Durative Force of HN

David J. Sugg djsugg at bigfoot.com
Tue Apr 9 10:30:41 EDT 2002


Recently I have been studying the grammar of the Prologue to John's
Gospel. Last night I was looking at John 1:1, and in particular the use of
HN. I had recently heard a sermon that emphasized the fact that since this
verb is an imperfect tense, it proves the eternality of the Logos, since
the imperfect tense carries with it durative force.

In the Online Bible verb notes for the imperfect tense, it states:

"The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated
    action.  Where the present tense might indicate "they are
    asking, " the imperfect would indicate "they kept on asking."

    In the case of the verb "to be, " however,  the imperfect tense
    is used as a general past tense and does not carry the
    connotation of continual or repeated action."

I am puzzeled by the second paragraph of this description, as I cannot
find this exclusion mentioned anywhere else in the grammar's I consulted.
The closest comment was in Robertson's Greek Grammar of the New Testament.
On pages 882-883, in the section on 'Durative (Linear) Action', Robertson
discusses 'Doubtful Imperfects' and states:

"Hence we need not insist that HN (Jo 1:1) is strictly durative always
(imperfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also."

Then, in his notes on John 1:1, Peter Misselbrook (Read the Greek New
Testament, http://www.btinternet.com/~MisPar/GNotes/noteindx.htm#John )
quotes C.K. Barrett 'The Gospel According to John', London SPCK, 1967

"HN 'The continuous tense is to be contrasted with the punctiliar EGENETO
(vv 3,6,14). It indicates that by ARCH is meant not the first point in a
temporal sequesnce, but that which lies beyond time."

I am not sure of how Barrett is using 'continuous tense.' Is this the same
as durative?

Is there an exception for EIMI, where the Imperfect does not carry
durative force?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Dave Sugg





More information about the B-Greek mailing list