Little thought is generally given by the beginning Bible student to the consideration of how the written text of the Bible came to us. If any thought is given at all, it is generally assumed that God handed the text to an individual (or group of individuals), and it has thus been passed on to us. A more thorough study of the biblical text, however, has led to the conclusion that behind a great deal of the written text of the Bible stands a long stream of tradition. Jeremiah admonished his people to look for the ancient ways in order to find the way of properly living with God (Jeremiah 6:16 ). His proclamation was that their long-standing tradition should have offered a proper guide for life. Oral tradition appears to be the foundation of many written texts. A study of the New Testament helps us to realize that it was at least ten to twenty years after the death of Jesus before any of the Gospels were written. Prior to the writing of the first Gospel, the sermons of the apostles and many of the letters of Paul had been written. Yet during that time, the early Christians clearly knew a great deal about the life and ministry of Jesus. This information was passed on by word of mouth, becoming the traditions upon which the writers of the Gospels ultimately drew. Paul frequently referred to the traditions which he had received and which he passed on to the churches (1 Corinthians 11:23-25 ; 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 ). He also pointed out some things which he had not received from tradition (compare Galatians 1:11-12 .) The evidence for ancient oral traditions is even stronger in the Old Testament. The entire collection of the books of the prophets is made up of material which was originally spoken (preached). It generally appears that their sermons were passed on and remembered orally for a considerable period of time before they were ever written. Jeremiah had obviously preached for many years before his sermons were first written. At that time, he employed Baruch the scribe to record his sermons as the prophet dictated them (Jeremiah 36:1-4 ). Isaiah also appeared to have ordered his disciples to collect his messages for some future time (Isaiah 8:16 ). This evidence can be multiplied many times. Since the work of Herman Gunkel in the early part of the twentieth century, most Old Testament scholars have almost universally accepted the idea that many Old Testament texts had a long history of oral transmission before they were ever written. To a contemporary student, such a thought often appears to make such texts suspect. However, anyone who has tried to hurry through a favorite bedtime story with a child will recognize that audiences familiar with a story ensure its accurate transmission. It appears that the narratives were first used around campfires or in religious rituals. Either type of use is highly structured and deeply tinged with emotions which would guard the accuracy of their use. At the same time, even as a contemporary interpreter will take an old text and apply it to a new situation, these old traditions apparently were frequently retold to apply to the new situations which the people of Israel faced. (A comparative study of 1,2Kings and 1,2Chronicles makes it appear that such may also have been done with written texts as well.) Oral traditions appear to have had their origin in the life needs of the community of faith. The German term Sitz im Leben (life situation) is normally applied to this. The point is simply that oral traditions arose, were preserved, and were passed on because the life needs of the community were being met. This recognizes that people hold on to those things which are meaningful and meet their life needs. (God used processes which met human needs to preserve His inspired Word.) The verses of Scripture which a person memorizes and treasures are held onto for precisely the same reasons. Such traditions, then, clearly had their origin in historical situations. The children of Abraham held onto the stories of their ancestors because they heard God speak to them through those events, guiding them in facing similar situations. They also held on to other parts of the story as the basis for their faith that God's promised blessings were ultimately going to be fulfilled for them. On the other hand, other types of materials were preserved because they aided in the human approach to God in worship. Here again, it was the human need to worship and serve which gave the basis for preserving and passing on material which helped them meet those needs. These ancient traditions, then, were inspired by God to meet human need in real life experiences. They were preserved and passed on precisely because they had a very specific life setting, helping people to face life as it was with the strength of God to sustain them every day. Such traditions made it easier to understand what God was doing because they could hear Him speak through what He had done in other life situations. Furthermore, study of these ancient traditions makes it obvious that materials which were used in similar life situations were generally preserved and passed on in similar “literary” forms. The use of common forms or outlines for similar kinds of material made it even easier to maintain the accuracy of transmitting the traditions. The traditions of Israel and of the early Christians were obviously used by the worshiping communities as a means of maintaining and transmitting their faith. In the Old Testament these were apparently collected and preserved at the various shrines where Israel worshiped. In the New Testament, this was done among the many scattered congregations. A comparison of Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 can be seen to illustrate this process. The two psalms are almost wholly identical. Yet the name for God in Psalm 14:1 is Lord (Hebrew, Yahweh ) and in Psalm 53:1 , God (Hebrew, Elohim ; compare NAS). It appears from other studies that Yahweh was preferred in Judah and at the Jerusalem Temple while Elohim was preferred in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, possibly at Bethel. It appears that this particular psalm was a favorite among Hebrew worshipers. However, when the kingdom divided, one nation preserved it with one divine name while the other used the tradition to meet their own particular needs with the other name for God. Each worshiping community was inspired to use the same hymn to worship God, but they used it with their own particular name for God. The same types of processes appear to be demonstrable in other instances. Further, such worshiping communities also appear to have preserved those particular traditions which were most meaningful to them. Thus Jerusalem, the City of David, appears to have had major interests in the Davidic traditions. Bethel, on the other hand, was significantly involved in the life of Jacob. It appears that traditions concerning Jacob had a very special meaning to those who worshiped at Bethel. Paul clearly referred to conflicting traditions and allegiances at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:10-12 ). Such conflicts arose as the worshiping community sought to assimilate a variety of traditions into one tradition. Obviously, in the Old Testament all the traditions of the various worship centers and worshiping communities ultimately were assimilated in Jerusalem. In the ongoing history of the nation, all other shrines ultimately passed away as the nation finally centered its entire worship experience upon the Jerusalem Temple. The New Testament experience was different in that the Christians' worship did not shrink inward to one place but spread outward to many. It was the New Testament itself which became the focal point of New Testament traditions rather than any specific worship center. Oral traditions were recorded as written traditions at certain critical points in history. This is particularly true in the Old Testament era. It appears that the worshiping communities were generally quite content to use their traditions in predominantly oral form until a crisis arose which threatened their continuity. This contentment with things as they were was probably bolstered by the fact that reading and writing were skills limited primarily to the professional scribes in Old Testament times. Everyone could handle oral tradition, only a few could handle written traditions. However, when historical crises arose which threatened the continued stability or existence of a worship center or of a worshiping community, then it appears that the traditions were committed to writing lest they be lost. Such situations arose when the nation divided following the reign of Solomon, when the Northern Kingdom fell before Assyria, and when Jerusalem fell under the onslaught of Babylon. At such times, there appear to have been large scale writings of traditions. It appears that the New Testament traditions were written under the impetus of historical crises, but these were of a different nature. The Gospels were apparently written when those who had known Jesus in person began to die. There appears to have been a fear that the traditions would be lost unless they were recorded for future believers. Other New Testament materials were written to meet the crises of missions and evangelism. More people could read and write by this time. The written materials allowed people to receive the good news who had never heard a Christian preacher. As always, the handling of these materials was done under the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit. The study of the transmission of these ancient traditions allows us to perceive the human dimension of the transmission of biblical materials as well as come to a deeper understanding of the nature of God's inspiration. The common characteristics of material preserved at specific worship centers allow us to identify many of their interests, concerns, and historical roots. On the other hand, the differences between traditions sometimes give an even greater insight into the basic human issues with which those who transmitted particular traditions were concerned. As an illustration, note that Mark says of the woman who had been plagued by the issue of blood that she had spent all her money on physicians yet had steadily gotten worse (Mark 5:25-26 ). Luke, on the other hand, left out that bit of a sarcastic criticism of doctors (Luke 8:43 ). The difference in the way these two writers handled the same tradition reveals Luke's human sympathetic concern with doctors. This adds depth to our understanding of the man who was himself a physician. This kind of study has left us with both a deeper understanding of the practices by which God has inspired, recorded, and preserved His Word and a greater awareness of the fact that God worked with human beings who had all of the feelings and concerns to which humanity is heir. The biblical traditions are rooted and grounded in the divine meeting of human need. They have their basis in real-life situations and were preserved by a living, worshiping community. This allows these same traditions better to meet present human need in the real-life situations of contemporary communities of faith. See Bible, Formation and Canon of ; Inspiration; Revelation. Robert L. Cate

TRADITION . See Law (in NT), § 1 .

Any kind of teaching, written or spoken, handed down from generation to generation. In Mark 7:3,9,13 , Colossians 2:8 , this word refers to the arbitrary interpretations of the Jews. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ; 3:6 , it is used in a good sense. Peter (1 Peter 1:18 ) uses this word with reference to the degenerate Judaism of the "strangers scattered" whom he addresses (Compare Acts 15:10 ; Matthew 15:2-6 ; Galatians 1:14 ).

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 (Luke 2:27; Luke 2:41-42), and others had grown up over the centuries (Luke 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 (Matthew 23:4-16; see SCRIBES; PHARISEES). Jesus was not opposed to Jewish traditions. In fact, he kept some of them himself (Luke 4:16; John 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 God’s commandments; worse still, they rejected the genuine commandments of God in order to keep their traditions (Mark 7:7-13; cf. Colossians 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 (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; Judges 1:3; see GOSPEL). Second, they must maintain the standard of behaviour demanded by that teaching (1 Corinthians 11:1-2; Philippians 4:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; see OBEDIENCE).

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.

Greek paradosis , instructions "delivered" (1 Corinthians 15:3) as inspired, whether orally or in writing, by the apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 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 (1 Corinthians 11:2 margin; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6) has tradition a good sense; in ten a bad sense, man's uninspired tradition (Matthew 15:2-3; Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:3; Mark 7:5; Mark 7:8-9; Mark 7:13; Galatians 1:14; Colossians 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. Ρaradosis is one of the only two nouns in 2,000 in the Greek Testament which numerically equals 666, the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:18). Tradition is the grand corrupter of doctrine, as "wealth" (euporia ; Acts 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 (Galatians 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 (Deuteronomy 13:1-6), accordance with the existing Old Testament revelation (Acts 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 (1 Corinthians 2:12-16; 1 John 2:20; 1 John 2:27; John 1:33; John 3:34; John 15:26; John 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" (2 Timothy 3:15-17). The apostles never appeal to human tradition, always to Scripture (Acts 15:2; Acts 15:15-17; Acts 17:11; Acts 24:14; 1 Corinthians 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 2 Thessalonians 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 (Revelation 22:18). By adding human tradition Rome becomes parent of antichrist. How remarkable it is that from this very chapter (2 Thessalonians 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?" (John 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.

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 (מִרְרַשׁ, ‘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 (תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל־פָּה, ‘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 Hǎlâkhôth (from הָלַךְ, ‘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 Hăggâdôth (from הִגִּיד, ‘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 מִצְוית זְקִנִים, the ‘command of the elders’ (cf. the NT παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ‘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 שָׁגָה, ‘repeat’), most probably in the sense of ‘study’ or ‘teaching’ (in spite of the δευτέρωσις of the Church Fathers), came to be applied to the oral Law; and various collections were now made by leading scholars like Hillel and Aḳiba, the standard edition being that of Judah ha-Nasi (circa, about a.d. 200). The Mishna itself is a compilation of Hǎlâkhôth, or formal statutes; but the Gemara, or ‘supplement’ of the Mishna (from גְּמַר, ‘complete’), contains many Hǎggâdôth 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 (Pirḳe 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 (Matthew 15:2 ff., Mark 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 (Acts 7:15 f., Acts 7:22; Acts 7:38; Acts 7:53) are doubtless drawn from Jewish Hăggâdôth; examples of the same thing are found in St. Paul’s references to the Rock that followed the Israelites (1 Corinthians 10:4), to the seducing of Eve by the serpent (2 Corinthians 11:3), and to the ministry of angels (Galatians 3:19; cf. Hebrews 2:2), while the direct use of Haggadic literature is suggested in such texts as 2 Timothy 3:8 f., 1 Peter 3:19 ff., 2 Peter 2:4 ff., Judges 1:6 ff. The influence of Halakhic exegesis is equally evident in the Apostle’s method of argument in Romans 9:7 ff., Galatians 4:21 ff., 1 Corinthians 9:9 f. (cf. 1 Timothy 5:18). Literature.-L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge 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 Amoräer, do., 1878, Die Agada der palästinischen Amoräer, 3 vols., do., 1892-99; F. Weber, Jüdische Theologie2, Leipzig, 1897; E Schürer, GJV ^[1] 4 i. ^[2] 111ff., II. ^[3] 381 ff. (HJP ^[4] I. ^[5] i. 117 ff., 11. ^[6] 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.

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 Matthew 15:2-3; Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:3; Mark 7:5; Mark 7:8-9; Mark 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 (Matthew 15:2, Mark 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 ^[1] 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 Exodus 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 Exodus 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 11–16). 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.* ^[2] 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’ (Exodus 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 Hălâkhâ (-khôth), i.e. decision (or decisions) having the force of statutes. As far as it was narrative, it was called Haggâdâ (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 Midrâsh (Midrâshîm). 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 Kabbâlâh, 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 God’s 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 (Mark 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 (Matthew 15:2-20, Mark 7:2-23. See also art. Corban). Literature.—Barclay, The Talmud, 1878; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, 1711; Zunz, Die Gottesdienstl. Vorträge d. Juden2 ^[3] , 1892; J. H. Weiss, Dor ^[4], i. 1–93; Edersheim, LT ^[5].] 3 ^{[3] [7]}, ii. 205–211; Friedländer, The Jewish Religion, 1891, pp. 136–139. A. C. Zenos.

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 Matthew 15:1-39; Mark 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.

ταράδοσις. This may be described as that which is handed down as oral teaching. It may be from God, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ; 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ; and 1 Corinthians 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. Matthew 15:2-6 ; Mark 7:3-13 ; Galatians 1:14 . In Colossians 2:8 it is the mere teaching of the moralists, ofwhich much has survived to the present day. What man institutes, man holds to most tenaciously.

(1): (n.) The unwritten or oral delivery of information, opinions, doctrines, practices, rites, and customs, from father to son, or from ancestors to posterity; the transmission of any knowledge, opinions, or practice, from forefathers to descendants by oral communication, without written memorials. (2): (n.) The act of delivering into the hands of another; delivery. (3): (n.) Hence, that which is transmitted orally from father to son, or from ancestors to posterity; knowledge or belief transmitted without the aid of written memorials; custom or practice long observed. (4): (n.) An unwritten code of law represented to have been given by God to Moses on Sinai. (5): (n.) That body of doctrine and discipline, or any article thereof, supposed to have been put forth by Christ or his apostles, and not committed to writing. (6): (v. t.) To transmit by way of tradition; to hand down.

Tradition. Judges 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. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 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. Matthew 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.

See CABBALA .

Colossians 2:8 Titus 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, Isaiah 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, Revelation 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, Matthew 15:1-20 Mark 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 2 Thessalonians 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.

TRADI'TION, n. L. traditio, from trado, to deliver. 1. Delivery the act of delivering into the hands of another. A deed takes effect only from the tradition or delivery. The sale of a movable is completed by simple tradition. 2. The delivery of opinions,doctrines, practices,rites and customs from father to son, or from ancestors to posterity the transmission of any opinions or practice from forefathers to descendants by oral communication, without written memorials. Thus children derive their vernacular language chiefly from tradition. Most of our early notions are received by tradition from our parents. 3. That which is handed down from age to age by oral communication. The Jews pay great regard to tradition in matters of religion, as do the Romanists. Protestants reject the authority of tradition in sacred things, and rely only on the written word. Traditions may be good or bad, true or false. Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2 . Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your traditions? Matthew 15 .

1: παράδοσις (Strong's #3862 — Noun Feminine — paradosis — par-ad'-os-is ) "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, Matthew 15:2,3,6 ; Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13 ; Galatians 1:14 ; Colossians 2:8 ; (b) of "apostolic teaching," 1 Corinthians 11:2 , RV, "traditions" (AV, "ordinances"), of instructions concerning the gatherings of believers (instructions of wider scope than ordinances in the limited sense); in 2 Thessalonians 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," 1 Corinthians 11:23 ; 15:3 ); in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 , it is used of instructions concerning everyday conduct.

A term used in the Thirty-fourth Article of Religion todenote customs, rites, forms and ceremonies of the Church which havebeen transmitted by oral communications or long established usage,and which though not commanded in so many words in Holy Scripture,yet have always been used and kept in the Holy Catholic Church. Forthis reason they are revered, practiced and retained in its variousbranches at the present time. Such traditions are the following: 1. The observance of the first day of the week instead of theseventh. 2. The observance of the Christian Year, or the system of Feastsand Fasts and Holy Seasons according to the events in our Lord'sLife. 3. The Baptism of Infants. 4. The use of Liturgical worship. 5. The use of vestments by the ministers in divine service. 6. The arrangement of our churches after the model of the Temple. 7. The observance of the seven hours of prayer. 8. The sign of the Cross in Baptism and at other times. 9. The choral service. All these traditions of the Universal Church are retained orpermitted by the American branch of the Church. It is also to be noted that by tradition is meant the uniformteaching of the Church from the beginning, i.e., the witnessthat the Church bears by the writings of the Fathers and theenactments of her General Councils to the Truths of the ChristianReligion and the interpretation of Holy Scripture. This is inaccord with St. Peter's words, "No prophecy of the Scripture is ofany private interpretation." Inasmuch as the Church is the "Witnessand keeper of Holy Writ," and that it is upon her testimony that weknow what is the Bible, it is but reasonable to defer to herinterpretation, her universal customs and traditions as to itsmeaning. (See UNDIVIDED CHURCH; also FATHERS, THE.)