| 33. Linguistic Exegesis The adversative conjunction plen {πλὴν | plēn} ‘nevertheless’ introduces a concession in contrast to prior material. It governs the impersonal verb dei {δεῖ | deî} ‘it is necessary’, which takes the infinitive poreuesthai {πορεύεσθαι | po-reú-es-thai} ‘to travel’. The accusative me {με | me} serves as logical subject within the dei + infinitive construction, marking obligation on the speaker. The temporal trilogy semeron {σήμερον | sḗmeron} ‘today’, aurion {αὔριον | aúrion} ‘tomorrow’, and the dative phrase tē echomene {τῇ ἐχομένῃ | ekho-ménē} ‘on the following (day)’ form a tight sequence of advancing days. A causal clause introduced by hoti {ὅτι | hóti} ‘because’ explicates why: the negation particle ouk {οὐκ | ouk} combined with the impersonal verb endekhetai {ἐνδέχεται | en-dé-khe-tai} ‘it is possible not’ precedes the aorist infinitive apolesthai {ἀπολέσθαι | a-po-lés-thai} ‘to perish’ and its object prophētēn {προφήτην | pro-phḗ-tēn} ‘a prophet’. The adverb exo {ἔξω | éxō} with Ierousalem {Ἰερουσαλήμ | Iē-rou-sa-lḗm} frames the spatial boundary of prophetic demise. The syntax moves from concession to obligation to causal explanation, underlining the inevitability of prophetic fate centered in Jerusalem. |