milstead-james d. g. dunn and the nature of jesus-a critical realist approach to historical faith

8/18/2019 Milstead-James D. G. Dunn and the Nature of Jesus-A Critical Realist Approach to Historical Faith

1/33

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


2/33


3/33

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1.........................................

THE IMPRESSION OF JESUS ON NASCENT CHRISTIANITY 3..............

Faith, History, and Critical Realism

The Content and Transmission of Tradition

Dunn’s Interpretation of Jesus’ Historic Impression

CRITICAL REALISM 12 .......................................

Explanation of Critical Realism

Evaluation of Dunn’s Critical Realist Epistemology

KEY RESPONSES TO JESUS REMEMBERED

19........................

Concerning Methods

Concerning Miracles

CONCLUSION 25...........................................

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

28..................................

iii


4/33

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.” Since no other source has passed on much1

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 tradition” that reaches2

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.” In a broad3

1

Rudolf Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” in Form Criticism: Two Essays1

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.

James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1, Jesus Remembered (Grand2

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

Ibid., 74.3


5/33

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 Jesus” as a real person in history4

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 followers and thus to significantly firmer grounds for historical Jesus6

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 Dunn’s 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

tradition’s oral origins, Dunn believes can be known about the historical Jesus, particularly as

concerns his nature. Dunn’s 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

Dunn’s epistemological standpoint evaluated. An analysis of critiques that have raised questions

Ibid., 223.4

Ibid., 6.5

Ibid., 130.6


6/33

3

concerning Jesus Remembered will be offered in an attempt to show how Dunn’s 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

Dunn’s 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 Dunn’s 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 history”7

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 self-

critical 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. The goal of his scholarship, therefore, is to ally faith with scholarship in the pursuit of8

Ibid. Chapters 4 and 5 respectively. See p. 15 for summary explanation of what Dunn7

means by each of these “flights.”

Ibid., 50-51.8


7/33

4

truth about Jesus. While scholarship cannot avoid the atmosphere of faith surrounding the9

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 aninterpretation 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. He argues that one’s12

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). Dunn makes tentative recourse to this principle because13

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. Instead he seeks “to14

James D. G. Dunn, The Living Word, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 23.9

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 102.10

Ibid., 102-03; original emphasis.11

Ibid., 103.12

Ibid., 106.13

Ibid., 109.14


8/33

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. Because no historian can avoid the partial nature of the data, it is imperative that all17

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

Ibid., 111. Though a more detailed explanation will follow below, one needs to15

understand at this point that critical realism is not a monolithic entity within epistemology.

Scholars carefully distinguish critical realism from both “naïve realism” and “postmodern anti-

realism” 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.


Ibid., 111.17


9/33

6

critical respect, is not only viable, but in the case of the great event(s) of Jesus necessary.” In18

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. But does this position leave a way open besides fideistic20

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. To Dunn the examination of the oral tradition provides extra data21

for analysis that can support legitimate historical hypotheses about Jesus of Nazareth.

Ibid.18

Ibid., 125.19

Ibid., 126. Citing Martin Kähler, Dunn argues against “The idea that we can see through20

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.”

Dunn, The Living Word , 28.21


10/33

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 non-

Jewish Jesus or worse, a non-Christian Jesus. The concern for getting Jesus right denotes the23

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

Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 173; footnote 1.22

Ibid., 174.23

Ibid.24


11/33

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. Dunn relies instead on Werner Kelber’s understanding of the oral tradition,27

which understood transmission to conserve essential information but allowed great flexibility in

the details. Richard Horsley and Jonathan Draper also provide Dunn with some helpful28

Ibid., 184. Dunn distinguishes between the ancient bioi conception, which he is25

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 concernedwith “analysing the subject's inner life and tracing how an individual's character developed over

time.”

Ibid., 195.26

Ibid., 197. Dunn has since conceded that Gerhardsson’s view does allow for greater27

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. Dunn’s

Jesus Remembered ,” in Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunn’s Jesus Remembered, Robert B. Stewart and Gary R. Habermas, ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010),

61.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 200. Dunn also appreciates that Kelber affirms the likelihood28

of Jesus tradition forming and transmission would have begun “during Jesus lifetime,” (201).

Likewise, he uses Kelber’s view of the relationship between orality and text to speak of Mark’s

“frozen orality” (202; original emphasis).


12/33

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 Bailey’s anecdotal study of

“Informal Controlled Oral Tradition,” which bares the weight of decades of experience living30

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. Dunn finds with Bailey a31

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 community’s 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

Ibid., 205.29

Ibid.; Kenneth Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,”30

Themelios 20.2 (January 1995) : 4-11.

Byrskog criticizes Dunn for misusing Bailey’s article to show the inadequacy of31

Gerhardsson and Bultmann’s 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.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 210. Bailey’s model of informal controlled transmission32

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.


13/33

10

guilt so that the rest of the story was changed in order to not involve the police. The direct33

influence of “faith” in the development of the narrative seems quite obvious, but Dunn never

takes this issue up in his interactions with Bailey’s 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. Dunn summarizes his point by claiming that34

oral transmission best explains why “the Synoptic Jesus tradition has precisely this character of

stability and diversity, of the same yet different.”35

Dunn’s 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

Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition,” 11-12. This theologizing especially seems33

to line up with Dunn’s 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.

James D. G. Dunn, “Q2 as oral tradition,” In The Written Gospel , ed. Markus34

Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 47. The Q

tradition exhibits minor variations from Matthew’s use to Luke’s and even to The Gospel ofThomas, 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.

James D. G. Dunn, “John’s Gospel and the Oral Gospel Tradition” in The Fourth35

Gospel in First-Century Media Culture, ed. Anthony Le Donne and Tom Thatcher (New York:

T&T Clark International, 2011), 157.


14/33

11

that is observed in the tradition. These statements set up his method, which is 1) to “focus36

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. What results is an37

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 theirmemories 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. Jesus’ message, according to Dunn, is a strait-forward depiction of the40

Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 335.36

Ibid.37

Ibid., 328; original emphasis.38

Ibid., 377.39

Ibid., 406-65; 666.40


15/33

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 Dunn’s 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 theology and now history. Dunn is not the first to adopt critical realism42

in historical Jesus research, having been preceded at the very least by N. T. Wright, but his

understanding differs from Wright’s 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 Dunn’s historical Jesus project, this section

will offer an explanation of critical realism independent of Dunn and then use the information

Ibid.; repent, 498; believe, 500; follow with urgency 503; for Israel, 506; for the poor,41

516; for sinners, 526; for Gentiles? 537.

Robert B. Stewart, The Quest of the Hermeneutical Jesus: The Impact of Hermeneutics42

on the Jesus Research of John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright (Lanham, MD: University

Press of America, 2008), 77.


16/33

13

given as a backdrop for comparison and evaluation of critical realism within Dunn’s

epistemology.

Explanation of Critical Realism

As mentioned above, Dunn aligns himself with Lonergan’s understanding of critical

realism as a combination of experience with understanding and judging. Dunn also interacts with

Wright’s critical realism, but this view is dealt with at greater depth by Bob Stewart. In analyzing

the role of critical realism in Wright’s 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. In other44

words, Stewart argues that critical realism does not lead to certainty but to knowledge.45

Stewart also raises a question of Wright’s critical realism that is applicable to Dunn: “are

Ibid., 78-79. Both Dunn and Stewart quote Wright’s eloquent definition of critical43

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.

Ibid., 78.44

Another understanding of knowledge comes from Kevin Vanhoozer. Similarly to Dunn,45

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.


17/33

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)?” According to Stewart, Wright answers in the affirmative, pointing to the fact46

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 historian’s ability to “deliver” an accurate and significant picture of the

past. He affirms the objective reality of past people and events but cautions that the past cannot47

be known without an element of subjectivity.48

Alister McGrath’s 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. He borrows a useful description of49

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

Ibid., 79.46

Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 101.47

Ibid., 109.48

Jesus Remembered is clearly a labor of history, but Dunn’s own assertion that Jesus49

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 McGrath’s work helpful

in understanding critical realism and applying it to any area that is subject to human inquiry.

John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science, (New Haven, CN: Yale50

University Press, 1998), 104.


18/33

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. This mediated interchange does not, however, prohibit the52

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. Polkinghorne and McGrath both believe that critical realism is53

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

McGrath, Nature, 72. He actually claims essentially all people hold a realist perspective51

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.”

McGrath, A Scientific Theology, vol. 2, Reality (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,52

2002), 195.

Ibid., 196.53

Ibid., 199; Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science, 108. McGrath also makes54

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.


19/33

16

which one level of facts is dependent on but separate from another. He gives the example in55

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. Bhaskar, according to McGrath, makes this56

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 McGrath’s 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. The stratified nature of reality implies distinct characteristics for each level that in58

turn demand a variety of modes of “investigation and representation.” Space has only allowed59

Ibid., 198. He cites Searl’s example of different levels of reality illustrated in the55

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

Searl’s 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.

Ibid., 217-19. McGrath also favors Bhaskar’s conclusion that each stratum must have56

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.

Ibid., 218-19.57

Ibid., 225.58

McGrath, A Scientific Theology, vol. 3, Theory, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,59

2003), 82.


20/33

17

for a glimpse of McGrath’s understanding of critical realism and its role in a scientific theology,

but the above treatment should be enough to shed light on Dunn’s own critical realist

perspective.

Evaluation of Dunn’s Critical Realist Epistemology

Dunn’s 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. This description of the60

historian’s 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. Neither approach was61

adequate for providing a verisimilitude (to use Polkinghorne’s 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

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 129-30.60

Ibid., 15.61


21/33

18

of any new findings in history or, in Dunn’s words, the reduction of “all that is recognizable in

human experience to the lowest common denominator.”62

Likewise, Dunn’s insistence on “the hermeneutical tension between faith and history”63

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. To Dunn any64

“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, Dunn holds that there is not enough evidence to support a claim66

Ibid., 106.62

Ibid., 125.63

Ibid., 126; see also 335.64

Ibid., 127; see footnote 103 especially.65

Ibid., 340-42. Dunn holds that Matthew’s narrative in particular was “contrived” at66

some undefined point between Jesus ministry and Matthew’s 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 David’s throne and his divine sonship (342).


22/33

19

historically of a virgin birth or conception by the power of the Holy Spirit. These sorts of67

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 Dunn’s historical Jesus project. What follows is a brief

survey of some of the issues raised, most notably in Stewart and Habermas’s Memories of Jesus:

A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunn’s 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 . Yet each response seems to bring with its critique69

Ibid., 347. It is worth noting that Dunn does affirm a vague understanding of Jesus’67

birth being from the Spirit and rejects conclusive claims that Jesus was illegitimate and that this

fact was known to the evangelists (346).

Robert B. Stewart and Gary R. Habermas, ed., Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal68

of James D. G. Dunn’s Jesus Remembered (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010).

See especially Andrew Gregory, “An oral and written Gospel? Reflections on69

Remembering Jesus,” The Expository Times 116.1 (October 2004) : 7-12; Bengt Holmberg,

“Questions of Method in James Dunn’s 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

Dunn’s 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 Dunn’s responses tosome 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.


23/33

20

great praise. Stewart questions whether Jesus Remembered along with Dunn’s many other

magnificent scholarly contributions could not together be called his “magnum opera,” since

“magnum opus is singular” and could not possibly suffice to sum up Dunn’s contribution to70

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, Dunn’s 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 Dunn’s task. But of greatest concern here is his71

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.” His subsequent72

evaluation is truly intriguing. He questions whether Dunn is not simply asking the same

questions as previous quests, which took on an “outsider’s point of view that seems

constitutionally incapable of addressing the sorts of ‘great questions’ about the remembered

Stewart and Habermas, Memories of Jesus, xvii.70

Markus Bockmuehl, “Whose Memory? Whose Orality? A Conversation with James D.71

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

Ibid., 42.72


24/33

21

Jesus that the tradition itself actually raised consistently from the very beginning.” Bockmuehl73

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 Bockmuehl’s 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,” but one wonders what kind of realism Dunn refers to here. An inquiry that75

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 Dunn’s own expressed intentions, since

he recognizes explicitly that “faith could and does have a theologically legitimate interest in the

history of Jesus.” Is there anything in Dunn’s critical realism that would prevent an explicitly76

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 Dunn’s 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

Ibid., 43.73

Ibid., 44.74

James D. G. Dunn, “In Grateful Dialogue: A Response to My Interlocutors,” in Stewart75

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



25/33

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?” One may77

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 one’s 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.

Dunn’s responses to Byrskog have not touched on the theological questions. Perhaps he78

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 Dunn’s project on the oral

tradition of the Synoptics. Bockmuehl and Byrskog were both primarily concerned with Dunn’s

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 Mary’s testimony (maybe through

Byrskog, “A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition,” 78.77

“In Grateful Dialogue,” 297-301; “On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses,” 478-87.78


26/33

23

James). Another compelling aspect of Quarles’ argument is that he is able to point out the79

historical concern shown in the birth narratives (as well as theological concern). If the80

narratives are merely “contrived” to make theological points, then why would Matthew or Luke81

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 Dunn’s scheme).82

Dunn’s 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. Dunn83

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. This position raises questions that Dunn does not84

address. How could theological reflection post-Easter justify such supernatural elaboration pre-

Charles L. Quarles, “Why Not ‘Beginning from Bethlehem’? A Critique of James D. G.79

Dunn’s 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 Mary’s testimony.

Ibid., 179.80


Quarles, “Why Not ‘Beginning from Bethlehem’?” 186. It has already been noted that82

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.

Dunn, “In Grateful Dialogue,” 311.83

Ibid.84


27/33

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? If Dunn were to deny this, how could he affirm the central role of the oral tradition85

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.” Furthermore, Davis argues that the86

fact that an event is inexplicable on natural terms does not mean it is not historical.

Dunn’s 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. A tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it comes to mind. These87

conclusions on Dunn’s 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

Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition,” 9-11.85

Stephen T. David, “James D. G. Dunn on the Resurrection of Jesus,” in Stewart and86

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

Dunn, “In Grateful Dialogue,” 320.87


28/33

25

remove an already inaccessible event even further away. He’s referring to Dunn’s 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, but he seems to ignore that when dealing with testimony, by his definition, all89

data leads to the conclusion of a second-order fact. If in Dunn’s 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 Dunn’s critical realism that require refinement.

The above critiques together show a plausible connection between Dunn’s 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

Dunn’s 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

Gary R. Habermas, “Remembering Jesus’ Resurrection: Responding to James D. G.88

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

Dunn, “In Grateful Dialogue,” 321-22.89


29/33

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.

Dunn’s hesitation to affirm the historicity of the virgin birth, elements of the resurrection,

and other supernatural elements in the Synoptics such as the magi’s star and Matthew’s90

wilderness temptation narrative does not stem from naturalistic presuppositions on his part,91

since he plainly affirms Jesus’ miracles and exorcisms as real. Instead, it seems to be his92

understanding of critical realism that inadequately accounts for the stratified nature of reality

described by McGrath.

While one can surely applaud Dunn’s 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 McGrath’s A Scientific Theology. Granting that McGrath’s 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.

Ibid., 340.90

Ibid., 381.91

Ibid., 455.92


30/33

27

The questions Dunn’s 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 Dunn’s own admission, history has a legitimate roll in informing and, consequently,

shaping faith. Yet the questions of faith are also the proper objects of the historian’s94

investigation concerning Jesus and should have their own roll in informing history. Critical

realism provides a tool for guiding the nature of faith’s 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.

Bockmuehl, “Whose Memory? Whose Orality?” 43.93

Dunn, Jesus Rememebered, 101.94


31/33

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


32/33

29

________. “John’s Gospel and the Oral Gospel Tradition.” In The Fourth Gospel in First-

Century 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-Tübingen Research Symposium (Durham, September 2004), ed.

Stephen C. Barton, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Benjamin G. Wold, 179-94. Tübingen,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 Dunn’s 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.


33/33

30

________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 3, Theory. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,

2003.

Morgan, Robert. “James Dunn’s 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. Dunn’s 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: UniversityPress 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. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

milstead-james d. g. dunn and the nature of jesus-a critical realist approach to historical faith

Documents