Textkit Logo

The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Postby Phil T » Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:32 pm

Hello,

If any of you have the older version, could you check for me whether Danker made changes to BDAG's βιάζω entry? In specific I was wondering about entries 2 and 3. In BDAG it looks like this:

2. to gain an objective by force, use force, intr. (X., Mem. 3, 9, 10; Diod. S. 4, 12, 5 οἱ βιαζόμενοι=the ones who use force, the intruders; Plut., Mor. 203c; Epict. 4, 8, 40; Lucian, Necyom. 20, Hermot. 22; SIG 1042, 8 [Dssm., NB 85f (BS 258)]; 888, 24; 1243, 4f; PTebt 6, 31; PFlor 382, 54; Dt 22:25, 28; Philo, Mos. 1, 215; Jos., Bell. 3, 493; 518) of compulsion οὐ βιαζόμενος without using force (opp. πείθειν) Dg 7:4.—Of forcing one’s way (Demosth. 55, 17; Appian, Hann. 24 §106) w. εἴς τι enter forcibly into someth. (Thu. 1, 63, 1; 7, 69, 4; Polyb. 1, 74, 5; Plut., Otho 1072 [12, 10]; Philo, Mos. 1, 108 of a gnat forcing its way into bodily orifices εἰς τἀντὸς βιάζεται; Jos., Bell. 3, 423) ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται the reign of God is being proclaimed and everyone takes (or tries to take [cp. Polemo Soph. B 11 Reader, s. p. 266f]) it by force Lk 16:16 (hyperbolic usage; on the question whether this is a perspective attributed to Jesus or to his opposition concerning moral miscalculation, s. FDanker, JBL 77, ’58, 234–36).—Makes its way w. triumphant force is preferred for Mt 11:12 by FBaur; TZahn; AHarnack, SBBerlAk 1907, 947–57; WBrandt, ZNW 11, 1910, 247f; ROtto, Reich Gottes u. Menschensohn ’34, 84–88; cp. NRSV mg. ‘has been coming violently’.—EGraesser, D. Problem der Parusieverzögerung, ZNW Beih. 22, ’57, 180ff; OBetz, Jesu heiliger Krieg, NovT 2, ’57, 116–37.

3. go after someth. w. enthusiasm, seek fervently, try hard, the sense is sought w. burning zeal is preferred by HHoltzmann; FDibelius, StKr 86, 1913, 285–88; et al. for Mt 11:12. A variation of this interpretation is the sense try hard, but the support sought in Epict. 4, 7, 20f is questionable, for this latter pass. rather refers to attempts at forced entry when one is not welcome.
Phil T
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:27 pm

Phil T wrote:Hello,

If any of you have the older version, could you check for me whether Danker made changes to BDAG's βιάζω entry?


Yes he made changes.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Postby Phil T » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:32 pm

I just realised...a pre-software version is not just a simple copy and paste! Just wondering especially about the smaller section 3, if you could enlighten with what the nature of the changes were? No worries if its too troublesome, I'll be visiting a library in September...
Phil T
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:46 pm

Phil T wrote:I just realised...a pre-software version is not just a simple copy and paste! Just wondering especially about the smaller section 3, if you could enlighten with what the nature of the changes were? No worries if its too troublesome, I'll be visiting a library in September...


Eons ago someone who didn't understand copyright law digitized BAG and put it online. Didn't take long or University of Chicago press to discover this and the site was taken down. Danker revised the article on βιάζω for the 3rd edition. The nature of the revision makes it impossible to summarize. Like everyone else I have e-text lexicons available and use them. I sometimes wonder if copying and pasting an entire article violates copyright laws. I suspect it does. I tried to pull up the second edition in Google books but was unsuccessful. Wouldn't help anyway because you can't copy and paste from Google books when the book is under copyright.

I doubt the difference between 2nd and 3rd edition will have a major impact on your question. Danker substantially altered the structure of the article and the presentation of the evidence. The take away isn't much different.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Postby mwh » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:40 pm

In case you missed his earlier thread on this (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=68337), what Phil T is really intent on pursuing is BDAG’s saying that in Epictetus βιάζομαι “refers to attempts at forced entry when one is not welcome” (3. at end). He objects to “when one is not welcome” (though it would indeed be strange to force an entry into a place where one was welcome). He was originally under the mistaken impression that BDAG says the use of βιαζομαι is passive, and when he was corrected he persisted in thinking, no less wrongly, that BDAG rejects its use as an intransitive middle. I pointed out to him that there's nothing out of the ordinary about the verb’s syntactical use in the Epictetus instances, and referred him to LSJ βιάζω II.3. I don’t know what he thinks will be gained by investigating what BDAG’s earlier incarnations said about the verb’s meaning in Epictetus.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Postby Phil T » Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:06 am

Thanks C.S. and mwh for responding. I probably haven’t communicated clearly enough to avoid misunderstanding. The questions I asked have been touching on different areas related to the original Epictetus citation and BDAG's reasoning. I'll sketch out both my reasons for asking questions and what I learned from the interaction, to avoid any misunderstanding.

1. My question about BAG was to find out more about the debate which BDAG’s entry alluded to. I also wondered if there were more primary sources for the “Try Hard’ category. I’m doing some semantic domain research to see how this might better explain the various nuances in words such as Biazomai. Thanks to C.S.

2. The earlier question was touched on how best to ‘exegete’ or interpret Epictetus’ metaphor for the door? Rather than stubbornly insisting on my own first position I have come to see through the interaction that the metaphor can reasonably be interpreted in different ways.

a. Are the competitors guarding the door? Perhaps.

b. Or is the door itself the whole worldview of ambition, currying favor and infighting to get ahead? Maybe.

With the first option biazomai would mean metaphorically using force against people, like its most basic military usages. With the second option it would shade more to Louw and Nida’s “intensive- extensive effort” semantic domain. That would mean it would a summary word for all he would need to do to secure Caesar’s favor by both flattery and infighting.

So, the real take away for me, is that this metaphor is not black and white enough to serve as a ‘proof text’ for or against either lexicographical category. Words have fuzzy boundaries. I was originally thinking that the later context would be decisive in interpreting the door metaphor, but have come to see decisiveness is lacking.

4. Also, I’m not someone who would insist against all common sense that biazomai in E.’s passage was passive! My first question came from being stunned that BDAG wrote it was 'pass.' which ekboles pointed out meant passage. I think the misunderstanding for mch came when I quoted Danker to question his ‘door’ assertion. I was not questioning his first statement that it was an intransitive middle! Me genoito! Unclear writing on my part.

These forums are a good resource for research and discussion. Its good to hear different opinions.
Phil T
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:14 pm

Phil T wrote: BDAG's reason for reject[ing] its use as an intransitive middle is because they see the usage of [βιάζομαι] as [an intransitive middle] "refers to attempts at forced entry when one is not welcome."
Have I correctly ammended that rather laconic sentence? With or without emmendation, Michael's critique of this stage of your reasoning, which persists in a somewhat confused reading of BDAG at least, is a critique that is not unfounded.

What BDAG are calling questionable (not outright rejecting) is the meaning of the intransitive middle phrase βιάζομαι + εἰς. There is no correlation between the two meanings - force one's way in or strive ferverently after - and either the voice or the transitivity of the verb. One way to express that is to say that the difference in meaning between part 2 and 3 is not dependent on different grammar.

Grammar - voice and transitivity - is straightforward. For voice, the verb is not a deponent (it exists in the active where another party is forced), and here in sections 2 and 3 of BDAG, both the meanings are about somebody doing something that results in a change in or for him or herself, so it is unmistakeably middle. For the transitivity, there is no direct object - stated or implied, so it is by definition not transitive. It is only the much more subjective interpretation of what the sense might be that is termed "questionable".

I am glad to see that you arrived at non-mechanical interpretation of the passage (it metaphors from the point of view of your interest). My point that dictionary entries are compromises, conjectures, best scholarly guesses that vary greatly in the groundedness also leads to the same fuzzy or non-absolute reading of this or any other passage.
"I've a balm for bruised hearts, brother, sleep for aching eyes,"
Says the warm wind, the west wind, full of birds' cries.
(John Masefield)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: The old BAG or BGAD on βιάζω

Postby Phil T » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Actually the tortured sentence really boiled down to a slip of the pen. I had not been thinking at all of transitivity vs. intransitivity. I was quite focused on what semantic domain biazomai fit in Epict. Both BDAG and Luz's Matthew commentary (which I was consulting) opposed the idea of "Try hard" in the Epict. passage. But for them this was more in reference to the former debate over the intransitive middle reading of Matthew's passage. In a mad rush to finish my post, I just unthinkingly threw in Luz' descriptor of intransitive middle for the Epict. passage (which he disagreed with in favor of...passive!!??!) Anyway...let's not go there...
Phil T
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 5:15 pm


Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek