The Authorship of John

Craig Blomberg, D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Craig Keener, Richard Bauckham, and Martin Hengel. These are all first rate scholars that believe the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness.  Not all agree that this John was John the son of Zebedee, but they do believe that the author was present at the events. I'm leaning once more towards it being the son of Zebedee.  The view that the Gospel at least largely incorporates John the apostle’s testimony maintains considerable support.  According to James Charlesworth in The Beloved Disciple, this broad position holds the longest list of defenders--Charlesworth lists 29 scholars that support it.  

The strongest evidence against it being the son of Zebedee is an early church tradition that holds that this John was martyred fairly early, if certain quotations of Papias given by Philip Sidetes and George Hamartolos in the Medieval period are to be taken at face value.  (Both of these authors, however, also assert that John survived into the reign of Domitian.)

But that tradition is difficult and not well-attested, and may be reconcilable with the wider tradition that John lived to an old age--in either that John was martyred in his old age or that his banishments and sufferings still count as "martyrdom."  Paul Anderson takes this route.

The Harris fragments also attest an early tradition of discomfort among Asian Christians due to the failure of John the apostle to be martyred, arguing that Polycarp’s martyrdom served as a substitute for John.  They took it that it was proper for all the apostles to be martyred. These fragments are independent of the Martyrdom of Polycarp and may date to the third century.

Some of the best arguments for John the son of Zebedee being the author are the following: 

• Westcott’s process of elimination, whereby he narrows in on John the son of Zebedee 
• The title “John” itself is geographically widespread and early in our manuscript tradition (Papyrus 75 has it, for instance), 
• Irenaeus clearly attests to the authorship by the apostle John (once we see that he uses the word “disciple” interchangeably with “apostle”) 
• Papias as interpreted by Keener provides support to it (the apostles are called “elders” by Papias and then he mentions “John the elder” as still ministering, indicating clearly that he thinks this John is an apostle), 
• The internal indications of the gospel itself plus a crosscheck with the Synoptic Gospels, 
• Gnostic ascriptions of the book to John the apostle (Ptolemy the Gnostic).

And if Blomberg is correct in understanding Eusebius to covertly quote Papias in 3.24.5-13, then we also have another attestation that Papias believed the gospel to be written by John the Son of Zebedee.   

It’s common enough to hear that the majority of NT scholars believe that the authors of the gospels are unknown.  “But it's hard to say who qualifies as a ‘scholar’ here. People with seminary degrees? Probably a lot of them accept traditional authorship. So usually the assertion is qualified--'The majority of critical scholars agree...'  But who is a critical scholar? Why, among other things, someone who doesn't believe in the traditional authorship of the Gospels! And so we come full circle.”