Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in 1Jo1:14

Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Mon Jul 5 01:09:07 EDT 1999

Hello all,
Maybe a bit of an arcane subject but Robertson on Aktionsart p829 argues for
3 distinctions in the aorist:
constative = unmodified point-action
ingressive = emphasis on beginning of action
effective = emphasis on conclusion of action

Then R cites ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO from 1Jo1:14 as examples  of effective
and ingressive respectively.

BDF doesn't make these distinctions in discussions of Aktionsart (nor
discuss the passage in this or other contexts).

My questions
1. How valid/useful are the Aktionsart distinctions Robertson is drawing?

2. Robertson has commented "(Incarnation)" in brackets to illustrate his
point, but it there really a substantial difference in Aktionsart between

What substantially is the difference between SARX EGENETO and e.g. hO hELIOS
EGENETO MELAS - this does not seem to be "ingressive" in any sense,

3. What is the Aktionsart of Gen2:7/1Co15:45 EGENETO hO ANQRWPOS EIS YUXHN

4. A red herring probably - When I read (or more often hear) Jerome's
rendering VERBUM CARO FACTUM EST rather than taking FACTUS as a statement of
transformation (that X changed to Y, here non-physical became physical), I
would take the verb (admittedly a perfect not an aorist) as an "effective"
(per Robertson's definition) statement of finished result, or nature - i.e.
this is how the subject was fashioned. Is there any substantial difference
between the Greek and the Vulgate here?

Best regards
Greek Pseudepigrapha Page http://www2.crosswinds.net/~semiazas/

More information about the B-Greek mailing list