Friday, August 16, 2019

F.F. Bruce and M. Simon on Inspired Oral Revelation/Traditions in the New Testament


In a volume from 1968 reproducing papers form a symposium, Holy Book and Holy Tradition, edited by F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, there are admissions that the oral traditions New Testament authors speak positively about are authoritative, showing that the naïve “all tradition is the ‘tradition of men’” and cries of “Sola Scriptura is part of New Testament Christianity” are simply false. Note the following from F.F. Bruce:

Of the various kinds of tradition mentioned in the New Testament, some are approved and some disapproved. Among the latter are the ‘tradition of the elders’—the growing accumulation of oral law—by which Jesus said the scribes had nullified the plain sense of the Word of God (Mark 7:1 ff. and Matthew 15:1 ff.), and the ‘tradition of men’ (Colossians 2:8) attacked in the Epistle to the Colossians, an incipient Gnosticism which threatened to transform apostolic Christianity into something of a different order. To this ‘tradition of men’ is opposed the true tradition of Christ: ‘as therefore you received (παρελαβετε) Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught’ (Colossians 2:6 f.; cf. Philippians 4:9). The verb παραλαμβανειν, ‘to receive by tradition’, is the correlative of παραδιδοναι, ‘to deliver, transmit’ (the two correlative verbs corresponding to Heb. qibbēl and māsar).

When Paul uses the verb παραδιδοναι or its cognate noun παραδοσις, he sometimes makes it plain that what he is transmitting to others was similarly delivered to himself. Thus in 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff. and 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. the account of the kerygma which he delivered (παρεδωκα) to the Corinthians are things which he claims in the first instance to have ‘received’ (παρελαβον) himself’ (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13). But on other occasions, as when he charges the church of Thessalonica to hold fast the traditions (παραδοσεις) which, he says, ‘you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter’ (2 Thessalonians 2:15), it is not necessary to confine them to things which he himself first learned from those who were in Christ before him. (F.F. Bruce, “Scripture and Tradition in the New Testament” in F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, eds. Holy Book and Holy Tradition [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968], 68-69)

On 2 Thess 2:15, Bruce writes in an endnote:

Here παραδοσις covers both spoken and written instruction. Compare the evidence of Papias (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl., iii. 39. 3. f. )for the availability of both oral and written tradition in his day; he himself regarded the former as the more valuable, ‘for I did not suppose that what I could get from books would help me so much as what came from a living and abiding voice.’ (Ibid., 87 n. 15)

In his study of the ancient Church and Rabbinic Tradition, M. Simon wrote:

[I]f one compares the classical formulation of rabbinic doctrine about tradition given in the treatise Pirke Aboth with the earliest formulations of the Christian idea of tradition, as they appear in 1 Corinthians. I quote the two texts in succession:

Aboth 1:1: ‘Moses received (kibbel) Torah from Mountain Sinai and delivered it (umesarah) to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the Men of the Great Synagogue.’

1 Corinthians 11:23: ‘I have received of the Lord, that which I also delivered unto you’ (εγω γαρ παρελαβον απο του κυριου ο και παρεδωκα υμιν).

Παρελαβον corresponds very precisely to kibbel and παρεδωκα to mesarah and it is, I think, quite safe to assume that απο του κυριου is he equivalent, in Paul’s perspective, of miSinai. Here can be little doubt that Paul, Pharisee of the Pharisees, took over and adapted the scheme which must have been familiar to any pupil of rabbinic schools . . . Paul takes over the word paradosis to describe Christian realities. For the term in itself does not imply a disparaging nuance or a judgment of value. There can be and indeed there is a true divinely inspired tradition, rooted in Holy Scripture and centred on Christ, who gives it its unique value, is the authentic tradition, whereas Jewish tradition is a human extension or rather distortion of divine revelation. It could however be somewhat confusing to use one and the same word to describe these two traditions. Once paradosis had been adopted by the early Church for its own teaching, it became increasingly difficult still to use the term for Rabbinic teaching. This certainly accounts for the fact that subsequent ancient Christian writers do not, as a rule, apply paradosis to the Jewish tradition and replace it, for this purpose, by another term, namely deuterosis; ‘The tradition of the elders (παραδοσις ων πρεσβυτερων)’ writes Epiphanius, ‘are called δευτερωσεις among the Jews’ (Haer. 33;9). (M. Simon, “The Ancient Church and Rabbinic Tradition” in Ibid., 94-112, here, pp. 95, 102)

 For a thorough refutation of Sola Scriptura itself, see: