GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
Matthew 26:34, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38 all have Jesus tell Peter he will deny him three times *before the cock crows*. Mark 14:30 alone has Jesus tell Peter the denials will happen *before the cock crows twice*. Three gospels say one crow, the earliest gospel says two.
People have answered this in several ways; GEBible presents them as equal peers.
Cited passages
Jesus said to him, “Most certainly I tell you that tonight, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.”
He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will by no means crow today until you deny that you know me three times.”
Jesus answered him, “Will you lay down your life for me? Most certainly I tell you, the rooster won’t crow until you have denied me three times.
Cited passages
Jesus said to him, “Most certainly I tell you, that you today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”
Notes on manuscript readings that bear on this passage — where the surviving witnesses differ over what the text says. Presented for transparency as the textual critic’s description, not as GEBible’s conclusion about the tension.
Examining the tension
What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement — a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.
How critical scholarship weighs this: Leans toward a genuine contradiction
This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.
This is a compact but persistent synoptic divergence. Matt 26:34, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38 all have Jesus predict that Peter will deny him three times 'before the cock crows' (prin alektora phonesai). Mark 14:30 alone reads 'before the cock crows twice' (prin e dis alektora phonesai), and Mark 14:72 then narrates the cock crowing 'a second time' (ek deuterou) after the denials, with a corresponding first crow noted at 14:68 in much of the tradition. Three Gospels report one crow; the earliest Gospel reports two.
On Markan priority, the consensus solution to the Synoptic Problem, Mark is the source Matthew and Luke are using, so the natural inference is editorial. Faced with Mark's distinctive double-crow detail and the matching narrative payoff, Matthew and Luke smoothed the prediction to the simpler single-crow form, eliminating an awkward specificity. Joel Marcus in the AYB Mark and R. T. France in the NIGTC both read the divergence as Matthean and Lukan simplification of a more cumbersome Markan tradition; John, independent of the Synoptics here, carries the same single-crow form that circulated more broadly. Raymond Brown's *The Death of the Messiah* surveys the whole complex and reaches the same judgment.
There is also a text-critical layer. The word 'twice' (dis) in Mark 14:30 and 'a second time' in 14:72, along with the first crow at 14:68, are unstable in the manuscript tradition: the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus and several other witnesses omit elements of the double-crow scheme, and Codex Vaticanus is among those that lack the first crow at 14:68. Bart Ehrman, in *The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture* and related text-critical work, argues that this instability is best explained as scribal harmonization, copyists assimilating Mark to the simpler form found in the other three Gospels by deleting the second crow. The editors of NA28 nonetheless retain 'twice' and 'a second time' as the most probable original Markan readings, treating the omissions as secondary harmonizations rather than the reverse. If that judgment is correct, Mark wrote 'twice,' and the tendency of the tradition was to erase the doubling, not to add it, which strengthens the case that the single-crow form is the simplified one.
The standard apologetic harmonization, advanced by Gleason Archer and by Geisler and Howe, is that Jesus said both: Mark preserves the fuller, more precise saying, and the other three give a true but abbreviated version, since a denial completed before the second crow is also, trivially, completed before 'the cock crows.' This is logically valid; the single-crow statements are not false on a both-utterances scenario, merely less detailed. It deserves to be taken seriously as a reconciliation of the numbers. The difficulty is that it inverts the most likely direction of literary dependence. The parallel structure and verbal overlap among the accounts indicate a copying relationship, and on Markan priority Matthew and Luke had Mark's 'twice' in front of them and did not reproduce it, which is far more economically described as omission of a known detail than as independent recourse to a separate, shorter original. A milder steel-man holds that the saying circulated in variable oral forms, with and without the doubling, so that each evangelist used whatever version reached him; this is plausible for John, who is plausibly independent, but less so for Matthew and Luke, whose dependence on Mark is well established. The numerical contradiction is thus reconcilable at the level of what Jesus might have said, but at the level of how the Gospels were composed it is most simply explained as redactional simplification of Mark.
Where the critical reading lands: harmonizable as to fact, but most economically explained as editorial smoothing of Mark on Markan priority.
Sources for this reading