But, in any case, it is not necessary to show this, as
the uses of EI in 27:40,42,43,49 are not "ironic" per
se (if irony means EIRWNEIA 'dissimulation') but merely
the natural use. As the context EIPEN GAR hOTI QEOU EIMI
hUIOS indicates. If EI was *not* there then it would be
truly ironic per CAIRE BASILEU TWN IOUDAIWN.
While 27:40,42,43,49 react to Christ's own statements, and
4:3,6 are introduced by a statement from heaven, OUTOS ESTIN
hO UIOS MOU hO AGAPETOS, in all other respects the proposition
and challenge to it are parallel. Matthean coincidence????
Regards
Steven
PS: I'm wondering if the British English use of 'since' is
different from American 'use'? (To me 'since' is virtually
synonymous with 'because','seeing as',etc.)