"The Other Guy"

 "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest." (John 18:15 KJV)

  ""And so, my children, listen to me, for all who follow my ways are joyful. Listen to my instruction and be wise. Don't ignore it. Joyful are those who listen to me, watching for me daily at my gates, waiting for me outside home!"" (Proverbs 8:32-34 NLT)

 If you look at the other three references to this event, all three put it in a different light, as if Peter walked into the courtyard on his own. So, in my simple mind, I can only assume that Matthew wasn't there, Mark was still trying to find some clothes to put on, and Luke was not even a part of the group yet; so, this puts all of the other interpretations on the testimony of Peter. 

 Having said that, I can only assume that there was something going on between Peter and John; not that there was strife between them, but that there might have been some sort of jealousy or previous business competition between them, with their previous fishing exploits and endeavors.

 Matthew Henery gives a suggestion that John knew the high priest because he might have sold him his fishing business or had been the supplier for his fish that supplied the palace. For whatever reason, John makes this the way that things were, yet none of the other Gospel's have it this way.

 Some think, this other guy might have been Nicodemus, the one who had come to Jesus by night. If that were so, I would have thought John would have referenced it was him; but then again, maybe Nic might have told him not to? But wait, I heard some Pastor sharing that Nicodemus could have been the Rich Young Ruler, which would have made him willing to have given all of his money away. 

 Then again, he was the one that supplied all of the spices to bury Jesus in his friend's tomb. This is just so confusing; it makes me believe in the simple and logical solution: The Other Guy is John! Many people believe that John wrote this Gospel message towards the end of his life, which would mean that his interpretation of the events was given after Matthew's for sure, and maybe even after Mark's and Luke's. 

 Regardless, we do know that both Peter and John were always competing against one another, so it is easy to see why this would have been left out in the other Gospels. Matthew wasn't there, so he most likely received his side of the story based upon Peter's testimony; Mark surely got his side of the story from Peter; and Luke, he remained neutral...

"So they arrested him and led him to the high priest's home. And Peter followed at a distance. The guards lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat around it, and Peter joined then there." (Luke 22:54-55 NLT)