Tradition and the Word of God

Tradition. Παράδοσις.

The word itself certainly doesn't imply either written, or not. In fact Paul in 1 Th 2:15 refers to both scripture and oral teachings as tradition.

In principle, oral and written tradition suffer from the same problems. Both are passed imperfectly from person to person. Both can suffer corruption during this process. Writings are more suitable for transmitting exact word for word teaching. By the same token, oral tradition has its own advantage in passing on certain kinds of shared understanding by virtue of its interactive nature.

The word παράδοσις is not used in the LXX with this meaning.

In the NT:
It is used negatively in the Mt 15 / parallel Mark 7 incident.
It is used positively at 1Cor. 11:2.
It is used neutrally at Gal. 1:14.
It is used negatively at Col. 2:8.
It is used positively at 2Th. 2:15.
It is used positively at 2Th. 3:6.

In the Mt 15/ Mk 7 incident, Jesus' criticism is that "the traditions of men" break the "commandment of God" and invalidates the "word of God".

The phrase ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, "commandment of God", occurs 4 times in the LXX:
At Josh 5:6 it refers to the "voice of God" (non written).
It is used twice in 4 Maccabees where what it refers to is non-specific.
It is used in Psalm 119 where what it refers to is non-specific.

In the NT:
It is used in the Mt 15/7 incident.
It is used twice in Revelation where what it refers to is non-specific.

Other different phrases which are translated "commandments of God"
At 1Cor. 7:19 it sets up God's commandments in opposition to circumcision (even though circumcision is actually a scriptural command).
At 1Tim. 1:1 it refers to Paul's calling as a commandment of God. This is a non-scriptural command.
At Titus 1:3 it refers to Pauls calling again, which was a non-scriptural command.

The phrase λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, "word of God", occurs twice in the LXX.
At 2Sam. 16:23 it is non-specific.
At Jer. 1:2 it refers to non-written revelation.

The similar phrase λόγος τοῦ κυρίου occurs 5 times in the LXX.
2Sam. 14:17 refers to the oral words of a King.
1Esdr. 1:24 seems to be referring to something non-written.
Psa. 33:4 is non-specific.
Psa. 33:6 is not referring to scripture.
Ezek. 11:25 is not referring to scripture.

In the NT, λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, occurs about 34 times.
2 are the Mt 15/Mk 7 incident.
Luke 5:1 refers to oral teaching.
Luke 8:11,21 & 11:28 are non specific.
John 10:35 is non specific.
Acts 4:31 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 6:2 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 6:7 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 8:14 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 11:1 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 12:24 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:5 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:7 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:46 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 17:13 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 18:11 refers to oral teaching.
Rom. 9:6 is non specific.
1Cor. 14:36 probably refers to oral teaching.
2Cor. 2:17 is non specific.
2Cor. 4:2 is non specific.
Col. 1:25 refers to oral teaching.
2Tim. 2:9, Titus 2:5 and Heb. 4:12 are non specific.
Heb. 13:7 refers to oral teaching.
1John 2:14 refers to God's word "in" you, not scripture.
Rev. 1:2, 9, 6:9, 17:17 are non specific.
Rev 19:13 refers to Jesus as the word of God.
Rev. 20:4 is non-specific.

The similar phrase λόγος τοῦ κυρίου occurs 11 times in the NT.
Acts 8:25 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:44 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:48 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:49 is probably oral teaching.
Acts 15:35 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 15:36 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 16:32 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 19:10 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 20:35 makes reference to an oral tradition concerning Jesus.
1Th. 1:8 refers to oral teaching.
2Th. 3:1 is non-specific.

In my last answer I quoted Athanasius' application of the Mt 15 / parallel Mark 7 incidents, in his 2nd Festal letter of 330AD. In it, he applies those interpreting scripture outside the church as the group Jesus condemns as following the "traditions of men". He equates the "opinions of the saints" with the teachings of Paul and the apostles. i.e. the word of God.

My question is, can you prove absolutely from scripture alone that Jesus' commentary in the Mt15/Mark7 incident has anything to do with Jesus condemning oral teachings over and against praising written teachings, since scripture never connects the dots between tradition must equal oral tradition, and "word of God" must equal written teaching?

Can you prove that the traditions of men or the traditions of the elders, isn't differentiated from the word of God, not because of the oral/written distinction, but because of the distinction that these teachings weren't passed down and accepted by all the people of God as the authentic word of God, especially given that they are explicitely referred to as the traditions of the elders which implies they weren't accepted by all the people? If it does refer to this, it would exactly parallel the Orthodox doctrine that a teaching must be accepted by all the people, not just any sub-group, even if it is the leaders, in order to be authentic.

Given that the passage doesn't actually say explicitely one way or the other, is it possible your understanding is coloured by your own protestant traditions? Can you see how someone with different pre-suppositions regarding the distinction between the word of God and the traditions of men, could legitimately interpret this passage differently to protestants? (e.g. Athanasius).