Trent Rogers, «A Syntactical Analysis of 'oun' in Papyrus 66.», Vol. 25 (2012) 75-99
Greek particles are often overlooked in the interpretation and translation of ancient texts, but a better understanding of their syntactical functions aids in understanding the relationships among clauses and results in a better understanding of the texts’ meanings. This article examines the use of oun in Papyrus 66, provides examples and explanations of the different uses, and categorizes every occurrence in the Gospel of John. It clarifies established uses and paves new ground by locating the comparative use. Moreover, it notices a dialogical pattern wherein lego + oun serves as an alternative to apokrinomai (kai lego), and in this pattern, asyndeton with lego may convey increased markedness.
90 Trent A. Rogers
d. Transitional (then): οὖν moves to a new subject matter. Again,
Denniston affirms this use: οὖν has the function of “proceeding
to a new point, or a new stage in the march of thought”63. There
is a sense in which this is indistinguishable from the general
continuative use, but rather than making a sequential or tempo-
ral connection like the general continuative, the transitional use
brings about an entirely new subject matter64.
3:25-4:3: ο δε απειθων τω υω ουκ οψεται ζωην αλλ η οργη του
θυ μενει επ αυτον ως ουν εγνω ο κς οτι ηκουσαν οι φαρισαιοι
…αφηκεν την Ϊουδαιαν65. The Gospel moves from a discourse
of Jesus to an entirely new subject matter. John can employ οὖν
to direct the reader to something entirely new without drawing
explicit connection to what precedes it.
(2) Inferential (Illative or Consecutive): Cooper comments on the use
of οὖν in Attic prose, “But it [οὖν] serves most readily in logical
senses, as when it proceeds to a new point or stage in the progress
of thought. Very often οὖν is plainly inferential, meaning so or then
or therefore”66. At times, it is impossible to draw hard distinctions
between a continuative and inferential use. The main difference, how-
ever, is that the continuative use has as its primary reference chro-
nology or sequence; whereas, the inferential use refers to the logical
consequences of the preceding material. While Classical Greek favors
the inferential use of οὖν, John contains an unusually high occur-
rence of the continuative use. Mantey comments on the trasnslation
of οὖν:
I have translated it in the places where I think it has inferential meaning
by four words: then, which is suitable only in questions and refers back to
a preceding statement; therefore, which expresses the strongest inference of
the four, (wherefore often could be used just as well); so, a milder inference;
accordingly, introducing the fulfillment of a suggestion or command67.
63
Denniston, Particles, 426; cf. Mantey, “Meaning”, 63. Buth, “Οὖν, Δέ, Καί, and Asyn-
deton”, 148-9, notes this function, but he defines it differently.
64
These are the occurrences that I consider to be transitional: 4:1, 4:46, 12:1, 9.
65
“The one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God rests on him.
Then, when Lord learned that the Pharisees heard that…he went to Judea…”.
66
Cooper, Attic Prose, 1413; Denniston, Particles, 428; cf. LSJ, οὖν.II. Buth, “Οὖν, Δέ,
Καί, and Asyndeton”, 148, states, “Οὖν is used with sentences that have a logical, close
connection”.
67
Mantey, “Meaning”, 52; cf. Winer, Treatise, 555.