John 1:12 and GENESQAI

Here is an old discussion I had with someone about John 1:12 which my partner in dialogue transliterated: OSOI DE ELABON AUTON EDWKEN AUTOIS EXOUSIAN TEKNA QEOU GENESQAI.

My Take:

First off, would you say that GENESQAI is "present tense/aspect"? I would parse it as aorist infinitive middle. Furthermore, it seems to be a constative aorist which expresses action as a whole without regard to the length of time. Therefore, I do not see any idea of continuity in GENESQAI: it is aspectually perfective. Conversely, I would agree that the phrase "TOIS PISTEUOUSIN EIS TON ONOMA AUTOU" expresses continuity. This can be discerned, not only from the aspect of the participial PISTEUOUSIN, but also from the context of 1:12. Hence, I would construe John 1:12 as a statement about those who are deemed "children of God" in this AIWN.

Writing from a post-resurrection perspective, John reports: "as many as did receive him, he gave authority to become children of God." The emphasis is on what Jesus has done as the SHALIACH of the Father, not on the process of humans becoming God's TEKNA. In other words, this Scripture does not nullify my previous observation that even now, Jesus has made it possible for anointed Christians to enjoy the status as adopted children of God.

The primary basis for this statement is 1 John 3:2--AGAPHTOI NUN TEKNA QEOU ESMEN: this passage indicates that sonship is a present reality for those who have "received" Christ and who have been anointed with the spirit of God (2 Cor. 1:21, 22).

Was John 21 Later Added to the Fourth Gospel?

There is not one universally accepted answer to the question as to whether John 21 was added later or by someone other than the original writer of John. Some want to insist that John 21 was added while others resist the idea: I personally see little evidence for thinking the last chapter of John came later, but here are some resources that discuss the question. I also want to post a quote that gives reasons for not viewing John 21 as a later supplement to the Gospel.

This article examines whether P. Bodmer II supplies possible evidence for thinking John 21 was added: https://brentnongbri.com/2018/10/24/p-bodmer-ii-as-evidence/

On the other hand, Richard Bauckham thinks the last chapter of John was meant to function as an epilogue in conjunction with the Johannine Prologue (John 1:1-8): it would then bookend the overall contents of the Gospel. However, Bauckham does not think John 21 was later added to thhe Fourth Gospel.

Robert Mounce explains:

A major reason for the additional material is said to have been the desire to correct a misunderstanding about the time of Jesus’ return (“ Didn’t he say he would return before John died?” cf. 21: 20– 23). Arguments supporting the integrity of ch. 21 include: (1) the large number of Johannine idioms, (2) the absence of any break in style, and (3) the lack of any indication that the gospel ever circulated without this last section. Morris, 859, confesses “to being a little mystified by the certainty of those who regard it as self-evident that this last chapter is a late addition.”

Mounce, Robert H. John (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 9600-9604). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. 

This link discusses both sides of the issue but decides in favor of taking John 21 to be original: https://bible.org/seriespage/24-exegetical-commentary-john-21#P3791_719621

Edward W. Klink III (John, ZECNT): 

The majority of scholarship on the Gospel of John considers the entirety of chapter 21 to be a later addition to the Gospel. The primary basis of this assumption is the manner in which the purpose statement of 20:30–31 functions as a fitting conclusion to the Gospel (see comments before 20:24).2 The argument for this can only be based on internal evidence, however, for there is not a shred of evidence from the manuscript tradition that suggests the Gospel ever existed without chapter 21. No existing copy of the Gospel ever ends at 20:31, nor are either pericopae in chapter 21 ever found elsewhere in the Gospel. This is significant evidence and makes certain that the burden of proof is placed upon those who argue that chapter 21 is not original to the Gospel.

His commentary has an extensive discussion on the issues surrounding John 21.

See also https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/sign-in-john-xxi/7BE4C46F9DC2539DB6E0B5A9B3ED9FFC

Nice article here by Craig 
Keener: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gospel-of-john/37

The Gospel of John--A Forgery?

Back in 2020, Hugo Méndez of UNC-Chapel Hill published an open access article, "Did the Johannine Community Exist?" See https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0142064X19890490

He writes: "Those texts represent a chain of literary forgeries, in which authors of different extractions cast and recast a single invented character – an eyewitness to Jesus’ life – as the mouthpiece of different theological viewpoints."

Nevertheless, as with other academic hypotheses, certain scholars have challenged the assertions of Méndez.

For some pushback on his claims, see https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2020/04/is-the-gospel-of-john-a-forgery/

Michael F. Bird and Paul Anderson responded to Hugo: I found his reply to Anderson but did not see where he addressed Bird.

Other approaches to John's Gospel can be found:

Andrew, Matthew. "What Is Truth?: A Johannine Theological Epistemology." Scottish Journal of Theology 74, no. 2 (2021): 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930621000338.

https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/KolawoleOP10.pdf

See Blomberg, Craig L. 2007. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Second ed. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.