Peter's Denials of Jesus (Why do the Gospel Accounts Differ?)

[GordonBOPS]

I was struck with how the different Gospels that recount Peter’s denials of Christ differ in terms of content of what was said, and a variation in the factual description of what happened. Does anybody have any insights on this?

 

[Simon_Schembri]

The Gospels are not a transcript of a live recorded conversation. The Gospels are the Good News that God so loved the world, and once we are in the world than God so loved us, you, me all of us without exception that it is not important of what Peter actually said. What is important is that Peter repented and Jesus forgave, that is fore gave him the status of a son of God, and that we should not keep back when we sin. None of us is secure from sinning we all fall short of our promise not to sin again, but like Peter we must seek forgiveness and not despair like Judas. We must also help others to return to Jesus for forgiveness. Just know this that when Jesus went to heaven on that same day after Calvary, the first person to enter heaven was the ‘Good Thief’ and not a saint.

 

[MH84]

The Gospels are not a transcript of a live recorded conversation. The Gospels are the Good News that God so loved the world, and once we are in the world than God so loved us, you, me all of us without exception that it is not important of what Peter actually said. What is important is that Peter repented and Jesus forgave, that is fore gave him the status of a son of God, and that we should not keep back when we sin. None of us is secure from sinning we all fall short of our promise not to sin again, but like Peter we must seek forgiveness and not despair like Judas. We must also help others to return to Jesus for forgiveness. Just know this that when Jesus went to heaven on that same day after Calvary, the first person to enter heaven was the ‘Good Thief’ and not a saint.

You have obviously put some consideration and thought into this post. However, I don’t think it answers the OP’s question. Even though the Gospels are not a “transcript of a live recorded conversation”, we do claim that the scriptures are inerrant and perfect as they are the word of God.

Im not saying I know why there are slightly different accounts in relation to the denials of Peter, but by no means should this question be dismissed as not important. Furthermore, if these differences are unimportant, why did the writers bother including them in the texts then?

The problem I see is that there is kinda a fine line that is between the fact that humans wrote the Gospel accounts, and that these writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit at the same time.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

My educated guess is that because you have 4 different people with 4 different personalities giving their 4 different perspectives on it.

Like when you put 4 people in a room who saw and heard the same thing you will get 4 different spins on it but it nonetheless is the same event.

 

[Angelos]

I was struck with how the different Gospels that recount Peter’s denials of Christ differ in terms of content of what was said, and a variation in the factual description of what happened. Does anybody have any insights on this?

This must not surprise you since each Gospel presents a different account of the events leading to Jesus’ crucifixion. Check the passion narratives to see that the descriptions apparently show variations. However, these could be worked into a harmony since differences do not denote or entail contradictions.

Could you please make it clear what difference in the narratives of Peter’s denial strikes you most?

Peace,
Angelos N.B.

 

[RWMorris]

Hi,

My educated guess is that because you have 4 different people with 4 different personalities giving their 4 different perspectives on it.

Like when you put 4 people in a room who saw and heard the same thing you will get 4 different spins on it but it nonetheless is the same event.

I agree. If the accounts were exactly the same I would be more suspicious than if the accounts varied somewhat; for the exact reasons you’ve stated. The slight variances lend authenticity. If the authors were trying to perpetuate a hoax they would have gotten together to get their “facts” straight.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Because the story was inserted by Luther to discredit Peter and therefore the office of the Pope!

I couldn’t resist… I’m sorry… and yet I’m not…

 

[MH84]

Something that Ive wondered about in the passion narratives is the following:

Matthew** 27:**
44 In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Luke 23:
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence?
41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[a]”
43 Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

www.biblegateway.com

How come one Gospel says that both criminals insulted the Lord, but the other Gospel doesn’t? In fact, in Luke Jesus promises eternal life to one of the criminals who repents.

 

[GordonBOPS]

I think I have a partial answer to my question - I think its acknowledged (and correct me if i’m wrong) that St. Johns account, while factual also is written in different way - in the sense of ensuring the conveyance of spritual truths and while the events occurred, the account of St. John expresses the deeper meaning. The questions to St. Peter (before his denials) were phrased in such a way that his response was “I AM NOT” – St. John’s Gospel has the nickname of the I AM Gospel (obviously a reference to God’ name).