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.)