In non-spiritual contexts, similar hierarchies may be observed.
In some spiritual traditions, the top level of this hierarchy is closed, ossified, and finalized. The collection of texts which are absolute, inerrant, inspired, and divine is a closed collection: nothing will be added to it; nothing will be subtracted from it. This is the case with Judaism and with Christianity, and perhaps with other religious traditions.
This solidification of primary text necessitates the ongoing development of secondary texts, as Johannes Wachten notes:
Als Offenbarungsreligion mit abgeschlossener Offenbarung muß das Judentum, wollte es nicht untergehen, die ihm am Sinai offenbarte Torah — und zwar sowohl die »schriftliche« als auch die »mündliche« — zur Anpassung an die sich wandelnden Lebensumstände immer wieder neu interpretieren.
In Judaism, the finalization of the Tanak, was one of several factors which began the development of the Talmud. The finalization of the Talmud, in turn, triggered the growth of midrash, as Johannes Wachten writes:
So entstand mit der Zeit ein ständig zunehmendes halachisches und haggadisches, das heißt ein rechtlich verbindliches und ethisch motivierendes Traditionsgut, aus dem sich bis zum Ende der talmudischen Epoche (Ende des fünften / Anfang des sechsten Jahrhunderts) und in den ersten Jahrhunderten der nachtalmudischen Zeit bis in frühe Mittelalter hinein das umfangreiche Korpus der rabbinischen Literatur entwickelte.
In Christianity, likewise, the closure of the canon of the New Testament necessitated the development of an interpretive and kerygmatic tradition.
The expansive collection of commentaries and homilies which has accreted within the Christian tradition is immense and wildly variegated.
In this way, the collected mass of midrash within the Jewish tradition has some similarities with Christian tradition of sermons.
Because of the great degree of variation among the individual texts in these traditions, it is easy to assume that they have nothing in common. But, as Johannes Wachten explains, a more nuanced and perceptive reading reveals commonalities among this diverse collection of texts:
Bei deren vorwiegend kompilatorischem Charakter mit einer fast enzyklopädischen Stofffülle treten feste literarische Formen stark in den Hintergrund. Auch wenn sie leicht übersehen werden, lohnt ihre Erforschung.
It is important to note that this dynamic plays out in a similar way in both the Christian tradition and the Jewish tradition. The text-centric nature of Judaism, and rabbinic Judaism, points to the fact that Protestantism is not the only, and not the first, tradition to be text-centric.
Some scholars have hypothesized a “Protestant bias” in which a text-centric approach is seen as projected by Protestantism onto other traditions. These scholars argue that it is a Protestant innovation, and a uniquely Protestant trait, to give text an important and central role in the tradition. These scholars point to Luther’s text-centric approach, and to the introduction of the printing press at the time of both the Lutheran Reformation and the Radical Reformation.
An understanding of the role of text in Judaism, and in rabbinic Judaism, points however to a text-centric pattern in religious traditions long antedating Christian Protestantism.
