Saturday, December 1, 2007

The BAGD book of jokes?

Okay, maybe not quite; but I was reading in Luke 18, and saw BAGD's note on verse 5:
διά γε τὸ παρέχειν μοι κόπον τὴν χήραν ταύτην ἐκδικήσω αὐτήν, ἵνα μὴ εἰς τέλος ἐρχομένη ὑπωπιάζῃ με.
Particularly, the entry on ὑπωπιάζω. To wit:
ὑπωπιάζω (on the v.l. ὑποπιάζειν s. W-S. §5, 19 note, end; Mlt-H. 75) (‘strike under the eye, give a black eye to’ Aristot., Rhet. 3, 11, 15, 1413a, 20; TestSol 2:4 D [ὑποπ.]; Plut., Mor. 921f; Diog. L. 6, 89)

1. to blacken an eye, give a black eye, strike in the face lit. τινά someone, of a woman who is driven to desperation and who the judge in the story thinks might in the end express herself physically ἵνα μὴ εἰς τέλος ἐρχομένη ὑπωπιάζῃ με so that she might not finally come and blacken my eye Lk 18:5. Hyperbole is stock-in-trade of popular storytelling. Some prefer to understand ὑπ. in this pass. in sense

2. to bring someone to submission by constant annoyance, wear down, fig. ext. of 1 (s. L-S-J-M s.v. II, NRSV, REB, et al.). In this interp. ὑπ. in Lk 18:5 has its meaning determined by εἰς τέλος. But in such case the denouement lacks punch, for the judge has already been worn down and wants nothing added to the κόπος that he has already endured. A more appropriate rendering for a fig. sense would be browbeat.—JDerrett, NTS 18, ’71/72, 178-91 (esp. 189-91): a fig. expr. (common throughout Asia), blacken my face = slander, besmirch underlies ὑπ. here.
"Lacks punch." Oh, dear.


Turretinfan said...


J.A.W. said...

Great post, Dan - it's not easy finding the hidden humor in BAGD!

This stimulated me to look up the entry in my own copy. To my dismay, mine is different, and doesn't have the "lacks punch" line. I guess there must be a newer edition published after the 2nd edition I got when I was attending Talbot.

J.A.W. said...

BTW, I emailed you about our time at Talbot, but didn't get any reply. I'm sure you are busy - is still good?

DJP said...

Oh, no! I'm very sorry to hear that. My guess would be that Yahoo! misidentified it as spam. I've recently reconfigured so that "spam" goes to a folder, and I skim all the subject-lines and "from"s before deleting — and I've only barely caught a number of legitimate emails.

So please, re-send. Sorry!

As to BAGD, I guess I got the special "laff-riot" edition. Here's the scoop:

BDAG - Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. Copyright © 2000 The University of Chicago Press. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker based on the Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und für frühchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English Editions by W.F.Arndt, F.W.Gingrich, and F.W.Danker. This edition is an electronic version of the print edition published by the University of Chicago Press.

jim thompson said...

love it. fun site, brother. xapis kai eipnvn....

WatchingHISstory said...

off topic but do you know the meaning of Christ saying in Luke 13:32 ..go and tell that fox

Charles Page

DJP said...

I haven't studied it out. Here's Bock:

"Jesus views Herod with something less than respect. He calls the king a fox. The signification of ἀλώπηξ (alōpēx) is debated (Ellis 1974: 190): it can refer to (1) a person of no significance (SB 2:201; Neh. 4:3 [2 Esdr. 13:35 LXX]); (2) a deceiver, a person of cunning (which was the rabbinic force of the term; Daube 1956: 191; Song Rab. 2.15.1 on 2:15); or (3) a destroyer (Ezek. 13:4; Lam. 5:18; 1 Enoch 89.10, 42–49, 55; Leaney 1958: 209). The normal Greek sense is the second meaning (Fitzmyer 1985: 1031; Epictetus 1.3.7–8; Plutarch, Life of Solon 30.2 [95]), although either of the first two senses or a combination of them is possible, depending on how the context fills out the metaphor (Manson 1949: 276 and Marshall 1978: 571 mention the first two, while Darr 1992: 140–46 sees the third as primary and the second as possible). Considering how the Synoptics portray the way Herod removed the Baptist, the meaning of deceiver or destroyer is possible. Luke’s emphasis seems to be destructiveness, since Herod murdered 'the greatest born of woman' (Luke 7:28) and later stands opposed to Jesus (Acts 4:26–28). In Luke 13 the issue is his willingness to kill Jesus. That the leaders can pass on Jesus’ reply to Antipas suggests that the Pharisees had a cordial relationship with Herod—at least when it comes to Jesus" [Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1996), 1247]

Anonymous said...

Dan, I hope you still check this thing. Anyway, this is totally off the topic but I am wondering if or when are you ever going to start a Hebrew blog? I don't learn Greek until next, or should I say, this fall but as you know am currently learning Hebrew and would appreciate any opportunity to bone up on that language to keep me fresh. Thanks.

WatchingHISstory said...

another off-topic question.
John 8:48,49 "...Samaritan and hast a devil?"
Does Christ response in v.49 tie into v.41 "we be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God."

Are these crude and common forms of insults used by the Jew in Jesus' days?

"I'll hang up and listen to your answer!"

Charles Page

Brad Williams said...

Hey Dan, I'm working on a textual problem in Genesis 2 over at my place if you want to come set the record straight. It's not as funny as what you've got here though.