Did we miss something about Yochanon, talmid of Yeshua?

[Yahudim]

Berchot v'Shalom be multiplied to you all; that is, Blessings and Peace;

We are all keenly aware of the arrest of Messiah and Kefa's thrice denial of Yeshua. But seldom do we note this oddity concerning Yochanon (or John, the 'second talmid' in this account). These verses begin with the arrest of Messiah:

(note: scripture quotes are from the CJB)

Joh 18:12 So the detachment of Roman soldiers and their captain, together with the Temple Guard of the Judeans, arrested Yeshua, tied him up,
Joh 18:13 and took him first to `Anan, the father-in-law of Kayafa, who was cohen gadol that fateful year.
Joh 18:14 (It was Kayafa who had advised the Judeans that it would be good for one man to die on behalf of the people.)

The above verses set the stage for the players in this drama, delineating the roles of each and the over-arching context of the arrest. We should also note that His arrest was under the command of a Roman Captain and his soldiers. Roman participation would prove a necessity should this 'crime' become a capital offence, as the Romans alone could sanction an execution. And so it becomes a fact that Judean authorities, by calling for Roman involvement, betrayed their intentions from the beginning.

Also worthy of the gentle readers attention, is that this 'trial' was conducted at night and outside the auspices of the Sanhedrin, therefore contravened the intimations and mandates of Torah; the law of Judea. Taken in total, these facts suggest that any suspicion that the verdict was a foregone conclusion was more than mere supposition. Yeshua Ha Mashiach was to be assassinated, both in character and in fact.

There is much more to this story than the forgiveness of Kefa for his denial of Yeshua or the clearly political nature of the arrest and the extremely questionable circumstances surrounding His subsequent murder. There is no shortage of expositions to this end. So, I would first direct your careful attention to the deference shown to the 'other talmid' - as John was fond of describing himself.

Joh 18:15 Shim`on Kefa and another talmid followed Yeshua. The second talmid was known to the cohen hagadol, and he went with Yeshua into the courtyard of the cohen hagadol;
Joh 18:16 but Kefa stood outside by the gate. So the other talmid, the one known to the cohen hagadol, went back out and spoke to the woman on duty at the gate, then brought Kefa inside.

It seems that the 'other talmid', for reasons unknown, was not only known to the High Priest, but had favor within the household of 'Anan (a former high priest), father in law to Kayafa (the high priest at that time). Could it be that he was related to the Hasmonean pretenders to the office of cohen hagadol (the High Priest)? How else might he be allowed to witness and live to testify to this illegal trial and its unholy proponents? Is this a case of high-held hopes of John's progenitors and close relations, perhaps even a plot to bring him back into the Hasmonean fold?

In light of the discovery of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' in 1948, which were first attributed to 'celibate monks' and only recently linked to the Zadokim (the sons of Zadok and the scripturally designated High Priesthood determined by King David). It is clear from multiple sources that the Hasmoneans were illegally holding the coveted office of High Priest in the time of Yeshua's visitation. What is not clear to me is the status of the lesser Cohens. Were they too Hasmonean or actual Aaronic Cohens according to Torah?

As background, it should be noted that the 'other talmid' (known as John to most Christians), was estimated to be in his late teens by a majority of scholars, although certainty is elusive. But it would seem he had not the respect one might impart to another based on age and accomplishment, as he had yet to achieve either. No matter his vocation or avocations, he would be reckoned as an apprentice or student until around the age of 30 within that culture.

So how did John gain the favor shown? I suspect it was familial in nature, as you will read later. There is little doubt he was admitted into the courtyard without question, so it seems he was recognized by the keeper of the gate. The same might be said of his entry into the household of the former high priest, as this was clearly a contrived event, conducted well away from the prying eyes of the populous and the cleansing influence of sunlight.

On the topic of the 'other talmid', I found the following to be an amazing account. Astonishing really. So I bolded and underlined the germane portions; those that gives rise to a wholly new set of revelations and speculations.

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8
2nd & 3rd Centuries - Polycrates Ephesus Bishop
Remains of the Second and Third Centuries
Polycrates,1 Bishop of Ephesus.
[a.d. 130-196.] This author2 comes in as an appendix to the stories of Polycarp and Irenæus and good Anicetus, and his writings also bear upon the contrast presented by the less creditable history of Victor. If, as I suppose, the appearance of our Lord to St. John on “the Lord’s day” was on the Paschal Sunday, it may at first seem surprising that this Apostle can be claimed by Polycrates in behalf of the Eastern custom to keep Easter, with the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon. But to the Jews the Apostles became “as Jews” in all things tolerable, so long as the Temple stood, and while the bishops of Jerusalem were labouring to identify the Paschal Lamb with their Passover. The long survival of St. John among Jewish Christians led them to prolong this usage, no doubt, as sanctioned by his example. He foreknew it would quietly pass away.

The wise and truly Christian spirit of Irenæus prepared the way for the ultimate unanimity of the Church in a matter which lies at the base of “the Christian Sabbath,” and of our own observance of the first day of the week as a weekly Easter. Those who in our own times have revived the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, show us how much may be said on their side,3 and elucidate the tenacity of the Easterns in resisting the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance as to the Paschal, although they agreed to keep it “not with the old leaven.”

Our author belonged to a family in which he was the eighth Christian bishop; and he presided over the church of Ephesus, in which the traditions of St. John were yet fresh in men’s minds at the date of his birth. He had doubtless known Polycarp, and Irenæus also. He seems to have presided over a synod of Asiatic bishops (a.d. 196) which came together to consider this matter of the Paschal feast. It is surely noteworthy that nobody doubted that it was kept by a Christian and Apostolic ordinance. So St. Paul argues from its Christian observance, in his rebuke of the Corinthians.4 They were keeping it “unleavened” ceremonially, and he urges a spiritual unleavening as more important. The Christian hallowing of Pentecost connects with the Paschal argument. (Act_2:1, Act_10:16; 1Co_16:8) The Christian Sabbath hinges on these points.

From His Epistle to Victor and the Roman Church Concerning the Day of Keeping the Passover.

5 As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day,6 neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia great luminaries7 have gone to their rest, who shall rise again in the day of the coming of the Lord, when He cometh with glory from heaven and shall raise again all the saints. I speak of Philip, one of the twelve apostles,8 who is laid to rest at Hierapolis; and his two daughters, who arrived at old age unmarried;9 his other daughter also, who passed her life10 under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and reposes at Ephesus; John, moreover, who reclined on the Lord’s bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre,11 and a witness and a teacher - he rests at Ephesus.

Then there is Polycarp, both bishop and martyr at Smyrna; and Thraseas from Eumenia, both bishop and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? of the blessed Papirius, moreover? and of Melito the eunuch,12 who performed all his actions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation13 from heaven, when he shall rise again from the dead? These all kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith.

Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded - seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away14 the leaven - I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Act_5:29) ...

I might also have made mention of the bishops associated with me, whom it was your own desire to have called together by me, and I called them together: whose names, if I were to write them down, would amount to a great number. These bishops, on coming to see me, unworthy as I am,15 signified their united approval of the letter, knowing that I wore these grey hairs not in vain, but have always regulated my conduct in obedience to the Lord Jesus.

Although the debate concerning the changing of the weekly sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week is commonly known throughout Christendom, the presumption that the weekly sabbath should also be a weekly celebration of 'Easter' is less known or understood outside of the upper echelon of Roman Catholicism and academia. But this is simply an aside considering the greater question of John's familial status.

For me, the standout revelation is this: After the crucifixion of Yeshua 'John...who reclined on the Lord’s bosom...became a priest wearing the mitre'!

Wait, what? Wow!

We should note: The only cohen (priest) that wears the 'miter' (also known as that sacerdotal plate) was the High Priest. This is the same person that is the 'other talmid' that was present the night of Messiah's arrest and trial, with Peter, in the home of the Hasmonean High Priest. So this begs the question, why would John serve as High Priest after knowing the truth imparted by Messiah Yeshua?

The Ark of the Covenant had not been seen since the Babylonian captivity. The 'Presence' had departed the Temple even before then. Yeshua had revealed His true nature to His disciples. So the question remains with John - why?

Due to John's age and the fact that the Temple only stood for another forty years, had this occurred as recorded, I would presume that this event must have transpired at least fifteen years after the Crucifixion, at a minimum. But the question remains; Did he undertake such action without his Master's approval and consent? Without it, that choice would difficult for me to fathom. On the other hand, Yeshua knew John and everything about him. So this may have been Messiah Yeshua's doing. But again, why? And to what end?

While there is room galore to speculate, evidence generally supports a familial relationship to the Hasmoneans and a candidacy for that high office. But again and again, why and to what end?

With what is now known of the Hasmoneans, the Zadokites, the Pharisees, the Zealots and the many other divisions among the population and with the turmoil intrinsic to the inevitable political machinations, it is only answers to the aforementioned query, 'why?' - that are conspicuous in their absence.

That said, speculation is invited and welcomed. But please remember: This is NOT a debate about Passover or the Sabbath. Rather, it is an invitation to question what is known about Messiah Yeshua's devoted talmid John, and his serving as High Priest in the Temple Service. These are the questions that have gone begging. The rest of the information posted here becomes only context to a plethora of unrequited puzzles.

Shalom

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It seems that the 'other talmid', for reasons unknown, was not only known to the High Priest, but had favor within the household of 'Anan (a former high priest), father in law to Kayafa (the high priest at that time). Could it be that he was related to the Hasmonean pretenders to the office of cohen hagadol (the High Priest)? How else might he be allowed to witness and live to testify to this illegal trial and its unholy proponents? Is this a case of high-held hopes of John's progenitors and close relations, perhaps even a plot to bring him back into the Hasmonean fold?

In light of the discovery of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' in 1948, which were first attributed to 'celibate monks' and only recently linked to the Zadokim (the sons of Zadok and the scripturally designated High Priesthood determined by King David). It is clear from multiple sources that the Hasmoneans were illegally holding the coveted office of High Priest in the time of Yeshua's visitation. What is not clear to me is the status of the lesser Cohens. Were they too Hasmonean or actual Aaronic Cohens according to Torah?

As background, it should be noted that the 'other talmid' (known as John to most Christians), was estimated to be in his late teens by a majority of scholars, although certainty is elusive. But it would seem he had not the respect one might impart to another based on age and accomplishment, as he had yet to achieve either. No matter his vocation or avocations, he would be reckoned as an apprentice or student until around the age of 30 within that culture.

So how did John gain the favor shown? I suspect it was familial in nature, as you will read later. There is little doubt he was admitted into the courtyard without question, so it seems he was recognized by the keeper of the gate. The same might be said of his entry into the household of the former high priest, as this was clearly a contrived event, conducted well away from the prying eyes of the populous and the cleansing influence of sunlight.

Although the debate concerning the changing of the weekly sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week is commonly known throughout Christendom, the presumption that the weekly sabbath should also be a weekly celebration of 'Easter' is less known or understood outside of the upper echelon of Roman Catholicism and academia. But this is simply an aside considering the greater question of John's familial status.

For me, the standout revelation is this: After the crucifixion of Yeshua 'John...who reclined on the Lord’s bosom...became a priest wearing the mitre'!

Wait, what? Wow!

We should note: The only cohen (priest) that wears the 'miter' (also known as that sacerdotal plate) was the High Priest. This is the same person that is the 'other talmid' that was present the night of Messiah's arrest and trial, with Peter, in the home of the Hasmonean High Priest. So this begs the question, why would John serve as High Priest after knowing the truth imparted by Messiah Yeshua?

Due to John's age and the fact that the Temple only stood for another forty years, had this occurred as recorded, I would presume that this event must have transpired at least fifteen years after the Crucifixion, at a minimum. But the question remains; Did he undertake such action without his Master's approval and consent? Without it, that choice would difficult for me to fathom. On the other hand, Yeshua knew John and everything about him. So this may have been Messiah Yeshua's doing. But again, why? And to what end?

While there is room galore to speculate, evidence generally supports a familial relationship to the Hasmoneans and a candidacy for that high office. But again and again, why and to what end?

Are you saying that he was a TEMPLE high priest? There were 3 named Jonathan. I assume you mean in 44 AD, Jonathan ben Ananus? Was he the son of Ananus? Here is the list:

• Joseph Caiaphas (18-36 AD)
• Jonathan ben Ananus (36-37)
• Theophilus ben Ananus (37-41)
• Simon Cantatheras ben Boethus (41-43)
• Matthias ben Ananus (43)
• Elioneus ben Simon Cantatheras (43-44)
• Jonathan ben Ananus (44)
• Josephus ben Camydus (44-46)
• Ananias ben Nebedeus (46-58)
• Jonathan (58)
• Ishmael ben Fabus (58-62)
• Joseph Cabi ben Simon (62-63)
• Ananus ben Ananus (63)
• Joshua ben Damneus (63)
• Joshua ben Gamaliel (63-64)
• Mattathias ben Theophilus (65-66)
• Phannias ben Samuel (67-70)

However, you are quoting an early Eastern Bishop and he could be saying that the Apostle John became a priest in the Eastern Church. The first Eastern Priests as well as Bishops of Jerusalem were Jews until 135 AD, the Bar Kokhba revolt and the edict of Hadrian. Gentile Greeks were installed thereafter.

 

[Yahudim]

Shalom Yeshua HaDerekh,

And thank you for responding. Short version, I don't know. But I suspect that John remained in Jerusalem while caring for our Lord's mother before venturing too far.

The verses indicate that John was 'known' to the house of the Hasmonean high priest in Jerusalem at the time of our Lord. This was an office that I suspect was passes around that family repeatedly. However, this report from Polycrates was that he was a 'Bishop of Ephesus' at some point; a location that sits on the shoulder of the Taurus Mountains in Turkey. How and when he arrived would be rank speculation on my part.

You may have gathered that I was a bit surprised at the revelation I shared.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Shalom Yeshua HaDerekh,

And thank you for responding. Short version, I don't know. But I suspect that John remained in Jerusalem while caring for our Lord's mother before venturing too far.

The verses indicate that John was 'known' to the house of the Hasmonean high priest in Jerusalem at the time of our Lord. This was an office that I suspect was passes around that family repeatedly. However, this report from Polycrates was that he was a 'Bishop of Ephesus' at some point; a location that sits on the shoulder of the Taurus Mountains in Turkey. How and when he arrived would be rank speculation on my part.

You may have gathered that I was a bit surprised at the revelation I shared.

Eastern Orthodox Church Tradition (for almost 2000 years) is that Miriam (the mother of Yeshua) went to Ephesus with John where he took care of her as Yeshua requested from the cross.

 

[Yahudim]

Eastern Orthodox Church Tradition (for almost 2000 years) is that Miriam (the mother of Yeshua) went to Ephesus with John where he took care of her as Yeshua requested from the cross.

Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily nail down a date. I am aware, as are you, that traditions have been known to be unreliable. It is my wish that we could find some more historical records pertaining to this subject. That said, thank you for pointing that out. I'll do a little digging too!

 

[Yahudim]

In consideration of the possibility that John was a Son of Annus, a Sadducee, there are a couple of things I would point out:​

First, there is the following account on Wikipedia, which draws from Roman sources and Josephus (Antiquities...) among others. And the more I investigate, the more I am inclined to accept my first impression, that John was indeed a son of Annas. This could explain John's intimate knowledge of the Temple service reflected in those writings attributed to his authorship, but his views do not match up the very unspiritual views of the Sadducees. (Please note: It is not uncommon in large families to have children that take a different view than the family's traditions),and on that point I considered this:

Josephus mentions in Antiquities of the Jews that "one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt".[8] Paul L. Maier suggests that the sect drew their name from the Sadduc mentioned by Josephus.[9]

​

This alternative view of the origin of the name Sadducees for this sect, seem more congruent than as a derivation of 'Zadok', as the population would often reference a pun of the term Zadokim that meant self-righteous instead of righteous.​

​

The following is from Wikipedia:​

Annas (also Ananus[1] or Ananias;[2] Hebrew: חָנָן, khanán; Koinē Greek: Ἅννας, Hánnas; 23/22 BC – death date unknown, probably around AD 40) was appointed by the Roman legate Quirinius as the first High Priest of the newly formed Roman province of Judaea in AD 6 – just after the Romans had deposed Archelaus, Ethnarch of Judaea, thereby putting Judaea directly under Roman rule.

Annas appears in the Gospels and Passion plays as a high priest before whom Jesus is brought for judgment, prior to being brought before Pontius Pilate.

The sacerdotal family[edit]
The terms of Annas, Caiaphas, and the five brothers are:

Ananus (or Annas), son of Seth (6–15)[edit]
Annas officially served as High Priest for ten years (AD 6–15), when at the age of 36 he was deposed by the procurator Valerius Gratus. Yet while having been officially removed from office, he remained as one of the nation's most influential political and social individuals, aided greatly by the fact that his five sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas all served at sometime as High Priests.[3] His death is unrecorded. His son Annas the Younger, also known as Ananus the son of Ananus, was assassinated in AD 66 for advocating peace with Rome.[2]

Eleazar ben Ananus (16–17)[edit]
After Valerius Gratus deposed Ishmael ben Fabus from the high priesthood, he installed Eleazar ben Ananus, (15—16),[4][5] a descendant of John Hyrcanus. It was a time of turbulence in Jewish politics, with the role of the high priesthood being contended for by several priestly families. Eleazar was likewise deposed by Gratus, who gave the office to Simon ben Camithus(17—18).

Caiaphas (18–36)[edit]
Properly called Joseph, son of Caiaphas, he was married to the daughter of Annas (John 18:13). Gratus made him high priest after depriving Simon ben Camithus of the office.[4] The comparatively long eighteen-year tenure of Caiaphas suggests he had established a good working relationship with the Roman authorities. Gratus' successor Pontius Pilate retained him as high priest.[6]

Jonathan ben Ananus (36–37 and 44)[edit]

This list of alternate sources elucidating 'Annus', is from 'Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias'

• Annas — • Son of Seth, succeeded (A.D. 6 or 7) Joazar in the high priesthood by appointment of Quirinius who had come to Judea to attend to the incorporation of Archelaus s territory into the Roman province of Syria Catholic Encyclopedia. Kevin Knight.… … Catholic encyclopedia
• 
  
• Annas — Annas, jüdischer Hoherpriester, so v.w. Hannas … Pierer's Universal-Lexikon
• 
  
• Annas — Was high priest A.D. 7 14. In A.D. 25 Caiaphas, who had married the daughter of Annas (John 18:13), was raised to that office, and probably Annas was now made president of the Sanhedrim, or deputy or coadjutor of the high priest, and thus was… … Easton's Bible Dictionary
• 
  
• Annas — Hannas (auch Annas) war jüdischer Hohepriester zwischen den Jahren 6 und etwa 15 n. Chr., als der römische Kaiser Augustus regierte. Der Name Hannas wird in dem Johannesevangelium in Verbindung mit den Umständen des Prozesses gegen Jesus genannt … Deutsch Wikipedia
• 
  
• ANNAS — I. ANNAS Dux Ioinvillae, Henrico III. gratus, obiit in pugna Curtracensi, ab Henrico Navarrae Rege qui postea Henricus IV. cum omnibus copiis, caesus. A. C. 1587. Thuan. in Hist. II. ANNAS i. e. affligens, vel humilians, aut respondens, Pontifex… … Hofmann J. Lexicon universale
• 
  
• Annas — High priest [[➝ high priest]], 6–15 CE; father in law of Caiaphas (John 18:13). Although deposed, Annas continued to hold an influential position in the Sanhedrin, and according to John 18 (but not mentioned in the synoptic gospels) Annas… … Dictionary of the Bible

IF John was in fact a son of Annas, and served as High Priest twice, this would cast the story in Luke 16, concerning Lazarus, the beggar and the 'rich man' in a completely new light.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Luk 16:19 "Once there was a rich man who used to dress in the most expensive clothing and spent his days in magnificent luxury.
Luk 16:20 At his gate had been laid a beggar named El`azar who was covered with sores.
Luk 16:21 He would have been glad to eat the scraps that fell from the rich man's table; but instead, even the dogs would come and lick his sores.
Luk 16:22 In time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Avraham's side; the rich man also died and was buried.
Luk 16:23 "In Sh'ol, where he was in torment, the rich man looked up and saw Avraham far away with El`azar at his side.
Luk 16:24 He called out, 'Father Avraham, take pity on me, and send El`azar just to dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue, because I'm in agony in this fire!'
Luk 16:25 However, Avraham said, 'Son, remember that when you were alive, you got the good things while he got the bad; but now he gets his consolation here, while you are the one in agony.
Luk 16:26 Yet that isn't all: between you and us a deep rift has been established, so that those who would like to pass from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
Luk 16:27 "He answered, 'Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father's house,
Luk 16:28 where I have five brothers, to warn them; so that they may be spared having to come to this place of torment too.'
Luk 16:29 But Avraham said, 'They have Moshe and the Prophets; they should listen to them.'
Luk 16:30 However, he said, 'No, father Avraham, they need more. If someone from the dead goes to them, they'll repent!'
Luk 16:31 But he replied, 'If they won't listen to Moshe and the Prophets, they won't be convinced even if someone rises from the dead!' "

It seems as though one of those brothers might have been more enlightened than the rest of the clan, hmm?

Please pray that this Sabbath brings revelation in these matters.

 

[daq]

Berchot v'Shalom be multiplied to you all; that is, Blessings and Peace;

We are all keenly aware of the arrest of Messiah and Kefa's thrice denial of Yeshua. But seldom do we note this oddity concerning Yochanon (or John, the 'second talmid' in this account). These verses begin with the arrest of Messiah:

(note: scripture quotes are from the CJB)

The above verses set the stage for the players in this drama, delineating the roles of each and the over-arching context of the arrest. We should also note that His arrest was under the command of a Roman Captain and his soldiers. Roman participation would prove a necessity should this 'crime' become a capital offence, as the Romans alone could sanction an execution. And so it becomes a fact that Judean authorities, by calling for Roman involvement, betrayed their intentions from the beginning.

Also worthy of the gentle readers attention, is that this 'trial' was conducted at night and outside the auspices of the Sanhedrin, therefore contravened the intimations and mandates of Torah; the law of Judea. Taken in total, these facts suggest that any suspicion that the verdict was a foregone conclusion was more than mere supposition. Yeshua Ha Mashiach was to be assassinated, both in character and in fact.

There is much more to this story than the forgiveness of Kefa for his denial of Yeshua or the clearly political nature of the arrest and the extremely questionable circumstances surrounding His subsequent murder. There is no shortage of expositions to this end. So, I would first direct your careful attention to the deference shown to the 'other talmid' - as John was fond of describing himself.

It seems that the 'other talmid', for reasons unknown, was not only known to the High Priest, but had favor within the household of 'Anan (a former high priest), father in law to Kayafa (the high priest at that time). Could it be that he was related to the Hasmonean pretenders to the office of cohen hagadol (the High Priest)? How else might he be allowed to witness and live to testify to this illegal trial and its unholy proponents? Is this a case of high-held hopes of John's progenitors and close relations, perhaps even a plot to bring him back into the Hasmonean fold?

In light of the discovery of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' in 1948, which were first attributed to 'celibate monks' and only recently linked to the Zadokim (the sons of Zadok and the scripturally designated High Priesthood determined by King David). It is clear from multiple sources that the Hasmoneans were illegally holding the coveted office of High Priest in the time of Yeshua's visitation. What is not clear to me is the status of the lesser Cohens. Were they too Hasmonean or actual Aaronic Cohens according to Torah?

As background, it should be noted that the 'other talmid' (known as John to most Christians), was estimated to be in his late teens by a majority of scholars, although certainty is elusive. But it would seem he had not the respect one might impart to another based on age and accomplishment, as he had yet to achieve either. No matter his vocation or avocations, he would be reckoned as an apprentice or student until around the age of 30 within that culture.

So how did John gain the favor shown? I suspect it was familial in nature, as you will read later. There is little doubt he was admitted into the courtyard without question, so it seems he was recognized by the keeper of the gate. The same might be said of his entry into the household of the former high priest, as this was clearly a contrived event, conducted well away from the prying eyes of the populous and the cleansing influence of sunlight.

On the topic of the 'other talmid', I found the following to be an amazing account. Astonishing really. So I bolded and underlined the germane portions; those that gives rise to a wholly new set of revelations and speculations.


Although the debate concerning the changing of the weekly sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week is commonly known throughout Christendom, the presumption that the weekly sabbath should also be a weekly celebration of 'Easter' is less known or understood outside of the upper echelon of Roman Catholicism and academia. But this is simply an aside considering the greater question of John's familial status.

For me, the standout revelation is this: After the crucifixion of Yeshua 'John...who reclined on the Lord’s bosom...became a priest wearing the mitre'!

Wait, what? Wow!

We should note: The only cohen (priest) that wears the 'miter' (also known as that sacerdotal plate) was the High Priest. This is the same person that is the 'other talmid' that was present the night of Messiah's arrest and trial, with Peter, in the home of the Hasmonean High Priest. So this begs the question, why would John serve as High Priest after knowing the truth imparted by Messiah Yeshua?

The Ark of the Covenant had not been seen since the Babylonian captivity. The 'Presence' had departed the Temple even before then. Yeshua had revealed His true nature to His disciples. So the question remains with John - why?

Due to John's age and the fact that the Temple only stood for another forty years, had this occurred as recorded, I would presume that this event must have transpired at least fifteen years after the Crucifixion, at a minimum. But the question remains; Did he undertake such action without his Master's approval and consent? Without it, that choice would difficult for me to fathom. On the other hand, Yeshua knew John and everything about him. So this may have been Messiah Yeshua's doing. But again, why? And to what end?

While there is room galore to speculate, evidence generally supports a familial relationship to the Hasmoneans and a candidacy for that high office. But again and again, why and to what end?

With what is now known of the Hasmoneans, the Zadokites, the Pharisees, the Zealots and the many other divisions among the population and with the turmoil intrinsic to the inevitable political machinations, it is only answers to the aforementioned query, 'why?' - that are conspicuous in their absence.

That said, speculation is invited and welcomed. But please remember: This is NOT a debate about Passover or the Sabbath. Rather, it is an invitation to question what is known about Messiah Yeshua's devoted talmid John, and his serving as High Priest in the Temple Service. These are the questions that have gone begging. The rest of the information posted here becomes only context to a plethora of unrequited puzzles.

Shalom

Shalom, Phillip, I have read all of your post and all the posts so far in this thread. However, for the moment, I would like to concentrate on a single matter simply to bring it to your attention. You may already know about this, or maybe not, but Yakob the Tzaddik is also said to have worn the ephod and breastplate. The likely source for such reasoning in modern times is likely based on the following excerpt which I will post and link to below, but it's obviously not the source originally and rather comes from other writings and histories now lost. This source however does make the claim that Yakob the Tzaddik did indeed enter into the sanctuary, (without mention of the ephod and breastplate).

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius...
4. “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.(491) He has been called the Just(492) by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.
5. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.
6. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.(493)

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

www.ccel.org

When I first heard that Yakob may have indeed entered into the holy place, and may have possibly worn the ephod and breastplate, it caused me to go back to the Torah to see if this was even possible. What I found was that nowhere is Ahron called haKohen haGadol in the Torah, but always simply Ahron the Kohen, (21 times in the Torah). That is an incredibly important fact because if Ahron was the Kohen Gadol it would not be right to simply call him Ahron the Kohen.

We see in Psalm 99:6 that Mosheh is also called a Kohen. We have also a precept which at times seems almost as forceful as an axiom, if not indeed an axiom, the elder shall serve the younger. Who therefore is haKohen haGadol in the Torah? Can it be Mosheh instead of Ahron? With whom did Adonai speak face to face as a man speaks to his friend? Who was it that was commanded and did indeed anoint Ahron, and his sons, and the Mishkan and all its vessels?

One of the primary duties of the Kohen is to stand between the Most High and His people, to perform the function of mediator between Elohim and His people: this is precisely what Mosheh says of himself in Dt 5:5. We therefore have two prieshoods with the heads of those orders portrayed for us in the Torah. Mosheh can be none other than haKohen haGadol, after the order of Melki-Tzedek, while Ahron is the chief Kohen under him: and I do believe there is a difference between a chief Kohen and the Kohen Gadol who is greater.

With these things said there is also the fact that Ahron took to wife Elisheba the sister of Nahshon, the prince of tribe Yhudah, (and the Greek transliteration of this name is Elisabeth, another clue for another time in a slightly different discussion). Let that sink in: the mother of all the sons of Ahron is a pure-blooded Yhudit, Elisheba the sister of Nahshon the prince of tribe Yhudah.

Just because Yakob and Yohanan are known to have been Yhudim does not necessarily mean they were not also Levim. Moreover the ephod and breatsplate are part of the beautiful garments for Ahron and his sons, those who enter into the sanctuary, not just for the Kohen Gadol: for Mosheh was the Kohen Gadol, and Ahron was the chief Kohen under Mosheh.

When we get to the Brit Hadashah it appears that Hanan ben Seth is performing the function of the Kohen Gadol while, (at least in the Gospel accounts), Kaiapha is the chief Kohen under Hanan. It is therefore indeed, imo, very possible that both Yakob the Tzaddik and Yohanan may have worn the ephod and breastplate: for that does not necessarily mean that either of them would have been Kohen Gadol.

Simply food for thought.
Shabbat Shalom.

 

[Yahudim]

Shalom, Phillip, I have read all of your post and all the posts so far in this thread. However, for the moment, I would like to concentrate on a single matter simply to bring it to your attention. You may already know about this, or maybe not, but Yakob the Tzaddik is also said to have worn the ephod and breastplate. The likely source for such reasoning in modern times is likely based on the following excerpt which I will post and link to below, but it's obviously not the source originally and rather comes from other writings and histories now lost. This source however does make the claim that Yakob the Tzaddik did indeed enter into the sanctuary, (without mention of the ephod and breastplate).

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius...
4. “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.(491) He has been called the Just(492) by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.
5. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.
6. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.(493)

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

www.ccel.org

When I first heard that Yakob may have indeed entered into the holy place, and may have possibly worn the ephod and breastplate, it caused me to go back to the Torah to see if this was even possible. What I found was that nowhere is Ahron called haKohen haGadol in the Torah, but always simply Ahron the Kohen, (21 times in the Torah). That is an incredibly important fact because if Ahron was the Kohen Gadol it would not be right to simply call him Ahron the Kohen.

We see in Psalm 99:6 that Mosheh is also called a Kohen. We have also a precept which at times seems almost as forceful as an axiom, if not indeed an axiom, the elder shall serve the younger. Who therefore is haKohen haGadol in the Torah? Can it be Mosheh instead of Ahron? With whom did Adonai speak face to face as a man speaks to his friend? Who was it that was commanded and did indeed anoint Ahron, and his sons, and the Mishkan and all its vessels?

One of the primary duties of the Kohen is to stand between the Most High and His people, to perform the function of mediator between Elohim and His people: this is precisely what Mosheh says of himself in Dt 5:5. We therefore have two prieshoods with the heads of those orders portrayed for us in the Torah. Mosheh can be none other than haKohen haGadol, after the order of Melki-Tzedek, while Ahron is the chief Kohen under him: and I do believe there is a difference between a chief Kohen and the Kohen Gadol who is greater.

With these things said there is also the fact that Ahron took to wife Elisheba the sister of Nahshon, the prince of tribe Yhudah, (and the Greek transliteration of this name is Elisabeth, another clue for another time in a slightly different discussion). Let that sink in: the mother of all the sons of Ahron is a pure-blooded Yhudit, Elisheba the sister of Nahshon the prince of tribe Yhudah.

Just because Yakob and Yohanan are known to have been Yhudim does not necessarily mean they were not also Levim. Moreover the ephod and breatsplate are part of the beautiful garments for Ahron and his sons, those who enter into the sanctuary, not just for the Kohen Gadol: for Mosheh was the Kohen Gadol, and Ahron was the chief Kohen under Mosheh.

When we get to the Brit Hadashah it appears that Hanan ben Seth is performing the function of the Kohen Gadol while, (at least in the Gospel accounts), Kaiapha is the chief Kohen under Hanan. It is therefore indeed, imo, very possible that both Yakob the Tzaddik and Yohanan may have worn the ephod and breastplate: for that does not necessarily mean that either of them would have been Kohen Gadol.

Simply food for thought.
Shabbat Shalom.

Chaver, I've been chewing ever since!

Things have been a bit hectic, so I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Thank you for clearing up those details and confirming my suspicions. This has been one of those things I stumbled across years ago, but had my hands and head full with other studies, so again, many thanks!

 

[daq]

Chaver, I've been chewing ever since!

Things have been a bit hectic, so I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Thank you for clearing up those details and confirming my suspicions. This has been one of those things I stumbled across years ago, but had my hands and head full with other studies, so again, many thanks!

My pleasure, glad to share that little bit, and I hope it helps.
Good to see you back here!