| 16. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with the prepositional phrase pros hous {πρὸς οὓς | pròs hoús} ‘to whom’, identifying the addressees. The aorist verb apekrithen {ἀπεκρίθην | apekríthēn} ‘I answered’ is followed by the conjunction hoti {ὅτι | hóti} ‘that’, which introduces the content of the reply. The negation ouk estin ethos Rhomaiois {οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος Ῥωμαίοις | ouk éstin éthos Rhōmaíois} ‘it is not the custom for Romans’ states a legal principle, with ethos {ἔθος | éthos} ‘custom, practice’ and the dative group marker Rhomaiois. The infinitive charizesthai {χαρίζεσθαί | charízesthai} ‘to hand over as a favor’ depends on ethos, specifying the act the custom would forbid. The temporal conjunction prin ē {πρὶν ἢ | prìn ē} ‘before’ introduces a prior condition leading to two subjunctive verbs: echoi {ἔχοι | échoi} ‘he should have’ and laboi {λάβοι | láboi} ‘he should receive’, with the nominative kategoroumenos {κατηγορούμενος | katēgoróumenos} ‘the accused’ placed before for emphasis. The idiom kata prosopon echoi tous kategorous {κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔχοι τοὺς κατηγόρους | katá prósōpon échoi toús katēgórous} ‘to have the accusers face to face’ highlights confrontation. The coordinated topon te apologias laboi {τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι | tópon te apologías láboi} ‘and to receive an opportunity for defense’ asserts the right to respond, while peri tou enklēmatos {περὶ τοῦ ἐγκλήματος | perí toû enklḗmatos} ‘concerning the charge’ defines its scope. This structure of infinitive, conjunction, subjunctive, and genitive complements outlines Roman procedural fairness. |