Enoch Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokas Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now