Isra`iliyyat or Judaic elements in tafsir discourse has been so long rejected by Muslim contemporaries. No article on the issue appears unless it is for the purpose of provoking Muslims to reject it. On the other hand, early Muslims were not disturbed by them. This dissertation, therefore, tries to uncover the reasons behind contemporary scholars reluctance towards these foreign sources. Bringing the issue into Indonesian context, this research focuses on knowing the viewpoints of Bisri Mustofa, Haji Abdul Malik Karim Amrullah (Hamka) and Quraish Shihab on the issue. It will scrutinize the surrounded background that led them to adopt a certain paradigm in response to Isra`iliyyat and alternative ways they took instead of using Isra`iliyyat. This reseach employs a qualitative method and comparative model. It uses an Intellectual history approach to further elucidate the research object. The investigation will be enlightened by Raymond Panikkar's idea on mythos and logos horizon. The study concludes that the early mufassir prioritize trustworthiness rather than criticism to the religious authority in their intellectual work, so they accepted Isra`iliyyat. Meanwhile, mufassir of nowadays prioritize criticism rather than trustworthiness to the authority. Bisri represents the first group while Hamka and Quraish the second group that rejects Isra`iliyyat. They both employ rationalism and empiricism that lead them to new interpretations of Qur`anic stories.
Key Words: Isra`iliyyat, Bisri Mustofa, Hamka, Quraish Shihab, tafsir.