Orthodoxy (1)
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 NASB
Traditions – Craig Allert’s book, A High View of Scripture?, goes a long way toward settling the mythology of an early Christian canon of the New Testament. He argues that the evidence does not support early canonization, and that, in fact, documents used by the believing communities were in flux until the 4th or 5th centuries. In other words, Allert demonstrates that the canon was an invention of the Church after it took dominance in the West, and only in the West since Eastern Christianity did not settle the issue of authoritative books until later. All of this is extremely helpful because it gives credence to the historical fact that early Messianic believers through the first 400 years embraced a much larger corpus of sacred material than the Church eventually allowed. Allert’s research demonstrates that the understanding of God’s message covered a much wider range than contemporary Christianity which seems to rely more on the Reformation period than it does on the times of the apostles.
But Allert is still Christian in his approach, and as a result, he reads apostolic material as if it were Christian. So when he comes to Paul’s exhortation about keeping the faith, his exegesis assumes Paul and his followers were Christians, not Jews. He writes:
“In many of the Christian writings that were eventually included in the New Testament, we see an explicit appeal to and exhortation for the believer to remain in and hold to the faith that the church has received. There is a progression of thought that moves from the teaching of Jesus, who hands it over to his apostles, who subsequently pass it on to the church, which is then charged with guarding the pure teaching.”[1]
But this assumption isn’t born out by the documents themselves. “Jesus” did not hand down a teaching to the apostles which was subsequently delivered to the church. The apostles never departed from the teaching of Moses, as Acts 15 demonstrates. Yeshua was a reformer, not an initiator. The true faith went back to Moses—and it was the Church that abandoned it, replacing it with its own version of the faith.
Allert continues:
“ . . . believers are urged to ‘stand firm and hold to the traditions taught to them, and to stay away from people who do not live ‘according to the traditions which you received from us.’ What we see in these and other passages is an appeal to orthodoxy.”[2]
But what orthodoxy? The Church’s? This is simply not possible since the orthodoxy of the Church did not exist at the time of Paul’s letters. What existed was the “orthodoxy” of the Jewish way of life, communicated by Moses and interpreted by Yeshua. Allert makes a fatal assumption here that Christianity began with Jesus (and that he and his followers were Christians). Therefore he ignores Paul’s explicit claim to Jewish traditions in the defense before Festus. Furthermore, the Greek word itself doesn’t allow an anachronistic exegesis. The word is paradosis. As Büschel notes:
- This word for “tradition” means “what is transmitted” rather than “transmission” in the NT. It has an unfavorable sense when used of the tradition that is added to the law, e.g., that of the elders in Mk. 7:3, 5, or of men in Mk. 7:8. Jesus rejects the validity of additions to the divine law. The use is more comprehensive in Gal. 1:14, embracing written as well as unwritten traditions.
- Christian teaching is also tradition in 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15. It must be adhered to by the churches (1 Cor. 15:2). To be valid it must be handed down (1 Cor. 15:3) and must derive from the Lord (11:23), i.e., it must have divine authority. One may see from 1 Cor. 15:3ff. and 11:23ff. that it is older than Paul and is already acquiring a fixed form in his day.[3]
Büschel makes the same mistake in point 2. Christian teaching (orthodoxy) did not exist when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. What existed was Moses, and Yeshua’s rabbinic understanding of Moses. What else could Paul have possibly meant by “traditions”? As paradosis suggests, this is what was transmitted, and since the beginning of the Jewish people, Moses is what was transmitted, a fact that is fully endorsed by Yeshua himself (Matthew 5:18).
What do we learn? Allert shows us that the idea of canon is just as much a doctrinal statement as any other theological teaching of the Church. Canon is an invention, unnecessary for those earliest believers. But Allert and Büschel (and a host of others) also teach us something they didn’t intend, that is, there is no textual or documentary evidence to think that the earliest believers were anything but adherents to the Mosaic revelation. Yeshua unapologetically endorsed it. So did all of his followers. So should we. Christian orthodoxy is a replacement, not an improvement. It needs to be recognized for what it is—the later invention of the Church to justify its claim of antiquity.
Topical Index: tradition, paradosis, orthodoxy, canon, Allert, 2 Thessalonians 2:15
[1] Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (BakerAcademic. 2007), p. 54.
[3]F. Büschel in Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 168). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
