have nothing to do with you. As such Peter’s denial is a strong one.

Luke’s wording of the denial differs from Matt. 26: 70 = Mark 14: 68. Alone noting that Peter made the denial publicly, Matthew states the denial less directly: “I do not know what you are saying.” Mark has, “I neither know nor understand what you say.” The intent of all three remarks is the same: an unwillingness to acknowledge that he knows Jesus. Both Matthew and Mark then note that Peter moved to the porch (Matthew) or gateway (Mark). The pressure is getting to him, as indicated by his movement away from the scene. Luke lacks any such note. He simply notes the passage of time.

   iii. Second Denial (22: 58)

[22: 58] Luke notes that the second denial follows “after a short time” (μετὰ βραχύ, meta brachy; BAGD 147 §2; BAA 293 §2; βραχύς elsewhere in the NT only at John 6: 7; Acts 5: 34; 27: 28; Heb. 2: 7, 9; 13: 22). Luke notes that “another” (ἕτερος, heteros) man raises the issue of Peter’s association to Jesus, in contrast to Mark 14: 69, where the same servant girl raises the issue a second time; Matt. 26: 71 also says it is “another” (but ἄλλη, allē, is feminine), while John 18: 25 says that “they” raised the issue. This significant difference suggests yet again that Luke is dealing with sources distinct from Mark (Marshall 1978: 842), and Luke’s agreement with John confirms this suspicion. It seems that on this second effort the girl persisted and others joined her. Marshall argues that Luke’s chronological note without any note about a move suggests that Peter stayed in the same place; but this is not necessarily the case, given the mixing of sources and the presence of compression. Matthew and Mark mention that Peter moves after the first denial, and the break in John’s narration between the denials may also suggest the presence of some break in time.

The second challenge declares that Peter is one “of them,” that is, he is a disciple of Jesus. Peter’s reply makes it clear that a man makes the charge: “Man (ἄνθρωπε, anthrōpe), I am not.”[ 7] Peter’s reply denies not only his association with Jesus but also his service alongside the other disciples. Matthew 26: 71 states the challenge that “this one was with Jesus of Nazareth” (which looks like the first denial of Mark 14: 67). Peter’s second Matthean reply says he denied with an oath that he knew the man. As noted above, in Mark the same maid says a second time that “this is one of them.” Mark notes the second denial by simply saying that Peter denied the observation again. John 18: 25 has the group say to Peter, “Are you not also one of the disciples?” followed by Peter’s denial: “I am not.” Thus, of the four accounts, John and Luke stand closest. The public pressure is heating up, and Peter is wilting; he is trying to stick close to Jesus while remaining incognito. Each of the accounts summarizes a public exchange that will eventually humiliate the apostle.

    iv. Third Denial (22: 59– 60a)

[22: 59] The third denial follows after about an hour’s break (διαστάσης, diastasēs; BAGD 195 §1; BAA 393 §1; Exod. 15: 8; Prov. 17: 9; διΐστημι elsewhere in the NT only at Luke 24: 51; Acts 27: 28; Plummer 1896: 516). Only Luke gives the specific time between the second and third denials, in contrast to the vague “after a short time” in Matthew and Mark. Yet another person speaks up against Peter. In fact, this third person is insistent (διϊσχυρίζετο, diischyrizeto; BAGD 195; BAA 393; elsewhere in the NT only at Acts 12: 15) that Peter is a disciple: “Truly, this one was with him.” The use of the preposition μετά (meta, with) recalls Peter’s confidence in Luke 22: 33: “I am ready to go with (μετά) you. . . .” Luke’s term for “truly” (ἐπʼ ἀληθείας, ep’ alētheias), which he uses twice elsewhere in his Gospel (4: 25; 20: 21; Marshall 1978: 843), differs from Matthew’s and Mark’s ἀληθῶς (alēthōs). What gives Peter away (note the explanatory γάρ, gar) is his dress or accent (Matt. 26: 73), which the accuser notes is Galilean (Nolland 1993b: 1096). Jesus faces the same recognition later (Luke 23: 6). For the third time, Peter is identified as a disciple, but now with additional “circumstantial” evidence. Why else would a Galilean be present at this late evening fire? The hour-long break has not changed the audience’s suspicions about Peter. He is still in danger of being exposed.

Matthew 26: 73 = Mark 14: 70 notes that the third denial came “after a little while.” Bystanders speak in both accounts, though they are identified with distinct but related terms: οἱ ἑστῶτες (hoi hestōtes) in Matthew and οἱ παρεστῶτες (hoi parestōtes) in Mark. Matthew has the bystanders say, “Truly you also are one of them, for your speech makes you clear.” Mark has, “Truly you are one of them, for you also are a Galilean.” Though the second half of the remark differs, the point is similar. John 18: 26 is distinct, since he identifies the speaker as one of the high priest’s servants who was a relative of the slave whose ear Peter severed. This servant simply says, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” The Johannine use of οὐκ (ouk, not) in the question expects a positive reply. It seems clear that John draws on independent sources and that in all probability many people were commenting about Peter at this point.

[22: 60a] Peter makes his third denial, acting, as Danker (1988: 359) says, “more like a jellyfish than a ‘Rock-Man.’” Peter succumbs to the pressure, claims not to understand what his accuser is saying, and thus falls into the temptation that Jesus had warned about in 22: 40. The denial again begins with a vocative that lets us know that the accuser is a man (all three Lucan denials have a vocative identifying the accuser’s gender; 22: 57, 58, 60). Peter again denies a link to the disciples, since he can hardly deny that he is a Galilean with his accent (Marshall 1978: 843). He claims that they have the wrong man.

In Matt. 26: 74 = Mark 14: 71, Peter begins his denial by invoking a curse and swearing, which Luke does not mention since he commonly omits unflattering details about the disciples or Jesus’ family (cf. Luke’s absence of the details in Mark 3: 21; 8: 32– 33 = Matt. 16: 22– 23; Mark 14: 37 = Matt. 26: 40). The Lucan denial is unique (but is like the first denial in the other Synoptics): Peter denies understanding the charge (Nolland 1993b: 1096 may be right to understand its force as “I can’t imagine why you are saying this” [perhaps better: “I can’t understand why you insist on this connection”]). In Matthew he says, “I do not know the man,” while Mark’s denial is a little longer: “I do not know the man of whom you speak.” John 18: 27 says that Peter denied the charge of being in the garden. This variety may well suggest that this vivid story was variously rendered. It also suggests that much was said to Peter as he tried to follow Jesus. He had received the gathering’s attention, was challenged from all sides, and crumbled under the strain.

    v. The Cock Crows (22: 60b)

[22: 60b] Only Luke notes that while Peter was still speaking the cock crowed, which fulfills 22: 34 (as the next verse mentions). All three accounts record that this occurs “immediately,” though with different terms (Plummer 1896: 516): Luke has παραχρῆμα (parachrēma, a favorite term of his: ten times, including 5: 25; 8: 44, 55; 18: 43), Mark has εὐθύς (euthys), while Matthew and John have εὐθέως (eutheōs). Luke and Matt. 26: 74 = John 18: 27 note only a single crowing, in contrast to two in Mark 14: 72. Luke’s remark seems less specific than Mark’s, which may reflect the summarizing style of a distinct source. The difference is odd if Luke used Mark. All note the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that Peter would deny him and the cock would crow.

    vi. The Lord Looks (22: 61a)

[22: 61a] The aftermath of his denials is painful for Peter. Luke uniquely relates that Jesus turns and looks at Peter. Perhaps Jesus’ glance after the denial reminds Peter that Jesus knew Peter was denying him. Even from a distance, his presence still manifests itself. Jesus’ locale is not given. Perhaps he was being moved from one wing of the high priest’s house to another as he went from Annas to Caiaphas (Rengstorf 1968: 248), perhaps he was waiting with the soldiers in the courtyard (Grundmann 1963: 417; Catchpole 1971: 168), or perhaps he was being held in a place that gave him a glimpse of the courtyard. The other Gospels suggest one of the latter two options, since Matthew and Mark place Peter’s denials after the move to Caiaphas. Luke adds a note of pathos by saying that the Lord (ὁ κύριος, ho kyrios) saw Peter. These unique Lucan details suggest that Luke is not just editing Mark here. He has another source (Nolland 1993b: 1096).[ 8]

    vii. Peter Remembers and Weeps (22: 61b– 62)

[22: 61b] As Peter sees Jesus, he recalls the “word of the Lord” to him earlier. Jesus’ prediction has come true. The Gospels use related terms for Peter’s recalling Jesus’ remark: Luke has ὑπεμνήσθη (hypemnēsthē), Mark 14: 72 has ἀνεμνήσθη (anemnēsthē), and Matt. 26: 75 has ἐμνήσθη (emnēsthē)— a lexical detail that points to a distinct source, since this is the only time Luke uses ὑπομιμνῄσκω. Luke does not record Jesus’ remark in Luke 22: 34 word for word, but exhibits shifts in word order and verbal forms. Matthew is similar to Luke, “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times,” while Mark has, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” Why would Luke drop the reference to crowing twice if he had only Mark before him (Marshall 1978: 844; Catchpole 1971: 164)?[ 9] John has no parallel other than a note that the cock crowed immediately after the third denial.

To solve this difficulty, Arndt (1956: 452) suggests that Luke refers only to the morning cock crowing, while Mark mentions two nighttime crowings.[ 10] The discussion is complicated by a textual problem in Mark 14: 68, making it uncertain whether the cock crowed the first time after Peter’s first denial. If this reference is absent, then Mark 14: 72 may be saying that the cock crowed twice after Peter’s third denial. There would be no real difference under either scenario: if the two crowings happened at once or if the reference to two crowings in Mark is not original.[ 11] The remark in Mark 14: 72 about a second crowing seems to suggest the earlier crowing of 14: 68. If so, then some difference of intent or detail in the tradition is responsible for the variation. If two crowings are present, then Mark has probably been more specific.

The point of Peter’s recollection of what Jesus had said is twofold: (1) Jesus is aware of what is occurring (2) and he faces his trial all alone with no one to stand with him. His predictions about events are coming to pass, just as he said. His word is true.

[22: 62] After his denials, Peter goes out and weeps bitterly. If this verse was originally part of Luke (see the additional note), the wording matches Matt. 26: 75, providing one of the few places in Luke 22– 23 where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (another example is the number of cock crowings). R. Brown (1994: 607) attributes this agreement to oral tradition. It is another evidence of input to Luke beyond Mark. Mark 14: 72 simply says that Peter broke down and cried (καὶ ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν, kai epibalōn eklaien). The term for “wept” (κλαίω, klaiō) is the same in each Gospel, though in different tenses (imperfect in Mark, aorist in Matthew and Luke). Since it frequently refers to weeping over the dead (cf. Luke 8: 52; John 11: 31, 33) intense emotion is expressed here. Peter felt instant remorse over his denials. His sin of denial crushed his spirit. Jesus later restores Peter, despite his failure here (John 21: 1– 14). In fact, he has already prepared Peter for restoration (Luke 22: 32).

One final point bears noting. The various accounts of the denial reflect general agreement (R. Brown 1994: 590– 91). Yet the minor details diverge widely, especially in the second and third denials. This popular account, full of emotion and humanity, was summarized with dramatic variation, possibly because the situation grew more tense and brought in bigger audiences as it proceeded. To explain the differences in detail, Brown (pp. 620– 21) argues that Jesus figuratively predicted the denial to indicate that Peter’s denials would be total and swift, but that the early tradition transformed this figurative reference into three denials. One should not, however, appeal to imaginative storytelling, but to differences that naturally emerged from a public event involving many players. The participation of several people in the denial would naturally surface different perspectives in how it was understood and retold. The differences probably reflect variations in summarizing a large pool of information that circulated in the church.