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 orial "we", nez pas? Vs 3 corroborates this understanding because it apparently echos PRAXEIS 9:16; 20:23 -- 9:16 -- EGW hUPODEIXW AUTWi hOSA DEI AUTON hUPER TOU ONOMATOS MOU PAQEIN. 20:23 -- TO PNEUMA TO hAGION KATA POLIN DIAMARTURETAI MOI LEGON hOTI DESMA KAI QLIYEIS ME MENOUSIN. As PAULOS MONOS is the recipient of these divine revelations so he is the sole object of the divine appointment of QESS. A 3:3. Finally in vs. 5 he emphatically switches to the singular to demonstrate to the QESSALONIKEIS that his interest in them is not only ministerial but intensely personal. He wants TO GNWNAI THN PISTIN AUTWN deeply, intimately, personally. But this is hardly surprising in a letter with vss like 2:7,8: hWS EAN TROFOS QALPHi TA hEAUTHS TEKNA, hOUTWS hOMEIROMENOI hUMWN EUDOKOUMEN METADOUNAI hUMIN OU MONON TO EUAGGELION TOU QEOU ALLA KAI TAS hEAUTWN YUCAS, DIOTI AGAPHTOI hHMIN EGENHQHTE. If I have established that PAULOS was using the editorial "we" in QESS. A 3:1,3, it is then highly probable that he used it throughout the letter and very likely in QESS. B as well. If I have made a mistake somewhere in my thinking, I would very much appreciate knowing where it is. Frankly, I'm not entirely comfortable with this argument, but I don't know why. Yours in His grace, Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh@juno.com New Haven, CT USA Nibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith, silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. --- 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