The rooster crowing

[Guest]

I recently have come across an event in the gospels. I believe the event is true (along with all the events mentioned in the gospels), but when paralleling them together and reading each of the evangelist's account of the story, I am unsure how the event related to Peter accually went down. Here is the event:

According to Matthew, Luke and John, the cock crowed after Peter had denied Jesus three times.

Matthew 26:74 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, "I do not know the Man!" Immediately a rooster crowed.

Luke 22:60 But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are saying!" Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed.

John 18:27 Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed.

This accords with Jesus' prediction, as recorded in each of the Gospels.

Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times

Luke 22:34 Then He said, "I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me."

John 13:38 Jesus answered him, "Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times.

Mark, on the other hand, states that the cock crowed twice, the first time after Peter's first denial, and the second time after his third denial.

Mark 14:68 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.

Mark 14:71,72 Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know this Man of whom you speak!"

And the second time the cock crew...

In Mark's Gospel, Jesus makes a slightly different prophecy of Peter's denials.

Mark 14:30 Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times."

Does this mean that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew, Luke and John was wrong? According to Mark, the cock did crow once before Peter had denied three times. Regardless of whether their accounts are flawlessly in harmony, I still believe the bible is true and the events and message contained in it are real. Yet as far as how the bible was inspired, little incidents in it like the above have me questioning "just how was the bible inspired by God?".

I plan to get Steve's lectures on "the authority of Scripture" as I am now listening to his foundation series. Yet as I am writing this, I hope I can get an apetizer till I listen to them. Thanks,
Troy

[Guest]

Many other inconsistencies in the Bible could be mentioned.

I think we have to differentiate between inspiration and infallibility.

The Biblical writers were inspired. They responded to this inspiration by writing what God revealed. They were not necessarily infallible in what they wrote.

In my opinion, the Biblical writers also wrote things that were not written in response to inspiration.

For example, Paul, in his second letter to Timothy, reminded him to bring some items that he had forgotten in Carpus' house at Troas.

2 Timothy 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.

It was an ordinary request, the kind that one of us might make to a friend when we have unwittingly left some things behind. I doubt that God was "guiding his hand" to write these things, or that God had inspired him in order to bring some important spiritual truth.

Notwithstanding, one of my preacher friends once preached a sermon with the title "Bring the Books and Parchments."

[Guest]

Paidion,
I'm curious about your views on inspiration. Can those discrepancies between the accounts be reconciled? Mark seems to goof on details at times and Eusebeus even potined that out, saying Mark wrote down those things he heard Peter preach in a "loose" fashion. Was he an inspired writer with a faulty memory? Paul forgot how many people he baptized in Corinth but I doubt God inspired him to write that in his espistle. My own thoughts on the subject of inspiration and infallibility of scripture are not at all conclusive. Most people throughout history have been saved through an oral traiditon anyway since a bible wasn't avilable. But the authority of scripture is what we look to in determining how a Christian is to operate in this world day to day. I see why the infallibility crowd fights so hard to prove their views.

[Guest]

John Gill's Exposition Matthew 26:34

Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee…
Christ, the more strongly to asseverate what he was about to say, uses the word verily, or prefixes his "Amen" to it, as being a certain truth, and what Peter might assure himself of would certainly come to pass:

that this night before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice; which is, as if he should say, thou wilt not only be offended because of me, and flee from me, and be scattered with the rest, as will be the case of all of you; but thou wilt deny that thou knowest me, that thou belongest to me, or hast any concern with me; and this thou wilt do not only once, but again and again, even three times, one after another, and that this very night, before the cock has done crowing. In Mark it is said, "that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice", (Mark 14:30) ; which may be reconciled with the words of Matthew, and the other evangelists, by observing, that the word "twice" is not in Beza's ancient copy, which he gave to the university of Cambridge, nor is it in the Ethiopic version; which if allowed to be the true reading, the difficulty is removed at once; but whereas it is in other copies, no stress must be laid on this, nor is there any need of it: for whereas the cock crows twice in the night, once at midnight, and again near break of day; and which latter crowing being louder, and more welcome, and most taken notice of, is, by way of eminence, called the cock crowing; and is what Matthew here has respect to, and so designs the same as Mark does; and the sense of both is, that before the cock crow a second time, which is most properly the cock crowing, Peter should three times deny his master, as he did; see (Mark 13:35) , where cock crowing is distinguished from midnight, the first time the cock crows, and means the second time of crowing; and where Mark is to be understood in the same sense as Matthew, and both entirely agree. So cock crowing and midnight are distinguished by the Jews, who say F2,

``that on all other days they remove the ashes from the altar, (rbgh tayrqb) , "at cock crowing", or near unto it, whether before or after; but on the day of atonement, (twuhm) , "at midnight":''

and who also speak of the cocks crowing a first and second, and even a third time F3.

``Says R. Shila, he that begins his journey before cock crowing, his blood be upon his head. R. Josiah says, he may not proceed (bwvyv de) , "until he repeats"; that is, until he crows twice: and there are, who say, until he trebles it, or crows a third time: of what do they speak? of a middling one, i.e. which neither crows too soon, nor too late.''

F2 Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 8.
F3 T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 21. 1.

[Guest]

In Mark it is said, "that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice", (Mark 14:30) ; which may be reconciled with the words of Matthew, and the other evangelists, by observing, that the word "twice" is not in Beza's ancient copy, which he gave to the university of Cambridge, nor is it in the Ethiopic version; which if allowed to be the true reading, the difficulty is removed at once...

Actually, there are no "ancient" copies of Mark 14:30.

I possess transcripts of every Greek manuscript prior to the year 300, and none of them contain the verse.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the Christian writers prior to the year 300 made any reference to the verse.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Could you define and clarify on your use of "ancient"? I'm not sure what your talking about. Also, which MSS are you talking about? It would be great for you to expound on this a bit. Thanks.