| 4. Linguistic Exegesis The verse begins with the imperfect verb esan {ἦσαν | êsan} followed by the conjunction de {δέ | dé}, forming a background narrative clause, “but there were,” which introduces a contrasting group within the scene. The indefinite pronoun tines {τινες | tínes} specifies that only some in the group are in view. The present participle aganaktountes {ἀγανακτοῦντες | aganaktûntes} follows in nominative agreement with tines, functioning adverbially to describe their ongoing attitude of indignation. The prepositional phrase pros heautous {πρὸς ἑαυτούς | prós heautoús} literally “toward themselves” marks the indignation as internal discussion or mutual complaint rather than public protest. A medial punctuation break (·) separates this description from the direct question that reports the content of their indignation. The interrogative sequence Eis ti {Εἰς τί | Eis tí} is an idiomatic way of asking “Why?” introducing the question clause. The nominative phrase hē apoleia hautē tou myrou {ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ μύρου | hē apṓleia haútē toû mýrou} functions as the subject of the perfect verb gegonen {γέγονεν | gégonen}, yielding “this waste of the ointment has happened.” The perfect aspect of gegonen emphasizes a resulting state: the action of “waste” is viewed as a completed event with lasting effect. In the formal translation, the structure of one descriptive clause followed by a direct question is preserved, with “indignant among themselves” mirroring the participle plus prepositional phrase. The dynamic rendering slightly expands pros heautous by using “among themselves, saying” to make the internal complaint explicit in natural English while still connecting the indignation directly to the question they ask. |