|
Docta Ignorantia XXXVII Apostolic Authority It is all right to talk about Matthew writing this and Mark that so long as you have their autographs as the literature bearing their names. But you don't know that you do. You accept that you do and you can argue from this and that that you do but you really don't know that you do. And there are very many who insist downrightly that you don't. And they've been saying this for over 200 years and it hasn't gone away. Nor will it. Fortunately, as you imply, there is soteriological benefit from this literature even though we do not know that we have it in autograph. The work stands on its own and in this way, among others, testifies to the splendor or apostolic authority of its authors. This implies, incidentally, that there is the possibility of apostolic authority -- meaning, soteriological puissance -- apart from any certain knowledge of autograph, and this implies, in turn, that there is or at least may be such apostolic authority in people other than apostles. And that implies, as you no doubt realize, that the canon is always de facto open and expanding/contracting ... breathing, if you like. The Original Exemplars or Autographs we have are stochastic structures. Someone made them. They have soteriological puissance, some of them. The evidence for that is overwhelming. To say that they are not autographs is not to say that they are useless soteriologically, which is, of course, the concern of all of us. It is to expand the awareness of what apostolic authority is and even and especially where and who it is. It is to expand our awareness of what is in fact soteriologically puissant. That, ultimately, is my point.
Adwaitha Hermitage
|
