Jump to content


Photo

BDAG * & ** at End of Entries

Concordance Function Quasi

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Enoch

Enoch

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:58 AM

I am not sure if this is a bug swatter or not, since the last hard copy (paper) edition I bought of BDAG was not BDAG (no Danker), but Bauer (Ardnt-Gingrich) 3rd edition. But in that edition at the end of entries often there was found either * or **. * meant that all the references to the word in the literature covered by Bauer was listed. ** meant that all the references to the word in the NT were listed. Thus, if one got an entry with ** at the end, one had a concordance for that word in the NT (all the references had been listed by Bauer).

I note that the Accordance version of BDAG lacks these asterisks. I am not sure if they were dropped by later editions of Bauer or not, though I cannot imagine why they would have been.

Thus I ask if it is a bug in the Accordance BDAG that it lacks the asterisks???

#2 Fr. Rich

Fr. Rich

    Gold

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:My grandchildren
    Bible study
    Adjusting to retirement
    Fly fishing
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:19 AM

I have three electronic copies of BDAG (Accordance, Logos & Bibleworks). None of them contain the asterisks of which you speak.

Rich Miller
Retired Priest
Christ the King Episcopal Church
Huntington, Indiana

 

Accordance 11.x running on Yosemite on MBP late 2014

Labor mediator and arbitrator


#3 Michael J. Bolesta

Michael J. Bolesta

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Addison TX
  • Interests:scripture study, preaching, teaching
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 01 May 2012 - 04:50 PM

I do not see them in the print (hardcover) version of BDAG as you describe them.
Michael
Accordance on Macintosh, iPhone, and iPad

#4 Darryl

Darryl

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 37 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:Non-user

Posted 02 May 2012 - 11:54 AM

FWIW, Dr. Danker explains the omission himself in an article in, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. This book is an excellent read for anyone interested in Greek lexicography. Highly recommended.

If you're only interested in the explanation to your inquiry, you can find it on page 14, here:

http://books.google....terisk"&f=false

Hope that helps.

Darryl

#5 Enoch

Enoch

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 12:31 PM

Darryl,
thanks for the link.
When I went there, however, I found nothing on my subject. It did discuss the use of asterisks in some other (non-Bauer, non-BDAG) concordance apparently.
Do you have time to tell me in a couple of sentences (with my thanker) on what was Danker's hanker in making a spanker of the asterisk?

#6 Darryl

Darryl

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 37 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:Non-user

Posted 22 May 2012 - 02:22 PM

Enoch,


Here is a brief summary:

First (English) edition: BAG = Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich
Second (English) edition: BAGD = Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker
Third (English) edition: BDAG = Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich

The portion in the link basically informs us that Danker, upon revising the second edition (BAGD), decided to omit the asterisks for the third edition (BDAG) because "many of the inherited asterisks were invalid."

Briefer summary:

BAGD (your print copy) = contains (some invalid) asterisks
BDAG (Acc copy [+print copy]) = omitted asterisks

Further Clarification:

I think the confusion is coming from the reference of "asterisks in BAAR."

BAAR (Bauer, Aland, Aland, Reichmann) is the abbreviation to the German edition upon which our English version is based. So the asterisks in BAAR were transferred into BAGD, but later omitted in BDAG.

Hope that makes sense.

Darryl

#7 Enoch

Enoch

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:26 PM

Ach, Wot der Dumboozle!

I didn't know about Reichmann (said with uvular r of course & a good German ch).
And thanks for really valuable info.
I didn't realize that Bauer's Lexicon had erroneous asterisks in it.
It just proves, "I dare not trust the sweetest frame."

But the asterisks (if accurate) would be very helpful info.
Now if only Reichmann could make it right.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users