Why did Peter deny Jesus?

[rikuoamero]

In the "Telling Fact from Fiction" thread, I opined (among a lot of other things) that Peter has no motivation to deny Jesus three times. However, that isn't strictly speaking true.
Just to get everybody up to speed, here's the timeline of events (as best as I can make it out, using all four gospels)

1) Jesus has a supper, the last supper, with his disciples. In all four gospels, (I have the NIV translation open in my browser), Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him before the rooster crows. Jesus predicts his death via crucifixion only in G.Matthew (this is said two days before the Passover). The prediction of death is hinted at/implied in G.Luke during the supper. In G.John, it is some unspecified point before the supper.
2) Jesus goes off to pray, and Peter goes with him (specifically named in G. Matthew, G. Mark but not in G.Luke or G.John)
3) Jesus is then arrested. Peter is named as being with Jesus when this arrest happens in G. Matthew, G. Mark, but in G. Luke is presumably there being counted among the disciples who had gone with Jesus to the Mount of Olives. In G. John, Peter is named as being the one who attacks the guard mentioned in point 4.
4) One of the arresting guards has his ear cut off. Only G. John identifies his attacker, namely Peter. Only G.Luke says the ear is healed by Jesus, the other gospels are silent on this topic.
5) Jesus says to put away weapons and boasts that he can call on God his father and angels to save him (only in G.Matthew).
6) Jesus is taken to see Caiaphas the chief priest (G.Matthew, Mark & Luke), with G.John saying he was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.
7) Peter follows at a distance and is able to enter the court-yard of the high priest Caiaphas (all four gospels)
8) Jesus is questioned by the priests and goes through a trial, enduring false testimony (G.Matthew, G.Mark). In G.Luke, this is written after Peter's denial. In G.John, the denials happen during the trial with the priests.
9) Jesus is beaten in G.Matthew, G.Mark. In G.Luke, the beating is mentioned after Peter denies Jesus. No mention of a beating in G.John. Peter presumably witnesses the trial and beatings, or is made aware of them.

Hopefully I did a good job with the above, trying to lay out a timeline of events [strike](as an aside, G.John is confusing in that it mentions that Jesus was taken to Annas first, that Caiaphas was the high priest that year, which presumably means that Annas is not a/the high priest. Jesus is questioned by the high priest (v19), but then in verse 24, "Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Huh...who was questioning Jesus then?)[/strike] UPDATE - I have checked up on this and Annas was either officially or unofficially a high priest along with Caiaphas

Anyway, to sum up what Peter would have known, saw and believed:
A) He is a follower of Jesus. He has presumably seen or heard or believes the many miracles his master has done, such as the healings and resurrections.
B) He witnesses first hand Jesus healing a severed ear.
C) His master has predicted that Judas would betray him. Peter witnesses both the prediction and the actual betrayal, so this alone (if not other things) would have convinced him that his master can foretell the future.
D) He hears his master boast (albeit in one gospel only) that he is unafraid, that he can call on divine aid.
E) Presumably witnesses the beatings Jesus receives, although I do have to stress that we do not know whether we can classify this as torture. Punches and slaps are mentioned in three of the gospels, although we don't know how severe.

At the point in time, the precise moment when Peter denies Jesus...that is all he knows. He knows/believes his master can foretell the future with accuracy, that he can call on divine aid, that his master is going wilfully to his trial/death and that his master can heal and even raise the dead.
With all of this in mind...why does Peter deny Jesus?
If we take the story (or stories) and remove Jesus's prediction about Peter, but leave in the denial...what does the story look like to you then? I'll tell you what it looks like to me: the denials come completely out of the blue. There is literally no motivation for Peter to do so. He has no reason to.

However, in all of this pondering and collating, I can think of only three reasons for why Peter would have done the denials. Christians might read that sentence and wonder why all this big song and dance then, why this thread, but please, continue reading.

A) The first reason is that it is purely a literary device, that the prediction and/or actual denial are purely fictions, propaganda, designed to advertise the awesome power of Jesus. This is of course something that (most) Christians are unlikely to agree with, so moving on...
B) That Peter himself doesn't believe or entertains some doubts (to a lesser or greater extent) as to Jesus's abilities to save/protect himself and/or his followers.
C) That Peter believed Jesus to be a prophet who can foretell the future, and that he (Peter) simply could not allow for a situation where Jesus makes a false prediction. This one is similar to what I call the Cashier's Dilemma - in my workplace, in the staff only area, there is a poster put up by management that says the customer is always right. However, several times, a customer has disparaged themselves. Am I then to agree with them, thus insulting them, or do I disagree, flatter them?...but then this means they are wrong.
So did Peter wilfully deny Jesus, purely so as to ensure that Jesus could not have made a false prophecy?

In no scenario, do I see a situation where Peter comes out smelling like roses. His credibility as an author, as someone who supposedly tells us about Jesus in his own works (at least, presuming here purely for the sake of argument that everything attributed to him was written or dictated by him), loses strength.

Questions for Discussion
1) Why did Peter deny Jesus. Are there other motivations beyond what I listed A,B,C?
2) Do you think Peter is still credible, as a witness in his own works or when other NT authors rely on him?

[2ndRateMind]

1) Why did Peter deny Jesus?

Maybe he was just scared to be associated with Him, given the establishment rule by force.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rikuoamero]

1) Why did Peter deny Jesus?

Maybe he was just scared to be associated with Him, given the establishment rule by force.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This would be my option B), where Peter entertains doubts about Jesus's abilities, and thus, is afraid of the ruling authorities. As I said, if this is the case, then why do Christians trust Peter?

[2ndRateMind]

1) Why did Peter deny Jesus?

Maybe he was just scared to be associated with Him, given the establishment rule by force.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This would be my option B), where Peter entertains doubts about Jesus's abilities, and thus, is afraid of the ruling authorities. As I said, if this is the case, then why do Christians trust Peter?

I can't speak for all Christians. But, it seems to me, we learn by our mistakes. Perhaps Peter, counter intuitively, is more reliable having made mistakes, and realised them, than had he never denied Jesus at all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rikuoamero]

1) Why did Peter deny Jesus?

Maybe he was just scared to be associated with Him, given the establishment rule by force.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This would be my option B), where Peter entertains doubts about Jesus's abilities, and thus, is afraid of the ruling authorities. As I said, if this is the case, then why do Christians trust Peter?

I can't speak for all Christians. But, it seems to me, we learn by our mistakes. Perhaps Peter, counter intuitively, is more reliable having made mistakes, and realised them, than had he never denied Jesus at all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Imagine that I tell you my best buddy is Superman, who can fly faster than light, see and hear guns and is immune to physical damage (at least, that a standard gun can do).
Now imagine that I deny even knowing Superman, when he willingly goes off with some cops.
What does that tell you about me? What does that tell you about this guy called Superman?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 5 by rikuoamero]

I am not exactly sure what your point might be...

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by rikuoamero]

I am not exactly sure what your point might be...

Best wishes, 2RM.

Just please answer the questions. What do you think about me, if I deny knowing a person whom I have previously indicated has the ability and willingness to protect me? What do you think about that person?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 7 by rikuoamero]

So, the powers that be have arrested my Leader, on capital charges, and threaten to put to death all those who are associated with Him. I can tell you for sure, I would find it difficult not to deny that Leader under those circumstances. I hope I would find the courage to affirm Him, but until that situation arises, I cannot be certain. Whatever, I find I cannot condemn Peter for a short lack of faith after the traumatic event of Jesus' arrest.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by 2ndRateMind]

I find I cannot condemn Peter for a short lack of faith after the traumatic event of Jesus' arrest.

I am not talking about condemning Peter. This entire thread has all been about Peter's credibility/trustworthiness.
Are you saying that with or without this little episode, you would trust Peter?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

I think you're missing an option:

D) Human emotion can override their knowledge and logic. Ever walked on a clear-paned floor over a cliff? People "know" and "believe" it is safe, but the overriding fear of the body takes over for some people. I had a hard time forcing my own body onto such a platform even though I could rationalize the truth just fine.

(examples after the cracking part which is a funny/cruel joke)
[youtube][/youtube]