Preaching and Melito’s Use of Greco-Roman Rhetoric

By Frankie J. Melton Jr.

[Frankie J. Melton Jr. is Pastor, Heath Springs Baptist Church, Heath Springs, South Carolina.]

The word “rhetoric” is often viewed pejoratively and as mere grandiloquent speech-making. However, rhetoric and Christian preaching have had a long relationship. Melito’s paschal homily demonstrates that this relationship began much earlier than first thought. The discovery of Melito’s Peri Pascha in the late 1930s is opening new vistas for the study of preaching in the early church. The wedding of Christian preaching and Greco-Roman rhetoric leaps from every line of this second-century homily.

Before the emergence of Peri Pascha, Second Clement was considered the lodestar of preaching in the early church. White declares, “Prior to the discovery of that work [i.e., Peri Pascha], it was usual to assume that early preaching after the apostles was (as indicated by so-called Second Clement) rather poor, loosely organized, rustic and quite unpolished, probably mostly extempore, certainly innocent of the skills and conventions of rhetoric until such men as Hippolytus and Origen, two generations later than Melito. We had thought that, as one historian puts it, ‘the age of eloquence began in the third century.’ “[1] Homileticians and historians viewed Hippolytus as the first Christian preacher to use “an elegant and profuse application of rhetorical devices.”[2] However, even a casual reader of Melito’s homily would be impressed by the elaborate style and ornate rhetorical constructions he employed. The purpose of this article is to analyze Melito’s Peri Pascha as sermonic material in his use of Scripture and his use of classical rhetoric.

The Life Of Melito

Melito was the bishop of Sardis in the last quarter of the second century. Information about his life is scanty. The date of his birth and its location cannot be determined. However, as White avers, there is no reason to believe he was anything other than a native of Sardis.[3] Knowledge of Melito’s life comes from two sources, Eusebius and Tertullian. Eusebius stated, “About this time flourished Hegesippus, whom we quoted above. Also Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and Pinytus bishop of Crete. Moreover, Philip and Apollinaris and Melito.”[4] More importantly Eusebius preserved a letter written about A.D. 200 by Polycrates, which mentions Melito.[5] White believes the letter to have been written about A.D. 195.[6] It contains the oldest reference to Melito. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, was writing in defense of observing Easter at the time of the Jewish Passover.[7] Victor, bishop of Rome from A.D. 189 to 199, disputed with the Asiatic church about the time of the Easter observance. He sought to impose the Roman practice of celebrating Easter only on Sunday, not on Nisan 14, the Jewish Passover.[8]

 In the letter Polycrates stated,

We, therefore, observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again in the day of the Lord’s appearing, in which he will come with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. His other daughter, also, who having lived under the influence of the Holy Ghost, now likewise rests in Ephesus. Moreover, John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord, who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate both a martyr and teacher. And is buried in Ephesus; also Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr.

Thraseus, also, bishop and martyr of Eumenia, who is buried at Smyrna. Why should I mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? Moreover, the blessed Papirius; and Melito, the eunuch, whose walk and conversation was altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who now rests at Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. Moreover, I, Polycrates, who am the least of all of you, according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have followed. For there were seven of my relatives bishops, and I am the eighth; and my relatives always observed the day when the people threw away the leaven.[9]

Several biographical pieces of information about Melito can be extracted from this letter. First, as Hall notes, since Melito was mentioned last among the great lights of Asia, he had probably died only recently. This reasoning places Melito’s death a short time before the writing of the letter (i.e., A.D. 195 to 200).]10] Additionally the reign of Victor of Rome provides further evidence for dating Melito’s death.

Second, Hall notes that Polycrates called Melito a “eunuch.” Hall asserts that Melito was an ascetic, since at the time of the writing, the term eunuch referred to celibacy. Third, Melito’s contemporaries considered him a prophet. Polycrates described one of Philip’s daughters as having lived “under the influence of the Holy Ghost.” And he stated that Melito’s “walk and conversation was altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit.” Lawlor and Oulton consider the phrase a commentary on Melito’s piety of life.[11] Stewart-Sykes suggests that this is a reference to Melito’s governing of the church. He states that classical Greek authors used the word politeuvomai with an object to refer to systems of government or acts of governing.[12] Fourth, the letter states that Melito was buried at Sardis. Fifth, this letter shows that Melito was a Quartodeciman.[13]

Alleging that Melito was bishop of Sardis, Eusebius wrote, “In these times, also flourished Melito, bishop of the church in Sardis, and Apollinaris, the bishop of Hierapolis.”14 However, this detail is not mentioned by Polycrates, and as Hall contends, “We cannot be sure that this is not the historian’s inference from Polycrates’ words; all we can say is that it may well be true. But it is odd that Polycrates omitted to state this important qualification for authority.”[15]

Eusebius added that Melito wrote an apology to the Roman emperors Marcus Aurelius[16] and Lucius Verus[17] and made a pilgrimage to Palestine to develop a definitive list of books belonging in the Old Testament canon.[18] Melito is believed to be the first Christian to make such an expedition to the Holy Land[19] and the first to develop a canon list for the Old Testament.[20] Hall believes that Melito’s repeated assertion in Peri Pascha that Jesus was killed “in the middle of Jerusalem” points to his visit to Palestine. In Peri Pascha 93 Melito wrote, “You killed your Lord in the middle of Jerusalem.” And in Peri Pascha 94 he attested, “An unprecedented murder has occurred in the middle of Jerusalem.”[21] Hall says this phrase shows that Melito believed the site of the Crucifixion was within Herod Agrippa’s wall, not at Gordon’s Calvary.[22]

Eusebius included a quotation from Melito, in which Melito provided an ordering of the Old Testament canon to one Onesimus, who had requested the information. According to Eusebius Melito wrote the following.

Melito sends greeting, to his brother Onesimus. As you have frequently desired in your zeal for the Scriptures, that I should make selections for you, both from the law and the prophets, respecting our Saviour, and our whole faith; and you were, moreover, desirous of having an exact statement of the Old Testament, how many in number, and in what order the books were written, I have endeavoured to perform this. For I know your zeal in the faith, and your great desire to acquire knowledge, and that especially by the love of God, you prefer these matters to all others, thus striving to gain eternal life. When, therefore, I went to the east, and came as far as the place where these things were proclaimed and done, I accurately ascertained the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you here below. The names are as follows: Of Moses, five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth. Four of Kings [i.e., 1 and 2 Sam. and 1 and 2 Kings]. Two of Paralipomena (Chronicles), Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon, which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job. Of prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Of the twelve prophets, one book. Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have, therefore, made the selections which I have divided into six books.[23]

Eusebius also gave a list of works by Melito that included nearly twenty titles. This list is unintelligible in some areas because of textual corruption, and scholars cannot be sure Eusebius had ever really seen the books, much less read them. Possibly he had witnessed another anthology of works, which he copied.[24] Hall admits, “This makes almost worthless theological deductions based on the titles, which would be of doubtful value even if the titles were more certainly known.”[25] This list includes “On the Passover,” “On the Conduct of Life, and the Prophets,” “On the Church,” “On the Lord’s Day,” “On the Nature of Man,” “On His Formation,” “On the Subjection of the Senses to Faith,” “On the Soul, the Body, and the Mind,” “On Baptism,” “On Truth, and Faith, and the Generation of Christ,” “On Prophecy,” “On Hospitality,” “The Key,” “On the Devil,” “The Revelation of John,” “On the Incarnate God,” and a discourse addressed to Antonine. A number of fragments from Melito’s works exist, but Peri Pascha is the only complete work extant.

Though it is unknown how Melito died, it is fairly certain he did not die as a martyr. Polycrates mentioned four “great lights” of Asia who were martyrs, but he does not designate Melito as such. If Melito had been a martyr, Polycrates most certainly would have included that information.[26]

In De Viris Illustribus (Lives of Illustrious Men), Jerome provided one additional hint about Melito the preacher through a quote from Tertullian. Tertullian claimed that Melito’s oratory was elegans et declamatorium ingenium (elegant and ingenuous speech)[27] and confirmed that Melito “was considered a prophet.”[28] Unfortunately, though Eusebius claimed that Melito was “well known,”[29] little else is known of Melito’s life and influence. Hall writes, “Other information from ancient sources is meager. Clement of Alexandria knew his book on the Pascha and mentioned it in his own on the same topic. Early in the third century an anonymous writer cites Melito’s books as ‘proclaiming Christ God and Man.’ Origen, followed by Gennadius, attributes to Melito the view that God is corporeal. Gennadius also knows a sect of Melitani with chiliastic views, who might derive from Melito.”[30] The sect is believed to have held that the body and not the soul was created in the image of God.[31]

An Overview Of The Homily

Melito’s homily, the oldest extant Easter sermon, is based on Exodus 12, the account of the Passover during Israel’s exile in Egypt. Hall suggests the homily may have been written between 160 and 170, but he admits the dates are tentative.[32] The homily was likely preached at a paschal vigil of the church in Sardis.[33] Melito began by lamenting the mystery of the Pascha, stating it is old and new, eternal and temporary, perishable and imperishable, mortal and immortal. He transitioned into a doxology about Christ, extolling His dual nature and His defeat of death.

Melito then gave an explanation of the first Passover from Exodus 12. He at length dramatized it through vivid imagery and dramatic dialogue between death, angels, and Egypt’s firstborn. He painted a picture of the sorrow and grief experienced in Egypt because of the death angel’s work. He concluded this part of the homily by stating that the Jewish Passover was a model or prefiguration that had become worthless and made void. “Today, things once precious have become worthless, since the really precious things have been revealed.”[34]

Hall divided the homily into two parts, which he calls “Books.”[35] The first part, sections 1-45, he considered an explanation of Exodus 12. The second part, sections 46-105, he considered a Passover Haggadah.[36] The Georgian translations of the homily note that the two sections circulated independently of each other, and that might explain why Eusebius indicated Melito had written two books on the Passover.[37] The second part of the homily begins with the question, “What is the Pascha?” Melito began his answer to this question by addressing the creation and fall of man. He described the sinfulness of humanity after the Edenic fall as including adultery, promiscuity, wantonness, avarice, murders, bloodshed, wicked tyranny, and lawless tyranny. He poignantly inveighed, “Many other things, strange and quite terrible and quite outrageous, took place among mankind: father for child’s bed, and son for mother’s, and brother for sister’s, and male for male’s, and one man for the next man’s wife, they neighed like stallions.” Through it all, he bemoaned, “sin rejoiced.”[38]

After his chronicle of man’s sin, Melito turned to the Lord’s sufferings. He saw the sufferings of the Lord anticipated in the suffering of Old Testament saints, including Isaac, Joseph, Moses, David, and the prophets. Melito also pointed to Old Testament prophecies of the Lord’s suffering. Melito exulted in the salvation the suffering of Christ procured. He proclaimed, “It is he who, coming from heaven to the earth because of the suffering one, and clothing himself in that same one through a virgin’s womb, and coming forth a man, accepted the passions of the suffering one through the body which was able to suffer, and dissolved the passions of the flesh; and by the Spirit which could not die he killed death the killer of men. For, himself led as a lamb and slain as a sheep, he ransomed us from the world’s service as from the land of Egypt, and freed us from the devil’s slavery as from the hand of Pharaoh; and he marked our souls with his own Spirit and the members of our body with his own blood.”[39]

The homily then moves into its most controversial section. Melito caustically lambasted the Jews for murdering the Lord. He insisted that they were ungrateful and proud. They ignored the miracles of Jesus, and even His resurrection did not convince them of their crime. As a result of the cruel persecution and death of Jesus, Melito informed them that they could expect only bitterness and death. The homily ends with a stirring doxology extolling the attributes of Jesus and His exaltation.

The Sitz Im Leben Of The Homily

The Sitz im Leben of a sermon contributes to its content and style. Complete audience analysis is impossible with Peri Pascha. However, understanding something of Melito’s context is helpful in understanding his homily.

Questions exist as to the provenance of Peri Pascha. Cohick contends that nothing in the homily unequivocally suggests Sardis as its provenance.[40] However, many scholars accept Sardis as the origin of the homily based on the significant Jewish community that resided there and the anti-Semitic elements in the homily.

Sardis was the chief city of the province of Lydia and was originally the capital of the ancient Lydian kingdom. The city was annexed by Rome in 133 B.C. and thrived under Roman rule.[41] In A.D. 17 the city suffered a severe earthquake; however, the city was able to rebuild with a gift of 10,000,000 sesterces from Emperor Tiberius.[42] Wilken suggests that Jews began to settle in Sardis as early as the sixth or fifth century B.C.[43] Josephus reported that two thousand Jewish families were transported to Lydia and Phrygia from Mesopotamia and Babylonia by Antiochus III in the third century B.C.[44] Josephus recorded that numerous decrees were implemented for the benefit of the Jews in Sardis. Wilken believes this indicates that the Jews were well established there.[45] He writes, “A decree of the people of Sardis assures the Jews of the right to gather together, adjudicate suits among themselves, gather on holy days, have their own ‘building’ [topos], and even that suitable foods be available in the market.”[46] By comparison the Christian population was very small. As Wilken attests, “The Jewish community had deep roots in the city; the Christians were newcomers. The Jews had their own building; Christians had none. The Jews were granted toleration to practice their religion; the Christians had no such right.”[47] Manis avows that Melito’s congregation was experiencing some kind of persecution during the time the homily was preached.[48] Kraabel proposes the idea that Melito’s Apology to Marcus Aurelius caused tension with the Jewish population of Sardis.[49] This may be true; however, Melito’s Apology reveals that persecution was already taking place.

What, indeed, never before happened, the race of the pious is now persecuted, driven about in Asia, by new and strange decrees. For the shameless informers, and those that crave the property of others, taking occasion from the edicts of the emperors, openly perpetrate robbery; night and day plundering those who are guilty of no crime. . . . If these things are done by your orders, let them be done at least in a proper way. For a just ruler should never form unjust decrees. We, indeed, cheerfully bear the reward of such a death, but we urge upon you this request, that you yourself would first take cognizance of these plotters of mischief, and justly judge, whether they deserve death and punishment, or safety and security. But if this decree, and this unheard-of ordinance, which ought not to be tolerated even against barbarous enemies, have not proceeded from you, so much the more do we entreat you not to overlook us in the midst of this lawless plunder of the populace.[50]

Further evidence of a substantial Jewish community in Sardis is the discovery of a large synagogue. The synagogue is believed to have been big enough to accommodate one thousand people and has been dated to the late second or early third century.[51] Cohick claims the synagogue ruins “are judged the most magnificent of any found in the Roman Empire.”[52] Josephus stated that a Jewish community thrived in Sardis during the first century B.C.[53] A synagogue of that size would suggest a large Jewish population in Sardis during Melito’s era. For this reason some scholars believe the homily is against the Jews of Sardis.[54] Cohick, however, does not perceive the homily to be an attack or challenge against Sardian Jews or any other Jews. She gives as her primary reason for this contention the fact that Melito’s references to Jews are biblical, not contemporary.[55] She says, “I suggest that the homily was written primarily to promote what is NEW, and to relativize what is OLD. Our author is intent on showing that, in fact, the Passion was ‘required’ because of sin, was foretold in the prophets, and was carried out by ‘Israel.’ Our homily was intended to show that the Passover was celebrated primarily to foreshadow Jesus’ Passion, and to reinforce the homilist’s position that with the Passion and resurrection came the fulfillment of God’s salvation plan for humanity.”[56]

However, some scholars point to these contextual matters to explain the homily’s anti-Semitic tone. One readily apparent thread in the homily is anti-Semitism. The homily casts light on early Christian thinking in regard to Judaism. In the homily Melito called the Jews “ungrateful Israel”[57] and mentioned the “unprecedented murder”[58] that they committed. In Peri Pascha 72 he stated, “It is he that has been murdered. And where has he been murdered? In the middle of Jerusalem. By whom? By Israel.”[59] In the following dialogue Israel admitted to killing Jesus.

What have you done, Israel? Or is it not written for you, 
“You shall not shed innocent blood,”
so that you may not die an evil death?
“I did,” says Israel, “kill the Lord.
Why? Because he had to die.”
You are mistaken, Israel, to use such subtle evasions
about the slaying of the Lord.[60]

Melito then described their treatment of the Lord and the instruments they used to scourge him. Then in a section in which he used antithesis, Melito showed the indifference of the Jews to the suffering of Christ.

And you were making merry,
while he was starving;
you had wine to drink and bread to eat,
he had vinegar and gall;
your face was bright,
his was downcast;
you were triumphant,
he was afflicted;
you were making music,
he was being judged;
you were giving the beat,
he was being nailed up;
you were dancing,
he was being buried;
you were reclining on a soft couch,
he in grave and coffin.[61]

Melito’s Use Of Scripture

Melito’s homily was preceded by the reading of the Scripture on which it is based. The opening line states, “The Scripture from the Hebrew Exodus has been read and the words of the mystery have been plainly stated.”62 He then explained and expounded the biblical text. Melito’s use of Scripture falls into three categories: typology, prophecy, and literalness.[63]

Typology

Melito interpreted the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus Christ. This emphasis can most clearly be seen in sections 34-45 of the homily. Woollcombe considers this section of the homily “the most important orthodox rationale of historical typology in the second century.”[64] Melito saw the Passover in Exodus 12 as pointing to the sufferings and death of Christ. He contended that the Passover in Egypt was “a comparison,” “a prefiguration,” “a preliminary structure,” “a model,” or “a preliminary sketch” of that “future thing.”[65] He said in Peri Pascha 37,

But when that of which it is the model arises,
that which once bore the image of the future thing
is itself destroyed as growing useless
having yielded to what is truly real the image of it;
and what once was precious becomes worthless
when what is truly precious has been revealed.[66]

In Peri Pascha 44-45 he maintained that the sacrificial system had expired and was obsolete as a result of the death of Christ. He proclaimed that the new overshadowed the old.

Once, the slaying of the sheep was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the life of the Lord;
the death of the sheep was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the salvation of the Lord;
the blood of the sheep was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the Spirit of the Lord;
a speechless lamb was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the spotless Son;
the temple below was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the Christ above.[67]

Knapp maintains that “Melito’s threefold typological emphasis is clearly stated: (1) the inherent importance of the type, (2) the escalation of the reality over the type, and (3) the eventual displacement of the type by the foreshadowed reality.”[68]

Prophecy

Melito cited several Old Testament passages as prophetic predictions of the sufferings of Christ. He preached that Christ’s sufferings had been preordained. In Peri Pascha 61 he stated, “But the mystery of the Lord is proclaimed by the prophetic voice.”[69] He then proceeded to quote from Deuteronomy 28:66; Psalm 2:1-2; Jeremiah 11:19; and Isaiah 53:7 to support his claim.

Literalness

The scriptural texts used and alluded to by Melito are interpreted literally. This includes Exodus 12:1-20, which he explained in Peri Pascha 12-29. He also referenced Genesis 2:16-17 (in Peri Pascha 47) and Jeremiah 5:8 (in Peri Pascha 53) as evidence of man’s disobedience and rebellion against God.

Manis contends that Melito may also have used New Testament writings. However, he admits it is “impossible to determine for certain, as this phenomenon may be attributed to common oral traditions without positing that Melito knew these New Testament writings.”[70] Melito refers in Peri Pascha 70-71 to Jesus’ unbroken bones, echoing perhaps John 19:34-36. Peri Pascha 95 may reference the raising of Lazarus in John 11. The “I am” sayings of John’s Gospel may have been in Melito’s thoughts in Peri Pascha 103.

Manis also points out that Matthew’s parable of the soils may be reflected in Peri Pascha 48, the levying of tribute money from Matthew 17:24 may be in Peri Pascha 86, and the references in Matthew 27 to Pilate’s washing his hands and the gall and wine given to Jesus on the cross may be seen in Peri Pascha 92 and 79.[71] Melito revealed no doubts about the literalness of these references.

The Five Canons Of Rhetorical Criticism

Melito’s Use Of The Five Canons

Rhetoric was first divided into five canons in Rhetorica ad Hernnium, an anonymous work from the first century and the earliest Roman systematic rhetoric.[72] Subsequent authors in rhetoric, such as Quintilian in Institutes of Oratory, adopted these five canons. The canons were inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and actio. Invention (inventio) addresses the determination and development of a subject or argument. Disposition (dispositio) concerns how the speech should be arranged or organized for greatest effect on the audience. Elocution (elocutio) deals with style (i.e., the choice of words). Style is what happens when a rhetor puts his thoughts into words.[73] However, style is concerned not only with the selection of words; it is also concerned with the art of arranging words into “periods” (i.e., phrases or clauses).[74] Memory (memoria) is concerned with memorizing speeches. Delivery (actio) addresses elements of the actual giving of a speech.

Each of these five canons would provide a rich and fascinating study of Melito’s homily. This article addresses Melito’s use of elocution (elocutio). Style (i.e., elocution) was typically divided into three classifications by rhetoricians. The three classifications are low or plain style (attenuata, subtile); middle or forcible style (mediocris, robusta); and high or florid style (gravis, florida).[75] Melito’s homily clearly falls into the florid style. His homily is more heavily influenced by rhetorical style than any of the other canons and thus provides abundant evidence of the early relationship between rhetoric and Christian preaching.

Melito’s Use Of Gorgian Figures

The influence of Greco-Roman rhetoric on Christian preaching is evident in Melito’s style. Hall asserts that Melito introduced rhetorical style into the Christian community.[76] He states, “There is no question that PP [Peri Pascha] is a work of Greek rhetoric.”[77]

Old agrees, saying, “Often appearing more like poetry than prose, it [PP] is an elaborate piece of rhetoric.”[78] Patristic scholars have determined that Melito’s homily represents the orators in the Asianic style of the Second Sophistic, which flourished in the second century.[79] Broadhurst contends, “There is . . . more than sufficient evidence in the PP of a reasonably sophisticated rhetoric at work and play, deploying a rather conventional Sophistic canon of figures.”[80] This school of classical rhetoric is recognized for its use of Gorgian figures.[81] Gorgias (ca. 480-375 B.C.) was one of the first teachers of rhetoric in Athens.[82] He was a native of Leontini, Sicily, and one of the best known of the older sophists. The public rhetoric of Gorgias was arresting because of his use of schemes (Greek, schemata) or figures (Latin, figurae).[83] Of the Gorgianic style, Kennedy states, “Although the devices he [Gorgias] used were largely drawn from Greek poetry and can individually be found in some earlier Greek prose, he exploited them to an unprecedented degree. On Gorgias’s lips oratory became a tintinnabulation of rhyming words and echoing rhythms. Antithetical structure, which is native to Greek syntax, became an obsession.”[84] Gorgias’s purpose in utilizing schemes was to develop a more oratorical style of formal speech as opposed to conversational language.[85] He saw great power in speech over the human will. He stated in The Encomium of Helen, “But if it was the power of speech that moved and beguiled her soul, it will not be difficult to free her of all blame on this score. For the power of speech is mighty. Insignificant in themselves, words accomplish the most remarkable ends. They have power to remove fear and assuage pain. Moreover they can produce joy and increase pity.”[86]

Melito’s homily is rife with Gorgian figures, which indicates that he was trained and educated in this tradition. His efforts to fuse rhetoric and Christian preaching are clearly seen in Peri Pascha. Nearly every sentence employs some aspect of Gorgias’s influence. Corbett and Connors assert the possible effect these Gorgian figures may have had on his audience. “Because figures can render our thoughts vividly concrete, they help us to communicate with our audience clearly and effectively; because they stir emotional responses, they can carry truth, in Wordsworth’s phrase, ‘alive into the heart by passion’; and because they elicit admiration for the eloquence of the speaker or writer, they can exert a powerful ethical appeal.”[87]

An analysis of Melito’s homily reveals his use of such Gorgian figures as antithesis, parallelism, isocolon, anaphora, prosopopoeia, apostrophe, erotesis, pusma, aitiologia, antistrophe, and ecphrasis. The following are examples of Melito’s use of these figures, which are the most prominent ones used in the homily.

Antithesis. Antithesis is the juxtaposition of opposite meanings.[88] This is one of Melito’s favorite and most often used figures. Melito began the homily with a series of opposites. He declared,

Understand, therefore, beloved,
how it is new and old,
eternal and temporary,
perishable and imperishable,
mortal and immortal, this mystery of the Pascha:
old as regards the law,
but new as regards the word;
temporary as regards the model,
eternal because of the grace;
perishable because of the slaughter of the sheep,
imperishable because of the life of the Lord;
mortal because of the burial in earth,
immortal because of the rising from the dead.[89]

Parallelism and Isocolon. Addressing the fall of humanity into sin in the Garden of Eden in Peri Pascha 49, Melito used isocolon parallelism. Parallelism is the use of similarity in structure in two or more phrases or clauses.[90] Isocolon is parallelism that uses the same number of syllables and/or words. He averred,

This man having become very prolific and very long-lived,
when through the tasting of the tree he was dissolved
and sank into the earth,
an inheritance was left by him to his children;
for he left his children as inheritance
not chastity but promiscuity,
not imperishability but decay,
not honour but dishonour,
not freedom but slavery,
not royalty but tyranny,
not life but death,
not salvation but destruction.[91]

The first line of the homily in Peri Pascha 1 uses syllabic isocolon. This cannot be observed in translation, but in Greek the first two lines have sixteen syllables each, and in the second set each of two lines has eight syllables.[92] Parallelism and isocolon parallelism are found throughout the homily.

Anaphora. Anaphora is using successive clauses that begin with the same word or words.[93] Anaphora is another of Melito’s frequently used figures. Even a casual perusal of the homily makes this very apparent. For example Melito stated in Peri Pascha 9:

For he is all things:
inasmuch as he judges, Law;
inasmuch as he teaches, Word;
inasmuch as he saves, Grace;
inasmuch as he begets, Father;
inasmuch as he is begotten, Son;
inasmuch as he suffers, Sheep;
inasmuch as he is buried, Man;
inasmuch as he is raised, God.[94]

Prosopopoeia. Melito also used prosopopoeia (i.e., personification). In Peri Pascha 25-26 he developed a dialogue between the firstborn of Egypt and death. The Egyptian firstborn cannot escape death’s reach.

But before the firstborn grew silent,
the long silence of death caught him and addressed him:
“You are my firstborn;
I am your destiny, the silence of death.”
But another firstborn, perceiving the seizure of the firstborn,
denied his identity so that he might not die bitterly:
“I am not a firstborn,
I was begotten at third conception.”
But he who could not be deceived fastened on the firstborn;
headlong he fell, and was silent.[95]

Apostrophe. The rhetorical shift from a general audience to a specific person or group is called apostrophe.[96] In Peri Pascha 70-71 Melito addressed several attributes of Christ and then called Him “the lamb”[97] that was slain. In Peri Pascha 72 he referred to the death of Christ as a murder and accused Israel of committing it. Then he asked why they did it. He answered, “Because he healed their lame and cleansed their lepers and brought light to their blind and raised their dead, that is why he died.”[98] In these passages he used the modifier “their” in reference to Israel. However, he began Peri Pascha 73, postulating the query, “What strange crime, Israel, have you committed?”[99] In Peri Pascha 73-105 he used you or your 141 times in his accusations against the Jews. (Prior to section 73 he almost never used the second-person pronoun.) This is clearly the rhetorical use of apostrophe for dramatic effect.

Erotesis. Erotesis is the use of a rhetorical question. It is a proposition in the form of a question that has an obvious answer.[100] Erotesis is another device Melito used frequently. In Peri Pascha 73 he asked, “What strange crime, Israel, have you committed?”[101] In Peri Pascha 81 he pressed, “O lawless Israel, what is this unprecedented crime you committed, thrusting your Lord among unprecedented sufferings, your Sovereign, who formed you, who made you, who honoured you, who called you ‘Israel?’ “[102] Peri Pascha 87-89 includes a series of seven questions of this type that Melito used as he accused Israel of killing Christ.

Pusma. A pusma is a question to which the answer cannot be yes or no.[103] Melito posed this type of question in the first section (42) of the second part of the homily. He asked simply, “What is the Pascha?”[104]

Aitiologia. Aitiologia, another figure of question, “is an imaginary dialogue in the form of questions and answers.”[105] In Peri Pascha 32-33, as he was explaining the Passover from Exodus 12 and the death of the firstborn, Melito created an imaginary dialogue with the death angel. He said, “Tell me, angel, what did you respect? The slaughter of the sheep or the life of the Lord? The death of the sheep or the model of the Lord? The blood of the sheep or the Spirit of the Lord? It is clear that your respect was won when you saw the mystery of the Lord occurring in the sheep, the life of the Lord in the slaughter of the lamb, the model of the Lord in the death of the sheep; that is why you did not strike Israel, but made only Egypt childless.”[106] As he moved into the accusatory part of the homily against Israel, his use of questions increased. In Peri Pascha 72 he began, “It is he that has been murdered. And where has he been murdered? In the middle of Jerusalem. By whom? By Israel.”[107]

Antistrophe. Antistrophe is ending a series of clauses with the same word. In 44-45 Melito ended a series of seven clauses with the word “precious.”

Once, the slaying of the sheep was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the life of the Lord;
the death of the sheep was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the salvation of the Lord;
the blood of the sheep was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the Spirit of the Lord;
a speechless lamb was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the spotless Son;
the temple below was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the Christ above.
The Jerusalem below was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the Jerusalem above;
the narrow inheritance was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the widespread bounty.[108]

Ecphrasis. Ecphrasis is “the elaborate description of a subject for the purposes of emotional engagement.”[109] Broadhurst considers Peri Pascha 17-30 as an example of Melito’s use of ecphrasis. Sections 19-22 provide a glimpse of this figure. Melito proclaimed,

And it was a strange sight to see,
people beating themselves here, and wailing there,
and in between grief-stricken Pharaoh
seated on sackcloth and ashes,
clothed with the darkness that could be grasped as a
mourning cloak,
wearing all Egypt like a tunic of mourning.
For Egypt was surrounding Pharaoh
like a robe of wailing.
Such was the tunic woven for the tyrant’s body;
with such a garment did the angel of justice
clothe harsh Pharaoh:
bitter grief and darkness that could be grasped
and strange bereavement of her firstborn.
For swift and insatiable was the death of the firstborn,
and there was a strange trophy to be seen
for those falling dead in one moment,
and the defeat of the prostrate
became the food of death.
When you hear, you will marvel at a strange disaster.
For these enclosed the Egyptians:
long night
and darkness that could be grasped
and death grasping
and angel crushing
and Hades swallowing their firstborn.[110]

Other examples of Melito’s use of rhetoric, some only recognizable in Greek, are homoeoteleuton, polysyndeton, alliteration, syllabic parallelism, metaphor, climax, chiasmus, synonymia, and paronomasia.

Conclusion

Regardless of the context of Melito’s homily, it clearly displays the union of Christian preaching and classical rhetoric. Melito had obviously received training and education in the art of persuasive oratory and the use of Gorgian figures. This early use of rhetoric in preaching should encourage contemporary preachers to give serious consideration to using similar elements of rhetoric. Melito did not merely interpret the scriptural text. He also gave extensive consideration to his words, the construction of his sentences, the use of word pictures, and the use of verbal ornamentation in general. He wanted his peroration to be beautiful and pleasing to the ear. He did not want to merely dump information on his audience; he also sought to arrest their attention and interest and thereby to encourage them to appreciate and apply the truth.

Notes

1. Richard C. White, “Melito of Sardis: An Ancient Worthy Reappears,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 14 (1979): 16-17.
2. Richard C. White, “Melito of Sardis: Earliest Christian Orator,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 2 (1967): 82-83.
3. Ibid., 7.
4. Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History to the Twentieth Year of the Reign of Constantine, trans. C. F. Cruse, 4th ed. (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1847), 4:173.
5. Lynn H. Cohick, The Peri Pascha Attributed to Melito of Sardis: Setting, Purpose, and Sources (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 11.
6. White, “Melito of Sardis: An Ancient Worthy Reappears,” 7.
7. Stuart George Hall, ed., Melito of Sardis: On Pascha and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), xi.
8. Ibid.
9. Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History, 4:223.
10. Hall, Melito of Sardis, xi.
11. H. J. Lawlor and J. E. L. Oulton, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine II (London: SPCK, 1928), 186-87.
12. Alistair Stewart-Sykes, trans., On Pascha: With the Fragments of Melito and Other Material Related to the Quartodecimans (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 4-5.
13. This term was applied to those who celebrated Easter on Nisan 14, the date of the Jewish Passover. The word originated from the Latin quarta decima, meaning fourteenth.
14. Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History, 4:178.
15. Hall, Melito of Sardis, xii.
16. Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History, 4:178.
17. Ibid., 4:157.
18. Ibid., 4:180.
19. Judith Lieu, “They Speak to Us across the Centuries: Melito of Sardis,” Expository Times 110 (1998): 43.
20. White, “Melito of Sardis: An Ancient Worthy Reappears,” 16.
21. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 53. Quotations and section numbers from Peri Pascha are from Stuart Hall’s translation of Melito of Sardis.
22. Ibid.
23. Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History, 4:180.
24. Hall, Melito of Sardis, xiii.
25. Ibid.
26. White, “Melito of Sardis: An Ancient Worthy Reappears,” 7.
27. Campbell Bonner, The Homily on the Passion by Melito Bishop of Sardis with Some Fragments of the Apocryphal Ezekiel (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1940), 4. See also Andrew Michael Manis, “Melito of Sardis: Hermeneutic and Context,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 389.
28. Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 2nd series (New York: Christian Literature, 1892; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 3:369.
29. Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History, 4:157.
30. Hall, Melito of Sardis, xii.
31. White, “Melito of Sardis: Earliest Christian Orator,” 84.
32. Hall, Melito of Sardis, xxii.
33. Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church: The Biblical Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1:290.
34. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 23.
35. Ibid., xxii.
36. Stuart G. Hall, “Melito in Light of Passover Haggadah,” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971): 29-46.
37. Ibid., 41-45.
38. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 29.
39. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 29.
40. Cohick, Peri Pascha, 31.
41. Robert L. Wilken, “Melito, the Jewish Community at Sardis, and the Sacrifice of Isaac,” Theological Studies 37 (1976): 53.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., 54.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., 56.
48. Manis, “Melito of Sardis: Hermeneutic and Context,” 400.
49. A. T. Kraabel, “Melito the Bishop and the Synagogue at Sardis: Text and Context,” in Studies Presented to George M. A. Hanfmann, ed. D. G. Mitten, J. G. Pedley, and J. A. Scott (Mainz, Germany: Zabern, 1971), 84.
50. Ibid.
51. Wilken, “Melito, the Jewish Community at Sardis, and the Sacrifice of Isaac,” 32.
52. Cohick, Peri Pascha, 147.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., 150.
56. Ibid. (capital letters hers).
57. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 49.
58. Ibid., 53.
59. Ibid., 39.
60. Ibid., 41.
61. Ibid., 42-45.
62. Ibid., 3.
63. Manis, “Melito of Sardis: Hermeneutic and Context,” 392.
64. Kenneth Woollcombe, “The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology,” in Essays on Typology, ed. G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe (London: SCM, 1957), 71.
65. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 17-19.
66. Ibid., 19.
67. Ibid., 23.
68. Henry M. Knapp, “Melito’s Use of Scripture in Peri Pascha,” Vigiliae Christianae: A Review of Early Christian Life and Language 54 (2000): 368.
69. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 33.
70. Manis, “Melito of Sardis: Hermeneutic and Context,” 393.
71. Ibid., 394.
72. Edward P. J. Corbett and Robert J. Connors, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 493-95.
73. Ibid., 337.
74. Ibid., 21.
75. Ibid.
76. Hall, Melito of Sardis, xxiv.
77. Ibid., xxiii.
78. Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, 285.
79. O. C. Edwards, A History of Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 19. The term “Second Sophistic” refers to a Greek rhetorical movement of the second century, founded by Aeschines, son of Atrometus. (“First Sophistic” refers to a rhetorical movement in Greece several centuries before Christ.) (Laurence Broadhurst, “Melito of Sardis, the Second Sophistic, and ‘Israel,’ “in Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities, ed. Willi Braun [Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005], 57-59).
80. Broadhurst, “Melito of Sardis, the Second Sophistic, and ‘Israel,’ “61.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.
83. George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, 2nd ed. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 34.
84. Ibid.
85. Ibid.
86. Gorgias, “The Encomium of Helen,” in Orations from Homer to William McKinley, ed. Mayo W. Hazeltine (New York: P. F. Collier and Son, 1902), 1:51.
87. Corbett and Connors, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 378.
88. Stanley E. Porter, ed., Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.–A.D. 400 (New York: Brill, 1997), 142.
89. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 3.
90. Corbett and Connor, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 381.
91. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 25, 27.
92. Eric Werner, “Melito of Sardes [sic], the First Poet of Deicide,” Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966): 202.
93. Porter, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 131.
94. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 7.
95. Ibid., 13, 15.
96. Porter, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 139.
97. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 39.
98. Ibid.
99. Ibid., 41.
100. Porter, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 139.
101. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 41.
102. Ibid., 45.
103. Ibid., 140.
104. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 21.
105. Porter, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 140.
106. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 17.
107. Ibid., 39.
108. Ibid., 23.
109. Broadhurst, “Melito of Sardis, the Second Sophistic, and ‘Israel,’ “60.
110. Hall, Melito of Sardis, 11-13.