I think your apologetic on the Gospel of John lacks some serious breadth. It's like you pick and choose a couple of historically biased sources and then never deviate from those. Are you taking lessons from CNN by chance? <Yes, I'm bing snarky!>

There is a wide body of thought regarding who wrote this book and it certainly wasn't a Jewish source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

At the end of the day, the author of the book is entirely anonymous. We can try to say that it was an eyewitness, but that is just our assumption as a kind of mechanism to downplay the LIE that John is the author. People are learning about the LIE they were told about John being the author; the lie is now exposed.

The book's very late authorship, c. 90-120, means that this book arrived very late on the scene and was most likely the product of a community of so-called Johannine adherents tied to the Mithraic/Pauline gospel.

The bottom line is that whoever wrote this book wasn't actually Jewish and wasn't following the Gospel of the historical James, Jesus, et. al. It exudes a highly Mithraic borrowing which cannot be resolved with any Jewish source.