would then be the distinctive badge of tlie Israelite.*
By some it was held that the oral or traditional Law was even superior to the written, because the latter was dependent for its authority upon the oral testimony of Moses. In other words, the oral precedes and underlies the written. The covenant was founded not on the wi-itten, but on the oral word of God ; for it is said, ' after the tenor of these words I iiave made a covenant with thee and with Israel ' (Ex 34-').
From the nature of the case, tradition was not a clearly defined body. A large portion of it was simply a repetition of the written Law, with elabo- rations of detail and embellishments. Another portion consisted of distinct additions, a third of provisions looking to the strict observance of the Torali. As far as this tradition was prescriptive or legal, it was called Hdldkha {-khvth), i.e. de- cision (or decisions) having the force of statutes. As far as it was narrative, it was called Hagqddd (that which is related). As a reiteration of the Mosaic Law, it was called Mishna (repetition). As a series of questionings into or investigations of the meaning of the Law, it was called Midrdsk {Midrdshim). As a means of teaching, or the body of what was to be taught, it was the Talmud. The whole body of tradition together with the Prophets and Hagiographa, in fact the whole rule of faith with the exception of the Pentateuch, was called Kabbdldh, that which is received. A doctrine of paralcpsis was thus developed, to cor- relate with the doctrine of paradosis, ' tradition. '
The administration or practical use of such a body of tradition was not an easy matter. In fact, for the average layman it was an impos- sibility ; hence the rise of a class of men who devoted themselves to the work of studying it, and informing inquirers about it (see SCRIBES, Lawyers). But this method raised the interpre- ters of the Law to a place of authority. Inter- pretations of the Law were accepted as binding, because they said so, not because the Law was seen to involve them. The Law was obeyed not because its Divine origin was perceived, but upon the authority of men. Tradition thus came to be doubly the enthronement of human authority. On the one side, it massed together man-made rules and representations of God's thought ; on the other side, it wrought out man-made interpreta- tions of the Law which triily came from God. For the former a direct Divine authority was claimed in the teaching that they were actually delivered to Moses on Sinai ; some corroboration for each separate precept thus brought down was sought for in the written Law. For the latter not even this semblance of connexion witii the known revelation of God could be adduced. In neither case could the stream rise higher than its source. The teachings of men came to take the place Avliich belonged to those of God. It could not go further back than the elders (Fathers), and those who were called upon to accept it must do so upon the authority of human statements. Tradition thus canonized the media of communication, and lost siglit of tiie value and validity of the things com- municated on (me side, and of the authority of Him from wiiom tiie communication came on the other. Wiiatever the claim for the Divine origin of the Mislina might be, the practical result of its ac- cei)tance was tiie exaltation of the means tlirough which it came to tiie supreme place of authority.
Jesus' attitude towards tradition relates itself decidedly to this aspect of it. He saw in it a means of transgressing the commandments of God. He denied first of all the Pharisaic teaching that
* Hence the name Oral Law has prevailed in modern Jewish usage. (Cf. JE, art. ' Oral Law ').
742
TEAITOR
TKANSFIGUEATION
tradition was of equal weight with the Law. He did not, however, definitely affiliate Himself with the Sadducaic teachings on the subject. As against the Pharisees, He taught that the Law of God could not come in conflict with itself, whereas between the traditions current and the Law there were conflicts. In many cases traditional pre- scriptions did stand in the way of the right ob- servance of the Law (Mk 7^^""). As contrasted with the Divine Law, He calls the tradition ' your tradition.' Finally, He classes all tradition with matters of form or lip-service. He relegates the application of it into the sphere of the non-ethical. So far as such traditions could be made serviceable in the promotion of ethical or sinritual ends, they might be unobjectionable, but they must in no case stand in the way of the clearly revealed will of God (Mt 152-2», Mk 7^-^K See also art. Corban).
Literature. — Barclay, The Talmud, 1878 ; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, 1711 ; Zunz, Die GottesdiensU. Vor- trage d. Juden'i, 1892 ; J. H. Weiss, Dor [1876], i. 1-93 ; Eders- heim, LT^ [1886], ii. 205-211 ; Friedlander, The Jewish Religion, 1891, pp. 136-139. A. C. ZENOS.
TRAITOR.— See Judas Iscariot, ii. (e).
TRANSFIGURATION.— The name given to that event in the course of Christ's ministry in which He was visibly glorified in the presence of three selected disciples. Difficulty has always attached to any attempt to explain it. That it represents a singular enhancement of His Person and a singular attestation of His message was seen from the beginning (2 P P**"'^). As such it took its natural place among the evidences of His Divinity. To that position its significance has been very generally limited, and there conceived for the most part in a iHxrely external manner. The paucity of essential ideas associated with it has diverted attention to its details, which have lent themselves to much conjectural and picturesque description, too real- istic in cliaracter to be serviceable to knowledge. In recent NT scholarship a new interest in the event has sprung up, directed by the modern analytical study of Christ's self-consciousness, and discerning in the experience it embodies a moment of profound import in His self -development.