104555628 Tradition Historical Approaches and the Origins of Scripture

8/13/2019 104555628 Tradition Historical Approaches and the Origins of Scripture

1/19

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 )* thcentury$ remains valuable in giving us the 'pre-

history' 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

bacground 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:.


2/19

9i ;EF)) %last accessed 1G April )**:(.


3/19

the sources for 8atthew and @ue. #his hypothesis has been widely accepted up to the present day$

with a maority of ew #estament scholars accepting 8aran priority. I.5. 8ann3s commentary

on 8ar agrees with J.J. riesbach3s hypothesis %in the eighteenth century= before the promotion of

the 2SH( that @ue used material from 8atthew and 8ar abridged both 8atthew and @ue.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 @ue0$F as 8ar3s 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. .@. 5chmidt distinguished that there was tradition %the units of material( and

redaction %the lins of the units of material($ with pre-8aran 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 subectivity comes into

play.011With 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$"ar(# A New Translation with !ntroduction and %ommentary%ew or7 9oubleday$ 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$A %ritical !ntroduction to the New Testament%@ondon7 erald 9ucworth C o.$ 1:F1($ pp. G1-

G).11 +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. )G.


4/19

basis of tradition( the sayings and stories of Jesus$ are unnown 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.1Eerman 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 subectivity as previously mentioned. However$ form

criticism is still important for sacred te"t e"egesis as it can identify its specific genre %e"7 @ue

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. nowing the literary wor of religious

1) +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. )G.

1> ,liver Harding$ Tradition-Historical %riticism$1I 6uller$A %ritical !ntroduction to the New Testament$ p. 1:G.

1E !bid.$ p. :I.1; +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ pp. )G->*.


5/19

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 asing Kuestions of genre$ form$ structure$ plot

development$ characters$ rhetoric$ the narrative world$ and implied authors and readers.01:

!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 tradition-

historical approach for maing 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 reecting 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.)1ow$ there is the assumption that the evangelists

1F +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. >>.

1G !bid.$ p. 1F.1: !bid.$ p. 1F.

)* ,dil Hannes 5tec$ Old Testament )egesis# A *uide to the "ethodology%eorgia7 5cholars Press$ 1::G($ p. 1I1.)1 +vans$ Source& Form and 'edaction %riticism# The Traditional "ethods of Synoptic !nterpretation$ p. 1G.


6/19

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

loos more lie 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)I9an 0$ in +.H. @overing$ ed.$ Society of $iblical Literature +,, Seminar .apers%Atlanta75cholars Press$ 1::)($ pp. I1:->I.


7/19

interte"tuality O the presence and function of the ,ld #estament in @ue3s portrait of Jesus in the

wilderness %@ue 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 @ue 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$ @ue3s 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.

@ue placed his version of Jesus3 genealogy %@ue >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. nlie 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 0anE7:-1)($ as mentioned earlier$ appears in @ue 1*71F-)* %! saw 5atan fall lie

lightning from heaven0$ 4eoice 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 @ue 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 @uan

but to the credit of the original writer/speaer who was concerned with it and developed it with

Kuotations from the ,ld #estament. 4ather$ what @ue did was creating the conte)t andsettings

%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.


8/19

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.>14eginald 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$ 8aran 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.>>

et 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$ >Ias such stories could have been

independently drawn from the collective oral traditions circulating about Jesus. >E5uch 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$ !


9/19

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 pre-

literary %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 unel applied form criticism arguing that the collection of five boos had a

pre-historical ancient oral tradition that stretch far bac as )*** N+ Nabylon. unel went beyond

the written te"t to observe that a tradition3s entire history can be found in the same tradition3s

origins. >G#his same focus on this tradition could help us learn about the little nown period

between 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

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

the Kuestions posed by 8ar3s different chronology and the Kuestion of the authorship of the ospel

must be counted for as well. 8ar3s 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 9odd$Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospe$ pp. E-;.>G ,liver Harding$ Tradition-Historical %riticism$

>: 9odd$Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospel$ pp. F-G.I* !bid.$ p. F$ n. ).


10/19

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 'epublicand was a

disciple of 5ocrates$ yet few would believe his stories of meeting other thiners 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 wored 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 pre-

canonical 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 RSTUVX and YZVS[X$ John alone has \]UU^_X and `X.

#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 chronologyI)%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)*.


11/19

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.0IEWhen 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 ass 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 thcentury 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 boos 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 9odd$Historical Tradition in the Fourth *ospel$ p. I>*.

IE 5tec$ Old Testament )egesis# A *uide to the "ethodology$ p. 1I*.

I; !bid.$ p. 1)).IF 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.


12/19

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 mae a comparison of the two= a notion put forward by 5tansell$ who ass Kuestions

such as how similar or different the prophets use and appropriate a tradition. 6orm critical Kuestions

are also to be ased 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$ pre-

e"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 ahweh 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 mae 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 ahweh3s 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$ maes use of the original function of the ancient tradition that ahweh 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 ahweh3s 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 ahweh3s

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$0 in 9ouglas night$ ed.$ Tradition and Theology in theOld 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.


13/19

their wicedness$ 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 ahweh$ 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 ahweh3s protection %8ic. >711b( while !saiah3s preaching for reliance of faith

in ahweh is reected 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$ lie 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 thman 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 wors$ 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> 5tansell$"icah and !saiah# A Form and Tradition-Historical %omparison$ pp. ;E-;;.EI !bid.$ pp. :G-::.

EE !bid.$ p. ;;.E; !bid.$ p. 1>E.


14/19

compilations e"tracted from later wors 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 tafsirwors shows single authorship$ who were then redacted by

later editors$ such as 8uKtil ibn 5ulaimn %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:

sing 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 tafsirtraditions sole

goal was to present theHi2aziorigins 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$ ash 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$ ash 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 dealingwith 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 niversity Press$ 1::1($ p. )E.;* John Wansbrough$ 4uranic Studies# Sources and "ethods of Scriptural !nterpretation%,"ford7 ,"ford niversity

Press$ 1:FF($ p. IF.;1 !bid.$ p. 1F:.


15/19

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 maor 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 ustification$ as provided in tafsir and sira. Ny the end of the eighth century all oral

traditions and literary wors 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 Nenamin$ 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 adusted 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.$Approaches to !slam in 'eligious Studies%#ucson7 #he niversity of AriBona Press$ 1:GE($ pp. 1EI-

1E;.;> !bid.$ p. 1E;.

;I !bid.$ pp. 1EF-1E:.;E !bid.$ p. 1;*.


16/19

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

bacground 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 bacground. #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 wors of non-

traditionalists$ 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.


17/19

Nibliography

Nrawley$ 4.@. anon and ommunity7 !nterte"tuality$ anon !nterpretation$ hristology$

#heology$ and Persuasive 4hetoric in @ue I71-1>0$ in +.H. @overing$ ed.$ Society of

$iblical Literature +,, Seminar .apers6Atlanta7 5cholars Press$ 1::). pp. I1:->I.

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

8ichigan7 Apollos$ 1::).

9i


18/19

9ucworth 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 or7

9oubleday$ 1:G;.

8cAuliffe$ Jane 9ammen. 4ur5anic %hristians# An Analysis of %lassical and "odern

)egesis. ambridge7 ambridge niversity Press$ 1::1.

4ippin$ Andrew. Al-Quhri$ ash 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 niversity 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 )egesis# A *uide to the "ethodology. eorgia7

5cholars Press$ 1::G.


19/19

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

Wansbrough$ John. 4uranic Studies# Sources and "ethods of Scriptural !nterpretation .

,"ford7 ,"ford niversity Press$ 1:FF.

Qimmerli$ W. Prophetic Proclamation and 4einterpretation$0 in 9ouglas night$ ed.$

Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia7 6ortress Press$ 1:FF. pp. ;:-1**.

104555628 Tradition Historical Approaches and the Origins of Scripture

Documents

Transcript of 104555628 Tradition Historical Approaches and the Origins of Scripture