OT-POET.filter - rwp particle:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:21 @{Wherefore let no one glory in men} (\hste mdeis kauchasth en anthrpois\). The conclusion (\hste\) from the self-conceit condemned. This particle here is merely inferential with no effect on the construction (\hs+te\ = and so) any more than \oun\ would have, a paratactic conjunction. There are thirty such examples of \hste\ in the N.T., eleven with the imperative as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 999). The spirit of glorying in party is a species of self-conceit and inconsistent with glorying in the Lord (1:31|).

rwp@1Corinthians:4:8 @{Already are ye filled?} (\d kekoresmenoi este?\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, of \korennumi\, old Greek verb to satiate, to satisfy. The only other example in N.T. is strkjv@Acts:27:38| which see. Paul may refer to strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:20; strkjv@32:15|. But it is keen irony, even sarcasm. Westcott and Hort make it a question and the rest of the sentence also. {Already ye are become rich} (\d eploutsate\). Note change to ingressive aorist indicative of \ploute\, old verb to be rich (cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9|). "The aorists, used instead of perfects, imply indecent haste" (Lightfoot). "They have got a private millennium of their own" (Robertson & Plummer) with all the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (Luke:22:29f.; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). {Ye have reigned without us} (\chris hmn ebasileusate\). Withering sarcasm. Ye became kings without our company. Some think that Paul as in strkjv@3:21| is purposely employing Stoic phraseology though with his own meanings. If so, it is hardly consciously done. Paul was certainly familiar with much of the literature of his time, but it did not shape his ideas. {I would that ye did reign} (\kai ophelon ge ebasileusate\). More exactly, "And would at least that ye had come to reign (or become kings)." It is an unfulfilled wish about the past expressed by \ophelon\ and the aorist indicative instead of \ei gar\ and the aorist indicative (the ancient idiom). See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003, for the construction with particle \ophelon\ (an unaugmented second aorist form). {That we also might reign with you} (\hina kai hmeis humin sunbasileusmen\). Ironical contrast to \chris hmn ebasileusate\, just before. Associative instrumental case of \humin\ after \sun-\.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:15 @{False witnesses of God} (\pseudomartures tou theou\). Late word, but \pseudomarture\, to bear false witness, old and common. The genitive (\tou theou\) can be either subjective (in God's service) or objective (concerning God). Either makes good sense. {Because we witnessed of God} (\hoti emartursamen kata tou theou\). Vulgate has _adversus Deum_. This is the more natural way to take \kata\ and genitive, {against God} not as equal to \peri\ (concerning). He would indeed make God play false in that case, {if so be that the dead are not raised} (\eiper ara nekroi ouk egeirontai\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. Note both \per\ intensive particle {indeed} and \ara\ inferential particle {therefore}.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:8 @{Therefore} (\toigaroun\). This old triple compound particle (\toi, gar, oun\) is in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:1|. Paul applies the logic of the case. {He that rejecteth} (\ho athetn\). This late verb (Polybius and LXX) is from \a-thetos\ (\a\ privative and verbal of \tithmi\, to proscribe a thing, to annul it. {But God} (\alla ton theon\). Paul sees this clearly and modern atheists see it also. In order to justify their licentiousness they do not hesitate to set aside God.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:6 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). Two inferential particles, accordingly therefore, as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:15| and only in Paul in N.T. {Let us not sleep} (\m katheudmen\). Present active subjunctive (volitive), let us not go on sleeping. {Let us watch} (\grgormen\). Present active subj. (volitive) again, let us keep awake (late verb \grgore\ from perfect \egrgora\). {Be sober} (\nphmen\). Present active subjunctive (volitive). Old verb not to be drunk. In N.T. only in figurative sense, to be calm, sober-minded. Also in verse 8| with the metaphor of drunkenness in contrast.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorge\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai iditai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@2Peter:1:3 @{Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us} (\hs hmin ts theias dunames autou dedrmens\). Genitive absolute with the causal particle \hs\ and the perfect middle participle of \dre\, old verb, to bestow (\drea\, gift), usually middle as here, in N.T. elsewhere only strkjv@Mark:15:45|. \Autou\ refers to Christ, who has "divine power" (\ts theias dunames\), since he is \theos\ (1:1|). \Theios\ (from \theos\) is an old adjective in N.T. here and verse 4| only, except strkjv@Acts:17:29|, where Paul uses \to theion\ for deity, thus adapting his language to his audience as the papyri and inscriptions show. The use of \theios\ with an imperial connotation is very common in the papyri and the inscriptions. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 360-368) has shown the singular linguistic likeness between strkjv@2Peter:1:3-11| and a remarkable inscription of the inhabitants of Stratonicea in Caria to Zeus Panhemerios and Hecate dated A.D. 22 (in full in C I H ii No. 2715 a b). One of the likenesses is the use of \ts theias dunames\. Peter may have read this inscription (cf. Paul in Athens) or he may have used "the familiar forms and formulae of religious emotion" (Deissmann), "the official liturgical language of Asia Minor." Peter is fond of \dunamis\ in this Epistle, and the \dunamis\ of Christ "is the sword which St. Peter holds over the head of the False Teachers" (Bigg). {All things that pertain unto life and godliness} (\panta ta pros zn kai eusebeian\). "All the things for life and godliness." The new life in Christ who is the mystery of godliness (1Timothy:3:16|). \Eusebeia\ with its cognates (\eusebs, eusebs, eusebe\) occurs only in this Epistle, Acts, and the Pastoral Epistles (from \eu\, well, and \sebomai\, to worship). {Of him that called us} (\tou kalesantos\). Genitive of the articular first aorist active participle of \kale\. Christ called Peter and all other Christians. {By his own glory and virtue} (\dia doxs kai arets\). Songs:B K L, but Aleph A C P read \idii doxi kai areti\ (either instrumental case "by" or dative "to"). Peter is fond of \idios\ (own, strkjv@1Peter:3:1,5; strkjv@2Peter:2:16,22|, etc.). "Glory" here is the manifestation of the Divine Character in Christ. For \aret\ see on ¯1Peter:2:9| and strkjv@Phillipians:4:8; strkjv@2Peter:1:5|.

rwp@Acts:8:30 @{Understandest thou what thou readest?} (\Ara ge ginskeis ha anaginskeis?\) The interrogative particle \ara\ and the intensive particle \ge\ indicate doubt on Philip's part. The play (\paranomasia\) upon the words in the Greek is very neat: {Do you know what you know again (read)?} The verb for read (\anaginsko\) means to know the letters again, recognize, read. The famous comment of Julian about the Christian writings is often quoted: \Anegnn, egnn, kategnn\ (I read, I understood, I condemned). The keen retort was: \Anegns, all'ouk egns, ei gar egns, ouk an kategns\ (You read, but did not understand; for if you had understood, you would not have condemned).

rwp@Acts:17:27 @{That they should seek God} (\Ztein ton theon\). Infinitive (present active) of purpose again. Seek him, not turn away from him as the nations had done (Romans:1:18-32|). {If haply they might feel after him} (\ei ara ge pslaphseian auton\). First aorist active (Aeolic form) optative of \pslapha\, old verb from \psa\, to touch. Songs:used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (Luke:24:39|), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (1John:1:1|), of the contact with Mount Sinai (Hebrews:12:18|). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to "find him" (\heuroien\, second aorist active optative) whom they had lost. One knows what it is in a darkened room to feel along the walls for the door (Deuteronomy:28:29; strkjv@Job:5:14; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@Isaiah:59:10|). Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him. The optative here with \ei\ is due to the condition of the fourth class (undetermined, but with vague hope of being determined) with aim also present (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Note also \ara ge\ the inferential particle \ara\ with the delicate intensive particle \ge\. {Though he is not far from each one of us} (\kai ge ou makran apo henos hekastou hmn huparchonta\). More exactly with B L (\kai ge\ instead of \kaitoi\ or \kaitoi ge\), "and yet being not far from each one of us," a direct statement rather than a concessive one. The participle \huparchonta\ agrees with \auton\ and the negative \ou\ rather than the usual \me\ with the participle makes an emphatic negative. Note also the intensive particle \ge\.

rwp@Acts:21:28 @{Help} (\botheite\). Present active imperative of \bothe\, to run (\the\) at a cry (\bo\), as if an outrage had been committed like murder or assault. {All men everywhere} (\panta pantachi\). Alliterative. \Pantachi\ is a variation in MSS., often \pantachou\, and here only in the N.T. The charges against Paul remind one of those against Stephen (Acts:6:13|) in which Paul had participated according to his confession (22:20|). Like the charges against Stephen and Jesus before him truth and falsehood are mixed. Paul had said that being a Jew would not save a man. He had taught the law of Moses was not binding on Gentiles. He did hold, like Jesus and Stephen, that the temple was not the only place to worship God. But Paul gloried himself in being a Jew, considered the Mosaic law righteous for Jews, and was honouring the temple at this very moment. {And moreover also he brought Greeks also into the temple} (\eti te kai Hellnas eisgagen eis to hieron\). Note the three particles (\eti te kai\), {and} (\te\) {still more} (\eti\) {also} or {even} (\kai\). Worse than his teaching (\didaskn\) is his dreadful deed: he actually brought (\eisgagen\, second aorist active indicative of \eisag\). This he had a right to do if they only went into the court of the Gentiles. But these Jews mean to imply that Paul had brought Greeks beyond this court into the court of Israel. An inscription was found by Clermont-Ganneau in Greek built into the walls of a mosque on the Via Dolorosa that was on the wall dividing the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles. Death was the penalty to any Gentile who crossed over into the Court of Israel (_The Athenaeum_, July, 1871). {Hath defiled this holy place} (\kekoinken ton hagion topon touton\). Present perfect active of \koino\, to make common (see on ¯10:14|). Note vivid change of tense, the defilement lasts (state of completion). All this is the substance of the call of these shrewd conspirators from Ephesus, Jews (not Jewish Christians, not even Judaizers) who hated him for his work there and who probably "spoke evil of the Way before the multitude" there so that Paul had to separate the disciples from the synagogue and go to the School of Tyrannus (19:9f.|). These enemies of Paul had now raised the cry of "fire" and vanish from the scene completely (24:19|). This charge was absolutely false as we shall see, made out of inferences of hate and suspicion.

rwp@Acts:25:3 @{Asking favour against him} (\aitoumenoi charin kat' autou\). A favour to themselves (middle voice), not to Paul, but "against" (\kat'\, down, against) him. {That he would send for} (\hops metapempstai\). First aorist middle subjunctive of \metapemp\ (see strkjv@24:24,26|) with final particle \hops\ like \hina\. Aorist tense for single case. {Laying wait} (\enedran poiountes\). See on ¯23:16| for the word \enedra\. Old idiom (Thucydides) for laying a plot or ambush as here. Only these two uses of \enedra\ in N.T. Two years before the Sanhedrin had agreed to the plot of the forty conspirators. Now they propose one on their own initiative. {On the way} (\kata tn hodon\). Down along, up and down along the way. Plenty of opportunity would occur between Caesarea and Jerusalem for ambush and surprise attacks.

rwp@Acts:25:26 @{No certain thing} (\asphales ti--ou\). Nothing definite or reliable (\a\ privative, \sphall\, to trip). All the charges of the Sanhedrin slipped away or were tripped up by Paul. Festus confesses that he had nothing left and thereby convicts himself of gross insincerity in his proposal to Paul in verse 9| about going up to Jerusalem. By his own statement he should have set Paul free. The various details here bear the marks of the eyewitness. Luke was surely present and witnessed this grand spectacle with Paul as chief performer. {Unto my lord} (\ti kurii\). Augustus (Octavius) and Tiberius refused the title of \kurios\ (lord) as too much like _rex_ (king) and like master and slave, but the servility of the subjects gave it to the other emperors who accepted it (Nero among them). Antoninus Pius put it on his coins. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105) gives an ostracon dated Aug. 4, A.D. 63 with the words "in the year nine of Nero the lord" (\enatou Nernos tou kuriou\). Deissmann (_op. cit._, pp. 349ff.) runs a most interesting parallel "between the cult of Christ and the cult of Caesar in the application of the term \kurios\, lord" in ostraca, papyri, inscriptions. Beyond a doubt Paul has all this fully in mind when he says in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| that "no one is able to say \Kurios Isous\ except in the Holy Spirit" (cf. also strkjv@Phillipians:2:11|). The Christians claimed this word for Christ and it became the test in the Roman persecutions as when Polycarp steadily refused to say " Lord Caesar" and insisted on saying "Lord Jesus" when it meant his certain death. {Before you} (\eph' humn\). The whole company. In no sense a new trial, but an examination in the presence of these prominent men to secure data and to furnish entertainment and pleasure to Agrippa (verse 22|). {Especially before thee} (\malista epi sou\). Out of courtesy. It was the main reason as verse 22| shows. Agrippa was a Jew and Festus was glad of the chance to see what he thought of Paul's case. {After examination had} (\ts anakrises genomens\). Genitive absolute, "the examination having taken place." \Anakrisis\ from \anakrin\ (cf. strkjv@12:19; strkjv@24:8; strkjv@28:18|) is a legal term for preliminary examination. Only here in the N.T. Inscriptions and papyri give it as examination of slaves or other property. {That I may have somewhat to write} (\hops sch ti graps\). Ingressive aorist subjunctive \sch\ (may get) with \hops\ (final particle like \hina\). \Ti graps\ in indirect question after \sch\ is either future indicative or aorist subjunctive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1045). Festus makes it plain that this is not a "trial," but an examination for his convenience to help him out of a predicament.

rwp@John:4:2 @{Although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples} (\kaitoige Isous autos ouk ebaptizen all' hoi mathtai autou\). Parenthetical explanation that applies also to strkjv@3:22|. Imperfect tense means that it was not the habit of Jesus. This is the only N.T. instance of \kaitoige\ (and yet indeed), compound conjunction (\kaitoi\ in strkjv@Acts:14:17; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3|) with intensive particle \ge\ added. This is the last mention of baptism under the direction of Jesus till the Great Commission (Matthew:28:19|). It is possible that Jesus stopped the baptizing because of the excitement and the issue raised about his Messianic claims till after his resurrection when he enjoined it upon his disciples as a rite of public enlistment in his service.

rwp@John:5:26 @{In himself} (\en heauti\). The Living God possesses life wholly in himself and so he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3|). For "gave" (\edken\, timeless aorist active indicative) see also strkjv@3:35; strkjv@17:2,24|. The particles "as" (\hsper\) and "so" (\houts\) mark here the fact, not the degree (Westcott).

rwp@Luke:1:1 @{Forasmuch as} (\epeidper\). Here alone in the N.T., though common in literary Attic. Appears in the papyri. A triple compound (\epei\ = since, \d\ = admittedly true, \per\ = intensive particle to emphasize importance). {Many} (\polloi\). How many no one knows, but certainly more than two or three. We know that Luke used the Logia of Jesus written by Matthew in Aramaic (Papias) and Mark's Gospel. Undoubtedly he had other written sources. {Have taken in hand} (\epecheirsan\). A literal translation of \epicheire\ (from \cheir\, hand and \epi\, upon). Both Hippocrates and Galen use this word in their introduction to their medical works. Here only in the N.T., though a common literary word. Common in the papyri for undertaking with no idea of failure or blame. Luke does not mean to cast reflection on those who preceded him. The apocryphal gospels were all much later and are not in his mind. Luke had secured fuller information and planned a book on a larger scale and did surpass them with the result that they all perished save Mark's Gospel and what Matthew and Luke possess of the Logia of Jesus. There was still room for Luke's book. That motive influences every author and thus progress is made. {To draw up, a narrative} (\anataxasthai digsin\). Ingressive aorist middle infinitive. This verb \anataxasthai\ has been found only in Plutarch's _Moral_. 968 CD about an elephant "rehearsing" by moonlight certain tricks it had been taught (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). That was from memory going regularly through the thing again. But the idea in the word is plain enough. The word is composed of \tass\, a common verb for arranging things in proper order and \ana\, again. Luke means to say that those before him had made attempts to rehearse in orderly fashion various matters about Christ. "The expression points to a connected series of narratives in some order (\taxis\), topical or chronological rather than to isolated narratives" (Bruce). "They had produced something more than mere notes or anecdotes" (Plummer). \Digsis\ means leading or carrying a thing through, not a mere incident. Galen applies this word some seventy-five times to the writing of Hippocrates. {Which have been fulfilled} (\tn peplrphormenn\). Perfect passive participle from \plrophore\ and that from \plrs\ (full) and \pher\ (to bring). Hence to bring or make full. The verb is rare outside of the LXX and the N.T. Papyri examples occur for finishing off a legal matter or a financial matter in full. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 86f.) gives examples from the papyri and inscriptions for completing a task or being convinced or satisfied in mind. The same ambiguity occurs here. When used of persons in the N.T. the meaning is to be convinced, or fully persuaded (Romans:4:21; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Hebrews:6:11; strkjv@10:22|). When used of things it has the notion of completing or finishing (2Timothy:4:5,17|). Luke is here speaking of "matters" (\pragmatn\). Luke may refer to the matters connected with Christ's life which have been brought to a close among us or accomplished. Bruce argues plausibly that he means fulness of knowledge "concerning the things which have become widely known among us Christians." In strkjv@Colossians:2:2| we have "fulness of understanding" (\ts plrophorias ts suneses\). In modern Greek the verb means to inform. The careful language of Luke here really pays a tribute to those who had preceded him in their narratives concerning Christ.

rwp@Luke:1:2 @{Even as} (\kaths\). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis. {Delivered unto us} (\paredsan hmin\). Second aorist active indicative of \paradidmi\. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the "eyewitnesses." He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives' fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds. {Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word} (\hoi ap' archs autoptai kai hupretai genomenoi tou logou\). "Who" is better than "which" for the article here. The word for {eyewitnesses} (\autoptai\) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one's own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term _autopsy_. Greek medical writers often had the word. It is a different word from \epoptai\ (eyewitness) in strkjv@2Peter:1:16|, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for "ministers" (\hupretai\), under rowers or servants we have had already in strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|, which see. We shall see it again in strkjv@Luke:4:20| of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in strkjv@Acts:26:16|. Here "the word" means the gospel message, as in strkjv@Acts:6:4; strkjv@8:4|, etc. {From the beginning} apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Acts:1:22|) and of the early apostolic preaching (Acts:10:37-43|). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons.

rwp@Luke:18:5 @{Yet} (\ge\). Delicate intensive particle of deep feeling as here. {Because this widow troubleth me} (\dia to parechein moi kopon tn chran tautn\). Literally, because of the furnishing me trouble as to this widow (accusative of general reference with the articular infinitive). {Lest she wear me out} (\hina m huppiazi me\). Some take it that the judge is actually afraid that the widow may come and assault him, literally beat him under the eye. That idea would be best expressed here by the aorist tense.

rwp@Luke:23:14 @{As one that perverteth the people} (\hs apostrephonta ton laon\). Pilate here condenses the three charges in verse 2| into one (Plummer). He uses a more common compound of \streph\ here, \apostreph\, to turn away from, to seduce, to mislead, whereas \diastreph\ in verse 2| has more the notion of disturbing (turning this way and that). Note the use of \hs\ with the particle, the alleged reason. Pilate understands the charge against Jesus to be that he is a revolutionary agitator and a dangerous rival to Caesar, treason in plain words. {Having examined him before you} (\enpion humn anakrinas\). Right before your eyes I have given him a careful examination (\ana\) up and down, \krin\, to judge, sift. Old and common verb in the general sense and in the forensic sense as here and which Luke alone has in the N.T. (Luke:23:14; strkjv@4:9; strkjv@12:19; strkjv@28:18; strkjv@Acts:24:8|) except strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3|. {Whereof} (\hn\). Attraction of the relative \ha\ to the case (genitive) of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\.

rwp@Luke:24:21 @{But we hoped} (\hmeis de lpizomen\). Imperfect active, we were hoping. Note emphasis in \hmeis\ (we). {Redeem} (\lutrousthai\). From the bondage of Rome, no doubt. {Yea and beside all this} (\alla ge kai sun psin toutois\). Particles pile up to express their emotions. {Yea} (\alla\ here affirmative, as in verse 22|, not adversative) at least (\ge\) also (\kai\) together with all these things (\sun psin toutois\). Like Pelion on Ossa with them in their perplexity. {Now the third day} (\tritn tautn hmeran agei\). A difficult idiom for the English. "One is keeping this a third day." And he is still dead and we are still without hope.

rwp@Mark:9:28 @{Privately, saying} (\kat' idian hoti\). Indoors the nine disciples seek an explanation for their colossal failure. They had cast out demons and wrought cures before. The Revisers are here puzzled over Mark's use of \hoti\ as an interrogative particle meaning {why} where strkjv@Matthew:17:19| has \dia ti\. Some of the manuscripts have \dia ti\ here in strkjv@Mark:9:28| as all do in strkjv@Matthew:17:19|. See also strkjv@Mark:2:16| and strkjv@9:11|. It is probable that in these examples \hoti\ really means {why}. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 730. The use of \hos\ as interrogative "is by no means rare in the late Greek" (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 126).

rwp@Matthew:7:3 @{The mote} (\to karphos\). Not dust, but a piece of dried wood or chaff, splinter (Weymouth, Moffatt), speck (Goodspeed), a very small particle that may irritate. {The beam} (\tn dokon\). A log on which planks in the house rest (so papyri), joist, rafter, plank (Moffatt), pole sticking out grotesquely. Probably a current proverb quoted by Jesus like our people in glass houses throwing stones. Tholuck quotes an Arabic proverb: "How seest thou the splinter in thy brother's eye, and seest not the cross-beam in thine eye?"