Tradition-Historical Approaches and the Origins of Scripture. Among the many approaches to reading sacred scripture is the tradition-historical.

How does one go about studying a passage or entire scriptural tradition from a history of traditions perspective? What are the goals of this method and how do they contrast with the goals of other methods? Please consider how tradition-historical approaches have been used within the study of Jewish and/or hristian and/or !slamic scriptures/sacred te"ts providing specific e"amples.

#e"tual interpretation can yield$ with the right method$ the origins and traditions of the Abrahamic faiths. !n this essay$ ! will identify and promote the tradition-historical approach$ applying it to the sacred literature of hristianity$ Judaism and$ controversially$ !slam %for

mainstream opinion of the &ur'an sees it as a divine message revealed outside of history(. #he approach's goals and achievements will be e"amined and contrasted with other methods$ such as literary criticism. ! will argue that the tradition-historical method$ far from being retired by the arrival of the 'newer' literary criticism in the )* th century$ remains valuable in giving us the 'prehistory' behind religion. +cumenics is my underlying interest in this essay and ! believe the tradition-historical approach can reveal the same pool of traditions from which Abrahamic faiths share$ particularly in the case of interte"tuality between the ,ld and -ew #estaments and the bac.ground of Judeo- hristian tradition behind the message of the &ur'an.

A .ey advantage of the tradition-historical approach is its ability to be applied broadly to canonical literature as a whole. !t is best defined as the attempt /to trace the origin and development of various traditions0 1 %written or oral( and to identify the 2pre-te"t3 within scripture/sacred te"ts as they developed into their canonical form. -ot satisfied with it being described as a method$ 4obert
1 raig A. +vans$ /5ource$ 6orm and 4edaction riticism7 #he #raditional 8ethods of 5ynoptic !nterpretation0$ in 5tanely +. Porter and 9avid #ombs$ eds.$ Approaches to New Testament Study %5heffield7 5heffield Academic Press$ 1::;($ p. 1:.

9i <ito defines the goal of the tradition-historical approach as the reconstruction of the history of the transmission of both individual and comple" traditions as found in sacred te"t. ) ,liver Harding describes the tradition-historical approach3s goals as the reconstruction of a long history of the stages of a particular tradition. With the ,ld #estament$ for e"ample$ the tradition-historical approach would be concerned with the prehistory of its boo.s= how their traditions evolved from their preliterary stages into their final forms.

#he tradition-historical method can involve the use of methods such as form criticism %Formgeschichte= studying a te"t3s literary or sub-literary genre and deducing from it the original setting of life or Sitz im Leben($ source criticism %concerned with the written structure of a te"t( and redaction criticism %concerned with the editors of a written tradition( to accurately see. out religious traditions as all these methods are concerned with the composition of sacred literature.
>

#o

understand how one studies religious te"ts from a tradition-critical perception and to understand the goals of such criticism$ ! will go into detail on the methods used to aid research on a history of traditions %such as form criticism($ using the tradition of the 5ynoptic ?ospels as an e"ample. 5ource criticism$ form criticism and redaction criticism are considered as the 2traditional3 methods of 5ynoptic interpretation and have dominated such scholarship for the last two hundred years.

5ource criticism has been preoccupied with the concern of the 25ynoptic Problem3$ which dealt with the literary relationship between the ?ospels of 8atthew$ 8ar. and @u.e. #he priority of 8atthew as a source was the traditional view of the early hurch from the second century on

%evident in Augustine3s e"planation for the overlap between the material of 8atthew and 8ar. was that the latter was an abbreviation of the former. #his was the consensual view until the 1: th century with rise of the #wo 5ource Hypothesis % 2SH) that held 8ar. and 2&3 %a source of sayings( were
) 4obert 9i <ito$ /#radition-Historical riticism0$ in 5teven @. 8cAenBie and 5tephen 4. Haynes$ eds.$ To ach !ts Own "eaning# An !ntroduction to $iblical %riticisms and their Application %@ouisville7 Westminster John Ano" Press$ 1:::($ p. :1. > ,liver Harding$ /#radition-Historical riticism0$ http7//eBinearticles.com/?tradition-historical-criticism CidD1>;EF)) %last accessed 1G April )**:(.

the sources for 8atthew and @u.e. #his hypothesis has been widely accepted up to the present day$ with a maHority of -ew #estament scholars accepting 8ar.an priority.
I

.5. 8ann3s commentary

on 8ar. agrees with J.J. ?riesbach3s hypothesis %in the eighteenth century= before the promotion of the 2SH( that @u.e used material from 8atthew and 8ar. abridged both 8atthew and @u.e. E However$ in his e"egesis on tradition in the 5ynoptic ?ospels$ which threatens his own commentary$ 8ann argues that 8ar. has preserved the most tradition in its primitive form$ ; which is /not derived from 8atthew and @u.e0$F as 8ar.3s account3s vivid detail owes more to the original oral tradition than to the other ?ospel writers.G

6orm criticism is concerned with identifying the specific literary forms of the 5ynoptic ?ospels and finding in these forms the setting in the life % Sitz im Leben( of the early hristian

community$ for the consensus is that the tradition of the life of Jesus was founded in the faith of the early hristian community in its stages. : ,riginally seen as a purely historical account$ form critics has shown 8ar. as a highly theological document$ first proved by W. Wrede. J Wellhausen followed up Wrede3s observation by suggesting that there is a history of units of material behind the synoptic tradition. A.@. 5chmidt distinguished that there was tradition %the units of material( and redaction %the lin.s of the units of material($ with pre-8ar.an collectors who put the material into order and the evangelist 8ar. then$ acting as the editor$ organised the material by topic. #he earliest part of the 5ynoptic ?ospels is the individual unit. 1* raig A. +vans considers form criticism to /the most problematic0 of the three traditional methods$ as /a great deal of subHectivity comes into play.011 With the 5ynoptic ?ospels in mind$ we are not sure what setting a piece of tradition reflects$ as the practices of the first-century hristians$ who told and transmitted to the ne"t generation %the
I +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ pp. 1:-)). E !bid.$ p. );. ; !bid.$ p. );$ n. )*. F .5. 8ann$ "ar(# A New Translation with !ntroduction and %ommentary %-ew Jor.7 9oubleday$ 1:G;($ p. )*)$ )1F. G !bid.$ pp. )1F-):. : +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. )F. 1* 4eginald H. 6uller$ A %ritical !ntroduction to the New Testament %@ondon7 ?erald 9uc.worth C o.$ 1:F1($ pp. G1G). 11 +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. )G.

basis of tradition( the sayings and stories of Jesus$ are un.nown to us.1)

4econstructing the history of a tradition in the preliterary stages of a document has raised various Kuestions$1> including the argument that /form criticism and tradition-historical criticism generally have shown that the -ew #estament is the tradition of the church between >* and 1)EL +M.01I #his seems to suggest the lac. of use for the tradition-historical approach to handle the 2Kuest3 for the historical Jesus. However$ with the tradition of the 5ynoptic ?ospels in mind$ one could .now the 2authenticity3 of the assigned material in the gospels.1E ?erman scholarship has assigned most of the traditions not to Jesus himself$ but to the early hurch. #his is evident with the dominical tradition %the triumph of hristianity over evil($ which would have been edited and

e"panded by the early hurch to fit its needs. +nglish form critics$ such as Nirger ?erhardsson$ are more confident of the traditions authentically belonging to Jesus. ?erhardsson argues that Jesus would have taught his disciples to memorise his teachings as rabbis would carefully memorise the words of 5cripture. However$ we cannot be sure that Jesus3 disciples and the generation following them would practice the strict memorisation in the manner of rabbis of a later age.

#he traditions of the stories of Jesus and sayings played liturgical$ evangelistic and apologetic functions in the life of the early hurch. #his is a general observation and getting into greater specificity causes the problem of subHectivity as previously mentioned. However$ form criticism is still important for sacred te"t e"egesis as it can identify its specific genre %e"7 @u.e 1:711-)F being a parable( and understand its literary nature$ such as .nowing the difference between the authentic life of Jesus and later form of the tradition as it was transmitted to the ne"t generation and used by the primitive early hurch. 1; 4edaction criticism is concerned with how

traditions are edited and finalised in religious literature. Anowing the literary wor. of religious
1) 1> 1I 1E 1; +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. )G. ,liver Harding$ Tradition-Historical %riticism$ 6uller$ A %ritical !ntroduction to the New Testament$ p. 1:G. !bid.$ p. :I. +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ pp. )G->*.

communities$ such as the evangelists of the 5ynoptic ?ospels$ allows researchers to find the theologies behind tradition. Willi 8ar"sen3s wor. on the ?ospel of 8ar.$ however$ showed how the distinctions between tradition and editorial wor. are not always clear.1F

How do the goals of the tradition-historical approach contrast with the goals of other methods? +vans has noticed in recent years that new methods of biblical interpretation$ including in the research of the ?ospels that he is involved with$ have been developed under the general rubric of 2literary criticism.3 5uch methods are interested in the te"t3s final form$ in complete contrast to the tradition-historical3s interest in the sources$ redaction and preliterary history of the traditions of a te"t.
1G

!nstead$ literary criticism is interested in as.ing Kuestions of /genre$ form$ structure$ plot

development$ characters$ rhetoric$ the narrative world$ and implied authors and readers.0 1: !nterte"tuality is also a part of this$ which is focused on the function of the ,ld #estament in the -ew$ yet$ as will be proven later in my essay$ the history of traditions perspective is also concerned with the traditions of the ,ld #estament within the -ew. ,dil Hannes 5tec. promotes the traditionhistorical approach for ma.ing connections between te"ts that were previously as seen as unrelated$ which is the /starting point for acKuiring the connection between the ,ld #estament and the -ew #estament.0)*

+vans$ far from reHecting literary criticism$ notices how it can both provide new alternatives to and improve the older historical methods of interpretation. 6or e"ample$ redaction criticism showed its shortcomings when dealing with the ?ospel of 8ar.$ as interpreters are not in possession of its sources and therefore cannot tell apart the evangelist3s edition from source. !nstead$ the literary method of narrative criticism analyses the ?ospels on their own terms without having to distinguish source from redaction.)1 -ow$ there is the assumption that /the evangelists
1F 1G 1: )* )1 +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. >>. !bid.$ p. 1F. !bid.$ p. 1F. ,dil Hannes 5tec.$ Old Testament )egesis# A *uide to the "ethodology %?eorgia7 5cholars Press$ 1::G($ p. 1I1. +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. 1G.

were in basic agreement with what they chose to put down on paper and that what they wrote conveys their perspective$ whatever the origin of their traditions.0))

+vans considers the more 2conte"tually sensitive3 redaction criticism of today$ which now loo.s more li.e composition criticism$ as a /welcome development.0 )> 9.A. arson$ 9ouglas J.

8oo and @eon 8orris would agree with +vans$ believing that the tradition-historical approach /should be complemented by greater literary sensitivity.0 )I 9an <ia would also argue that redaction criticism is both literary and historical but still fundamentally historical$ as /it separates tradition from the author3s contribution.0)E 6ar from being antagonistic to literary criticism$ the history of traditions approach wor.ing with literary analysis is a further step. ); !ndeed$ the very characteristics of the tradition-historical approach are better understood by understanding the importance of the oral form of a tradition3s %as will be later put into e"ample in my essay with the relationship of tradition between the 5ynoptic ?ospels and the ?ospel of John( composition and transmission from one generation to the ne"t. #he reliability of the tradition-historical approach can be in doubt for an approach when relying on oral tradition$ a tradition that can easily lose fidelity in transmission.)F

However$ +vans warns that these 2new3 methods of literary criticism could lead to the neglect of the older historical %including tradition criticism( methods$ as an e"egesis that lac.s appreciation for the sources and history of a te"t is in danger of misunderstanding it and distorting its distinctive themes.)G Worrying the gains of the historical-tradition approach may ris. being forgotten today$ +vans shows its use in an essay %written by 4obert Nrawley ):( concerned with
)) +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. 1G. )> !bid.$ p. 1:. )I 9.A. arson$ 9ouglas J. 8oo and @eon 8orris$ An !ntroduction to the New Testament %8ichigan7 Apollos$ 1::)($ p. G>. )E 9an ,. <ia$ /+ditor3s 6oreword0$ in 9aniel Patte$ Structural )egesis for New Testament %ritics %@ondon7 ontinuum !nternational Publishing ?roup$ 1::;($ p. vii. ); ?eorge 6ohrer$ !ntroduction to the Old Testament %-ashville7 Abington Press$ 1:;E($ p. >*. )F ,liver Harding$ Tradition-Historical %riticism$ )G +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. 1:. ): 4.@. Nrawley$ / anon and ommunity7 !nterte"tuality$ anon !nterpretation$ hristology$ #heology$ and Persuasive 4hetoric in @u.e I71-1>0$ in +.H. @overing$ ed.$ Society of $iblical Literature +,,- Seminar .apers %Atlanta7 5cholars Press$ 1::)($ pp. I1:->I.

interte"tuality O the presence and function of the ,ld #estament in @u.e3s portrait of Jesus in the wilderness %@u.e I71-1>(. 5uch an essay serves to illustrate the danger of neglecting the use of source and tradition. +vans shows in Nrawley3s essay that the evangelist @u.e was fully conscious of the themes within the temptation tradition of the ,ld #estament and interpreted the tradition in his conte"t. Nringing in the wilderness tradition into focus as well$ @u.e3s audience was to understand the allusions and traditions of the temptation of !srael in the wilderness as Jesus was to also relive and$ most importantly$ overcome the temptations and failings of the old !srael.

@u.e placed his version of Jesus3 genealogy %@u.e >7)>->G( before the #emptation of Jesus %@.. I71-1>(. #his was done on purpose so that the evangelist3s audience would compare Jesus3 temptation$ the second son of ?od$ with Adam$ the first son of ?od. Pnli.e the temptation of Adam$ Jesus frustrates the devil by refusing temptation. Jesus3 death on cross allowed him to regain Paradise for humanity$ remedying Adam3s sin that cast humanity out of Paradise %?enesis >7)I-)E(. #he dominical tradition %language of which also appears in the Testament of Le/i 1G71*-1) and the Testament of 0an E7:-1)($ as mentioned earlier$ appears in @u.e 1*71F-)* %/! saw 5atan fall li.e lightning from heaven0$ /4eHoice that your names are written in heaven0($ paralleling the traditions of Adam and 5atan.

#he goal of literary criticism falls short of this understanding of interte"tuality$ as @u.e is not the creator of the temptation tradition but merely tempered it$ as it is traditionally part of the ,ld #estament$ as evident with its allusions and Kuotations. #he theme of the wilderness is not @u.an but to the credit of the original writer/spea.er who was concerned with it and developed it with Kuotations from the ,ld #estament. 4ather$ what @u.e did was creating the conte)t and settings %showing the value of the use of source and redaction criticisms( of the temptation tradition rather than creating it on his own. >*

>* +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ pp. >F-II.

5hifting focus from the 5ynoptic ?ospels$ ! will now concentrate on the historical tradition in the ?ospel of John. an redaction criticism be used with the 6ourth ?ospel$ as it has been used with the 5ynoptic ?ospels? #he main problem for finding the tradition of history in John is the difficulty in .nowing the author3s sources$ yet we can be sure he derived his information on Jesus$ such as his signs and Passion$ from somewhere. #he consensus among scholars is that John did not use information from the ?ospels as$ besides the Passion narrative$ John derives most of sources not from the 5ynoptic ?ospels.>1 4eginald H. 6uller gives his own tradition-historical interpretation of John containing a Palestinian narrative with Hellenistic material but independent of both 8ar. and the apostle Paul. hurch 6ather !renaeus assigns John to +phesus$ which is true to the e"tent that

John is a Jewish-Naptist wor. and +phesus is evident in the Naptist movement %Acts 1:71-F( but this does not answer of the lac. of Pauline material in John. W. Nauer3s suggestion that John was of east 5yrian origin is also in doubt with the lac. of Pauline$ 8ar.an and 8atthean influence. >) Nart +hrman reminds us that John could have penned his wor. only ten or fifteen years after the 5ynoptics$ yet he would not have .nown them as distribution of literature in the ancient world was not as efficient as it is today.>>

Jet there are similar stories in both John and the 5ynoptics$ so how can we account for that? 6uller recommends that John be placed in the history of tradition$ >I as such stories could have been independently drawn from the collective oral traditions circulating about Jesus. >E 5uch traditions$ far from being primitive and become redundant by literary authorship$ were to continue to be important in the -ew #estament period and beyond. Papias$ in the second century$ still preferred the oral tradition and !renaeus boasted that he had /heard from a certain presbyter who heard it from those who had seen the apostles.0 %Sancti !renaei ad/ersus Haereses$ !<7 "lii. ).(>; 9ifferent regions of the
>1 Nart 9. +hrman$ The New Testament# A Historical !ntroduction to the arly %hristian 1ritings %,"ford7 ,"ford Pniversity Press$ )**G($ pp. 1F1-1F). >) 6uller$ A %ritical !ntroduction to the New Testament$ p. 1FF. >> +hrman$ The New Testament# A Historical !ntroduction to the arly %hristian 1ritings$ p. 1F). >I 6uller$ A %ritical !ntroduction to the New Testament$ p. 1FF. >E +hrman$ The New Testament# A Historical !ntroduction to the arly %hristian 1ritings$ p. 1F). >; harles Harold 9odd$ Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospel % ambridge7 ambridge Pniversity Press$ 1:;E($ p. F.

hristian world would have told the same stories of Jesus$ such as his Passion. #he development of form criticism has directed the view of scholars to the neglected preliterary %at least non-literary( tradition that lies behind the written gospels and their hypothetical literary sources. 6orm criticism was applied to fol. tradition$ such as the stories of the Pentateuch$ >F to which Hermann ?un.el applied form criticism arguing that the collection of five boo.s had a pre-historical ancient oral tradition that stretch far bac. as )*** N + Nabylon. ?un.el went beyond the written te"t to observe that a tradition3s entire history can be found in the same tradition3s origins. between
>G

#his same focus on this tradition could help us learn about the little .nown period hrist3s death and the composition of the first gospel. #his tradition of history$ argues

harles Harold 9odd$ was a living one throughout the life of the early hurch and still alive when the ?ospel of John was being composed. #he early hurch$ far from the popular view that it was a literary community$ instead taught and preached the living tradition orally$ which was developed and placed behind the first composed gospels.>: !t was a tradition associated with the hurch in

Asia$ for the region and the names traditionally held in high esteem by the church$ namely the two persons named John who are associated with authorship of the 6ourth ?ospel$ as well as Andrew$ Philip and #homas$ play little or no part in the 5ynoptic ?ospels.I*

9odd believes that the most interesting aspect of the nineteenth-century %tradition-historical( approach to the nature of the tradition of the 6ourth ?ospel is its representation of the life and thought of the hristian community$ rather than form criticism3s focus on the identity of the ertainly$

individual author and how he was able to acKuire the information for his composition.

the Kuestions posed by 8ar.3s different chronology and the Kuestion of the authorship of the ?ospel must be counted for as well. 8ar.3s chronology of hrist3s ministry lasts less than a year compared to the three years described by John. However$ 9odd believes the arrangement of both 8ar. and

>F >G >: I*

9odd$ Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospe$ pp. E-;. ,liver Harding$ Tradition-Historical %riticism$ 9odd$ Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospel$ pp. F-G. !bid.$ p. F$ n. ).

John$ as argued by form critics$ was based on narrative and discourse rather than chronology. 8uch in. has been spilt over the Kuestion of authorship$ with the strongest evidence so far based on the virtually contemporary !renaeus who believed the 6ourth ?ospel was written by John son of Qebedee. Nut 9odd argues that the problem of tradition history outweighs the Kuestion of authorship$ with the e"ample that no one would doubt that Plato wrote the 'epublic and was a disciple of 5ocrates$ yet few would believe his stories of meeting other thin.ers and his recorded speeches of himself and others are accurate to the original verbal source. 5ince we cannot truly .now the individual behind the 6ourth ?ospel$ we can instead find out the specific common tradition from which he wor.ed on.I1

9odd believes the ancient tradition that lies behind the 6ourth ?ospel is independent from the other gospels and can give us .nowledge of the historical Jesus. What we can say about this precanonical tradition that lies behind the gospel is that is an Aramaic tradition and translates ?ree. words in 5emitic from$ different from the 5ynoptic translations. #his is clear in passages in John parallel or closely related to passages in the 5ynoptics$ where John introduces Aramaic terms not present in the others= the 5ynoptics have RSTUVWX and YZVS[X$ John alone has \]UU^_X and `abcX. #he Johannine tradition also seems to be set in a Jewish- hristian setting in Palestine before ;; +$ as evident by use of Jewish e"pressions %e"7 as seen in the 0ialogue with Nathaniel$ John 17 IE-E1($ Jewish tradition %e"7 the date of the crucifi"ion in John agrees not with the 5ynoptics but with the tractate Sanhedrin($ Jewish concern with e"clusion from the synagogue %as forecasted in the discussion of the 5abbath in John F7))-I( and the use of geography %native Hebrew and Aramaic names of places and .nowledge of southern Palestine( and chronology I) %/the true Sitz im Leben0= the description of Jewish society3s messianic e"pectations pre-F* +(.
I>

When it comes to the

sayings of Jesus$ it is more difficult to find the content of the tradition as the literary forms of the teachings were created by the evangelist himself= though we can be sure he used the same reservoir
I1 9odd$ Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospel$ pp. :-1G. I) !bid.$ pp. I)>-I);. I> !bid.$ p. 1)*.

of tradition as did the 5ynoptic ?ospels.II

! will now switch from

hristian scripture to Jewish sacred te"t. ,dil Hannes 5tec.

recommends the tradition historical approach in ,ld #estament e"egesis for it uncovers the theology and intellect behind the sacred te"ts$ describing /a history of theology for Ancient !srael and early !srael.0IE When dealing the authors of the Nible$ the perspective of the tradition historical approach presupposes that a biblical author lived in an 2intellectual world3 with presupposed and fi"ed facts. 6ocusing on the pre-e"isting elements of the author3s intellectual world$ the tradition-historical approach as.s how much the author3s statements are determined by his intellectual world or if s/he deviates from his/her intellectual world at all.I;

! will use two contemporary prophets of G th century N + Judah$ 8icah of 8oresheth and !saiah$ as an e"ample of how biblical authors would both use the pre-e"isting elements of their intellectual world and also deviate from it as well. Noth 8icah and !saiah used similar language and content$ leading scholars to suggest there is a theological relationship between the two. However$ ?ary 5tansell$ through his application of form and tradition-historical criticisms$ believes both prophets used the same cultic tradition$ rather than a theological support of one other. Noth boo.s of 8icah and !saiah deal with the corruption of !srael3s leaders and society and contain messianic e"pectationsIF %as mentioned above$ this is not dissimilar from the chronology of the Johannine tradition reflecting messianic e"pectations of pre-F* + Palestine(. ?eorge 6ohrer believes that the similarities between 8icah 171*-1; and !saiah 1*7)Fb->)= 8ic. )71-> and !sa.E7G-1* is proof that 8icah was directly influenced by !saiah.IG

4ecent ,ld #estament scholarship believes that both !saiah and 8icah used !srael3s ancient
II IE I; IF 9odd$ Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospel$ p. I>*. 5tec.$ Old Testament )egesis# A *uide to the "ethodology$ p. 1I*. !bid.$ p. 1)). ?ary 5tansell$ "icah and !saiah# A Form and Tradition-Historical %omparison %?eorgia7 5cholars Press$ 1:GG($ pp. 1-). IG 6ohrer$ !ntroduction to the Old Testament$ p. III.

traditions and not only used them but adapted and reinterpreted them for their prophecies. I: !n fact$ W. Qimmerli emphasises that !saiah completely transformed the tradition for his use rather than merely appropriate it.E* ,nly when we Kuestion both prophets3 roots in this common tradition can we properly ma.e a comparison of the two= a notion put forward by 5tansell$ who as.s Kuestions such as how similar or different the prophets use and appropriate a tradition. 6orm critical Kuestions are also to be as.ed within this interest of tradition$ such as the possibility of prophetic and speech forms shared by either or both prophets and dependence on either each other or an independent$ pree"isting form. 5tansell focused his study on 8icah$ curious whether the prophet stood in the shadow of !saiah or was an independent mind who could have even contradicted the latter.E1

#he tradition-historical approach shows that both !saiah and 8ichal are said to have used the same ancient !sraelite tradition of theophany$ as seen in the hymns of victory %which Jahweh fights and saves his people( from the pre-monarch !srael era in their prophecies %8ic. 17>ff. and !sa. >*7)Fff.= ):7;= >17I(. 8ichal$ however$ does not ma.e positive use of the Jerusalem cultic theophany found in !saiah ; %for the former is critical of Jerusalem tradition as mentioned below(. 8ichal also uses the traditional material differently$ for Jahweh3s people will be destroyed$ not saved$ in the case of 5amaria$ which be made /a heap in the open country.0 %8ic. 17;( 6or !saiah$ however$ ma.es use of the original function of the ancient tradition that Jahweh will destroy the Assyrian threat %!sa. >*7)G$ >1= );7;f.( and defend Qion %!sa. >17If.(E) #he Qion tradition and how it relates to Jerusalem are both used by 8icah and !saiah$ but the former is against the tradition for its reliance of Jahweh3s protection while the latter uses the tradition positively in his prophecy. 8icah announces the destruction of Jerusalem %8ic. >71)( and the e"ile of its inhabitants %8ic. 171;($ while !saiah does announce coming danger of the city$ he promises it will receive Jahweh3s protection %!sa. ):71ff.= >17If.(. Noth 8icah and !saiah are opposed to the leaders of Jerusalem and
I: 5tansell$ "icah and !saiah# A Form and Tradition-Historical %omparison$ p. E. E* W. Qimmerli$ /Prophetic Proclamation and 4einterpretation$0 in 9ouglas Anight$ ed.$ Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament %Philadelphia7 6ortress Press$ 1:FF($ p. G)ff. E1 5tansell$ "icah and !saiah# A Form and Tradition-Historical %omparison$ pp. E-;. E) !bid.$ pp. >>->I.

their wic.edness$ with all of Qion$ including the leaders$ condemned to destruction by 8icah %8ic. >7:ff.( while !saiah may claim that Qion will be punished by Jahweh$ the city will not be destroyed but rather purified %!sa.17)1ff.(.E> Noth prophets also faced conflict and opposition from rival prophets$ yet 8icah3s opponents seem to be 2salvation prophets3 %8ic. >7Eb( who rely heavily on the Qion tradition of Jahweh3s protection %8ic. >711b( while !saiah3s preaching for reliance of faith in Jahweh is reHected by his opponents. EI While 8icah may differ by announcing the total destruction of Jerusalem$ both prophets$ including !saiah$ see Qion3s future as vague. %!sa. >).:ff.(EE 5tansell draws well on the dissimilarities of 8icah and !saiah$ arguing that it can be also seen in a different use of subseKuent tradition. 6or prophets Jeremiah and Hananiah are of a later age yet both men follow in the same traditions of 8icah and !saiah$ with Jeremiah following in the footsteps of 8icah and Hananiah being similar to !saiah at least in regard to the Qion tradition. Jeremiah directly Kuotes from 8icah %Jer. );71G( and$ li.e 8icah$ predicts the destruction of Jerusalem %Jer. :711(. Jeremiah and 8icah both seemed to faced the same opponents$ the salvation prophets$ who promoted the Qion tradition3s 2false security3 against incoming doom. %8ic. >711 and Jer. E71)= G71:( 5uch similarity between 8icah and Jeremiah is an e"ample of how prophets of the ,ld #estament made use of tradition and of each other.E; Having now shown the goals and application of the tradition-historical approach for Jewish and hristian sacred te"ts so far$ ! will apply the approach to the problem of tafsir %interpretation( of the &ur'an. #he traditionalist view of the &ur'an is that it was divinely revealed to 8uhammad and the revelations were collected and codified by aliph Pthman in ;E>/;EI +. 9espite this$

scholars have criticised !slamic tradition of the &ur'an and have argued that traditions and their development were used to create the &ur'an$ using the same scepticism as found in modern biblical e"egesis. With interest with early e"egetical wor.s$ Andrew 4ippin focuses on the creation of the earliest te"t of the &ur'an. #he main problem is whether the te"ts we have today are either
E> EI EE E; 5tansell$ "icah and !saiah# A Form and Tradition-Historical %omparison$ pp. ;E-;;. !bid.$ pp. :G-::. !bid.$ p. ;;. !bid.$ p. 1>E.

/compilations e"tracted from later wor.s and then put in the name of a single$ early authority0 %as argued by a sceptic non-traditionalist such as John Wansbrough( EF or produced and transmitted %isnad( by early teachers$ which then faced redaction from latter editors and copyists. %as argued by the traditionalist Andrew 4ippin($ .eeping in mind the date and method of composition. Wansbrough's literary approach concerns considerations of style and function of information used in e"egetical te"ts$ in order to find the tradition behind the &ur'an. Wansbrough shows that the technical nature of many early tafsir wor.s shows single authorship$ who were then redacted by later editors$ such as 8uKdtil ibn 5ulaimdn %d. F;: +('s tafsir$ despite obvious use of later

redaction$ is so uniKue that it at least represents /a distinct line of interpretation originating in the early %second to third( !slamic centuries.0EG Wansbrough main argument is that the &ur'an$ far from being closed canon by the Prophet and the first caliphate$ was open to formation until the early ninth century. ,riginally$ there were oral prophetical logia$ which then formed the &ur'an of today. E: Psing form criticism$ Wansbrough argues that the &ur'an was originally the product of originally independent traditions that developed as they were transmitted over time. ;* #he tafsir traditions sole goal was to present the Hi2azi origins of !slam.;1 Wansbrough's basic methodological Kuestion was7 What is the evidence when dealing with formation of the &ur'an? He dynamically proposed that the entire corpus of early !slamic evidence must be considered as /salvation history0$ which was concerned with how the seKuence of the world's evidence are centred on the revelation from ?od to 8uhammad. As salvation history is accessible to us in literary form$ Wansbrough used literary analysis. #hough the use of the term 'salvation history' can lead to confusions with its other meanings within the hristian and Jewish

EF Andrew 4ippin$ /Al-Quhri$ /-as.h al-&ur'an0 and the Problem of +arly /#afsir0 #e"ts0$ $ulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies& 3ni/ersity of London$ IF$ 1 %1:GI($ p. )). EG 4ippin$ /Al-Quhri$ /-as.h al-&ur'an0 and the Problem of +arly /#afsir0 #e"ts0$ p. )>= 4ippin agrees with Wansbrough with this statement$ though he later argues that the approach of Wansbrough is limited when dealing with fragmentary and incohesive te"ts %see ibid.$ pp. )I-I>(. E: Jane 9ammen 8cAuliffe$ 4ur5anic %hristians# An Analysis of %lassical and "odern )egesis % ambridge7 ambridge Pniversity Press$ 1::1($ p. )E. ;* John Wansbrough$ 4uranic Studies# Sources and "ethods of Scriptural !nterpretation %,"ford7 ,"ford Pniversity Press$ 1:FF($ p. IF. ;1 !bid.$ p. 1F:.

conte"ts$ so Wansbrough recommended the term 'election history' as early !slam had no eschatological concern. !t is argued that the literary records of this salvational history themselves belong to a later period than the actual historical events they describe. ;) 4ather$ they reflect /the thought and faith of later generations.0;> Wansbrough goes further to say that !slamic salvational history borrowed and adapted from a pool of Judeo- hristian religious traditions$ creating an uniKue Arabian religious tradition in seventh-century Arabia. Wansbrough found four maHor motifs of monotheistic tradition within the message of the &ur'an7 divine retribution$ sign$ e"ile$ and covenant. #hese motifs are regularly referred to but rarely developed$ as it was assumed that the audience of the &ur'an could fill in any missing details in the narrative$ as would the audience of the #almud$ where .nowledge of biblical citation would be presumed.;I #he &ur'an only created its independent$ fi"ed identity after the Arab conKuests brought it outside Arabia$ isolating it from its /original intellectual environment.0 ;E #his then reKuired written Hustification$ as provided in tafsir and sira. Ny the end of the eighth century all oral traditions and literary wor.s were emerged to form the fi"ed canon of scripture$ which would then form !slam. #his would have coincided with the rise of literary Arabic. #he best e"ample of the referential character of the &ur'an is best seen in the story of Joseph %5ura 1)7E:= paralleling the biblical account in ?enesis I)7>-1>($ as the /other brother0 is merely mentioned$ with no further e"planation that this brother was NenHamin$ who Jacob feared for and left him at home. #he &ur'anic audience was assumed to have .nowledge this latter part of this biblical story. Another e"ample would be sacrifice of !shmael by Abraham %paralleling the biblical A(edah($ where the dramatic impact in the biblical account of !shmael/!saac not .nowing he was going to be offered is omitted. #he Jewish e"egetical tradition parallels this$ for many Jewish %and later hristian( traditions adHusted the story to emphasis the willingness of !saac to be sacrificed and
;) Andrew 4ippin$ /@iterary Analysis of 4ur5an$ Tafsir$ and Sira7 #he 8ethodologies of John Wansbrough0 in 4ichard . 8artin$ ed.$ Approaches to !slam in 'eligious Studies %#ucson7 #he Pniversity of AriBona Press$ 1:GE($ pp. 1EI1E;. ;> !bid.$ p. 1E;. ;I !bid.$ pp. 1EF-1E:. ;E !bid.$ p. 1;*.

they too were referential as the audience would .now the basic story and be already aware of the importance of Abraham. -ot only was the &ur'an referential$ however$ but it could be polemic as well. 6or e"ample$ the fulfilment motif$ developed in the -ew #estament with usage from the Hebrew Nible$ was not put in the &ur'an so to separate it from 8osaic revelation$ instead placing emphasis on &ur'anic revelation and the Arabian language. #herefore$ the Judeo- hristian bac.ground cannot be ignored when approaching the &ur'an for it is not e"clusive Arabian tradition.;;

#he history of traditions perspective has shown that each Abrahamic religion has a 'pre-te"t' e"ists behind their sacred te"ts. 5uch traditions originate and develop$ contributing to a certain account or story. #he common heritage of tradition behind hristianity and Judaism$ as evident in the e"ample of the ,ld #estament temptation tradition$ adds more weight to the popular term 'Judeo- hristian'$ which is used to describe the society of today's Western world. Nut the other Abrahamic faith$ !slam$ far from being e"clusively Arabian$ has a Judeo- hristian bac.ground. #he sources of the &ur'an reveals its %and !slam in general( inheritance to Jewish and hristian tradition$ yet traditionalists %both secular and 8uslim scholars( continue see the the wor.s of nontraditionalists$ such as of Wansbrough$ as anathema. With eKual$ unrestrained attention to the historical concern to 'pre-religion' behind all three Abrahamic faiths can we discover and understand the richness of the traditions behind sacred canon.

;; 4ippin$ /@iterary Analysis of 4ur5an$ Tafsir$ and Sira7 #he 8ethodologies of John Wansbrough0$ pp. 1;*-1;1.

Nibliography

Nrawley$ 4.@. / anon and

ommunity7 !nterte"tuality$

anon !nterpretation$

hristology$

#heology$ and Persuasive 4hetoric in @u.e I71-1>0$ in +.H. @overing$ ed.$ Society of $iblical Literature +,,- Seminar .apers6 Atlanta7 5cholars Press$ 1::). pp. I1:->I.

arson$ 9.A.$ J. 8oo$ 9ouglas and 8orris$ @eon. An !ntroduction to the New Testament. 8ichigan7 Apollos$ 1::).

9i <ito$ 4obert. /#radition-Historical

riticism0$ in 5teven @. 8cAenBie and 5tephen 4.

Haynes$ eds.$ To ach !ts Own "eaning# An !ntroduction to $iblical %riticisms and their Application. @ouisville7 Westminster John Ano" Press$ 1:::. pp. :*-1*I.

9odd$

harles Harold. Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospel.

ambridge7

ambridge

Pniversity Press$ 1:;E.

+hrman$ Nart 9. The New Testament# A Historical !ntroduction to the 1ritings. ,"ford7 ,"ford Pniversity Press$ )**G.

arly %hristian

+vans$

raig A. /5ource$ 6orm and 4edaction

riticism7 #he #raditional 8ethods of

5ynoptic !nterpretation0$ in 5tanely +. Porter and 9avid #ombs$ eds.$ Approaches to New Testament Study. 5heffield7 5heffield Academic Press$ 1::;. pp. 1F-IE.

6ohrer$ ?eorge. !ntroduction to the Old Testament. -ashville7 Abington Press$ 1:;E.

6uller$ 4eginald H. A %ritical !ntroduction to the New Testament . @ondon7 ?erald

9uc.worth C o.$ 1:F1.

Harding$

,liver.

/#radition-Historical

riticism0$

http7//eBinearticles.com/?tradition-

historical-criticism CidD1>;EF)) %last accessed 1G April )**:(.

8ann$

.5. "ar(# A New Translation with !ntroduction and %ommentary6 -ew Jor.7

9oubleday$ 1:G;.

8cAuliffe$ Jane 9ammen. 4ur5anic %hristians# An Analysis of %lassical and "odern )egesis. ambridge7 ambridge Pniversity Press$ 1::1.

4ippin$ Andrew. /Al-Quhri$ /-as.h al-&ur'an0 and the Problem of +arly /#afsir0 #e"ts0$ $ulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies& 3ni/ersity of London $ IF$ 1 %1:GI($ pp. ))-I>.

4ippin$ Andrew. /@iterary Analysis of 4ur5an$ Tafsir$ and Sira7 #he 8ethodologies of John Wansbrough0 in 4ichard . 8artin$ ed.$ Approaches to !slam in 'eligious Studies. #ucson7 #he Pniversity of AriBona Press$ 1:GE. pp. 1E1-1;>.

5tansell$ ?ary. "icah and !saiah# A Form and Tradition-Historical %omparison . ?eorgia7 5cholars Press$ 1:GG.

5tec.$ ,dil Hannes. Old Testament 5cholars Press$ 1::G.

)egesis# A *uide to the "ethodology. ?eorgia7

<ia$ 9an ,. /+ditor3s 6oreword0$ in Patte$ 9aniel. Structural )egesis for New Testament

%ritics. @ondon7 ontinuum !nternational Publishing ?roup$ 1::;. pp. vii-i".

Wansbrough$ John. 4uranic Studies# Sources and "ethods of Scriptural !nterpretation . ,"ford7 ,"ford Pniversity Press$ 1:FF.

Qimmerli$ W. /Prophetic Proclamation and 4einterpretation$0 in 9ouglas Anight$ ed.$ Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia7 6ortress Press$ 1:FF. pp. ;:-1**.