On "parenesis"

From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 24 1996 - 19:23:16 EDT

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 24-SEP-1996 17:58:20.37
To: IN%"mphilli3@mail.tds.net"
Subj: RE: parenetic

        I've just seen the thread you started on "parenetic" and parenesis,
too late to reply promptly. But you (and the List) might want to know that
although dictionaries are slow in picking up such technical vocabulary,
this term isn't very new--on the contrary, over a century old in this case.
        And it didn't start among NT scholars--classicists were discussing
it much earlier, in Leipzig, Prague, Chicago, etc. Dibelius does seem to
have been the first NT scholar to have published on the subject, and his
work stimulated others to pursue the topic.
        As for dictionaries not keeping up: Over 40 years ago I had my
secretary type an exam for me (on those blue mimeograph stencils!), in
which I used the word "pericope". When students read the exam, they called
my attention to my question on "periscopes". The secretary had looked up
the strange word, and the nearest thing in the dictionary was "periscope",
so she typed that, "correcting" my typographical error. (OH, the things
scribes do to the MSS. they copy!) Is pericope in the dictionaries yet?

Edward Hobbs

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:52 EDT