At the moment I'm working on John's Gospel.  Which is a fascinating text to grapple with, and there has been some very good recent criticism (Dorothy Lee's Flesh and Glory, in particular, is excellent).

Sometimes you find some very odd theories, though.  While in theory Mark Stibbe's idea of integrating a historical-critical and a literary approach is a good one, his theory that the narrative points us in the direction of the Beloved Disciple being Lazarus seems to go some way beyond what the text will bear, regardless of the hermeneutic lens you use to view it.

Admittedly his suggestion that if the BD were Lazarus then the rumour that he wasn't going to die is an ingenious one, though hardly (dis)provable.  But I'm not sure why the sight of the discarded sudarion in the empty tomb should have convinced Lazarus that Jesus was resurrected, nor that the reference to his head being bound when he came out of the tomb is supposed to point to this.  And the idea that the BD reached the tomb before Peter because he had been resurrected with better long-distance stamina...

Oh well.  Back to work - and to try to write sense in my own essay, about what literary perspectives can add to a theological understanding.