The resulting character of the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ (Jn 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2; 21:7.20-24; cf. also 11:5.36) functions in the Fourth Gospel as a narrative embodiment of several generations of the Pauline Church
and, accordingly, of several stages of the Pauline and post-Pauline literary tradition: (a) Paul, (b) Paul’s Gentile co-workers, (c) the narrative ‘we’ of Acts, and (d) the narrative ‘we’ of the Fourth Gospel.4
Consequently, the Fourth Gospel suggests to its readers that they have reliable access to Jesus, which is mediated in a narrative form by his Church, in line with the post-Pauline understanding of the Christian tradition: Jesus → Paul → Paul’s Gentile co-workers → the narrative ‘we’ of Acts → the narrative ‘we’ of the Fourth Gospel → the readers of the Fourth Gospel.5
The author of the Fourth Evangelist creatively used in his work several other early Christian works: all three Synoptic Gospels (Mk, Lk, and Mt); the Acts of the Apostles; Pauline and post-Pauline letters (esp. 1 Thes, 1 Cor, 2 Cor,
Rom, Gal, Phlp, and Col); and ethopoeic, apparently Jewish Christian writings (1-2 Pet, 1-3 Jn, and Rev). Besides, he used in his work Jewish sacred Scriptures in the version of the Septuagint, as well as Josephus’ works (Bellum, Antiquitates, and Vita).6
The use of at least seventeen other early Christian works in the Fourth Gospel implies that the Fourth Gospel should be regarded as the work that crowned and at the same time closed the entire collection of the Pauline and
post-Pauline writings.7
The conclusion of the Fourth Gospel suggests that such was indeed the intention of its author. According to the last sentence of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 21:25), its readers should not look for yet other narrative works about Jesus (cf. earlier Lk 1:1-4).
Consequently, the Fourth Gospel intentionally summarizes the contents of all earlier Pauline and post-Pauline writings, which dealt in various ways with the person of Jesus. At that time of its composition, the Gospel of the narrative ‘we’ could be regarded as the Christian Gospel and consequently as the work that crowned and at the same time closed the canon of the New Testament writing
and, accordingly, of several stages of the Pauline and post-Pauline literary tradition: (a) Paul, (b) Paul’s Gentile co-workers, (c) the narrative ‘we’ of Acts, and (d) the narrative ‘we’ of the Fourth Gospel.4
Consequently, the Fourth Gospel suggests to its readers that they have reliable access to Jesus, which is mediated in a narrative form by his Church, in line with the post-Pauline understanding of the Christian tradition: Jesus → Paul → Paul’s Gentile co-workers → the narrative ‘we’ of Acts → the narrative ‘we’ of the Fourth Gospel → the readers of the Fourth Gospel.5
The author of the Fourth Evangelist creatively used in his work several other early Christian works: all three Synoptic Gospels (Mk, Lk, and Mt); the Acts of the Apostles; Pauline and post-Pauline letters (esp. 1 Thes, 1 Cor, 2 Cor,
Rom, Gal, Phlp, and Col); and ethopoeic, apparently Jewish Christian writings (1-2 Pet, 1-3 Jn, and Rev). Besides, he used in his work Jewish sacred Scriptures in the version of the Septuagint, as well as Josephus’ works (Bellum, Antiquitates, and Vita).6
The use of at least seventeen other early Christian works in the Fourth Gospel implies that the Fourth Gospel should be regarded as the work that crowned and at the same time closed the entire collection of the Pauline and
post-Pauline writings.7
The conclusion of the Fourth Gospel suggests that such was indeed the intention of its author. According to the last sentence of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 21:25), its readers should not look for yet other narrative works about Jesus (cf. earlier Lk 1:1-4).
Consequently, the Fourth Gospel intentionally summarizes the contents of all earlier Pauline and post-Pauline writings, which dealt in various ways with the person of Jesus. At that time of its composition, the Gospel of the narrative ‘we’ could be regarded as the Christian Gospel and consequently as the work that crowned and at the same time closed the canon of the New Testament writing
(extracted from Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings)
He concedes the point that in John the "memory" (of Markan fabrication, per Adamczewski) of a Paul masked as "Jesus" survives in the fact that the disciples of Jesus are the same Christians who met and/or followed Paul. Hence a gospel is merely the story of what Paul would do if he could come again on this earth masked as "Jesus". He would find the same people who he had met in the his previous life as Paul. He would save only these people who had followed him in the previous life. In this particular sense, he would come to who was his own people, despite of them rejecting him (in the fiction).
But the my point here is to raise a suspicion about the real origin of this exegesis.