Post-loguing the Prologue: The Johannine Gospel and the Priority of Christ Rev. Silviu N. Bunta To Fr. Nichifor Tănase, quocum mihi … fuit id in quo omnis vis est amicitiae, voluntatum studiorum sententiarum summa consensio (Cicero, De amicitia 15) As the title suggests, the point of this paper is primarily hermeneutical: the prologue of the Gospel according to John acts as the apocalyptic conclusion of the book. I use ‘apocalyptic’ here not in any eschatological 1 sense, but in its original sense as the unveiling of that which is veiled. This means that the prologue is not—as it has been commonly taken—a hermeneutical key to the rest of the gospel, a sort of an epistemic 2 setting-down of a proper dialectical framework required for unlocking the ensuing text. On the contrary, the prologue serves the purpose of de-constructing any hermeneutical method and of preventing any textualizations of the gospel. This is so, I am arguing, because the gospel presents the Christ of death and resurrection not as a reality which builds up through history (including the gospel’s own storyline), but rather as preceding all things and as the substance of all things, open to the cosmos for unveiling, recognition, and participation. In other words, the hermeneutical point of the prologue is fundamentally christological. There is even a third dimension to my argument: for the gospel, the trip from what is perceived (the text, the body of God, the world, and one’s life) to what simply is (which is invariably divinity) is not metaphysical, chronological, or deductive, but physical, internal, and experiential. Furthermore, the most critical aspect of this progression comes down to one’s relationship to one’s own life—suffering and death. The method of this paper goes precisely in the opposite direction than historical criticism. On the one hand, my paper proceeds from what the text means toward what the text says. Nevertheless, I hope to show 2 I use ‘Gospel’ for the Christian message overall, but ‘gospel’ for one of the books of the gospel genre, such as the Gospel according to John. 1 In its first format this article was a presentation to the Theophaneia School of Timişoara (Romania) in June 2020, itself an outgrowth of the original Theophaneia School of Milwaukee (USA), of which I am a founding member. Here I wish to thank the convener of that online meeting, Fr. Nichifor Tănase, for the invitation to speak to his group and for his kind patience with an argument which was still very much in its nascent phase. To him I also owe my gratitude for the invitation to contribute to this volume. Therefore, it is only proper that this paper is dedicated to him. Yet, I must also express my gratitude to the two responders to this article when it was offered, in its current format, to my department at the University of Dayton—Ethan D. Smith and Zachary Spidel. Because this article was due to the press before my presentation, they kindly agreed to review it in advance of their formal responses and to share their findings with me. Their comments and suggestions have greatly improved this text. Any errors which remain are entirely mine. 1