For Weiss, Jesus' conception of the kingdom appears only in the Synoptics, not John, and so is understood as purely future. Frey goes on to discuss in detail the subsequent contributions of W. Bousset, Adolf Schlatter, R. Reitzenstein, H. H. Schaeder, R. Bultmann, E. Haenchen, Oscar Cullmann, R. Schnackenburg, J. Blank, C. H. Dodd, C. K. Barrett, R. Brown, J. Becker, and G. Richter. The latter two still seek to recover in detail the history through which the Johannine traditions passed. But, as Frey shows, recent research has been dominated not by source criticism but by rhetorical criticism, structuralism, reader-response criticism, narrative criticism, and sociological criticism. Frey points out the extraordinary variety of assessments and methods that are applied to Johannine problems in recent times.
Discussion is free, and just about anything can be affirmed and proved.
Methods of interpretation strongly differ, whether synchronic literary methods or historic redaction methods, or both combined. A convergence or even a growing consensus in literary critical analysis of the Gospel is not in sight. On the problem of the relation of John to the Synoptic tradition, for instance, until recently most scholars have agreed with P. Gardner-Smith in affirming the independence of John. Again, the religious-historical background of the Gospel, especially its relation to Gnosticism, is still controversial, and the Bultmann school has not created any consensus as to an origin in Gnosis. The problem of Johannine eschatology has, however, receded into the background of recent research.