Instant Details is Unnecessarily "Interpretive" & May Be Wrong

[Enoch]

As an example, take Luke 16:16.  The present middle indicative forms are the same as the present passive indicative forms.  Thus it is likely to be unnecessary (& possibly even controversial as to doctrine) to label an ambiguous form as present middle indicative, neglecting that the form is also passive.  Luke 16:16 has in instant details:  "βιάζεται βιάζω (βία)   Verb 3 sing pres mid indic  to force, use violence."

 

But the form is also passive, yet "passive" is not included in the parsing.  BADG includes the passive possibility under meaning 4.  But regardless of the opinion of BDAG, IMHO:  Instant Details would do better just to give what the morphology implies in all its possibilities.

 

The entry might be made as "3 sing pres mid/pas indic, Accordance opinion middle."

[rokas]

This is interesting. Normally they do include both options. For example, the other verb in the same verse "εὐαγγελίζω" does have both possible parsings.

 

I agree that both would be better.