BDAG listings

[sethknorr]

I have a question about the verbs BDAG lists in its definitions for nouns sometimes.

Take for instance ἀποστασία on pg 120.

It starts with "s. ἀφίστημι," s. means "see." I assume that BDAG is saying that ἀφίστημι is an associated verb for ἀποστασία, and is not a reference to it being derived from that verb? I assume this because it goes on to say that it is "for the older ἀπὸστάσις" (i.e., there they are asserting that ἀποστασία was derived from ἀπὸστάσις not ἀφίστημι).

If you look at ἀποστάσιον (certificate of divorce) on the same page, BDAG does not mention ἀφίστημι at all, but I find it strange that they also don't mention ἀπολύω (verbal action of divorce).

[Stephen Carlson]

The parenthesis after lemma is usually an etymological note, telling you what its cognate verb is, plus some historical attestation for the word. It's not always consistent on providing the etymology, so I wouldn't read much into its omission (which usually means that it's unknown or obvious).

[sethknorr]

Thanks for the reply.

How would you define “verbal cognate.” I had always thought a verbal cognate in Greek was if a noun was believed to be derived directly from a verb. I.e, it doesn’t have a verbal cognate if it was derived from another noun for instance.

If you follow the etymology of some Greek lexicons, and you go down the rabbit hole, it will show something like:
Noun 1 -> derived from Noun 2 -> derived from Noun 3 -> derived from a verb.

So in your opinion would the verb which noun 3 was derived from, be considered the verbal cognate of Noun 1, 2 and 3, or just of Noun 3?

Or am I misunderstanding the meaning? I have seen the phrase used a good bit, but I can’t ever remember anyone defining what they meant. I guess I always just assumed.

[Stephen Carlson]

Hmm, I didn't use the term "verbal cognate" but "cognate verb" so it's a little weird to be asked to define a term I didn't use... In particular, it's not clear whether you're talking about the same thing or something different.

By "cognate verb" I was referring to a verb that's cognate with the noun, that is, having the same root in the ancestral language (Proto-Indo-European). There doesn't have to direct derivation, though the etymologies in BDAG often give you that.

Ultimately, it does not really matter, because (synchronic) usage, not (diachronic) etymology, dictates meaning. The etymological notes are there to be a mnemonic to those readers who find that helpful for remembering the meaning.

[sethknorr]

Okay, sorry I figured the phrases were interchangeable, I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. I appreciate that definition. That is helpful. It seems like the theologians that promote root fallacy, make it an etymological argument. I have never seen it defined period, just the terms used, so I wasn’t sure and was assuming meaning.

I agree with you, basing a meaning of a word off etymology is very bad idea. I do see the benefit in works like Bruce Metzger’s Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek; but I think many see that and think you can take English equivalents and apply them to Greek word meanings, like dynamite, which always makes me cringe.