for what it is. However this criterion of ‘self-authentication’ of the writings gets replaced. It is ‘speedily overtaken by that of authorship, and the writings are then on their way to becoming canonical on other grounds.’26 The idea is that these writings are canonical because they can be traced to particular authors. The authors have a special position of authority. So the writings which can be traced to these authoritative figures come to have authority. The writings are recognized as having authority because they were written by authors whose authority was already established, that is to say, recognized. If the writing of a book can be traced to some such authoritative figure then it has authority. If it cannot be traced to such an authoritative figure then it does not have authority. The authority of the apostle is original and primary. The authority of the Bible is thus a derived authority.
The process of tracing a book to a particular figure is an historical exercise. So, the authority of the New Testament book depends upon the success of an historical exercise. The process by which such a book came to be written was a complex one. It involved a telling and retelling by word of mouth, the activity of amanuenses who transcribe the verbal message, and of scribes who copy it, of the editor who puts it all together. Our historical evidence is debatable in many cases.
Let us consider a particular possibility, using the first category, ‘self-authentication,’ in a somewhat modified form, and relate it to the second, ‘authorship.’ Suppose there is a book widely read in the churches, valued because it edifies the congregation and helps the individual in understanding and living the Christian faith, but whose author is not known beyond doubt. Should it, or should it not, be accepted as Scripture? The problem of being able to identity the author might become more difficult as time passed. Origen in an interesting comment on the epistle to the Hebrews said ‘But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows.’27 That was in the third century.
So apostolicity is a problem. This term assumes one can identify an apostle as the author of the book. Or, if an apostle is not himself the author of the book, at least an apostle was the source of the material of the book, or that the author was the disciple of an apostle. So Mark is a disciple of Peter and Luke a follower of Paul. On this account of the matter their books get included because they are connected with an apostle, not because of their intrinsic worth, nor because of their function in the churches.
This argument makes the important assumption, which again throws us into the midst of historical debate, that in the early church the figure of apostle was clearly distinguished, and so well recognized as to set aside the person from all others. It is a good question, whether even in the first century this accurately represents the real historical situation.
Another point concerns the meaning of the term ‘authentic.’ A book is authentic if, when it claims to have a particular author, it does in fact have that author. Obviously, a writing can claim to come from one author and not do so. In fact what was often done in ancient times was to write pseudonymously, that is, to write a book and associate it with someone else, well known. In that way, the real author hoped that the renown of the figure whose name attached to the book would guarantee it a wider and more favourable response than it would otherwise get, would guarantee it a kind of authority from the outset. That was a widespread practice at the time when the New Testament writings were being produced. So we call a writing ‘authentic’ if the author who claims to write it was the one who actually wrote it. It is one of the tasks of historical assessment to make judgments about the authenticity of particular books. But suppose we cannot be sure?28 Are we then going to stick by this criterion of apostolicity and follow out the logical consequences of so doing? That would mean that in every case acknowledgment of the authority of a book would depend upon a historical judgment about its author rather than experience of its influence in the Christian community. That would mean that it would be the historian who established its authority. But that is surely quite misguided.
Whether it is important to be able to identify the author of any New Testament book, and connect him with an apostle will depend primarily on whether we deem the figure of the apostle to be the key figure. If the apostle did not and cannot be shown to have such ‘precise and central position’ of authority, then our appeal to apostolicity in order to authorize the sacred books will not be convincing.29
At stake here are very important issues concerning the New Testament. What are the right questions to ask? What is the church (and what goes with it) for, or what is it from? Is the question about the Bible’s authority a functional question or an historical question? We can put the problem somewhat differently. Is the New Testament authorized by its connection with apostles, people who held an office recognized to be authoritative? If so, what sort of thing is it that needs such authorization? If the writings are the sort of thing that they must be authorized then they are secondary. What authorizes is primary. Is it not an historical fantasy to invest the apostles with such original, primary, underived authority? After all, their immediate connection was with Jesus himself. This gives them historical primacy over every other source. Indeed apostolicity in this sense constitutes the church, and all secondary sources of authority must demonstrate their roots in the apostolic age.
The third stage in the process was the drawing up or a list of the books considered to have authority. A list separates those that are included from the rest which are not. Those included are recognized books and they continue to be recognized. Now the word ‘canonical’ means ‘on the approved list,’ and ‘having authority for the reason that it is on the list.’ A canonical book on this view derives its unique status and authority by reason of its inclusion on the list.
The alternative to this is that those who draw up the list recognize the authority the book already has. The drawing up of the list is evidence of their recognizing the authority which the book has, for whatever reason it has that authority. It displays that recognition and makes it formal. In this case two things follow. First, the canon can only be provisional. Second, that reasons must be given why each individual book was included on the list. On such an explanation, inclusion on a list does not confer authority on the book. It recognizes an authority which the book already has. But how it has come to be that it already has such authority needs to be further explained. How has it come to have that authority which the list formally recognizes and states?
2 INTRINSIC, EXTRINSIC, INSTRUMENTAL
Let us distinguish between intrinsic authority and extrinsic authority. If someone whose authority I accept tells me to accept the authority of a book (assuming this all makes sense), then I shall accept it. I accept the book’s authority because I accept that person’s authority. So, some authority says to me, ‘These are the books whose authority you are to accept.’ And I duly follow. In such case, the book gets invested with an authority extrinsic to it. I may know very little about the book itself. I then have implicit, but not explicit, faith in the proposition that the Bible has authority. My acceptance is not based on what I know about the book or about the belief, because I have carefully and critically assessed it, found reasons for my attitude to it. My acceptance is second-hand. I accept it as such because I acknowledge the right of a third party to direct me to accept it. I accept that the Bible has authority because I accept the right of the church to direct me in this matter. But then I would need to have been already convinced of the right of the church so to direct me. That the Bible has authority has in such a case become a dogma.
Extrinsic authority means authority bestowed from another, given from outside. Intrinsic authority means an authority which comes either through or from the book itself. Think of the Bible as instrumental. If these books are the instruments, by means of which a certain purpose is fulfilled, if the Bible is the only means necessary for a certain event to happen, to produce a particular condition, and that event and condition comes about, then it has an authority no other books have. If I am involved in the event the Bible produces, included in the purpose it fulfils, then I can speak directly, rather than on someone else’s recommendation, of the function the Bible has performed. If I am a member of the community which the Bible has been instrumental in producing, and my participation in that community is an intelligent and involved participation, and I am aware of the function
