INTRODUCTION

Historical criticism of tradition is among the traditional approaches to biblical criticism. It can be defined as the study of the process by which the oral and written traditions underlying the present text of the Bible develop in its canonical form (see Jeppese, Knud, and Benedict 1984). The results of methods such as form criticism (what genre of studies does the text belong to: historical tale, proverb, psalm, prophetic saying? A study of the structural research of the text), textual criticism (a rediscovery of the first stages of the actual writing of a text) and writing criticism (the discipline devoted to how the final writers or editors of the Bible not only adopted but adapted the various sources available to them for their own purposes, are used to achieve an integral vision of the historical-traditional criticism, since all are directly related to the course of the composition of the Bible.

It is believed that “historical-traditional criticism must be complemented by a greater literary sensibility” (Carson, Moo and Morris 1992, 83). In other words, there should be a medium that should not be seen as an alternative to literary criticism or given a superior position, but should be seen as a subsequent step to literary analysis (Fohrer 1965, 30). The characteristics of historical-traditional criticism could be understood by realizing the importance of the oral stage of the composition and transmission of a tradition.

Observing that it is misleading to consider it as a method, Di Vito (1993) opined: “The historical-traditional critique seeks to reconstruct the history of the transmission of the various individual traditions and complexes of traditions found in the Old Testament.” (91). Historical-traditional criticism deals with the prehistory of the Old Testament books and examines the gradual accumulation of traditions from the preliterary stages to their final form. Its objective, therefore, is to reconstruct a long history of the stages of a particular situation.

BRIEF HISTORY OF ITS DEVELOPMENT AND USE

Historical-traditional criticism arose due to the impasse reached as a result of source criticism studies in the Pentateuch in the late 19th century. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), universally recognized as the classical exponent of the “documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch”, had a low view of the reliability of the Pentateuch as history “, although he accepted that an obscure figure named Moses had in a sense been the founder of the Israelite religion “(Bray 1996, 284). Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) later concluded that the documentary hypothesis was inadequate as a theory of the origins of the Pentateuch. He believed that each of the “four documents” had a prehistory dating back many centuries, in an ancient oral tradition that faithfully reflected many of the conditions of Babylon around 2000 BC. Using form criticism, Gungel explored beyond the limitations of the written text noting that “one could hypothetically describe the entire history of a tradition on the basis of the tradition itself, its internal history” (Di Vito, 1993) . Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize him as the main pioneer of historical-traditional criticism.

EVALUATION

Ivan Engnell (1907-64) wrote a detailed rebuttal of Wellhausen, using traditional historical criticism borrowed from Noth. He rejected the idea that there were many documents behind Genesis-Numbers. Albrecht Alt investigated the distinctive nature of patriarchal religion. Gerhard von Rud found “creeds” originating from the worship of Israel in an ancient sanctuary at Gilgal. He said that these creeds formed the basis of the structure of the present Hexateuch. Noth observes that behind the first written sources of J and E there was already a unified form with the five main themes of the Pentateuch.

Today there is wide disagreement about the specific object of historical-traditional research. Is it restricted to the stage of oral tradition? Is it all inclusive? Furthermore, their methods are questioned. While acknowledging that changes in the form / content of traditions occurred in the course of transmission, Gunkel and his followers insisted on the “fidelity” of the transmission process over a long period of time. It is clear that “recent field studies … emphasize that the transmission of oral tradition occurs largely through a process of recomposition, or recreation, so that a text never remains unaltered” (Di Vito 1993, 98) .

In addition, questions arise about the reconstruction of the pre-literary stages of a tradition from a written document. It is argued that “criticism of form and historical-traditional criticism have generally shown the New Testament to be the tradition of the church between the 1930s and 125s” (Fuller 1971, 198).

Despite the fact that tradition-historical criticism is an approach that deals with the entire historical journey through which a tradition goes through, from its earliest beginning as an independent unit to its final elaboration and expression with the Bible, the researcher doubts the reliability. of an approach that is based on oral tradition that has its inherent weaknesses, the most obvious of which is mutilation in transit. Staying independent of methods like the source and form of criticism is also dangerous because it will continually reflect your limitations.

WORKS CITED

Bray, Gerald. 1996. Biblical interpretation: past and present. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press.

Carson, DA, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. 1992. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Apollos.

Say Vito, Robert. 1993. Historical-traditional criticism. In For Each His Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticism and Its Application, 90-104.

Fohrer, George. 1965. Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Fuller, Reginald H. 1971. A critical introduction to the New Testament. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.