I think that philosophy via the medium of storytelling is rather old, as opposed to mechanistic Abhidharma-esque and commentarial discussions. It’s similar to the early Upanisads: there are dialogues with characters and loose plots that present philosophical discussions. Understanding the dynamics of the characters, locations, etc. is often very relevant to the context of the discussion, and philosophy is expressed via more concrete conversation and dialogue with various pre-existing ideas and practices.
I don’t think it’s just ‘Westerners’ who tend towards “raw theory” or “pure philosophy.” If we look at the Indian or derived Tibetan Buddhist traditions in comparison to, say, the Chinese, it’s clear that India was extremely steeped in complex theory, debate, and philosophy beyond sheer narrative. The Abhidharma movement being an early example of this. I agree though that early Buddhism pre-Abhidhamma seems to have been in a kind of between state: there was nuanced conversation going on, but it was still embedded in oral cultures with rich myth and dialogue.
I think that the some verses in the Sagāthāvagga of the SN are quite early. Some seem quite late. But especially when considered in light of our recent discussion of Jain parallels, it seems that there were likely verses and schemes floating around that were picked up and played with by various traditions. There, we find riddles, responses to prior poems, dialogues between deities and sages, etc. And these all echo examples of what we find in earlier Brahmanical texts like the Brāhmanas and Upanisads, + some Jain texts. Different deities and persons represent “sides,” and riddles are presented in the context of a mainly forest-based ascetic meditative ideal.
But these conversations, scenes, and riddles certainly contain ‘philosophy’ within them - sometimes quite complex or contemplative.
I feel that this has been skimmed over or missed (as per some of @josephzizys response), but I have not argued that the SN/SA is earlier, more authentic, more true, or more meaningful than the DN/DA. I believe that the Gradual Training is one of the essential texts of Early Buddhism and that Sīlakkhandhavagga (a core of the D collection) is very rich and meaningful in presenting Early Buddhism. And I certainly think there are scholastic innovations and developments within the canon. What I’m arguing is that there are fundamental assumptions not being questioned or set aside, and that the core early message of the Buddha is found not only in a presentation of the essentials of training.
As I’ve said before, but has simply not been answered or addressed: ‘simple’ or ‘concise’ does not equal ‘early.’ Anybody, at any time, can present a concise description of some aspect of their teaching. So long as this stubborn assumption is not questioned, there will simply be no movement.
I was thinking of presenting a longer response to and analysis of the Gradual Training scheme, but it feels unnecessary and impractical. All the best!