Sorry brenmcg. I’ve not been studying this for as long or as in depth as many of you, but those two reasons you first gave make no sense to me as a novice. What am I missing? By your logic, it sounds that if I were to write out a copy of the Gospel of John and replace one verse with a story I made up – you would claim it was authentic as long as I used “πάλιν οὖν” in the new addition? Because that would cover your two points. One – it would contain “πάλιν οὖν”. And two – if you removed my story the two verses either side would be ‘jarring’. I don’t get it. Maybe this one is just over my head.
mikebeverley
“you would claim it was authentic as long as I used “πάλιν οὖν” in the new addition?”
No, πάλιν οὖν is in what’s considered the “old” material. The “new” story is placed between the previous verse and πάλιν οὖν
When the “new” story is removed we get the jarring effect of moving from the previous verse to πάλιν οὖν.
If you can find a place in the new testament with this jarring jump between verses and stick in a new story that smooths out the narrative and highlights in the surrounding material a hitherto unknown link to two separate old testament narratives and at the same highlights the same connection with that with that narrative in another NT book then I would claim you have found some authentic material.
However that is an impossibility.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert