88 Trent A. Rogers here on how P66 frames the dialogue. Only the subjects, verbs, and particles are included. P66 D (Codex Bezae; differences underlined) 12 ουν ελαλησεν ις ουν ελαλησεν ιησους 13 ειπον ουν φαρισαιοι ειπον ουν φαρισαιοι 14 απεκριθη ις και ειπεν απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν 19 ελεγον ουν ελεγον ουν 19 απεκριθη ις52 απεκριθη ιησους 21 ειπεν ουν ις ειπεν ουν ιησους 22 λεγον ουν ϊουδαιοι λεγον ουν ιουδαιοι 23 ελεγεν ουν και ελεγεν 25 και ελεγον53 ελεγον ουν 25 ειπεν ις54 και ελεγον 28 ειπεν ουν ις55 ειπεν ουν ιησους 31 ελεγεν ουν ις56 ελεγεν ουν ιησους 33 απεκριθησαν απεκριθησαν 34 απεκριθη ις απεκριθη ιησους 39 απεκριθησαν και ειπαν απεκριθησαν και ειπαν 39 λεγει ουν ις λεγει ουν ιησους 41 ειπαν ουν ειπαν δε57 42 ειπεν ις58 ειπεν ουν 48 απεκριθησαν ϊουδαιοι και ειπον απεκριθησαν ιουδαιοι και ειπον 49 απεκριθη ις απεκριθη ιησους 52 ειπον ϊουδαιοι59 ειπον ουν ιουδαιοι 52 It is truly remarkable that the narrator’s aside in v. 20 breaks into the dialogue with asyndeton which is then resumed in v. 21 with the resumptive οὖν. It is resumptive and not responsive for two reasons. First, Jesus is not responding to anyone; rather, he is continuing his speech. Second, the resumptive οὖν frequently occurs after a narrator insertion. 53 It would be nice if P66 would employ either ἀποκρίνομαι or οὖν plus λέγω here, but it demonstrates that these grammatical patterns do not exist in rigid forms. It should be noted that Codex Freerianus (W) employs οὖν plus λέγω. Nevertheless, P66 does maintain flow with καί. 54 It is possible that this compressed exchange of words and the use of asyndeton signals a more intense dialogue. This intensity fits well with the content as Jesus has just told the “Jews” that they are from below and they will die in their sins. 55 This is a resumptive use of οὖν corresponding to the use in v. 21. 56 Again, this is a resumptive οὖν. 57 It is possible that Codex Bezae was uncomfortable with the successive occurrences of οὖν, so the copyist sought variation with its cognate δέ. 58 P66 and B agree on the absence of οὖν although another significant Alexandrian text, a, contains οὖν along with D. The explanation is twofold: the manuscripts do not always follow a pattern and asyndeton might be a way to convey heated dialogue. The increased intensity again fits with the content as Jesus has just refuted their claim to Abraham as their father. 59 The presence or absence of οὖν here displays extreme variance in the manuscripts. I will continue to limit comments to A, B, D, and P66. The absence of οὖν is supported by P66 and B while D supports οὖν. NA27 contains οὖν in parentheses while NA26 had omitted it. More weighty against the presence of οὖν are P75 and the Majority text. Again P66 may be indicating increased emotion through asyndeton.