The Real Jesus by Kristen Romey

National Geographic just published an article entitled “The Real Jesus” by Kristin Romey (National Geographic, December 2017, 40-68). Here are some random thoughts.

First, I was pleased to see that the author quotes even highly skeptical scholars who acknowledge Jesus’ existence. For example, Romey quotes Duke University’s Eric Myers (who in my view qualifies as a somewhat radical skeptic), as saying, “I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus” (42).

Second, not only does the article debunk those who deny Jesus’ existence, the article demonstrates that critics were wrong about Jesus being a “cosmopolitan Hellenist” (or Cynic sage) rather than an “observant Jew.” Critics were wrong in their skepticism about the existence of synagogues in first century Galilee. Critics were also wrong in their “once fashionable notion that Galileans were impious hillbillies detached from Israel’s religious center” (65). To the contrary, Romey provides numerous examples of archaeological evidence that tends to support the general reliability of the Gospels (though I’m not sure that was her intent).

Third, Romey mentions that not all scholars are convinced that Jesus was born in Bethlehem since the story is only told in Matthew and Luke, and those stories are different—e.g. “the traditional manger and shepherds in Luke; the wise men, massacre of children, and flight to Egypt in Matthew” (46). That is true, but it is a poor reason to reject the birth stories. The two accounts are not mutually exclusive. No biographer could possibly record every detail of a person’s life (and even if they could, no one would want to read it!). Biographers have to be selective. 

The Gospel writers select their material to emphasize the points they want to make (See John 20:30-31). The fact that one account leaves something out does not mean it didn’t happen. Besides, when two independent accounts differ in some respects, that only makes their agreements more significant—and both sources independently (assuming the “Two-source” synoptic theory) agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. There are no sources—none!—that say Jesus was born in Nazareth, which is what some critics assert.

Romey goes on to point out that “Some suspect that the Gospel writers located Jesus’ Nativity in Bethlehem to tie the Galilean peasant to the Judean city prophesied in the Old Testament as the birthplace of the Messiah” (46). Her statement is true—that is what some scholars propose. So if these scholars are correct, the writers of Matthew and Luke (or earlier Christians) made up the story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem in order to falsely say that Jesus had fulfilled this messianic prophecy. In that case, it would appear that even in the face of persecution these early Christians continued to believe and teach that Jesus was the Messiah even though they knew they had fabricated the Bethlehem story! I find this option unlikely, to say the least.

Another option is that Jesus really was born in Bethlehem where the prophet Micah says the Messiah would be born (there were, after all, babies born in Bethlehem!)—and this is one of several reasons early Christians thought Jesus was the Messiah. I think the second option better helps to explain the very early Christian belief in Jesus as Messiah.

Finally, the conclusion of the article is very disappointing:

At this moment I realize that to sincere believers, the scholar’s quest for the historical, non-supernatural Jesus is of little consequence. That quest will be endless, full of shifting theories, unanswerable questions, irreconcilable facts. But for true believers, their faith in the life, death, and Resurrection of the Son of God will be evidence enough (68).

The author hits the nail on the head when she implies that the quest for the historical Jesus has been a quest for a non-supernatural Jesus. That has often been the guiding presupposition of the entire quest! Regardless of what the evidence might be, nothing can be allowed to overturn what has been the assumption of predominantly western, white, male, academic elites regarding a non-supernatural Jesus!

Most people in the world, however, do not buy into this elitist assumption, and that fact is that there is much evidence in support of the essential reliability of the New Testament portrayal of Jesus. See, for example, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus edited by Darrell Bock and Robert Web (931 pages); The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Craig Blomberg and Robert Stewart (816 pages); The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright ( 817 pages) or The Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona (718 pages). Skeptics may counter that books like these don’t prove every detail of the Gospels to be true, but these books certainly show that, contrary to Romey, true Christianity is not just a blind leap of faith.

If you want a more thorough overview of the topic of Jesus and archaeology, I would suggest Jesus and his World; The Archaeological Evidence by Craig Evans.

Q, M, L, and Other Sources for the Historical Jesus

Q, M, L and other sources for the Historical Jesus[1]
This article was originally published in the Princeton Theological Review, October 1997.
Dennis Ingolfsland

I. Critique of Crossan
In The Historical Jesus,[2] John Dominic Crossan established a methodology for arriving at some degree of certainty regarding our knowledge of the historical Jesus. He did this by identifying what he considered to be the earliest sources for Jesus’ life, classifying them by “strata” or date range, and comparing accounts which were multiply and independently attested. The greater the attestation and the earlier the strata, the greater the probability that we have uncovered facts about the historical Jesus. While in theory, Crossan’s methodology has much to commend it, in practice his study was seriously flawed in several ways.

A. Use of Questionable sources
First, it has been argued that Crossan relies much too heavily on sources not widely accepted by the scholarly community as qualifying for his “first strata”.[3] Sources such as the Cross Gospel, the miracles collections, and the apocalyptic scenario have been questioned because they are merely literary reconstructions of otherwise unknown documents which have been excised from other sources. These literary reconstructions are not as widely recognized in the scholarly world as “Q”, for example.

The dates of some of Crossan’s first strata sources have also been challenged. For example, the earliest Greek fragment of the Gospel of Thomas is dated to about 200 AD.[4] Many would argue that the date of the original is still too much in doubt to be considered as a first strata source for uncovering the historical Jesus. The Egerton Gospel, another of Crossan’s first strata sources, contains only 87 lines from a second or third century codex.[5] Although some have argued that the Egerton Gospel reflects very early independent oral tradition,[6] others maintain that it is dependent on the four canonical gospels, which would make it too late to qualify as a first strata source. The Cross Gospel is an account of Jesus’ crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection embedded in the Gospel of Peter, which can be dated not later than 200 AD. How much before 200 AD the Gospel of Peter was written is not certain. Crossan argued that the “Cross Gospel” was written in the middle of the first century and was the basis for the passion accounts in the canonical gospels. In his refutation of Crossan, Koester argued for the independence of the Cross Gospel and canonical Gospel traditions.[7] The date is still uncertain even among post-Bultmanians.

While a few of these sources may provide independent attestation for some of Jesus’ sayings and actions, the only first strata sources listed by Crossan which are sufficiently agreed upon in the scholarly world to provide a solid first strata basis for the historical Jesus are “Q” and the four letters of Paul which Crossan considers genuine. Building a foundation on the other questionable sources tends to undermine the entire structure of Crossan’s reconstruction of Jesus.

B. Selective use of sources
Crossan also seems to be selective in his use of sources. First, even though he classifies four of Paul’s letters as first strata sources, they played very little part in his reconstruction of Jesus.[8] For example, Crossan portrays Jesus as a non-eschatological Cynic, in spite of clear Pauline statements which depict Jesus as the eschatological Jewish Messiah.[9] Crossan takes a considerable amount of space trying to explain away the data rather than allowing Paul the consideration his statements deserve.[10]

Second, while Crossan takes for granted Streeter’s theory of the priority of Mark and the existence of “Q”, he does not even discuss the role of “M” and “L” which were also postulated by Streeter.[11] While it is widely accepted that Matthew and Luke have added “seams”, or connecting links, between pericopae, it seems highly unlikely that they have simply created large sections of material ex nihilo. Such creations are especially out of character for Luke and are not likely to have been widely accepted by Christians whose lives were often at stake. Therefore, if we are to take “Q” seriously, it would seem that we should also take “M” and “L” seriously as well.

C. Arbitrary Exclusion of Sources
Crossan’s choice of 60 AD as the terminus for the first strata appears to be arbitrary at best, and possibly ideologically motivated. As Boyd points out, Crossan has conveniently excluded any of the Gospel of Mark from first strata consideration:

Most significantly, Crossan, without explanation, draws the parameters of his ‘first’ and primary strata—the contents of which alone are allowed as material for his reconstruction—as being AD 30-60. What is strange about this is that we have no extant literary output from AD 30 to 50 by anyone’s count. Hence, the decade of the fifties is made by Crossan to function as a sort of magical ten-year period which alone speaks for the historical Jesus.”[12]

A better terminus might have been the turn of the century which is only 70 years removed from the time of Jesus’ death. Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, for example, all wrote about events more than seventy years after the fact, and they are not therefore excluded from historical consideration on that basis.

The next logical first strata terminus would seem to be 70 AD, since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a watershed in ancient Jewish history and is the primary criteria on which the gospels and Acts are dated. Those who were in their twenties during the time of Jesus’ ministry, would only be in their sixties during the Jewish War so many of those who had seen and heard Jesus would still have been alive when the fall of Jerusalem occurred. Although many in the first century undoubtedly died young, a life span beyond sixty years of age was not uncommon.[13] It also seems certain that some, if not many, of the apostles lived on past 60 AD (e.g. Paul, Peter, James, John) so to cut off the first strata even before their deaths seems unwarranted, to say the least.

II. Revised methodology
While reading Crossan’s The Historical Jesus, I began to wonder what would happen if the deficiencies discussed above were removed. What would the result be if 70 AD were the first strata cutoff date rather than 60 AD, if the questionable sources were removed from consideration, and if Mark, “M”, “L”, and Paul were given their proper weight? Robert Stein once wrote:

“We must still ask how our knowledge of the relationship between the synoptic
Gospels assists us in historical criticism. One way is by means of the
“Criterion of Multiple Attestation.” Essentially this criterion works as
follows: Assuming that the Markan, the Q, and the unique Matthean (M),
Lukan (L), and Johannine material come from different sources, if a teaching or
activity of Jesus is witnessed to in a number of these sources rather than just
one (e.g., John or M), the probability of its historicity or authenticity is
much greater.[14]

Stein has argued in various places for the authenticity of certain actions or sayings of Jesus based on multiple attestation using “M” and “L”, but I am unaware of anyone who has used “M” and “L” in an attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus. So taking my cue from Stein and Streeter (below), I set out, as an experiment, to refine Crossan’s methodology.

A. First Strata Sources: A More Solid Foundation
Streeter’s Four-Source theory has been assumed for this experiment because, although it has been under serious attack lately,[15] it still appears to be the scholarly consensus on the solution to the synoptic problem. Since “Q” is generally dated prior to 70 AD, I have followed Crossan in assigning it to the first strata. Some scholars follow Kloppenborg’s proposal to the effect that “Q” went through two revisions and would date the third revision (3Q) after 70 AD.[16] I have argued elsewhere, however, against this theory[17] and since I don’t believe it is widely accepted, I am still assuming that all of “Q” was written prior to 70 AD. In following Streeter I have also, contra. Crossan, included “M” and “L” in my reconstruction. While scholars generally agree that “Q” was a written source, this is not necessarily the case for “M” or “L”. Both may have consisted of multiple sources, written and oral, but their original form is irrelevant for the purposes of this study. Streeter dates “M” and “L” to 60 AD so they also qualify for my first strata.

Ultimately, my source for “M” and “L” was Aland’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. My results were compared with Streeter’s lists[18] of unique material in Matthew and Luke, and nothing which was omitted by Streeter was allowed to stand in my highly abbreviated version of “M”[19] and “L”.[20] I have also omitted all places listed by Streeter where “M” and “L” supposedly overlap with Mark or “Q”. I have further omitted many passages listed by Streeter that could likely be explained away as being “seams”, or editorial insertions on the part of the evangelists. Therefore my version of “M” and “L” is much smaller than the unique material identified by Streeter. If Streeter’s entire list were included, my reconstruction of the historical Jesus would be considerably enlarged and strengthened.

My source for “Q” is Kloppenborg[21] whom I have simply adopted uncritically since he seems to be in the forefront of “Q” studies. I have followed Kloppenborg[22] and Mack[23] in identifying three layers to “Q” in the footnotes for reference purposes, though, as mentioned above, I find the arguments for the stratification of “Q” to be unconvincing.

Since “most scholars date Mark to the years 64-70”, [24] I have placed it in my first strata, contra. Crossan. In addition to “Q”, “M”, “L”, and Mark, I have also included the letters of Paul which Crossan included in his first strata: First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, and Romans. Although Crossan omits Second Corinthians and Philippians from consideration, I have included them in my first strata on the authority of Koester,[25] Kummel,[26] Bornkamm,[27] Mack,[28] and other critical scholars who accept these epistles as genuine.

B. First Strata Terminus
Although, as mentioned above, I see no reason that the terminus for the first strata
couldn’t be 100 AD, I have chosen to make 70 AD terminus for this experiment just to give skeptics the benefit of the doubt. This places “Q”, “M”, “L”, Mark, First Thessalonians, Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians in the first strata. Although I consider the Pastoral epistles, the epistles of Peter, the synoptic gospels and the Book of Acts to have been written prior to 70 AD, they have not been included as first strata sources due to lack of scholarly consensus.

C. Multiple attestation
For the purpose of this experiment, multiple independent attestation has been used as the primary criteria. The comparisons, however, have not been limited to specific events, sayings, or pericopae, but rather to general characteristics. For example, if one source reported that Jesus taught in the synagogue, and another reported that he taught in the Temple, while still another reported that he taught by the Sea of Galilee, this would not be multiple attestation for his teaching by the Sea of Galilee, but it would be multiple attestation to the fact that he was a teacher. A more modern example might be that of a man standing trial for assaulting his neighbor. The first witness testifies that he saw the accused beat his wife. The second testifies that he saw the accused hit his bartender. The third testifies that he saw the accused beat his next door neighbor. While this may not be enough evidence to convict on the specific assault charge before the court, it would most likely be sufficient evidence to convince the jury that the man was at least occasionally given to violence. Similarly, there may or may not be multiple attestation to a particular miracle of Jesus, but there is significant multiple attestation to his reputation as a miracle worker.

III. A minimum reconstruction of the Historical Jesus
A. Introduction
In the following reconstruction, the verses in the footnotes identified as “Q” always correspond to Luke rather than Matthew, (e.g. Q 6:21 = Luke 6:21). The verses identified by “M” always correspond to Matthew (e.g. M 1:21 = Matthew 1:21). Likewise, those identified by L correspond to Luke (e.g. L 1:21 = Luke 1:21). The footnotes have been cited this way to make it clear that the citation would be part of that body of material which is part of the “Q”, “M”, or “L” sources, and not just part of the material common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. All verses from the Gospel of Thomas are cited from Robinson’s Nag Hammadi Library.[29] Early church fathers are cited by book and chapter from the Ante-Nicene Fathers.[30] References in the first strata are cited in bold. Other possibly independent collaborating evidence is listed in regular print for reference purposes. It is important to note that the references are simply representative and not exhaustive.

B. The Historical Jesus
Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.[31] His father was named Joseph,[32] his mother was named Mary,[33] and both were descendants of David.[34] Mary was believed by Jesus’ followers to have been a virgin at the time of the conception and birth.[35] Jesus was born in Bethlehem[36] but eventually returned to Nazareth with his parents and was raised there.[37]

Jesus’ ministry took place when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea[38] and Herod was ruler of Galilee.[39] Just prior to his ministry, Jesus spent forty days fasting in the Judean wilderness,[40] after which he eventually gathered twelve primary disciples[41] and traveled from town to town[42] preaching and teaching in the synagogues[43] and in the temple.[44] He became known as a prophet[45] and his reputation as a miracle worker, healer, and exorcist is widely attested.[46]

Jesus’ teaching was often, though not always, in parables.[47] Much of his teaching was standard material from the Law and Prophets: to beware of riches and greed,[48] to give to the poor,[49] to be humble,[50] and to pray.[51] He taught the importance of repentance,[52] forgiveness,[53] and bearing spiritual fruit.[54] He also taught the reality of a final judgment and hell,[55] and saw his mission, at least in part, as calling people to repentance.[56] Jesus even thought of his death as being for the benefit of others.[57] In fact, his teachings imply that he thought of himself as the long awaited Messiah[58] who was sent to save the lost.[59]

This, however, was not the kind of teaching which would get a man crucified in first century Palestine. What probably got Jesus into trouble were his teachings which would have been considered seditious or blasphemous. For example, he taught that the Jerusalem temple would one day be destroyed.[60] Further, he not only claimed that he personally could grant forgiveness of sins[61] but that he would one day “return”[62] to separate his people from the rest[63] and execute judgment on the nations,[64] something presumably only Yahweh could do. He taught that those who would be his followers must be devoted to him above all else,[65] which, to the Jewish mind, would probably have been a clear violation of the first commandment. He also seemed to have taught that people’s eternal destiny would depend on their relation to him.[66] It is therefore not at all surprising that Jesus encountered severe opposition from the religious leadership, who were not only furious at his “blasphemy”, but also specifically incensed about his healing on the Sabbath.[67] Jesus’ verbal responses were occasionally quite severe.[68]

In spite of mounting opposition, Jesus attended the Passover in Jerusalem and had a special meal with his disciples.[69] While in Jerusalem he was betrayed by a follower named Judas,[70] was tried before Pontius Pilate,[71] and executed by crucifixion.[72] His tomb was subsequently found empty by some women[73] and Jesus was widely reported to have appeared alive to numerous people after this death.[74] Belief in Jesus’ resurrection is very widely attested at all levels.[75] There is even a multiply attested tradition that he ascended into heaven, though only one of these references is in the first strata.[76]

IV. Conclusion/ Significance
It is important to note several closing observations: First, some might quickly dismiss the results of this experiment by pointing out that, while showing the traditions to be early, it does not address the claim that the traditions might still be a result of the reflection of various early Jesus communities on the Law and Prophets as applied to Jesus and adapted to their own sitz im leban. Unfortunately, all we have to go on are the writings of Jesus’ followers but Streeter’s observations are very relevant on this issue:

“Whenever, however, we find a saying or parable occurring in two different
versions—whether it be in Q and Mark, Q and M, Q and L, M and L, or M and
Mark—we have evidence that the saying in question has come down by two different
lines of tradition, which probably bifurcated at a date earlier even than that
at which Q was written down” [77]

Since Streeter dates “Q” to the 50’s, this would mean that in his estimation, multiply attested traditions would date about twenty years or less from the time of Jesus’ death. It is very hard to imagine how an ordinary “run of the mill” Cynic sage would have been transformed into the Christ of faith who did miracles, forgave sins, commanded absolute devotion, died as an atoning sacrifice, raised from the dead, and promised to come again as the world’s judge, in only twenty or thirty years; unless there was some reason in Jesus ministry or teachings that gave rise to these beliefs!

It must be remembered that there were numerous would-be messiah’s and hundreds of people who got themselves crucified in the first century, but none of them were ever elevated to the status Jesus held after their deaths. So, in other words, even if the historian does not believe that Jesus actually was the Jewish Messiah, did miracles, or rose from the dead, there is every reason to believe that the reconstruction of the historical Jesus presented above at least goes back to the immediate followers of Jesus if not to Jesus himself, and are not simply the creations of various independent Jesus communities.[78]

Second, the overview of Jesus’ life presented in this paper is very minimal and assumes an unrealistic degree of skepticism. If all of “M” and “L” were included, if all multiply attested first century sources were included, or if particular multiply attested events or sayings were included, the sketch of Jesus’ life would be considerably expanded.

Third, it must be recognized that truth is not confined to that which is multiply attested. People who have shown themselves to be generally honest and reliable deserve to be taken seriously even when there is no collaborating evidence. Studies by Ramsey[79], Sherwin-White[80], Colin Hemer,[81] and others[82] have confirmed the high reliability of the writer of Luke/Acts. Since historians often accept as historical, information obtained from sources written hundreds of years after the fact (often not doubly attested, e.g. Livy, Plutarch, Arrianus), Luke, who writes only thirty to ninety years after Jesus’ time, deserves to be given more of the benefit of the doubt than he has been given by critical scholarship.

Finally, this study has shown that even when a high degree of skepticism is applied to the selection of first strata sources, the criterion of multiple attestation can demonstrate that the essential outline of the gospel story must come from the very earliest followers of Jesus if not from Jesus himself. The picture of Jesus which emerges from such a minimal study is substantially closer to the gospel accounts than the reconstructions offered by Crossan and numerous others in the third quest for the historical Jesus.

[1] This chapter was originally published as, “Q, M, L and Other Sources for the Historical Jesus”. The Princeton Theological Review. 4:5 (October, 1997) 17-22.
[2] John Dominic Crossan. The Historical Jesus. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991).
[3] Gregory Boyd. Cynic Sage or Son of God. (Wheaton: Bridgepoint, 1995) 79-80.
[4] Marvin, Meyer. Ed., The Gospel of Thomas (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 10.
[5] Crossan. "Historical" 428.
[6] Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International), 213-215.
[7] Ibid. 217-220.
[8] Gregory Boyd. Cynic. 80.
[9] E.G. 1 Cor.4:5, 15:23-28, 1 Thess. 4:16-17.
[10] Crossan. Historical. 238-249.
[11] Burnett Hillman Streeter. The Four Gospels. (London: Macmillan, 1924) 234ff. C.F. K. Giles. "The
L Tradition" in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels ed. by Joel B. Green et al. (Downer's Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1992) 432.
[12] Boyd. Cynic. 80-81.
[13] For example, Cicero, Livy, Augustus, Tiberius, Seneca, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Epictetus, and Josephus all appear to have lived beyond their sixtieth birthday. Some lived considerably longer than sixty, for example Juvenal and Epictetus both lived to be about 80.
[14] Robert Stien. The Synoptic Problem. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 142.
[15] C.F. Allan McNicol. Beyond the Impasse--Luke's Use of Matthew. (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996). William Farmer. The Synoptic Problem. (Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1976). Eta Linnemann. Is There a Synoptic Problem. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). John Wenham. Redating Matthew Mark & Luke. (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1992).
[16] Burton Mack. Who Wrote the New Testament? (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995), 311.
[17] Dennis Ingolfsland. "A Review of 'Who Wrote the New Testament". Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (1997) 5- 9.
[18] Streeter. Four Gospels, 198.
[19] All of the following passages are identified by Streeter as being peculiar to Matthew. Only those in bold were used in this study: "M"= Matthew 1:1-2:21, 22-23; 4:13-16; 23-25; 5:1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13a, 14, 16-17, 19-24, 27-28, 31-32, 33-37, 38-39a, 41, 43; 6:1-6, 7-8, 10b, 13b, 16-18, 34; 7:6, 12b, 15, 19-20, 28a; 8:1, 5a, 17; 9:13a, 26-36; 10:2a, 5b-8, 23, 25b, 36, 41; 11:1; 14, 20, 23b, 28-30; 12:5- 7, 11-12a, 17-23, 36-37, 40; 13:14-15, 18, 24-30; 35, 36-52, 53; 14:28-31, 33; 15:12-13, 23-25, 30- 31; 16:2b-3, 11b-12, 17-19, 22b; 17:6-7, 13, 24-27; 18: 3-4, 10, 14, 16-20, 23-35; 19:1a, 9-12, 28a; 20:1-16; 21:4-5, 10-11, 14, 15b-16, 28-32, 43; 22:1-14, 33-34, 40; 23:1-3, 5, 7b-10, 15-22, 24, 28, 32-33; 24:10-12, 20, 30a; 25:1-13, 31-46; 26:1, 44, 50, 52-54; 27:3-10, 19, 24-25, 36, 43, 51b- 53, 62-66; 28:2-4, 9-10, 11-15, 16-20.
[20] All of these passages are identified by Streeter as being peculiar to Luke (Streeter, 198). Only those in
bold were used in this study: 1:1-3:2, 5-6, 10-13, 14, 23-28; 4:13, 15; 5:39; 6:24-26, 34; 7:3-5a, 11-17,
21, 29-30, 40-50; 10:29-42; 8:1-3; 9:31-32, 43, 51-56, 61-62; 10:1, 16, 17-20, 29-42; 11:1, 5-8; 12,
16, 27-28, 36-38, 40-41, 45, 53-54, 12:13-21, 32-33a, 35-38; 13:1-17, 22-23, 25-27, 31-33; 14:1-14,
15-24; 28-33; 15:1-2, 7-32; 16:1-15, 19-31; 17-7-19, 20-22, 25-29, 32; 18:1-8, 9-13a, 34; 19:-10, 11-
27, 39-40, 41-44; 20:34-35a, 36b, 38b; 21:19-20, 22, 24, 26a, 28, 34-36, 37-38; 22:15-18, 28-30a, 31-
32, 35-38, 43-44, 48-49, 51, 53b, 61a, 68, 70; 23:2; 4-5, 6-12, 13-19, 27-32, 34a, 36, 39-43, 46b, 48,
51a, 53b-54, 56b; 24:10-53.
[21] John S. Kloppenborg. The Formation of Q. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 74-76. Q=Luke 3:7- 9, 6-17; 4:1-13; 6:20b-23, 27-49; 7:1-10; 18-23, 24-35; 9:57-60; 10:2-16, 21-24; 11:2-4, 9-15, 17-26, 29-36, 39-52; 12:2-12, 22-32, 33-34, 39-40, 42-46, 49, 51-53, 57-59; 13:18-19, 20-21, 24- 30, 34-35; 14:16-27, 34-35; 15:3-7; 16:13, 16, 17, 18; 17:1-6, 23-24, 26-30, 33-36; 19:12-27; 22:28-30.
[22] Ibid., 102-262.
[23] Burton Mack. The Lost Gospel; The Book of Q and Christian Origins. (San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1993) 81-102.
[24] Cf. Werner Kummel. Introduction to the New Testament. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 71.
[25] Koester. "Ancient" 126-130, 132.
[26] Introduction, 211, 235.
[27] Gunther Bornkamm. The New Testament; A Guide to its Writings. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1973) 74.
[28] Who Wrote. 127, 144.
[29] James M. Robinson, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library. (San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1990).
[30] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995).
[31] L 1:5ff; M 2:1, 12.
[32] L 1:27; M 1:18, 24, 2:13; Jn 1:15, 6:42.
[33] Mk 6:3; L 1:27; M 1:18; Acts 1:14; Ignatius to Trallians 9; Ignatius to Ephesians, 7, 18.
[34] L 1:27-35; 3:23-24; M 1:1; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8-9, Ignatius to Ephesians, 20; Ignatius to Trallians,
9; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, 1; cf Jn. 1:1-13, 15; 8:41.
[35] L 1:27- 35; M 1:18- 24; Phil 2:5-11; cf. Gal 4:4; cf. 1 Tim 3:16, Ignatius to Ephesians 7, 18, 19; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, 1; cf. Jn 1:1-3, 15; 8:41.
[36] L 2:4; M2:1, 5, 8; Heb 7: 14.
[37] L 2:39- 51; M 1:2-23; cf. Mk 1:9.
[38] L 3:1; Mk 15:1-4; Peter (Acts 3:15); 1 Tim 6:13; Jn 19:1-4; Tacitus; Jospehus; Ignatius to
Magnesians 11; Ignatius to Trallians 9; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans 1.
[39] L 3:1; L 13:31-33; Mk 6:14-21; Acts 4:27; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, 1.
[40] Q4:1-13; Mk 1:13.
[41] M 11:1, 28:16; Mk 3:13-19; Mk 6:7; Jn 6:67-71.
[42] Mk 1:39; L17:11-12, 19:1, 41; Jn 4;3, 4:43, 46, 5;1, 6;1, 7:1, 10:40, et al.
[43] L 13:10; Mk 1:21; Jn 6:59, 10:25-30.
[44] L 21:37-38; Mk 12:35; Jn 7:14.
[45] L 24:19; Mk 6:4, 15; Jn 4:44, 6:14, 67:40, 52; Gos Thos 31.
[46] L 13:10-13; L 17:12-19; M 17:24-27; Q 7:1-10, 18-20, 11:14-23; Mk 1:29-34; 5:1-43; 7:31-37 et
al. Peter (Acts 2:22); Josephus; Hebrews 2:3-4?; Jn 2:1-12, 4:46-54, 5:1-15 et al; Papyrus Egerton.
[47] L 12:16; 13:6-9; L 13:17; L 18:1; M 13:24; 1Q 13:20-21 (cf. Mt 13:13); Mk 4:1-33; Mk 12:1- 11.
[48] Mk 10:23-24; L12:13-15; L 16:14-15, 19-31; Q 12:13-31.
[49] M 6:2, 3; 2Q 6:30; 2Q 12:33-34.
[50] L 14:7-11; Q 18:14; Mk 9:33-35, 10:43-45; Clement to the Corinthians 30.
[51] L18:1-7; M6:5-6; 1Q11:1-4, 9-13; Didache 8.
[52] L 13:1-5l; L 15:8-10; L 19:1-10; Mk 6:7-12; Q 15:4-10.
[53] M 18:23-35; Mk 11:25-26; 2Q 17:3-4; Clement to Corinthians 13; Polycarp, 2.
[54] L 13:6-9; Q 6:43-45; Gos Thos. 45.
[55] M 13:24-30, 40-43, 49-50; M 25:46; 2Q 10:12-15; 2/3Q 12:4-7; Mk 9:42-48.
[56] Mk 1:14-15; Mk 2:17; L 13:1-5; L 15:8-32; L 16:19-31; L 24:44-47; Q 10:12-15; Q 11:32.
[57] Mk 10:45; Mk 14:22-25; L 24:44-47; 1 Cor 11:23-25; cf. 1 Cor 15:17; Jn 6:51-58; cf. Polycarp 7; cf. Clement to Corinthians, 21; 49; cf. Ignatius to Trallians, 2.

[58] Mk 8:27-30; Mk 14:61-63; L 4:15-20; 24:24-26; cf Q 7:18-23; Q 10:21-24; Jn 4:25-26. These are
passages implying that Jesus thought of himself as Israel’s messiah. Many more first strata passages
could be produced showing that his followers thought of him as the messiah.
[59] L 19:1-10; L 15:8-10; L 15:11-32; L 16:19-31; L 24:44-47; Mk 8:34-38; M 13:36-52; 2Q 15:4-7; Papyrus Egerton (cf. Koester, 208).
[60] Mk 13:1-3; L 19:41-44; Q 13:34-35; Gos Thos 71?
[61] Mk 2:5 , 7, 10; L 7:47-50; L 24:47; Jn 8:24.
[62] L 18:1-18; M 25:31; Q 12:39-40; Q 17:23-27; Mk 13:26-27; 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 4:13-17; 2
Thess 2:2; Jn 14:1-3; Acts 1:11; Didache 16.
[63] Mk 13:27; 2Q 3:16-17; 2Q 17:23-37 M 13:24-30; M 13:36-42; M 25:31-46; 1 Thess 4:13-17; 1 Cor 15:50-54.
[64] M 13:24-30, 36-43; M 25:31-46; Q 3:16-17; Q 17:23-37; cf Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10; 2 Tim 4:11.
[65] 1Q 9:57-62; 2Q 14:26-27; Mk 8:34-38; Mk 10:29-30; cf. Jn 12:23-26; Gos Thos. 55.
[66] Mk 8:34-36; 10:29-30; M 25:31-46; Jn 3:15; Jn 6:54; Jn 10:9, 28; cf Gos Thos 82.
[67] Mk 2:23-27, Mk 3:6, 7:3-5; Mk 14:1; L 13:14- 17; L 14:1-6; ; Jn 5:8-12, 16-18; Jn 7:1, 25; Jn 11:45-53.
[68] Q 11:39-52; Mk 7:3-20.
[69] Mk 14:53-65; 1 Cor 11:23-25; Jn 13:1-30.

[70] M 27:3-4; Mk 14:10; Jn 13:1-30.
[71] L 23:6-12; Mk 15:1-15; Jn 18:28-40; Polycarp to Philippians 8; cf. M27- 62-66.
[72] Mk 15:21-25; 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2, 8; Gal 3:1; Peter (Acts 2:23, 26); Acts 4:10; 5:30-31; Jn 19:17-18;
Josephus; Barnabas 7; Ignatius to Trallians 9; Ignatius to Ephesians 9, 16; Ignatius to Philadelphia’s
8; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans 1; Hebrews 12:2; Polycarp 8; Gos Peter 12:50-13:57.
[73] L 24:22-23; cf. M 27:63-28:13; cf. 1 Cor 15:4; Gos Pet 12:50:13:57.
[74] L 24:13-15; L 24:31-47; Mk 16; 1 Cor 15:4-8; Acts 1:3; Jn 20:10-21, 24-29; Jn 21:1-14.
[75] L 24:13-53; M27:63-64; M28:11-15; Mk 16:6; cf. Q211:29-32 as interpreted by Matthew; Gal 1:1; Rom 4:24; Rom 8:11; Rom 14:9; 1 Cor 1:23; 1 Cor 15:3-20; Acts 1:22; Peter (Acts 2:24; 3:13-15; 3:26-4:2, 10; 5:30-31); Apostles (Acts 4:33); Paul (Acts17:2-3; 26:23); Jn 20:1-9; Josephus ; Polycarp to Philippians 1; Ignatius to Ephesians 20; Ignatius to Magnesians 9, 11; Ignatius to Trallians
9; Ignatius to Philadelphia’s, 8, 9; Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12; Clement to Corinthians 24 and 42; Heb 12:20; 1 Pet 1:3; 3:20; Gos Peter 12:50-13:57.
[76] L 24:51; Mk 16:19; Peter (Acts 5:30-31), Barnabas 15; Acts 1:2, 9-11.
[77] Streeter. "Four Gospels" 270.
[78] Contra Mack, Who Wrote.
[79] E.G. William Ramsey. St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1951). Pauline and Other Studies in Early Christianity. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970). The Cities of St. Paul. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949).
[80] A.N. Sherwin-White. Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1963).
[81] Colin Hemer. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
[82] See for example the many essays in the six volume series, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting.
Ed. by Bruce Winter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994-).

Jesus Remembered

JESUS REMEMBERED:
JAMES DUNN AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

DENNIS INGOLFSLAND[1]

I. INTRODUCTION

Recently James Dunn published Jesus Remembered, a roughly one thousand page tome in which he presented a new method for the historical study of Jesus. Although Dunn strongly endorsed the two-source theory, his new method for studying Jesus opens what may be a previously unexplored option for a solution to the synoptic problem. This article will provide an overview and analysis of Dunn’s historical method and will attempt to demonstrate that, if taken to its logical conclusion, it may provide a better solution to the synoptic problem.
Since the foundation of Dunn’s method is the work of Kenneth Bailey, a substantial part of the article will be devoted to reviewing Bailey’s work as the background for understanding Dunn.

II. BACKGROUND: KENNETH BAILEY AND ORAL TRADITION

Kenneth Bailey is a New Testament specialist who has lived and worked in Middle Eastern communities for forty years.[2] He argues that cultural insights on the way in which these villages use oral tradition, combined with the “standard critical tools of Western scholarship” and knowledge from ancient literature can provide windows into the formation of the Gospels that have never before been explored.[3]

Bailey distinguishes between three kinds of oral tradition: formal controlled, informal controlled, and informal uncontrolled. Bultmann is used as an example of the later. Bultmann believed that the earliest followers of Jesus were not interested in preserving the Jesus tradition, that much of this tradition was, therefore, the creation of early Christian communities, and that it was possible to distinguish between various layers of the tradition behind the Synoptic Gospels.[4] Since Bultmann’s model envisioned no formal teachers or students, and therefore, no controls on the transmission of the oral tradition, Bailey calls this model “informal, uncontrolled tradition.”[5]

The Scandinavian school of Riesenfeld and Gerhardsson provides an example of formal controlled tradition.[6] Gerhardsson studied the teaching techniques of ancient Jewish rabbis and concluded that their students learned using notes, repetition and memorization.[7] The process is formal in that teachers are involved, and controlled since memorization insured accurate transmission.

According to Bailey, practices consistent with both the Bultmannian and Scandinavian models are still found in the Middle East today. Informal uncontrolled tradition can be seen in wild rumors like “atrocity stories” in which three people killed in a random explosion can quickly expand to “a story of 300 people massacred in cold blood”.[8] Formal controlled tradition can be seen in the fact that Eastern Orthodox priests memorize hundreds of pages of liturgy, and Muslim clerics memorize the entire Qur’an.[9] It is not, however, just the professional clerics who are adept at memorization. Bailey recalls an Arab taxi driver who once recited the entire book of Psalms to him by memory.[10]

Bailey contends that the Synoptic Gospels are too similar to each other to be the product of uncontrolled oral tradition, and too different from each other to be the product of formal controlled oral tradition.[11] He argues that if the Gospels were the product of formal controlled oral tradition involving notes and memorization, one would not expect the amount of variation that exists between parallel Gospel passages.

Bailey, therefore, proposes a third option: “informal controlled oral tradition.”[12] Examples of this can be found all over the Middle East where people in isolated communities[13] meet in social gatherings nearly every night to preserve their community’s heritage by reciting poems and retelling stories.[14] The meetings, called haflat samara (“a party for preservation”), are informal in the sense that there are no teachers or students, but they are controlled in the sense that those who tell the stories must do so within strict limits.

The stories told in the haflat samra involve three levels of flexibility. On one end of the spectrum are jokes, casual news of the day, and inter-communal violence which can be told with great flexibility.[15] Poems and proverbs are on the other end of the spectrum and must be told verbatim.[16] Historical stories and parables that are important to the identity of the community fall in between. These can be told with some degree of flexibility, which means that the dialog, the order of events and minor details can be changed slightly to reflect the story teller’s style and interests, but the core of the story cannot be changed at all.[17] The community considers the correct telling of these stories to be crucial to their identity so if the storyteller errs, he is subject to the shame of immediate public correction.[18]

While Bailey believes that some of the material in the Gospels may have been formally memorized as envisioned in the Scandinavian model, he is convinced that the informal controlled tradition best accounts for the variation found in the Synoptic Gospels. Stories about Jesus had to be preserved accurately, Bailey insists, or the foundation for the communities’ very existence would be undermined.[19]

III. JESUS REMEMBERED

Dunn follows Bailey in insisting that Bultmann’s model does not adequately explain the data found in the Synoptic Gospels. Dunn argues that Bultmann’s whole perspective was anachronistic in that he essentially applied a literary model to an oral culture. While Bultmann envisioned the Jesus tradition as a series of layers in which editors of later layers arranged and edited earlier traditions, Dunn insists that “In oral transmission a tradition is performed, not edited”.[20] On the other hand, Dunn agrees with Bailey that Gerhardsson’s model cannot easily explain the differences in the Synoptic traditions.[21]

Dunn, therefore, not only advocates Bailey’s model of informal controlled tradition, but adds to the thesis by arguing that support for this model can be found within the text of the New Testament itself. Dunn argues that “if the Gospels tell us anything they surely tell us that the first Christians felt the need to explain themselves by telling stories about Jesus….”[22] Further, “Paul was careful to refer his churches back to such foundation traditions...,” [23] including traditions about community[24] and about how new converts should conduct their lives.[25]
Confirmation is also seen in the themes of teaching[26] and witness bearing in the New Testament.[27] The prominence of these themes suggests that early Christians placed great emphasis on witnessing and teaching about Jesus. Even more prominent is the theme of remembering, which is found not only in the New Testament but in the apostolic fathers as well.[28]

Dunn concludes that the New Testament provides substantial evidence that Jesus’ earliest followers were careful to preserve and pass on the Jesus tradition,[29] and that the stories were, therefore, not just the free creations of creative communities as Bultmann imagined.[30]

On the other hand, Dunn points out that stories such as the healing of the centurion’s servant,[31] the stilling of the storm,[32] and other stories in the double or triple tradition, are all worded differently enough to question the idea that these stories were passed on through memorization.[33] While these stories show evidence of abbreviation, omission, clarification, and explanation, the core of the story always remains the same.[34] Dunn relies on Bailey to show that this is precisely the nature of story-telling in Middle Eastern culture.[35]

Dunn is convinced, therefore, that “the oral character of the traditioning process” is still evident in the Synoptic gospels. Dunn likens the process to a continuous run of some classic play in which the dialog and oral interpretation may change slightly, but the plot remains essentially the same.[36] He argues that while there are variations in the Gospel stories, elements of the Jesus tradition which are consistent from Gospel to Gospel are part of the core and go back to the remembrances of the earliest followers of Jesus.[37]

Dunn argues, therefore, that any feature which is characteristic within the Jesus tradition and relatively distinctive of the Jesus tradition[38]most likely reflects the original impact made by Jesus’ teaching and actions on his first disciples.”[39] To find this core of characteristic features Dunn uses numerous charts, placing parallel texts side by side as in a Gospel synopsis.[40] He then identifies and critically analyzes those elements that are consistent across the tradition, separating the core from the variables that change from Gospel to Gospel.[41] He uses the core traditions to support his view of the historical Jesus.

Dunn assumes that traditions appearing in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are essentially independent “performances”, although, paradoxically, he strongly affirms his belief in the two-source theory which, of course, is a theory of literary dependence. As argued below, this combination tends to undermine his whole thesis.

IV. EVALUATION

The most immediate concern regarding Dunn’s proposal is the question of whether it is valid to read modern Middle Eastern culture back into the first century. Bailey himself answers this objection, affirming that ancient evidence must always take precedence over modern cultural observations.[42] He insists, however, that in the absence of ancient evidence the only choices available are to build models either from modern Middle Eastern culture or from modern western culture. It is modern western culture, he argues, that has formed the basis for critical Gospel scholarship for over one hundred years.[43]

Dunn however, advanced Bailey’s case by showing that the issue is not lack of ancient evidence since support for Bailey’s model comes not just from modern Middle Eastern culture, but from the New Testament itself.

A more serious issue is that while Bailey and Dunn argue that the Synoptic Gospels are the result of informal controlled oral tradition, both go out of their way to affirm the two-source theory. This seems a little like trying to mix oil and water and raises the question: Were Matthew and Luke copying from and redacting Mark and Q as the two source theory proposes, or were they retelling oral tradition? [44]

Dunn tries to resolve this problem by arguing that many of the Jesus traditions would have taken definite shape before the Evangelists wrote them down, and that Matthew and Luke in particular “would probably have known many of these oral traditions independently of their knowledge of written collections, including Mark and Q.”[45] This may well have been the case, but it begs the question: Were Matthew and Luke re-telling oral traditions or were they copying and redacting Mark and Q? These seem to be almost mutually exclusive options.

Dunn uses parallel columns of the text of Matthew, Mark and Luke to recover what he believes are the core elements in the Jesus tradition. This may be a perfectly valid methodology if Matthew, Mark and Luke were independently re-telling oral tradition about Jesus. But if Matthew and Luke simply copied from Mark and Q, similarities would not be the product of core oral tradition, but simply the fact that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and Q.

V. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

While Dunn’s hypothesis is good, it falters by trying to combine the two-source theory with the informal controlled oral tradition model. The easiest solution would be for Dunn to drop his insistence on the two-source theory and to follow his method to its logical conclusion.

For example, suppose Papias was taken seriously when he insisted that Mark, the traveling companion of Peter, took special care to write down accurately what Peter had been preaching about Jesus. We might imagine that Mark, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, selects and retells some of these stories in his own words, taking care to maintain the core of the story as accurately as possible, which is consistent with the informal controlled tradition model. The Gospel of Mark then evidently became quite popular in Christian circles as evidenced by its use by Matthew and Luke.[46]

Since early preachers like Paul could not always stay in one place very long, since manuscripts were expensive to produce and since many Christians may have been illiterate, there is nothing improbable with the assumption that local church elders taught potential leaders to learn gospels like Mark or Matthew by memory[47]--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.[48] Luke uses these sources, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to tell the story of Jesus in his own Gospel. For whatever reasons, he generally chooses to follow Mark’s outline and often quotes Mark verbatim; but, in keeping the informal controlled oral tradition model, he has a degree of freedom to tell the story in his own style and in his own words. As a skillful storyteller, Luke interweaves material from oral tradition, eyewitness testimony and the material he had memorized from Matthew into Mark’s outline.

This simple proposal answers many of the questions that have plagued synoptic theories for over a century. 1) It explains the similarities in the gospels by the fact that Luke had memorized Mark and much or all of Matthew. 2) It explains dissimilarities by appealing to the informal controlled tradition model which allows the story teller to tell the story in his own words as long as the story is accurate and the core remains the same. 3) It explains why Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s outline when according to Papias, Mark was not written in chronological order. 4)
It explains that many pericopes appear out of order due to the fact that informal controlled oral tradition allows for changes in the order. 5) It agrees with all of the arguments that have convinced most scholars of the priority of Mark,[49] although the priority of Mark is not an essential feature of this proposal.

VI. ANTICIPATED OBJECTIONS

Some will undoubtedly object to this proposal on the grounds that it is improbable that someone would memorize all of Mark and/or Matthew. Yet that judgment of improbability may be the result of our own cultural bias.[50]

The importance of memorization in the Middle East has been clearly demonstrated by numerous scholars. Although some of these studies have been charged with being anachronistic, this charge seems a little disingenuous because the alternative consists largely of modern western cultural models.[51]

Could it be that Gospel memorization appears unlikely to western scholars because most of us have never memorized entire gospels?[52] Have scholars projected a modern western bias against memorization unto an entirely foreign culture in which books were not readily available and people regularly learned by memorization?

If memorization still seems improbable, however, consider the most popular alternative: the two-source theory. Many have been so conditioned to accept the idea of “Q” we forget that postulating a lost source is always problematic and should be used only as a last resort. Stein concedes, “The Q hypothesis is not without its problems, but it possesses fewer difficulties than alternative hypotheses.[53]

But just because it possesses fewer difficulties does not lessen the magnitude of the difficulties. For example, is it really reasonable to propose the kind of copying gymnastics[54]necessary for Matthew to copy from Mark and Q? We would have to imagine for example, that Matthew has a blank scroll in front of him as well as scrolls of Mark and Q. The material in Matthew 3:1-6 is borrowed from Mark 1:2-6.[55] Matthew then inserts material from Q3 and then continues with Mark 1:7-39. He then rolls his scroll of Mark forward[56] significantly to copy from Mark 7:7-13 after which he rolls his Q scroll forward to copy from Q6. He then jumps forward even further in his Mark scroll to chapter 9 before rolling his scroll back to Mark 4. Then it’s back to the Q scroll which he unrolls even more to copy from Q16. Next he returns to his Mark scroll, unrolling it from Mark 4 all the way up to Mark 11:25, before backing up his scroll to Mark 9:43-48…and so it goes.[57]

Quite frankly, this would not be easy even for someone who was cutting and pasting with a word processor. How much more difficult for someone who was copying by hand while rolling and unrolling handwritten scrolls that didn’t even have spaces between the words, much less chapter and verse divisions![58] In fact, for someone to know just where in the scroll to look for the exact information he needed, he would almost have had to memorize the entire gospels anyway!

Goodacre[59] and others,[60] however, have shown that problems with the two source theory are much more substantial than usually recognized. In addition to the problem of postulating a lost source and assuming literary gymnastics improbable, if not impossible, for ancient scribes, other equally improbable assumptions must be imagined in order to salvage the Q theory. 1)

The fact that the number of so-called “minor agreements”[61] range as high as the seven hundreds to over two thousand[62] make it improbable that these are accidental.[63] 2) It is even more problematic that, in order to salvage the theory, some Q theorists have felt it necessary to postulate textual corruption--without evidence--to account for these minor agreements. 3) Nearly fatal to the theory is the fact that some Q theorists, again, in order to salvage the theory, have found it necessary to postulate a special category of Q/Mark overlaps[64] to account for the Matthew/Luke extensions to some of Marks stories.[65]
Goodacre has demonstrated that there is, in fact, a whole spectrum of agreements ranging from minor agreements, to some so significant that the category Q/Mark overlaps had to be developed, to agreements so significant that the lost document of Q itself had to be imagined. When all of these factors are considered, is the two source hypothesis really more plausible than a simple hypothesis involving memory and informal controlled oral tradition?

This article proposes that Luke did use Matthew but we are not to envision an author laboriously rolling and unrolling scrolls of Matthew and Mark to scatter snippets of teachings all over his gospel. Rather we are to envision a man who had memorized all or large parts of Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels and who draws on these teachings from memory as he writes his own gospel.

The problems with the two source theory and other literary models are significant and are, after over one hundred years, still in heated dispute. On the other hand, by simply dropping the modern western cultural bias against memorization and recognizing the informal controlled tradition model proposed by Bailey and Dunn, many of the problems associated with the process involved in producing the synoptic gospels are eliminated.

VII. CONCLUSION

Dunn has produced a monumental work on the historical Jesus that deserves to take its place on the shelf next to the works of N.T. Wright and John Maier. His methodology for studying Jesus, however, is seriously flawed by the fact that he retains the two-source theory as part of his model. If he were to drop his insistence on the two source theory and follow his own studies to their logical conclusion, i.e. that the synoptic gospels are the product not of literary dependence, but of a combination of memorization and informal controlled tradition, his method of looking for the core elements in the Gospel stories might
be very promising indeed.

[1] This article was originally published in Trinity Journal (27 NS)
[2] Kenneth Bailey, “Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels.” Expository Times (106 S, 1995): 363.
[3] Kenneth Bailey, Poet & Peasant (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1976, 1983), 30. Bailey’s resources consisted primarily of twenty-five people, mostly Arab pastors, who lived in communities from Iran to the Sudan (Bailey, Poet, 35-36). These are people who 1) who have lived for at least the first 25 years of their lives in isolated peasant communities 2) have been friends for at least five years and 3) who know the Bible well enough to understand the questions (Bailey, Poet, 35).
[4] Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels”, Asia Journal of Theology, (April,1991): 36
[5] Ibid., 36
[6] Ibid., 35-37.
[7] Although Gerhardsson’s work has been sharply criticized for reading later Rabbinic teaching methods back into the first century, Bailey notes that “No other alternative is described in the writings of the period” which means that scholars can either read second century Jewish practices back into the first century, or they can postulate some other transmission method, often “modeled after the researcher’s own inherited Western experience and imagination” (Bailey, Informal, 34-37).
[8] Bailey, Informal, 38
[9] Ibid., 39; Bailey, Middle, 364
[10] Bailey, Middle, 364, 365
[11] Ibid., 364
[12] In Poet & Peasant, Bailey expressed his concern that previous works on parables either allegorized them or subconsciously assumed that first century Middle Eastern people thought like 19th and 20th century western writers (Bailey, Poet, 28-29). While it is true that others have written on Middle Eastern culture, Bailey finds that much of what has been written was spotty and incomplete (Bailey, Poet, 34). Some material was written by people who traveled through the Middle East but stayed only a relatively short time. A few stayed longer, like Dalman who wrote seven volumes on Palestinian life, but his work was that of a western professor looking in from the outside (Bailey, Poet, 34). Still others have written valuable material, but their studies were largely confined to individual villages (Bailey, Poet, 34). By contrast, Bailey calls his perspective the view from the “mastaba” which is the bench outside a Middle Eastern peasant’s home where friends gather and talk for hours (Bailey, Poet, 34).
[13] Bailey notes that the people in these communities are not only isolated from the rest of the world, they have the highest regard for “changelessness. ”In many villages, the title “Hafiz al-taqalid” -- “preserver of customs--” is the highest compliment a person can receive. (Bailey, Poet, 32).
[14] Bailey, Poet, 32; Bailey, Informal, 39-40; Bailey, Middle 363-364
[15] Bailey, Informal, 45; Bailey, Middle, 364, 366. “The types of material that appear in the Synoptic Gospels include primarily the same forms of material that appear in the informal controlled oral tradition such as proverbs, parables, poems, dialogues, conflict stories and historical narratives” (Bailey, Informal, 50).
[16] Bailey, Informal, 42. Kloppenborg specifically cites Bailey when he says that “Hypotheses that have tried to trace the double tradition material exclusively to oral tradition have either ignored or minimized these agreements or have made romantic, quite unrealistic, assumptions about the nature and faithfulness of oral tradition.” Kloppenborg says that Bailey concedes that in “informal controlled’ transmission which is most likely to remain stable are proverbs, poems (where there are metrical constraints) and the punch lines in stories and parables, rather than the entire speech or narrative portion.” But this completely misrepresents Bailey whose entire point was that the core material in these stories remains unchanged and is remarkably reliable. John Kloppenborg, Excavating Q (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000), 57.
[17] Bailey, Informal, 44-45; Bailey Middle, 365.
[18] Bailey, Middle, 365. Bailey recalls an incident in which he asked someone about the village traditions. As the person responded, he was interrupted by others who said he wouldn’t understand because he was not from that village and had only lived there 37 years (Bailey, Informal, 40)!
[19] Bailey, Informal, 50-51.
[20] James Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans), 248-249. “This line of thought links in with the other assumption, which has become debilitating pervasive: that each document belongs to and represents the views of only one community, and that the tensions within and among the documents indicate rival camps and already different Christianities. In short, the suggestion that there were churches who knew only one stream of tradition--Jesus as a miracle worker, or only as a wisdom teacher--has been given far too much uncritical credence in scholarly discussions on the Gospels and ought to have been dismissed a lot sooner” (Dunn, Jesus, 251-253)
[21] Ibid., 198.
[22] Ibid., 176.
[23] 1 Cor 11.2, 23; 15.1-3; Phil 4.9; Col 2.6-7; 1 Thess 4.1; 2 Thess. 2.15; 3.6
[24] 1 Cor 11.2, 23 (Dunn, Jesus, 176)
[25] Phil 4.9; 1 Thess 4.1; 2 Thess 3.6; Col. 2.6-7 (Dunn, Jesus,176)
[26] Acts 13.1; Rom 12.7; 1 Cor 12.28-29; Eph 4.11; Heb 5.12; Jas 3.1; did. 15.1-2 (Dunn, Jesus,176).
[27] Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:41; 13:31; 22:15, 18; 23:11; 26:16; John 1:7-8, 15, 19, 32, 34; 3:26, 28; 5:32; (Dunn, Jesus, 177-178).
[28] 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess 2:5; 1 Cor. 11:24-25; Luke 22:19; 2 Tim. 2:8, 14; Rom. 1:3-4; John 14:26; 15:27; 2 Pet 1:15; 3:2; Rev. 3:3; 1 Clement 13:1-2; 46:7-8; Polycarp, Phil. 2:3; Papias, Justin, Dial. 18:1; Apol. 14:4; Dunn, Jesus, 178-180).
[29] Dunn, Jesus, 180, 186.
[30] Ibid., 223.
[31] Matt 8.5-13 and Luke 7.10
[32] Matt 8.23-27; Mark 4.35-41 and Luke 8.22-25
[33] Dunn, Jesus, 212-221.
[34] Ibid., 224.
[35] Dunn notes that a good example is found in the book of Acts which contains “three separate accounts of Paul’s conversion by the same author, yet they are all strikingly different in detail.” “While the details vary, what was evidently the core of the story, the exchange between Saul and the exalted Jesus, is word for word the same in each account (Dunn, Jesus, 211).
[36] Ibid., 334.
[37] Ibid., 329.
[38] In comparison with other Jewish traditions.
[39] Dunn, Jesus, 333.
[40] It is important to note that Dunn is not looking for instances of multiple independent attestation which is essentially reductionist in nature in that any parallels occurring in Mark and Matthew, or Mark and Luke are reduced to a single source--Mark. Any parallels between Luke and Matthew are reduced to only one source--Q. Dunn treats the double and triple tradition as independent sources.
[41] Dunn envisions this oral traditioning process developing during Jesus’ own ministry as the disciples mulled over what Jesus had taught (Dunn, Jesus, [41]). New churches would have been established on a foundation of core teaching about Jesus and new converts would have been taught this foundational tradition from the beginning. Dunn argues that the modern idea that much of this Jesus tradition would have been the creation of Christian prophets is simply not supported by the evidence.
[42] Bailey, Poet, 37
[43] Bailey, Middle, 363; Bailey, Poet 37. Bultmann often compared the Gospels to stories of modern western fairy tales. Bultmann writes “This form is also found in fairy-tales, e.g. in different variations among the Low German fairy-tales edited by W. Wisser.” “In the same way a sentence is sometimes added at the end of a fairy-tale. Thus a Russian story ends with the proverb…” “In Caucasian and Swiss stories alike all sorts of jests are attributed to King Solomon. In German anecdotes and fairy-tales, ‘Old Fritz’ has been made a hero…”. Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, MA : Hendrickson, 1963), 183, 187, 229.
[44] Some might imagine that possibly the parts of Matthew that are parallel with Mark were copied from Mark, and that the sondergut in Matthew comes from informal controlled tradition--but that is not what Bailey or Dunn propose. Dunn in particular, proposes that it is precisely in the parallel passages, not in the sondergut, that we can get back to the core of oral tradition.
[45] Dunn, Jesus, 336.
[46] Assuming the priority of Mark, for sake of argument.
[47] Second Timothy 2:2 sounds remarkably like the uncontrolled oral tradition model proposed by Dunn: “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust (paraqou) to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Paraqou is a middle form of paratiqhmi which, interestingly enough, was used by Plotinus in the sense of “store up in one’s mind.” Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. (Oxford, England : Oxford University Press, 1940), 1327.
[48] Reike notes that “Luke even had opportunities to share experiences with Mark (Phlm 24), who had been a Greek-speaking hearer of Peter in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) and then followed Peter and Paul to Cyprus (13:5) as their assistant…” Bo Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Problem (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1986), 52
[49] See, for example, Robert Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (2nd ed. Grand Rapids : Baker, 2001), 49-96.
[50] Blomberg notes, “Memorization was highly cultivated in first-century Jewish culture…it was the predominant method of elementary education for boys. The disciples of the prophets had memorized and passed on their founder’s words. Venerated rabbis had at times committed the entire Bible (our ‘Old Testament’) to memory…Still none of this would have precluded the disciples from paraphrasing, interpreting, and rearranging the material they had learned; that, too, was the convention of the day” (Blomberg, Craig. Jesus and the Gospels (Nashville : Broadman & Holman, 1997), 84.
[51] Eta Linnemann, one of Bultmann’s students, asserted that “The data from folk tale research of the Brother’s Grimm and the folk song collection of Arnim and Brentano were blindly transferred onto the Gospels. Eta Linnemann, The Wrong Foundation. Unpublished paper presented at an annual conference of the Evangelical Theological Society (no date was listed, but the date was between 1999 and 2003). Reicke adds that “The use of folklore to illustrate oral traditions behind the written Gospels was a starting ground for pioneers of form-critical studies…” (Reike, Studying, 1986).
[52] Though it was reported that F.F. Bruce had memorized the entire Bible in the original languages! Gasque, W. Ward. “The Legacy of F.F. Bruce.” Christianity Today, (November 5, 1990) 19.
[53] Robert Stein. “Synoptic Problem” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL : IVP, 1992), 791.
[54] Cf. Bailey, Informal, 34-37.
[55] Of course these texts did not have chapter and verse divisions. Chapter and verse numbers are used here as the most convenient way to illustrate the jumping around in the text that the two source theory requires.
[56] Unless, of course, we imagine that he had completely unrolled both his Mark and Q scrolls and while he himself moved back and forth to find his information.
[57] Kurt Aland, Synopsis of the Four Gospels; Greek-English edition… (10th edition. Stuttgart : German Bible Society, 1993), 341-342. See also the charts in Kloppenborg, Excavating Q. 21, 68-71. Reicke would seem to agree: “Because the Q material of Matthew and Luke is characterized by such complete disharmony in the order, all speculations on changes made in a written source are contestable. Whether one Gospel is believed to have been the source of the other, or an unknown document like the so-called logia source is made responsible for the similarities, the literary manipulations presumed must seem absurd. A normal person would not cut out such a great number of text pieces from a book on his desk and then shuffle the cards in order to get all pieces distributed on completely different parts of his manuscript” (Reicke, Studying, 186).
[58] The process is no less torturous under the Augustinian, Griesbach or Farrar/ Goulder theories. See Kloppenborg, 40.
[59] Goodacre, Mark. The Case Against Q (Harrisburg, PA : Trinity Press International, 2002).
[60] E.g. E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia : Trinity Press International, 1989). Bo Reicke. The Roots of the Synoptic Problem (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1986).
[61] Minor agreements are instances in the triple tradition in which Matthew and Luke agree with each other in wording over against the wording of Mark. These are used as evidence that Luke did in fact know of Matthew’s gospel, contrary to the two source theory with postulates that Luke did not know Matthew’s gospel, thus making it necessary to postulate a lost source, Q, to account for the much broader similarities between Matthew and Luke. Sanders and Davies note: “The minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple tradition have always constituted the Achilles’ heal of the two-source hypothesis. There are virtually no triple tradition pericopes without such agreements (E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia : Trinity Press International, 1989)
[62] Goodacre, Case, 153.
[63] While conceding that “minor agreements do not decisively prove or disprove the independence of Matthew and Luke”, Sanders and Davies calculate the number of minor agreements to be about one thousand and conclude that “It is our judgment that this is too many to attribute to coincidence and similar editorial policies, and that thus we should posit some relationship between Matthew and Luke in addition to or instead of their independent use of Mark (Sanders and Davies, Studying, 73; emphasis theirs).
[64] Goodacre, Case, 163.
[65] Noting that the number of Q/Mark overlaps could be substantial depending on how they are counted, Sanders and Davies write: “The expansion of Q and the possibility that Mark knew Q shake the foundations of the two-source hypothesis. But if the agreements between Matthew and Luke are not attributed to overlaps between Mark and Q, it becomes difficult to maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke knew each other.” (Sanders and Davies, Studying, 80).