In Defense of Jean Colson

Strong Evidence That John Wrote the Fourth Gospel
Testify | 23 Jan. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jaLCzTrjJY

0:52 Jewish (or perhaps in his own terminology preferrably Israelite, after Jamnia) - also true if John was a Cohen (a nephew of the first hagiographer several generations down the line).

2:32 What are the five bodies of water?

You didn't list Sea of Galilee in the other video.

Ah, he calls it "lake Tiberias" ... sorry.

3:20 - an eyewitness : perfectly compatible with his being a lesser disciple than one of the twelve and his being a Cohen.

There is a textual reference saying all of the twelve scattered, but the eyewitness to the Crucifixion didn't.

His being a Cohen would also explain his knowing the High Priest and observing Peter, the one of the twelve who scattered a bit later than the rest.

Kearlan Ventures

@kearlanventures

These analyses are mostly “logic” exercises. We can’t (probably) ever know for sure. So the issue starts with: “does anything eliminate John the the apostle?” No. Do we have good reason to believe this was written by an eyewitness (likely via scribe)? Yes. Is John the apostle as candidate for being an eyewitness? Of course. Etc. So key takeaway is John isn’t eliminated.

Sure, none of that proves it wasn’t some lesser and latter eyewitness. Heck, doesn’t even definitively prove it was an eyewitness. Some could go as far as to say there could be no “eyewitness” because all of this myth. Etc. So the exercise isn’t about definitive proof*. It’s about when we line up everything we have: eyewitness details, reference to “*the disciple Jesus loved”(used as a “title”in 4 verses), 2nd century attestations, etc. AND we assume there was a Jesus, “what explanations fit the data?” and “what explanations fit the data the best?” A lesser priestly disciple fits but doesn’t fit as well as the theory of John. Just my $0.02.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@kearlanventures The one point against John one of the twelve is, he stood under the Cross, while a text says ALL the ones who had been in Gethsemane with Him fled, scattered.

Less cogently, but not by much, a man who survived dipping in boiling oil and who put himself down in a grave he had dug is credited with being the Gospeller, while in very old martyrologies, dec. 27 is for James and John, both dying as martyrs - and Christ said they would both die as martyrs.

Kearlan Ventures

@hglundahl I think you're referring to Matthew 26:56 (correct me if I'm wrong) which says "Then all the disciples left Him and fled." This, read literally, of course excludes any disciple, not just the 12. Yet John says at least one, the "beloved" disciple, was in fact at the cross (and we know it was a male --lmk if I need to clarify). One possibility is that Matthew is referring to the garden, but John is actually later at Golgatha and so it's not referring to the same event. John 18:15 suggests Peter and "another disciple" followed Jesus after Gethsemane. I think there is a similar reference in Luke IIRC too.This doesn't argue for John the apostle per se, it just doesn't exclude him vs any other disciple. I think John Mark could fit this too from what I recall (can't recall the rebuttals to that at the moment)...

☆𝕫𝕠𝕣𝕠☆

@zorokang067

Again, these books came out at a time where the people who wanted to refute the claims were alive to do that. Plus, a myth takes a lot longer to form than what it did, ESPECIALLY something as big as this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kearlanventures "This, read literally, of course excludes any disciple, not just the 12. Yet John says at least one, the "beloved" disciple, was in fact at the cross (and we know it was a male --lmk if I need to clarify)."

And Jean Colson reads it contextually as "all of the twelve" or "all who were there" (that is, the twelve).

Logically it can hardly mean that all five hundred witnesses fled even those who weren't there (or the Temple Guard would have been no match for them).

So, the Beloved Disciple was not there in Gethsemani. He did not flee. There is no contradiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@zorokang067 I don't think anyone on this thread has taken a mythicist approach, whom are you talking to?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kearlanventures "John 18:15 suggests Peter and "another disciple" followed Jesus after Gethsemane."

Correct, but while Peter at first stopped fleeing with his feet, he then fled with his tongue, by denying.

Kearlan Ventures

@hglundahl This continues to presume that the events in garden and w/ high priest—where all the disciples fled—is the same as the events at the cross. They are not. They cannot logically be the same. So the “disciples fled” data point doesn’t add to our understanding here.

Also if we read “disciple” across these contexts to be limited to “the 12” then the reference to “ disciple who Jesus loved” should also be constrained that way. Again, we can remove that constraint throughout, or say the contexts are different and so it means different things in each context, but both of those approaches are less cogent than giving the word “disciple” a consistent meaning across these uses. And there’s no inconsistency in doing so once it’s understood these aren’t the same events.

☆𝕫𝕠𝕣𝕠☆

Hey! Sorry, I was talking to @kearlanventures. @hglundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kearlanventures "This continues to presume that the events in garden and w/ high priest—where all the disciples fled—is the same as the events at the cross."

You forget that the Beloved Disciple was already not fleeing the very same night.

The 11 disciples at first, as we know from Mark, did not believe. They were still mentally in this flight.

Remember, for the Beloved Disciple to be among them, he need on Jean Colson's theory not be one of the twelve, since on his theory he was the host of them all, and was also hosting the Blessed Virgin since Good Friday.

"then the reference to “ disciple who Jesus loved” should also be constrained that way."

Not same passage, not same context. So, not so constrained.

Kearlan Ventures

@hglundahl Good discussion first of all. But I think you’re missing the point I’m making. I’m not arguing that the Beloved Disciple is in fact John the Apostle. Nor even John Mark, John “the elder,” or any “lesser” disciple. What I’m saying is that the passages you reference don’t exclude John the Apostle from candidacy. We’re all, including Colson, welcome to make assumptions but there’s nothing in the texts themselves that eliminate John the Apostle because the reference to the disciple at the cross is a different event, as you admit, from the reference in Matthew. (Notably, the extrinsic record, which we’re intentionally not looking at, also doesn’t exclude John the Apostle.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kearlanventures The extrinsic record actually seems to have somewhat different fates for John and John, unless you limit yourself to mainstream post-Irenaeus.

John of Zebedee seems to have died as a martyr boiled in water. John the Beloved survived boiling in oil (even if it is in an account that identifies him with the son of Zebedee).

Jean Colson considers the martyrdom of John of Zebedee confirmed in the prophecy of martyrdom by Jesus (drink of the chalice that I drink of).

This differs from the life story (which Colson considered a novel, I disagree) where John the Gospeller dug himself a grave, stepped down, there was a light and after that one saw mannah.

Other argument, John the Gospeller had connexions with the priests and probably a house in Jerusalem or surroundings ("And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own." John 19:27).

Most prominent argument : if the Gospeller was the host and not one of the twelve, it very well explains why the First Eucharist wasn't described by him -- he had left his guests between them.

MaryG

@maryqwe1118

@hglundahl the fact that everyone goes away at the Getsemani doesn't mean they stayed away from Jesus till his death. In fact it Is also stated that Peter follows Jesus when he Denise him 3 times. Also if we consider what the gospel say tò be Truth they even Say that the 12 apostoles and Jesus were at the supper so the beloved one was probably one of them

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@maryqwe1118 The host was also present at the last supper.

The thesis of Jean Colson is, John the Beloved was actually the host.

MaryG

@hglundahl Oh I begin saying the least important concerns of mine about this theory: when John and Peter prepare for the supper it doesn't appear that they know the host, who also has a servant(why and apostole so close to Jesus is still that rich to own a servant and so on) I don't know, the disciple who Jesus love says to be a witness of the facts and it would be weird if he was talking only from the last supper on, he has to be one close to him that follows him from the beginning, so the disciples would have know him. The host is presented ( in other gospels) as one not particolarly known.

But , most importantly, why one should reject completly the idea that John the apostole wrote it when for decades it was believed so, and accepting more the idea that the witness is the host of the supper just because one or mabye two dudes from the last centuries theorize so? If you consider weak the things that lead to John being the witness, the clues leading to other specific people are way weaker. I mean Imagine if christian tradition would have say from the beginning that the host was the beloved disciple based on the same things, would't we be, even more, be saying that this thesis is absurd and based on basically nothing?

MaryG

@hglundahl also i night add, it is never stated that the disciple that follows Peter tò the yard of the Priest is the beloved one, some people just think it could be based I don't know on what ( After all It seems he always refers to him as the beloved one from last supper on, not some random disciple)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@maryqwe1118 "when John and Peter prepare for the supper it doesn't appear that they know the host"

At all, or in advance of the meeting it would be him?

"who also has a servant(why and apostole so close to Jesus is still that rich to own a servant and so on)"

Why not?

Emotional or moral closeness doesn't necessarily imply closeness in everyday life, as for the twelve.

"The host is presented ( in other gospels) as one not particolarly known."

Wouldn't it make sense to keep still about him, while he was hosting God's Mother as his new Mother?

Like to keep Her out of persecution?

"the disciple who Jesus love says to be a witness of the facts"

I think that's facts in Jerusalem and about the Crucifixion.

Actual evidence would involve Asia Minor Fathers actually seeming to distinguish two John's (I fully accept the Beloved was called John, and that he was the prophet of ...

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 1:1]

Jean Colson didn't find one single Asia Minor father who identified John the Gospeller with John of Zebedee. Except St. Irenaeus who left Asia Minor at age 16, and who could therefore have brought a youthful misunderstanding along to the West.

Also, while he didn't believe the Apostle Life of St. John (Vita Ioannis Apostoli), he did agree with it that John the Gospeller died an old man, peacefully. He found both an implication in Christ's words to the twelve (Matthew 20) and a confirmation in an old Gallican martyrology that John of Zebedee was actually martyred.

3:28 As a Cohen, there would have been no problem in knowing Nicodemus, and the machinations of the Sanhedrin after the raising of Lazarus.

MaryG

As a Cohen he would have had a lot of problems of going and entire night fishing in lake Tiberiade thought (as the beloved disciple does), considering how the lake Is famous for strong and sudden storms and considering how dangerous was fishing back then even for Expert fishermen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@maryqwe1118 First, we do not see that all Cohens were all the time in service. St. John the Baptist was certainly not in service when he served as a prophet.

But we do also not see any identification of any one at the see of Galilee with the Beloved Disciple.

Usually one goes with an indirect one, namely Fisherman = son of Zebedee = beloved Disciple.

However, if the Beloved Disciple was not the son of Zebedee, how do we know he was ever a fisherman in a boat on Genesareth?

3:41 A Cohen would have been very well familiar with how long it took the temple to get built.

Truth Be Bold

@truthbebold4009

I'm not familiar with Cohen. Could you give some clarification? Thanks

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@truthbebold4009 Cohen = Old Testament Priest, Descendent of Aaron.

Truth Be Bold

@hglundahl Ahhh thank you good sir 🙏

4:48 Would the 72 not have been told how the 12 were called?

Were only the twelve going along to Samaria or present at the feeding of the 5000?

4:50 All of Jesus' visits to Jerusalem - would equally apply if he was a Cohen who as disciple and house owner in Jerusalem hosted Jesus (yeah, the one who had two donkeys prepared).

5:36 "a few more than the twelve might have been there" - like, for instance, the host, the owner of the house.

Who, unlike the twelve, was not ordained Catholic priest that day and was therefore not present at the Eucharist.

5:51 If it's correct the Blessed Virgin was in her early years in the Temple, entrusting Her to a disciple who was also a Cohen would make sense.

And a lesser one than the twelve would give Her some well needed repose, rather than expose Her to dangers - the John who accompanied Peter in Acts 4 was arguably running risky errands, was one of the twelve. Could the one hosting the Blessed Mother be the other John mentioned there, who went with Caiaphas?

6:37 I think the first early Church Father who explicitly identified John the Beloved with John the Son of Zebedee was St. Irenaeus, while those back in Asia Minor didn't.

One says "we have known John, who has worn the golden head band" - why mention that in response to the Pope, if he could have said "who was one of the twelve"?

augustinian2018

@augustinian2018

I wasn’t aware Irenaeus ever identified the apostle John as John the son of Zebedee—do you have a reference, by chance?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@augustinian2018 The question is rather whether he attributed John the Apostle-Gospeller as John-one-of-the-Twelve-Apostles. It seems he did, I do not have references at hand, Fr Jean Colson in his 1968 work (nihil obstat and imprimi potest in Paris archdiocese) argued this was a misunderstanding, the Gospeller was actually a Cohen, and not one of the twelve, the actual meal of the last Supper happened in his house (hence the Last Supper Discourses recalled by him), but he was leaving his guests among themselves when God in the Flesh held Himself in His hands, hence no account of the Eucharist (the son of Zebedee being obviously one of those then present, but he wrote no Gospel, maybe his brother, rather than God's wrote the Epistle).

And Fr. Jean Colson obviously quoted with citations somewhere the place where St. Irenaeus considered the fourth Gospeller as one of the Twelve. His work?

L'énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait, appeared in print and bookshops April 1969, Beauchesne.

It's years since I read it, so this is the best I can do.

augustinian2018

@hglundahl I’m familiar with the thesis that John the Evangelist was not one and the same as John the son of Zebedee from Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. His analysis of Irenaeus was that the apostle John who taught Polycarp and wrote the Gospel is never actually identified as the son of Zebedee; the two people most frequently called apostles in Irenaeus’s works are Paul and John, and Bauckham argues that Irenaeus’s use of the word ‘apostle’ in reference to John carries the same meaning as it does in reference to Paul, as Paul was not a member of the twelve but was nonetheless an apostle. Bauckham built much his case on the fragments of Papias (early 2nd century bishop of Hierapolis) and Polycrates (late 2nd century bishop of Ephesus, the city where John wrote his Gospel); whether Papias refers to one or two Johns is ultimately ambiguous, though there is a strong case to be made that he refers to two (Eusebius seems to read him that way, though Eusebius harbors strong biases against Papias on other grounds). There is also a 5th century fragment of Papias (in a history by Philipp of Side) that says the sons of Zebedee were both martyred, seemingly contradicting other early tradition about John the Evangelist if we take him to be the son of Zebedee. Polycrates definitely identifies John the beloved (and by the extension, the Evangelist) as someone other than John the son of Zebedee—he identifies him as a hiereus/cohen/temple priest (which seems to be the source one of the authors you mentioned was drawing on; given Polycrates had access to local tradition about John from within a century of John’s death, I do give quite a bit of credence to him).

I don’t consider the case that John the son of Zebedee was not John the Evangelist to be conclusive by any means, but I do incline toward that view as a result of Bauckham’s argument. I sometimes quip that my son, John Polycarp, is named after John the Evangelist and possibly John the son of Zebedee. Nevertheless, I’m due to re-read the surviving works of Irenaeus sometime soon, so I’ll keep my eyes peeled for identification of Irenaeus’s John the apostle with John the son of Zebedee; I find it entirely plausible that Bauckham missed something explicitly linking the son of Zebedee to the Evangelist in Irenaeus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@augustinian2018 I have not yet read Bauckham.

Thanks for mentioning the 500 and Andronicus and Junia and Paul are apostles but not of the twelve.

Good point.

6:40 "traditional authorship of John's Gospel" - if the tradition had been universal, as I hinted it wasn't, I don't think Fr. Jean Colson would have disputed it.

Another hint, John who dies in Ephesus never became bishop there. Why would one of the twelve not be bishop over others? They were the first bishops.

Council of Florence

@councilofflorence4896

The tradition was in fact, universal. John was a Bishop, but not of Ephesus. We see in Apocalypse that John orders multiple Churches. John did not live at Ephesus, he would travel there and preach. Paul was not Bishop of Corinth, but clearly he was a Bishop.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@councilofflorence4896 A prophet may certainly write to bishops without being their bishop.

He also adresses people as "sunpresbuteroi" which is easiest to explain if he was of the lower sacerdotium.