Matthew 26:73,74 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

And after a while came, &c.— The words of Malchus's kinsman, (see John 18:26.) bringing to Peter's remembrance what he had done to that slave, threw him into such a panic, that when those who stood by repeated the charge, he impudently denied it.When the servants at the fire heard Peter deny the charge which John has mentioned, they drew near, and supported the argument drawn from the accent with which he had pronounced his answer. We are told by the Jews that the Galileans had a clownish and uncouth way of speaking, for which they were ridiculed by the inhabitants of Judea; and as the Galileans were generally suspected of being disciples of Jesus, Peter's having the Galilean accent is therefore urged as a strong presumption that he was one of the disciples of Jesus. Thus pressed on all sides, to give his lie the better colour, he profaned the name of God by swearing and wishing the bitterest curses on himself, (for such is the force of the original) if he was telling a falsehood. Perhaps he hoped by these acts of impiety to convince them effectually indeed, that he was not a disciple of the holy Jesus. All the evangelists agree, that the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words of the third denial, which they themselves have related: but upon comparing the things said when this third attack was made, it appears that the speeches at least which St. John has recorded, did not come from the persons mentioned by the other evangelists; wherefore the third denial was occasioned by different attacks made in succession; unless the men spoke all at once, which is not very probable. It is more natural to think, that when Peter denied his Master to them who first attacked him, the others who stood by supported the charge with an argumentdrawn from his accent in speaking, which proved him to be a Galilean. However, as in either case the succession of his answers must have been very quick, the veracity of the evangelists remains unshaken, because thus the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words which they have severally related. To this part of the history it has been objected, that the Jews, as their tradition goes, never kept any cocks within the walls of Jerusalem, and consequently that Peter could not hear them crow, while he was in the high-priest's palace; but the objection maybe removed either by calling the tradition itself in question, because it contradicts the testimony of writers whose veracity is indubitable, and who could not but know the customs of the age in which they lived; and because many traditions of this kind were framed by the rabbis, with a view to magnify the sanctity of Jerusalem. Or, the objection may be removed by supposing, that the Romans who lived in the city, neglectingthe institutions of the Jews, might keep this kind of fowl about their houses, perhaps for their table, or for the auspices, a sort of divination to which they were peculiarly addicted. See Macknight.