Scripture and Tradition (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology)

What the Bible Really Says

Edith M. Humphrey, Evans, Craig, McDonald, Lee, Craig Evans, Lee McDonald

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9780801039836
• eBook ISBN:
  9781441240484
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

In some of the church's history, Scripture has been pitted against tradition and vice versa. Prominent New Testament scholar Edith Humphrey, who understands the issue from both Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox perspectives, revisits this perennial point of tension. She demonstrates that the Bible itself reveals the importance of tradition, exploring how the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles show Jesus and the apostles claiming the authority of tradition as God's Word, both written and spoken. Arguing that Scripture and tradition are not in opposition but are necessarily and inextricably intertwined, Humphrey defends tradition as God's gift to the church. She also works to dismantle rigid views of sola scriptura while holding a high view of Scripture's authority.

– 1 –
Lost in Translation?

Despite it being uncomfortable to live in Québec as an English speaker at a time of social unrest, I am grateful for all that I learned while sojourning there during my early married years. Into a generational tradition that was wholly British (including England, Scotland, and northern Ireland), our family incorporated new ways of acting and celebrating: today my grandchildren consistently call me “grandmaman” because their mothers, born and raised in Québec and educated in French Catholic schools, want them to retain this adopted heritage. On birthdays we frequently sing three celebratory songs: “Happy birthday to you!,” “God grant you many years” (from our Orthodox context), and Ma Chère whoever-it-is, c’est à ton tour de te laisser parler d’amour . . .” (I have never figured out quite why the Québecois think that the person who is having a birthday ought to have his or her “turn to speak about love,” but it is an intriguing sentiment and represents the romantic French culture to a T). I have considered introducing my grandkids to the little ditty “Dropping, dropping, dropping, dropping, hear those pennies fall . . .” (the song I sang as a child while dropping birthday money into the Salvation Army lighthouse bank during Sunday school), but I suppose that four birthday songs might be stretching it!

Along with our expanded cultural repertoire, I also picked up (while teaching Bible in French, with great fear and trembling, to francophone university students) some riches that have helped me explain biblical studies to English-speaking students as well. One of these is to view the Bible as a collection of holy writings, full of different genres: the Greek term, ta biblia, the books, is very nicely illuminated by its cognate French word for library, bibliothèque. Another gem that I picked up was that it is notoriously difficult to draw the line between translating and interpreting, as the French verb for “to translate,” interpréter, suggests!

This very ambiguity indeed can be seen in the Scriptures. In the biblical book of Nehemiah, when those exiles who had returned to Judah from Babylon and Egypt reassembled, the scribe Ezra read from the Torah, with his helpers “explaining the sense” to the people (Neh. 8:8 EH). Were they actually translating from the Hebrew because it had become a dead language to some second- and third-generation exiles, or were they interpreting and applying the Torah conceptually for the new context? And where is the line between these two services, translation and interpretation? This question is key, I think, to understanding what has happened in the English-speaking Christian world concerning our view of tradition.

As we noted toward the end of the introduction to this book, there are two terms in the Greek New Testament most commonly translated by the English word “tradition”—the noun paradosis (“tradition”) and the verb paradidōmi (“to pass on,” or, we might say, “to tradition”). So then, the related terms are compounds, coming from the Greek words didōmi or dosis (“I give,” “gift”) plus the preposition para (which has various meanings, including “alongside,” “from the side,” or “in proximity with”). The theologically astute might think of the title given to the Holy Spirit, the “Paraclete” (“the One called alongside”); the general public can think of “parachute”—that object which we dearly desire to have alongside us when we are jumping any distance! When we put all this together, we discern that the idea of tradition includes an act of giving (didōmi) over (para), a gift that is given over (paradosis), and an implied reception of that gift.[28] (There is a Greek verb that is typically associated with this reception, paralambanō, that we shall discuss later.)

In this chapter we will observe how the noun paradosis and verb paradidōmi are used in the New Testament and how these words have been translated in our complex tradition of English Bibles. Then we will engage in a general discussion of how some writers of the books of the Bible handled traditional material themselves, a topic that will be considered in more detail in chapter 2. Finally, we will touch on the many things in all their variety and splendor (some of them surprising) that are declared by the biblical writers to have been passed on to us as traditions. These, of course, we will see up close and personal throughout the rest of this book. These are “what we have received,” gifts that we may receive personally and corporately, with thanksgiving. Among these gifts is even the Christian principle of “translation” and “interpretation,” which is the focus of this chapter. Nor ought we to take this principle of translation for granted, since other faiths (e.g., Islam) do not think that their holy books can be fully or accurately translated. Though I will be making my argument by recourse to the original New Testament language, I do not want in any way to suggest that Christians without this expertise are intrinsically deprived of understanding or that “experts” in the original language are indispensable, like academic “priests” who have “the real stuff.” God the Holy Spirit has his ways of communicating to us and does not need the ministrations of any experts, including those with skills in language. But, since we are in the body of Christ together, I pray that he will allow us to help each other where culture and language have conspired to obscure the truth, at least for a space of time and in a particular social context.

Let’s begin with what the traditional and popular English translations make of these words paradosis (or plural paradoseis) and paradidōmi. Consider first Paul’s often-forgotten words to the Corinthians: “I commend you because you remember me in everything, and keep the paradoseis just as I paradidō-ed them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2 EH). Now, compare this semi-English version (reminds me of Google translate!), in which I have not even tried to transfer the paradosis/didōmi words into English, with the translations of the Authorized Version and two other more recent versions:

• Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (KJV)
• I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. (NIV, 1973)
• I am so glad, dear friends, that you always keep me in your thoughts and you are following the Christian teaching I passed on to you. (NLT)

Well, I suppose it is understandable that English stylists wouldn’t make up an English verb where there is none, and I don’t expect the verb “to paradidō” or even “to tradition” to catch on, though stranger things have happened. (Academics now “bracket” ideas, and everybody and everything “impacts” everybody else. The newest Webster Dictionary classes “impact” as a transitive verb instead of simply a noun, to which use it was restricted when I was a student.) So, then, we can accept “delivered” and “passed on” as reasonable English paraphrases for a nonexistent verb. But where is the plural noun paradoseis in the KJV, the NIV, and the NLT? Nowhere! Instead, we hear the words “ordinances,” “teachings,” and “Christian teaching”—never “traditions,” the most natural translation. Why do we think that might be? Did the Protestants of Elizabethan England not use the word “tradition”? Why, of course they did, but not with positive overtones! And the original[29] NIV and NLT simply followed the lead of the KJV (an interpretive tradition), since these versions were expected to flourish in the communities that traditionally had used the Authorized Version.

We see a similar situation when we analyze the translation of a more practical passage written by the apostle Paul. To the Thessalonians, some of whom thought that Jesus was returning imminently, he gave this instruction about the importance of continuing on in their daily duties in life. We render it in the 1973 NIV translation:

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. (2 Thess. 3:6)

First, let’s pause to notice that here in the original Greek we encounter the flip side of the active verb “to tradition” (paradidōmi); we learn from Paul that the congregation has received (paralambanō) Christian tradition. However, as in our first example, the NIV translators do not give a single nod to the word paradosis, this time used in the singular by Paul: “the tradition.” Instead, they have Paul refer to “the teaching” received by the Corinthians—but Greek has a perfectly good word for teaching, and it is not paradosis. (It may be that the original conveyors of the NIV were instructed by the Tyndale Bible and the Treacle, or Bishop’s Bible, which also avoid “tradicion” at this point and opt for the more narrow term “institucion.”) We must give the translators of the older KJV credit in this case, for they do use the word “tradition” here. However, that KJV translation has traditionally (!) been accompanied in Protestant circles by explanations such as the following, found in Adam Clarke’s famous commentary:

This [word paradosis] evidently refers to the orders contained in the first epistle; and that first epistle was the tradition which they had received from him. It was, therefore, no unwritten word, no uncertain saying, handed about from one to another; but a part of the revelation which God had given, and which they found in the body of his epistle. These are the only traditions which the Church of God is called to regard.[30]

“Tradition,” according to Clarke’s accounting, cannot possibly be a reference to something oral, because that is a shaky foundation; rather, Paul must be referring back to another part of the written word, such as his first letter. The problem with this commentary is, of course, that it ignores what we have already seen in 1 Corinthians—that Paul indeed enjoins his followers to pay attention to oral instruction and not simply to his written letters. (Moreover, it may well be a mistake to distinguish tradition as oral over against Scriptures as written, as we shall see in the next chapter.) But translators subsequent to the KJV typically have followed the cue of such persistent explanations, expunging the offending word and replacing it with something like “teaching,” such as the NIV translation we have just read. Or, consider this rendering:

And now, dear brothers and sisters, we give you this command with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ: Stay away from any Christian who lives in idleness and doesn’t follow the tradition of hard work we gave you. (NLT, 2004)[31]

Here we may discern another subtle way of curtailing the importance of what Paul is saying. The word “tradition” is used, but it is qualified. As a result, the wording implies that the apostle is simply referring to a specific tradition concerning hard work, something to which any reasonable person would assent, and a practice that Paul indeed did model for the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:9).

Well, indeed, in context Paul is speaking specifically about the importance of work. He is concerned for the Thessalonians who had heard alarming tales about the end of all things, rumors that induced some to cease their normal round of activity. But the translator has clearly moved from translation (which should simply speak of “the tradition” that Paul had passed on) to interpretation by supplying for Paul the phrase “of hard work.” What if Paul’s example of modeling hard work were part of a larger body of tradition concerning how to live as a Christian, a tradition that he had received from Christians such as Ananias? Remember how this reluctant Jewish Christian nurtured the convert Saul/Paul, and that he, by the Holy Spirit, had informed Saul/Paul that he would have hard missionary work as a chosen vessel of God and much to suffer because of the name of Jesus (Acts 9:15–16). The limitation of this new translation does not leave open this possibility that Paul is referring to something larger, just as the use of the word “teaching” in the NIV also obscured the positive value of “tradition” articulated by Paul in his original words. No, these translations are taking liberties, following along the bias of the fabric woven in the turmoil of the English Reformation: they alter, explain away, or narrow the meaning of the word “tradition” in accordance with preconceptions about what St. Paul must have meant. In contrast, the RSV (which certainly has its own bias) correctly delivers Paul’s meaning when it translates our verse in this way: “Now we command you . . . in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”

All this is not to say that the traditional English translations and those following them always avoid the word “tradition.” No indeed! We find the word in spades in passages such as Colossians 2:8 or Mark 7:3–9, passages that are well known in churches associated with the Reformed tradition. So, for example, the NIV does not avoid the term when the Colossians are instructed: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” (Col. 2:8). In fact, this version, by dropping the definite article “the,” which is in the Greek, and by turning the noun “human beings” into the adjective “human,” paints the idea of “human tradition” in a broad sweep, as a general (and negative) phenomenon. In translating more literally, we should say “according to the tradition of human beings” rather than “which depends on human tradition.” By referring generally to “human tradition” in a negative context, the translation predisposes readers to assume that all tradition is hollow, deceptive, and enslaving. Indeed, one either depends on Christ or on such pagan tradition, obeying either God or humans. We are sometimes called upon to make these choices, but other times God uses human beings to whom we should listen.

Again, when in Mark 7:3–9 we behold Jesus in controversy with the Pharisees, neither the KJV nor contemporary versions show the slightest delicacy in using the word “traditions” to criticize his opponents. After all, Pharisees are characterized among the faithful as not only sub-Christian but also as resisting Jesus because they were ritualistic:

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (KJV, emphasis added)

Then there is the rendering of the NIV:

(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!” (NIV, emphasis added)

So, then, both the KJV and the NIV render the paradosis/paradidōmi group literally in this case. I am not certain why the NIV translates the singular Greek noun paradosis as plural in the last two verses (“human traditions”; “your own traditions”), unless it is on the assumption that these are arbitrary regulations and not part of a coherent body of teaching. But the NLT, which also persists in using the plural, is even more transparent. Listen for the dismissive phrases “ancient traditions” and “age-old customs,” coupled with the plural “your own traditions.” It interprets in this manner:

(The Jews, especially the Pharisees, do not eat until they have poured water over their cupped hands, as required by their ancient traditions. Similarly, they eat nothing bought from the market unless they have immersed their hands in water. This is but one of many traditions they have clung to—such as t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1. Lost in Translation?
• 2. Deadly Traditions
• 3. The Apostles, the Word, and the Letter
• 4. The Blessed Delivery
• 5. Tradition as God’s Personal Gift
• 6. Holy Tradition versus Human Traditions
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Subject Index
• Scripture Index
• Back Cover