The Greek word usually rendered "tradition" is PARADOSIS (παράδοσις) which is derived from PARADIDOMI ("to surrender, intrust, transmit"). This signifier is employed in Matt. 15:2, 3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; 1 Cor. 11:2; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:15, 16; 3:6.
For PARADOSIS, BAGD has "handing down or over." When considering this word in the context of tradition vis-a'-vis Scripture, I think we must avoid projecting later significations of the term back onto the writings of the NT. That is, we should not interpret Paul's use of PARADOSIS through the exegetical template of Trent (a sixteenth-century council of the Church). In 2 Thess. 2:15, Paul writes that Christian tradition requires loyal adherence whether it is oral or written. Thus we can be confident that none of the traditions Paul mentions in his Epistles lack scriptural backing, and moreover, they are not limited to what is spoken (i.e., oral tradition). None of the traditions (PARADOSEIS) Paul speaks about conflict with what we find in Scripture. Conversely, I do not think the same can be said for the present traditions held by the Catholic Church.
Anglican priest Rebecca Lyman writes the following about tradition: "Our English word 'tradition' cames from the Latin verb tradere, which means literally 'to hand on.' When we speak of tradition, we mean those things that are passed along from one generation to another as important and essential to our identity" (Early Christian Traditions, p. 4).
Stone and Duke add that PARADOSIS is both the act of handing on and subsequently that which is handed on or transmitted.
However, continuing, Lyman also notes: "Christians usually distinguish 'scripture' from 'tradition' in order to emphasize the stronger authority we give to the Bible as the word of God. Yet the Bible itself is the selection of writings chosen and revered by the faithful community" (Lyman, p. 4).
Lyman's definition and comments are helpful although I think she errs by saying that the "faithful community" chose which writings were to be revered. God ultimately decides which writings are canonical, not humans. So while Paul may
have written and known about the importance of PARADOSIS, he would have undoubtedly castigated Dom Gregory Dix when he wrote: "eucharistic worship from the outset was based not on scripture at all, but solely on tradition" (Qt. in The Principles of Christian Theology, John Macquarrie, p. 11).
Charles Ryrie more likely states the truth of the matter: "It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the [Bible] books to determine if they were acceptable or not. Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God. People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true becausde of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. No Bible book became canonical by action of some church council" (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 105).
In a notable piece of scholarship, we also read: "the Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98" (Benjamin B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 455-56).
This also depends much on your definition of handing down and over what time span.
ReplyDeletehttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7820301
Daniel 12:4
I specifically had the Christian tradition, which Paul said he received and handed on to others. That included the instructions for the Lord's evening meal.
ReplyDeleteApologies, I was hastily thinking about our previous discussion and missed the point of your post.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that the Greek term paradosis means “handing down” or “transmission,” the argument that Paul’s use of the term only referred to traditions that were backed by Scripture is not fully accurate. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul explicitly urges believers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” This clearly shows that oral tradition held an equal place of authority alongside written tradition. The traditions Paul passed on were not always written down immediately; some were preserved through the spoken word. The New Testament itself grew out of the Church’s oral tradition. It was only later that the oral teachings of the Apostles were codified into the New Testament canon.
ReplyDeleteThe statement that none of the traditions Paul speaks about conflict with Scripture is correct, but it overlooks a key point: Scripture itself is a product of tradition. The New Testament writings were recognized as inspired because they conformed to the Apostolic Tradition that had been passed down in the Church. The Apostles did not write their letters or Gospels with the intent of producing a self-contained canon; instead, they were addressing specific issues in specific communities, often drawing upon the teachings and traditions they had orally communicated. The early Church had to discern and recognize which writings were authentically inspired, a process that was guided by both tradition and the Holy Spirit.
The claim that the Bible's canonicity was "inherent" and that councils merely recognized which books were inspired oversimplifies the complex historical process by which the canon of Scripture was formed. While the inspiration of the biblical books came from God, it was the Church, through its councils and consensus, that determined which writings would be part of the Bible.
Early Christians circulated many writings, and the canon of the New Testament did not reach a final form until the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). Before this, various local churches had different collections of texts, and many early Christian writings that were widely respected—like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas—were ultimately not included in the canon.
The Church did not "invent" the canon, but it did discern and ratify it through Tradition. This discernment was done in the light of Apostolic Tradition and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The councils did not simply recognize an existing, self-evident canon; they evaluated which writings aligned with the Apostolic teaching that had been passed down through tradition.
The argument that no book became canonical through the decision of councils alone ignores how crucial these councils were in resolving disputes over what constituted Scripture. For example, the letter to the Hebrews, the book of Revelation, and several others were disputed by various Christian communities for centuries. It was not until the councils, guided by the tradition of the Church, that these disputes were resolved, and the canon was finalized.
Additionally, Warfield’s claim that the canon was complete when the last book (Revelation) was written is historically inaccurate. While the Apostles finished their writings in the first century, it took several centuries for the Church to reach a consensus on the canonical books. The mere writing of a book did not automatically make it recognized as Scripture.
The suggestion that "tradition" as used by Paul should not be understood in the same way as the later Catholic understanding (particularly post-Trent) fails to acknowledge that Scripture itself emerged from tradition. The Apostles did not have a written New Testament to appeal to; their preaching and teaching were based on the oral tradition that Christ entrusted to them. This oral tradition was gradually committed to writing, and later the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, canonized these writings as Scripture.
ReplyDeleteJohn 21:25 even says that not everything Jesus did was recorded in Scripture: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” This indicates that much of the early Christian faith was passed down orally, and not all of it was written in the Bible.
While the Bible is indeed divinely inspired and holds supreme authority, tradition provides the context within which Scripture was written, understood, and applied. The interpretation of Scripture within the Church does not depend solely on the text but also on the living tradition handed down through the centuries, safeguarded by the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church). This is not an arbitrary addition, but the continuation of the same authority Christ gave to the Apostles to "bind and loose" (Matthew 16:19, 18:18).
To understand writers like Warfield and Charles Ryrie, it's important to understand their definitions for "canon," which can mean not only a collection of books declared to be inspired or authoritative for morals and faith, but books that are inherently inspired in themselves (in se).
ReplyDeleteCf. https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/07/kanwn-and-disputed-bible-books.html
ReplyDelete