JAMES D. G.

DUNN AND THE NATURE OF JESUS:

A CRITICAL REALIST APPROACH
TO HISTORICAL FAITH

!
!
!
A Paper Submitted to
Dr. Bob Stewart and Dr. Charlie Ray
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

!
!
!
!
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Ph.D. Seminar
THEO 9413 The Historical Jesus
in the Division of Theological and Historical Studies

!
!
!
Jacob G. Milstead
B.A., William Carey University, 2007
M.Div., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012
November 22, 2013

!
!

!
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION!.........................................!

THE IMPRESSION OF JESUS ON NASCENT CHRISTIANITY!..............!

Faith, History, and Critical Realism

The Content and Transmission of Tradition
Dunns Interpretation of Jesus Historic Impression
CRITICAL REALISM!.......................................! 12!

Explanation of Critical Realism

Evaluation of Dunns Critical Realist Epistemology

KEY RESPONSES TO JESUS REMEMBERED!........................! 19

Concerning Methods
Concerning Miracles
CONCLUSION!...........................................! 25
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY!..................................! 28

!iii

!
INTRODUCTION
Contemporary interest in the Jesus of history leads necessarily to a grappling match with
the tradition now known to envelope the sources that claim to speak of him firsthand. Many
scholars now claim, as Rudolf Bultmann did, that what historical Jesus research is dealing with
in the tradition is, first of all, the earliest community.1 Since no other source has passed on much
notable information that is even plausibly firsthand, the traditions of the early church concerning
the one they called Lord make up the overall object of inquiry in historical Jesus studies. Anyone
who would study in this field faces difficult questions about the nature of this tradition and to
what extent the information it has preserved will support hypotheses concerning Jesus of
Nazareth.
James D. G. Dunn proposes a new perspective on the Jesus tradition2 that reaches
beyond the broader Christian history to the earliest community to pass on a Jesus tradition. His
views are more optimistic than many of his predecessors or contemporaries who, once again like
Bultmann, have seen a lack of historical interest within the earlier tradition.3 In a broad

1Rudolf

Bultmann, The Study of the Synoptic Gospels, in Form Criticism: Two Essays
on New Testament Research (New York: Harper, 1962), 60. Bultmann affirmed Jesus existence in
history but his proposal concerning knowledge of the historical Jesus as such was modest. His
form-critical project did not acknowledge hope of being able to authenticate Jesus words
historically.
2James

D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1, Jesus Remembered (Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003), 882.
3Ibid.,

74.
1

!2
challenge to the conclusions of much historical Jesus scholarship to-date, Dunn sees in the
tradition preserved within the gospels a concern to remember Jesus4 as a real person in history
and believes that the Gospel traditions provide a clear portrayal of the remembered Jesus since
they still display with sufficient clarity for present purposes the impact which Jesus made on his
first followers.5
Though Dunn is careful not to claim that the Synoptic tradition leads back to the very
words and deeds of Jesus, he boldly maintains that it does offer access to the earliest impressions
made by Jesus on his first followers6 and thus to significantly firmer grounds for historical Jesus
study than previously imagined. For if one has access to a clear impression left on a mold, the
object that made the impression might reasonably be discerned and studied according to its direct
impact on the mold.

The goal of this paper is to examine possible links between Dunns methodological use of

critical realism and his conclusions about the nature of Jesus. Jesus Remembered will be the
main object of the study since it best shows what, based on his understanding of the Synoptic
traditions oral origins, Dunn believes can be known about the historical Jesus, particularly as
concerns his nature. Dunns view of history, the transmission of Jesus tradition in nascent
Christianity, and the impression of the historical Jesus that Dunn perceives in said tradition will
be outlined first. An explanation of critical realism will then be given and the relevant portion of
Dunns epistemological standpoint evaluated. An analysis of critiques that have raised questions
4Ibid.,

223.

5Ibid.,

6.

6Ibid.,

130.

!3
concerning Jesus Remembered will be offered in an attempt to show how Dunns critical realism
affects his conclusions concerning the supernatural claims of the Gospel tradition concerning
Jesus, especially as regard the virgin birth and Jesus bodily resurrection.

THE IMPRESSION OF JESUS ON NASCENT CHRISTIANITY

Dunns work in Jesus Remembered alone is a remarkable contribution to historical Jesus
research and stands at the center of others of his projects that cover various facets of New
Testament studies. Therefore, most of this section will deal with summarizing key elements from
Jesus Remembered, occasionally drawing support or clarification from his other works. These
elements include Dunns views of history and tradition along with resultant propositions
concerning the person of Jesus and his identity.

Faith, History, and Critical Realism

The initial flight from dogma and subsequent reactionary flight from history7
characterize the problems of extremist liberal and fundamentalist approaches to the historical
Jesus in that neither one seems to be able to see what the other brings to the table: either the selfcritical or faith-affirming perspective. Dunn believes one must have both to understand the
historical Jesus because he is not merely a historical figure but a figure set firmly in the context
of theological documents of a faith tradition that speak unequivocally of Jesus own faith and
dogma.8 The goal of his scholarship, therefore, is to ally faith with scholarship in the pursuit of

7Ibid.

Chapters 4 and 5 respectively. See p. 15 for summary explanation of what Dunn

means by each of these flights.
8Ibid.,

50-51.

!4
truth about Jesus.9 While scholarship cannot avoid the atmosphere of faith surrounding the
historical Jesus, the scholarly study of history helps keep Jesus situated in his context and guards
against the presumption of his timeless relevance.10
To Dunn history serves as little more than a set of guardrails, but he believes the study of
history is still clear enough to carefully distinguish between events, data, and facts.
The historical event belongs to the irretrievable past. All the historian has available are
the data which have come down through history personal diaries, reminiscences of
eyewitnesses, reports constructed from people who were present, perhaps some
archaeological artifacts, as well as circumstantial data about climate, commercial
practice, and laws of the time, and so forth. From these the historian attempts to
reconstruct the facts. The facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an
interpretation of the data. Nor should the fact be identified with the event itself, though it
will always be in some degree of approximation to the event.11

Due to this limitation of personal perspective to interpretations, Dunn believes history deals with
probability rather than the coveted certainty of the fundamentalist.12 He argues that ones
relationship to the past is necessarily influenced by a personal application of the principle of
analogy, which allows for the historian to empathize with those studied, even in the midst of real
disagreement (e.g. faith vs. unbelief).13 Dunn makes tentative recourse to this principle because
he believes in the ability of the historian to identify with people of any time even though he does
not believe in attainable objectivity within the discipline of history.14 Instead he seeks to
9James

D. G. Dunn, The Living Word, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 23.

10Dunn,

Jesus Remembered, 102.

11Ibid.,

102-03; original emphasis.

12Ibid.,

103.

13Ibid.,

106.

14Ibid.,

109.

!5
practise the historian's art somewhat on the model of critical realism.15
Citing Bernard Lonergan, Dunn clarifies his understanding of critical realism
considerably:
[Critical Realism] sums up Lonergan's theory of knowledge: knowing is not just
seeing; rather, it is a conjunction of experience, understanding, and judging. Critical
realism expresses the synthesis that he wants to maintain over against the antitheses of
naive realism on the one hand and idealism on the other, against the former's
overemphasis on the objectivity of that which is known and the latter's overemphasis on
the subjectivity of the knowing.16
He views naive realism (or fundamentalism) and idealism as extremes to be avoided by a
dialogical method that recognizes the complex road traveled from data to fact. Since
historical data is always selected and then reselected, first by the historical process and then
my the way it is uncovered and presented to the historian, Dunn believes there is no such thing as
raw data.17 Because no historian can avoid the partial nature of the data, it is imperative that all
historians be critical.
Dunn also recognizes, however, an innate otherness in historical research that prompts
him to recognize that the task of seeking to describe and evaluate the data and to reach some
sort of judgment regarding the facts, which is not merely subjective but may command proper
15Ibid.,

111. Though a more detailed explanation will follow below, one needs to
understand at this point that critical realism is not a monolithic entity within epistemology.
Scholars carefully distinguish critical realism from both nave realism and postmodern antirealism but are less unified in their understandings of what all is entailed by critical realism.This
view of critical realism as a spectrum may be why Dunn seeks to exercise his historical method
somewhat along the lines of critical realism. See Alister E. McGrath, A Scientific Theology,
vol. 1, Nature (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 195.
16Dunn,
17Ibid.,

Jesus Remembered, 110.

111.

!6
critical respect, is not only viable, but in the case of the great event(s) of Jesus necessary.18 In
other words, though there is always a subjective element to historical research that requires one
to be critical, the somewhat intuitive recognition that historians interact with something outside
themselves makes realism an imperative for doing significant work in historical Jesus research.
Similarly, Dunn acknowledges hermeneutics as playing the ultimate mediating role and
highlighting the importance of tension between faith and history for historical Jesus studies.19
The Jesus that is accessible to the historian by means of interpreting data is the Jesus who
inspired Gospel faith. There is no real idiosyncratic Jesus available to the historian that can be
stripped of faith implications.20 But does this position leave a way open besides fideistic
assumptions about the one-to-one correlation between the Jesus of history and the gospel
accounts?
Dunn believes just such a via media is available in the study of the oral tradition that
predates the written gospels. He even goes so far as to imply that issues related to oral tradition
are the most appropriate starting point for historical Jesus studies related to the transmission of
the Synoptic gospel tradition.21 To Dunn the examination of the oral tradition provides extra data
for analysis that can support legitimate historical hypotheses about Jesus of Nazareth.
18Ibid.
19Ibid.,

125.

20Ibid.,

126. Citing Martin Khler, Dunn argues against The idea that we can see through
the faith perspective of the NT writings to a Jesus who did not inspire faith or who inspired faith
in a different way is an illusion. He continues, There is no such Jesus. That there was a Jesus
who did inspire the faith which in due course found expression in the Gospels is not in question.
But that we can somehow hope to strip out the theological impact which he actually made on his
disciples, to uncover a different Jesus (the real Jesus!), is at best fanciful.
21Dunn,

The Living Word, 28.

!7
The Content and Transmission of Tradition
Before dealing more explicitly with the role of oral tradition in his understanding of the
historical Jesus, Dunn offers a definition of what he means by tradition:

'Tradition' denotes both content and mode of transmission: the content is typically beliefs
and customs which are regarded as stemming from the past and which have become
authoritative; the mode is informal, typically word of mouth. At one end of its spectrum
of usage 'tradition' has to be distinguished from individual memory, though it could be
described as corporate memory giving identity to the group which thus remembers. At the
other end it has to be distinguished from formal rules and written law, though its being
written down need not change its character, initially at any rate.22

Practically and specifically as regards Jesus, tradition plays the role of keeping him tied to his
native religion and whatever comes after him, so that the historian does not end up with a nonJewish Jesus or worse, a non-Christian Jesus.23 The concern for getting Jesus right denotes the
importance of the content of the oral tradition. Does the oral tradition give us a Jesus that fits into
his historical context? Is he a big enough Jesus to explain the existence of the Christian faith?24
Transmission, on the other hand, touches on issues of reliability. Is there enough continuity and
responsibility in the transmission of the Jesus tradition to make the accounts a trustworthy
depiction, not only of Christian faith, but of nascent Christian faith?
Contra Bultmann, Dunn affirms the sufficiency of oral tradition (alongside the obvious
literary nature of the texts it undergirds) to deliver a picture of Jesus consistent with the
impression he would have made on his first disciples. First, he affirms the basically biographical

22Dunn,
23Ibid.,
24Ibid.

Jesus Remembered, 173; footnote 1.

174.

!8
nature of the gospels as evidence of the reliability of the historical content of the tradition.25
Furthermore, rather than a situation of prophetic additions to the gospel tradition, Dunn finds
reason to believe that the Gospels retain a clear distinction between pre-Easter and post-Easter
perceptions of Jesus.26
As regards transmission of Jesus tradition, Dunn analyzes a few oral transmission models
and compares them with the gospels to see which ones can best explain the shape of the tradition.
Birger Gerhardsson represents for Dunn a model of strictly controlled method of memorized oral
transmission, which seems more Rabbinic than the gospels evidence with their essential unity
and wide variety.27 Dunn relies instead on Werner Kelbers understanding of the oral tradition,
which understood transmission to conserve essential information but allowed great flexibility in
the details.28 Richard Horsley and Jonathan Draper also provide Dunn with some helpful
25Ibid.,

184. Dunn distinguishes between the ancient bioi conception, which he is

affirming here, and the typical neo-Liberal historical Jesus biographies of the 19th century.
In the former character was fixed and unchanging; and the biographer's concern was to portray
the chosen subject's character by narrating his words and deeds, while the latter was concerned
with analysing the subject's inner life and tracing how an individual's character developed over
time.
26Ibid.,

195.

27Ibid.,

197. Dunn has since conceded that Gerhardssons view does allow for greater
variety in transmission than he had previously recognized but still differs with him on issues
concerning the oral culture of the Middle East. See James D. G. Dunn, Eyewitnesses and the
Oral Jesus Tradition, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6 (2008) : 85, 88; Also,
Samuel Byrskog, A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition: Reflections on James D. G. Dunns
Jesus Remembered, in Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunns Jesus
Remembered, Robert B. Stewart and Gary R. Habermas, ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010),
61.
28Dunn,

Jesus Remembered, 200. Dunn also appreciates that Kelber affirms the likelihood
of Jesus tradition forming and transmission would have begun during Jesus lifetime, (201).
Likewise, he uses Kelbers view of the relationship between orality and text to speak of Marks
frozen orality (202; original emphasis).

!9
information as regards the unifying function of oral tradition spoken within a larger, common
context. In other words, the enormous shared context of language, faith, experience, and culture
served to make sure the tradition that was being passed on was widely recognized as legitimate.29
Of all his sources, Dunn is most reliant here on Kenneth Baileys anecdotal study of
Informal Controlled Oral Tradition,30 which bares the weight of decades of experience living
in Middle Eastern oral cultures. Bailey offers what amounts to an ethnographical survey of the
transmission of various traditions in oral cultures in the Middle East.31 Dunn finds with Bailey a
means of reconciling the unity and diversity he sees in Synoptic traditions, especially as concerns
narratives that show great variation and elaboration on minor details from one account to the
other but seem to match up verbatim on the essential elements of the story.32
Interestingly, Bailey also highlights a faith perspective in the passing on of oral tradition
that Dunn ignores. Bailey relates an example of oral tradition being quickly developed in the
case of an important story for a community where a young groom was shot during a wedding
celebration. He concludes that the communitys story, which involved a divine passive verb in
describing the firing of the rifle that killed the groom, excused the man holding the gun from

29Ibid.,

205.

30Ibid.;

Kenneth Bailey, Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,
Themelios 20.2 (January 1995) : 4-11.
31Byrskog

criticizes Dunn for misusing Baileys article to show the inadequacy of

Gerhardsson and Bultmanns views, something which Bailey definitely does not intend; See A
New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition, 68. See also Bailey, Informal Controlled Oral
Tradition, 8.
32Dunn,

Jesus Remembered, 210. Baileys model of informal controlled transmission

allows for minor variations within non-essential parts of the stories but requires strict delivery of
the punchline. See Bailey, Informal Controlled Oral Tradition, 8-9.

!10
guilt so that the rest of the story was changed in order to not involve the police.33 The direct
influence of faith in the development of the narrative seems quite obvious, but Dunn never
takes this issue up in his interactions with Baileys theory. Nevertheless, Dunn hammers home
various examples of how Bailey helps explain the development of the Synoptic tradition, making
broad connections between tradition and texts.34 Dunn summarizes his point by claiming that
oral transmission best explains why the Synoptic Jesus tradition has precisely this character of
stability and diversity, of the same yet different.35

Dunns Interpretation of Jesus Historic Impression

Before fleshing out his view of the historical Jesus in Jesus Remembered, Dunn sets up
his task with a sequence of bold claims. First, Jesus remembered is the only quest that can
deliver a picture that approximates the historical Jesus. Second, Jesus was definitely remembered
very early on, and third, the evidence of this memory is enshrined in the Synoptic tradition.
Fourth, Jesus was the one who directly made the impression on the first Christian community

33Bailey,

Informal Controlled Oral Tradition, 11-12. This theologizing especially seems

to line up with Dunns conclusion that the measure of freedom experienced in the development
of oral tradition would have allowed the community to shape stories for the sake of their
situation, even to the point of creating slanted versions of the original tail. See Dunn, The
Living Word, 28-29.
34James

D. G. Dunn, Q2 as oral tradition, In The Written Gospel, ed. Markus

Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 47. The Q
tradition exhibits minor variations from Matthews use to Lukes and even to The Gospel of
Thomas, but there is still verbatim agreement on the main ideas. For a similar evaluation see
Gerd Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2003), 27-28.
35James

D. G. Dunn, Johns Gospel and the Oral Gospel Tradition in The Fourth
Gospel in First-Century Media Culture, ed. Anthony Le Donne and Tom Thatcher (New York:
T&T Clark International, 2011), 157.

!11
that is observed in the tradition.36 These statements set up his method, which is 1) to focus
attention on characteristic features/themes in the gospels rather than pay close attention to any
specific set of texts and 2) to maintain a primarily Synoptic focus.37 What results is an
impressive argument for a very real historical Jesus, or at least a reliable impression of said
Jesus, who is described reliably by a core tradition within the Synoptic gospels.
Dunn describes his impression of Jesus as follows:
If the Synoptic tradition does not give us direct access to Jesus himself, neither does it
leave us simply in the faith of the first-century Christian churches stopped well short of
that goal. What it gives us rather is the remembered Jesus Jesus not simply as they
chose to remember him, but also as the impact of his words and deeds shaped their
memories and still reverberated in their gatherings.38
The conditional nature of his statement concerning direct access to Jesus makes one wonder to
what extent Dunn believes history can deliver a definitive historical Jesus, if at all. He
indubitably makes some very conservative claims about the Jesus tradition in his following
chapters. Dunn unequivocally affirms Jesus Jewishness and association with John the Baptist up
to the point where Jesus is distinguished from John as the Spirit-anointed Son of the Father.39
Dunn also holds the historical Jesus to be the originator of the kingdom of God tradition, with
its mixed, sweeping, and sometimes ambiguous implications of kingship, eschatological agency,
and prophetic ministry.40 Jesus message, according to Dunn, is a strait-forward depiction of the

36Dunn,

Jesus Remembered, 335.

37Ibid.
38Ibid.,

328; original emphasis.

39Ibid.,

377.

40Ibid.,

406-65; 666.

!12
gospel with a call to repent, believe, and follow him with urgency, a message preached to Israel,
the poor, sinners, and even with implications for Gentiles.41
Other claims by Dunn seem to be more sensitive to the restrictions of historiography and
thus preclude broader affirmations of the tradition (e.g. the birth narratives). This stopping-short
by Dunn elicited the critiques below, received from fellow scholars who have grappled with
Jesus Remembered. But first the issue of critical realism needs fleshing out so that it can be
properly understood in relation to Dunns conclusions and the ensuing critiques. Suffice it to say
for now that, though Dunn affirms many characteristics of Jesus that are traditionally insisted
upon in the mainstream(s) of the Christian faith, he stops short of claiming that the virgin birth
and resurrection accounts can be taken at face value.

CRITICAL REALISM
Critical realism is a concept that originated in the philosophy of science and has since
been translated first into theology42 and now history. Dunn is not the first to adopt critical realism
in historical Jesus research, having been preceded at the very least by N. T. Wright, but his
understanding differs from Wrights significantly. In fact, both of them differ from the original
works that critical realism was adopted from. In order to clarify what is meant by critical realism
and how this epistemological understanding affects Dunns historical Jesus project, this section
will offer an explanation of critical realism independent of Dunn and then use the information
41Ibid.;

repent, 498; believe, 500; follow with urgency 503; for Israel, 506; for the poor,
516; for sinners, 526; for Gentiles? 537.
42Robert

B. Stewart, The Quest of the Hermeneutical Jesus: The Impact of Hermeneutics

on the Jesus Research of John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 2008), 77.

!13
given as a backdrop for comparison and evaluation of critical realism within Dunns
epistemology.

Explanation of Critical Realism

As mentioned above, Dunn aligns himself with Lonergans understanding of critical
realism as a combination of experience with understanding and judging. Dunn also interacts with
Wrights critical realism, but this view is dealt with at greater depth by Bob Stewart. In analyzing
the role of critical realism in Wrights hermeneutic, Stewart explains that critical realism is an
epistemological foundation that allows one to overcome the limitations of knowledge through
observation and reflection, which then serve as an avenue for proposing provisional assertions.43
That no one has knowledge of a thing-in-itself does not mean that no one has knowledge of
reality, even if said knowledge is provisional and limited by its socio-temporal ties.44 In other
words, Stewart argues that critical realism does not lead to certainty but to knowledge.45
Stewart also raises a question of Wrights critical realism that is applicable to Dunn: are

43Ibid.,

78-79. Both Dunn and Stewart quote Wrights eloquent definition of critical
realism: This is a way of describing the process of 'knowing' that acknowledges the reality of
the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence 'realism'), while also fully
acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of
appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence
critical)." See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 110-11 and Stewart, The Quest of the Hermeneutical
Jesus, 78-79.
44Ibid.,

78.

45Another

understanding of knowledge comes from Kevin Vanhoozer. Similarly to Dunn,

he posits that the claim that there is knowledge is not the same as the claim that one possesses
it. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader and the
Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 302. For both Vanhoozer and
Dunn cautious criticism concerning what can actually be known and with what degree of
certainty are everywhere in their understanding of critical realism.

!14
there sufficient similarities between scientific theorizing and historical reconstruction to justify
the translation of critical realism from one field (philosophy of science) to the other (historical
Jesus research)?46 According to Stewart, Wright answers in the affirmative, pointing to the fact
that both science and history deal with data that cannot be observed directly. For his part, Dunn
is careful to point out that the treatment of history as science has brought about unmerited
optimism concerning the historians ability to deliver an accurate and significant picture of the
past.47 He affirms the objective reality of past people and events but cautions that the past cannot
be known without an element of subjectivity.48
Alister McGraths dealings with critical realism in A Scientific Theology are helpful for
understanding how critical realism can make the transition from natural sciences to social
sciences and even, in the case of his major project, theology.49 He borrows a useful description of
critical realism from John Polkinghorne:
I believe that the advance of science is not just concerned with our ability to manipulate
the physical world, but to gain knowledge of its actual nature. In a word, I am a realist.
Of course, such knowledge is to a degree partial and corrigible. Our attainment is
verisimilitude, not absolute truth. Our method is the creative interpretation of experience,
not rigorous deduction from it. Thus I am a critical realist.50

46Ibid.,

79.

47Dunn,
48Ibid.,

Jesus Remembered, 101.

109.

49Jesus

Remembered is clearly a labor of history, but Dunns own assertion that Jesus
must be studied historically within the context of faith encroaches on theological ground. Yet
even without theology as a common denominator, the reader should find McGraths work helpful
in understanding critical realism and applying it to any area that is subject to human inquiry.
50John

Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science, (New Haven, CN: Yale

University Press, 1998), 104.

!15
Like Polkinghorne, McGrath argues for a realist view of the world, noting in particular the
success natural sciences have had in explaining nature and predicting various natural events as
evidence for a realist position.51
Postmodern criticisms of modern realism preclude rational belief in direct interactions
between knowers and objects of knowledge, but the postmodern position of the total
independence of the mind from outward realities is not any more likely. Instead, McGrath claims
that outward reality is independent while the interactions of the mind with said reality constitute
a mediated form of knowledge.52 This mediated interchange does not, however, prohibit the
knower from having a direct effect on reality. The formulations of knowledge in the knower
shape actions, which shape reality in turn, so that the relationship between a person and the
object of their study is much closer (at least in the natural sciences) than has been widely
conceded in postmodernity.53 Polkinghorne and McGrath both believe that critical realism is
useful for understanding theology in much the same way that it is for natural sciences.54
The key aspect of critical realism for McGrath is a complex, stratified view of reality in

51McGrath,

Nature, 72. He actually claims essentially all people hold a realist perspective
of the world since even the staunchest anti-realist philosopher who travels to speak on this
very topic will be forced to concede that the airplane boarded to reach that destination flies
and it flies, at least in part, on account of the relation between pressure and kinetic energy first
set out by Daniel Bernouilli in 1738.
52McGrath,

A Scientific Theology, vol. 2, Reality (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,

2002), 195.
53Ibid.,
54Ibid.,

196.

199; Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science, 108. McGrath also makes
particular application of critical realism to the social sciences in general and history in particular.
He claims that critical realism takes history seriously as a social science that affords the ability to
interact with various layers of reality: ideas, events and dispositions. See Reality, 215.

!16
which one level of facts is dependent on but separate from another.55 He gives the example in
natural science of how biology is dependent on chemistry which itself relies on physics. Though
some reductionist philosophies of science would conclude that all natural sciences (and even all
of science) can thus be reduced to physics, McGrath cites Roy Bhaskar to the contrary: Each
stratum is to be seen as real and can be studied as a whole if one continues to respect the
causal link between each layer of reality.56 Bhaskar, according to McGrath, makes this
conclusion based on an ontological understanding that requires epistemology to align itself with
ontology, not the other way around. An object must be known and understood according to its
nature instead of being defined by what is known of it.57
On McGraths view, theology and history can be legitimately studied a posteriori from a
critical realist perspective because their objects are ontologically distinct from those of other
sciences.58 The stratified nature of reality implies distinct characteristics for each level that in
turn demand a variety of modes of investigation and representation.59 Space has only allowed

55Ibid.,

198. He cites Searls example of different levels of reality illustrated in the

statement of two facts: there is snow on Mt. Everest and Searl is an American. Both are
statements of fact but not of the same strata. That there is snow on Everest is a brute fact while
Searls citizenship is actually a social fact that has been built on a layer of brute facts, such as
the existence of a landmass in the northwestern hemisphere referred to as the United States of
America in which he was born.
56Ibid.,

217-19. McGrath also favors Bhaskars conclusion that each stratum must have
its own unique methodology. Even though there are causal links from physics to biology to
culture, each area represents a very real science that requires an appropriate method for study.
57Ibid.,

218-19.

58Ibid.,

225.

59McGrath,

2003), 82.

A Scientific Theology, vol. 3, Theory, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,

!17
for a glimpse of McGraths understanding of critical realism and its role in a scientific theology,
but the above treatment should be enough to shed light on Dunns own critical realist
perspective.

Evaluation of Dunns Critical Realist Epistemology

Dunns idea of critical realism is evident in his central assertion that the oral tradition
does not so much take the historian back to the historical Jesus as it does to the impression Jesus
made on the disciples that established the early Christian community.60 This description of the
historians ability (or lack thereof) to access the real Jesus of history is in line with a mediated
view knowledge that still affirms an objective reality. Jesus impression on his disciples can be
studied in history and propositions can be made concerning his words, nature, and actions based
on that impression. Any propositions must, however, be tentative at best. Likewise, his
description of earlier periods of historical Jesus studies as the flight from dogma and flight
from history equally criticize naive realism and idealism respectively.61 Neither approach was
adequate for providing a verisimilitude (to use Polkinghornes word) of Jesus that aligned with
the evidence of the oral tradition.
As concerns his historiography, the principle of analogy that Dunn employs also
necessitates a critical realist epistemology. The task of history cannot be undertaken without the
human ability to relate personal experiences to those of people in other times and cultures.
Nevertheless, an overemphasis on the significance of this principle could result in the exclusion
60Dunn,
61Ibid.,

Jesus Remembered, 129-30.

15.

!18
of any new findings in history or, in Dunns words, the reduction of all that is recognizable in
human experience to the lowest common denominator.62
Likewise, Dunns insistence on the hermeneutical tension between faith and history63
shows signs of critical realism. He asserts that there is no Jesus accessible to history that can be
stripped of faith implications, but rather that the historical Jesus that is accessible is the one who
elicited faith from his first disciples, a faith that permeates the whole tradition.64 To Dunn any
objective Jesus is a creation of the historian and just as theological as the Jesus of the Gospels.
He insists, however, that he is not giving up critical realism on this conclusion but simply
affirming that the only real Jesus is the one who inspired historic faith.65
The consistent influence of critical realism is evident in Jesus Remembered and his
conclusions show its application throughout. Dunn refuses to make conclusions about Jesus that
are not supported by critical realist understanding of the oral tradition. For example, since he
does not believe the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are entirely based on the oral tradition
of the early gospel community,66 Dunn holds that there is not enough evidence to support a claim

62Ibid.,

106.

63Ibid.,

125.

64Ibid.,

126; see also 335.

65Ibid.,

127; see footnote 103 especially.

66Ibid.,

340-42. Dunn holds that Matthews narrative in particular was contrived at

some undefined point between Jesus ministry and Matthews writing to make theological points.
This tradition is thus not part of the earliest performed tradition, even though it does include a
common core that affirms Jesus as the heir to Davids throne and his divine sonship (342).

!19
historically of a virgin birth or conception by the power of the Holy Spirit.67 These sorts of
conclusions, though apparently consistent with his critical realist epistemology, are what have
raised serious questions and concerns, particularly in the minds of his evangelical
contemporaries, about the accuracy of Dunns historical Jesus project. What follows is a brief
survey of some of the issues raised, most notably in Stewart and Habermass Memories of Jesus:
A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunns Jesus Remembered.68

KEY RESPONSES TO JESUS REMEMBERED

Dunn has benefited from many gracious responses to the first volume of his history of
early Christianity, Christianity in the Making.69 Yet each response seems to bring with its critique

67Ibid.,

347. It is worth noting that Dunn does affirm a vague understanding of Jesus
birth being from the Spirit and rejects conclusive claims that Jesus was illegitimate and that this
fact was known to the evangelists (346).
68Robert

B. Stewart and Gary R. Habermas, ed., Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal

of James D. G. Dunns Jesus Remembered (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010).
69See

especially Andrew Gregory, An oral and written Gospel? Reflections on

Remembering Jesus, The Expository Times 116.1 (October 2004) : 7-12; Bengt Holmberg,
Questions of Method in James Dunns Jesus Remembered, Journal for the Study of the
Historical Jesus 26.4 (2004) : 445-57; Dennis Ingolfsland, Jesus Remembered: James Dunn and
the Synoptic Problem, Trinity Journal 27.2 (Fall 2006) : 187-97; Robert Morgan, James
Dunns Jesus Remembered, The Expository Times 116.1 (October
2004) : 1-6; Morgan,
Christian Faith and Historical Jesus Research: a Reply to James Dunn, The Expository Times
116.7 (April 2005) : 217-23; and Terrence W. Tilley, Remembering the Historic Jesus--A New
Research Program? Theological Studies 68.1 (March 2007) : 3-35. For Dunns responses to
some of these see Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus
Missed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005); Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition,
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6 (2008) : 85-105; On Faith and History, and
Living Tradition: In Response to Robert Morgan and Andrew Gregory, The Expository Times
116.1 (October 2004) : 13-19; and On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses: In Response to
Bengt Holmberg and Samuel Byrskog, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26.4 (2004) :
473-87.

!20
great praise. Stewart questions whether Jesus Remembered along with Dunns many other
magnificent scholarly contributions could not together be called his magnum opera, since
magnum opus is singular70 and could not possibly suffice to sum up Dunns contribution to
various fields.
In order to establish the necessary grounds for the argument of the rest of the paper, this
section will only focus on five responses to Dunn taken from Memories of Jesus. These
responses will be divided into two categories: concerning method and concerning miracle. Where
appropriate, Dunns responses to the critiques will be inserted for clarification.

Concerning Methods
Markus Bockmuehl. Bockmuehl raises five critiques against Dunn, such as his
somewhat disproportionate emphasis on Kelber and Bailey in light of various neglected
scholars in more than one area that concerned Dunns task.71 But of greatest concern here is his
fifth critique. Bockmuehl first questions whether Dunn brings anything new to the table or is
simply traveling certain well-trodden paths of the prior historical Quests.72 His subsequent
evaluation is truly intriguing. He questions whether Dunn is not simply asking the same
questions as previous quests, which took on an outsiders point of view that seems
constitutionally incapable of addressing the sorts of great questions about the remembered

70Stewart

and Habermas, Memories of Jesus, xvii.

71Markus

Bockmuehl, Whose Memory? Whose Orality? A Conversation with James D.

G. Dunn on Jesus and the Gospels, in Stewart and Habermas, ed., Memories of Jesus, 38.
72Ibid.,

42.

!21
Jesus that the tradition itself actually raised consistently from the very beginning.73 Bockmuehl
wants to see questions concerning the historical Jesus that are heavily theological and may
require supernatural answers. While failing to address these questions may...preserve the
biblical picture of Jesus humanity, in fact it disregards the biblical belief in his divinity. 74
Dunn responds to Bockmuehls fifth point by saying that the main thrust of Jesus
Remembered was simply to attain a realistic historical appreciation of the impact Jesus made on
his first disciples,75 but one wonders what kind of realism Dunn refers to here. An inquiry that
does not consider whether or not the original disciples grappled with the nature of Jesus as
potentially divine does not seem very real. Also, a more theological direction like the one
Bockmuehl advocates would not have been contrary to Dunns own expressed intentions, since
he recognizes explicitly that faith could and does have a theologically legitimate interest in the
history of Jesus.76 Is there anything in Dunns critical realism that would prevent an explicitly
theological interest from being considered real? If so, then his idea of critical realism is likely to
restricted by its critical nature. If not, then the theological implications of Dunns project
should be unashamedly fleshed out and expressed in light of the historical evidence he uncovers.
Samuel Byrskog. As mentioned above, Byrskog brings up some of the same issues as
Bockmuehl but at greater length. The key contribution for the current project, also like
Bockmuehl, is the raising of the theological questions. Byrskog asks, What kind of texts and
73Ibid.,

43.

74Ibid.,

44.

75James

D. G. Dunn, In Grateful Dialogue: A Response to My Interlocutors, in Stewart

and Habermas, ed., Memories of Jesus, 293.
76Dunn,

Jesus Remembered, 101.

!22
literature do the Gospels represent in view of the authors close reliance on the oral traditioning
process on the one hand and their literary theological profiles on the other hand?77 One may
wish that he had elaborated on this point since the question is slightly abstruse, but clearly
Byrskog recognizes what Dunn seems not to. The Gospels, and thus their underlying tradition,
are not just documents of human faith, but also theological documents with theistic implications.
To ignore this is to shut ones self off from any sort of accurate interpretation, as Dunn himself is
inclined to argue concerning the historical Jesus as the one who inspired faith.
Dunns responses to Byrskog78 have not touched on the theological questions. Perhaps he
feels he sufficiently responded to this in dialogue with Bockmuehl, but the silence leaves much
to be desired. There is a methodological hole that needs filling in Dunns project on the oral
tradition of the Synoptics. Bockmuehl and Byrskog were both primarily concerned with Dunns
method of examining the oral tradition, yet they also recognized the need to tie the oral tradition
to a theological understanding in order to make more sense of the faith-impression of the
historical Jesus.

Concerning Miracles
Charles Quarles. Quarles takes Dunn to task for dismissing the historicity of the birth
narratives by arguing for the very things Dunn seems to be concerned with, even if from a
different angle. Quarles claims that Luke was heavily reliant on eyewitness accounts and that
there is good reason to believe that Luke had access to Marys testimony (maybe through
77Byrskog,
78In

A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition, 78.

Grateful Dialogue, 297-301; On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses, 478-87.

!23
James).79 Another compelling aspect of Quarles argument is that he is able to point out the
historical concern shown in the birth narratives (as well as theological concern).80 If the
narratives are merely contrived to make theological points,81 then why would Matthew or Luke
concern themselves with historical details? Additionally, Quarles claims that probable literary
independence of Matthew and Luke at this point gives weight to a claim of multiple attestation of
the birth narratives because of their key commonalities (a point which, ironically, may have fit
into Dunns scheme).82
Dunns response to Quarles does not concede any significant points and, in fact, he
somewhat hardens his position as agnostic on the historicity of the birth narratives.83 Dunn
does not see how his position on the birth narratives is inconsistent with his position on miracles
and the resurrection, but rather sees them only as valuable in the sense of understanding how
Jesus was celebrated in early church tradition.84 This position raises questions that Dunn does not
address. How could theological reflection post-Easter justify such supernatural elaboration pre-

79Charles

L. Quarles, Why Not Beginning from Bethlehem? A Critique of James D. G.

Dunns Treatment of the Synoptic Birth Narratives, in Stewart and Habermas, ed., Memories of
Jesus, 174-77. Particularly compelling, Quarles notes the semitic tone in the Luke birth narrative
as evidence for Marys testimony.
80Ibid.,

179.

81Dunn,

Jesus Remembered, 340.

82Quarles,

Why Not Beginning from Bethlehem? 186. It has already been noted that
Dunn notices the same basic common core in the Matthean and Lukan birth narratives. Jesus
Remembered, 342. In fact, both Dunn and Quarles cite Raymond Brown on this point, but Dunn
is still reluctant to give the same weight to the tradition that Quarles does.
83Dunn,
84Ibid.

In Grateful Dialogue, 311.

!24
Easter as to invent a back story of angelic announcements and lengthy journeys? Would not the
very self-correcting elements within oral-traditioning have prevented this sort of fanciful
elaboration?85 If Dunn were to deny this, how could he affirm the central role of the oral tradition
for the Synoptics?
Stephen T. Davis. Davis basically has only two points to press with Dunn concerning his
view of the resurrection since they are already aligned in general terms. Only one of these
concerns the point of this paper: the definition of history. Davis offers three potential
definitions for history but really desires to argue that if history is whatever happened in the
past, then the resurrection of Jesus is an event in history.86 Furthermore, Davis argues that the
fact that an event is inexplicable on natural terms does not mean it is not historical.
Dunns handling of the issue by claiming that the resurrection is an exit from history
and saying that because no one saw the actual event it is not properly history both seem
evasive.87 A tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it comes to mind. These
conclusions on Dunns part are likely attempts at staying true to a critical realist perspective of
history, but if the death of Jesus was real and his living body witnessed the following week was
real, how does a discussion about the historicity of the resurrection constitute a departure from
the realm of history?
Gary R. Habermas. Habermas also raises issues concerning the resurrection of Jesus with
Dunn. The main argument of concern is what Habermas claims Dunn does unnecessarily to
85Bailey,

Informal Controlled Oral Tradition, 9-11.

86Stephen

T. David, James D. G. Dunn on the Resurrection of Jesus, in Stewart and

Habermas, ed., Memories of Jesus, 262; original emphasis.
87Dunn,

In Grateful Dialogue, 320.

!25
remove an already inaccessible event even further away. Hes referring to Dunns definitions of
event, data, and fact, particularly of the latter two being unnecessarily complex. It is not
necessary, according to Habermas, to distinguish data from fact since any evidence already
implies an interpretation (otherwise what does it evidence?).88
Dunn tries to clarify his position on second-order facts as interpretations of
interpretations,89 but he seems to ignore that when dealing with testimony, by his definition, all
data leads to the conclusion of a second-order fact. If in Dunns system only personal experience
allows conclusions of first-order facts, is one to conclude that only what can be personally
experienced is real or at least real enough to be the object of historical inquiry? Once again, one
sees elements of Dunns critical realism that require refinement.
The above critiques together show a plausible connection between Dunns understanding
of critical realism and his conclusions concerning the historical Jesus, especially as concerns the
supernatural claims of the Synoptic tradition. His hesitance to affirm traditional positions on
Jesus nature as conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, and physically raised from the
dead appear to be attempts to remain consistent to a critical realist epistemology.

CONCLUSION
Dunns historiographical methodology, based in part on a critical realist epistemology, is
perched between what he considers to be dangerous extremes of naive realism and idealism. This
method has served him well in making a monumental contribution to current understandings of
88Gary

R. Habermas, Remembering Jesus Resurrection: Responding to James D. G.

Dunn, in Stewart and Habermas, ed., Memories of Jesus, 275-77.
89Dunn,

In Grateful Dialogue, 321-22.

!26
the period between the beginning of Jesus ministry and the actual writing down of the gospel
accounts. Dunn has been able to do much good in explaining the very real possibility studying a
no longer extant oral tradition, but his attempts to navigate the tension between what can be
known historical and what lies outside of the realm of history have led to unnecessarily critical
conclusions.
Dunns hesitation to affirm the historicity of the virgin birth, elements of the resurrection,
and other supernatural elements in the Synoptics such as the magis star90 and Matthews
wilderness temptation narrative91 does not stem from naturalistic presuppositions on his part,
since he plainly affirms Jesus miracles and exorcisms as real.92 Instead, it seems to be his
understanding of critical realism that inadequately accounts for the stratified nature of reality
described by McGrath.
While one can surely applaud Dunns attempts to guard against doing historical Jesus
research from above rather than from below, he can hardly be commended for overlooking
foundational work in the area of critical realism that preceded his use of the idea in his
methodology. His insistence in a critical realist perspective would have been more compelling
had he interacted with McGraths A Scientific Theology. Granting that McGraths Reality, which
deals explicitly with critical realism, was not published until the year before Jesus Remembered
might be sufficient to explain his lack of interaction with McGrath. Even so, Dunn devotes little
attention to critical realism for such an integral part of his work.

90Ibid.,

340.

91Ibid.,

381.

92Ibid.,

455.

!27
The questions Dunns work raises concerning the nature of Jesus, whether he means to or
not, have implications for what can be said about the divinity of Jesus from a historical
perspective, along with many other theological questions. If a historian can affirm as much as
Dunn does concerning Jesus as a man and concerning the tradition that surrounds him, what
stands in the way of answering explicitly theological questions about him from a critical realist
perspective? Bockmuehl offers a brief list of questions that the early Christian community
undoubtedly wrestled with concerning Jesus:
Who is Jesus of Nazareth? Is he dead or alive? In what sense, if any, is he Lord and
Messiah (Acts 2:36) or the Messiah who is above all, God blessed forever (Rom. 9:5)?
Was the God of Israel in Christ reconciling the created world to himself? And what
present or future reality do such assertions effect or entail? Why is there church, baptism,
or absolution in his name?93

By Dunns own admission, history has a legitimate roll in informing and, consequently,
shaping faith.94 Yet the questions of faith are also the proper objects of the historians
investigation concerning Jesus and should have their own roll in informing history. Critical
realism provides a tool for guiding the nature of faiths influence on history through theology.
Though Dunn himself may not have intended it, he has paved a way into answering magnificent
theological questions concerning the historical Jesus. May this contribution ever be kindly
remembered.

93Bockmuehl,
94Dunn,

!
!

Whose Memory? Whose Orality? 43.

Jesus Rememebered, 101.

!
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey, Kenneth. Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels. Themelios 20.2
(January 1995) : 4-11.
Barnett, Paul. Finding the Historical Christ. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2009.
Beilby, James K. and Paul Rhodes Eddy, ed. The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic, 2009.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Study of the Synoptic Gospels. In Form Criticism: Two Essays on
New Testament Research, 1-78. Torchbook ed. New York: Harper, 1962.
Byrskog, Samuel. Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient
Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist &
Wiksell International, 1994.
Dunn, James D. G. The Christ and The Spirit: Collected Essays of James D. G. Dunn. Vol. 1,
Chrystology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.
________. Christianity in the Making. Vol. 1, Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 2003.
________. Christianity in the Making. Vol. 2, Beginning from Jerusalem. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, 2009.
________. Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition. Journal for the Study of the Historical
Jesus 6 (2008) : 85-105.
________. On Faith and History, and Living Tradition: In Response to Robert Morgan and
Andrew Gregory. The Expository Times 116.1 (October 2004) : 13-19.
________. On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses: In Response to Bengt Holmberg and Samuel
Byrskog. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26.4 (2004) : 473-87.
________. Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2011.
________. John and the Oral Gospel Tradition. In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed.
Henry Wansbrough, 351-79. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1991.
!28

!29
________. Johns Gospel and the Oral Gospel Tradition. In The Fourth Gospel in FirstCentury Media Culture, ed. Anthony Le Donne and Tom Thatcher, 157-85. New York:
T&T Clark International, 2011.
________. The Living Word. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.
________. A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
________. New Testament Theology: An Introduction. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009.
________. Q2 as oral tradition. In The Written Gospel, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A.
Hagner, 45-69. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
________. Social Memory and the Oral Jesus Tradition. In Memory in the Bible and Antiquity:
The Fifth Durham-Tbingen Research Symposium (Durham, September 2004), ed.
Stephen C. Barton, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Benjamin G. Wold, 179-94. Tbingen,
Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
________. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest
Christianity. 3d ed. London: SCM, 2006.
Dunn, James D. G. and Scot McKnight, ed. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Vol. 10,
Sources for Biblical and Theological Study. Wynona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Gregory, Andrew. An oral and written Gospel? Reflections on Remembering Jesus. The



Expository Times 116.1 (October 2004) : 7-12.
Henaut, Barry W. Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4. Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic, 1993.
Holmberg, Bengt. Questions of Method in James Dunns Jesus Remembered. Journal for the
Study of the Historical Jesus 26.4 (2004) : 445-57.
Horsley, Richard A., Jonathan A. Draper, and John Miles Foley, ed. Performing the Gospel:
Orality, Memory, and Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.
Ingolfsland, Dennis. Jesus Remembered: James Dunn and the Synoptic Problem. Trinity
Journal 27.2 (Fall 2006) : 187-97.
McGrath, Alister E. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 1, Nature. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2001.
________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 2, Reality. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2002.

!30
________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 3, Theory. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2003.
Morgan, Robert. James Dunns Jesus Remembered. The Expository Times 116.1 (October



2004) : 1-6.
________. Christian Faith and Historical Jesus Research: a Reply to James Dunn. The




Expository Times 116.7 (April 2005) : 217-23.

Polkinghorne, John. Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press,
1998.
Stewart, Robert B. and Gary R. Habermas, ed. Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James
D. G. Dunns Jesus Remembered. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Stewart, Robert B. The Quest of the Hermeneutical Jesus: The Impact of Hermeneutics on the
Jesus Research of John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 2008.
Theissen, Gerd. Fortress Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by John Bowden.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
________. The New Testament: A Literary History. Translated by Lina M. Maloney.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.
Tilley, Terrence W. Remembering the Historic Jesus--A New Research Program? Theological
Studies 68.1 (March 2007) : 3-35.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader and the Morality of
Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Young, Stephen E. Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers: Their Explicit Appeals to the Words
of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies. Tbingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.