DOUBTLESS ... Chapter 3

 

PART 1.  THE COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS

CHAPTER 3.  Syllogisms in the New Testament.

Before we go on to Chapter 2, let's take a moment to look at the appearance of a syllogism in the New Testament.  

George A. Kennedy says that the syllogism "in rhetoric is called the enthymeme."__1  He defines the enthymeme as "a statement and a supporting reason."  As an example, he cites Mt. 5:3:  "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."  In this example, "blessed are the poor in spirit" is the statement and "theirs is the kingdom of heaven" is the supporting reason.  The word "for" is taken as the sign that the whole sentence is an enthymeme.

Nextly, Kennedy observes that "behind any enthymeme stands a logical syllogism."  In the case of Mt. 5:3, he reconstructs the syllogism as follows:

PREMISE-1.  Blessed are those who receive the kingdom of heaven.
PREMISE-2.  The poor in spirit will receive the kingdom of heaven.
CONCLUSION.  Blessed are the poor in spirit.

Kennedy notes that PREMISE-1 would be a generally accepted premise.  PREMISE-2 would not be universally accepted.  The rich, the Romans and the Pharisees would balk at PREMISE-2; "the little ones" (whom Chrysostom identifies as "the poor, the objects of contempt, the unknown"_2) would gladly accept it.  By logic, the conclusion follows._3

As Kennedy points out, most people do not present their arguments in syllogisms; they normally "assume, suppress or imply one of the parts, as Jesus does."_4  The syllogisms are still there--just beneath the surface.  Isn't it amazing that when Christ delivers the new commandments, he delivers them in a fashion so pretty that they can be sung heartily?  Yet, the fact that they are enthymemes is plain to the alert student of logic and rhetoric.   

Why would Christ use enthymemes?  Kennedy is right when he says that we normally do use enthymemes, but that doesn't tell us why.  

The first reason at which Kennedy was hinting is that it would be annoyingly artificial to put everything in syllogisms.  It would be like asking people to speak in rhymes or iambic pentameters.  

The second reason may be due to the fact that enthymemes are a standard device of persuasion, and therefore intuitively persuasive.  In the same vein, I have heard that nurses are advised not to give recalcitrant patients references to medical research but to make up anecdotes about the benefits of some unpleasant medicine; anecdotes are naturally more persuasive than medical research.

The third reason may be that Christ wants us to actually connect the dots ourselves.  From educational research we learn that omitting a step in demonstrations is helpful for the students; "gap-filling" is a crucial exercise for grasping the heart of a problem.  

If the only reason to learn a little logic is to be able to appreciate the Sermon on the Mount, it is a good reason.

 

ENDNOTES FOR CIRCUMSPECT

1.  George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (UNC Press Books:  1984), p. 16.  

2.  See Homily 59 on Matthew, tr. Rev. Sir G. Prevost, Baronet; rev. Rev. M. B. Riddle,  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, (Grand Rapids:  1991), vol. 10, p. 367.  The interested reader may go to NewAdvent.org/fathers to find Chrysostom and many other fathers of the church.

3.  We are avoiding a discussion of how a syllogism produces its valid conclusion in the main text.  Here, a simple illustration will work.  Suppose we admit, "All the suitcases are in the van."  Then we remember, "The toilet-kit is in one of the suitcases."  We conclude, "The toilet-kit is in the van."  

Major premise.  All the suitcases are in the van.
Minor premise.  The toilet-kit is in one of the suitcases.
Conclusion.  The toilet-kit is in the van.

Let's look at the most famous syllogism in the world.

Major premise.  All men are mortal.
Minor premise.  Socrates is a man.
Conclusion.  Socrates is mortal.

We are able to draw our conclusion because Socrates is a member of "all men," just as in the first syllogism we carefully slipped the toilet-kit into a suitcase, so that when we made a blanket statement about the suitcases ("All suitcases etc."), we unwittingly applied it to the toilet-kit.  

4.  Kennedy, ibid.