Editing Openai/691c9b69-7ff8-800f-acb2-b92dd965aeeb (section)

=== This argument misunderstands how ancient biography works: ===
* Authors often omit themselves (especially if humility is part of their theme)
* The fact that the “beloved disciple” appears unnamed actually strengthens the traditional authorship claim, because anonymity is consistent with authorship

Historical reasons many scholars (conservative & moderate) accept John son of Zebedee as the source:
* Early church fathers unanimously attribute the Gospel to him
* Internal features match someone from the inner circle (Peter/James/John)
* The Gospel shows extremely precise Jerusalem geography, matching a pre-70 eyewitness
* John’s fishing-related knowledge is highly specific

Claiming John “must not be the author because he isn’t named” is not a scholarly argument—it's Tumblr logic.

Even critical scholars who doubt Johannine authorship don’t use that reasoning.