Hi, John - I appreciate your going back and forth with me on this. I think we're probably reading different authors on some of these issues. Other than CBQ, most of what I read is from Europe. (That can be good and bad.) For example, I'm not familiar with the tradition that dates James c. 50CE. I've see the letter dated as late as ca.120 CE, but I think there's good evidence for dating it after Clement.

I don't dismiss oral traditions, but I don't take their existence for granted unless I find the evidence compelling. Just look at how many reconstructions there are for "Q" in spite of the fact that no such document (or body of oral tradition) may have existed. 

I think biblical scholars often find themselves in the position of assuming that the standard account is correct, then doing their best to explain how data fit into that standard account even when they appear to point to different interpretations. We have to debate my theory about Peter one of these days....-Monica.