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

Re: Ascription

Expand Messages
  • lancebeard01
    ... it was ... persons, ... churches. And ... to Peter, ... Twelve. ... they are not ... a ... going on with ... feeling. Why ... ascription be ... adjective,
    Message 1 of 2 , May 25, 2007
      --- 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.