98 Trent A. Rogers Compared with ten or so verses on either side of this insertion, the sty- listic difference becomes apparent. The thirteen preceding verses contain 4 occurrences of οὖν, three of which are continuative (7:40, 45, 47) with one being inferential (7:43). A similar distribution occurs in the nine subsequent verses with three continuative uses of οὖν (8:12, 13, 19), and the concentration is even more dense in the next nine verses—five times with an additional attestation in the apparatus of NA27. Second, of the roughly 200 (depending on which manuscripts one maintains) occurrences of οὖν in John, only five occur in an interroga- tive clause which statistic alerts us to the imbalance of usage in this brief passage. Although there are few occurrences, the form of interrogative indicator + οὖν is consistent in the Gospel: τί οὖν (1:21, 25), πόθεν οὖν (4:11), πῶς οὖν (9:19). John 8:5 contains οὖν + interrogative pronoun with an altered word order: σὺ οὖν τί λέγεις. The interrogative pronoun follows οὖν. This word order is not entirely out of keeping with usage in Hellenistic Greek and John has too few occurrences to argue for a definite pattern, but this “deviation” does further support the notion that there is syntactical distinction between this unit and the Gospel. Again the absence of the more common, continuative form is suspect. Third, even a casual glance at the Greek of 7:53-8:11 betrays a syn- tactical difference as the primary conjunction in this section is δέ. The uses of δέ here are almost indistinguishable from what we might expect οὖν to do. It continues the narrative and indicates switching of speakers. We expect a reliance on δέ to occur in the discourse material, but not in narrative and dialogue. Moreover, there is an avoidance in this section of abrupt and unsignaled changes of subject and speaker, asyndeton with which John is comfortable. For example, on either side of this section, the Gospel has dialogical response without a particle indicating a speaker change: 7:46, 50, 52, 8:14, 19, 20. With the exception of 8:8 that contains καὶ πάλιν, every main clause in 7:53-8:11 contains a postpositive δέ. In addition to the underuse of οὖν, the overuse of δέ alerts us to a differ- ent syntactical style. While these internal syntactical arguments do not definitively preclude the originality of this text, when coupled with the textual record, it is extremely unlikely that this section is original. V. Conclusion This article analyzed the text of P66, with comparison to a, A, B, and D, to determine the syntactical relationships conveyed by οὖν in John’s Gospel. This method has the distinct advantage of working with actual texts that can demonstrate the syntactical preferences of particu-