A Comparative Study of the Methodologies of Tafsīr in the Works of Al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr

Tafsir (Qur'anic exegesis) has developed over the centuries through diverse methodological approaches, with classical scholars establishing frameworks that continue to shape Islamic scholarship. Among the most influential exegetical works are Jami' al-Bayan 'an Ta'wil al-Qur'an by Imam Al-Tabari (d. 310 AH/923 CE) and Tafsir alQur'an al-'Azim by Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH/1373 CE). Although both scholars are regarded as pillars of Tafsir bi al-Ma'thur (exegesis by transmitted sources), differences exist in their approach to sources, treatment of isnad (chains of transmission), engagement with linguistic analysis, and handling of juristic and theological disputes. Despite the widespread reliance on both works in contemporary Islamic scholarship, a systematic comparison of their methodological foundations remains limited, leaving gaps in understanding how each scholar's historical context, scholarly training, and intellectual priorities shaped his exegetical output. This study aims to (i) examine the methodological principles underlying Al-Tabari's and Ibn Kathir's approaches to Tafsir, (ii) compare their use of Qur'an-by-Qur'an, Hadith, and companion-based interpretation, (iii) analyse their treatment of isra'iliyyat (Judeo-Christian narrations) and weak reports, and (iv) evaluate the enduring influence of both works on later exegetical scholarship. The study adopts a qualitative, analytical, and comparative methodology, relying on primary textual analysis of selected passages from both tafsirs alongside secondary literature on the history and methodology of Tafsir. The study is expected to reveal that while both scholars share a foundational commitment to Tafsir bi al-Ma'thur, Al-Tabari's work is distinguished by its comprehensive inclusion of multiple narrations with detailed isnad and linguistic analysis, whereas Ibn Kathir's work reflects a more critical, selective methodology emphasizing hadith authentication and cross-referencing verses with one another. The study concludes that both works, despite methodological differences, represent complementary rather than contradictory contributions to Qur'anic exegesis, and recommends further comparative research incorporating other classical and contemporary tafsir works.