Here I want to place Luke and John in closer relation to Mark’s 20 verses on the period between the arrest and the trial before Pilate, and to changes in Mark introduced by the author of Matthew.
To me it seems unusual that Mark has recounted everything he has heard about this night as if it happened at a single location. The confinement of Jesus, the denial of Peter, the first Jewish trial, the spitting, mocking, beating, and taunting, and the second, early morning consultation of the council – everything seems to occur at the same Jerusalem address. One reason to doubt the authenticity of this feature in Mark is, as I suggested in a previous post , the fact that Luke contradicts Mark’s single-location storyline, and is supported by the author of the gospel of John.
Attention to details of location is a characteristic quality of a good eyewitness report. If we can believe Luke and John, Mark’s sources have missed an important change of scene. For the purpose of retelling the events which he has in hand, Mark has pretty good control of his ‘collapsed’ singularity of location. However, when the author of Matthew blithely accepts Mark’s single-location story but attempts to flesh it out with additional facts and assumptions, the results are even less acceptable to John and arguably to Luke as well (For signs of Luke’s knowledge of Matthew’s passion, see Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm,1989, pp. 6-7, etc.).
The Gospel of Matthew adds to Mark’s opening verses two new things (Mk14:53-4/ Mt 26:57-8). First, in 26:57, is the assumption that the location to which Jesus was taken immediately after his arrest was the residence of Caiaphas. This addition, which seems at least to be a reasonably well-educated guess, is not confirmed by Luke and is flatly contradicted by John. Next, in 26:58, is the elimination of Mark’s courtyard fire, and the addition of a specific intent of Peter to ‘see’ the result of the trial. This could be an attempt to raise Peter’s status as eyewitness, but more to the point, the implied darkness and outerness of Mark’s fire-lit courtyard is gone in Matthew – we now appear to be in an indoor court. I think it is very interesting that Luke and John, who do not follow Matthew in this matter of identifying the residence with Caiaphas, retain Mark’s outdoor fire.
Too often I think modern critics of the gospels ascribe to the apostles and evangelists unworthy aims and ulterior motives in their writing.
But I find three practical and historical inducements for the author of John to make changes in the recorded history of events immediately following the arrest of Jesus:
(1) Correction of the tendency of Matthew’s additional matter to alter events remembered differently by his own sources;
(2) Support for Luke’s tradition of a second location for the Jewish trial over the single-location version of Mark (followed by Matthew);
(3) Introduction of eyewitness material which builds on Luke’s two-location story by correcting the location of Peter’s denial – in the courtyard of Annas before Jesus is taken to Caiaphas for the official trial.
Note: The right of Annas to interview Jesus before trial seems indirectly confirmed by the report of the historian Josephus (Ant.xviii.2.1 f) – that the wealthy former high priest was long a power in Judaism after the Romans arbitrarily removed him as high priest (an office traditionally granted for life). I think Edersheim has evidence that Annas retained rule over the temple trade in animals and coin (I’ll confirm that).
For a treatment of the problem from a strictly synoptic viewpoint, without the help of the Fourth Gospel, see Matthew D. Larsen’s series on the Jewish trials.