James 2:1-Admonition Contra Partiality (Greek Semantics and Syntax)

Greek: Ἀδελφοί μου, μὴ ἐν προσωπολημψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης;

The opening part of this verse reflects James' favorite way to address his readers; it suggests the close relationship he shared with them (Ἀδελφοί μου).

μὴ ἐν προσωπολημψίαις ἔχετε-James 2:1 might either be expressing a rhetorical query or a prohibition. See Dan G. McCartney, James, pages 134-135 (BECNT Series).

μὴ occurs here with the indicative mood (ἔχετε) and a nominal that is dative plural feminine (προσωπολημψίαις); furthermore, the nominal word appears as part of a prepositional phrase.

BDAG: προσωπολημψία, ας, ἡ ⟦prosōpolēmpsía⟧ (edd. also -ληψία; s. προσωπο-λημπτέω) partiality named as a sin, w. other sins Pol 6:1. Not found in God (TestJob 43:13) Ro 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25. Pl. τὴν πίστιν ἔχειν ἐν προσωπολημψί-αις hold the faith while showing partiality Js 2:1 (Goodsp, Probs. 142f).—EDNT. TW.

The direct object of ἔχετε is τὴν πίστιν, which is modified by the genitival construct, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης. 

1 Peter 4:8-"Have Intense Love"

Greek (WH): πρὸ πάντων τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, ὅτι ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν·

HCSB: "Above all, maintain an intense love for each other, since love covers a multitude of sins."

Peter Achtemeier (page 294) explains that the opening of verse 8 here likely reflects the language of verse 7, which mentions the "end of all things." Hence, πρὸ πάντων probably is a rhetorical turn of phrase that draws the reader's attention back to the previous verse, but more importantly, it emphasizes the importance and surpassing value of love--especially given the times.

Peter focuses on love for the Christian community (τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς) but this does not mean a Christian can't love those outside of the local or universal ecclesia: Jesus taught that the second greatest command is to love one's neighbor and this does not seem to be limited to one's Christian brother or sister.

Achtemeier connects 1 Peter 4:8 with 1 Peter 1:22, which uses the adverbial expression "love one another intensely." By employing the words, ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, Peter refers to the act of loving one's spiritual siblings fervently. Ceslas Spicq thinks Peter is referring to intensive love that Christians should have for one another. WT publications often have pointed to the meaning "outstretched" for the adjective ἐκτενῆ in 1 Peter 4:8 and the definition "outstretchedly" for 1 Peter 1:22. The act of stretching out fabric has been utilized to illustrate this concept.

BDAG Entry: ἐκτενής, ές ⟦ektenḗs⟧ (Aeschyl.; Polyb. 22, 5, 4; ins [s. on ἐκτένεια]; PTebt 24, 45; 3 Macc 3:10; 5:29; Philo; Just., D. 107, 2 ἐκτενοῦς ὀλολυγμοῦ) pert. to being persevering, with implication that one does not waver in one’s display of interest or devotion, eager, earnest, comp. ἐκτενέστερος (IGR IV, 293 II, 38) Ac 12:5 v.l. ἐκτενῆ τὴν δέησιν ποιεῖσθαι make earnest supplication 1 Cl 59:2 (UPZ 110, 46 [164 b.c.] τὴν ἐκτενεστάτην ποιήσασθαι πρόνοιαν). ἐκτενῆ ὑπὸ πάντων προσευχὴν γενέσθαι AcPl Ha 6, 6f. τὴν ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχειν keep affection constant 1 Pt 4:8. μετ’ ἐκτενοῦς ἐπιεικείας w. constant gentleness 1 Cl 58:2; 62:2.—DELG s.v. τανυ- etc. E p. 1092. M-M. TW. Spicq.

Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament): Fervent This English adjective is defined as: “Having or showing great emotion or warmth” (American Heritage Dictionary, 485). But the Greek word here, ektenēs (only here in NT) has a somewhat different connotation. It comes from the verb ekteinō, “stretch out”; so it literally means “stretched out.” C. E. B. Cranfield says that it “suggests rather the taut muscle of strenuous and

sustained effort, as of an athlete” (First Epistle of Peter, p. 95). A good translation is “unfailing” (RSV).

Reference: Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

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