>Could you please explain exactly what you mean by progressive existence? I
>think this started with a discussion of HN in 1 John 1. Look at, for
>instance, Matthew 2:14-15:
>KAI ANHCWRHSEN EIS AIGUPTON, KAI HN EKEI hEWS THS TELEUTHS hHRWiDOU.
>Clearly, he lived there continuously for a period of time, but this period
>is also clearly bounded by two events.
Dear Jonathan,
I am not the one to even pretend to defend Porter's use of "imperfective" aspect with EIMI. In fact, I am quite welcome to adjust to a "stative" view but I have no evidence to do so and abandon Porter's view. My expression "progressive existence" was my attempt at trying to approximate what I understand him as saying. But if I understand him correctly, we can use your term of "living continuously" for a meaning of the EIMI "imperfective" aspect (Porter's definition), I think this well suits the meaning we are talking about. Thank you for the scripture as I think it illustrates the heart of the matter.
Unfortunately, I don't think we except Matthew 2:14-15 from Porter's view simply because it has bounds. This is because Porter defines "imperfective" aspect as, not whether or not it has bounds, but "The present and imperfect tense-forms occur in contexts where the user of Greek wishes to depict and action as in progress, regardless of whether this is an objective characterization." (Idioms p.29). The fact that the "continual existence" has temporal bounds does not remove the "imperfective" aspect of the verb.
The viewpoint of the writer as viewed from "within" the event is that Joseph "remained/lived continuously" in Egypt, it is "in progress" from Matthew's perspective (thus my imperfect term "progressive existence"). But what was the entry point into the "living continuously" and the exit point? The verb HN *itself* does not tell us, context does. In this context, the hEWS explicitly defines the end point of the "living continuously." Without the hEWS clause we would still not imply that it is absolutely unbounded temporally, that he remained there eternally. It is the same with other instances of non-copulative EIMI in the scriptures. The "continuous" of existence or living is implied but the time bounds (or lack thereof) come from context.
In John 1:1 the temporal bounds are the beginning of "EN ARCH" to the end of "EN ARCH." The Logos "lived continuously" during this "time." What is under dispute is the definition of "time" at the beginning of "EN ARCH." But either posture does not remove the basic point that the time bounds of HN come from context.
In John 2:1 the temporal bounds for Mary at the wedding are not specified by context. But this does not mean her HN ("being") there was absolutely unbounded. Her "being there" has bounds, they are simply unspecified in context.
So, my view from the history of b-greek is that ALL uses of EIMI as a verb of existence has bounds unless the context tells us otherwise. But these uses still have an "imperfective" aspect (Porter) or what Rolf (and/or others) would call "stative." I am awaiting Rolf to clarify the distinction between Porter's "imperfective" for stative verbs. I anticipate he will try to provide evidence for adjusting the "imperfective" aspect (Porter) for EIMI to a "stative" view, and I am interested in what that evidence is.
Sincerely,
Wes