| 38. Linguistic Exegesis The verse begins with the negative particle ouk {οὐκ | oûk} ‘not’ combined with the inferential particle ara {ἄρα | ára} ‘then’, forming a rhetorical question that expects confirmation. The statement sy ei ho Aigyptios {σὺ εἶ ὁ Αἰγύπτιος | sý eî ho Aigýptios} ‘you are the Egyptian’ asserts identity. The articular participial clause ho pro tou-tōn tōn hēmerōn anastatōsas kai exagagōn {ὁ πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀναστατώσας καὶ ἐξαγαγὼν | ho prò toútōn tôn hēmérōn anastatṓsas kaì exagagṓn} functions as a relative clause, with pro {πρὸ | prò} ‘before’ + genitive ‘these days’ qualifying both participles. The participles anastatōsas {ἀναστατώσας | anastatṓsas} ‘having stirred up’ and exagagōn {ἐξαγαγὼν | exagagṓn} ‘having led out’ describe successive past actions. The directional phrase eis tēn erēmon {εἰς τὴν ἔρημον | eis tḕn érēmon} ‘into the wilderness’ specifies the destination, and the accusative object tous tetrakischilious andras tōn sikariōn {τοὺς τετρακισχιλίους ἄνδρας τῶν σικαρίων | tous tetrakischilíous ándras tôn sikariṓn} quantifies the group with a cardinal numeral and identifies them by a genitive of group. In English, the participial construction is rendered as a finite relative clause for clarity while preserving the inferential nuance of the opening. |