Abstract
In the presented text, I am arguing in favor of these four theses -
1) titles of canonical gospels are historically reliable, therefore
2) author of "gospel according to John" is John,
3) this John is identical with beloved disciple,
4) who is most probably the same person as John Elder (Presbyter) known from Johannine letters and from Papias. I am further arguing against the apostolic authorship by means of internal evidences (text of canonical gospels). Since I understand the title "beloved disciple" as having a function of legitimizing validity of the gospel against "traditional apostolic claim", I am arguing that if the author had been apostle John, he would have no need to rely on "anonymous testimony" as the anonymous beloved disciple had done. Although the denying of apostolic authorship is common in modern research, identification of beloved disciple with author of fourth gospel and with John Elder is not. Since I am working with theses, that "according to John" is historically accurate title, I am further arguing that this "John" is most probably John Elder, known as Elder in Second and Third letter of John and in Papias's work is known as John Elder (ό πρεσβύτερος 'Ιωάννης). I am building my argument upon the common authorship of fourth gospel and johannine letters.