Tradition
TRADITION
Col 2:8 Tit 1:14, a doctrine, sentiment, or custom not found in the Bible, but transmitted orally from generation to generation from some presumed inspired authority. In patriarchal times, much that was valuable and obligatory was thus preserved. But tradition has long been superseded by the successive and completed revelations of God’s will which form the inspired Scriptures, the only perfect and sufficient rule of belief and practice. With this, even before the time of the Savior, Isa 8:20, all traditions were to be compared, as being of no value if they conflicted with it, added to it, or took from it, Jer 22:19 . The Jews had numerous unwritten traditions, which they affirmed to have been delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai, and by him transmitted to Joshua, the judges, and the prophets. After their wars with the Romans under Adrian and Severus, in view of their increasing dispersion over the earth, the Jews desired to secure their traditions by committing them to writing. Accordingly Rabbi Judah “the Holy,” composed the Mishna, or second law, the most ancient collection of the Hebrew traditions, about A. D. 190-220.To this text two commentaries were afterwards added: the Gemara of Jerusalem, probably about A. D. 370; and the Gemara of Babylon, A. D. 500; forming, with the Mishna, the Talmud of Jerusalem and that of Babylon. The contents of these voluminous works poorly remunerate the student of the laborious task of reading them. Our Savior severely censured the adherents of such legendary follies in his own day, and reproached them with preferring the traditions of the elders to the law of God itself, and superstitiously adhering to vain observances while they neglected the most important duties, Mat 15:1-20 Mar 7:1-13 . The traditions of the Romish church, with less apology than the ancient Jews had before the New Testament was written, are still more in conflict with the word of God, and still more deserving of the Savior’s condemnation.In 2Th 2:15 3:6, “tradition” means inspired instructions from the lips of those who received them from God, and were authorized to dispense them in his name. These apostolic sayings were obligatory only on those who received them as inspired directly from the apostles. Had any of them come down to our times, the only means of endorsing them must be by showing their agreement with the word of God, since inspiration and miracles have ceased.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Tradition
The body of religious literature contained in the OT is itself largely the deposit of oral tradition. As the result of its progressive canonization, this literature acquired the character of a fixed norm of faith and conduct. But the study devoted to the Scriptures (, seeking, searching) led to a vast development in the religious traditions of Judaism. On the one hand, through the ceaseless activity of the scribes, the written Law was enriched by a wealth of oral statutes ( , the Torah that came by mouth), partly natural expansions of the Law, arising from the force of custom and the new necessities of life, or as legal precedents from the courts of justice, partly definitions, interpretations, or detailed applications of the Law. From their direct bearing on matters of conduct, these new statutes were described as Hlkhth (from , go), that is, rules governing the normal walk of life. But, while the scholastic mind thus busied itself with details of the Law, the imagination of more poetical spirits played around the narrative parts of Scripture, embellishing the history of Israel with a rich garland of legend, allegory, metaphysics, and morals, often grotesque enough, yet full of the strength and glow of faith (H. Heine, Jehuda ben Halevy, pt. i. stanza 34). These more imaginative elements of tradition were termed Hggdth (from , show, tell), that is, lessons of life taught by way of principles and examples, actual or fictitious (less probably, tales or legends as products of the story-telling gift).
The oral character of both these developments of OT literature was long preserved. As late as the Christian era, the traditional Law was known as , the command of the elders (cf. the NT , tradition of the elders), and a distinct prejudice operated against any part of its contents being reduced to writing. After the destruction of the Temple, however, the title Mishna (from , repeat), most probably in the sense of study or teaching (in spite of the of the Church Fathers), came to be applied to the oral Law; and various collections were now made by leading scholars like Hillel and Aiba, the standard edition being that of Judah ha-Nasi (circa, about a.d. 200). The Mishna itself is a compilation of Hlkhth, or formal statutes; but the Gemara, or supplement of the Mishna (from , complete), contains many Hggdth as well. These were taken over by the Talmuds, especially the Babylonian Talmud, which contains by far the richest treasury of Jewish traditions.
Although originally mere expansions or embellishments of Scripture, the Halakhic traditions in particular acquired an authority and influence equal to those of the Law itself. This principle was explicitly taught in the schools of both Hillel and Shammai, and was accepted by the Pharisees generally, while the conservative Sadducees rejected the claims of tradition in toto (Jos. Ant. XIII. x. 6). Among the more rigid Pharisees, indeed, the oral Law was held to possess an even greater sanctity than the written; for the oral was the perfection of the written, and he who knew and followed it was wiser and holier than he who observed merely the written. Thus the idea grew up that the traditional Law also was given to Moses on Sinai, and was delivered by him to Joshua, and by him to the elders, and by them to the prophets, and by them to the men of the Great Synagogue, and thence to the present generation (Pire Aboth, i. 1 ff.). In later Talmudic tradition, the Law given to Moses was said to cover the whole body of Rabbinic doctrines. Thus the real heart of the Law was buried beneath the dead weight of tradition; and men too often used their zeal for tradition as a means of evading the moral demands of the Law (Mat 15:2 ff., Mar 7:1 ff., etc.).
The conflict with traditionalism, which figures so prominently in the Gospels, sinks into insignificance in the rest of the NT. The problem that confronted St. Paul was that of the Law itself, while the other writers were concerned with the weighty matters of Christian faith and life. Only a few faint traces of tradition appear in their writings-mere survivals from the dead past of Judaism. Thus the allusions of St. Stephen to the burial of Jacob and all his children in Sychem, to Moses learning in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and to the presence of angels at the giving of the Law (Act 7:15 f., Act 7:22; Act 7:38; Act 7:53) are doubtless drawn from Jewish Hggdth; examples of the same thing are found in St. Pauls references to the Rock that followed the Israelites (1Co 10:4), to the seducing of Eve by the serpent (2Co 11:3), and to the ministry of angels (Gal 3:19; cf. Heb 2:2), while the direct use of Haggadic literature is suggested in such texts as 2Ti 3:8 f., 1Pe 3:19 ff., 2Pe 2:4 ff., Jud 1:6 ff. The influence of Halakhic exegesis is equally evident in the Apostles method of argument in Rom 9:7 ff., Gal 4:21 ff., 1Co 9:9 f. (cf. 1Ti 5:18).
Literature.-L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der Juden, Berlin, 1832; E. Deutsch, The Talmud, in his Literary Remains, London, 1874; H. L. Strack, Einleitung in den Talmud4, Leipzig, 1908; M. Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud2, New York, 1903; S. Schechter, article Talmud, in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) v. 57ff.; W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 2 vols., Strassburg, 1884-90, Die Agada der babylonischen Amorer, do., 1878, Die Agada der palstinischen Amorer, 3 vols., do., 1892-99; F. Weber, Jdische Theologie2, Leipzig, 1897; E Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jdischen Volkes (Schrer).] 4 i. [do., 1902] 111ff., II. [do., 1907] 381 ff. (HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] I. [Edinburgh, 1890] i. 117 ff., 11. [do., 1890] i. 320 ff.); R. T. Herford, Pharisaism, 1912; J. Z. Lauterbach, article Oral Law, in Jewish Encyclopedia ix. 423 ff.; A. C. Zenos, article Tradition, in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels ii. 741 f.; H. St. J. Thackeray, Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, London, 1900.
A. R. Gordon.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
TRADITION
Something handed down from one generation to another. Thus the Jews pretended that, besides their written law contained in the Old Testament, Moses had delivered an oral law, which had been conveyed down from father to son; and thus the Roman Catholics are said to value particular doctrines, supposed to have descended from the apostolic times by tradition.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Tradition
(), Jewish The Jews pretend that, besides their written law contained in the Pentateuch, God delivered to Moses an oral law, which was handed down from generation to generation. The various decisions of the Jewish doctors or priests on points which the law had either left doubtful or passed over in silence were the true sources of their traditions. They did not commit their numerous traditions (which appear to have been a long time in accumulating) to writing before their wars against the Romans under Hadrian and Severus. The Mishna, the Gemara, and perhaps the Masorah were collected by the rabbins of Tiberias and later schools. SEE RABBINISM.
Many of their false traditions were in direct opposition to the law of God; hence our Savior often reproached the Pharisees with preferring them to the law itself. He also gives several instances of their superstitious adherence to vain observances, while they neglected essential things (Mat 15:2-3; Mar 7:3-13). The only way in which we can know satisfactorily that any tradition is of divine authority is by its having a place in those writings which are generally acknowledged to be the genuine productions of inspired men. All traditions which have not such authority are without value, and tend greatly to detract and mislead the minds of men (2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6).
In this respect, however, a notable division existed among the Jews themselves, which has been transmitted to the modern representatives of the two great parties. The leading tenet of the Sadducees was the negation of the leading tenet of their opponents. As the Pharisees asserted, so the Sadducees denied, that the Israelites were in possession of an oral law transmitted to them by Moses. The manner in which the Pharisees may have gained acceptance for their own view is noticed elsewhere in this work, SEE PHARISEE; but, for an equitable estimate of the Sadducees, it is proper to bear in mind emphatically how destitute of historical evidence the doctrine was which they denied. That doctrine is, at the, present day, rejected, probably by almost all, if not by all, Christians; and it is, indeed, so foreign to their ideas that the greater number of Christians have never even heard of it, though it is older than Christianity, and has been the support and consolation of the Jews under a series of the most cruel and wicked persecutions to which any nation has ever been exposed during an equal number of centuries. It is likewise now maintained all over the world by those who are called the orthodox Jews.
It is therefore desirable to know the kind of arguments by which, at the present day, in a historical and critical age, the doctrine is defended. For this an opportunity has lately been given by a learned French Jew, grand-rabbi of the circumscription of Colmar (Klein, Le Judaisme, ou la Veriti sur le Talmud [Mulhouse, 1859]), who still asserts as a fact the existence of a Mosaic oral law. To do full justice to his views, the original work should be perused. But it is doing no injustice to-his learning and ability to point out that not one of his arguments has a positive historical value. Thus he relies mainly on the inconceivability (as will be again noticed in this article) that a divine revelation should not have explicitly proclaimed the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, or that it should have promulgated laws left in such an incomplete form and requiring so much explanation, and so many additions as the laws in the Pentateuch. Now arguments of this kind may be sound or unsound; based on reason or illogical; and for many they may have a philosophical or theological value; but they have no pretence to he regarded as historical, inasmuch as the assumed premises, which involve a knowledge of the attributes of the Supreme Being and the manner in which he would be likely to deal with man, are far beyond the limits of historical verification.
The nearest approach to a historical argument is the following (p. 10): In the first place, nothing proves better the fact of the existence of the tradition than the belief itself in the tradition. An entire nation does not suddenly forget its religious code, its principles, its laws, the daily ceremonies of its worship to such a point that it could easily be persuaded that a new doctrine presented by some impostors is the true and only explanation of its law and has always determined and ruled its application. Holy Writ often represents the Israelites as a stiff-necked people impatient of the religious yoke; and would it not be attributing to them rather an excess of docility, a too great condescension, a blind obedience, to suppose that they suddenly consented to troublesome and rigorous innovations which some persons might have wished to impose on them some fine morning? Such a supposition destroys itself, and we are obliged to acknowledge that the tradition is not a new invention, but that its birth goes back to the origin of the religion; and that, transmitted from father to son as the word of God, it lived in the heart of the people, identified itself with the blood, and was always considered as an inviolable authority. But, if this passage is carefully examined, it will be seen that it does not supply a single fact worthy of being regarded as a proof of a Mosaic oral law. Independent testimony of persons contemporary with Moses that he had transmitted such a law to the Israelites would be historical evidence; the testimony of persons in the next generation as to the existence of such an oral law which their fathers told them came from Moses would have been secondary historical evidence: but the belief of the Israelites on the point twelve hundred years after Moses cannot, in the absence of any intermediate testimony, be deemed evidence of a historical fact.
Moreover, it is a mistake to assume that they who deny a Mosaic oral law; imagine that this oral law was at some one time as one great system introduced suddenly among the Israelites. The real mode of conceiving what occurred is far different. After the return from, the Captivity, there existed probably among the Jews a large body of customs and decisions not contained in the Pentateuch; and these had practical authority over the people long before they were attributed to Moses. The only phenomenon of importance requiring explanation is, not the existence of the customs sanctioned by the oral law, but the belief accepted by a certain portion of the Jews that Moses had divinely revealed those customs as laws to the Israelites. To explain this historically from written records is impossible, from the silence on the subject of the very scanty historical Jewish writings purporting to be written between the return from the Captivity in B.C. 536 and that uncertain period when the canon was finally closed, which probably could not have been very long before the death of Antiochus Epiphanies, B.C. 164. For all this space of time, a period of about three hundred and seventy-two years, a period as long as from the accession of Henry VIII to the present day, we have no Hebrew account, nor, in fact, any contemporary account, of the history of the Jews in Palestine, except what may be contained in the short works entitled Ezra and Nehemiah. The last named of these works does not carry the history much later than one hundred years after the return from the Captivity; so that there is a long and extremely important period of more than two centuries and a half before the heroic rising of the Maccabees during which there is a total absence of contemporary Jewish history. In this dearth of historical materials, it is idle to attempt a positive narration of the circumstances under which the oral law became assigned to Moses as its author. It is amply sufficient if a satisfactory suggestion is made as to how it might have been attributed to Moses; and in this there is not much difficulty for any one who bears in mind how notoriously in ancient times laws of a much later date were attributed to Minos, Lycurgus, Solon, and Numa.
Under this head we may add that it must not be assumed that the Sadducees, because they rejected a Mosaic oral law, rejected likewise all traditions and all decisions in explanation of passages in the Pentateuch. Although they protested against the assertion that such points had been divinely settled by Moses, they probably, in numerous instances, followed practically the same traditions as the Pharisees. SEE SADDUCEE.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Tradition
any kind of teaching, written or spoken, handed down from generation to generation. In Mark 7:3, 9, 13, Col. 2:8, this word refers to the arbitrary interpretations of the Jews. In 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6, it is used in a good sense. Peter (1 Pet. 1:18) uses this word with reference to the degenerate Judaism of the “strangers scattered” whom he addresses (comp. Acts 15:10; Matt. 15:2-6; Gal. 1:14).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Tradition
Greek paradosis, instructions “delivered” (1Co 15:3) as inspired, whether orally or in writing, by the apostles (2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6; 2Th 3:10). The only oral tradition designed by God to be obligatory on the church in all ages was soon committed to writing in the apostolic age, and recognized as inspired by the churches then having the gift of discerning spirits. Only in three passages (1Co 11:2 margin; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6) has tradition a good sense; in ten a bad sense, man’s uninspired tradition (Mat 15:2-3; Mat 15:6; Mar 7:3; Mar 7:5; Mar 7:8-9; Mar 7:13; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8). Jesus charges the Jews with “making the commandment of God of none effect through your tradition.” Hilary the deacon says, “a surfeit to carnal sense is human tradition.”
Tradition clogs heavenly perceptions. Paradosis is one of the only two nouns in 2,000 in the Greek Testament which numerically equals 666, the mark of the beast (Rev 13:18). Tradition is the grand corrupter of doctrine, as “wealth” (euporia; Act 19:25, the other equivalent of 666) is of practice. Only those words of the apostles for which they claim inspiration (their words afterward embodied in canonical writing) are inspired, not their every spoken word, e.g. Peter’s dissimulation (Gal 2:11-14). Oral inspiration was needed until the canon of the written word was completed. The apostles’ and evangelists’ inspiration is attested by their miracles; their New Testament Scriptures had the additional test without which even miracles would be inconclusive (Deu 13:1-6), accordance with the existing Old Testament revelation (Act 17:11).
When the canon was complete the infallibility was transferred from living men’s inspired sayings to the written word, now the sole unerring guide, interpreted by the Holy Spirit; comparison of Scripture with Scripture being the best commentary (1Co 2:12-16; 1Jo 2:20; 1Jo 2:27; Joh 1:33; Joh 3:34; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:13-14). The most ancient and universal tradition is the all-sufficiency of Scripture for salvation, “that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2Ti 3:15-17). The apostles never appeal to human tradition, always to Scripture (Act 15:2; Act 15:15-17; Act 17:11; Act 24:14; 1Co 15:3-4). If tradition must be followed, then we ought to follow that oldest tradition which casts away all tradition not in, or provable by, Scripture.
We receive the Christian Lord’s day and infant baptism not on the inherent authority of the fathers, but on their testimony as witnesses of facts which give force to the infiltrations of Scripture. Tradition can authenticate a fact, but not establish a doctrine. Paul’s tradition in 2Th 2:15 is inspired, and only continued oral in part until the Scripture canon was completed by John; altogether different from Rome’s supplementary oral tradition professing to complete the word which is complete, and which we are forbidden to add to, on penalty of God’s plagues written therein (Rev 22:18). By adding human tradition Rome becomes parent of antichrist. How remarkable it is that from this very chapter (2Th 2:15), denouncing antichrist, she draws her argument for tradition which fosters antichristianity. Because the apostles’ oral word, whenever they claim inspiration, was as trustworthy as the written word, it does not follow that the oral word of those neither apostles nor inspired is as trustworthy as the written word of those who were apostles or inspired.
No tradition of the apostles except their written word can be proved genuine on certain evidence. The danger of even a genuine oral tradition (which scarcely any of the so-called traditions are) is illustrated in the “saying” that went abroad among the brethren that John should not die, though Jesus had not said this, but “if I will that he tarry until I come, what is that to thee?” (Joh 21:22-23). We are no more bound to accept the fathers’ interpretation (which by the way is the reverse of unanimous; but even suppose it were so) of Scripture, because we accept the New Testament canon on their testimony, than to accept the Jews’ interpretation of the Old Testament because we accept the Old Testament canon on their testimony; if we were, we should be as bound to reject Jesus, with the Jews, as to reject primitive Scripture Christianity with the apostate church.
See the Church of England Articles 6, 8, 20, 22-34, on the due and the undue place of tradition in the church. What were once universal traditions (e.g. the epistles for centuries ascribed to 11 popes, from Anacletus, A.D. 101, to Victor I, A.D. 192, now universally admitted to be spurious) are no longer so regarded. Whately likened tradition to the Russian game a number sit in a circle, the first reads a short story in the ear of his next neighbour, he repeats it orally to the next, and so on; the last writes it as it, reaches him; the amusement is, when read and compared with the original story it is found wholly metamorphosed, and hardly recognizable as the same story.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
TRADITION
In any society traditions develop as beliefs and practices are handed on from one generation to the next. The Jews of Jesus day had many traditions. Some of these had been taught in the law of Moses (Luk 2:27; Luk 2:41-42), and others had grown up over the centuries (Luk 1:9). Many of the later traditions had been developed and taught by the scribes and Pharisees, and brought Jesus into conflict with the Jewish religious leaders (Mat 23:4-16; see SCRIBES; PHARISEES).
Jesus was not opposed to Jewish traditions. In fact, he kept some of them himself (Luk 4:16; Joh 10:22-23). But he was opposed to the teaching of traditions as binding on people. The Jewish leaders taught human traditions as if they were Gods commandments; worse still, they rejected the genuine commandments of God in order to keep their traditions (Mar 7:7-13; cf. Col 2:8).
The tradition that Christians are to keep is twofold. First, they must keep the teaching passed down from Jesus through the apostles and recorded in the New Testament (Act 2:42; 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3; 2Ti 1:13-14; Jud 1:3; see GOSPEL). Second, they must maintain the standard of behaviour demanded by that teaching (1Co 11:1-2; Php 4:9; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6; see OBEDIENCE).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Tradition
TRADITION.In its simplest and most primitive form, the conception of tradition involves what is contained in the English word delivery. Tradition is the act of transmitting the story of an event or the teaching of a master. From being thus first of all the act of transmission, it becomes in the next place the thing transmitted, and finally a whole body of narratives or teachings passed from generation to generation. In the history of all religions, traditions play a very important part. The times of Jesus and the Gospels were not exceptional in this regard. Explicit mention of tradition is made in Mat 15:2-3; Mat 15:6, Mar 7:3; Mar 7:5; Mar 7:8-9; Mar 7:13. Both of these passages refer to the same transaction, and therefore represent the same condition of affairs in the environment and the same attitude on the part of Jesus towards the subject.
The environment was as thoroughly pervaded by the recognition of the authority of tradition as any other that we know of, either in ancient or in modern times. In fact, it stands pre-eminent in this particular (Mat 15:2, Mar 7:3). The Sadducees took exception to the prevalent state of mind (Josephus Ant. xiii. x. 6); but the attitude of the Pharisees was the very opposite, and exerted a dominant influence in the matter. In the Talmud it was written that Moses received the oral Law from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua delivered it to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great [Note: reat Cranmers Great Bible 1539.] Synagogue. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence for the Law (Aboth i.). The Rabbis interpreted Exo 20:1 as involving the idea that all that was to guide the Israelite into the knowledge of the nature and the law of God had been given to Moses on Mount Sinai. More expressly, they found the different parts of the complex rule of faith advocated in the phraseology of Exo 24:12. The expression used in this passage is, I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law, and the commandments, which I have written, that thou mayest keep them. The tables of stone were understood to mean the Ten Commandments; the law, the written prescriptions of the Pentateuch; the commandments, the Mishna; which I have written, the prophets and Hagiographa; that thou mayest teach them, the Talmud (Berakh. 5a, lines 1116). A place was thus made for a large body of precepts which do not appear in the OT Scriptures; and all this was of at least equal authority with the written Law, because given at the same time and through the same person, Moses. To the question why it was not written down at the same time as the written Law, the answer was that Moses did indeed desire to reduce it to writing, but was forbidden by God, because in the days to come Israel would be scattered among the Gentiles, and the written Law would be taken from them; the oral Law would then be the distinctive badge of the Israelite.* [Note: Hence the name Oral Law has prevailed in modern Jewish usage. (Cf. JE, art. Oral Law).]
By some it was held that the oral or traditional Law was even superior to the written, because the latter was dependent for its authority upon the oral testimony of Moses. In other words, the oral precedes and underlies the written. The covenant was founded not on the written, but on the oral word of God; for it is said, after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel (Exo 34:27).
From the nature of the case, tradition was not a clearly defined body. A large portion of it was simply a repetition of the written Law, with elaborations of detail and embellishments. Another portion consisted of distinct additions, a third of provisions looking to the strict observance of the Torah. As far as this tradition was prescriptive or legal, it was called Hlkh (-khth), i.e. decision (or decisions) having the force of statutes. As far as it was narrative, it was called Haggd (that which is related). As a reiteration of the Mosaic Law, it was called Mishna (repetition). As a series of questionings into or investigations of the meaning of the Law, it was called Midrsh (Midrshm). As a means of teaching, or the body of what was to be taught, it was the Talmud. The whole body of tradition together with the Prophets and Hagiographa, in fact the whole rule of faith with the exception of the Pentateuch, was called Kabblh, that which is received. A doctrine of paralepsis was thus developed, to correlate with the doctrine of paradosis, tradition.
The administration or practical use of such a body of tradition was not an easy matter. In fact, for the average layman it was an impossibility; hence the rise of a class of men who devoted themselves to the work of studying it, and informing inquirers about it (see Scribes, Lawyers). But this method raised the interpreters of the Law to a place of authority. Interpretations of the Law were accepted as binding, because they said so, not because the Law was seen to involve them. The Law was obeyed not because its Divine origin was perceived, but upon the authority of men. Tradition thus came to be doubly the enthronement of human authority. On the one side, it massed together man-made rules and representations of Gods thought; on the other side, it wrought out man-made interpretations of the Law which truly came from God. For the former a direct Divine authority was claimed in the teaching that they were actually delivered to Moses on Sinai; some corroboration for each separate precept thus brought down was sought for in the written Law. For the latter not even this semblance of connexion with the known revelation of God could be adduced. In neither case could the stream rise higher than its source. The teachings of men came to take the place which belonged to those of God. It could not go further back than the elders (Fathers), and those who were called upon to accept it must do so upon the authority of human statements. Tradition thus canonized the media of communication, and lost sight of the value and validity of the things communicated on one side, and of the authority of Him from whom the communication came on the other. Whatever the claim for the Divine origin of the Mishna might be, the practical result of its acceptance was the exaltation of the means through which it came to the supreme place of authority.
Jesus attitude towards tradition relates itself decidedly to this aspect of it. He saw in it a means of transgressing the commandments of God. He denied first of all the Pharisaic teaching that tradition was of equal weight with the Law. He did not, however, definitely affiliate Himself with the Sadducaic teachings on the subject. As against the Pharisees, He taught that the Law of God could not come in conflict with itself, whereas between the traditions current and the Law there were conflicts. In many cases traditional prescriptions did stand in the way of the right observance of the Law (Mar 7:11 ff.). As contrasted with the Divine Law, He calls the tradition your tradition. Finally, He classes all tradition with matters of form or lip-service. He relegates the application of it into the sphere of the non-ethical. So far as such traditions could be made serviceable in the promotion of ethical or spiritual ends, they might be unobjectionable, but they must in no case stand in the way of the clearly revealed will of God (Mat 15:2-20, Mar 7:2-23. See also art. Corban).
Literature.Barclay, The Talmud, 1878; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, 1711; Zunz, Die Gottesdienstl. Vortrge d. Juden2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , 1892; J. H. Weiss, Dor [1876], i. 193; Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] [1886], ii. 205211; Friedlnder, The Jewish Religion, 1891, pp. 136139.
A. C. Zenos.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Tradition
TRADITION.See Law (in NT), 1.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Tradition
Among the Jews, they had certain sayings and opinions supposed to be received from the earliest fathers, and handed down from one generation to another, which they called traditions. And in some instances! they were more tenacious to hold and regard them than even the word of God. Our adorable Lord was constant in reproof concerning them, and hence we find in many parts of the gospel his just condemnation of them, (See Mat 15:1-39 Mar 7:1-37 etc.) It were to be devoutly wished that the weakness, and in some instances the wickedness, of traditions had ceased with Jews and Christians. But the trumpery of legends and reliques; and the like; which some have held with equal veneration to the Scriptures, plainly prove that those things, are in common from the folly and corruption of poor fallen nature, both of Jew and Gentile.
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Tradition
tra-dishun: The Greek word is , paradosis, a giving over, either by word of mouth or in writing; then that which is given over, i.e. tradition, the teaching that is handed down from one to another. The word does not occur in the Hebrew Old Testament (except in Jer 39 (32):4; 41 (34):2, used in another sense), or in the Septuagint or the Apocrypha (except in 2 Esdras 7:26, used in a different sense), but is found 13 times in the New Testament (Mat 15:2, Mat 15:3, Mat 15:6; Mar 7:3, Mar 7:5, Mar 7:8, Mar 7:9, Mar 7:13; 1Co 11:2; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6).
1. Meaning in Jewish Theology:
The term in the New Testament has apparently three meanings. It means, in Jewish theology, the oral teachings of the elders (distinguished ancestors from Moses on) which were reverenced by the late Jews equally with the written teachings of the Old Testament, and were regarded by them as equally authoritative on matters of belief and conduct. There seem to be three classes of these oral teachings: (a) some oral laws of Moses (as they supposed) given by the great lawgiver in addition to the written laws; (b) decisions of various judges which became precedents in judicial matters; (c) interpretations of great teachers (rabbis) which came to be prized with the same reverence as were the Old Testament Scriptures.
It was against the tradition of the elders in this first sense that Jesus spoke so pointedly to the scribes and Pharisees (Mat 15:2 f; Mar 7:3 f). The Pharisees charged Jesus with transgressing the tradition of the elders. Jesus turned on them with the question, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? He then shows how their hollow traditionalism has fruited into mere ceremonialism and externalism (washing of hands, vessels, saying Corban to a suffering parent, i.e. My property is devoted to God, and therefore I cannot use it to help you, etc.), but He taught that this view of uncleanness was essentially false, since the heart, the seat of the soul, is the source of thought, character and conduct (Mar 7:14 f).
2. As Used in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians:
The word is used by Paul when referring to his personal Christian teachings to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica (1Co 11:2; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6). In this sense the word in the singular is better translated instruction, signifying the body of teaching delivered by the apostle to the church at Thessalonica (2Th 3:6). But Paul in the other two passages uses it in the plural, meaning the separate instructions which he delivered to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica.
3. As Used in Colossians:
The word is used by Paul in Col 2:8 in a sense apparently different from the two senses above. He warns his readers against the teachings of the false teachers in Colosse, which are after the tradition of men. Olshausen, Lightfoot, Dargan, in their commentaries in the place cited., maintain that the reference is to the Judaistic character of the false teachers. This may be true, and yet we must see that the word tradition has a much broader meaning here than in 1 above. Besides, it is not certain that the false teachings at Colosse are essentially Jewish in character. The phrase tradition of men seems to emphasize merely the human, not necessarily Jewish, origin of these false teachings.
The verb , paraddomi, to give over, is also used 5 times to express the impartation of Christian instruction: Luk 1:2, where eyewitnesses are said to have handed down the things concerning Jesus; 1Co 11:2, 1Co 11:23 and 1Co 15:3 referring to the apostle’s personal teaching; 2Pe 2:21, to instruction by some Christian teacher (compare 1Pe 1:18).
Literature.
Broadus, Allen, Meyer, commentaries on Mat 15:2 f; Swete, Gould, commentaries on Mk (Mar 7:3 f); Lightfoot, Meyer, commentaries on Gal 1:14; Lightfoot, Olshausen, Dargan (American Commentary), commentaries on Col 2:8; Milligan, commentary on 1 and 2 Thess (2Th 2:15 and 2Th 3:6); Weber, Jewish Theology (Ger., Altsyn. Theol.); Pocock, Porta Mosis, 350-402; Schurer, HJP, II, i, section 25; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, chapter xxxi; Josephus, Ant., XIII, x, 6.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Tradition
. This may be described as that which is handed down as oral teaching. It may be from God, as in 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6; and 1Co 11:2 (where it is translated ‘ordinance’), instruction handed down before the word of God was complete. Or it may be from man, as was the tradition of the elders of Israel, which was strongly denounced by the Lord, and declared to be a subverting of the commandments of God. Mat 15:2-6; Mar 7:3-13; Gal 1:14. In Col 2:8 it is the mere teaching of the moralists, of which much has survived to the present day. What man institutes, man holds to most tenaciously.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Tradition
The decisions and minor precepts taught by Paul
1Co 11:2; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6
Commandments of men
Mat 12:1-8; Mat 15:2-6; Mar 7:3-9; Luk 6:1-11; Col 2:8; 1Pe 1:18
Not authoritative
Mat 15:3-20; 1Ti 1:4; 1Ti 4:7
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Tradition
Tradition. Jdg 6:13. Tradition is usually considered to imply that which was taught by oral instruction, in distinction from that which was committed to writing. At the beginning of the gospel the Christian doctrine was taught orally. Paul refers to “traditions” which he commands to be held fast, being as binding as any commandments delivered in any other way. 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6. The Jews had really contradicted God’s law by their traditions, which they pretended were of equal or even superior authority. For this our Lord reproved them. Mat 15:1-9. They attached more importance to their traditionary exposition of the law than to the law itself, calling the latter water, the tradition the wine that must be mingled with it. Their traditions were subsequently collected into the Talmud.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Tradition
“a handing down or on” (akin to paradidomi, “to hand over, deliver”), denotes “a tradition,” and hence, by metonymy, (a) “the teachings of the rabbis,” interpretations of the Law, which was thereby made void in practice, Mat 15:2-3, Mat 15:6; Mar 7:3, Mar 7:5, Mar 7:8-9, Mar 7:13; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8; (b) of “apostolic teaching,” 1Co 11:2, RV, “traditions” (AV, “ordinances”), of instructions concerning the gatherings of believers (instructions of wider scope than ordinances in the limited sense); in 2Th 2:15, of Christian doctrine in general, where the Apostle’s use of the word constitutes a denial that what he preached originated with himself, and a claim for its Divine authority (cp. paralambano, “to receive,” 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3); in 2Th 3:6, it is used of instructions concerning everyday conduct.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Tradition
See CABBALA.