BDAG * & ** at End of EntriesConcordance Function Quasi
Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:58 AM
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???
Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:19 AM
Christ the King Episcopal Church
Accordance 11.x running on Yosemite on MBP late 2014
Labor mediator and arbitrator
Posted 01 May 2012 - 04:50 PM
Accordance on Macintosh, iPhone, and iPad
Posted 02 May 2012 - 11:54 AM
If you're only interested in the explanation to your inquiry, you can find it on page 14, here:
Hope that helps.
Posted 22 May 2012 - 12:31 PM
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?
Posted 22 May 2012 - 02:22 PM
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."
BAGD (your print copy) = contains (some invalid) asterisks
BDAG (Acc copy [+print copy]) = omitted asterisks
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.
Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:26 PM
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