| 21. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with alloi elegon {ἄλλοι ἔλεγον | álloi élegon} ‘others were saying,’ an imperfective reporting frame that presents the reaction as ongoing and repeated within the crowd. The demonstrative phrase tauta ta rhēmata {Ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα | Taûta tà rhḗmata} ‘these words’ points back to the immediately preceding speech and gives the statement a deictic, context-bound force. The clause ouk estin daimonizomenou {οὐκ ἔστιν δαιμονιζομένου | ouk éstin daimonizoménou} is an elliptical genitive participial construction: the copula is followed by a genitive description without an explicit head noun, so the sense is that the words do not belong to, or arise from, a person marked by demonic influence. The next clause, mē daimonion dunatai typhlōn ophthalmous anoixai {μὴ δαιμόνιον δύναται τυφλῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνοῖξαι | mḗ daimónion dýnatai typhlôn ophthalmous anoîxai}, is a rhetorical question introduced by mē, which signals an expected negative answer. The construction dunatai plus the infinitive anoixai forms a complementary infinitive expressing ability, and the phrase typhlōn ophthalmous {τυφλῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς | typhlôn ophthalmous} uses a genitive of class to describe the eyes belonging to blind people. The whole sentence sets up a contrast between the charge of demonic origin and the undeniable sign of opened blind eyes, making the question itself an argument against the accusation. |