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.

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]

Transmission models

The synoptic problem is usually solved with literary theories and such source theories might be categorized according to which Gospel is dependent on the others (e.g. Lukan posteriority) or source of the others (e.g. Markan priority) for their literary traditions. But what of categorizing (and incorporating) oral transmission theories? I’m not aware of any comprehensive list of transmission theories and it would appear that there is an increasing number of oral transmission models on offer. I wonder if any or all of them are just as compatible with any literary model? And I wonder why the two are not more often treated together when articulating one’s source theory? The following three are the oral transmission theories usually named (with various labels):

Form-critical model (traditions generated in and for the community who transmitted them).
Rabbi-disciple model (rabbinic-like memorization where Jesus taught his disciples to memorize his teachings).
Informal controlled model of Ken Bailey (control exerted over certain types of traditions by the community but anyone could participate in transmission process).

There are of course various other transmission models (of which I only have a more vague understanding) such as those of Werner Kelber, Vernon Robbins, James Dunn, and Richard Bauckham (and of course the no-oral-transmission model of Michael Goulder). It would be helpful if scholars in future could articulate not only which literary source theory they subscribe to, but also which transmission model they find most attractive and how such a model is to be integrated into their overall source theory. I think that it is much less helpful to compare and discuss literary theories whilst ignoring theories of transmission.

Perhaps one could also appeal to various transmission models according to the type of tradition? Or perhaps each Gospel author should be explained by recourse to a slightly different oral source theory? I get the impression that no one model can yet claim to explain the whole pre-literary process behind all of the Gospels (from every stage of every tradition—i.e. from birth to inclusion in the first written account) and I guess this is one reason why literary models usually dominate the discussion.

Admitting oral source models into one’s source theory does make a difference. Otherwise one can categorize source theories incorrectly and speak, for example, of the ‘Goulder-Goodacre theory’ which are really two very different composition theories since, unlike Goodacre, Goulder supposes that the non-Markan traditions in Mt and Lk do not stem not from any oral sources.

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?

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.