There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written.It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel.Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.Most would argue that the passage attempts to present Christ as the replacement of the Temple that has been destroyed." (p.918) Note also the irony of : "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place [i.e.temple] and our nation." Finally, there is no mention of the Sadducees, which reflects post-70 Judaism.The retort that there is also no mention of scribes misses the mark, as the Pharisees represented the scribal tradition, and the Pharisees are mentioned. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles.
The reasons for positing a post-70 date include the view of the Temple implicit in -22.But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! I (she/her) started using Ok Cupid recently, and a couple days ago, my coworker (he/him) who I don’t know well but see around often (we work at a very small company) sent me a message.70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.
If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues.
The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry.