Someone here seems,not aware yet of how controversal the Authorship of the Johannine works(and other NT writings as well) is ..!!
there is the basic introduction,and more in the right time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works
Someone here seems not aware how questionable wikipedia is as an academic source. But let's actually examine what even it says:
The phraseology of the first letter of John is very similar to that of the fourth gospel, so that the question of authorship is often connected to the question of authorship of the gospel.
the Gospel was known in Antioch before Ignatius' death (probably 107).
The earliest testimony to the author was that of Papias....
Irenaeus's witness based on Papias represents the tradition in Ephesus, where John the Apostle is reputed to have lived. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, thus in the second generation after the apostle. He states unequivocally that the apostle is the author of the Gospel.
In favor of the historical and eyewitness character of the Gospel, a few passages are pointed to. John's chronology for the death of Jesus seems more realistic.... Schonfield agrees that the Gospel was the product of the Apostle's great age, but further identifies him as the Beloved Disciple of the Last Supper, and so believes that the Gospel is based on first hand witness, though decades later and perhaps through the assistance of a younger follower and writer, which may account for the mixture of Hebraicisms (from the Disciple) and Greek idiom (from the assistant).
Fredriksen sees the Fourth Gospel's unique explanation for Jesus' arrest and crucifixion as the most historically plausible: "The priests' motivation is clear and commonsensical: 'If we let [Jesus] go on.... the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.' Caiaphas continues, 'It is expedient that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation not perish' (John 11:48,50)
All of this from the link that you provided to prove the counterpoint.
What Wiki fails to mention is that just a Irenaeus (who "states unequivocally that the apostle is the author of the Gospel") was a student of Polycarp, so too Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. Irenaeus' testimony is that he learned from Polycarp that Polycarp heard John identify himself as the author of the gospel in question. In fact recalls that in his youth he used to sit in Polycarp's house and listen to him discourse about his intercourse with Joh and others who had seen the Lord. Consequently, when Irenaeus declares categorically that after the publication of the other Gospels John also wrote his, while he was dwelling in Ephesus, it is to be assumed that he is giving no other view of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel than that which he inherited fro a disciple of John himself.
Thus, I believe we have what, if we were talking about a student of a companion of the Prophet, would be known in Islamic circles as very strong support for the Haddith.
If Irenaeus is in error and misunderstood Polycarp's testimony, and if, as some of the other authors that Wiki cites claim, the early church never did believe John to be the author of the Gospel, then we are left with three very interesting problems:
1) why did they allow this apellation of Johanine authorship to be applied in the first place?
and
2) why did they not bother to correct Irenaeus?
and
3) when Irenaeus in later life promulgated this supposedly unfounded statement that the rest of the church allegedly knew was not true, why did they in fact believe him -- in both the East AND the West? This included such notable figures as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian who agree that John the Apostle was the author.
Reflecting on the authorship of John, Professor Evertt Harrison writes:
In summery, the external testimony [in favor of John the Apostle] is strong. Some are troubled that it does not begin at an earlier point, but this would be damaging only if earlier testimony existed that pointed to another than John.....
Today it is customary to concede the strength of the traditional position in so far as it depends on ancient testimony, but to hold that it is counterbalanced by what the Gospel itself has to tell us about the writer.
So, let's look at these internal issues. One of these issues is that John looks at the life of Jesus differently than the other three gospels. (For myself, I find it strange that this is cited at all, as some of these same people cite the converse when writing about Matthew, Mark and Luke that they are too much alike. And seek to counter them by appealing to writings such as the Gospel of Thomas for an alternate view to support their hypotheses. Yet these same people hold differences between John and the synoptics are problematic.)
But let noted NT scholar W.F. Albright speak to the matter:
One of the strangest assumptions of critical New Testament scholars and theologians is that the mind of Jesus was so limited that any apparent contrast between John and the Synoptics must be do to difference between early Christian theologians. Every great thinker and personality is going to be interpreted differently by different friends and hearers, who will select what seems most congenial or useful out of what they have seen and heard. From Socrates to the most recent men of eminence there are innumerable examples. The Christian might a fortiori suppose the same to be true of his Master.
Westcott's analysis of the internal evidence suggested that the author must have been:
1) a Jew
2) a Palestinian
3) an eyewitness
and
4) a disciple of Jesus.
I do not believe this would exclude John, and his authorship seesm a lot less controversial than you propose.
It most be admitted that the Gospel contains no author's name actually attached. The only thing we know is that the author testifies to himself being the "beloved disciple" against whom Jesus rest at their final Passover meal.
In reading the text, one other thing we know about this beloved disciple is that he was a close companion of Peter. The book of Acts and Paul's letter to the church in Galatia both testify that John and Peter were indeed constant companions in the early ministry of the apostles.
There is much more that I could write in regard to both internal and external evidences regarding Johanine authorship, but if you've decided to doubt, I don't suppose there is anything I could show you that would bring about a change of your mind. But this I hope to have made clear, your statement that "Someone here seems,not aware yet of how controversal the Authorship of the Johannine works(and other NT writings as well) is ..!!" does not apply to me. Indeed I am aware. It is just that on considering the evidence for myself, I disagree with such a conclusion.
