Contradiction on Peter's location during his second denial

Question

Problem: It seems that Matthew and Mark place Peter in the vestibule, or the "porch", as the KJV puts it, when he denied Jesus the second time whereas John places him at the fire back in the courtyard.

Matthew 26:71:

And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.

Mark 14:68-69:

But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.

John 18:17-18, 25:

Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself... And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

It is clear that Matthew has Peter out in the vestibule at the time of the second incident, for the participle ἐξελθόντα used in the Greek is aorist.

Literally, John says that Peter was "having stood and was warming himself." (Greek: Ἦν δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος ἑστὼς καὶ θερμαινόμενος; ἐστώς has perfective aspect) Most naturally, this means that Peter was back at the fire in the courtyard, but this would contradict Matthew and Mark.

The only solution that I can think of is that Peter was in the vestibule warming himself at a different fire, but I don't find this satisfactory given the similarity of John 18:18 and 18:25.

Is this a good solution to the apparent contradiction, or is there a better one?

Solutions involving more than three denials are inadmissible.

Answer 1

There is one explanation which serves to explain all of the apparent contradictions. The living quarters for the High Priest consisted of two homes separated by a shared courtyard. The entire complex was walled and accessed by a single gate opening into the courtyard. Annas lived in one home and Caiaphas in the other.

There is a speculative reason for this type of living quarters; providing two homes for the High Priest would accommodate periods during which the High Priest needed to avoid becoming unclean. At those times, the wife could live separate from her husband and still be with him.

If Annas was a descendant of Aaron, which seems to be the case, under the Mosaic Law he should have held the position until death. When Annas was illegally stripped of his position, he continued to live in one of the homes, and the High Priest determined by Rome lived in the other. After Ishmael ben Fabusa, Eleazar ben Ananus, and Simon ben Camithus served as High Priests, Caiaphas was appointed.

As a son-in-law, Caiaphas had no birth right to the position, but the living arrangements were both within one family. Annas and his wife were in one and his daughter and Caiaphas were in the other. When Caiaphas needed to be separated from his wife for any reason, the daughter of Annas would simply go across the courtyard to her father and mother's side of the complex.

Mark and Matthew orient Peter's denials from the perspective where Caiaphas resided because they present Jesus being tried by Caiaphas. John from the perspective of Annas because he was first examined by Annas. Effectively, all three denials were made where the "High Priest" lived. John used Peter's denials to reinforce the point both High Priests were involved in examining Jesus. Annas who had the position by birthright and Caiaphas by Roman appointment.

Answer 2

After examining the scriptures, here's what I think are two possibilities:

1. Peter was never ON a porch when he denied Jesus.

2. John does not record what happened in chronological order.

   • Mark seems to note that Peter was outside in the courtyard warming himself during the 1st Denial.
   • John notes that Peter was warming himself during his 2nd Denial. If we switch the first two denials in John it seems to align properly.

---

In Matthew, I notice that for "porch", the KJV uses the word pulón (πυλών, ῶνος, ὁ) Definition: a porch, gateway Usage: a large gate; a gateway, porch, vestibule.

It's word origin is pulé (πύλη, ης, ἡ) Definition: a gate Usage: a gate.

NKJV uses the word "gateway" rather than "porch" here.

ESV uses "entrance"

NIV uses "gateway"

• 1st Denial: In the courtyard
• 2nd Denial: At the gateway
• 3rd Denial: Among those who stood by

Matthew 26:69-75 NKJV

Peter Denies Jesus, and Weeps Bitterly

69 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.”

70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.”

71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”

72 But again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the Man!”

73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.”

74 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!”

Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So he went out and wept bitterly.

In Mark, I notice that for "porch", the KJV uses the word proaulion (προαύλιον, ου, τό) Definition: a vestibule Usage: a porch, court before a building, vestibule.

It's word origin is both pro and aulé

pro (πρό) Definition: before Usage: (a) of place: before, in front of, (b) of time: before, earlier than.

aulé (αὐλή, ῆς, ἡ) Definition: a courtyard, a court Usage: court-yard, fore-court, sheep-fold; but it may be understood as: palace, house.

NKJV uses the word "porch" here, but not in Matthew.

ESV uses the word "gateway" here rather than "porch" with a footnote that says "Or forecourt".

NIV says "Entryway"

• 1st Denial: In the courtyard, while he warmed himself
• 2nd Denial: He went on the porch, so sometime after. (Might not be a porch or he might not still be on the porch)
• 3rd Denial: Among those who stood by

Mark 14:66-70 NKJV

Peter Denies Jesus, and Weeps

66 Now as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came. 67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with Jesus of Nazareth.”

68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed.

69 And the servant girl saw him again, and began to say to those who stood by, “This is one of them.” 70 But he denied it again. And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, “Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.”

71 Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this Man of whom you speak!”

72 A second time the rooster crowed. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And when he thought about it, he wept.

• 1st Denial: After he was brought in. (On the "porch" perhaps?)
• 2nd Denial: While Peter warmed himself.
• 3rd Denial: (Still warming himself?)

John 18:15-18, 25-27

Peter Denies Jesus

15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. 16 But Peter stood at the door outside. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter in. 17 Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?”

He said, “I am not.”

18 Now the servants and officers who had made a fire of coals stood there, for it was cold, and they warmed themselves. And Peter stood with them and warmed himself.

Peter Denies Twice More

25 Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?”

He denied it and said, “I am not!”

26 One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” 27 Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed.

Answer 3

As a general observation about such apparent contradictions, let me suggest that people's lives, their environment, and their interactions are complex. As a result, the biblical accounts are of necessity abstracted in different ways, but not at all necessarily contradictory. Witnesses to any event will include and exclude events and details depending on what they were paying attention to at the time. Witnesses can also make mistakes. Any narrative of your own life last week by independent witnesses will include what seem to be contradictions.

The famous 1999 Simons & Chabris basketball observation test is a good example of witness accuracy. Try it and see whether you fail (as I did). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

But what about people who specialize in investigations?

A book to consider is Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace, a retired cold-case homicide detective from Southern California who, before he became a Christian, examined the gospels using the same methods he used for interviewing witnesses and reading depositions in solving many cold-case murder investigations.

In his book, Wallace says that he pays careful attention to the words that witnesses choose and he looks for tell-tale signs of collusion in their accounts. He concluded that the variations in the eye-witness accounts in the gospels strongly indicate their independence and are typical of the interviews and depositions he’s encountered in his working career.

Personally, I’ve found in my own studies that assumptions can and should be challenged. A recent example involves archaeology.

Hundreds of seminary students were once taught that synagogues weren’t constructed until hundreds of years after the time of Jesus, undermining their trust in New Testament accounts that mention synagogues. This was the stated position of the eminent Dr. Richard A. Horsley on page 133 of his 1996 book, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee:

There now seems to be a critical consensus emerging that “no synagogue [buildings] have been found in Palestine for the almost two hundred years following the destruction of the Temple.”

Dr. Horsley uses this consensus to imply that the New Testament accounts that report Jesus teaching and reading in local synagogues along with over 60 other New Testament references to synagogues were fabricated later. Generations of seminary students dutifully recorded this assertion in their notes for their exams. Many of them had their faith damaged or destroyed as a result.

However, archaeologists discovered a first-century synagogue in Magdala, Israel in 2009 and a second one in 2021. And there were more!

“Nearly 200 ancient synagogues [before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD] have been discovered by archaeologists at numerous sites in the Land of Israel as well as in the diaspora.” – Rachel Hachlili, Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2015

There are several lessons to be learned from this example.

• The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

• Speculation by esteemed authority figures, both skeptical and sensational, is still speculation.

• Unsupported assertions by authority figures are still unsupported assertions.

• Do not be quick to assume ancient documents are likely fabricated, especially in light of our fragmentary knowledge of ancient history and culture.

Hope this provides a more reasonable mindset for examining the gospel accounts.