Dunn's Oral Gospel Tradition
James Dunn has another new book forthcoming defending his source theory. It should be well worth a read and worth purchasing.


There's a brief introduction to it on the Eerdmans blog

Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency
A book which looks worthy of a look is that by Terence C. Mournet, Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). It is Mournet's revised doctoral thesis supervised by James D. G. Dunn so it may also help shed some light on Dunn's unclear perspective concerning what counts as oral sources in Mt & Lk (Mournet, like Dunn, presupposes some form of the Mk-Q hypothesis). When I get hold of a copy I hope to comment on it here.

Tim's Eight Synoptic Problem Affirmations

I was recently asked (by Keith Dyer) whether I could put together a more positive counterpart to my Eight Synoptic Problem Myths/Misassumptions. So I have converted my negatives into positives to counterbalance those Myths/Misassumptions posted here in November. Myths 6, 7 & 8 were already negating negatives, but now here they are all eight in positive form!

Affirmation 1: Differences between Source Theory solutions are due in large part to differing definitions of what exactly is the Synoptic Problem (i.e. what kind of task is involved? how should we legitimately go about 'accounting for' the presence of similar synoptic data) and these differing conceptions determine whether solutions are either Intra-Gospel or Extra-Gospel solutions. Those source theories which attempt to explain the presence of (virtually) all literary data within the three synoptic Gospels by recourse only to the three synoptic Gospels (without bringing other 'external' sources into the question) might be classed as 'intra-Gospel solutions.' These solutions perceive the parameters of the problem as a literary problem similar to the problem of having to decide which of three student essays have been plagiarised of out three suspiciously similar-looking essays. Thus the Farrer theory, for example, has Luke dependent on the other two (i.e. a Mk-Mt hypothesis) in order to account for the presence of (virtually) all of the synoptic agreements whilst remaining agnostic about Matthew's non-Markan sources (and Mark's sources).
   The second category of solutions suppose that the problem is identical to the larger task of source criticism and so involves imagining the other 'non-Gospel' sources which might have played a part in the construction of the three synoptic Gospels, thereby defining the task entirely differently. Some source theories, in line with this larger conception/definition of the problem, may thus include some hypothesising about how the composition of fourth Gospel relates to the composition of the other three synoptics (and will in effect dilute the definition of the labels 'synoptic problem' and 'synoptic Gospels'). This second category of solutions can be categorised as offering 'extra-(synoptic)-Gospel solutions'. Hence a theorist presupposing the second definition of the synoptic problem may suppose that it be completely legitimate to draw conclusions about Matthew's use of various 'sources' or he or she might perhaps differentiate between non-Markan and non-Matthean source material utilised in the Gospel of Luke (see for example Ron Price's Three Source Hypothesis).
   These two differing presuppositions largely account for the inability to agree on whether one can legitimately speak about Matthew's different 'sources' and whether such hypothesising makes one's source theory any more or less 'plausible.' 'Two-Source' theorists (postulating a Mk-Q hypothesis) suppose that the increased specificity of the theory makes for a more plausible theory since it gives account of two major sources behind both Matthew and Luke (i.e. it 'accounts' for more of Matthew's data than does the Farrer theory). The perceived superiority or perceived plausibility of any particular source theory is thus directly related to the perceived definition of what is the task and problem under investigation. In my blog posts I presuppose the second category of the synoptic problem but only after attempting to begin with the first category for as long as the first category will allow. Thus I would agree in beginning with the task as defined by Farrer (“On Dispensing with Q”):

• “…our first supposition is not that both draw upon a lost document for which there is no independent evidence, but that one draws upon the other. It is only when the latter supposition has proved untenable that we have recourse to the postulation of a hypothetical source.”
  

Affirmation 2: The kind of story, the purpose, audience and 'genre' of each Gospel should help determine something about synoptic sources used. Mark appears to have been written to be performed orally. Matthew may have been rather familiar with Mark in this mode (in a 'performed oral mode' i.e. in secondary orality). Matthew's 'church instruction manual' displays some fondness for oral teaching whereas Luke does not appear to be written in such fashion. I suppose that Mark's Gospel uses popular stories about Jesus to tell a challenging story of God's kingdom/empire enacted on earth, in the figure of Jesus, as an alternative non-violent kingdom/empire in conflict with the current notions of kingdom/empire. I see that Mark's first audience was likely in Caesarea Philipi and had suffered the violent tortures of gladiatorial sports and being thrown to wild animals (after 70 CE -- thus Jesus is meant to be taken as an anti-war voice against both Rome's violence and those who seek to fight Rome's violence). Matthew utilises many of the same stories, because of their increasingly popularity, in order to guide and instruct the new community of believers who have become suspect of rejecting the Judaism of the time and who must redefine what true righteousness is (Matthew is composed in a slightly later time period than Mark, further away from the threat of Rome's war against Judaism and its persecuting powers -- the real enemies in Matthew are the Jewish leaders in whom Matthew's audience have lost faith i.e. they are the ones to whom people should have been able to, but can no longer, depend on to provide true leadership and in Matthew they are blamed for all sorts of things). This Jesus has even more to say concerning his true followers and promises an end to those who are false believers. Luke's story provides a real biblical drama written in an even more 'biblical style' in an attempt to provide even more historical perspective on the early Jesus movement. Luke's Jesus does not distance himself from many sectors of society and appears as an inspirational spiritual leader for all but the self centred greedy minded folk to follow. Theoretically there is no initial reason why Luke cannot have utilised Matthew given Luke's larger perspective and longer length would naturally put Luke later in time.

Affirmation 3: Matthew's sources appear mainly to have been of an oral nature. Even many of Matthew's biblical quotations may have been made indirectly (again secondary orality). Excepting the John Baptist traditions and the use of (or oral familiarity with) something resembling canonical Mark, there is little reason to postulate other written sources for Matthew, this leaves little room for 'Q' other than being a bunch of various traditions (without designating anything unified like a 'set' of traditions or a single document).

Affirmation 4: Some remnants of Markan vocabulary, genre, theology and structure can be seen in both Matthew and Luke, suggesting that Mark (or similar to Mark) was known and utilised in the composition of both Matthew and Luke.

Affirmation 5: The Farrer theory, though initially theoretically superior, breaks down upon examination. The author of Luke's Gospel appears to be a more competent writer so that the notion that Luke copied verbatim from Matthew the John Baptist sayings contradicts Luke's use of the remainder of the shared (allegedly) 'Matthean' sayings material elsewhere which is highly rewritten. Each time I have expected to see evidence of Matthean vocabulary in Luke, I have been disappointed. For one example, see synoptic-l message 9923 (Nov 17, 2004) where I looked at Luke's non-use of Matthew's favourite 'Judgment Day' expression. Once in Matthew (12:41-42) Luke's preferred Judgment Day expression appears to be used by Matthew (a shared source?) whereas Matthew's most used expression (Mt 10:15; 11:22 , 24; 12:36) is not found at all in Luke, thereby suggesting against the idea that Matthew is Luke's source. See also my follow-up post (on Luke's mission sending passage). See also my attempt here on this blog to find remains of Matthean theology in Luke's alleged rejection of Matthew's law theme parts 1, 2, & 3.

Affirmation 6: A large proportion of the overlapping (and likely some of the singularly attested) synoptic sayings material already existed prior to Jesus' use of such sayings (and also of the evangelists claimed used by Jesus). Jesus of course would have put his own spin on traditional wisdom material but it is overly naive to expect that Jesus would have invented from scratch all of his sayings as brand new sayings (and that these were then all handed down verbatim from disciple to disciple and to finally to evangelist). So far I think Dunn comes close to expressing how Jesus was remembered (in terms of his impact) in a similar fashion but does not as far as I know emphasise the presence of similar sayings material already predating Jesus.

Affirmation 7: More knowledge of ancient compositional techniques will assist in evaluating how each Gospel was likely composed. I suppose that an author would consulted a written source more sparingly then modern authors. Also I suppose that the notion of an 'author' was entirely different. An ancient author such as a Gospel author was 'a community voice' utilising the common knowledge of the community in a context that spoke loudly and would be appealing to that community. Hence all knowledge utilised was 'traditional' to some degree (it being very difficult and unlikely to say something entirely new and unheard of). Luke need not have depended on Matthew for information about Jesus (as though his knowledge and sources were running low!)

Affirmation 8: Form criticism should not be thrown out. I suggest that the notion of seeing 'individual units of traditions' stems from the fact that many of the sayings already existed in various forms prior to Jesus' and the evangelists' use of them. Categorising sayings into their various 'forms' does not necessarily indicate only something about their later use (by Jesus and the evangelists and those in between) but also those beforehand who already made use of something similar.

Hopefully the above affirmations are in line with this blog's purpose in encouraging students to think for themselves and to look at the assumptions for how a theory resolves a problem (and the type of problem being solved).

A Year of Source Theory Blogging - Part Two (Dunn)

Recapping my four previous posts on James Dunn's source theory [Aug 27; Oct 14; Dec 9; Dec 28]: Dunn's theory has an unresolved tension in that both Mk and Q are regarded as simultaneously written and oral sources. Whether Dunn regards 'Q' as being an oral source (or sources) is still not completely clear--Dunn has only explicitly argued that the first layer of Q (Q1) be seen as 'oral ' [see his "Q1 as oral tradition," in Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (eds.) The Written Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 45-69]. I concluded humorously that "It seems Dunn wants to have his Q and eat it too!" Perhaps Dunn eventually intends to demonstrate that the remainder of 'Q' should also be seen as oral.

However, what is more surprising is Dunn's article "Matthew's Awareness of Markan Redation," in F. van Segbroeck et al (eds.), The Four Gospels--1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, (3 vols.; BETL 100; Leuven University Press), 2:1349-59, in which Dunn argues that Matthew recognised Markan redaction in Mark and so avoided it consciously. Dunn appears to suggest that this indicates that Matthew was already familiar with many of the stories written in Mark and/or that Matthew used his Markan source in an 'oral mode.'

I am not aware whether other scholars have drawn attention to this but it seems to have anticipated Delbert Burkett's assertion that Markan redaction is suspiciously absent is Matthew and Luke. Whereas Burkett sees such an absence as undermining the notion that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source Dunn sees it as evidence that Matthew could readily recognise Mark's own redaction of oral traditions. There is something persuasive about such an argument and I wish other scholars would comment on it.

Somewhere in my posts on Dunn I mentioned that when we speak of the 'oral period' we really should recognise that we are merely referring generally to the period prior to the Gospels being written down (and published?) since we do not know whether it was really a distinct period of 'oral transmission.'

Also I mentioned that the healing traditions appear to share less verbal/phrasing aggreements than other traditions which may be a consequence of them being widely used oral traditions. I have not researched this properly, but it deserves more attention (as a good candidate for oral story-telling that Matthew and Luke need not be completely dependent on Mark for these stories).

I also mentioned two reviews of Dunn's source theory:
David Neville, "The Demise of the Two-Document Hypothesis? Dunn and Burkett on Gospel Sources," in PACIFICA 19 (Feb 2006), 78-92.
Dennis Ingolfsland, "Jesus Remembered: James Dunn and the Synoptic Problem," Trinity Journal (Fall, 2006), 187-97.

Each of these reviews sees Dunn's source theory as undermining the Mk-Q hypothesis. But it is still not clear exactly what Dunn's source theory entails for Mark and 'Q.' I am amicable to seeing most of 'Q' as potentially stemming from oral sources. I am also comfortable with seeing the authors of Matthew and Luke capable of recognising (and avoiding) Markan redaction (so as to maintain a more 'oral mode' of writing).

However, like Dunn, I am not willing to abandon literary dependence and I think Dunn has tried to incorprate oral and written together in what seems to be an impossibly complex and contradictory task. I wish I knew what to call such a theory (I wonder if Dunn has named his theory yet)?

Bauckham attempting too grand a theory

I’ve managed to read a few more pages of Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and at times I get the sense Bauckham is attempting to address too many issues, without managing them sufficiently. For instance Bauckham follows Dunn in asserting that oral transmission should not be understood using a literary model:

We should think of each performance of an oral tradition as differing from others, but not in such a way that each builds on the other. With oral tradition there is no linear development, layer on layer. [p248]

Dunn does a good job of showing, through study of a range of examples from the Gospels, that parallel texts in the Gospels are best understood as varying performances of tradition... [p257]

As we have seen, against the form-critical conception of oral tradition operating like successive editions of a literary text, Dunn insists that each performance of a tradition is a performance of the tradition as such, not a further development of the last such performance. There are no layers of tradition. . . [p259]

But it seems difficult to maintain the supposition that there are no layers when it comes to oral transmission. How could the preceding performance cease to exist or cease to have any effect on the current performance? It seems a bit circulatory (and overconfident) to use the written Gospels as evidence for this (as Dunn does) against a written model.

It would be difficult to know when differences in the various Gospel accounts are non-editorial and free from any layers. Are the aphorisms and parables that Bauckham and Dunn have in mind to be taken as written versions of various oral performances independent from all other performances (oral and written) in all three synoptic Gospels? Some traditions (particularly in Mk) may have been written to be performed orally, but can we assume the same thing for Lk? Why see Lk or Mt as dependent on Mk for any of their traditions, if they each already knew them independently from Mk? This would seem also to do away with using a literary model for aphorisms and parables found in Mk and re-used in Mt and Lk. Is Bauckham aware of the ramifications of following Dunn?

At the same time it seems Bauckham also wants to warn us not to distinguish too sharply between written and oral transmission, doubting the opinion that "before the Gospels the Jesus tradition was purely oral and made no use of writing" [p251-2] and when it comes to memorization, oral traditions are suddenly to be understood on an analogy to the written model:

Although Dominic Crossan has argued that a sharp distinction should be made between these two [memorizing material from books or oral material], such a distinction is inappropriate in a society that, though predominantly oral, did make use of written texts. [p280]

Dunn and Burkett

One aspect of the synoptic problem is particularly unclear, and I wish someone would at least bring some clarity in discussing it. I think it is relevant to mention Delbert Burkett's approach here because it is really the flip side of Dunn's approach (discussed here and here) where I made observations regarding our inability as yet to know whether we can properly distinguish between an oral source and a written source. And an extension of this is our inability to recognize "re-oralization" of a tradition (i.e. deliberately writing in an "oral mode").

I must mention another article of Dunn's, "Matthew's Awareness of Markan Redation," in The Four Gospels--1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols., BETL 100 (Leuven University Press), 2:1349-59, in which he proposes that Matthean avoidance of so-called Markan redaction is often due to Mt not knowing it to be from his own tradition and thus avoiding it by inserting his own oral version (i.e. rather than making a literary/editorial 'change' the decision is already made for him to simply include his known version).

It seems like a pre-empted answer to Burkett's reasoning as to why Markan redaction is so mysteriously missing from both Mt and Lk if one assumes a theory of Markan priority. Is Markan redaction missing from Mt & Lk because they didn't know those parts (as per Burkett) or because Mt and Lk recognized these parts as somehow foreign sounding and so simply replaced them with their own known/home version of traditions (per Dunn)?

There is something appealing about Dunn's approach in that certain Markan redactional features missing in Mt and Lk (and highlighted by Burkett) are not so surprising when we grant the Evangelists the ability to recognize and avoid Markan redaction. And I think this would answer Burkett's objection that Mk cannot be the source of Mt and/or Lk. It also seems like an attempt to save the two-source theory!

Strangely, Dunn also wishes to see the relative lack of variation in the synoptic passion accounts as evidence that it was "relatively more fixed at a very early stage." But can we really have it both ways? A presence of variation indicates oral (i.e. against redactional changes) and a lack of variation indicates oral? Would not a lack of variation indicate more literary dependence according to Dunn's own logic?

Bauckham’s source theory

I managed to seize a few hours of reading time on Bauckham’s book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, bringing me so far up to chapter 6 (out of 18). I was quite impressed with Bauckham’s perspective on Papias (chapter 2) i.e. that Papias doesn’t refer to anonymous oral traditions (rather oral history connected to eyewitness testimony).

On the other hand where I left off reading Byrskog’s book was on page 137:

As a parallel to the development of the Q material, Migaku Sato brings attention to the phenomenon of "Fortprophetie" behind the Old Testament prophetic writings. The disciples of a prophet continued to prophesize, and they di so by employing the languagge of the prophet master himself, the "Meistersprache". This is most evident in the book of Isaiah…both Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah – at least according to Isaiah 60-62 – linked their prophetic message substantially with the tradition attributed to Isaiah of Jerusalem. And they never identified themselves as independent prophets; they remained anonymous, assuming the identity of the prophet master to whom they adhered. Even external influences from other prophets, which might have been somewhat foreign to the Isaiah tradition, were integrated and attributed to the one specific prophet of Jerusalem.

So whereas Byrskog’s model would affirm anonymous disciples adding anonymous traditions to the one tradition (of ‘Jesus the Only teacher’) Bauckham’s model drops all anonymity and goes for named informants and named disciples. But I wonder whether he is going to discuss the difference between what collectors (of traditions) thought they were collecting and what exactly had been collected. It is surely on thing to pass along that so-and-so said/taught such-and-such a thing, but is Bauckham also going to argue that just because people thought nothing else had accumulated to the tradition that nothing else had accumulated? I guess I’ll have to keep reading.

I was pleased to see in chapter two Bauckham interacting with Dunn in a footnote (n71 p34):

Dunn here simply assumes that the Gospels were primarily the product of the community tradition, but this is not at all how Luke 1:2 represents the matter.

Bauckham would believe rather that Luke did try to behave as an oral historian would. Lk’s "eyewitnesses" "from the beginning" apparently refers to those who were personally familiar with the events but even more interesting to me is that parekolouthekoti means “thoroughly understood” or “informed familiarity” (following Moessner). I.e. Luke intends to tell ‘the whole story’ [my phrase] because he now knows/understands ‘the whole story’!

Gospel memorization model

I have just seen and read the following little journal article:
Dennis Ingolfsland, "Jesus Remembered: James Dunn and the Synoptic Problem," Trinity Journal (Fall, 2006), 187-97.

Ingolfsland criticizes Dunn's adherence to the two-source theory rather than "follow his method to its logical conclusion" but it is not clear to me what exactly Ingolfsland would say is Dunn’s method. Instead Ingolfsland goes on to propose his own solution to the synoptic problem (or is it the logical conclusion of Dunn’s method?) that Gospel authors like Luke were taught to memorize previous Gospels like Mk and Mt:

There is nothing improbable with the assumption that local church elders taught potential leaders to learn gospels like Mark or Matthew by memory [footnote 46]—a common teaching method in both Greek and Jewish cultures of the time.

Luke’s extensive knowledge of both Matthew and Mark may imply that he himself had memorized those gospels. [footnote 47]

I doubt this is the logical conclusion to Dunn’s method. And I’m also not sure that this solution is new. There may be similar versions of this type of ‘composition model’ already. In fact I guess one could accept this model and still be a Farrer theorist—or does the Mk-Mt hypothesis imply textual dependence (rather than literary memorization)?

There really are many more types of composition models than most introductions to the matter would care to admit. I’m looking forward to reading Bauckham’s eyewitness model.

Dunn’s Source Theory part 2

Previously I commented briefly on the source theory of James D. G. Dunn (it appears he is proposing that although "Q" eventually became a written document the Q traditions were still known and used in oral form by the Jesus communities and the Evangelists). I only just yesterday discovered that he has a book dealing more specifically with his source theory _A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005) and I wish to make several small comments.

Much of the book is really an introduction to Dunn’s source theory and it even includes a newer version of his "Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition" published NTS 49 (2003): 139-75, as an appendix. I guess it goes to show just how relevant is one’s source theory to a quest for the historical Jesus and I have to admit that what Dunn is advocating about the earliest period of transmission is basically what I had been imagining already. But I also have some hesitation about Dunn’s so-called oral period. Dunn quotes p141 of Sanders and Davies _Studying the Synoptic Gospels_ (my copy arrived last Thursday, yay!) I give the original sentence:

"The problem is that we don’t know how to imagine the oral period neither how
long it lasted nor how oral transmission actually functioned."

Dunn also mentions that "one or two voices even question whether there ever was a period of oral transmission in the first place" providing two references in the footnotes (W. Schmithals and E. E. Ellis), neither of whom doubt the presence of traditions (instead they believe the traditions were simply literary from the very start). But Dunn overlooks the more skeptical position that the Jesus traditions could have developed much later, during the "written period." I would like to support Sanders & Davies point that we just don’t know how to imagine the oral period, but I would also like to suggest that to me the notion of an oral period is really just a negative one, and not much more. And by that I mean that it really means (for want of a better term) "pre-written period" i.e. "prior to the period when the Gospels were written." The terminology "oral period" might, misleadingly, seem to suggest a period where material stemming from Jesus is transmitted in unbroken fashion until the "written period." Dunn is to be congratulated for pointing out that the material was not necessarily memorised or handed down directly from Jesus himself, but more likely represented the impact that Jesus had (already) made on people as they began to remember him and his actions and teachings.
Dunn does not explicitly discuss the idea that perhaps some of the actions and teachings attributed to Jesus were due to them being (or seeming) appropriate to the kind of person Jesus was, the kind of things he did or said (or was thought to have done, or would have or might have done or said) even though the were things that were not necessarily unique to Jesus. But I think this possibility needs to be included in the discussion. There were plenty of proverbs, aphorisms, parables, and miracle reports circulating before and after Jesus. I presume that there was undoubtedly plenty of wisdom being passed down and recycled both in and outside synagogue (addressing morals, ethics) as well as prophecies made or interpreted from the Scriptures. It would be ridiculous to be able to claim originality for many sayings, and I don’t think we should read the Gospels as necessarily claiming complete originality but rather they provide traditions that were likely the best fit with Jesus’ intentions and of the kind of things that were important to him. Much of the wisdom teaching we find in James also turns up in "Q" material on the lips of Jesus. I suggest that this is: 1) because such wisdom was widely available and widely known and widely applied by numerous teachers, and, 2) that Jesus would be expected to be familiar with such things and obviously would have taught something similarly wise to those who wanted to know more about God’s reign, applying his own emphasis and adapting the common stock themes to his own context as good teachers did.

I am most surprised that in a book on the historical Jesus, Dunn has also overlooked what seems to me one of the strongest traditions—that Jesus was a healer. I understand that over time Jesus was recognised more and more in a prophetic role and a teaching role as the significance of his life and death and mission took on more meaning. But to me the healing traditions cannot be overlooked. I do not wish to evaluate the type of historical healing he did (or was thought to have done) since I cannot see how the healing of one’s body or mind or social being can be separated off in the first place. A Jesus who came to inaugurate God’s reign goes hand-in-hand with a Jesus who heals, and it seems just as likely that the latter preceded (as it assumed) the former. Otherwise I think we would need to deny both as somewhat unoriginal and as reapplied to Jesus (but I’m now a bit off-topic).

So what I’m suggesting is that the so-called "oral period" may well have included material being "transmitted" orally, but perhaps not in such an unbroken line of tradition as implied by Dunn’s theory (of remembering Jesus impact and then going over the stories again and again). I wish to uphold the point that we still cannot imagine what the pre-written period was like and how much people "remembered" and how much was told "in remembrance" of Jesus. We do not know whether the pre-written period should be granted as being as active (as the written period) in giving shape to the Jesus traditions, although I expect Dunn is largely on track for explaining some of the traditions. I applaud Dunn for calling attention that the importance lies in the significance of Jesus’ "impact." I am also suggesting that the healing traditions are probably quite old (and popular) traditions. Since we expect more variation with oral versions than we see in the synoptic Gospels (hence theories of literary dependence) there may be something still considerably "oral" about the shared healing stories (since they don’t share as many verbal agreements as some of the other traditions).

I also discovered that what I had been calling "secondary orality" Dunn calls "second orality" and I recall the term re-oralisation also being used by someone else which I think is even clearer. I wish I had the time and energy to find out who else deals with this phenomenon.

James Dunn's oral Q

James D. G. Dunn accepts the standard two-source theory (Mk-Q theory) except he seems to doubt that Q was a document. I am interested in commenting on what Dunn has argued in a recent article, "Q1 as oral tradition," in Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 45-69 along with an article reviewing both Dunn and Burkett's source theories: David Neville, "The Demise of the Two-Document Hypothesis? Dunn and Burkett on Gospel Sources," in PACIFICA 19 (Feb 2006), 78-92.

The first point I wish to make is that Dunn seems to be trying hard not to challenge the two-source theory whilst at the same time undermining what the two-source theory (pre)supposes by his recourse to oral traditions. In this point I am in agreement with Neville's analysis of Dunn. But it is difficult to know just exactly what Dunn is advocating, because Dunn wishes to accept theoretically Q as a document but he wants also to treat Q1 (Kloppenborg's lowest strata or layer of Q) as material in an oral mode. One of the annoying things about Dunn is his reluctance to specify what he is actually arguing for. Dunn has apparently also argued elsewhere that Mt and Lk treat Mk in a similar oral mode of transformation--a point which further muddies his argument. Dunn wishes to keep the theory of literary dependence of Mt & Lk on Mk and Q but in an oral mode! It would have been more beneficial if Dunn could articulate and demonstrate what exactly he envisages--what is his source theory? Perhaps Dunn wants to say that it is impossible to know (without further research?) how we could tell the difference between Lk using an oral version of tradition and Lk redacting an already written version. If so, then why not say it this way? Perhaps we have also hit upon a problem already inherent in the two-source theory--the theory assumes that triple-tradition material originates with Mk, and double-traditions material (reconstructable "Q") originates with "Q" and any variations are due to authorial emendations/redactions. As far as I know this has never really been posed as a problem (except for say the Lord's Prayer existing in both written and oral versions) and so has remained dormant. But I suggest as a defective gene it was only a matter of time until it would become manifest. I think I would need to brush up on my history of source theory to check out its earlier manifestations. I suspect that many source theorists and Gospel commentators have been hiding under the umbrella of the two-source theory, whilst harbouring similar modifications as Dunn (and here I have to disagree with Neville who seems to think that the implications of Dunn's theory is in effect an erosion of the two-source theory when I doubt whether there has ever really been a two-source theory but it has more-so been a hiding place for those with there own version of a two-source theory--no one version of Q has been identical for starters!) And what are the implications for grafting on oral traditions into "the" two-source theory?

I suggest that there is as yet no way to combine an oral source theory with a written dependence source theory neatly. The whole synoptic problem begins because the variance between the first three Gospels is not considered enough for independently written works (we would expect more variation for Gospels based solely on oral stories) and so we construct a theory of literary dependence to account for the similarities. But now that our theory has almost elimated the need for oral traditions we face the following dilemmas:
(1) we have as yet no agreed way to detect the presence of oral material influencing the newly composed written texts;
(2) another unknown quantity thrown into the mix is the problem of secondary orality (oral traditions sparked off by written versions which seems to be hinted at by Dunn when he sees Mt & Lk using Mk in an "oral mode")! This would be one way of sticking to the two-source theory (by saying that Mt & Lk deliberately kept an oral "sound" or "flavour" to their rewriting of Markan material) but it is not exactly clear that Dunn is suggesting this or primary orality;
(3) can we know when we have discovered a tradition to be more oral-sounding unless we also could know whether redaction to written versions was deliberately made to be oral-sounding? Are there any guidelines here yet to follow?

It seems Dunn wants to have his Q and eat it too!