it is two words in the greek Para -- is ussually translated as: in, near, by, or from. However the word means bsedie or alongside implying the source of which anything proceeds.
the second word is dosin which comes from the word didomi to give bestow or present.
So to sat that Paradosin should be translated as the word tradition is incorrect. The word tradidtion would be a biased interpretation not a translation
And what did the apostles give the Thessalonians? Tradistions of their own making, their opinions and private interpretations? No time after time they tell us they gave them the gospel, the word of truth, the testimony of Jesus christ. And what do they say about other teachings other traditions? They say they are other gospels, other goseples then the one that they taught them.
Of interest is the word tradition because it does not appear in only New American Standard Version. While I know that you may not be able to look up the Greek you can go to Bible Gateway and see how many translations have the word tradition inserted specifically in this verse cited.
The word paradosin is used quite a few times in the New Testament yet it has miraculously been given a meaning of "tradition" in this verse.
Let me give you verses that contain this word: Matthew 4:12 Matthwew 5:25 Matthew 10:4 Matthew 10:17 In these verses the word has been trnasalted in its rootmeaning to give to hand and to deliver The translaters then tell us that they have added an attribute to the word and translate it to commit and intrust Matthew 11:27, Matthew 25:14 but the word has not changed the translaters have changed to word from "To Give" to an emphasis on the one who recieves -- certainly one may argue that God does not speak or give to just anyone but when we alter the meaning of words to improve them we violate what the writer wrote.
If we were to make Shakespeare a new updated translation some would like it but most people would be up in arms that some self apponted scribe would chose to arbitrarily insert their opinion into the words of Shakespeare.
The word is translated to commit, and to commend: in Acts 14:26 (recommended to KJV -- the King James is utterly mistransalted here.) and 15:40 (being recommended KJV again this is very bad. Does the church recommend to God or does the church select someone whom God already has his hand on and prays for his grace upon them?)
It is translated "to yeild up" in John 19:30 ("And gave up" KJV) 1corinthians 15:24 ("Delivered up" KJV) The word in no way contains the word "up" in it the word give and yeild are not really the same Give implies free will in my mind and yeild implies giving in unwillingly, surrendering or forking over something under duress. This may or may not be in the context but the word paradosin does not change.
And unfortunately we see the translators continue to alter this word. it is translated "to abandon" in acts 7:42(gave them up KJV) eph 4:19 ("given themselves over" KJV)
In 1 Corinthians 11:2 They say the word means: To deliver as a matter of injuction or doctrine Now I praise you brethren that ye remember me and keep the Paradosin (Ordinances KJV) as I Paradosin(ed)(delivered KJV)then to you. We can start to see with the insertion of the word Ordinances (My Greek interlinear inserts the word traditions) that the translaters are now altering text by inserting a word that would imply what the apostles are giving is man-made or a set of laws or if we put both translators opinions together we now have the apostles giving a set of man-made laws.
Now this issuance of traditions doctrines and precepts of men is one of the things that Christ spends the greatest amoung of words speaking against in the gospels. Sometime between 250 and 250 years after Christ's dath some men in the church first began to presumed that traditions man-made doctrines and precepts were just as good as or better than Scripture and the words of Christ.
In further examining this concept of traditions and man-made doctrines and precepts of men we find that the apostles and particularly paul says again and again that if we wreceive any other teachings words doctrines traditions and or Gospels that they have given they are to be . . . rejected and for that fact they say over and over again tha men that had fallen away had devised their own teachings traditions and Gospels so that there was only one that was true and that all others were to be rejected.
So that at the time of the Apostles the Apostasy had begun and Paul names names and the Apostollica father name names
If we have gone to a Gospel that embraces the traditions of men the Doctrines of men and the precepts of men we have crossed into what Christ and the apostles clearly rejected and railed against -- how can we say on the word of men that were not Christ or the Apostles that they are now good? I will leave you to come up with the conclussions of what this means on your own.
You use the word "tradition" in what I would consider an over-specific way.
To contrast, I would say that the Bible itself is a tradition, that the interpetation of "all scripture" as referring to the New Testament as well as the Old is also a tradition.
In general, I would say there are good and true traditions and there are false ones. Tradition is a descriptive, not an evaluative, word in my lexicon. (And yes, I own a concordance.)
So your word study, helpful though it is in some respects, doesn't approach my disagreement with your point. I don't mean this as a counter-argument. It's more an attempt at a clarification of the question -- a question I don't think we will resolve here.