ological problems of applying the concept of oral tradition
are severe. Except for the data supplied by modern anthro-
pologists and ethnographers from direct observation, the evi-
dence for oral tradition must be extracted from written
sources. Scholarly opinion thus divides along a spectrum
running from skepticism about the possibility of ever isolat-
ing the original oral layer of a written tradition to more con-
fident approaches based on literary and rhetorical analysis
and the selective application of archaeological evidence.
Scripture and tradition. Many classical religious sys-
tems make a formal distinction between scripture and tradi-
tion. Scripture refers to divinely revealed texts; tradition refers
to revelation mediated by human teachers. The distinction
tends to be clear enough in practice. Thus Catholic Chris-
tians have no trouble distinguishing between the New Testa-
ment writings and the creeds and canons of the church coun-
cils; Muslims do not confuse the sunnah of the Prophet with
the QurDa ̄n delivered by him. Yet the distinction between
scripture and tradition is a difficult one to make in theory.
It does not turn on the difference between divine revelation
and human teaching, for in most religions authoritative tra-
dition is reverenced almost as much as scripture as a conduit
of revelation. Furthermore, the theoretical priority of scrip-
ture over tradition rarely translates into a higher degree of
binding force in practice.
To some extent the distinction between scripture and
tradition reflects the history of canonization in a religion.
When a canon of scripture is definitively closed, authorita-
tive teaching accruing thereafter is “tradition.” Even so, the
relationship must not be construed as a mere serial progres-
sion, least of all as a purely exegetical relationship, as if tradi-
tion were in essence commentary on a body of scripture that
antedates it. Traditions often manifest a significant degree of
independence from scripture for a variety of reasons: their
origin in a time prior to the canonization of scripture, the
diversity of sources embodied in tradition as opposed to
the more restricted sources constituting a written canon, and
the reference of tradition to basic religious functions not ade-
quately treated by scripture, such as liturgy or law.
Beyond providing a source of religious authority in ad-
dition to scripture, tradition plays an indispensable role in
the appropriation of scriptural sources. Scripture cannot be
used if it cannot be interpreted, and every use (liturgical,
legal, theological) implies an interpretation. Interpretation,
however, requires a framework and accepted rules of dis-
course that scripture by itself cannot supply. They are sup-
plied by tradition. Thus there arises a practical dependence
of scripture on tradition. Dependence need not imply dimin-
ished regard for the authority of scripture. While the critical
historian might view a hermeneutical tradition as a device for
overcoming the piecemeal character or obscurity of scripture,
the pious mind will regard it as the only conceivable means
by which to gain access to the vast and awe-inspiring con-
tents of divine revelation—the means established by divine
authority as opposed to human ingenuity. In the eyes of piety
there is no contradiction between an appreciation of the
grandeur and sufficiency of scripture and a recognition of the
crucial role of interpretation. The aim of interpretation is not
to threaten but to preserve and protect scriptural revelation:
“Tradition [Masora] is a fence to the Torah” (Avot 3.14).
Nevertheless, conflicts between scripture and tradition
are bound to arise because of differences in provenance, time
of origin, and ideological tendency. In every religion with a
body of scripture, there will be traditions lacking scriptural
warrant or even contradicting the plain sense of scripture,
and there will be beliefs and practices mandated by scripture
with no living function in the tradition. While exegetical in-
genuity can go a long way toward resolving these conflicts,
the problem of scripture and tradition cannot be settled by
exegesis alone. From the outset, a conciliatory assumption of
harmony between scripture and tradition must be made to
support the work of exegesis and interpretation; otherwise
the situation of the interpreter would be impossible, for
scripture and tradition always diverge enough to make recon-
ciliation impossible without the antecedent assumption of an
ultimate harmony. This assumption is itself a traditum, a
thing handed down and explicitly confessed by religious tra-
ditions with respect to their scriptures. The determination
to affirm the harmony of scripture and tradition suggests that
scripture has a significance that goes beyond its substantive
contents, namely as an object of traditional loyalty, a badge
of affiliation, and a symbol of continuity.
The role of the Vedic scriptures in Hinduism affords a
good example. The Vedas were for a long time not scripture
in the strict sense of the word because they were transmitted
orally, but they played a quasi-scriptural role long before
being committed to writing. In scriptural form they enjoy
theoretical priority over the books of tradition (smr:ti; literal-
ly, “remembered”) that were produced later. A wide gulf sep-
arates the religion of the Vedas from that of later Hindu tra-
dition. The Vedas present a religion of animal sacrifice and
of meat-eating, intoxicant-drinking priests; a worldview that
knows nothing of the cycle of rebirth (sam:sa ̄ra) and little of
the theory of action (karman); a cult without temple wor-
ship; and a pantheon in which many of the most popular
gods and heroes of later Hinduism play little or no role. Nev-
ertheless the books of smr:ti consistently avow loyalty to the
Vedas, and conciliatory explanations of departures from
Vedic ways are offered. As Louis Renou put it, “The Veda
is precisely the sign, perhaps the only one, of Indian ortho-
doxy” (Renou, 1960, vol. 6, pp. 2–3). In the religious history
of India a crucial line of division separates the continuators
of Vedic tradition from groups, such as the Jains and Bud-
dhists, who broke with the tradition in principle. Among the
continuators a community of tradition existed, despite many
differences of doctrine and practice. Between the continua-
tors and the others there was not a community of tradition,
despite many historical and cultural affinities.
TRADITION AND RELIGIOUS ORIGINATORS. For a number of
reasons the consciousness of standing in a sacred tradition9270 TRADITION