Apokatastasis.wiki

Enthymema

Omission of the Premiss

Enthymema is the counter-figure of Syllogismus: here the conclusion is stated, but one or both premisses are omitted. The syllogism remains rhetorically abridged — broadened from premisses-without-conclusion (Syllogismus) to conclusion-without-premisses (Enthymema). Both are abbreviated syllogisms. Bullinger places Enthymema among the figures of omission because the unspoken premise — by its very absence — presses the argument upon the reader with greater force.

Etymology

Greek ἐνθύμημα (enthymêma), “a thought” or “consideration” — from ἐν (en, “in”) + θυμός (thymos, “spirit, soul”); literally “something residing in the soul”. The Romans called it commentum (“a contrivance, design”) and conceptio (“the wording or drawing-up of a statement”). Related to Hypocatastasis as a figure of implied meaning, but distinct: in Hypocatastasis an ordinary statement or word is left to be inferred, in Enthymema it is the premise of an argument that is missing.

Definition

The figure operates by logical-rhetorical abbreviation. “We are dependent; we should therefore be humble” — here the major premise is omitted: “dependent persons should be humble”. The reader completes the logical step, and that very act of completion makes the argument more persuasive than a fully spelled-out syllogism could have been. The speaker counts on the reader’s assent to the unspoken premise; by leaving it unspoken he transforms that premise from assumption into shared conviction.

Biblical Examples

The marriage covenant as shared law (Rom. 7:1-6):

Here the fact is asserted that the law has dominion over a man only while he is alive (v. 1), and this fact is applied to those who died when Christ died — so that all the members of the body of Christ died, and the law has no longer dominion over them (vv. 5-6).

In proof of this, an illustrative argument is used: the case of a husband and wife. Both are bound to each other by law; while both are alive, the union of either with another is unlawful; but if one dies, such a union on the part of the survivor is legitimate.

But only one case is given: the death of the husband. The death of the wife is present only in thought, and this other premise must be supplied by the mind in the course of the argument:

“And if the wife die, I need not say that she is free” — or: “it goes without saying that if the wife die, of course she is free.”

Therefore (v. 6) we who died in Christ are free from that law in which we were held. The missing premise — which the reader must supply — is precisely what gives the argument its persuasive force.

The plea of Pilate’s wife (Matt. 27:19):

“Have thou nothing to do with that just man”.

Here the fire, feeling and urgency of Pilate’s wife are all the more forcible in that she does not stop to formulate a tame, cold argument but omits the major premise — which is greatly emphasised by being left for Pilate to supply. The complete syllogism would have been:

1. It is very wicked to punish a just or innocent man.
2. Jesus is a just man.
3. Have therefore nothing to do with punishing Him.

The conclusion thus contains the proof of each of the premisses on which it rests. This emphasises one of the four testimonies borne to the innocence of the Lord Jesus by Gentiles at the time of His condemnation:

1. Pilate’s wife (Matt. 27:19)
2. Pilate himself: “I am innocent of the blood of this just person” (Matt. 27:24)
3. The dying malefactor: “This man hath done nothing amiss” (Luke 23:41)
4. The Centurion: “Certainly this was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47)

Related Figures

• syllogismus — the counter-figure: in Syllogismus the conclusion is omitted and the premisses remain
• hypocatastasis — related figure of implied meaning, but over words rather than premisses
• ellipsis — related figure where words, not logical steps, are missing

Source

E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898), pp. 167-170.