Louvain Studies 20 (1995) 219-240

The Denial of Peter in the Gospel of John

Maurits Sabbe

In the development of my research on the Passion Narrative in

the Gospel of John, I have attempted to verify the hypothesis of a
direct dependence upon the present Synoptic Gospels, combined with
the redactional creativity of the Fourth Evangelist and without the
need of a particular tradition or source to explain the Johannine dif­
ferences with the Synoptics. I have concluded that this is the best
theory concerning the literary origin of: Jn 10 (the shepherd discourse
and a so-called trial of Jesus before the Jews); 12:1-8 (the anointing);
13:1-38 (the footwashing); 18:1-12 (the arrest); 18:28-19:16a (the trial
before Pilate); and 19:16b-42 (the death of Jesus).
Since the denial of Peter is a missing link in my trajectory
through the Johannine Passion Narrative, I am tempted to approach
it now. This is all the more inviting considering that Raymond F.
Collins, though interested in various representative figures in John’s
Gospel such as Peter and the Beloved Disciple, has only ‘in passing’
referred tojn 18:15-16 and not at all to Peter’s denial.1
Our main concern will be Jn 18:13-27. As is the case in the three
Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel also situates the denial of Peter in the
context of the trial of Jesus before the Jews. At first, we will consider
the story of the interrogation by the high priest, a scene which differs
considerably from that of the Synoptists, and then pay attention to
the threefold denial which shows close similarities to the Synoptic
narratives.

I. The Interrogation by the High Priest

The differences with the Synoptics are obvious. According to

Mark (14:53-65), after Jesus was arrested, he was brought to the high
priest. Then there was a great assembly of all the chief priests, the

1. See R. F. Collins, These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel,
Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs, 2 (Leuven, 1990), Representative Fig­
ures, 1-45, esp. 39, 42 (= Downside Review, 1976).
 220 MAURITS SABBE

elders and the scribes. The whole council (owéôpioy) organized a real
trial consisting of the search for testimonies against Jesus - among
them the testimony concerning the pronouncement of the logion
against the temple -, a questioning of Jesus by the high priest on his
Messiahship, Jesus’ confession, the accusation of blasphemy, the con­
demnation to death, and a first mockery scene. The narrative con­
tinues with the denial of Peter, whose presence in the courtyard of
the high priest was already mentioned in 14:54.
While Matthew and Luke follow this Markan narrative quite
closely, John surprisingly gives us a different story.

1. The Johanmne proceeding of the trial is found in Jn 18:19-23.

Except for the formal scheme of the questioning high priest,2 and the
answering Jesus3 it has nothing in common with the Synoptics.
John omits the whole Markan program, which does not mean
that he simply knew a different pre-Johannine tradition. On the con­
trary, he has known the Markan material and the Lukan elaboration
of it as well. All that was related in the Synoptists’ Sanhedrin session
of the trial of Jesus has been anticipated and spread by John over the
first part of the Gospel. The temple logion comes in Jn 2:19-22; Jesus
has already revealed himself as Messiah and Son of God in 4:25-26;
5:17-18; 8:58; 10:24-38; the Jews have repeatedly tried to arrest and to
kill him in 5:18; 7:32; 8:59; 10:31,39 and an official condemnation to
death has occurred in 11:47-53. It is obviously of particular interest to
see that Jn 10:22-39 offers important parallels to the Synoptic trial
narrative, especially to the Lukan account,4 5and to realize that in fact
we are dealing with an anticipated trial of Jesus before the Jews, a
Johannine redactional elaboration directly inspired by the Synoptics."

2. Comp. Jn 18:19 b ovv àpxicpeuç i]pcoTif]oev top ’Irjoovv with Mk 14:60 b àpxte-
pevç . . . èin]pbjTr)Gep top ’It]Oovp and 61 6 àpx^cpevç kirriptoTOL olvtop. epcoTaœ is a
Johannine characteristic of style no. 150. Numbers of Johannine characteristics of style
refer to Neirynck’s Greek edition of Boismard-Lamouille’s extensive list. See F. Nei-
rynck in collaboration with J. Delobel, T. Snoy, G. Van Belle, F. Van Segbroeck, Jean
et les Synoptiques. Examen critique de l'exégèse de M.-E. Boismard, BETL, 49 (Leuven,
1979) 45-66.
3. Comp. Jn 18:20,23 àTrcKpidr] œvtco ’It]oovç with Mk 14,61 où/c àiccKpipoiTO ovôep;
14:62 b <5è ’Iqoovç elirep. ànroKpipopoit not followed by a verbum dicendi (no. 53).
4. For instance, Luke omits the temple logion in the trial account; he has a double
interrogation and emphasizes Jesus’ double self-proclamation - comp. Lk 22:67-68 and
22:70-71 with Jn 10:24 and 10:33; Jesus’ answer in Jn 10:25 is a paraphrase of his reply
in Lk 22:67b,68. The motif of accusation of blasphemy, dropped by Luke 22:71b (par.
Mk 14:64) is put back by John in its normal place of the trial (Jn 10:33,36) in a form
very close to Mt 26:65a.
5. See M. Sabbe, “J°lm 10 and Its Relationship to the Synoptic Gospels,” The Shep­
herd Discourse ofJohn 10 and Its Context, eds. J. Beutler and R. T. Fortna; SNTS MS, 67
(Cambridge, 1991) 75-93, 156-161 and esp. “A Trial of Jesus by the Jews (John 10,22-
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 221

I do not see the advantage or need to accept a pre-Johannine blending

process of Synoptic narrative elements in the course of an oral tradi­
tion and a later, also written, account known by John in connexion
with his pre-Johannine Passion Narrative.6
The Johannine substitute for the trial of Jesus by the Jews (Jn
18:19-23) is not really a trial. With respect to form, it is another
hearing by the high priest; as to content - consequent with Jesus’
autonomous attitude in the preceding story of the arrest - it presents
Jesus as a master of the situation.
The high priest inquires about Jesus’ disciples and about his
teaching. Discipleship is surely an important theme in the Gospel of
John (fjLadrjrriç: 73.46.75.28). In the scene of the arrest of Jesus, Mat­
thew had mentioned the general flight of the disciples (Mt 26:56 oi
fjLOiOrjToii 7Tavreç; diff. Mk 14:50 iravreç), whereas John changed this
into their (18:8 tovtovç, 18:9 oDç <5éôcokolc, /jlol) safe departure, thanks
to Jesus’ intervention. The term bibaxv is rarely used in the Gospels
(3.5.1.3), and in the Synoptics mostly with respect to the astonish­
ment of the crowds at the teaching of Jesus. Here in Jn 18:19, for the
reader it is a reminder of Jn 7:16,17, the only other place where it
occurs, a saying of Jesus concerning his teaching (bibciOKid) in the
temple (7:14), emphasizing that his doctrine (btbaxrj) is not his, but of
the one who sent him, a teaching from God. The question of the
high priest reflects the theological interest of the author of the
Gospel, as does the answer of Jesus.
The answer of Jesus (18:20), in reality a refusal to answer,
describes the quality of the heavenly revealer. He has openly spoken
to the world, he has always taught in the synagogue and in the
temple for all the Jews, he said nothing in secret (a statement, per­
haps, of anti-Gnostic color7). Can one imagine a more typical Johan­
nine Christology, or a more Johannine redaction? Note that this first
part of the answer contains a great number of Johannine characteris­
tics of style: airoKpiPopaL not followed by a verbum dicendi (no. 53),
7Tccppr\oiq. (no. 317), (XaXeco: 26.21.31.60 ), /coa/xoç (no. 191), cr
KpvirTcb (no. 201), iravTore (no. 311), Ö7roi» (no. 282). It also resumes
that Jesus taught in the synagogue (only once in Jn 6:59 - at Caper­
naum - but often in the Synoptics) and in the temple (see Jn 7:14,28;
8:2). The latter echoes the self defence of Jesus in the Synoptic

39),” 75-85; = M. Sabbe, Studia Neotestamentica. Collected Essays, BETL, 98 (Leuven,

1991) 443-466, esp. 443-454.
6. So A. Dauer, “Spuren der (synoptischen) Synedriumsverhandlung im 4. Evange­
lium. Das Verhältnis zu den Synoptikern,” John and the Synoptics, ed. A. Denaux;
BETL, 101 (Leuven, 1992) 307-340.
7. Unless it alludes to Is 45:19 and 48:16 (From the beginning, I - the Lord - have
not spoken in secret).
 222 MAURITS SABBE

account of his arrest, “Day after day I was with you in the temple
teaching” (Mk 14:49; Mt 26:55; Lk 22:53),8 a saying omitted by John
in his parallel account of the arrest.

The other part of Jesus’ answer (18:21) explicitly criticizes the

high priest for questioning him. This criticism, however, is not based
on any legally incorrect procedure (interrogating the accused person
himself). It is comparable to Jesus’ reply to Pilate (19:11) criticizing
his appeal to power over him, “you would have no power over
me . . . ,” and shows Jesus’ autonomy. But who are those who have
heard him, and had better be questioned? In connexion with the pre­
ceding reference to his speaking, one feels an apologetic undertone,
“Ask the people.” As to the legal procedure, it could imply the search
for testimonies, alluding perhaps to the Jewish trial in Mk 14:55 and
esp. 14:58 17/xeZç rjKOvaafxev avrov Xeyovroç. Most probably, however,
it has a deeper meaning. The Johannine reader is invited to listen to
Jesus’ disciples, and the Beloved Disciple above all: “They know what
Jesus has said” (comp. Jn 1:14; 15:27; 19:35b; 21:24).9 Ironically, the
hearing is interwoven with the story of the simultaneous presence of
the other disciple and Peter. The time of Jesus’ speaking openly to
the world and the Jews is over (comp. Jn 12:35-40).
The nightly session of the Sanhedrin in Mark ends with a first
mockery scene in which the officers received Jesus with blows (Mk
14:65). Dependent upon Mark, both Matthew and Luke (who post­
pones the session itself to the morning) have kept this nightly scene,
partially adapting its redaction. John who - as mentioned above - has
anticipated most of the Synoptic Jewish trial, has nevertheless in his
substitute hearing by the high priest retained a similar striking of
Jesus by one of the officers (18:22a). He closely repeats one element
of the Markan mockery, as the verbal agreement clearly shows.

Mk 14:65 kœl oi vTrrjpeTca paitiopaoiv avrop eXaßop

Jn 18:22 eiç irapeoTrjKüjç tcop Ù7rrjpeTÔjp eôcoKep ponriopa. tco ' Irjaov
Jn 19:3 Kal (oi arpcmcorcn) eötöooap avTco pairiopaTa

The agreement is all the more obvious since John has used the
formula again in the other mockery scene (the crowning with thorns

8. Comp. Barrett’s remark concerning Jn 18:20: “Probably the whole reply was
composed by John, perhaps on the basis of Mark 14.49, kglQ' rpiepav rpi^v irpoç vpaç
ev tco iepco hbaoKcop.” C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction
with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London, 1955) 441; 21978, 528.
9. See also 1 Jn 1:1,3 b oucrjKoapep “that which we have heard, which we have
seen. ... we proclaim also to you.” Note in v. 21: epcoTaco (no. 150), tbe (no. 167), ehrop
+ acc. rei (no. 221).
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 223

by the soldiers) in Jn 19:3 (diff. from Mt 27:29-31; Mk 15:17-20; ab­

sent from Lk). In both places he uses the same verb ôiôœpt as a liter­
ary improvement of the Markan expression.10 Comparable to Jn 12:4
(one of his disciples) and surely to Jn 19:34 (one of the soldiers), “one
of the officers” is a concretization of the text of Mark in the style of
John who often tends to individualize or even to give names to his
figures. This is the case, e.g., with Malchus and Peter in 18:10 (diff.
Mk 14:47; Mt 26:51; Lk 22:50), with Judas in 12:4 (as opposed to the
several critics in Mk 14:4; Mt 26:8),11 and with the naming of the
high priest in our narrative. This concretization enlivens the dialogue
that follows between the criticizing aggressor and the rebuking
Jesus.12
The reproach of the officer in 18:22b, comparable to Judas’ criti­
cal question in Jn 12:5 (par. Mk 14:4; Mt 26:8), resumes the preceding
‘answer’ of Jesus. In his reply, Jesus continues to speak with the same
authority, affirming his innocence. He addresses himself to the officer
and probably, in the mind of the author, implicitly to the high priest
and the unbelieving Jews. Verse 23 is clearly Johannine: paprvpeoj
(no. 238), paprvpéœ ivept (no. 240), onroKpivopm not followed by the
verb Xeyco (no. 53); see also KOtXàç Xeyco in Jn 4:17; 8:48; 13:13. The
use of the verb ôépoo, however, suggests an inspiration from Lk 22:63
where it appears as an alternative Lukan term in the nightly mockery
scene. The pointed rebuke of Jesus may remind us of his dual ques­
tion in Jn 8:46, in which conviction of sin (rtç . . . eXéyx^L Pe irepl
a/iapriaç; parallel to paprvpr]aop irepl tov kœkov) is opposed to the
telling of truth (ei aXrjOetap Xeyoo par. to ei 8e kolXùç - eXaXrfaa).
In short, the interrogation of Jesus by the high priest appears to
be a Johannine redaction in which he presents his own Christology.
John knew the different Synoptic accounts of the Jewish trial, but has
anticipated their content in the first part of his Gospel. Nevertheless,
here, he is still partially inspired by them, e.g., retaining the formal
question-answer scheme and above all a clear verbal agreement with
Mk 14:65 in the mockery scene of v. 22. The paiaapa motif in the
latter, alluding probably to Is 50:6, will, if it comes from the tradi­

10. See M. Sabbe, “The Trial of Jesus before Pilate in John and Its Relation to the
Synoptic Gospels,” John and the Synoptics, ed. A. Denaux; BETL, 101 (Leuven, 1992)
341-385, esp. 355 (= Studia, 467-513, esp. 481-482).
11. See M. Sabbe, “The Anointing of Jesus in John 12,1-8 and Its Synoptic Paral­
lels,” The Four Gospels 1992. FS Frans Neirynck, eds. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett,
G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden; BETL, 100 (Leuven 1992) 2051-2082, esp. 2073-2074.
12. The genitive absolute is rare in John, but comp, the expression raina ôe avrov
diroPTOç with Jn 8:30 ravra avrov XaXovvroç. - As for irapeorriK.œç see also Jn 19:26
(the Beloved Disciple standing near the cross, itapeorwra) and comp, with Mk 14:47;
15:35,39.
 224 MAURITS SABBE

tion, have been picked up by Mark. Since the text is explainable on

the level of Johannine composition, style and Christology, there is no
need to accept a pre-Johannine source. Likewise, the dependence upon
the Synoptics can be a direct one. I see no reason for assigning the
latter to a previous phase of the Johannine tradition nor for hypothet­
ically reconstructing the oldest Passion Narrative on the basis of and
as a common source for Mark and John. The interrogation by the
high priest in Jn 18:19-23, after all, has too little in common with
Mark to justify a hypothetical common source. Working with really
known texts is preferable.

2. Thus far the hearing by the high priest, but what about its
setting in the narrative of John? Its relationship to the triple denial of
Peter will be discussed further on. The other elements of the setting,
however, Jesus being led to the high priest Annas, with a comment
on the high priest Caiaphas (18:13-14) and only later - after the hear­
ing - being sent to Caiaphas (18:24) constitute a real puzzle. How are
we to explain that here John differs so much from the Synoptists,
especially from Mark? Did he have other information at his disposal
or another source? Is he himself responsible for the confusing se­
quence of the scenes and elements in the narrative or is this due to
scribal error in the manuscripts?
The usual order of the verses 13-27 is commonly attested in the
manuscripts. Several witnesses seek to ease the sense,13 by interpolat­
ing v. 24 after v. 13 or in the middle of v. 13 (although, in spite of
this, retaining it also in its proper position) or by rearranging the
text, as did the Sinaitic Syriac (4th-5th century - discovered at the end
of the 19th century): 13,24,14-15,19-23,16-18,25b-27. The order of this
version (thus confirming scholarly conjectures) has been defended as
the original one by A. Loisy.14 This simplifies the understanding of
the text: Annas is mentioned only in passing and his role becomes al­
most meaningless, whereas Caiaphas is clearly the questioner. The
other disciple, known to the high priest, was probably present at the
hearing, and Peter’s triple denial (no double mention of the warm­
ing), as one unit, brings the scene to a close.
The same apprehension has led scholars - reasoning now on a
level of literary criticism -, as e.g. Fortna,15 to assign the easy se­

13. See B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New
York, 1974) 251-252.
14. A. Loisy, Le quatrième évangile (Paris, 1903) 827-830.
15. R. T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor (Edinburgh, 1989) 155-157.
See also his article, “Jesus and Peter at the High Priest’s House: A Test Case for the
Question of the Relation between Mark’s and John’s Gospel,” NTS 24 (1978) 371-383,
esp. 379-380.
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 225

quence to a pre-Johannine source (closer to Mark than is John’s Gos­

pel but not identical in structure and showing no trace of the Markan
redaction) and to suppose that John has rearranged the source so that
the aponas are due to his redaction. Likewise, Reinbold is of the
opinion that the mentioned anomalies in the Johannine text cannot
be solved without the acceptance of plural layers in the literary origin
of the Gospels: an older Passion Narrative as a common source of
Mark and John (with the unnamed high priest) and a Johannine redac­
tion (one hearing before Annas). The introduction of Caiaphas - in
11:49; 18:13b,24,28 - in direct dependence upon Matthew (a beauty
spot?!) is attributed to a post-Johannine redactor or glossator harmo­
nizing the Johannine tradition with the Synoptics.16
I prefer to examine whether the setting of the Johannine nar­
rative of the hearing by the high priest cannot better be understood
on the simpler hypothesis of a direct dependence upon the Synoptists
combined with Johannine literary creativity, thus explaining similari­
ties and dissimilarities.
The binding of Jesus after his arrest in Jn 18:12, was not mentio­
ned in the Synoptics. This element could easily have been added by
John who repeats it in 18:24. He also uses the term <5eco in other redac-
tional places (11:44 and 19:40, concerning the parallelism of Jesus with
Lazarus).17 He may have been inspired by Mk 15:1; par. Mt 27:2
who mention the binding of Jesus only after the second session of the
Sanhedrin and their decision to put him to death, before delivering
him to Pilate. John had anticipated this council for a quasi condem­
nation to death in 11:47-51 so that the binding of Jesus, immediately
after the arrest, is consequent with his redaction.
It is surprising that John identifies the high priest, to whom
Jesus is brought, as Annas (v. 13). Did the author of the Fourth Gos­
pel have special information or tradition at his disposal? Did he have
a view on the history of the high priests in Jerusalem some seventy
years earlier, so that he could reconstruct the hearings of Jesus cor­
rectly? Much has been said on the historical value of this information,
about the possible intervention of the high priest in the hearings,
about the high priests Annas and Caiaphas and their mutual relation.

16. W. Reinbold, Der älteste Bericht über den Tod Jesu. Literarische Analyse und histo­
rische Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien, BZNW, 69 (Berlin, 1994) esp. 149-
150. See his note 195 (p. 150): “Allein an dieser Stelle kann m.E. mit Gründen eine
Synoptikerkenntnis der nachjohanneischen Redaktion vermutet werden.”
17. See M. Sabbe, “The Arrest of Jesus in Jn 18,1-11 and Its Relation to the Synop­
tic Gospels. A Critical Evaluation of A. Dauer’s Elypothesis,” UEvangile de Jean. Sour­
ces, rédaction, théologie, ed. M. de Jonge; BETL, 44 (Leuven, 1977) 203-234 (= Studia,
355-388), esp. 233, 385.
226 MAURITS SABBE

Verse 13, most probably, is Johannine redaction combined with

Synoptic inspiration. The verb rjyayov as well as ovveXaßov1* in the
preceding verse echoes the Lukan redaction ovWaßovTeQ ôe avrbv
rjyayov (Lk 22:54), “they seized Jesus and led him.” 7rpwrov, though
not a Johannine characteristic of style,18 19 is also used in 1:41; 2:10;
7:51. That they ‘first5 led him to Annas does not necessarily mean
that Jesus will be sent a second time, possibly to another high priest,
although v. 24 could suggest that: one interrogation following an­
other. Jesus’ appearance before Annas is rather a kind of protocolar
prelude. In fact, John, who for compositional reasons had anticipated
the Jewish trial in chapter 10, is urged to provide a substitute for its
normal place in the Passion Narrative immediately after the arrest of
Jesus. Not only does he redact another hearing by the high priest, a
refusal of Jesus to be interrogated, but in line with his tendency to
individualize the figures in the narrative, he also pays attention to a
fuller description of the actors in the scene. To that end he finds
inspiration in Mark, who suggests a double trial before the Sanhedrin
(Mk 14:53-64; 15:1) and in Luke, who mentions the two high priests
Annas and Caiaphas at the time of the preaching of John the Baptist
and of Peter and John (Lk 3:2; Acts 4:6).20 Irrespective of the precise
historical value of this information, he integrates it in his narrative.
His main attention does not center on Annas - not even explicitly re­
ferred to as high priest - but on Caiaphas.
The use of parentheses, so typically Johannine,21 is found also
here. In w. 13b-14 he introduces a double parenthetical statement rjv
yap . . . - rjv be . . . , in which he further describes both figures, An­
nas and Caiaphas. Double parenthetical statements are not rare in
John (see also, e.g., 18:28b-28c; 19:14a-14b; 19:35a-35b-35c; 19:36-37)
and additional descriptions of figures are numerous (see also, e.g.,
18:2,5c, 10e, 16c,26b,40c). Verse 14 has the following Johannine charac­
teristics of style: rjv ôe immediately followed by the subject (no. 116),
rjv ôe plus proper name (no. 117); oi ’Iovôatot as authorities of Jeru­
salem (no. 179), àirodvrjOKü) (no. 51), bicep + genitive (no. 391).

18. John normally uses iriafa (no. 327). Comp. ovWa^ßaro: (1.1.7.1.4) in the say­
ing of Jesus in Mk 14:48; par. Mt 26:55.
19. But close to to irpcoTOv (no. 357) in 10:40; 12:16; 19:39.
20. Matera also accepts that it is not necessary to appeal to a non-Markan Passion
source to clarify the relationship of the hearing before Annas and the Synoptic account
of the trial before the Sanhedrin. He explains the Johannine text as a redaction of the
Markan account, but the major new element, the introduction of Annas, will have hap­
pened on the basis of a particular tradition. He finds it “unlikely that the information
comes from Luke.” F. J. Matera, “Jesus before Annas: John 18,13-14.19-24,” ETL 66
(1990) 38-55, esp. 47-48.
21. See G. Van Belle, Les parentheses dans l’évangile de Jean. Aperçu historique et clas­
sification, SNTA, 11 (Leuven, 1985) esp. 107, 123-124.
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 227

The first parenthesis (13b) aims to explain why Jesus was

brought here: not for the sake of legal procedure but because of the
pretended family relation to Caiaphas.22 This visit could well serve
as a substitute for the normally expected official hearing by the high
priest Caiaphas. The reference to the family relation is comparable to
the remark about the acquaintance of the other disciple to the high
priest (v. 15) and the kinsmanship of one of the servants of the high
priest to Malchus (v. 26). All these reflections are the creative work of
the author for a smooth presentation of the narrative.
In the double parenthesis John focuses on Caiaphas, the main
actor and the one who is responsible in the trial of Jesus before the
Jews. That he was said to be high priest that year (àpx^P^vç rov evi-
avrov €K6lvov) is a reference to a preceding passage where Caiaphas
was already twice qualified as such (11:49,51). Rather than suggesting
that a high priest was appointed every year (high priesthood was held
for life), the saying implies a reference to Jesus. “Probably (John)
meant only that Caiaphas was high priest in that memorable year of
our Lord’s Passion.”23 Also the remark of v. 14 is a reference to that
preceding passage. r\v he Kaïacjaç 6 ovptßovXevoaq toîç ’Iovhaloiç otl
crvpÿépeL eva avOpuirov àirodaveîv virep rov Xaov, is a verbal repeti­
tion of Caiaphas’ statement of 11:50, on ov fiepet vpiv ïva elç avdpoj-
7roç airodavrj virep rod Xaov.24 The term ö ovfJißovXevoaQ (the one
who had given counsel) echoes Jn 11:53, eßovXevoavro Iva aiwKTei-
vcooiv avrov (they - the chief priests and the Pharisees in the meeting
of the Sanhedrin, v. 47 - took counsel how to put him to death) and
ol ’ Iovhaloi is a perfect Johannine alternative for the Jewish authori­
ties present in the meeting referred to (11:47,50,53).
Section 11:47-53 about the officials’ conspiracy against Jesus does
not proceed from a two-level stage: a pre-Johannine source containing
data about a meeting of the Sanhedrin, the role of Caiaphas and his
decisive sentence and a Johannine redaction of it. In my opinion,
John, reducing the trial before the Jews in chapter 18, has extended a
sharp confrontation with them in the first part of his Gospel. This
culminates in chapter 10 in a narrative foreshadowing the arrest and
the trial of Jesus before the Jews: a double dispute (w. 24-30, 32-38)
with the Jews questioning him and Jesus revealing his Messiahship
and his Divine Sonship, including the accusation of blasphemy (33,

22. Annas had several sons among his successors and also Caiaphas Qosephus, Ant.
XVIII, 26-35) but a family relation between the two is not mentioned in Josephus.
23. Cf. Barrett, St John (n. 8), 1955, 339; 21978, 406. - The saying is comparable to
Jn 7:37 “the great day of the feast” and 19:31 “that Sabbath was a great day,” referring,
similarly, not to Jewish liturgy but to the death of Jesus.
24. See also the evangelist’s comment in 11:51 otl epeWev ’ ïrjoovç àiroßprjOKetp
virep Tov edpovç.
228 MAURITS SABBE

36) and the perspective of death penalty (31, 33a). In this narrative
John is particularly dependent upon the Lukan report of the trial
before the Jews.25 The perspective of death is more formally retained
in the condemnation to death in Jn 11:47-53. Upon hearing (11:46)
that Jesus raised Lazarus from death - narrated by the evangelist in
11:1-44 - a meeting of the Sanhedrin is organized. The Johannine
character of the section (composition technique, interest in Roman
authorities, theology of the signs and corresponding faith, theology of
the death of Jesus) combined with some obvious similarities with
Matthew, invites us to acknowledge again the creativity of the author
and his direct dependence upon the Synoptics, here upon Matthew.
Matthew identifies the unnamed high priest in the Markan Pas­
sion Narrative as Caiaphas: in Mt 26:3, a meeting of the conspiring
Sanhedrin took place in the palace of the high priest, named Caia­
phas, where they took counsel together to arrest Jesus secretly and to
put him to death (again in 26:57). The resemblance between Jn 11:49-
53 (above all v. 53) and Mt 26:3-4 tov àpx^P^ooç tov Xeyo/jlcpov
Kaïaÿa, koll ovpeßovXevoaPTo Iva top ’Irfoovv boXco Kparr/acoatp Kai
aTTOKTeiPcooip is striking, in particular the name of Caiaphas and the
use of the verb (av^ßovXevü) linked with Iva top ' h)oovp airoKTei-
POJOLP.26 Regardless whether or not Matthew bases his identification
of the high priest on other traditions, here - as in other places - John
probably depends upon Matthew. In John, as in Matthew, Caiaphas is
a mam character in the Passion Narrative.
In view of that, it is not surprising that m 18:24 Jesus is brought
to Caiaphas. The name of Caiaphas in mentioned 5 times in the Gos­
pel (Jn 11:49; 18:13,14,24,28) and a confrontation of Jesus with him, a
representative of the Jews, is an ongoing component of the plot and a
key to the story. First comes the anticipated determination to put
Jesus to death on Caiaphas’ proposal (11:49). After his arrest, Jesus is
bound and brought to Annas, not without an explanation of the essen­
tial link with Caiaphas (18:13-14), and after the interrogation by the
high priest - in the development of the narrative understood but not
expressed as Annas and by the reader often taken to be Caiaphas27 -
the bound Jesus (reassuming the binding of v. 12) is finally sent to
Caiaphas (v. 24) from whom he will be brought to Pilate (v. 28). In
the Johannine composition of the narrative the absence of a formal

25. Cf. Sabbe, “John 10” (n. 5).

26. Note ovfißovXevoj in Jn 18:14 and in Mt 26:4. Although a hapax in his Gospel,
it may have been Matthew’s choice, because it fits his description of the gathering of the
council in v. 3; he has some preference for ovyißovXiov (5.2.0.0) used e.g., in 27:1,7.
27. Scholars have tried to explain how one palace could have been simultaneously
inhabited by both Annas and Caiaphas.
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 229

interrogation of Jesus by Caiaphas is explainable when one reckons

with the importance given to the anticipated trial of Jesus before the
Jews in 10:24-39, the substitute questioning by the high priest in
18:19-23, and the principal role of Caiaphas expressed in other ways.

II. The Denial of Peter

Our examination of the interrogation of Jesus by the high priest

(18:13-14,19-24) must be completed by a closer look at the denial of
Peter (18:15-16,25-26). What about the agreement with the Synoptics
and how is the story interpreted on the level of Johannine redaction
and composition?

1. Not only are we dealing in all four Gospels with Peter fol­
lowing Jesus, his entrance into the courtyard, a scene of fire, the
repeated challenge by a maid, another person or the bystanders, and a
triple denial, immediately followed by the crowing of the cock, but
we are also confronted with a number of verbal agreements between
John and the Synoptics. In the order of John they are the following:

Jn 18:15a ijKoXovdei bë reo ’17]oov Lipojv Yiërpoç ...

Mk 14:54a koll b Ilérpoç ... r\Ko\ovdr)oev avrco
Mt 26:58a b be Ylërpoç r/KoXovdeL avrcb ...
Lk 22:54c 6 be ITërpoç r\KoXovOei ...

Jn 18:15c Kal avveLarjXdev tù) ’Ir)aov eiç avXrjv roû àpxiepéa>ç

ttjv

Mk 14:54b ëcoç ëaco eiç avXr)v tov àpxiepëœç

tt]v

Mt 26:58b ëœç rfjç avXrjç tov àpxLepécoç, Kal eiaeXOcovëaco

Lk 22:55a ëv p< oco rijç avXrjç

Jn 18:16a b bë II érpoç eiarrjKeL 7rpoç ri] dupa

Mk 14:68c kœl ë^rjXdev <é£cü eiç ro TepoavXiOV
Mt 26:69a b bë Ylërpoç ëKadr)To ë£u) ëv ri] avXy
Mt 26:71a ë^eXObvra bë eiç tov irvXûva

Jn 18:17a Xéyei ovv tco Uërpœ r/ 7taibioKir] 17 dvpœpoç

Mk 14:66b [lia TÛv TtaibiOKÜv ... Xeyei
Mt 26:69b pila TraibiaKr} Xëyovaa
Lk 22:56 irat-bloKT] tlç ... ehrev

Jn 18:17b,c pif] koli au é/t tcüv padrjTÛv el tov àvdirojirov tovtov; ... ovk eipi
Mk 14:67c kœl ai) jliera tov NaÇapv]vov rjada tov ’ lyoov
Mt 26:69c ko.1 au r]oda perà ’lïjoov tov TaXiKaiov
Lk 22:58b,c Kal au é-£ aurajv ei
el ... ovk eipi
230 MAURITS SABBE

Jn 18:18a,c eiorr\Keioav be ... oi ùirrjpéraL àvBpaKiav ireiroir\Koreç ... kol eBeppaivovro

Lk 22:55a,b irepiaxpàvrœv be irvp ... Kal ovyKaBtoàvrœv

Jn 18:18d r\v be Kal b nérpoç per’ aùrœv éorœç Kal Beppatvopevoç

Mk 14:54c Kal rjv ovyKaBrjpevoç perce rœv ùirrjperœv Kal Beppatvopevoç irpoç ro <t>œç
Mt 26:58c eKadrjTo perà rœv vmjperœv
Lk 22:55c eKaBr)ro b II érpoç péooç aùrœv

Jn 18:25a ï]vbe 'L'tpœv ïlérpoç éorœç ko! Beppatvopevoç (cf. 18:18d)

Mk 15:54c kœl rjv ovyKaBrjpevoç ... kœl Beppatvopevoç

Jn 18:25b elirov ovv aùrœ, prj kœl au ê/c rœv paBrjrœv aùrov el; (cf. 18:17b)
Mk 14:70b,c ol irapeorœreç éXeyov rœ Ilérpœ ... è£ aùrœv el
Mt 26:73b,c oi éorœreç elirov rœ Ilérpœ ... kœl au è£ aùrœv el
Lk 22:58b kœl où è£ aùrœv el

Jn 18:25c rjPvBoaro eKeivoç Kal elirev, où K eipl (cf. 18:17c)

Mk 14:68a b bè rjpvrioaro Xéyœv
Mt 26:70a 6 be rjpvrjoaro Xéyœv
Lk 22:57a,58c 6 be rjpvrjoaro Xéyœv ovk eipl

Jn 18:26a,c Xéyet elç è/c rœv bovXœv ... oe ... per’ aùrov
Lk 22:59b,c àXXoç rtç ... Xéyœv ... ovroç per’ avrov

Jn 18:27 iràXtv ovv rjP^Voaro Hérpoç, /ccd eùBéœç àXéKrœp éefrœvrjoev

Mk 14:70a,72 ô bé iràXtvrjpveîro ... /ccd eùBùç è/c bevrépov àXéKrœp éejxœvrjoev
Mt 26:72a,74b /ccd iràXtv rjpvrjoaro ... Kal eùBéœç àXéKrœp éÿœvrjoev
Lk 22:60c /ccd irapaxpvpa éejrcovrjoev àXéKrœp

This survey of agreements clearly shows that, in regard to the

narrative of Peter’s denial, there will have been contact between the
Fourth Evangelist and the Synoptists. The question is how can it be
explained: through a direct dependence upon the Synoptics, or indi­
rectly in the pre-Johannine tradition? Through a parallel dependence
upon a common source in the pre-Gospel tradition or simply through
oral tradition? To resolve the problem of these similarities is an ardu­
ous task, somehow more difficult than the one of dealing with the
obvious differences. The latter - without parallels in the Synoptics -
are often a matter of specific Johannine redaction, as is the case, e.g.,
with the role of the other disciple, bringing Peter into the court of
the high priest. In the meantime, they constitute a good criterion to
help us understand many dissimilarities with the Synoptics, which
often result from such Johannine redactional changes.
A good example of similarity is that of “Peter warming himself,
while he was sitting (Mk 14:54) or standing Qn 18:18) with the
guards,” only Mark and John attesting the parallel. According to Myl-
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 231

lykoski,28 in its Johannine form it belonged to the original denial

story integrated into an already enlarged Passion Narrative (his P
Geschichte different from his older P Bericht), a common source used
by both Mark and John. Whereas here John has kept the original
text, the evangelist Mark will have adapted it. He had to accommo­
date Peter (changing éorcoç into ovyKa.Oi]fxevoç) once he had redaction-
ally extended the original brief hearing of Jesus by the high priest
(Mk 14:53a,61b,62a,65ca; 15:1), thus postponing the arrival of the
maid at the scene. The standing position in Jn 18:18b (repeated in
18:25), however, is better explained conversely. That Peter is standing
and warming himself is in keeping with the description of the guards
in the same verse: they too (different from their position in Mk
14:54) “were standing” (eiaTrjKetaav) and warming themselves. The lat­
ter verb (in the pluperfect form) is stylistically Johannine (no. 181)29
- already applied to Peter in 18:16 - which confirms the probability
that John has changed the Markan model without even appealing to a
special tradition.
Another, more intriguing, point of similarity in the story in the
four Gospels is the triple form of the denial. Given the slight differ­
ences in the persons challenging Peter (a maid, the bystanders or an­
other person), in the repeated negations of Peter, and other dissimi­
larities, above all between John and Mark, Myllykoski30 is of the
opinion that the original story in their common source related only a
double denial. Important considerations, he believes, favor that view,
such as: the third denial in Jn 18:26 is of Johannine redaction, where­
as the second one in Mk 14:68b-70a is of Markan redaction; also the
puzzling remark in Mk 14:72 é/c ôevrépov about the ‘second’ cockcrow
after the third denial is best considered to be redactional, though in
the meantime a remnant of the original story. In the source then,
Peter, upon his arrival (Mk 14:54a; Jn 18:15c), goes to the fire (Mk
14:54b; Jn 18:18), where a first denial - reply to the maid - (Mk
14:66-68a; Jn 18:17) and a second more public one - reply to the
bystanders - (Mk 14:70b-71; Jn 18:25bc) took place, followed by the
cockcrow (Mk 14:72a; Jn 18:27b).
One cannot deny that Myllykoski’s hypothesis of a concise, co­
herent denial story in a common source of Mark and John is attrac­
tive to some extent. But is this conciseness and logical coherence a
criterion for reconstructing possible sources? Why should these by

28. M. Myllykoski, Die letzten Tage ]esu. Markus und Johannes, ihre Traditionen and
die historische Frage. /, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B/256 (Helsinki, 1991)
105-112.
29. See Jn 1:35; 7:37; 18:5,16,18; 19:25; 20:11.
30. Myllykoski, Die letzten Tage (n. 28), 109-112.
 232 MAURITS SABBE

definition be simple? Why should an intercalation of two brief stories

- the interrogation of Jesus and Peter - be original and pre-Markan,
and a more complex one be of Markan redaction? This kind of recon­
struction corresponds rather to the modern mind and its preference
for transparent logical composition. Could an original Gospel not
have been complex right from the start? The numbering of the cock­
crows, for instance, is surely complicated within the Gospel of Mark
(14:72a compared with 14:30 and 14:72b) and has obviously troubled
the manuscript tradition.31 Is it proper to use this complexity as an
argument in literary criticism? Originally, instead of being a parallel
counting of the denials, the numbering of the cockcrows was perhaps
an indication of the morning hours. Furthermore, a triple denial
could probably be more natural in an original story.
The possibility of pre-Markan traditions or sources, to be sure, is
not an easy question to resolve. Be what it may, Matthew and Luke
have known the present gospel of Mark with the intercalation of the
denial of Peter and the trial of Jesus before the high priest in its
present form, and have redactionally changed it. For instance: both
dropped the reference to a second cockcrow in the three places (the
denial, the prediction of the denial and Peter’s recollection of it -
minor agreements against Mark); while both kept the denial of Peter
for the night, Matthew retained the hearing of Jesus for the night
session and Luke moved it to the morning session. What applies to
Matthew and Luke may be true for John as well. A direct dependence
upon Mark, in this case also on Matthew and Luke, combined with
the great impact of his personal literary creativity, may best explain
the text of John - as we have already experienced in several other
narratives. Let us therefore attempt to verify this hypothesis again.32

2. Although quite differently elaborated, in John, the interca­

lation of the stories of the hearing of Jesus and the interrogation of
Peter closely follows the order of Mark. After Jesus was brought to
the high priest, Peter is mentioned as following him, in a formula
very similar to that of the three Synoptics. Yet, his name is given in
the usual Johannine way Htfjtojp lierpoq (no. 365; 1.0.1.17; e.g. Jn
18:10) and the critical remark “at a distance” is dropped. John, who at

31. For instance, by omitting ex ôevrépov and dig in Mk 14:30,72, or by adding or

omitting a cockcrow in Mk 14:68.
32. Myllykoski does not even exclude an occasional dependence of John on Mark!
He reckons with such a possibility for the triple aspect of the denial, which he has
assigned to Markan redaction, but finally rejects the idea. Because of the great difference
between Jn 13:38b and Mk 14:30, John, in his opinion, would rather have taken the
motif over from a free traditional denial story, in a conventional triple form. See Mylly­
koski, Die letzten Tage (n. 28), 109.
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 233

the arrest of Jesus had changed the flight of the disciples into a safe
departure under Jesus’ protection,33 will accordingly have put Peter
in a better light. He was all the more urged to do so since in the
prediction of Peter’s denial (Jn 13:26-38) he had introduced the theme
of the following of Jesus, emphasizing Peter’s readiness (13:37), and in
the scene of the arrest he had assigned to Peter a daring intervention
with the sword in the garden. One could, however, also say that the
critical remark is dropped because Peter (named at the end of the
formula) is now accompanied by the other disciple.
The addition of another disciple ctXkoç pLadprrjç - implying that
Peter too is considered a disciple - is obviously due to Johannme
redaction. Reference to two disciples is not uncommon in the Gospel
of John (1:35,37; 21:2) and their presence here in the narrative
anticipates well the high priest’s questioning about Jesus’ disciples in
v. 19. The identification of this other disciple is much debated in the
literature. Although the evangelist repeats his information of v. 15
àXkoç jjLŒ0r]T7]Ç. b be jttaffrçrijç eneivoç r\v yvcooroç tco àpxiepeï almost
literally in v. 16 ô pa6y]Tr]Ç b àXkoç b yvcootoç tov àpx^epécoç scholars
do not agree whether this disciple is identical with the Beloved
Disciple (called “the other disciple” in 20:2,3,4,8) or a different one
not mentioned elsewhere m the Gospel. The latter is argued by the
absence of marked elements in the description of the Beloved Disciple
in other places, such as: 6 àXkoç ptaOpriiç (20:2,3,4,8); bv pyaira
(écpiket) b ’ Itjgovç (19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20) and the one who was lying
close to Jesus’ breast (13:23,25; 21:20). So, this “unnamed disciple,”
known to the high priest, is often attributed to a pre-Johannine
source or explained as a traditional detail.34
More probably the evangelist introduced the Beloved Disciple
here, involving him in some rivalry with Peter, as he did in other
places where Peter was already mentioned in the parallel Synoptic
texts (Jn 20:2-8/Lk 24:12; Jn 21:2-14,15-22/Lk 5:1-11) or where he
appeared as a Johannine concretization of the disciples in general,
questioning one another in the Synoptic parallels (Jn 13:22-25/Lk

33. See Sabbe, “The Arrest” (n. 17), 221, 373.

34. A. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte in Johannesevangelium. Eine traditionsgeschicht­
liche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18,1-19,30, SANT, 30 (Munich, 1972) 73-75;
Fortna, The Fourth Gospel (n. 15), 155, 161, 365. - Abbott has even defended the idea
that this unnamed disciple will have been Judas, one of the disciples (Jn 12:4) - and an
instrument of Satan already antithetical to Peter and his confession in Jn 6:68-71 - who
as a bosom friend - the term yvaoroQ implying close relation and intimate friendship as
in Lk 23:49 - of Caiaphas and the counterpart of the other disciple whom Jesus loved,
was to mislead Peter and bring him in a risky situation. See E. A. Abbott, “The disciple
that was ‘known unto the High Priest’,” in The Fourfold Gospel. IF The Beginning (Cam-
hrihcrp 19143 351-371.
 234 MAURITS SABBE

22:23; Mk 14:19; Mt 26:22).35 The Beloved Disciple assisted Peter in

asking Jesus whom he meant as his betrayer, played the dominant
role in visiting the empty tomb with Peter, and in recognizing the
risen Lord earlier than Peter. Unlike Peter, who is supposed to follow
Jesus, he is to remain until the coming of Jesus. Reckoning with the
same tendency in all these places where the Beloved Disciple is
mentioned - including the one of 19:25-27 where by exception he is
not in the company of Peter but of Jesus’ mother36 - and because of
the general literary unity of the Gospel, these passages are not due to
a later redactor adapting a previous Johannine text (Grundschrift) ,37
but belong to the original work of the author of the Fourth Gospel,
who in these instances was directly inspired by the Synoptic Gospels.
The introduction of this Johannine figure is indeed a serious
innovation over the Synoptic Gospels. Rather than portraying him as
a faithful disciple following Jesus and a witness at the trial of Jesus
(comparable to Jn 21:24), his presence here is probably merely in­
tended to focus on his superiority over Peter. On first impression, by
describing him as entering the court of the high priest along with
Jesus (ovveior}\0ev) the text intends to show his close relation to Jesus,
comparable to Jn 19:26, where he is also standing close to the cross.
The clear parallel in Jn 20:1-8, however, where the Beloved Disciple
ran ahead of Peter and reached the tomb first, suggests that his rela­
tion to Peter is again what matters. Fie had to be earlier in the court
to be capable to bring Peter in. The remark on the acquaintanceship
of the other disciple with the high priest has a similar function in the
narrative, enabling him to enter in order to help Peter. The remark
on this disciple (o be jiadrjTrjÇ eneïvoç, as in Jn 21:23) is comparable to
that on the servant in 18:26 (a kinsman of Malchus), whereas ovveio-
rjXdev . . . eiç tt\v avXrjv tov àpxiepeoôç echoes the entering of Peter
into the court in the Synoptics and especially elaeXdojv eaœ of Mt
26:58b (making the progression more explicit than in Mark: to follow
Jesus and go inside with him).
In the following v. 16, John relates how the Beloved Disciple

35. See the contribution of Neirynck, defending this identification. F. Neirynck,

“The ‘Other Disciple’ in Jn 18,15-16,” ETL 51 (1975) 113-141; = Evangelica /, BETL, 60
(Leuven, 1982) 335-364.
36. See M. Sabbe, “The Johannine Account of the Death of Jesus and Its Synoptic
Parallels Qn 19,16b-42),” ETE 70 (1994) 34-64, esp. 37-43.
37. See H. Thyen, “Entwicklungen innerhalb der johanneischen Theologie und
Kirche im Spiegel von John 21 und der Lieblingsjüngertexte des Evangeliums,” L’Evan-
gile de Jean, ed. M. de Jonge; BETL, 44 (Leuven, 1977) 259-299, different from his pres­
ent position, accepting a direct dependence of the Johannine evangelist upon the Syn­
optic Gospels.
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 235

proceeded. Using a verb {eiorr\Kei - no. 181)38 appearing more often

in his Gospel, and a formula also applied to Mary at the tomb
(Mexpiex be eioT7]Kei irpoç tcû /ivr] peico e£co - Jn 20:11), John refers to
Peter as standing outside at the door. The inspiration for an outdoor
scene seems to have come from Mt 26:69a, where Peter was sitting
outside in the court (e£co ev ri] avXyj) - be it after the trial - and from
Mt/Mk where he went out to the porch/to the gateway,39 to be
challenged a second time by a maid (another in Mt or the same in
Mk) and to deny again. Accordingly, in John, who elaborated his
own text, it is now “the other disciple” (no. 33) who went out (ob­
serve the Johannine ovv historicum) while the maid functions as
doorkeeper (v. 16 i] Ovpœpoç - no. 165; v. 17 i] ivexibiOKitj i] Ovpoipôç)
so that by speaking to her,40 he is able to bring Peter in.41
The first denial ofi Peter in John (18:17) precedes the questioning
of Jesus by the high priest. This differs from Mark and Matthew who
have the three denials after the hearing scene.42 As the denial is natu­
rally linked to the mention of the maid, anticipated here in the Johan­
nine redaction, consequently the first denial is related immediately.
Having rewritten the entrance of Peter in his Johannine way, he
follows the order of Mark by integrating the scene of Peter and the
servants warming themselves in 18:18, which in Mk 14:54 and Mt
26:58 also precedes the hearing of Jesus.
Both verses 17 and 18 are clearly Johannine, and a number of
Johannine characteristics of style occur: Xeyei ovv (no. 213), /xr) koli
joined with a personal pronoun (no. 256),43 dvpupôç (no. 165), Xeyei
avrco followed by the subject (no. 211), eijil e/c (no. 108), eneïvoç (no.
124), ovtoç ö avdpGiiroç said of Christ (no. 42) - comp. Jn 18:29, firj
interrogative (no. 255), àvdpafda (no. 40), r\v be plus proper name
(no. 117), rjv be immediately followed by the subject (no. 116),
eloTT]Kei (no. 181), vinipéTrjç (no. 392). Although very close to the
question, also directly quoted in Luke’s second denial Kal ov é£ avrœv
ei (Lk 22:58; diff. Mk 14:69 on ovtoç œvtüjp èonv) the question by
the doorkeeper in John, fxrj kœÏ ov é/c roor paOrjrcor el rod avßponrov

38. Sometimes also in the other Gospels (2.0.3.7.1), as in Lk 23:49; par. Jn 19:25.
39. Mt 26:71 e^e\6ovra be eiç rbv tw\Îûvœ
Mk 14:68 Kal e^r)\0ev e^œ dç rb TrpoavXiov.
40. John himself may, by exception, use elirov tlvl “to speak to someone” (here to
recommend) without indicating the subject of the conversation, since such a situation in
the narrative is also exceptional.
41. Comp, eioayco (0.0.3.1.6) with Lk 22:54 where it is used to bring Jesus into the
high priest’s house.
42. Luke, retaining the three denials for the night, postponed the trial to the morn­
ing session of the Sanhedrin (par. Mk 15:1; Mt 27:1) - for Luke the only one.
43. See in particular in Jn 6:67, a similar question of Jesus with an answer of Peter,
and 7:52, a question addressed to Nicodemus.
236 MAURITS SABBE

tovtov, has interesting changes: the vague “one of them” is now

replaced by “one of the disciples of this man.” The explicit reference
to the disciples anticipates the questioning by the high priest about
them, thus constituting another balance in the narrative. “This man,
said of Christ” is a Johannine formula (John has it 6 times), soon to
be repeated in 18:29, in Pilate’s request about accusations “against this
man,” where it may have been inspired by Lk 23:4.44 Luke has the
expression more often: in the statements about Jesus’ innocence (Lk
23:4,14a, 14b,47); Mark, intriguingly, uses it twice: in the declaration
of the centurion in 15:39 (parallel to Lk 23:47) and in 14:74, his third
denial of Peter “I do not know this man.”
The answer of Peter in v. 17 and v. 25, ovk eifii, in itself no
more than an explicit rendering of the formal terminology of de­
nial45 has perhaps a deeper meaning in the narrative. The negation of
Peter ovk eipi could be interpreted as an antithesis to Jesus’ confession
of his Messiahship, eyco ei(u, before the high priest, except that the
latter element does not appear in Jn 18:20-23 (and the explicit affirma­
tion of Jesus’ Sonship of God in 10:36 is too distant). Such an anti­
thesis is found neither in Mark, nor in Matthew. The only place
where it somehow appears is in Luke: 22:58 ovk eipil versus 22:70
vfieîç Xeycre on eyo) ei/u; but in the Lukan redaction the denial of
Peter and the confession of Jesus are not intercalated as in the other
Gospels. It is probable, however, considering the similarity of both
question and answer in Lk 22:58 kou ai) œvtüjp ei . . . ovk eifxi and
in Jn 18:17,25 pr] Kal ai) ck toop fxa0r)Tcop ei tov apdpcoirov tovtov
(avTov ei) . . . ovk eifxi, that the Gospel of Luke has influenced John’s
rendering of the two denials. Perhaps John meant more. By inter­
calating trial and denial he intended to oppose Peter’s lack of courage
to the victorious attitude of Jesus. Already in the prediction of Peter’s
denial in Jn 13:38, Jesus had questioned Peter’s loyalty and his wil­
lingness to give his life. This opposition between Jesus and Peter
becomes all the more obvious when one makes the link with Jn 18:7,
where, in the scene of his arrest, Jesus comes forward and by openly
answering èyœ eifu not only lets his identity be recognized, but also
reveals himself in what may be understood as a divine epiphany.
There is an underlying irony in the discomforting situation of Peter
denying that he is one of the disciples of Jesus at the moment that the
high priest questions Jesus about them. In this, the Beloved Disciple,

44. See Sabbe, “The Trial” (n. 10), 371, 499. Luke also uses the term, in particular,
in his parallel declarations of innocence (23:4,14).
45. The term àpvéofim used in 18:25,27 appears also in the three Synoptic accounts
of Peter’s denial Mk 14:68,70; Mt 26:70,72; Lk 22:57 and likewise in all predictions of
the denial Jn 12:18; aiTapveopai in Mk 14:30,31,72; Mt 26:34,35,75; Lk 22:34,61.
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 237

mentioned at first as superior to Peter by entering along with Jesus

and introducing Peter, is prudently kept in the background, to appear
again in an eminent position by the cross and at the tomb of Jesus to
witness, believe and become the authority behind the Gospel.
We have already discussed several elements of the scene of Peter
and the servants warming themselves (v. 18). John has basically kept
the text and the order of Mark. The scene follows the entrance of
Peter and precedes the hearing of Jesus. The description resumes to a
great extent the terminology of Mark (/cal tjp . . . fiera tüûp virrfpercbp
Kat depfiatvofievoç), and partially adapts it to his personal style (see
characteristics of style mentioned above, e.g., the standing position).
To the company of the officers mentioned in Mk 14:54, John adds
the servants (pi ÖovXot) in harmony with the presence of one of them,
Malchus, at the arrest of Jesus and in preparation for another servant
of the high priest, in v. 26, who will recall the incident. As in Lk
22:55a he also explicitly mentions the starting of a fire. Mark’s unusu­
al terminology for the fire, to <fiύ (14:54), literally light (so that
Peter could be more easily identified?), retained in Lk 22:56 (com­
bined with the term irvp in v. 55; Luke does not explicitly mention
the warming while Matthew drops the fire and the warming), is re­
placed - thus avoiding any theological connotation - by the charcoal
fire (<oivdpaKta:), a term used again in the description of the meal at
the appearance of the risen Lord in 21:9. It is not at all convincing to
see in this terminology (as Dauer does46) an indication of a source.
The same is true for the remark on i/Tyoç (because it was cold).
Rather than seeing it as a popular remark from tradition, or as an
indication that the narrative comes from an eyewitness, I prefer to
explain it as a Johannine parenthetical remark, similar to that of 13:30
“it was night” (rjv ôe vv£), and 10:22 “it was winter” (xetfiojp f/n). A
possible symbolic meaning - surely probable m 13:30 - referring to
the cold and the darkness, may perhaps not be excluded (the hour
and the power of darkness).
The second denial of Peter described in v. 25 is obviously of
Johannine redaction. In addition to ehrop ovp (no. 215) characteristics
of style, already observed in w. 15,17 and 18, recur here (nos. 108,
116, 117, 124, 255, 256, 365). Alternating the use of Simon Peter
(mentioned first) and Peter in this passage (w. 25-27), following the
trial of Jesus, corresponds to its use in the passage (w. 15-18) preced­
ing the trial (comp, also 18:10-11). The second denial scene is almost a
verbal resumption of w. 17-18, chiastically repeating the first denial
and the scene of the warming, so that v. 25a is quasi identical with
v. 18c. Nevertheless, as is often claimed, this is not an indication of

46. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte (n. 34), 78.

 238 MAURITS SABBE

later redactional interference in - what could have been - the original

sequence: 18:15,(16), 18ac,25bc,27b preceding the interrogation by the
high priest. John did not interpolate his hearing of the high priest in
the middle of a denial scene. On the contrary, in the first episode
(w. 15-18), he followed basically the order of Mark, adapting it mean­
while to his own redactional purpose, and continued in the same line.
Like Mark, after the scene of Peter in the company of the guards
warming themselves, he puts the hearing of Jesus before the high
priest - be it substantially a substitute version of it - and, like Mark,
goes on with the denials of Peter. Since he had already redactionally
anticipated one denial in the scene at the door, there are only two
more to come.
That he relates the second denial in almost the same terms as the
first corroborates their correlation with the hearing of Jesus and con­
firms my interpretation of the denial. The repeated reference to the
disciples of Jesus and the repeated answer of Peter “I am not” (oik
eifjLi) illustrate this. That Peter is challenged here by the whole com­
pany at the fire (parallel to the bystanders in the third denial in Mk
14:70; Mt 26:73) aggravates the denial of Peter, an act formally indi­
cated now by ctpp'eeopai, to deny (as in the prediction of it in Jn 13:38
and repeatedly in all Synoptic narratives of the denial), as opposed to
what John the Baptist did in 1:20, who confessed and did not deny
(xcd oopoXoyrjoep Kal ovk y]pvr}oar6). John’s omission of Mark’s “for
you are a Galilean” (14:70; Lk 22:59) is quite natural, since he focuses
directly on discipleship. The reference to Galilee may only indirectly
imply a possible discipleship of Jesus, but John had already exploited
this motif, in a similar way, in Jn 7:52 (prj Kal av ê/c rrjç TaXiXalaç
el) when the high priests and Pharisees criticized Nicodemus for his
intervention in favor of Jesus. The Matthean explicitation referring to
a Galilean dialect is even less to the point.
For the third denial (w. 26-27) John found inspiration in his
own Peter-Malchus incident in the scene of the arrest of Jesus. In
inversed order, another servant of the high priest (elç ê/c + genitive -
no. 121), being a kinsman of the one whose ear Peter had cut off (a
Johannine parenthetical remark similar to b ypoooToq tov apyiepeooq in
18:16 and rjp be opopa too bovXoo MaXyoç in 18:10) takes the initiative
and thus becomes the third party (comp. Lk 22:59b àXXoç nç) to
challenge Peter. His challenge “Did I not see you with him?” (ae . . .
fier avrov), paraphrasing ovtoç per’ avrov i]p of Lk 22:59c, prompted
John to link the denial story to the account of the arrest by another
tie. By the repeated mention of the garden (Krjiroç - no. 189 - in 18:1
and 18:26) the end of the denial story forms an inclusion with the
beginning of the account of the arrest.
With v. 27, John’s account of the denial of Peter comes to an
 THE DENIAL OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 239

abrupt close. The repeated denial is mentioned (7xakiv ovp - no. 298 -
y]pvrjoaTO, comp. Mk 14:70; Mt 26:72) followed immediately by the
cockcrow (jKdl evOéœç àXeKTup r)oev as in Mt 26:74, both drop­
ping the unnecessary en ôevrépov of Mk 14:72).
One may question why John omitted the cursing and swearing
of Peter, his recollection of the saying of Jesus predicting his denial
and his repentant weeping. Since the main purpose of his narrative
was theological, in describing the relationship between Peter and the
Beloved Disciple and in opposing the victorious Jesus to the cowardly
disciple, John did not care about a psychological approach to the
sentiments of Peter.47 Peter’s discipleship mattered more than his
denial. As stressed in the prediction of the denial Qn 13:36-38) and in
the threefold interrogation about his love for Jesus (Jn 21:15-19; here
Peter was sorrowful, v. 17) Peter will ultimately follow Jesus and lay
down his life for him.
The omission of the remembrance of the word of Jesus about
the denial - linked to Peter’s repentant weeping - must probably be
seen in the same perspective. In John, the words of Jesus are life; his
word will be the judge on the last day. The word which Jesus has
spoken has indeed, to be fulfilled Qn 2:22; 18:9,32). John, however,
prefers to associate this fulfillment with Jesus’ death and resurrection
and the protection of the disciples. In that sense, the disciple Peter is
still protected by the word of Jesus mentioned at the arrest of Jesus in
the garden in Jn 18:8-9, “Of those you gave me I have not lost one.”

III. Conclusion

My analysis of Jn 18:13-27 has shown the plausibility of the

hypothesis that the author of the Fourth Gospel knew the other Gos­
pels and their account of the trial of Jesus before the Jews, and the
corresponding denial of Peter. He anticipated the essence of the trial
in his chapter 10, in the form of a duplicated dispute of Jesus with
the Jews (10:24-30,32-38), a dispute of great theological impact -

47. John also avoids seeing the Satan in Peter, as opposed to Mark in Mk 8:33 (par.
Mt 16:23). In 6:66-71 John kept, in the same order, the Messianic declaration of Peter
and the reference to Satan; but it is no longer Peter but Judas who is called a devil
(comp, also his critical role in Jn 12:4,6 and his role as opposed to that of Peter in the
scene of the arrest in Jn 18:2-3,10). Dunderberg, accepting the Synoptic Gospels as a
literary source of a secondary level oi John, is of the opinion that here in particular the
Johannme author (a later redactional layer) has known the Markan account and has cor­
rected it. I. Dunderberg, Johannes unci die Synoptiker. Studien zu Joh 1-9, Annales Acade-
miae Scientiarum Fenmcae, Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 69 (Helsinki, 1994)
170-172.
240 MAURITS SABBE

Christological self-revelation of Jesus and confession of his Divine

Sonship - especially influenced by the Lukan report. Meanwhile, as a
substitute in the Passion Narrative, he created another interrogation
by the high priest (18:19-23) in Johannine style, focusing on the Johan-
nine interest in Jesus’ doctrine and his disciples, with a majestic
refusal of Jesus to speak any longer to the Jews (contrasting with the
extensive dialogue with Pilate on his kingship and his coming into the
world to bear witness to the truth). The striking of Jesus by one of
the officers is a Johannine remnant and adaptation of the mockery
scene in Mark that immediately followed the trial. The introduction
of Annas and Caiaphas, the high priest, is probably due to Lukan
inspiration and above all to the Matthean Passion Narrative identify­
ing the unnamed high priest of Mark as Caiaphas. Also John, in his
Passion Narrative, considers Caiaphas as a main and chiefly respon­
sible character. Paraphrasing Mt 26:3-4, he anticipated the plot to kill
Jesus in a meeting of the council of chief priests and Pharisees under
the presidency of Caiaphas (11:45-53), held after the challenging resur­
rection of Lazarus.
The interrogation of Jesus about his disciples and his teaching,
and the questioning of Peter about his discipleship, form the two
parts of a diptych contrasting the autonomous role of Jesus and the
fainthearted attitude of Peter. Except for some major and minor redac-
tional changes, John’s narrative of the triple denial of Peter follows
well the order of the Markan account and is very similar in content
and vocabulary. Peter follows Jesus, enters into the court of the high
priest and warms himself in the company of the guards before the
report of the trial, and the story closes with the mention of the cock­
crow. The Markan sandwiching of the trial of Jesus with the account
of the simultaneous presence and denial of Peter is stressed in John.
To that effect, he frames the interrogation of Jesus with an identical
inquiry about Peter’s discipleship and an identical answer of Peter “I
am not.” The latter may have been inspired by the Lukan parallel,
and in the Johannine composition it echoes Jesus’ autonomous self­
revelation “I am” in the scene of the arrest. The introduction of the
other disciple, i.e., the Beloved Disciple in ‘rivalry’ with Peter -
resulting in the anticipation of the first denial -, the focusing on
Peter’s discipleship, and the inclusion, referring to the arrest of Jesus
in the garden and Peter’s cutting off the ear of Malchus, are the main
redactional changes, realized by the author of the Fourth Gospel.
Inspiration from the Synoptic Gospels and John’s creative redac­
tional work - showing an important number of characteristics of
style and a composition and theology of his own - are the compo­
nents of the Johannine account.
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at products@atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.