Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Negação Petrina
Negação Petrina
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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 18:17b,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 18:25b 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 18:26a,c Xéyet elç è/c rœv bovXœv ... oe ... per’ aùrov
Lk 22:59b,c àXXoç rtç ... Xéyœv ... ovroç per’ avrov
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.