<<< it is fairly standard for those who are studying the Bible as
historians to dismiss as unproven and unprovable those events
and details that do not have independent attestation. This is
based on a good Biblical principle - it takes two or three
witnesses for testimony to hold weight in court! Obviously, we
cannot say for certain that, just because only one person
mentions something, we have proved that it DID NOT happen,
but neither can we claim to be able to be certain that it did. >>>
Yopu may consider my approach too simple, but I would have
thought that John 21:24 might represent 'two or three witnesses'
at least who were able to confirm the truth of John's account.
"This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and
who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is
How do they know 'his testimony is true'? Because they trust him
as an honest person? I suspect that that would not be sufficient.
I think that they knew that his testimony was true because they,
also, were witnesses of those things or, at the very least, had
had those things confirmed to them by multiple winesses.