In the opening chapter of his Gospel John identifies Jesus as the “logos” of God. This Greek word “logos” basically means “word”. It is being used here in a more symbolic way to refer to the rationale or basic principle behind all that transpires in the world based on the will of God. This term used as a way to refer to the rationale behind all that exists was notably used prior to New Testament times by a Greek philosopher named Heraclitus around 500 BCE. He used the term to designate driving principle, or “logic”, behind all that happens in the world. No other New Testament writer uses this term in this way.
This philosophical way of writing sets the author of John’s Gospel off from the other Gospel writers who seek to be more down-to-earth “historical” rather than in any way philosophical. Scholars agree that John’s Gospel was initially written several decades after the writing of the other three New Testament Gospels. It differs from them in certain historical details as well as in its specific interest in more abstract theological issues rather than historical ones, as its first chapter clearly indicates.
In addition, while the other Gospels, except for Mark, offer lengthy accounts of Jesus’ teachings and travels, John not only differs from them in historical detail, but in some theological emphases as well. Mark is shorter and leaves out many historical details that both Matthew and Luke include. John’s content tends to be generally much more theological than the others. It is clear that whereas both Mathew and Luke parallel each other almost exactly, they both differ from Mark in being much more detailed, as well as in many specific details.
In addition, and quite significantly, although both Matthew and Luke contain material that is unique to each, they are almost identical in many other passages. In addition, both Matthew and Luke share almost exactly a good many passages that seem to have been taken directly from some other source altogether. Scholars have designated this source “Q” after the first letter of the German word for source, namely “Quelle.” In none of these passages in the Gospels other than John is the term “Logos” used.
It is both interesting and significant that since scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written several decades after the other Gospels it remains unclear whether or not it’s author had any knowledge of the “Q” source. There seems to be no indication that this was the case, so it seems that in a sense we have five Gospels rather just four. Moreover, the “Gospel of Q” not only seems to contain a select amount of material but it clearly seems to have been written and read by many early Christian leaders.
What is especially significant about this “Gospel of Q” is that it contains primarily stories of Jesus’ teachings and healings without many specifically theological passages, especially those that contain conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. It’s almost as if someone had lifted certain types of material out of both Matthew and Luke and packaged them together in a separate Gospel. These passages focus on Jesus’ teachings rather on his interactions with the religious leaders of the day. The “Sermon on the Mount”, for instance, makes up a large part of Q. The book The Lost Gospel of Q, edited by Marcus Borg, is a small and inexpensive one.
This is especially interesting in light of John’s opening passage about Jesus as the Logos of God. Indeed, the first eighteen verses of John’s Gospel read much differently from what immediately follows them. They read like a prologue set off on its own and being used as a kind of “Introduction” to the following Gospel narrative. Right in the middle of the first chapter John interposes the verses 14 through 18 as a way of connecting up the notion of the Eternal Logos with the historical Jesus: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” Clearly the author of John’s Gospel here connected up the notion of the eternal Logos with the historical person of Jesus.