I am partway through these lectures by Francis Moloney and Mary Coloe - they are very good.
It is clear that an exposition of John's Gospel using the techniques I have developed for the Psalms would pay big dividends. I could put the Greek into my database and run the cross-tabs but it is abundantly clear that if you read with attention to repeating words, there are many frames and inclusions in the structure of this text. Also repeated word usage (e.g. logos and its derivatives) are evidence of the author's deliberate intention for the work.
It is also clear that there is much that is Hebraic thought pattern behind this gospel. It won't do to imply otherwise. It would be interesting just to map the psalms to the text of John and compare what we should learn from each. There is a great danger in assuming that John is replacement policy through and through. It is a book that is not easy reading.
It may be that I have no recourse other than to cave in to some forms of thinking, but I struggle to see why we have two gifts (Torah and Christ) when one is required - otherwise God is not one, but two and that won't do as a conclusion. Why? It leads to separation and parochialism, not much different from tribalism as policy.