Scripture and Tradition

Patrick Henry Reardon writes concerning the use of “tradition” in the NT (2 Thes 2:15 especially): “In this respect it is important, I believe, not to interject into Paul’s formula a later controversy between the Protestants and the Council of Trent. We observe that Paul does not distinguish between ‘Scripture and Tradition.’ For him, the apostolic writings are not a separate entity, something apart from and somehow superior to the traditions. The Scriptures are one of the means by which the ‘traditions’ are handed down. Whether written down or conveyed orally, the ‘traditions’ are of the same weight, because the apostolic authority is identical.”

Let’s say I grant the point (which I do): Paul spoke as well as wrote authoritatively, as, I suppose, Moses did as well. But this misses the critical point: How can we identify the traditions that are genuine traditions from Paul the apostles and the ones that are not? Since we haven’t had apostles around since the first century, we do need to have some way of judging whether some practice or teaching emanating from, say, Thessaloniki came from Paul or was cooked up by some ambitious but unbalanced deacon. The textual diversity of the NT makes even the written record tricky to deal with; how much more unwritten tradition?