| 14. Linguistic Exegesis The sentence opens with the imperfect `ēn {ἦν | ēn} ‘was’`, which supplies a descriptive past frame, while `de {δὲ | dè} ‘now/but’` lightly connects this remark to the surrounding narrative. `Kaiaphas {Καϊάφας | Kaïáphas}` is then identified by the articular participle `ho symbouleusas {ὁ συμβουλεύσας | ho symbouleúsas} ‘the one who had advised’`, a substantival construction that recalls a prior act and marks him by that counsel. The dative phrase `tois Ioudaiois {τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις | toîs Ioudaíois}` indicates the recipients of the advice. `hoti {ὅτι | hóti}` introduces the reported content, and `sympherei {συμφέρει | symphérei}` presents it as an impersonal judgment of advantage rather than a moral claim. The infinitival phrase `hena anthropon apothanein {ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν | hena ánthrōpon apothaneîn}` is the core of that judgment: one man to die. `hyper tou laou {ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ | hypér tou laoû}` gives the death a representative, on-behalf-of force, so the verse sets one man against the people and frames the death as substitutionary benefit. |