There are four Johns associated with the Fourth Gospel: John, the Baptist; Saint John, the son of Zebedee (one of the 12 apostles); John, "the beloved disciple"; and John, the elder (or presbyter).

Even in 2008, some people still believe that St John, the apostle, the son of Zebedee, wrote the Fourth Gospel.

However, there’s no way in the world that St John, the apostle, an "uneducated Galilean with no qualifications" (Acts 4:13), could correspond either to a highly educated citizen of Jerusalem who was well-known to the High Priest, or to an overly literate rhetorician who knows Plato through and through and can write extensively in the Greek philosopher’s style.

So there are two Johns who actually wrote the Fourth Gospel: John, the elder (a fan of Plato), and John, the beloved disciple; but definitely not St John, the apostle.

Let’s examine the writings attributed to "John". Odd, isn’t it, that "John" never mentions James—not even once in his entire New Testament output: not in his Gospel, not in any of his three "letters", and not in Revelation. Yet from the synoptic gospels we know that the brothers James and John were absolutely inseparable. They’re a pair and always rate a mention in the same breath. Always!

Furthermore the author of the Fourth Gospel plainly doesn’t like Peter. He hardly ever loses an opportunity to white-ant him. In the latter part of the gospel, he’s always denigrating and chipping away at Peter and promoting himself at Peter’s expense.

Needless to say, many English translators like the King James boys, the RSV and the Amplified do their best to disguise John’s antipathy to Peter. The New English Bible is especially adept at diluting what John actually wrote. On the other hand, The New American Bible is reasonably faithful to John, provided you read very carefully, allowing the implications of each word to sink into your mind. To read at a normal pace, you would need to be very alert to perceive John’s hostility at all.

However, there are several extremely faithful versions. One of the most accurate is the justly acclaimed 1960 translation by J.B. Phillips, which his fellow churchmen rightly praised to the skies for its Biblical accuracy and veracity.

Canon Phillips notes that "modern scholarship is mostly against considering the author to be the apostle John…(although) it seems probable that the author knew Jesus personally and…there can be no doubt that the author had close spiritual acquaintance with Christ, and had reflected long and deeply on the nature of the divine Word." This is a perfect description of John, "the beloved disciple."

Of course my new version of John’s "Good News" does not slavishly follow any other translation, however admirable it may be. And unlike most other versions, the contributions of both John, "the beloved disciple", and John, the elder (or presbyter), are now clearly identified.

Despite well-publicized Biblical research to the contrary, it’s surprising to find in 2008 that many people still fervently believe that Saint John, the apostle, wrote the Gospel of John. Yet the certainty that it was not written by St John does not detract from its divine inspiration one iota. One of my pastors would often exclaim: "The footnotes in your Bible were not written by God!" The headings were not written by God either!

Some people are afraid of the truth. Yet Jesus says: "If you make my word your home, you will indeed be my disciples, you will learn the truth and the truth will make you free." (John 8: 31, 32; Jerusalem Bible).