Examine and Consider critically the view of Scholars concerning the content and purpose of the Prologue

Hoskyns and Davy (1947) described the Prologue as no only an introduction, but also a conclusion to the gospel (this idea is taken up by Barrett), i.e. we are introduced to themes at the beginning of the Gospel which will then reoccur throughout, so that when we come back to the Prologue we can find that it holds a lot more significance. They wrote specifically, “ the preface to the Fourth Gospel, with its movement from the Word to the Son of God, is both an introduction and a conclusion to the whole work. The relation between creation and salvation, prophets and Apostles, history and that beyond history, time and eternity, law and grace, death and life, faith and unbelief- these are the themes of the Fourth Gospel.” This could be a possibility, however, I feel that this theory is just a way of making the Prologue sound more meaningful than it really is. It is true that many of the themes inside the Prologue are mentioned throughout the Gospel; however, one would expect that from any Prologue.                J.C. Fenton arises certain questions about the content of the Prologue. He questions, without answering, whether the Prologue is a hymn (like Burney), an addition to the original Gospel that was written by the Evangelist as a summery of the Gospel (like Robinson), or is it the authors ‘overture’ in which he announces his themes in advance? I personally think that it is unlikely for the Prologue to have been written as an addition, considering the language is very similar, excluding when it changes in verse 14, to the rest of the Gospel. Also, why would the Evangelist feel it was necessary to write a summery and an explanation? The Gospel itself, without the Prologue, could exist without explanations and summaries at the beginning. I feel that the author would have written it himself as a reminder, if needed, of the specific themes that should be used in the Gospel. He himself states the connection in style and vocabulary between the Prologue and the rest of the Gospel. It again arouses the question on the authorship of the Gospel. There are many links in the text of the entire Gospel to the Prologue. For example, 17:5 refers again to Jesus’ pre-existence, and the confrontation between the light and darkness draws to a head in 18:3.                Stephen Smalley links the Prologue with the Epilogue, which would back up the claim that the Prologue is a ‘pre-explanation’ of the Gospel.  However, he gives an idea that the Prologue could be written by any other than the author of the Gospel by showing that the terms, ‘Word (or Logos in Greek)’, ‘Grace’, and ‘Fullness’, do not occur anywhere else in the Gospel except for the Prologue. It is hard to believe that the whole content of the Prologue can be decided on only a few words. Considering the amount of themes and the influence the Prologue has on the whole Gospel, I feel Smalley has approached this part of the Prologue extremely lightly. But, he does go into a great amount of detail about the links in the text between the Prologue and the rest of the Gospel. He speaks of the expansion of the Prologue beyond John 1:18, including certain pieces of information like the place-names and the embryonic form of the themes. Once again, I agree with the idea that the issues inside the Prologue are connected with the rest of the Gospel, now especially, considering it seems to be a reoccurring view.                                                Stanton speaks of the Prologue as the ‘lens’ through which to view the rest of the Gospel, whilst Morna Hooker describes it as a ‘key’, which unlocks the Gospel as a whole. There points are completely valid in my eyes. It offers the reader an insight into the way in which the Gospel narrative will unfold and a means to avoid the traps of misunderstanding the meaning and themes of the Gospel. Everything the reader needs to understand, the Gospel narrative, plot and events are provided by the Prologue, even if it is in a very subtle manner. In a certain way, the reader is given an opportunity whether to read on or not. The reader knows what will begin, develop and end, even before the incarnate Jesus has taken place. With this view, I can completely see the importance of the Prologue, and still see the difference between Stanton’s view and Hooker’s view. My personal opinion is that it is both a lens and a key. It offers a key to the details of the gospel and yet gives a preview through the lens.        When talking about the way Jesus is regarded from the Prologue onwards, it is clear that there are only two basic attitudes we can take to him - he is who he said he is, or not. In John’s Gospel Jesus is hated and rejected, because he didn’t fit what they thought they wanted. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."(1:11).         There is another way - given by God’s grace, and to be entered by worship, love, and obedience - "But as many as received him, to them gave the power to become the sons of God."(1:12). Believing in Jesus is the difference between life and death. He is the Word with us - his life is our life. He speaks with us; he converses with us; he prays with passion, and we pray with him; her forgives sin, and we are forgiven. He takes our place on the cross, and the words of his death speak to us of eternal life. Living words from the Living Word, to whom John the Baptist witnesses.        The ‘word’ or ‘logos’, is used inside the Prologue and has a great amount of importance. Plato believed that it was the Doctrine of the forms, this meaning that it linked the two words, reality and phenomena, or the world above and the world below, this is show in John 8:23. I find it difficult to believe that the ‘Word’ meant this, simply because it was supposed to be the ‘Word’ or God, and God isn’t in between either of these at all. It is situated there, as Jesus was put on Earth (being the world between the two), but I can only see that as a plausible argument in favour for Plato’s view. The Stoics believed that it was the Salvation of life. This is an interesting view, as Jesus is continuously heard to be called “our saviour”.  In the Stoic view, this meant life was to be lived in accordance with the word of God. This may be true, as Jesus was put on Earth to spread the word of God, and for people to follow that word. Philo’s logos is very similar to the Jewish idea of wisdom, but he would not have said the word became flesh, so he cannot be considered as a possible and understandable viewpoint. The Jews believed that Logos means the word of the Lord, commits things into being- Gen 1:3, active- Gen 2:8, and an inspiration of the prophets e.g. Hos 1:1. To me this seems the more likely view, as it is more in depth and accurate. The Stoic ideal comes close to my view, but the Jewish explanation seems to be more accurate and understandable. This goes on throughout the whole Gospel, not just the Prologue, although the ‘Word’ is only mentioned inside the Prologue.                                                                                        The introduction to the Fourth Gospel, known as the Prologue (1: 1-18), is regarded by many as the greatest piece of theological writing in Christian literature. It doesn’t just appeal to Jews, but it also contains elements of both Greek and Stoic philosophy which would make the Gospel story meaningful not only to Jews and Christians, but also to the Hellenistic thinkers and the educated minds of the Greek and Roman worlds.