--- 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
> accepted over lingering doubts of its authenticity by learned
> chiefly on the strength of its being already widely read in
> that popularity in turn seems to have owed much to its ascription
> easily the most authoritative individual among the Authoritative
> People seem to have trouble with the unkind word "forgery," and
they are not
> very comfortable with "pseudepigraph" either, though the latter is
> perfectly adequate name for what, on the evidence, seems to be
going on with
> So I have a suggestion, in the direction of niceness and good
> cannot a work whose canonical status rests chiefly on its
> called an "ascripture?" There is even a nice
> What do you folks think? Will it play in Peoria?
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.