quote:

---

From John 18:
15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, 16 but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant-girl on duty there and brought Peter in.

17 ‘You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too, are you?’ she asked Peter.

He replied, ‘I am not.’

18 It was cold, and the servants and officials stood round a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself....

25 Meanwhile, Simon Peter was still standing there warming himself. So they asked him, ‘You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?’

He denied it, saying, ‘I am not.’

26 One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, ‘Didn’t I see you with him in the garden?’ 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a cock began to crow.

---

quote:

---

Luke 22
58 A little later someone else saw him and said, ‘You also are one of them.’

‘Man, I am not!’ Peter replied.

59 About an hour later another asserted, ‘Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.’

60 Peter replied, ‘Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!’ Just as he was speaking, the cock crowed.

---

John was known to the high priest? How, in what way?
I wondered if it were in the sense of reputation or infamy -
High Priest: 'O yes, I know all about him, he follows Jesus.'

But it seems to be something else. Something more intimate. According to Strongs, the word 'known' gnōstós (an adjective derived from 1097 /ginṓskō, "to know experientially") – experientially known, i.e. through first-hand, personal experience. See 1097 (ginōskō).

I would be very interested to know how a 'humble fisherman'could
1) Be known to the powerful former High Priest
2) Walk right into the High Priests house while Peter had to wait in the courtyard - presumably having no clearance to go any further, evidently unlike John.

A second point is that Peter is specifically picked up on having a Galilean accent; can we infer that John may not have had such an accent, and that is why it was remarked upon that Peter, with such an accent, was in the courtyard?

Finally, the fact that John could walk right in, leaving Peter with the servants who challenged him about his disciple status, might mean that John wasn't challenged because he wasn't actually known in the High Priest's house to be a disciple? That might be a bit tenuous, but it does make one wonder why Peter was so afraid to admit it when his friend was right inside, known to the High Priest and yet openly a follower of Jesus! Why was Peter afraid if John was OK to be seen in public and recognised?

[ 23. June 2017, 12:52: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Were not the Zebedees (John and James) fishermen as Peter and Andrew were?
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
That of course, presumes that John is the beloved disciple, which in the Gospel the Beloved Disciple is never explicitly named.

[ 23. June 2017, 13:10: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Well, it depends what you mean by fishermen.
Were they simply the men who did the fishing or were they actually the owners and partners in a business that employed others?
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is also useful to keep in mind that our own modern internetty culture is unusual. The Jewish nation was not all that big, at that period. Small enough so that everybody could more or less know everybody, at least at one or two removes. Even the High Priest's flunkies and bouncers have friends and family. And then there are the casual business and societal connections. ("Oh, John, hi. How did that donkey Cousin Ezra sold you four years ago work out?") You can despise those loutish Galileans but possibly they are familiar to you anyway.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
It seems like John (if he were the Beloved Disciple and the disciple described) had an in with the religious upper crust. He could walk into the palace grounds; he could stand at the foot of the cross and not get arrested. There is probably an interesting back story there. It was probably one of those things everyone knew at the time but wasn't theologically pertinent enough to be included in the Gospel. A possibility is that John was an acquaintance (but how? ) of Nicodemus and may have piqued Nicodemus' interest in wanting to speak to Jesus in private. So when John wrote of the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus his source was the latter.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Here is an interesting blogpost that puts together the passage you mention with a number of others to show, quite convincingly IMO, that the sons of Zebedee were pretty well-off.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
And separately, Luke's naming of Joanna, wife of Chuza indicates that the group of Jesus' friends and supporters did include people with important connections.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
That of course, presumes that John is the beloved disciple, which in the Gospel the Beloved Disciple is never explicitly named.

---

quote:

---

So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Acts 6 v 7

---

quote:

---

Luke 1:39-40 In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.

---

I happen for personal reasons to be spending some time with this passage, hence why I spotted this minor miss reading.

However, I think it was on these boards I heard the suggestion that Zebedee might be purveyor of fish to the High Priest's household

Thanks

Jengie

[ 23. June 2017, 20:43: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I expect it was a business relationship, and John being "known" to the high priest" need mean no more than the doorkeeper saying, "Hey, there's that guy who used to bring in the fish when he was still working with his dad. Wonder how he's doing now?" The high priest's house was a semi-public place used for legal and governmental business--no doubt there was a bit where John would not be welcome, but the courtyard and public rooms would be open to anybody with a known identity and need to be there (and/or friends among the servants).

I suspect John positioned himself closer to the room where the council was meeting, though probably still in the courtyard. Being a somewhat-known quantity, he could probably get away with more than the unknown Peter could. If challenged, he might have been able to slip away with "Oh, it's just the fishmonger, a bit curious aren't you? This is none of your business, take yourself away, lad" and etc. Still risky, but not as bad as Peter's case (particularly since there are eyewitnesses to Peter's being in the garden, and one of them has a personal grudge, being a relative of the guy who (temporarily) lost an ear).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Brenda Clough makes a good point.

Apparently, even as late as the mid-1700s if you hung around London long enough you stood a pretty good chance of seeing the King out and about ...

That doesn't mean that everyone in London was on speaking terms with the Monarchy, of course.

But we tend to forget how closely knit things would have been in previous centuries.

When Charles II rode out on his own to head off the stream of refugees heading out of London during the Great Fire and exhort them to stay put - so that they could be accommodated in tents and supplied from the royal coffers instead of heading off into the countryside and becoming a burden to everyone else - people recognised him straight-away.

Perhaps they'd seen his profile on the coins ...



'Known to the High Priest' could mean a lot of things ... known to the authorities, known via some kind of business relationship (John and Zebedee, quality fishmongers and purveyors to the High Priest ...) or simply known to frequent the Temple Courts regularly ...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I expect it was a business relationship, and John being "known" to the high priest" need mean no more than the doorkeeper saying, "Hey, there's that guy who used to bring in the fish when he was still working with his dad. Wonder how he's doing now?" The high priest's house was a semi-public place used for legal and governmental business--no doubt there was a bit where John would not be welcome, but the courtyard and public rooms would be open to anybody with a known identity and need to be there (and/or friends among the servants).

I suspect John positioned himself closer to the room where the council was meeting, though probably still in the courtyard. Being a somewhat-known quantity, he could probably get away with more than the unknown Peter could. If challenged, he might have been able to slip away with "Oh, it's just the fishmonger, a bit curious aren't you? This is none of your business, take yourself away, lad" and etc. Still risky, but not as bad as Peter's case (particularly since there are eyewitnesses to Peter's being in the garden, and one of them has a personal grudge, being a relative of the guy who (temporarily) lost an ear).

---

quote:

---

Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest's family.
Acts 4:6

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

If that is true, then my question is, what did these priests do to make a living while they were waiting for the big festivals when they all attended?

---

quote:

---

They gave them Kiriath-arba (Arba being the father of Anak), that is Hebron, in the hill country of Judah, along with the pasture lands around it. But the fields of the town and its villages had been given to Caleb son of Jephunneh as his holding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Was the religious economy big enough to support 20,000 priests and their families?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Was the religious economy big enough to support 20,000 priests and their families?

---

Where does the figure of 20,000 come from?

I'm fairly certain they'd have done something to earn their keep - nothing that would have risks their ritual cleanliness, of course, but running a small holding or similar.

---

quote:

---

Zacharias, the central character in this scene, was a priest. He belonged to the section of Abia. Every direct descendant of Aaron was automatically a priest. That meant that for all ordinary purposes there were far too many priests. They were therefore divided into twenty-four sections. Only at the Passover, at Pentecost and at the Feast of Tabernacles did all the priests serve. For the rest of the year each course served two periods of one week each. Priests who loved their work looked forward to that week of service above all things; it was the highlight of their lives.

A priest might marry only a woman of absolutely pure Jewish lineage. It was specially meritorious to marry a woman who was also a descendant of Aaron, as was Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias.

There was as many as twenty thousand priests altogether and so there were not far short of a thousand in each section. Within the sections all the duties were allocated by lot. Every morning and evening sacrifice was made for the whole nation. A burnt offering of a male lamb, one year old, without spot or blemish was offered, together with a meat offering of flour and oil and a drink offering of wine. Before the morning sacrifice and after the evening sacrifice incense was burned on the altar of incense so that, as it were, the sacrifices might go up to God wrapped in an envelope of sweet-smelling incense. It was quite possible that many a priest would never have the privilege of burning incense all his life; but if the lot did fall on any priest that day was the greatest day in all his life, the day he longed for and dreamed of. On this day the lot fell on Zacharias and he would be thrilled to the core of his being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
You do realise the ability to eat the sacrifices depend on the Priest being pretty close to Jerusalem. IIRC quite a few had to be eaten in the temple precincts; not to add the difficulties of transporting meat any distance pre-refrigeration. Added to that many of the sacrifices were shared among the worshippers, the priest officiating just getting a portion with others being burnt completely and it is not quite the free for all mentioned.

I have checked tithing. Firstly there seem to be two tithes i.e. Israelites were required to give 20% not 10%. The first tithe went to Priests and Levites but had to be consumed in the Temple. The second tithe was on four out of seven years taken to Jerusalem and used for feasting by the people of Israel. Two other years it was given to the poor. The final year was the Sabbath year and therefore no such tithe was required.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Much as I respect William Barclay (I've found his DSB very useful over the years) I'd still like to see evidence that every descendent of Aaron was a priest (clearly every priest was a descendent of Aaron). If that's not the case then there's the option of John being a close relative to the High Priest without being a priest himself.

The big problem is that the Gospels tell us a fair bit about many of the disciples - Levi and Matthew the tax collectors, Simon the Zealot etc. Why don't any of the Gospel authors mention that one of the disciples was a priest? Surely that's one of those things that would be reported?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
]Thank you for that detail about tithing, something new to me. Yes, I knew of both religious and practical reasons about the consumption of sacrifices either in the Temple or within Jerusalem itself. I don't know that these detract all that much from my basic point about Leviticus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Much as I respect William Barclay (I've found his DSB very useful over the years) I'd still like to see evidence that every descendent of Aaron was a priest (clearly every priest was a descendent of Aaron). If that's not the case then there's the option of John being a close relative to the High Priest without being a priest himself.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0