..one must still admit that nowhere does he explain how the pre-existent logos became man.

And I started a thread a while back inquiring after this very question. My view is that multiple Christologies are on display in John. The opening Logos passage gets all the bandwidth but the second part of chapter one could have been written by Mark.

Without buying into the old Johannine “community” idea I still have trouble with John being a unified composition.

But, at some point, regardless of whatever hypothetical diachronic theory you favor, it became a unified composition, right?

Well sure but with the seams still showing.

When I say that the latter part of John 1 could have been written by Mark I mean the Christology on display.

One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

and

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.”

…Nathanael replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Where is the pre-existent Logos here?