This solution is suggested with much diffidence. That it carries these passages clear of all difficulty is not pretended. The very nature of the subject renders it difficult of illustration by any reference to human affairs; and the embarrassment is proportionally increased, whenever the simile is pressed beyond its principal point of resemblance.
See Ayliffe's Pandect, pp. 349, 393, 367-369. Book iii. tit. xii. xv. Leges Atticæ, De Testamentis, &c. tit. vi. S. Petit. Comm. in Leges Attic. p. 479-481. Justin, Inst. lib. 2. tit. 10, § 1. Ibid. tit. 19, § 5, 6. Cooper's Justinian, p. 487. Cod. lib. 6. tit. 23, 1. 15. Fuss's Roman Antiq. ch. 1, § 87, 97, 103, 107, 183. Michaelis, LL. Moses, vol. 4, art. 302. Bp. Patrick, quoted in Bush's Illustrations, p. 254.
Matthew and Mark relate Peter's denials of Christ after his condemnation, and the insults consequent upon it. It is plain that they happened while the High Priest and council were sitting in judgment. But instances of recurring in this manner to what had been omitted in its proper place are common in the Gospels; and in this place the thread of the narration is preserved unbroken.
It having been expressly mentioned by each Evangelist, that Peter would thrice deny Jesus, we may conclude that each has related the three denials which Jesus foretold.
Peter's first denial. Peter was without, or beneath, in the hall of Caiaphas's house. Dr. Scott, on Matth. xxvi. 3, observes that aule signifies an house, (Luke xi. 21,) and that emphatically it signifies the king's house, or palace. But in Luke xxii. 55, it seems to signify a spacious apartment, probably the High Priest's judgment-hall. It was the place in which Jesus stood before the High Priest, (Luke xxii. 61,) and had an atrium or vestibulum at its entrance. This was an unfit place for the tribunal of the High Priest at such an hour, (John xviii. 18.) Sir John Chardin says, “In the lower Asia the day is always hot; and in the height of summer the nights are as cold as at Paris in the month of March.” It remains therefore that we understand it of a spacious chamber, such as Shaw mentions, Travels, 4to. pp. 207, 8.
Peter was not in the higher part, where Jesus stood before the High Priest; but without that division of the hall, and in the lower part, with the servants and officers. The damsel, who kept the door, had entered into the hall when she charged Peter.
Peter's second denial. Peter, having once denied Jesus, naturally retired from the place where his accuser was, to the vestibule of the hall, (Matt. xxvi. 71); and it was the time of the first cock-crowing, or soon after midnight. After remaining here a short time, perhaps near an hour, another damsel sees him, and says to those who were standing by in the vestibule, that he was one of them. Peter, to avoid this charge, withdraws into the hall, and stands and warms himself, (John xviii. 25.) The damsel, and those to whom she had spoken, follow him; the communication between the places being immediate. Here a man enforces the charge of the damsel, according to Luke; and others urge it according to John, (though by him the plural may be used for the singular,) and Peter denies Jesus vehemently.
Peter's third denial. Peter was now in the hall. Observe Matt. xxvi. 75, and Luke xxii. 62. He was also within sight of Jesus, though at such a distance from him that Jesus could know what passed only in a supernatural way. About an hour after his second denial, those who stood by founded a charge against him on his being a Galilean, which, Luke says, one in particular strongly affirmed, (though here Matthew and Mark may use the plural for the singular,) and which, according to John, was supported by one of Malchus's relations. This occasioned a more vehement denial than before; and immediately the cock crew the second time. The first denial may have been between our twelve and one; and the second between our two and three. We must further observe, that Matt. xxvi. 57, lays the scene of Peter's denials in the house of Caiaphas; whereas the transactions of John xviii. 15-23 seem to have passed in the house of Annas. But John xviii. 24 is here transposed to its regular place, with Le Clerc. Newcome.
As to the title itself, the precise working may have differed in the different languages; and MSS. represent it differently.
But the same verbal exactness is not necessary in historians, whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public inscriptions. It is enough that the Evangelists agree as to the main article, “the King of the Jews,” referred to, John xix. 21. That their manner is to regard the sense, rather than the words, appears from many places. Compare Matt. iii. 17, and ix. 11, and xv. 27, and xvi. 6, 9, and xix. 18, and xx. 33, and xxi. 9, and xxvi. 39, 64, 70, and xxviii. 5, 6, with the parallel verses in this Harmony. Compare also John xi. 40, with ver. 23, 25. One of the most solemn and awful of our Lord's discourses is, in some parts, variously expressed. See Matt. xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor. xi. 25. Now as each of these writers has, beyond all doubt, faithfully represented the meaning of Christ, we see that it might be truly done in different words, or in a different form of the same words. His sentences also, sometimes admitted a difference of arrangement; for the order in which two sentences, or the several members of the same sentence, are disposed by St. Matthew, is, in several places, inverted by St. Mark. And with regard to his actions, though the most material parts of whatever they were going to relate must command their attention, yet there was no such superior attraction in one specific number and order of secondary circumstances, as could turn their thoughts absolutely and exclusively to them. This is plain from instances to the contrary. One Evangelist is sometimes distinct, while another is concise; and describes what the other passes over. Townson, pp. 60-1.