Peter’s Denial, pt 1: The Rooster Crow

                The account of Peter’s denial is used as an example of how the Bible contradicts itself. In all the accounts but Mark, one crow is mentioned. But in Mark, there are two. And in the accounts of the three denials, is he sitting or standing, going toward the fire or away? We will look at these passages to show that they are indeed consistent and are not a good example for those trying to demonstrate errors within the Bible. We will first look at the rooster crows and then look at the events surrounding Peter’s three denials.

Circadian rhythm and the cockcrow

One of the iconic impressions that we have about morning arriving is the sound of birds cheerily singing in the background. Well, unless you have a rooster who’s cheerily singing is more like a buzzing alarm clock. Then you might associate a rooster crow with the morning. Most of us even though we haven’t been near roosters have heard of this phenomenon. Research in Japan (Circadian clock determines the timing of rooster crowing: Current Biology) demonstrated that roosters crow in the mornings in response to their circadian rhythms. Roosters had both a pre-dawn anticipatory crow two hours before light in this study as well as a crow stimulated by the first light at dawn. They will crow at other times of the night, but these times are timed by their circadian rhythm and are predictable.

Because of this habitual behavior of roosters, the term “rooster’s crow” has been associated with the dawn. If I were to say to someone, “I will meet you at the rooster crow.” It would be understood that I was saying I will be there at dawn. You would not assume I was referring to the anticipatory crow two hours before.

What if it wasn’t a rooster?

Some have suggested that this was not a rooster, since roosters were possibly not allowed in Jerusalem because of fear that they might defile the temple (there is no definitive evidence either way). The Mishnah has references to both a watchman and the blast of the trumpet being referred to as the cockcrow. In this case as with the rooster you would have the normal “morning wakeup call” at around sunrise, marking the beginning of temple worship, but also having other calls, such as calling the priests into the temple before the “morning wakeup call” to prepare the temple in the morning. Either way, there would be a main and general “morning call” for the general public and an earlier call before this main call to call the priests in to prepare the temple before the sunrise. Mark 13:35 also refers to the third night watch as being called the cock crowing, which would be appropriate for this time period whether it was a rooster or watchman.

Bible is not an exhaustive description, nor is it a movie

When the Gospel writers were writing their accounts paper was a limited resource. Writing wasn’t an exhaustive play-by-play description of the event. It would have been more of taking snapshots of a movie. They were also more concerned with the accurate gist than a detailed account of an event. For example, for a speech, you won’t necessarily get a word-by-word account, but you will get the heart of the message. They were also translating all this into Greek, so catching the heart of the message was key. When we see slight differences in the gospel it is because they are taking different gist snapshots of the story. Yet we read the accounts and think these gist snapshots are the movie. The characters and scenes and events are not like mannequins in a shopping window. Yet we treat these stories that way. And when you see the Gospels this way, you will see errors where there are none.

The ongoing dialogue

When we read the Gospels together it is clear that Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial is an ongoing denial. There was more than one discussion going on that night, but one that travels throughout the night with them is a discussion of “who is the greatest”. In midst of the disciple’s discussion of “who is the greatest” throughout the night, Jesus discusses how they will all fall away, that Judas will betray Jesus, and Peter will deny Jesus. Jesus is saying to them that they are not as great as they think they are. And it is clear that this ongoing conversation includes Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial. Below is a chart comparing the accounts in the Gospel.

Jesus’ discussion about Peter’s denial began while they were in the upper room and carried over to their travels to the Mount of Olives. And of what we know of Peter this makes sense. Jesus just told him that he would deny him, he wouldn’t have just let that go with a simple mannequin in the window conversation. And Jesus knowing the shame they would feel also would not have let it go making sure that they understood that he still wanted to see them despite their falling away.

The two rooster crows

Jesus and Peter have been having this ongoing conversation. It would not have been a stretch for Jesus to have told Peter both statements “the rooster will not crow till you have denied me” and “before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me”. Jesus could have started with the general understanding of the rooster crow at sunlight, telling Peter he would deny him before dawn. But when Peter continued to persist that he would not deny Jesus, Jesus might have added not only will you deny me three times before the rooster crow at sunlight, but you will do so despite also hearing the anticipatory rooster crow (or the call for the priests to come into the temple) beforehand as a warning, making his confidence in his strength even more contrasted with his fall. Notice Mark’s account is on the way to Mount Olives, so in the later part of the conversation so having a deeper dialogue on this would be expected. Another possibility is that Jesus mentioned both rooster crows throughout the night, but since the general gist was that denials would occur before sunrise, the other accounts just chose to refer to them happening before sunrise, which is true to the text and both accounts, and therefore not a contradiction. There is no need to add the anticipatory crow, since all three denials happened before the colloquial “rooster’s crow”. So, with either of these scenarios, it would not be surprising that when the other Gospel writers wrote the account, they left out the first rooster crow and only included the common understanding of the rooster crow at sunlight, simplifying the account, yet still accurate to the story.

Peter

It would make sense that Mark’s account would include the two rooster crows. Mark’s writing style is minimalistic, if something is added, it is probably for a reason. Mark was close with Peter, listened to him tell the story, and had a good grasp of Peter’s heart and emotions as the events played out. After the rooster crowed the second time, Peter went away, broke down, and wept bitterly. I don’t think his brokenness was just from the fact that he had denied Jesus three times. I can see him telling Mark, “I not only denied Jesus, but I also continued to deny him after hearing the rooster crow the first time, despite Jesus warning me and all my boasting, it did not stop me from continuing to deny Jesus”. You can see a man deeply broken by the depths of his sin and deeply in awe with the wonder and majesty of the grace of Jesus and insisting that Mark describe the depths of his depravity that Christ would be glorified, and the grace of the Gospel be evident. He was no longer a man that saw himself as the greatest of all the disciples. Either way and regardless of motives, since Mark talked with Peter directly, it is no surprise that he would give a more detailed account.

The timing

If we take into account, the timeline of Peter’s denial it would fit with the rooster crowing twice. At least for the roosters used in the study, the anticipatory crow was two hours before dawn when the rooster would crow a second time, the time most would associate with when “the rooster crows”. This would also fit with the timing between calling in the priests for temple duty and the general morning call. This first crow was probably ignored by most. But because of Jesus’ statement Peter noticed it. The first crow occurred after Peter’s first denial. The space between Peter’s first denial and his third denial appears to have been about two hours, the typical space between the anticipatory/first crow and the second/dawn crow.

Conclusion

All the accounts fit with what we know of how people spoke and what they meant by “before the rooster crow”. It fits with Mark having known Peter, therefore his giving a more detailed account. And it fits with what we know of the timing of rooster crows and Peter’s denials.

In the next post, we will discuss the denials and the supposed contradictions. Follow this link: (Peter’s Denial Pt.2 – My Beloved is Mine)

Other Articles to Read:

• Evangelical Textual Criticism: A Rooster Crowing Once and Twice – Mark 14
• How many times did the cock crow? (tektonics.org)
• BEFORE A ROOSTER CROWS ONCE OR TWICE? A Seemingly Intractable Contradiction in the Gospel Accounts Solved – Truth In My Days Ministry
• What is the significance of the rooster crowing in regards to Peter denying Jesus three times? | GotQuestions.org
• Peter’s Denial Pt.2 – My Beloved is Mine
• Peter and the rooster’s crow: A Contradiction? (christianworldviewpress.com)