The Sheffieldians don’t seem to think so while Paul Anderson does seem to think so. So this is quite a conundrum: on the one hand we have M. Casey’s new volume questing for an Aramaic Jesus and Michaels describing (in his new commentary on John) the importance of John for HJ studies, and Anderson and Thatcher’s interest in the Gospel of John as source for HJ reconstruction.
Fun times ahead!
[And I’ll go ahead and make the pre-announcement- that on the Biblical Studies list very early in the New Year we will host a colloquium with Tom Thatcher on the Gospel of John as source for the Historical Jesus. A colloquium which will follow on the heels of our discussions with Maurice Casey. The full announcement and details will appear in November].