| 6. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with the conditional protasis introduced by ean {ἐὰν | eán} “if,” immediately followed by the mild adversative de {δὲ | dé} “but,” which together frame a hypothetical response and highlight a dilemma. The verb eipōmen {εἴπωμεν | eí-pō-men} in the aorist subjunctive first person plural expresses the potential speech act, quoted in the phrase ex anthrōpōn {Ἐξ ἀνθρώπων | ex an-thrṓ-pōn} “from men,” which focuses the issue on the supposed human source of John’s authority. The nominative subject ho laos hapas {ὁ λαὸς ἅπας | ho la-ós há-pas} “all the people” precedes the verb for emphasis, underscoring the unanimity of the crowd. This subject governs the future indicative katalithasei {καταλιθάσει | ka-ta-li-thá-sei} “will stone,” with hēmas {ἡμᾶς | hē-mâs} “us” as its direct object, forming the apodosis that states the feared consequence. The explanatory conjunction gar {γάρ | gár} introduces the causal clause that justifies this fear. Here, the perfect passive participle pepeismenos {πεπεισμένος | pe-pei-smén-os} “having been persuaded” functions predicatively with estin {ἐστίν | es-tín} “is,” describing a settled state of conviction in the people. This is followed by an accusative-plus-infinitive construction, Iōannēn prophētēn einai {Ἰωάννην προφήτην εἶναι | Iō-án-nēn pro-phḗ-tēn eî-nai}, which expresses the content of that conviction: “that John is a prophet.” The syntax thus moves from conditional possibility to inevitable reaction, with the perfect participle signaling a deeply ingrained belief that constrains the leaders’ options. |