A Syntactical Analysis of oὖν in Papyrus 66 79 Many of these distinctives involve his vocabulary, but John also has dis- tinct syntactical preferences13. Relevant for this article, Barnabas Lindars comments, Unlike Classical Greek, John uses parataxis (sentences strung together with ‘and’), which is normal in Hebrew and Aramaic, and also asyndeton (no connecting particle), which is a special feature of Aramaic. When he does use a particle, it is often oun (=therefore), but deprived of its inferential meaning, so that it only means ‘next’, ‘then’, or even (at 9:18) ‘but’ (see also the Greek 12:1-3)14. John’s comfort with alternating between paratactic particles and asyndeton can be puzzling, but some patterns exist relating to the use in discourse and narrative. BDF comment “The connective is retained on the whole in narrative, at least by Mt, Mk, Lk. Jn, to be sure, exhibits a striking difference at this point; the textual witnesses are at a constant variance between the asyndeton, οὖν, δέ, and καί. The asyndeta give the impression of ease rather than vividness or haste on the part of the nar- rator”15. At three points, P66 smoothes the asyndeton of the “neutral tradition” by using οὖν: 4:48; 5:52; 9:1016. Before investigating the function or potential markedness of a phrase, we must establish the manner in which οὖν occurs in the Gospel. It is always postpostive, and οὖν is inclined to the second position in a clause, article. No occurrences of οὖν are supposed to be present; rather, only occurrences that are explicitly present are included in this article. Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II, 36-56, notes a number of other ways that P66 deviates from the “neutral text”, but most of these do not affect the interpretation of οὖν. For example, P66’s preference for the perfect in six places does not affect how we understand οὖν. 13 For a brief treatment of vocabulary, see R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John (trans. K. Smith; Herder’s Theological Commentary On the New Testament; New York 1969) 107. 14 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB, London 1972) 45. Lindars makes a helpful observation in comparison to Classical Greek, but John is more similar to the Greek of his time that began to favor more parataxis. Lindars does not see Aramaisms as an indication of multiple written sources; rather the even distribution throughout the Gospel leads him to posit a single author. He thinks the writer acquired Greek too late in life to gain a full mastery of it and thus some elements of his primary language crept in. 15 BDF, Grammar, § 462.1. I will disagree with this assessment of asyndeton below. 16 See Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II, 72. Some think οὖν is a way of expressing the waw consecutive by an author who thinks in Hebrew or Aramaic but writes in Greek. E.g., C.F. Burney, Aramaic Origen of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford 1922) 68. E.C. Colwell, The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek (Chicago 1931) 89-90, refutes Burney. The genesis of John’s syntax does not concern us; rather, I will focus on its use in the Fourth Gospel.