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

Re: Again Ascripture

Expand Messages
  • accrumpton
    ... I had the same question as Lance as to whether asripture was a composite noun from a + scripture or a derived noun along the lines of ascribe =
    Message 1 of 2 , May 25, 2007
      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:
      >
      > To: Synoptic
      > On: Ascripture
      > From: Bruce
      >

      I had the same question as Lance as to whether asripture was a
      composite noun from a + scripture or a derived noun along the lines
      of ascribe => ascripture. It seems that Bruce's answer was that it is
      both. I am not certain that it can be both, rather I think it has to
      be one or the other - because they essentially mean two different
      things. Am I wrong?

      Another question, though, is why not name the category along the
      lines of authorship rather than manuscript? Etymologically, scripture
      means "something written." It is only within its semenatic range that
      ideas of authority are included. A "without authority" interpretation
      of ascriptural implies a universal acceptance of the nature of the
      authority implied by the word scripture, which certainly isn't the
      case.

      Authority (of scripture) really isn't tied to authorship that
      strongly anyway (Hebrews, for example). Clearly 2 Peter is scripture
      in the sense that it is written down and that it is in the cannon,
      but it is authoritative (I think, in a universal sense) only in so
      far as it is true to life and the nature of reality. How one decides
      to classify and organize those degrees of continuity with the truth
      as he or she sees it, is a worth while exercise - but the
      term "ascripture" seems to obfuscate its intended aim.

      Adam Crumpton
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.