Since when did the Johannine contribution to historical Jesus studies become a hot topic?

On the one hand, I know JohnDave Medina has written on several occassions regarding Johannine studies reentering the conversation regarding the “historical” Jesus (e.g. here). One of his professors at George Fox University, Paul N. Anderson, is the co-chair of SBL‘s John, Jesus, and History Group. The Fourth Gospel is his coup de coeur.

On the other hand, I have very little familiarity with this subject other than reading some of Richard Bauckham’s works. Therefore, I was a bit surprised to listen to both Richard B. Hays and Marianne Meye Thompson take N.T. Wright to task for ignoring the Fourth Gospel in works such as Jesus and the Victory of God. While I am not very impressed with the “rules” of historical Jesus scholarship it seemed inevitable that the Synoptics would be given precident to John. It seems that Wright has decided to play by the rules. Nevertheless, this appears to be unsatisfactory to many.

So what I am wondering now is whether or not we should expect the Fourth Gospel to enter into dialog with historical Jesus studies or if this was a plea that will fall upon the deaf ears of scholars.

[For a more indepth look at Hayes’ and Thompson’s lectures read J.R.D. Kirk’s assessment here, here and here; Nijay K. Gupta’ reflections here; Michael J. Gormon’s here.]