A Syntactical Analysis of oὖν in Papyrus 66 95 the use of an inferential οὖν85. The narrator inserts a detail indicated by δέ in v. 23. Another οὖν explains Simon’s motioning to the Beloved Disciple as a continuation of the seating arrangement described in v. 23, and it also indicates a switch of subject from the Beloved Disciple to Simon. As discussed above, οὖν at the beginning of v. 25 is an inferential use. It follows as a logical inference from Simon’s gesture; an analysis of οὖν does not always provide us with definitive delineations. Verse 25 employed λέγω + οὖν, and as can be expected from our previous discus- sion, P66 replies in v. 26 with ἀποκρίνομαι in asyndeton86. Verse 27 switches the direct speech back to Jesus by employing λέγω + οὖν. In v. 28, δέ signals a contrast between Jesus’ command in v. 27 and their understanding while the δέ in v. 29 is a simple continuative. Verses 30 and 31 employ οὖν in the simple continuative use and both are intro- duced with temporal clauses: v. 30 by a circumstantial participle and v. 31 by ὅτε. These observations alert us to themes that recur throughout the Gospel. Most frequently we see οὖν used by the narrator in sections of dialogue to continue the narrative with response. In these continuative uses, οὖν also indicates a change in speaker. But within these dialogue sections, οὖν can have multiple functions that alternate between clauses. III. The Use of Οὖν in Discourse and Narrative First, I must define what I mean by discourse. I do not intend a technical definition; rather, this term will be used to identify sections of extended direct speech. For the purpose of this analysis, I will classify a discourse as any direct speech that extends beyond ten lines in the text of P6687. I am aware of the arbitrariness of ten lines, but it has proved useful 85 The textual history here is quite varied. In our corpus of P66 and uncials, P66, the original reading of Sinaiticus, and Bezae support οὖν. The corrected text of Sinaiticus, however, along with Vaticanus omits οὖν. It should also be noted that there is some support for the insertion of δέ. What is most puzzling is why the corrector of Sinaiticus erases οὖν in v. 22 but then keeps δέ in v. 23. The internal evidence from John’s preference for οὖν followed by δέ suggests that the reading of P66, original a, A, and D is most fitting especially since this pairing of particles is attested in the Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean text families. 86 The corrections to Sinaiticus again diverge. The second corrector added οὖν while the original text omits οὖν. Codex Vaticanus also attests to οὖν. P66, however, employs ἀποκρίνομαι without a particle. 87 The following texts fit these criteria: 3:5-8, 10-15, 27-36; 4:21-24; 4:34-38; 5:19-47; 6:35-40, 43-51, 53-58; 7:6-8; 7:16-19; 21-24; 8:14-18; 8:34-38, 42-47, 54-56; 10:1-5, 7-18, 25- 30, 34-38; 12:32-38, 44-50, 13:13-20, 31-35; 14:1-4, 9-21; 14:23-16:15; 16:19-28; 17:1-26. D. E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia1987) 51, notes the difficulty in delineating discourse from dialogue in John as many discourses begin as dialogues that transition into monologues.