|
|
1. What is Tradition Criticism?
Hayes and Holladay begin their chapter on tradition criticism with the following observation (from page 92):
All cultures have traditions which one generation passes on to the next. Such traditions give expression to peoples' self-understanding, their sense of their past, their systems of belief, and their codes of conduct... These traditions are passed down in the form of stories, sayings, songs, poems, confessions, creeds, and so on.
As a life-long Red Sox fan, my first application of the above observation was not to biblical interpretation but rather to the plight of the Red Sox. The Red Sox have not won a World Series (baseball's highest achievement) since 1918. Thus, most Red Sox fans are acutely aware of the past; both of the time that has passed since the last World Series and of the number of near misses for the team, e.g. 1946 (Ted Williams was shut down with an infield shift), 1967 (the Impossible Dream season that finished just short),1975 (who can forget Carlton Fisk's homerun in the sixth game?), 1986 (so close yet so far!). Within the Red Sox sub-culture, all fans know of the teams "dryspell" since the last title. The frustration of the tradition and the hunger to win a World Series (at some point) is evident in the the way that the local media treats the team and in the often harsh criticism of the team by its fans. As my parents and their parents were also Red Sox fans, I can also say that the current generation's understanding of the team (the tradition of being a Red Sox fan now) is not unique from previous generations. For at least two generations, the conduct of the fans and the self-understanding of the fan base has been markedly similar!
When tradition criticism is applied to biblical interpretation, the traditions under scrutiny are those of the specific passages in question. While the Red Sox tradition may be marked by a univocal bitterness and lack of growth in its media attention, it is now recognized that many passages and even entire works within the Bible did indeed endure thematic and editorial growth over periods of time. Much like a geologist might study a sample in order to distinguish layer from layer, so too might tradition criticism be applied in order to isolate a specific period's or tradition contribution to a piece. (Hayes & Holladay, 93)
2. Specific Examples of Tradition Criticism
Perhaps the most often cited example of tradition criticism is in the treatment of the Torah. Earlier, it was observed that there are two different creation accounts with the Book of Genesis. One way to understand the existence of two creation accounts is to cite different sources or writing traditions. Each source seems to emphasize different notions and elements within their writing. Each is also thought to be historically divergent, with the later traditions (or sources) often impacting the earlier manuscripts. The NAB, Personal Study Edition, offers the following analysis of the four sources as found with the Torah (page RG27):
| "J" Yahwist (written in 10th or 9th century B.C.E.) |
| Literary artist. Loves
stories. Focus on the heart. Emphasis on God's closeness with humanity. Uses the name
Yahweh for God (traditionally spelled Jehovah, hence the "J"). Southern
tradition. Favors strong leaders like David. |
| "E" Elohist (written after 900 B.C.E.) |
| Uses Elohim for God's
name. Stresses role of the prophet. Contains strong tone of challenge and stress on
morality. Northern tradition reflected anti-Jerusalem view. Like D it stresses covenant
with Moses is more important than kingship. |
| "P" Priestly (much of the material was written in the 8th and 7th, but some probably written in the 6th century B.C.E.) |
| Very strong interest in
ritual and priesthood. Less focus on story and more on religious symbols. God is more
distant, less initimately involved with human beings. Stresses obedience to law and
permanence of God's blessing. The P editors arranged the four sources into our present
Pentateuch around 500 B.C.E. |
| "D" Deuteronomist (written in 8th and 7th centuries B.C.E.) |
| Emphasizes role of family
(parents) for instruction and fidelity to covenant. Moralistic. Stresses preaching and
exhortation. Style is eloquent; many often-repeated verbal formulas. Northern tradition
which stresses covenant over kingship. |
Note the interconnectedness between the various types of criticism as applied here. We must employ textual criticism in order to isolate the different sources, i.e. while one tradition may use the noun Yahweh for God, another employs the noun Elohim. Further, historical criticism, both of the text and in the text, is illustrated. We can point to the P source as the final editors of the Torah but we can also discern political and cultural differences among the sources, e.g. the Northern kingdoms did not favor a centralized government, while the southern kingdoms traditionally favored centralized governments (usually in the form of monarchies). Form criticism and literary criticism are also applied within the above as each source has a unique rhetorical goal and favors different literary devices and genres in order to "get their point across." When we exegete, we intuitively employ multiple forms of criticism (sometimes even simultaneously) in order to get beyond mere content. Often, the most significant meaning of a passage is not found with the content but in the layers of meaning hidden behind the content.
Note also the danger of ignoring the hidden layers of meaning. If we were to interpret, say, the two creation stories of Genesis as being compiled by a single writer (or set of writers) we may mistakenly apply the concerns and notions of the first set of writers to the second set of writers. If we interpret the J creation account as found in Genesis 2 as the work of the P writers (the authors of the first creation account as found in Genesis 1) we can not but help misunderstand the second creation account. For the J writer, God is personal and warm and loving. God is not an abstract riutalized concept but a caring and ever-present entity. The P writer has a very different understanding (and equally moving) understanding of God. The P writer emphasizes the perfection and ultimate greatness of God. The P writer emphasizes the need to respect God in proper religious behaviours. While the God of the P source would have fore-knowledge of Adam and Eve's disobedience - and been moved to wrath because of the disobedience - the God of the J source was surprised by the act. In short, a reading of the P source into a J story leads us to misunderstand the text. As Hayes and Holladay conclude:
Tradition criticism points up an important dimension of the biblical writings which we have alluded to earlier, namely their cumulative growth, but more specifically that the biblical writings in many instances have actually taken up and incorporated earlier traditions in to the biblical text itself. (Hayes & Holladay, p. 98)
