Without tradition being an authority we would not even have the Scriptures themselves, as it is only through tradition that we know what Scripture is actually Scripture. The Scriptures have no place where there is an inspired list telling us which books belong in the Scripture (we call this the “canon” of Scripture). It is through the traditions of the church that we know which books are the final authority. Therefore, tradition must be an authority to some degree.

“(17) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (18) For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” (20) Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (22) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, (23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (25) For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Cor 1:17–25 ESV)

Analyzing this evidence shows that the short reading [i.e., omission] has in fact a wide basis of diverse evidence in its favour: The text is absent from almost all the earliest Alexandrian witnesses, notable P75, B and the Sahidic version, as well as some of the later Alexandrian or Egyptian witnesses, such as the Bohairic version and the minuscule 579. It is absent from some Western witnesses, notably the early Latin witnesses a and d, as well as Codex Bezae. It is furthermore omitted in the early Syriac tradition through its absence in the Synaitic Syriac version and the Syriac commentary of Cyril. Finally, it is even omitted in some of the early sources of the Byzantine text, such as W. [2]

The reliability of Diatessaronic variants is particularly debated, given the dates and nature of the multiple witnesses and the problem of agreeing upon sound methodological criteria for identifying original Tatianic readings. If there is one point, however, in scholarly research on the Diatessaron on which many scholars do agree, it is the reliability of Ephrem’s Commentary for attributing a particular verse or passage to Tatian’s original text.[5]

All these witnesses, however, belong to the same text-type. The evidence is thus genealogically limited. The pattern is more or less the same in the third century, with the reading occurring in Origen, Hipolytus of Rome, the Latin manuscripts c and e, which represent the earlier African form of the Vetus Latina, as well as the Curetonian Syriac version. All this evidence belongs to the Western texts with Origen the only exception.[6]