On Thu, 03 May 2001 20:54:19 +0300 Kimmo Huovila writes: > dixonps@juno.com wrote: > > > No, it does not indicate the time of the action. These > > articiples are probably causal and should be taken > > as indicating why it is impossible to renew them to > > repentance - because, if it were possible to renew > > them to repentance, then it would also include a > > crucifying to themselves the Son of God and a putting > > Him to open shame. But, it is impossible for Christ > > to be crucified again. Therefore, it is impossible to > > renew them to repentance. Clearcut logical implication > > recognized and spelled out by the author. > > Does the participle ever have this sense? This is no normal causal > participle, in which case both propositions (the matrix clause and > the participial clause) are both true (simultaneously). In other words, > a normal causal participle would say that it is not possible to renew > them because 'they do X', not that because 'it would require X'. Very > different semantics, IMHO. That is an interesting thought. I wonder what a similar construction (ADUNATON + present infinitive + present [causal] participle) would yield. But, there really is no problem here. The whole thing is hypothetical anyhow. The ADUNATON tells us it is actually an impossible situation that follows, as the author proves it by assuming it was possible to renew such (who had fallen away) to repentance, then showing the necessary consequent (a recrucifying of the Son of God) which is impossible. So, he is really saying, to use your lingo above, when 'they do Y,' 'they do X.' But, X is not possible; therefore, neither is Y. Paul Dixon --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu