Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Ascription

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic On: Ascription From: Bruce Speaking of 2Pt, easily the least enthusiastically included of the eventually canonical NT writings, the situation
    Message 1 of 2 , May 25 7:45 AM
      To: Synoptic
      On: Ascription
      From: Bruce

      Speaking of 2Pt, easily the least enthusiastically included of the
      eventually canonical NT writings, the situation seems to be that it was
      accepted over lingering doubts of its authenticity by learned persons,
      chiefly on the strength of its being already widely read in churches. And
      that popularity in turn seems to have owed much to its ascription to Peter,
      easily the most authoritative individual among the Authoritative Twelve.

      People seem to have trouble with the unkind word "forgery," and they are not
      very comfortable with "pseudepigraph" either, though the latter is a
      perfectly adequate name for what, on the evidence, seems to be going on with
      2Pt.

      So I have a suggestion, in the direction of niceness and good feeling. Why
      cannot a work whose canonical status rests chiefly on its ascription be
      called an "ascripture?" There is even a nice adjective, "ascriptural."

      What do you folks think? Will it play in Peoria?

      Bruce
    • lancebeard01
      ... it was ... persons, ... churches. And ... to Peter, ... Twelve. ... they are not ... a ... going on with ... feeling. Why ... ascription be ... adjective,
      Message 2 of 2 , May 25 8:10 AM
        --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:
        >
        > To: Synoptic
        > On: Ascription
        > From: Bruce
        >
        > Speaking of 2Pt, easily the least enthusiastically included of the
        > eventually canonical NT writings, the situation seems to be that
        it was
        > accepted over lingering doubts of its authenticity by learned
        persons,
        > chiefly on the strength of its being already widely read in
        churches. And
        > that popularity in turn seems to have owed much to its ascription
        to Peter,
        > easily the most authoritative individual among the Authoritative
        Twelve.
        >
        > People seem to have trouble with the unkind word "forgery," and
        they are not
        > very comfortable with "pseudepigraph" either, though the latter is
        a
        > perfectly adequate name for what, on the evidence, seems to be
        going on with
        > 2Pt.
        >
        > So I have a suggestion, in the direction of niceness and good
        feeling. Why
        > cannot a work whose canonical status rests chiefly on its
        ascription be
        > called an "ascripture?" There is even a nice
        adjective, "ascriptural."
        >
        > What do you folks think? Will it play in Peoria?
        >
        > Bruce
        >

        I liked your suggestion on first reading, but then a second
        interpretation came to mind. 'Ascripture' could be read/interpreted
        to mean "a-scripture" or "free of scripture" as in a-septic.

        Unfortunately, it would not work here in Corpus Christi.

        Lance Beard
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.