CONCORDANCE:String = accusation
rwp@Acts:18:13 @{Contrary to the law} (\para ton nomon\). They did not accuse Paul of treason as in Thessalonica, perhaps Paul had been more careful in his language here. They bring the same charge here that the owners of the slave-girl brought in Philippi (16:21|) Perhaps they fear to go too far with Gallio, for they are dealing with a Roman proconsul, not with the politarchs of Thessalonica. The Jewish religion was a _religio licita_ and they were allowed to make proselytes, but not among Roman citizens. To prove that Paul was acting contrary to Roman law (for Jewish law had no standing with Gallio though the phrase has a double meaning)...on that subject. The accusation as ...\anapeithei\ means to stir up by persuasion (old verb here only in the N.T.), a thing that he had a right to do.
rwp@Acts:23:29 @{Concerning questions of their law} (\peri ztmata tou nomou autn\). The very distinction drawn by Gallio in Corinth (Acts:18:14f.|). On the word see on 15:2|. {But to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds} (\mden de axion thanatou desmn echonta enklma\). Literally, "having no accusation (or crime) worthy of death or of bonds." This phrase here only in the N.T. \Egklma\...is old word for accusation or ...\egkale\ used in verse 28| and in the N.T. only here and 25:16|. Lysias thus expresses the opinion that Paul ought to be set free and the lenient treatment that Paul received in Caesarea and Rome (first imprisonment) is probably due to this report of Lysias. Every Roman magistrate before whom Paul appears declares him innocent (Gallio, Lysias, Felix, Festus).
rwp@John:5:45 @{Think not} (\m dokeite\). Prohibition with \m\ and the present imperative. See on verse 39| for \doke\ for mistaken opinions in John. {I will accuse you} (\eg katgors humn\). Emphasis on \eg\ (I). Future active indicative of \katgore\ (\kata\, against, \agoreu\, to speak in the assembly \agora\...in court, a public accusation...). See kjv@Romans:3:9| for \proaitiaomai\ for making previous charge and kjv@Luke:16:1| for \diaball\, a secret malicious accusation, and kjv@Romans:8:33| for \egkale\, for public charge, not necessarily before tribunal. {Even Moses} (\Muss\). No "even" in the Greek. {On whom ye have set your hope} (\eis hon humeis lpikate\). Perfect active indicative of \elpiz\, state of repose in Moses. Only example of \elpiz\ in John. See kjv@2Corinthians:1:10| for use of \eis\ with \elpiz\ instead of the usual \epi\ (1Timothy:4:10|).
rwp@John:7:5 @{For even his brethren did not believe on him} (\oude gar hoi adelphoi autou episteuon eis auton\). Literally, "For not even were his brothers believing on him." Imperfect tense of \pisteu\ with sad picture of the persistent refusal of the brothers of Jesus to believe in his Messianic assumptions, after the two rejections in Capernaum (Luke:4:16-31; kjv@Mark:6:1-6; kjv@Matthew:13:54-58|)...also after the blasphemous accusation of ...(Mark:3:31-35; kjv@Matthew:12:46-50; kjv@Luke:8:19-21|). The brothers here are sarcastic.
rwp@John:19:22 @{What I have written I have written} (\ho gegrapha gegrapha\)...the permanence of the accusation on ...
rwp@Luke:11:15 @{Dumb} (\kphon\). See on ¯Matthew:9:32|. {By Beelzebub} (\en Beezeboul\). Blasphemous accusation here in Judea as in Galilee (Mark:3:22; kjv@Matthew:12:24,27|). See on Matthew for discussion of the form of this name and the various items in the sin against the Holy Spirit involved in the charge. It was useless to deny the fact of the miracles. Songs:they were explained as wrought by Satan himself, a most absurd explanation.
rwp@Mark:4:12 @{Lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them} (\mpote epistrepssin kai aphethi autois\). Luke does not have these difficult words that seem in Isaiah to have an ironical turn, though kjv@Matthew:13:15| does retain them even after using \hoti\ for the first part of the quotation. There is no way to make \mpote\ in kjv@Mark:4:12| and kjv@Matthew:13:15|...Pharisees after their blasphemous accusation against ..._iam ante non videbant, nunc accedit iudicium divinum_. Jesus is pronouncing their doom in the language of Isaiah. It sounds like the dirge of the damned.
rwp@Mark:14:69 @{To them that stood by} (\tois parestsin\). This talk about Peter was overheard by him. "This fellow (\houtos\) is one of them." Songs:in verse 70| the talk is directly to Peter as in kjv@Matthew:26:73|, but in kjv@Luke:22:59| it is about him. Soon the bystanders (\hoi paresttes\)...will join in the accusation to ...(verse 70; kjv@Matthew:26:73|), with the specially pungent question in kjv@John:18:26| which was the climax. See on ¯Matthew:26:69-75| for discussion of similar details.
rwp@Matthew:13:1 @{On that day} (\en ti hmerai ekeini\)...day as the blasphemous accusation and ...{Sat by the seaside} (\ekathto para tn thalassan\). The accusative case need give no difficulty. Jesus came out of the stuffy house and took his seat (\ekathto\, imperfect) along the shore with the crowds stretched up and down, a picturesque scene.
rwp@Matthew:26:63 @{Held his peace} (\esipa\). Kept silent, imperfect tense. Jesus refused to answer the bluster of Caiaphas. {I adjure thee by the living God} (\exorkiz se kata tou theou tou zntos\)...failed to secure any accusation against ...
rwp@Matthew:27:11 @{Now Jesus stood before the governor} (\ho de Isous estath emprosthen tou hgemonos\). Here is one of the dramatic episodes of history. Jesus stood face to face with the Roman governor. The verb \estath\, not \est\ (second aorist active), is first aorist passive and can mean "was placed" there, but he stood, not sat. The term \hgemn\ (from \hgeomai\, to lead) was technically a _legatus Caesaris_, an officer of the Emperor, more exactly procurator, ruler under the Emperor of a less important province than propraetor (as over Syria). The senatorial provinces like Achaia were governed by proconsuls. Pilate represented Roman law. {Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\Su ei ho basileus tn Ioudain;\). This is what really mattered. Matthew does not give the charges made by the Sanhedrin (Luke:23:2|) nor the private interview with Pilate (John:18:28-32|)...could not ignore the accusation that ...({thou sayest}) Jesus confesses that he is. Songs:Pilate has a problem on his hands. What sort of a king does this one claim to be? {Thou} (\su\) the King of the Jews?
rwp@Matthew:27:37 @{His accusation} (\tn aitian autou\). The title (\titlos\, kjv@John:19:19|) or placard of the crime (the inscription, \he epigraph\) which was carried before the victim or hung around his neck as he walked to execution was now placed above (\ep' an\) the head of Jesus on the projecting piece (\crux immurus\). This inscription gave the name and home, {Jesus of Nazareth}, and the charge on which he was convicted, {the King of the Jews} and the identification, {This is}. The four reports all give the charge and vary in the others. The inscription in full was: This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. The three languages are mentioned only by John (John:19:20|), Latin for law, Hebrew (Aramaic)...Greek for everybody. The accusation... (charge, cause, \aitia\) correctly told the facts of the condemnation.
rwp@Romans:3:8 @{And why not} (\kai m\). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply \gentai\ after \m\ and repeat \ti\ (\kai ti m gentai\, deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take \m\ with \poismen\ and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because \hoti\ also (recitative \hoti\) comes just before \poismen\...unbeliever, the other the accusation that ...(the accusative and the infinitive \hms legein\ after \phasin\ and then the direct quotation with recitative \hoti\ after \legein\, a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation. {Let us do evil that good may come} (\poismen ta kaka hina elthi ta agatha\). The volitive aorist subjunctive (\poismen\) and the clause of purpose (\hina\ and the aorist subjunctive \elthi\)...It was undoubtedly the accusation of ...