Hennie Stander: A Rhetorical analysis of Chrysostom's De terrae motu

Chrysostom received his training in rhetoric from Libanius, a renowned pagan sophist. The impact of Chrysostom’s rhetorical training on his preaching and writings has consistently attracted the attention of scholars. Interestingly, Chrysostom himself denounced the use of empty rhetoric by Christian preachers who merely wanted to entertain the congregation by showing their eloquence, and who sought the approval of their audience (Hom xxx in Acta). On the other hand, Chrysostom also said that Ὅταν ἀσθενεῖς ὦμεν, πολὺν παρασκευάσασθαι χρὴ τὸν λόγον καὶ ποικίλον, παραβολὰς καὶ παραδείγματα ἔχοντα, κατασκευὰς, καὶ περιόδους, καὶ ἕτερα πολλὰ τοιαῦτα, ἵνα ἐκ πάντων ῥᾳδία γένηται ἡμῖν τῶν συμφερόντων ἡ αἵρεσις ("De prophetiarum obscuritate", MPG 56.165.45-51). (“Since we are weak, the sermon has to be embellished and varied, consisting of analogies, proofs, the correct style and periods, and many other similar things, so that we may choose from all these what will profit our soul”). Chrysostom himself unknowingly used rhetoric because he was a good orator. In this paper we analyse Chrysostom’s rhetorical techniques in his homily “After the Earthquake” (De terrae motu). This is a short homily, and also a very interesting one, since it is a thematic homily which differs from most of his other homilies which are exegetical and comprise verse by verse exposition. Mayer (The Homilies of St John Chrysostom – Provenance, 2005) believes that the style and vocabulary of this short occasional homily are indeed indicative of Chrysostom’s authorship.