AV JUST CAN'T GET HIS "FACTS" STRAIGHT!
(Sorry, AV. You try SO hard to find some error to "correct". And then it blows up in your face.)
You might want to fix that DBAG to BDAG ... (someone might think you meant
Dirt Bag Greek Lexicon).
We certainly wouldn't want a translator to make an error in transposition, would we?
AV, your ignorance of basic Bible facts betrays you yet again---even while jumping up and down thinking that you finally found a typo in my post.
The "typo" was only in your own imagination. You have no idea what the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrinch revision involved and how it relates to DBAG.
Both DBAG and BDAG are standard reference designations among Biblical scholars and even beginning Bible college students. The names represent variations editions/revisions of the classic New Testament Greek lexicon.
AV wouldn't know a professional lexicographer even if he walked up and hit AV over the head with BOTH a DBAG lexicon and a BDAG lexicon----or even a series of HALOT volumes.
Despite AV's blunder, Biblical Studies professionals/academics nowadays rarely use the outdated BDAG. (Unlike you, we don't rely upon reference editions from over a century ago just because we have to go back that far to find someone to agree with us. For us to still use BDAG wouldn't be as pitiful as AV continuing to use a 1890 Strong's Lexicon for serious scholarly work but it would still expose AV's naivete.
When Fred Danker revised the Bauer Lexicon in the latest edition, his initial was moved to the front of the abbreviation. So what was once known only as the Bauer Greek New Testament Lexicon (published in German), which was later translated by Arndt and Gingrich into English, with the more recent revised editions done by Dr. Danker, now gives primary attribution to Dr. Danker.
So, AV1611VET, if you still think, "You might want to fix that DBAG to BDAG.", tell me this: Why would I want to throw aside my newer DBAG lexicon and replace it with the old BDAG edition which Fred Danker edited years ago? I worked with Dr. Danker for decades and as he completed his work he was quite excited about all of the new data which he was able to incorporate into his revised DBAG edition that simply wasn't possible when he did BDAG.
But on the other hand, AV has always insisted that "Evidence can take a hike!" and "Lexicons can take a hike!", so I can certainly see why AV wouldn't want me to be using the latest edition of a Greek New Testament lexicon that incorporates the most and best evidence!
So, AV, I think it is quite safe to say that YOU are the only person who would ever think that DBAG was a standard abbreviation for "Dirt Bag Greek Lexicon." But I do agree with the Book of Proverbs when it says that the fool likes to mock instruction and understanding---and even denigrate the Biblical lexicography work of fine men like Dr. Danker who certainly deserved the recognition which the BDAG to BAGD to DBAG designations indicate.
But I'm curious: Do you ever consider taking the time to RESEARCH the facts before posting such silly blunders? (You could think of it as the posting equivalent of thinking before you speak.) It would spare you repeatedly embarrassing yourself in this manner. After all, few things make you look more ridiculous than getting all excited thinking that you finally found a TYPO in a professor's post and then having to learn that it was YOU who was yet again ignorant of the basic facts of the matter. (Are you really TRYING so very hard to make your credibility as minimal as possible? With you, it is virtually an art form. Indeed, you make it look easy.)