Tradition History

Robert Gnuse

The seminarian and the scholar learn critical methods of biblical exegesis to discern the deeper meanings of biblical texts, including textual criticism, literary or source criticism, form criticism, and tradition history. This last method of analysis is called by several names, including the traditions history method or traditio-historical criticism, all of which are English translations of German terms, Traditionsgeschichtliche Studien and Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. In New Testament scholarship the preferred term is redaction criticism, especially in reference to the critical evaluation of the Gospels. This diversity in nomenclature parallels the even greater range in approaches exhibited by individual scholars in their evaluation of particular texts. Thus, one must make a very broad definition of the method to encompass the range of exegetical studies available.

In general terms the method seeks to reconstruct hypothetically the evolution of a biblical text, set of texts, or theme, and how it may have communicated different messages to the ancient audience over the years. This evolutionary trajectory is hypothesized by the scholar through both oral and written stages of development. In addition, the method is interested in how a text relates to its greater literary context in our present canon. The scholar wishes to rediscover how cycles of texts grew into even larger cycles in the process of oral and written transmission. Once these stages of development have been discerned, the scholar makes creative suggestions concerning the social and religious needs of the audiences addressed by the evolving text at each significant stage of growth. This provides the modern reader with deeper insight into the overall meaning of that biblical text.

1. History. The traditio-historical method grew out of the form critical method in the 1930's and 1940's. The form critical method arose in the years 1900-1930 out of the work of H. Gunkel (see Gunkel, Schöpfung and Genesis), H. Gressmann (see Gressmann, Mose), A. Klostermann, A. Alt (see Alt, Schriften), and others, who sought to reconstruct the theoretic oral prehistory and original oral form of a literary biblical text. The later traditio-historical critics, many of whom were form critics already, extended their evaluation to include a hypothetical consideration of all the stages of development for a biblical text from its original oral form to the final written canonical text.

The first serious tradition history scholarship was contributed by G. von Rad and M. Noth. Von Rad's seminal work suggested that the Pentateuch evolved out of short oral creeds and that the Yahwist was the first tradition to combine the Sinai traditions with the accounts of the Wilderness Wanderings and Conquest (see von Rad, "Hexateuch"). He also articulated a very significant theology of the Old Testament on the basis of traditio-historical reconstruction (see von Rad, OT Theology). Noth advanced the theory that great cycles of oral tradition (Patriarchs, Exodus, Wilderness, Sinai, and Entrance into Arable Land) and some shorter cycles evolved into the Pentateuchal sources (Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly Source) and that the Deuteronomistic History was composed by one creative author, not out of Pentateuchal sources, but out of diverse and fragmentary traditions (see Noth, Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic).

Scandanavian scholars (also referred to loosely as the Uppsala School) contributed greatly to the development of this method. In contrast to their German counterparts they rejected literary or source criticism, saying the development of biblical traditions occurred primarily in the oral stage until their precipitation into writing during the Babylonian Exile, and hence the method was concerned only with oral tradition. H. S. Nyberg may have begun the movement with a study of oral tradition in Hosea (see Nyberg, Hoseabuch). Truly significant scholars included I. Engnell who wrote numerous essays in critical methodology (see Engnell, Scrutiny) and S. Mowinckel who moderated between the Scandanavian emphasis on oral tradition and German source criticism (see Mowinckel, Prophecy). Other Scandanavian contributions included the work of I. Hylander on I Samuel (see Hylander, Samuel-Saul), H. Birkeland on the prophets (see Birkeland, Traditionswesen), A. Haldar on the prophets (see Haldar, Prophets), E. Nielsen on oral tradition and the Ten Commandments (see Nielsen, Tradition and Commandments), G. Ahlström on Ps 89 (see Ahlström, Psalm 89), R. A. Carlson on II Samuel (see Carlson, David), and M. Saebö on Second Zechariah (see Saebö, Sacharja).

Recent practioners of the method have combined the German and Scandanavian approaches by surveying the development of a text, set of texts, or theme through both oral and written stages. Significant works have included the efforts of H. Gese on Ezek 40-48 (see Gese, Ezechiel), W. Richter on Judg 3-9 (see Richter, Retterbuches), K. Koch on methodology (see Koch, Growth), R. Rendtorff on the Pentateuchal sources (see Rendtorff, Pentateuch), M. Fishbane on inner-biblical exegesis (see Fishbane, Interpretation), and C. Dohmen on the prohibition against images (see Dohmen, Bilderverbot). This author even has used the method to analyze texts in the writings of Josephus (see Gnuse, Josephus). An excellent history of the traditio-historical method has been provided by D. Knight (see Knight, Rediscovering), an excellent text on the method was generated by Rast (see Rast, Tradition), and further collections of essays outlining the history of the method (see Jeppesen and Otzen, Productions) and probing its wider implications (see Knight, Tradition) have appeared.

The comparable discipline in New Testament studies is redaction criticism, which seeks to trace the evolution of oral tradition with the Jesus sayings down to their final literary form as written Gospels. R. Bultmann is seen as a pioneer in this regard (see Bultmann, Synoptic), especially with his attention to the oral tradition. Textbooks often point to the contributions of scholars who analyzed the theological assumptions of Gospel authors in their use of the Jesus tradition, including G. Bornkamm (see Bornkamm, Matthew), W. Marxsen (see Marxsen, Mark), H. Conzelmann (see Conzelmann, Luke), L. Martyn (see Martyn, John), and W. Kelber (see Kelber, Gospel). Herein the emphasis is upon the creative work of the final author, so that New Testament scholars pay more attention to the final stage of transmission, since the period of oral tradition is much shorter than with Old Testament texts. Hence, New Testament scholars use the term redaction, which refers more directly to that final stage, whereas Old Testament scholars prefer a term like tradition history. A fine introduction to the New Testament method is provided by N. Perrin (see Perrin, Redaction).

Recently criticism of the method has emerged among Old Testament scholars. J. Van Seters (see Van Seters, Abraham, Prologue, and Moses), T. Thompson (see Thompson, Origin), and N. Whybray (see Whybray, Pentateuch) have questioned whether an extensive oral tradition really lies behind biblical narratives, and if so, whether it can be reconstructed out of the final literary text. They and other critics suggest more of a process of literary creation of the biblical text in the Babylonian Exile and thereafter out of little or no prior traditions. Hence, in the future scholarly discussion may rage concerning the actual viability of tradition history as an exegetical method.

2. Steps in the Method. As a traditio-historical critic studies a text, set of texts, or theme, he or she will have particular agenda for the analysis which will vary depending upon the genre of the text. Exegetical analysis will differ for narratives, legal texts, prophetic oracles, psalms, wisdom saying, novella, etc. Certain texts lend themselves to a full traditio-historical scrutiny, especially if they appear to have a long evolutionary pre-history, as might be the case with narrative passages. In assessing a particular passage the critical scholar might envision five stages of development worthy of consideration, and depending upon the text, the critic may focus on one or more of these stages with intensity.

The first area of consideration would be ancient Near Eastern or Hellenistic parallels to the biblical passage(s) under consideration. The critic considers those comparative texts which may have influenced biblical authors in the oral or written formation of the biblical text. Even if the comparative texts were not the ones directly available to the biblical authors, they may be part of a familiar genre. Biblical authors used well established formulae and stereotypic language to communicate to their audience, since common idioms were shared in the ancient world. Sometimes they used comparable language and literary genres to communicate the same ideas, and sometimes they used imagery from the ancient world in order to critique or reject the ideas of their foreign contemporaries. Examples of the former include prophetic oracles which adapted the messenger formula of ancient Near Eastern diplomatic correspondence, "thus says the king," to become "thus says the Lord"; examples of the latter are the biblical accounts of creation and the flood in Gen 1-3, 6-9, which reworked Babylonian and Egyptian mythic accounts.

Critics must be cautious, however, when searching for parallel ancient Near Eastern and classical texts, lest they engage in "parallel-mania," that is, finding ancient texts which bear only a superficial resemblance to biblical texts under consideration. The parallel texts must share significant modes of expression, format, and purpose with the biblical passage in order to be helpful in comparative analysis. Furthermore, in the subjective opinion of the critical scholar the parallel text or a similar genre must have been reasonably accessible to the biblical author either directly from the foreign culture or through the mediation of other biblical texts. Too often modern scholars have dredged up inappropriate parallel texts from the ancient world and obtained very skewed results from their analysis of biblical passages.

The second area of consideration is the possible oral pre-history of the biblical text under consideration. Not every biblical passage passed through a significant oral stage of transmission, but scholars generally assume that Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic narratives, as well as prophetic oracles and some Psalms, had an oral pre-history. Careful scrutiny of our present literary text may discern some of the stages of this developmental process, including the original form, message, and social setting. Thus, the traditio-historical critic seeks to answer several questions: 1) What was the original extent of the oral form in contrast to the present written text? What lines have been added secondarily in the later oral and written transmission? 2) What was the shape of the original oral form? Is there a discernible outline or pattern? Does this pattern conform to a genre that would have been recognized by its audience, such as epic, hero-tale, legend, myth, chronicle, fable, song, etc. (as in the narratives) or as lament, parable, lawsuit, disputation, salvation oracle, taunt, etc. (as in prophetic oracles)? The form communicated as much to the ancient audience as the actual content. 3) What was the original message and how might it be different from the messages the text communicated in later oral and written stages? 4) Who spoke the original oral form (priests, Levites, bards, prophets, etc.) and why did this form originate with them? 5) To whom was the oral form addressed, and what were their needs to which this form spoke? This analysis is form criticism, a method used by the early form critics as an exclusive way of analyzing texts (especially Psalms). For the traditio-historical critic it is now one stage in the process of exegesis.

The third area of investigation is envisioning how the biblical text might have grown into its present literary context. How did the passage become connected with other texts, and how did that process evolve through various stages? The critic is interested not only in the transformation of meaning experienced by that passage as other texts are connected to it, but how the passage fits into the greater cycle of texts in terms of meaning. (Early literary or source critics assumed this amalgamation of texts occurred in written or literary fashion, but since the rise of form and traditio-historical criticisms scholars assume these early collections or cycles arose in oral form.)

Once the oral narrative became part of a larger cycle, it functioned in a larger theological tradition with overarching themes that united a number of texts. The individual narrative was subordinate to the themes of the greater cycle, and whoever crafted the larger oral or written corpus often changed some of the language in the shorter forms to conform to these greater themes. The scholar now seeks to observe how the original form now relates to passages around it and to discover which of those passages might have been woven together in a separate oral or written cycle at some point in transmission. Diverse texts are associated with each other on the basis of common vocabulary, themes, and theological ideas, and they are distinguished from other passages which might have belonged to a separate cycle of traditions because the latter are duplicate accounts to those in the first cycle, or because the latter share their own common language. Once this distinct larger cycle of texts has been isolated the critic seeks to articulate its distinct theology or ideology.

At this stage the traditio-historical critic engages in what traditionally has been called source or literary criticism. In Pentateuchal studies this would be the point where scholars evaluate texts as being part of the Yahwist, Elohist, or Priestly Tradition. In the Deuteronomistic History scholars delineate cycles such as the Rise of David (I Sam 16-II Sam 8), the Succession Narrative (II Sam 9-20, I Kgs 1-2), or the Court History of Solomon (I Kgs 3-11). In legal corpora one would isolate the Book of the Covenant (Exod 21-23), the Holiness Code (Lev 17-26), or the Deuteronomic Laws (Deut 12-26). In the prophetic tradition one would isolate early editions of each particular prophet's oracles which contain the core of the prophet's original oracles and early additions by disciples.

The fourth area of evaluation would be reflection upon how the great cycle of narratives was connected to an even larger segment of literature. This would be the point at which the biblical texts most likely precipitated into written form. The traditio-historical critic now asks how the original form and its larger cycle now fit into a much larger entity, such as the Deuteronomistic History (620-550 B.C.), the Priestly edited version of the Pentateuchal narratives (550-400 B.C.), the final written form of a prophetic book, such as Isaiah (with Proto-, Deutero-, and Trito-Isaiah brought together), or even the prophetic corpus as a whole. Again, the critic inquires subjectively into how the even greater context affects the original passage, and how that passage adds to the message of the greater corpus.

At this stage the scholar is interested in an editorial process; the critic observes additions to the text which appear literary and may be from scribal hands. These additions, as well as the way sources are woven together, reflect sophisticated theological assumptions, and clever literary style and intellectual depth is observable in the allusions, foreshadowings, genealogies, thematic speeches, editorial comments, and other literary links which unite large sections of literature. Early source critics often denigrated these later editorial additions, but in the past two generations we respect these final editors as perhaps the most theologically profound contributors to the process.

The traditio-historical critic has engaged in redaction criticism at this point, for that is the study of a literary and editorial process which creates the final text. In New Testament scholarship redaction criticism is done on the Gospels when critical scholars inquire how the Gospel writers theologically formulated the literary text of each Gospel.

The final area of reflection by the scholar is one in which traditio-historical critics too often have been remiss, and that is the consideration of how the individual text fits into the message of the entire biblical canon. This would consider how the original text(s) under consideration might have been used and reinterpreted by the later biblical tradition, such as books in the Kethubim ("Writings") generated in the post-exilic era or by authors in the New Testament. Such "inner-biblical exegesis" has been developed recently by scholars such as M. Fishbane (see Fishbane, Interpretation). Above all, the critic wishes to discuss how the individual text fits into the message of the greater biblical canon and biblical theology as a whole.

This level of reflection has been called canonical criticism by scholars who have advocated it in the last generation, including B. Childs (see Childs, Crisis and Exodus) and J. Sanders. Though sometimes described as though it were a methodology separate from the other critical methods discussed above, it actually is the final and theologically culminating stage of the traditio-historical method. At this point the biblical exegete attempts to discern the ultimate religious message of the biblical text for people today.

In retrospect tradition history or the traditio-historical method evaluates the theoretic evolution of a biblical passage, and in so doing it absorbs the techniques of several other methods. It seeks to understand the message of a text at each stage of its evolution, and in so doing demonstrates the dynamic growth of the biblical tradition, as each generation reinterprets and develops its past traditions.

3. Representative Exegesis. Let us consider a text for analysis by the tradition history method--I Sam 3, the theophany of Yahweh to Samuel at Shiloh (see Gnuse, Samuel). The five stages of evaluation for the critical scholar would be as follows:

1) A review of ancient Near Eastern literature would focus upon comparable prophetic narratives and dream reports. Mesopotamian sources offer many suggestive parallels, especially night-time prophetic dream reports received in shrines at Mari (1800 B.C.). Even more relevant are dream reports from Egypt and Mesopotamia which fall into patterns of "auditory message dreams" and "visual symbolic dreams." Comparison with I Sam 3 demonstrates striking similarities with "auditory message dreams."

2) Form-critical evaluation of I Sam 3:1-21 leads scholars to sense that the original form of the text was vv. 1-18. In the plot development of the narrative there are sensitive literary devices, including the artistic contrast of innocent young Samuel and the old priest Eli, who had failed to control his evil sons, and the three-fold call of Samuel by Yahweh designed to heighten the suspense of an impending theophany in an age when the "Word of the Lord" was rare. At this point the scholar observes form-critical similarities between this text and other biblical prophetic call narratives (Moses, Exod 3; Gideon, Judg 6; Saul, I Sam 9; Jeremiah, Jer 1; and Ezekiel, Ezek 1-2), as well as the auditory message dreams of Assyria and Chaldean Babylon (700-550 B.C.). The account appears crafted to conform to both formats.

3) The scholar then observes how I Sam 3 fits into the greater Samuel Idyll in I Sam 1-3, which as a whole contrasts the young prophet with the evil priests. This cycle shares themes with the larger cycle called the Elohist in the Pentateuch, which likewise has auditory message dreams in the patriarchal accounts, a positive attitude toward prophets, and a distrust of priests (Exod 32-33, the Golden Calf incident). How the Samuel Idyll is connected to the Elohist tradition is highly debated, however.

4) The critical scholar expands the observation of how I Sam 3 fits into its greater context by observing further redaction. I Sam 1-3 became part of the narrative cycle concerning the rise of the monarchy in I Sam 1-15, wherein old narratives sympathetic to the monarchy (I Sam 9:1-10:16, 11, 13-14) appear woven together with later (perhaps Deuteronomistic) texts critical of kingship (I Sam 7-8, 10:17-27, 12, 15). The Samuel Idyll reinforces a pejorative perception of Saul and kingship by stressing the sufficiency of Samuel as Israel's leader, and the general superiority of prophets over kings. This editorial work appears to come from Deuteronomistic Historians. The same editors then connected I Sam 1-15 with other major sections of literature to create the books of I and II Samuel, wherein the decline of Saul before David is justified, and David becomes a standard by which to evaluate other kings in the history of I and II Kings. I Sam 3 plays a pivotal rule in preparing for the unfolding of later history and stressing the prophetic word as an ultimate authority.

5) On a canonical level the critic may observe how the Deuteronomistic History fits into the greater biblical theological message of the Old Testament, especially in regard to themes such as covenant, obedience, divine revelation, and prophetic calling. I Sam 3 contributes to all these themes. Canonical criticism also draws the traditio-historical critic into reflection upon how I Sam 3 foreshadows Jesus in the Infancy Narratives of Matt 1-2 (where auditory message dreams occur again) and Luke 1-2. The prophet Samuel foreshadows the prophetic ministry of Jesus, who also opposed corrupt priests. Hence, I Sam 3 ultimately unites with other texts that proclaim the nature of the prophetic calling which all Jews and Christians seek to heed.

4. Theological Significance. The importance of the method is found not only in its ability to attempt a reconstruction of the oral and literary evolution of biblical texts. Above all, the method implies that the biblical text is not a static repository of absolute truths revealed by God, but the record of a dynamic process of human and divine interaction over many generations in which sacred texts are received and reinterpreted by subsequent generations. It may imply that the tradition making process is part of revelation itself (see Knight, Tradition). It further implies that sacred texts may contain several levels of meaning, as those meanings have been imparted by successive generations of transmitters--the sacred texts are polyvalent, capable of multiple interpretations even today. Consequently, from the texts the modern reader may draw upon a wealth of meaning, which lies beneath a surface reading and may be suggested creatively by the critical scholar for use in contemporary theology, pedagogy, preaching, and piety.

Critics of late have assailed the method for being too historicistic, that is, attempting to reconstruct the history of Israel from the very subjective analysis of literary texts. Much of this criticism is deserved, for too often biblical scholars attempted to reconstruct history. The history of Israel may be reconstructed only with a subtle interplay of archaeological data, critical analysis of literary texts, and the application of appropriate social-scientific and anthropological models. In actuality the traditio-historical method, as well as the other methods (source, form, redaction, etc.), are not historical in the sense that a historian would recognize. Rather, they seek to trace ideational and religious development in a sacred text and to perceive its growth in relationship to other texts in the canon. Observations concerning social settings are really incidental, though helpful, and obviously quite subjective. To think that this method can reconstruct the history of Israel is to misunderstand the nature of the historical quest.

In general, the tradition history method should be seen as primarily a subjective and creative art, not an empirical, scientific method. This critical methodology is scientific only in that it rigorously analyzes a text, sets aside theological and denominational beliefs, the assumptions of modern interpreters, and temporarily suspends the meaning imparted to a particular text by the rest of the biblical tradition. Also, the method may be scientific in that occasionally historical, archaeological, and social-scientific data may be used to facilitate understanding the biblical passage under scrutiny. The method attempts to be "scientific" only in that the interpreter tries to be rigorously objective. Yet ultimately the reconstruction of the prior evolutionary development of a literary text is a subjective and hypothetical task. This is evidenced by the multitude of diverse interpretations rendered by scholars on any given biblical text. In the face of such interpretative uncertitude should we disparage the method? No! The purpose of the method is not to ascertain ultimate truth or the perfect reconstruction of a process which can no longer be empirically observed. Rather, the method is suggestive and creative--it offers possibilities for understanding meanings which lie latent in the biblical text. The scholar humbly offers new possibilities for understanding texts to the reader, the theologian, the preacher, the student of the bible, and the person of faith, in order to enhance their insight and appreciation of the bible.

Bibliography. G. Ahlström, Psalm 89. Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs (1959); A. Alt, Klein Schriften (3 vols., 1953-1959); H. Birkeland, Zum hebäischen Traditionswesen (1938); R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. J. Marsh, 1931, ET 1963); G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (trans. P. Scott, 1960, ET 1963); R.A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King. A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (trans. E. J. Sharpe and S. Rudman, 1964); B. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970) and Exodus (OTL, 1974); G. Coats, "Tradition Criticism, OT," IDBS 912-14; H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. G. Buswell, 1953, ET 1960); C. Dohmen, Das Bilderverbot (rev. ed., 1987); I. Engnell, "Methodological Aspects of Old Testament Study," SVT 7 (1960) 13-30 and A Rigid Scrutiny (trans. and ed. J. T. Willis and H. Ringgren, ET 1969); M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (1985); H. Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40-48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BHT 25,1958); R. Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel (1984) and Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus (1996); H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit (1913); H. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (1895) and Genesis, übersetzt und erklart (1901); I. Hylander, Der literarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex (I. Sam. 1-15) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (1932); K. Jeppesen and B. Otzen, The Productions of Time (1984); W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel (1983); D. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel (SBLDS 9, rev. ed., 1975), (ed.) Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (1977), and "Tradition History," ABD 6, 633-638; K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition (trans. S. M. Cupitt, 1967, ET 1969); L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1968); W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (trans. J. Boyce, 1956, ET 1969); S. Mowinckel, Prophecy and Tradition (1946); E. Nielsen, Oral Tradition (trans. A. Lange, 1950, ET, SBT 11, 1954) and The Ten Commandments in New Perspective (trans. D. J. Bourke, 1965, ET, SBT, 2nd ser., 7, 1968); M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull, J. Barton, M. Rutter, and D. R. Ap-Thomas, 1943, ET, JSOTSup 15, 1981) and A History of the Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson, 1948, ET 1972); H. S Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuch (1935); N. Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? (1969); G. von Rad, "The Form Critical Problem of the Hexateuch," The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken, 1938, ET 1966) 1-78 and Old Testament Theology (2 vols., trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 1957, 1960, ET 1962, 1965); W. Rast, Tradition History and the Old Testament (1972); R. Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147, 1977); W. Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des "Retterbuches" in der deuteronomischen Epoche (BBB 21, 1964); M. Saebö, Sacharja 9-14 (1969); T. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 55, 1987); J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (1975), Prologue to History (1992), and The Life of Moses (1994); N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 53,1987).