NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp supplying:
rwp@
Ephesians:4:29 @{Corrupt} (\sapros\). Rotten, putrid, like fruit (Matthew:7:17f.|), fish (Matthew:13:48|), here the opposite of \agathos\ (good). {For edifying as the need may be} (\pros oikodomn ts chreias\). "For the build-up of the need," "for supplying help when there is need." Let no other words come out. {That it may give} (\hina di\). For this elliptical use of \hina\ see on ¯5:33|.
rwp@John:12:7 @{Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying} (\Aphes autn, hina eis tn hmeran tou entaphiasmou mou trsi auto\). This reading (\hina trsi\, purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \tre\) rather than that of the Textus Receptus (just \tetreken\, perfect active indicative) is correct. It is supported by Aleph B D L W Theta. The \hina\ can be rendered as above after \aphes\ according to _Koin_ idiom or more probably: "Let her alone: it was that," etc. (supplying "it was"). Either makes good sense. The word \entaphiasmos\ is a later and rare substantive from the late verb \entaphiaz\, to prepare for burial (Matthew:26:12; strkjv@John:19:40|), and means preparation for burial. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:14:8|. "Preparation for my burial" is the idea here and in Mark. The idea of Jesus is that Mary had saved this money to use in preparing his body for burial. She is giving him the flowers before the funeral. We can hardly take it that Mary did not use all of the ointment for Mark (Mark:14:3|) says that she broke it and yet he adds (Mark:14:8|) what John has here. It is a paradox, but Jesus is fond of paradoxes. Mary has kept this precious gift by giving it now beforehand as a preparation for my burial. We really keep what we give to Christ. This is Mary's glory that she had some glimmering comprehension of Christ's death which none of the disciples possessed.
rwp@Matthew:25:9 @{Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you} (\mpote ou m arkesei hmn kai humn\). There is an elliptical construction here that is not easy of explanation. Some MSS. Aleph A L Z have \ouk\ instead of \ou m\. But even so \m pote\ has to be explained either by supplying an imperative like \ginesth\ or by a verb of fearing like \phoboumetha\ (this most likely). Either \ouk\ or \ou m\ would be proper with the futuristic subjunctive \arkesei\ (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 192; Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1161,1174). "We are afraid that there is no possibility of there being enough for us both." This is a denial of oil by the wise virgins because there was not enough for both. "It was necessary to show that the foolish virgins could not have the consequences of their folly averted at the last moment" (Plummer). It is a courteous reply, but it is decisive. The compound Greek negatives are very expressive, \mpote--ou m\.