Canonical––or otherwise theological––hermeneutics has often downplayed the role of human authors and their intentions. Likewise, those committed to authorial intention tend to remain wary of canonical and spiritual exegesis (see Rowlands JSNT 45.30 [2023]; East IJST 19.10 [2017]: 39–41). In contrast to each of these tendencies, this paper argues that the reading strategies made possible by the biblical canon are part of the authorial intention of the text. I draw on the work of Ordinary Language philosopher Stanley Cavell (2002) and literary critic Toril Moi (2017) to define authorial intention as “what is there” in the text itself. This attention to “what is there” 1) makes the New Testament a new text that is more and other than the sum of its parts (cf. Wall 2012) and 2) positions those who participate in the process of canonization as authors of this new text. The authorial contribution of the canonizers can be explained by relevance theory’s notion of “ostensive stimulus” (Sperber and Wilson 2004). From this perspective, the canon encourages its readers to read the texts, read them together, and to do so assuming their relevance for their own personal experience. The payoff is a kind of theological hermeneutics that retains a place for human authorial intention. Such an approach arguably facilitates a more natural integration of the best historical scholarship with theological scholarship. Also, it addresses the most pressing concerns of Christian communities and scholars who are wary of interpretations that lack grounding in historical authors.