13
Bultmann, a form critic, did not deem the difference between the literary and oral
characteristics of tradition important.44 Even his approach, however, was literary.45 His model
of various layers of traditional material, according to Dunn, “is drawn from the literary process
of editing, where each successive edition (layer) is an edited version…of the previous edition
(layer).”46
For Dunn, the key to shedding new li ght on the Synoptic Problem lies in the
investigation into oral tradition. This is a necessary step in his estimation because of his firm
belief that the early Christian societies were primarily oral cultures and not exclusively
literary.47 Thus in order to truly understand how the early gospels were put together, a just
treatment and understanding of how oral tradition functioned in early Christian culture is
fundamental.48
Orality vs. Literary in Ancient Palestine
If in fact the default setting should be shifted, as Dunn
suggests, from a primarily literary view of addressing the
Synoptic Problem to one that also pays significant
attention to oral tradition, then one question that must be
addressed is to what degree were ancient Palestinian
cultures oral versus literary? This is important to consider because if oral tradition deserves
44
Werner H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and writing in the Synoptic
Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1997), Chapter 1, MasterFile Premier, EBSCOhost
(accessed December 7, 2013).
45
Dunn, “Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition,” 144.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid, 149.
48
Ibid.