Communication Then and Now

Characteristics of Ancient Oral Communication

Walter Ong frequently discussed the various characteristics of communication commonly found within primary oral cultures. In his essay “African Talking Drums and Oral Noetics” he lists some of these characteristics (1977:92–120):

1. 1. Stereotyped or formulaic expression

2. 2. Standardization of themes

3. 3. Epithetic identification for disambiguation of classes or individuals

4. 4. Generation of heavy or ceremonial characters

5. 5. Formulary, ceremonial appropriation of history

6. 6. Cultivation of praise and vituperation

7. 7. Copiousness

A few years later, in a discussion of the “psychodynamics of orality” (1982:37–50), Ong contended that “in a primary oral culture, thought and expression tend to be of the following sorts” (37):

1. 1. Additive rather than subordinative

2. 2. Aggregative rather than analytic

3. 3. Redundant or copious

4. 4. Conservative or traditionalist

5. 5. Close to the human lifeworld

6. 6. Agonistically toned

7. 7. Empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced

8. 8. Homeostatic

9. 9. Situational rather than abstract

With reference to biblical material in particular, Vernon K. Robbins acknowledges the important contributions of Ong and his successors, but insists that both Ong and Werner Kelber dwell too heavily in their early work on the differences between oral and written communication. These differences were central to Kelber’s (1983/1997) argument that Mark, presumably the earliest of the gospels, changed the nature of the message of Jesus simply by writing it down.¹ For instance, in his critique of a related work by Robert Fowler (1991), Robbins writes (1996:50–51):

First, Fowler’s perception of the cultural context for first-century texts is based on the dichotomy between oral culture and literate culture (i.e. print culture) perpetuated by Walter Ong and Werner Kelber (Fowler 1991:51–2). The problem with this approach, as I perceive it, is that early Christianity did not emerge either in an oral or in a literate culture, but in a rhetorical culture. . . . A rhetorical culture is aware of written texts, uses written and oral language interactively and composes both orally and scribally in a rhetorical manner. Mark did not write, as Fowler following Kelber asserts, ‘to bring the spoken word under control, to domesticate it and replace it with his own written version of euangelion’ (Fowler 1991:51). Rather, in his rhetorical culture, Mark sought to give word its full rhetorical power by embodying it in both speaking and writing. In antiquity a written text did not imprison words. Written texts were simply an additional tool to give language power. . . .

(emphasis in the original)

Robbins goes on with his criticism, but this passage will suffice to introduce the next author on our radar.

Characteristics of Jesus’ Communication

William Brosend leans heavily on the work of Robbins. In his recent book, The Preaching of Jesus, Brosend lists four important characteristics of Jesus’ preaching (2010:23–26):

1. 1. Dialogical

2. 2. Proclamatory

3. 3. Occasionally Self-referential

4. 4. Persistently Figurative

Brosend’s list corresponds well with my own findings, though I contend that the orality approach and the rhetorical approach should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. In fact, there is enough overlap between Brosend’s list and the ones given above from Ong’s work that we can recognize them as related, noting that Brosend is simply focusing on the rhetoric of the synoptic gospels while Ong focuses on the (from our point of view) peculiarities of communication in a primarily oral culture. Understanding that difference, we can then use a combination of both approaches as a framework by which to compare communications in the first century with those of our contemporary culture in postmodern society.

Brosend’s “dialogical” category relates to several of Ong’s characteristics, especially those labeled “empathetic and participatory” and “situational.” By “proclamatory” Brosend means essentially what Walter Wink (1998) refers to as Jesus’ resisting “the Powers That Be.” He rejects the terms “provocative” and “prophetic” as having become too negative in contemporary usage, yet he wants to describe Jesus as being clearly counter-cultural at times. This proclamatory nature for Jesus’ preaching thus parallels Ong’s “epithetic identification for disambiguation,” as well as his “cultivation of praise and vituperation” and his “agonistically toned.” On the one hand, Brosend’s...