Illiterate men.

[Undeceived]

Q1) Is this credible within the pages of the NT? Jesus is meant to come from the lowest of the low. How does he gain the resources to get an education?

This is a good journal on the topic:
http://www.craigaevans.com/evans.pdf

We have no reason to believe Jesus did not know how to read. He was called 'Rabbi' and rabbis are usually well educated. If he was not literate he at least memorized the Torah and much of the prophets' writings, else no one would take his words seriously. Most Jewish children had the opportunity for school, at least (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2958111/jewish...ient-times). Carpentry was not "lowest of the low," it was middle class. As for the disciples, they were likely literate too. Matthew was a tax collector, and as such was required to keep records. Luke is interpreted to have been a physician by the Greek medical terms he commonly uses (http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Sermons/Luke.htm ) and by Paul's reference to "the beloved physician" in Colossians 4:14. Mark's profession is not known, though his later occupation is what matters--he was bishop of Alexandria from 43-62AD, which obviously would require literacy. John was a fisherman, so his status remains up in the air.

The other disciples, in case you're curious: http://bibleseo.com/gospels/jesus-discip...ccupation/

To my eyes, the whole argument of whether Biblical characters were illiterate is rather pointless. At best you get a 50/50 maybe. But saying, "the disciples may have been illiterate, therefore they couldn't have written their respective books" is like me saying, "I may not have gone to work on Monday. Therefore I did not get any work done." That, technically speaking, is a bad argument. I could have just as easily gone to work on Monday, in which case I did get work done. You don't know. Critics who make this type of argument are only trying to dupe the less-discerning populace over to their side, or pretend that everyone in the ancient world was an idiot. If literacy was anywhere, it was the Roman Empire, and particularly, a Jewish state full of scribes.
Found quotations that would indicate high literacy: http://thriceholy.net/literacyf.html

Q2) The implication is that the author mentions that John wrote down everything else except this ending, because the author refers to himself as someone apart from John. What can we say historically about the Gospel of John and how it came to be? Is the anonymous author giving credit to John for his own work, by making it seem like he only added the last portion that says John wrote everything?

The phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" or, in John 20:2, the "Beloved Disciple" is used five times in the John's Gospel, but no where else. It is commonly thought that John referred to himself in the third-person because he didn't see his name worthy or formal enough to be part of the text. John is the only disciple not mentioned by name, and the other gospels fill in, so the phrase is surely in reference to him. I don't follow your logic, though. By never mentioning his name, an anonymous author is not giving credit to John. If anything, the author is avoiding giving credit at all, which would fit with John's humble writing style. Also, the gospel's closing words go, "It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (21:24). It can then be said that the author intends the reader to know that John did indeed author the words we call the Gospel of John. That leaves only two doors: blatant dishonesty on the part of church fathers or John being the true author.