76 Trent A. Rogers classification3. That the two most used textual tools for English-speaking New Testament scholars display deficiencies in dealing with οὖν is justi- fication enough to revisit this topic. This article analyzes the use of οὖν in Papyrus Bodmer II (P66) to bring clarity to established uses, identify overlooked uses, and bring to light previously unnoticed trends of usage. This analysis yields a better understanding of syntactical relationships among clauses conveyed through particles and thus a better understand- ing of John’s Gospel. While this article does not intend to minimize the value of a con- structed text such as NA27, it underscores the methodological faultiness of assessing finer points of syntax on the basis of a composite text. It is not possible to examine the manner in which an author constructs and connects sentences unless one looks at the actual product of an au- thor or copyist. Especially with an analysis of particles like οὖν and δέ, which are frequently substituted for each other in the textual tradition, it is nearly impossible to trace syntactical arrangements through varied traditions. Moreover, the insertion and omission of particles typically occurs with a single word and not a clause, making decisions on the basis of internal textual criteria more challenging. P66 has been chosen because it is one of the earliest and most significant witnesses to the New Testament and contains almost the entire Gospel of John4. While the primary analysis will be with P66, the texts of some of the most important early codices will provide a comparison: Codices Sinaiticus (a), Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), and Bezae (D)5. These manuscripts should give us sufficient comparison both within the Alexandrian text type (a John 8:39-21:25, A, B) and to the Western text type (a John 1:1-8:38, D)6. Some will note the strong presence of the Alexandrian text 3 W. Bauer - F. W. Danker - W. F. Arndt - F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3d ed. Chicago 1999). 4 H. Hunger, “Zur Datierung des Papyrus Bodmer II (P 66)”, AÖAW, phil. hist. Kl. 4 (1960) 12-23, dates P66 in the middle of the second century if not the beginning of the second century because he thinks it to be in the same period as P52. P. W. Comfort - D. P. Barrett (ed.), The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids 1999) 369, date the manuscript to the middle of the second century. Most scholars, however, date the manuscript around 200 C.E.; See K. Aland - B. Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and Practice of Text Criticism (2d ed. Trans. E. F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids 1989) 100. 5 See the list of manuscripts chosen by G. D. Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics (SD XXXIV; Salt Lake City 1968), v. 6 The beginning of John in Codex Sinaiticus represents the Western text type. See Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II, 10. Earlier studies argued that P66 was closest in relationship to a, but Fee, 35, concludes that “P66 is basically a neutral text” and it is closest to P75 and B.