is a typical feature of the outlook of originating figures in the
history of religion. First, bearers of a new prophecy, revised
values, or new loyalties must address their audience in terms
the latter understands. The terms have to be drawn from a
shared tradition. A classic example is in the Book of Exodus
in the connection the prophet Moses proclaims between the
God Yahveh, whose name he is commanded to reveal to the
Israelite slaves, and “the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” that is
to say the God or gods of ancient tradition (Ex. 3:13–15; cf.
Ex. 6:2–3).
Second, religious originators must be able to reflect
upon their own experiences. Affording a means of achieving
distance from the immediate present, tradition provides a
framework for interrogation, interlocution, interpretation,
and evaluation, without which reflection would be impossi-
ble. For example, early in his prophetic ministry Muh:ammad
experienced visions that he later came to regard as encounters
with the archangel Gabriel, the figure thereafter identified by
Muslims as the agent of QurDanic revelation. Scholars have
pointed out, however, that the only reference to Gabriel as
a revealer in the QurDa ̄n occurs in a late Medinan su ̄rah
(2:97–98) and that the descriptions of visions in earlier
su ̄rahs (53:1–18, 81:15–25) are vague about the identity of
the being Muh:ammad encountered. In other words, it ap-
pears that an angelological tradition, not invented by
Muh:ammad but accepted by him at some point, served the
Prophet (and later Islam) as a way of understanding his early
experiences.
Third, the consciousness of standing in a sacred tradi-
tion supports religious originators who break with the sacred
traditions of their contemporaries and coreligionists. The
originator’s sense of tradition makes the break bearable and
keeps it from being episodic or nihilistic. So, for example,
the Apostle Paul, preaching a break with the Jewish law on
the basis of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, was greatly
aided by his conviction that he represented a tradition of
faith authenticated by the law itself in its testimonies con-
cerning Abraham (Rom. 3–4; Gal. 3–4).
The complexity of the relationship of religious origina-
tors to tradition can be seen in Jesus’ confrontation with Jew-
ish tradition as presented in the Synoptic Gospels. That pre-
sentation has decisively shaped the way the problem of
tradition and innovation has been understood in the history
of Christianity and even in modern scholarship. The Ger-
man sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920), in his famous dis-
cussion of charismatic leadership, was thinking of the rhetor-
ical dichotomies of Jesus when he wrote, “From a substantive
point of view, every charismatic authority would have to sub-
scribe to the proposition, ‘It is written... but I say unto
you,’” and when he wrote, “Hence, in a revolutionary and
sovereign manner, charismatic domination transforms all
values and breaks all traditional and rational norms: ‘It has
been written... but I say unto you’” (Weber, 1978, vol.
1, p. 243, vol. 2, p. 1115; cf. Mt. 5:21-–48). Actually, in
Matthew, Jesus does not say “It is written” but “You have
heard that it was said to the men of old,” but he then pro-
ceeds to quote from the Torah. Thus the confrontation is in-
deed between a written law and a living master. Jesus is also
shown in the Synoptic Gospels to be sovereign over the sa-
cred oral tradition claimed by the Pharisees, as when he re-
proached them saying, “You leave the commandment of
God, and hold fast the tradition of men” (Mk. 7:8; cf. Mt.
15:1–9).
Nevertheless, Jesus’ relation to Jewish tradition is mis-
construed if one assumes that at bottom it was dichotomous.
Throughout the Gospels, including the passages cited above,
there is much evidence of continuity: “Think not that I have
come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not
to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt. 5:17). The theme
of continuity has often been muted by the anti-Judaic ten-
dencies of much historical Christianity, including nine-
teenth- and twentieth-century liberal theology, which made
a sharp distinction between the “legalistic” religion of the
Jews and the “spiritual” religion of Jesus. Weber’s discussion
of charisma also tends to emphasize the break with tradition
in the work of Jesus, as well as that of other prophets, mili-
tary heroes, and messianic figures. Weber’s emphasis is justi-
fiable given his aims, namely the clarification of pure
(“ideal”) types. Abstractly considered, a charismatic leader al-
ways stands against tradition. He or she offers his or her fol-
lowers something new and lays claim to a highly personal
kind of authority, whereas “authority will be called tradition-
al if legitimacy is claimed for it and believed in by virtue of
the sanctity of age-old rules and powers” (Weber, 1978, vol.
1, p. 226). In historical reality, however, charismatic leaders
always possess notions of tradition that play a crucial role in
their own thinking and in their relationships with followers
and with the general public. Thus Jesus, in the ostensibly
anti-Mosaic teachings of Matthew 5 (e.g., vv. 21–22: “You
have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not
kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say
to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be
liable to judgment”) was probably not trying to invalidate
the law of Moses but simply demanding behavior radically
consistent with it. Jesus also frequently cited traditional au-
thorities in his confrontation with the Pharisees, as when he
cited the Prophet Isaiah to support his condemnation of
“your tradition” (hand washing before meals) in Mark 7:6–7
(cf. Mt. 15:7–9; Is. 29:13). Here the condemnation of a cer-
tain understanding of tradition is itself supported by an ap-
peal to tradition, as Jesus draws an analogy between his con-
flict with the Pharisees and the conflicts of the prophets of
Israel with the religious establishment of an earlier day. Even
conflicts with tradition are molded by tradition.Charismatic prophets who attack the sacred traditions
of their contemporaries are not the only type of originators
in the history of religion. Sociable teachers of virtue who ac-
cept the commonly received forms of tradition but reinter-
pret their contents are also important. Originators of thisTRADITION 9271