George Somsel (forum: MM vs BDAG)
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/22967/171197.aspx
While BDAG does reference M-M, M-M is still valuable in that there are quotations which are not specifically quoted in BDAG. I find that helpful since it isn’t wise to simply take a head count of who might support a particular understanding. Seeing the actual quotations is quite helpful.
Mark A. Smith (forum: MM vs BDAG)
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/20394/153251.aspx
BDAG is pretty up to date so maybe you are thinking of another lexicon. Thayer’s was popular at one time but out of date as soon as it was published because of papyrus discoveries in Egypt. Moulton and Milligan extensively used those papyrii. For at least the last two editions of BDAG (BAGD and BDAG) Moulton and Milligan’s work has been digested into their work. M-M would give you access to the actual entries and data BDAG used in their lexical entries, however.
Michael Aubrey (forum: MM vs BDAG)
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/20394/153251.aspx
The situation with BDAG and M-M is slightly more complicated than that. BDAG is somewhat idiosyncratic with its use of M-M. Sometimes when M-M is included at the end of a BDAG entry, it means that M-M’s data was used for BDAG, but other times it just means that M-M has an entry listed for that word that’s worth examining.
Determining which scenario is the case requires one to actually have M-M at hand.