In defending Sola Scriptura,
Protestant apologists invariably use Roman Catholic theology as a foil. It
is asserted that Roman Catholics accept two sources of authority - Scripture
and tradition - and that tradition is given equal weight with Scripture.
Second, it is asserted that Roman Catholic reliance on tradition has
resulted in the modern doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and papal
infallibility. From these premises, Protestants conclude that Sola Scriptura
is the only safeguard against aberrant doctrinal developments.
First of all, the
doctrinal aberrations of the Roman Catholic Church are manifestly not part
of the universal tradition of the Church. The Orthodox Church opposes the
Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility,
purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are
untraditional.
Furthermore, the
Orthodox Church has never accepted the Roman Catholic assertion that there
are two sources of authority. The Church recognizes one and only one source
of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition. The Divine
Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition. To
set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the
tail wagging the dog.
A Rose by Any Other
Name
If you were to look
up tradition or traditions in a concordance based on the NIV translation of
the New Testament, you would find ten references: Mat. 15:2,3,6; Mk.
7:3,5,8,9,13; Gal. 1:14; and Col. 2:8. In each case, tradition is presented
in a negative light, as something opposed to the truth of God: For laying
aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men (Mk. 7:8).
In light of this,
it is certainly not surprising that Evangelicals have a hard time finding
anything positive to say about tradition. Most are completely unaware of the
fact that in addition to the passages cited above, there are other passages
in the New Testament in which tradition is mentioned in a positive light,
where we are actually commanded to keep the oral traditions that have been
handed over by the Apostles. Evangelicals are ignorant of these verses in
part because of the overwhelming emphasis given to the verses cited above
and in part because one of the most popular translations, the NIV,
mistranslates three verses so that tradition never appears in a positive
light in its pages.
The Greek word for
tradition, paradosis, occurs thirteen times in the New Testament.
Significantly, the NIV translates paradosis as tradition in every case
except the three verses where St. Paul commands his readers to adhere to
tradition. Is this an accident? An examination of 2 Th. 2:15 will
demonstrate beyond any doubt that the translators of the NIV deliberately
avoided translating these verses literally.
Compare the KJV
translation with the NIV:
Therefore,
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word, or our epistle (KJV).
So then, brothers,
stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of
mouth or by letter (NIV).
Admittedly there
are some passages in the New Testament that are very difficult to translate.
This, however, is not one of them. The syntax is straight forward and the
vocabulary simple. Furthermore, there are no significant textual variants
for this verse that might support the NIV translation. Any second year Greek
student could translate this verse correctly. The NIV translators, however,
have effected what amounts to literary sleight of hand. One would be tempted
to call it a rather nifty move were it not for the fact that they have
tampered with the written Word of God. Hold the traditions which ye have
been taught. Traditions {paradoseis) is a noun in the objective case. It is
derived from the verb to hand over (paradidomi). The phrase, which ye have
been taught (edidachthate), is a form of to teach (didasko). The NIV turns
the verb into the noun - hold to the teachings - and turns the noun into the
verb - we passed on to you. If we were to translate the NIV translation back
into Greek, instead of paradoseis, we would have didaskalias, and instead of
edidachthate we would have paredothate.
It is true that the
NIV renders paradosis as teaching again in verse 6 of chapter 3 and also in
1 Cor. 11:2 without all of these grammatical gymnastics. However, the fact
that the grammatical structure of this verse was manipulated - the
translators obviously wanted to avoid the redundancy of saying hold the
teachings that we taught to you - is proof that they put a lot of thought
into this. Translating paradosis as teaching rather than tradition is the
result of a deliberate choice.
Although the KJV
translates paradoseis as ordinances in 1 Cor. 11:2, it certainly does not
appear that it is part of any program or theological bias. With the NIV,
however, when paradosis is used in a negative sense, it is translated as
tradition. When it is used in a positive sense, it is translated as
teaching. This is not an accident. It can only be the result of a conscious
decision to translate the text in accordance with a preconceived theological
program.
There is a great
irony in all of this. The Preface to the NIV states: . . . the translators
were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the
Bible as God's Word in written form. . . . The first concern of the
translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the
thought of the biblical writers.
Here, however, the
translators deliberately manipulated the text in order to make it conform to
the Protestant tradition. If the Scriptures really are self-interpreting and
self-sufficient, why do Evangelicals feel the need to monkey with the text
when they run across a verse that does not fit in with their theology? Or,
do the translators of the NIV understand St. Paul's doctrine of authority
better than he did?
The NIV translation
of paradosis only serves to underscore a very important point: Everyone
approaches the Scriptures from within some tradition. Every translation is
made within a certain tradition and reflects the concerns of that tradition.
The problem with the NIV is that the Evangelical tradition that produced it
has been severed from the tradition that produced the Scriptures in the
first place - the apostolic tradition.
Hold the Traditions
In 2 Th. 2:15 St.
Paul commands the Thessalonians to keep the traditions that they have
received. In 3:6 he issues a stern warning: Now we command you, brethren, in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every
brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he
received of us. Similarly, St. Paul praises the Corinthians for their
obedience to tradition: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in
all things, and keep the ordinances [lit. traditions], as I delivered them
to you (1 Cor. 11:2).
These verses are
easily contrasted with what St. Paul says in Colossians 2:8: Beware lest any
man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of
men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Clearly, St.
Paul envisions two different types of tradition: traditions of men and
traditions that come from the Apostles themselves. Christians are
specifically commanded to keep the latter, whether they are written down or
not.
St. Basil the Great
(4th c), in his treatise, On the Holy Spirit, clearly illustrates the fact
that holy tradition is more than a set of ideas. The writing of this
treatise was occasioned by the Eunomian controversy. The Eunomians took
Arianism to its logical conclusion, insisting not only that the Son is a
creature dissimilar to God, but that the Holy Spirit is even more dissimilar
than the Son.7 In other words, the Spirit is not to be numbered with the
Father and the Son, and certainly not to be worshipped. They argue that the
doxology "Glory to the Father and to the Son with the Holy Spirit" is not
scriptural. St. Basil replies that simply because something has not been
written down, that does not mean that it is not an authentic element of the
apostolic tradition:
"Concerning the
teachings of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed (kerygma) or reserved
to members of the household of faith (dogmata), we have received some from
written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through
apostolic tradition. Both sources have equal force in true religion. No one
would deny either source - no one, at any rate, who is even slightly
familiar with the ordinances of the Church. If we attacked unwritten
customs, claiming them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate
the Gospel, no matter what our intentions - or rather, we would reduce the
Gospel teachings to bare words" (Paragraph 66) .8
St. Basil goes on
to describe some of the customs that the Church had received through
tradition, including the signing of candidates for Baptism with the sign of
the Cross, the Eucharistic prayers, and Baptism by triple immersion.
Although these practices are unknown to modern Protestants, they were
staples of Church life in the early centuries, and they remain staples of
Church life today in the Orthodox Church.
Notice, in
particular, what St. Basil says happens if we despise unwritten traditions:
"we would reduce the Gospel teachings to bare words." Christianity is life
in Christ. It involves not merely assent to a set of doctrines, but moral
conduct and - just as important - participation in the worshipping
community, which is nothing less than the Body of Christ. Therefore, to
reduce Christianity to a set of ideas that can be contained in a book is to
"fatally mutilate the Gospel" - that is, to deprive it of its very life: for
the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life (2 Cor. 3:6).
