Critical scholarship has correctly called into question the traditional association of the Fourth Evangelist [ed. - the author of the gospel] with John, the son of Zebedee, known from the Synoptic Gospels. I doubt, too, that we can identify the Evangelist with the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved" (although many do not share my skepticism on this matter). All we have to go on is the document itself, and only so much can legitimately be read between its lines. We have tried to describe the background of the author that so well suited him or her for the task of writing this Gospel. Moreover, we have claimed that the tradition available to the Fourth Evangelist was rich and full. To claim more than this about the writer would be to venture unnecessarily far out on the limb of speculation. To deny the possibility that this author was a woman is unfair and betrays the prejudice of previous centuries. (See Appendix B, "The Women of the Gospel of John," for a brief defense of the possibility that the Fourth Evangelist was indeed a woman.)
