30
Another apparent issue with Bailey’s model that Bauckham points out is the problematic
distinction between the “formal” and “informal” characteristics of the transmission.119 If
Bailey’s model is the prime example of “informal controlled tradition,” the way he sets it up,
“there is no reason why Bailey’s account of the balance of stability and flexibility should not be
applicable to formal controlled tradition as well as to an informal controlled tradition.” 120
Analyzing the Data
In surveying the three major oral tradition models of Bultmann, Bailey, and
Gerhardsson, there are many things to consider. Does any one model sufficiently explain how
this mode of transmission affected the gospels or fill in the gaps not filled by literary solutions
to the Synoptic Problem? Unfortunately, in looking at the various oral tradition models, much
like their literary counterparts, each has strengths and weaknesses, without a definitive method
offering a complete solution.
As has been noted, much of the form critical model has been discounted and admittedly
it is difficult to push the notion of theological shaping to such a degree that the original Jesus
tradition is utterly unrecognizable. This model of oral tradition seems to use Jesus as a vehicle
for creating a religion rather than carefully preserving his teachings. This does not seem to be
the sort of faith that the apostles of Jesus or any carriers of the early tradition would have died
for.
119
120
Ibid, location 4218-4230, Kindle edition.
Ibid, location 4221-4223, Kindle edition.