What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of 66 death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and 67 others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Proph- 68 esy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee? Now Peter sat without in the palace. And a damsel came 69 unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But 70 he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw 71 him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I 72 do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they 73 that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou art also one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse 74 hath heard; and when he speaks it, the judges, standing on their feet, rend their garments and do not sew them up again." Lightfoot. Josephus, Jewish Wars, ÏÏ. 15. 4. MATTHEW. 70. But he denied] We place the different accounts of Peter's denials side by side, that our readers may compare them: And Peter sat And as Peter was And when they without in the hall, down in the hall, had kindled a fire in and a maid came to there cometh one the midst of the hall, him, saying, "Thou of the maids of and were set down also wast with Jesus the high-priest; and together, Peter sat of Galilee." But he when she saw Peter down among them. denied before them warming himself, But a certain maid all, saying, "I know she looked upon him beheld him as he sat not what thou say-and said, "Thou by the fire, and earest." And when he also wast with Jesus nestly looked upon had gone out into the Nazarene." But him, and said, "This the porch, he denied, saying, man was also with "I know not, nei- him." And he dether understand I nied, saying, "Wowhat thou sayest." man, I know him And he went out not." into the porch, and the cock crew. another damsel saw SECOND DENIAL. And after a short And a maid saw him, and saith to him, and began to time another [mas- an oath, "I do not know the man.” JOHN XVIII. John, who was known to the highpriest, came into the hall, leaving Peter at the gate without. John spoke to the maid who kept the gate, and she brought Peter in, i. e. to the hall. And she saith to Peter, "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?" He saith, "I am not." And the servants and officers, having made a fire of coals because it was cold, stood there warming themselves, and Peter was with them, standing, and warming himself. They said, therefore to him, "Art not thou also one of his disciples?" He denied it, and said, "I am not." and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, 75 the cock crew. MATTHEW. THIRD DENIAL. MARK. LUKE. JOHN. And after a while And a little while And about the One of the sercame unto him they after, they that space of one hour vants of the highthat stood by, and stood by said again after, another [- priest (being his said to Peter, "Sure- to Peter, "Surely 6s, masculine] con- kinsman whose ear ly thou also art one thou art one of fidently affirmed, Peter cut off ), saith of them; for thy them; for thou art saying, "Of a truth, to him, "Did not I speech makes thee a Galilæan" [and thy this man also was see thee in the garmanifest." Then speech agreeth there- with him; for he is den with him?" began he to curse to, is not in Tischen-a Galilean." And Again, therefore, and to swear, say-dorf]. And he be-Peter said. " Man, I Peter denied; and ing, "I know not gan to curse and to know not what thou immediately a cock the man." And im- swear, saying, "I sayest." And im- crew. mediately the cock know not this man mediately, while he crew. And Peter re- of whom ye speak." was yet speaking, membered the word And the second time the cock crew. And of Jesus which said a cock crew. And the Lord turned and unto him." Before Peter called to mind looked at Peter, and the cock crow, thou the word that Jesus Peter remembered shalt deny me said unto him, "Be- the word of the thrice." And he fore the cock crow Lord, how he had went out and wept twice, thou shalt said unto him, "Bebitterly. deny me thrice." fore the cock crow, And rushing out, he thou shalt deny me wept. thrice." And Peter went out and wept bitterly. At the first recognition and denial of Peter, all the Evangelists agree in stating that he was in the hall, and that he was accosted by a maid. Her manner of speaking, though differing slightly in the words used, is substantially the same. The variations are only such as we should expect to find in the honest report of the same transaction by different witnesses. All the different expressions here assigned by the dif by the different writers to her and to him may have been used. She may have asked, as in John, "Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?" and when he answered, "I am not," she may have added, as in Matthew, "Surely thou wast with Jesus of Galilee." When Peter denied, saying, "I know not what thou sayest," she may have repeated her assertion, with the slight variation in Mark, "Thou surely wast with Jesus the Nazarene;" and he would naturally meet the charge, thus repeated, with the still stronger denial," I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest." Then the woman, looking earnestly at him, so as to satisfy herself that it was he, may have said, as in Luke, to those around her, "This man certainly was with him; " and Peter in reply might say, Woman, I know him not." All the expressions would thus belong to one act of recognition and denial. Such repeated assertions and denials are in themselves more probable than a single one, under the circumstances. Luke says that Peter was sitting by the fire; John says that he was standing. Both the accounts may have been true, as nothing is more probable than that the parties should have changed their place and posture during the altercation. At the second recognition and denial Matthew and Mark both speak of Peter as being in the porch or passage-way. Matt., Tuλ@va, a gateway. Mark, рoaúλov, which exactly describes the passage leading from the street to the hall. Luke and John say nothing of Peter's having left the hall. According to Matthew and Mark, it was which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. a woman who recognized and spoke to him ("another maid," Matthew); according to Luke, it was a different person from the one who at first spoke to him, and a man. John, in using the plural number, "they said," intimates that the charge against Peter was made by more than one person, and thus authorizes us to suppose that both the other accounts are true, and that he was addressed both by a woman and a man. In the account of the third denial, no one of the writers tells where Peter was; but it is not improbable that, after he was discovered in the passage-way, he returned to the hall, and remained there during the considerable time (Luke says about an hour") that intervened. Then those who were standing by (Matthew and Mark) recognized him by his Galilæan dialect. Luke says, that a different person from the one who spoke to him before, a man, charged him with being one of the party who had been with Jesus; and John says, that a servant of the highpriest, the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, said to him, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" There is no reason to suppose that this servant of the highpriest is the same person mentioned by Luke, especially as the plural number used by Matthew and Mark intimates that several persons were engaged in making the charge. Peter replied to them, one after another, growing more excited as the charge was repeated, till at length his loud and earnest imprecations attracted the attention of Jesus, who was in a room that was open towards the hall or court, and just after the cock crew turned and looked on Peter, who, thus reminded of the Lord's words, rushed out and wept bitterly. In this way the different accounts are perfectly harmonized, except for those who are slavishly bound to the inspiration of the letter." We do not usually make sufficient al 66 lowance for what is left out in each of the Gospel narratives. We unjustly charge the Evangelists with contradicting one another, when in fact they are only giving different incidents connected with one common event. In this instance we think of three distinct charges, each made by one person in a single short sentence, and each replied to by Peter in one single expression of denial. But it is far more likely that each case of recognition would lead to a considerable altercation, in which the original charge would be repeated, as it would also be denied, in different words, and that different persons as they recognized Peter would add their testimony to that already given. Each of the writings, which are drawn from independent sources, and none of them giving an account of all the particulars, would be likely to bring out different persons and expressions. Each one, therefore, may be regarded as supplying what is wanting in the others. By bringing together the different accounts in this way, we are able, at least in the case before us, to give a much more life-like and probable narrative of events than in the way which is usually adopted either by the friends or the enemies of the Gospels. The variations in the accounts show that the writers draw their statements from independent sources, and with such writers it must often happen that, in our ignorance of the details familiar to them, we may find it impossible to reconcile, as we can in this case, incidents which did nevertheless truly occur. These apparent differences, says Alford, to whom we are indebted for important suggestions here, we value " testimonies to independence: and are sure, that if for one moment we could be put in complete possession of all the details as they happened, each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would appear." as CHAPTER XXVII. PRELIMINARY TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. Ir is impossible even for the ablest scholars, with the scanty means of information which are now within their reach, to speak with any confidence concerning the precise forms of judicial proceeding which were held to be necessary among the Jews in a case like this. "From the time when Archelaus was deposed," A. D. 6 or 7, says Alford, ❝and Judæa became a Roman province, it would follow by the Roman law that the Jews lost the power of life and death." From Josephus (Ant. XX. 9. 1) it would appear that the high-priest had no right to assemble the Sanhedrim in a capital case without permission from the Roman governor or Procurator. In John xviii. 31, the Jewish elders and high-priests say to Pilate, that they have no legal right to put any one to death. Still, in order to accomplish their designs against Jesus, it was important that the Sanhedrim should go through the customary forms of judicial investigation, and secure his condemnation before the highest Jewish tribunal, with such a weight of authority on their side that they might be able to extort from the Roman ruler the assent, without which their own judicial decisions could not be carried into effect. The examination at the house of the high-priest was only for the purpose of seeing what charges and witnesses could be used against him most effectively at his trial. When, therefore, the morning (pwías - Mark xiii. 35the watch of three hours which ended at six o'clock in the morning) had come, and the elders of the people, the highpriests, and scribes were gathered together, so as to form a legal Sanhedrim at their room in the vicinity of the temple, Jesus was taken up (Luke xxii. 66) from the house of Caiaphas to the council-chamber. It is not improbable that they had been in session for a considerable time, and had already determined on the course which they were to pursue, when Jesus was brought before them. Luke (xxii. 66-71) is the only one of the Evangelists who gives any account of the proceedings here, which were little more than a repetition of what had already taken place, and resulted in a more formal act of condemnation. Being thus by the highest judicial tribunal of his own nation condemned to death, Jesus was bound and taken before Pilate. 3-10. REPENTANCE AND DEATH OF JUDAS. This account is found only in Matthew. When Judas saw Jesus condemned to death, and delivered over to the Roman power, he was smitten with sudden remorse, and brought back to the Jewish rulers the thirty pieces of money, with an acknowledgment of his guilt in his fatal treachery against innocent blood. But driven to desperation by their cold and contemptuous reply, he threw down the money in the midst of the temple, and went off and hanged himself, or was choked to death (strangled) by the intensity of his anguish. Many attempts have been made to reconcile this account of the death of Judas with that which is given in Acts i. 18. Matthew says, he "strangled himself," the natural meaning of which is, that he "hanged himself," though the words may possibly be construed as implying that he died of suffocation from the intensity of his emotions. In the Acts (i. 18) it is said, "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." In the notes may be found some of the explanations by which commentators have tried to harmonize these two passages. No one of them seems to us perfectly satisfactory. We know too little of the circumstances and of the language used, to |