Because of the many times Peter is mentioned with negative connotations, the author concludes that during the foundation of the early Church, John organized a community with a view of Jesus' life quite different from the community led by Peter. Another point he stresses is that "the beloved disciple" (John) is mentioned in a scene showing John reclining on Jesus' bosom and that this scene implies that John considered himself heir to Jesus' ministry. Only in the last chapter of John (i.e., John:21) are the conflicts between the leadership of Peter and John resolved, but this chapter is commonly believed to be an addendum no! t written by John. Powell believes that Chapter 21 was constructed from the missing portion of Mark's gospel which has a surprisingly abrupt ending often noted by biblical scholars. The problem can be overcome by re-attaching the twenty-first chapter of John and noting how well it fits Mark's writing style and themes. Powell maintains it was revised and added to John's gospel to gloss over the differences between the teachers and the teachings of the Johnine and Petrine communities.
Whether or not Powell's conclusions are validated by future research, they provide an intriguing picture of what might have occurred as a monolithic Church evolved from many small and independent communities.
In Paul's authentic epistles, Jesus is mythical, and in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is historical. Why place John after the synoptics, then? It makes more sense to see John as the bridge from the mythic early epistles to the later synoptic Literalist/historicizing gospels, to form a smooth progression.
The more I read other recent books, the more I keep being drawn to The Unfinished Gospel. Right now there is a tension building up; it's so inconsistent with the latest conception of the transformation of Christianity in the first few centuries to assume the John is later than the synoptics. This book may become a classic, because there is an established minority of scholars who agree that John reflects earlier traditions than the synoptic gospels.
I expect that once the other contemporary scholars consider how perfectly this book's redating fits in with their theories of myth-making and historicizing, this book could garner a lot of attention. Gnostic, esoteric, and Christ-myth scholars should consider this book.