Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 94:374 (Apr 1937)
Article: A Syllabus of Studies in Hermeneutics Part 6
Author: Rollin Thomas Chafer

BSac 94:374 (Apr 37) p. 207

A Syllabus of Studies in Hermeneutics
Part 6

Rollin Thomas Chafer

(Continued from the January-March, 1937, Number)

IV. The Relation of Logic to Interpretation

2. Deduction

“Deduction as contrasted with induction is reasoning from the general to the particular,” and “it means the drawing out of a particular proposition or conclusion from the universal premise.” “The product of deduction is the Syllogism proper. Syllogisms are divided, by the form of the judgments embodied in them, into categorical and hypothetical.” In the categorical syllogism the three propositions, namely, the major and minor premises and the conclusion, are stated categorically (Example, The worship of graven images is gross idolatry; Israel worshiped a graven image of gold while encamped at Sinai; therefore, Israel was guilty of gross idolatry). In the hypothetical syllogism “the reasoning turns upon some hypothetical judgment embodied in the major premise.” Both of these forms of the syllogism are divided into monosyllogisms and polysyllogisms, the former having one argument and the latter being constituted of two or more related arguments. Hypothetical syllogisms, as well as the categorical forms, are frequently employed in interpretational writings. The hypothetical monosyllogism takes two forms, (1) conjunctive (Example, If the Bible proclaims the only way of salvation all men ought to heed its testimony; but it does proclaim the only way of salvation; therefore, all men ought to heed its testimony); (2) disjunctive (Example, The Bible is either the product of human reason or a revelation from God; it is a revelation from God; therefore, it is not a product of human reason). The

BSac 94:374 (Apr 37) p. 208

hypothetical polysyllogism takes several forms only one of which will be mentioned here, namely, that which has been called the horned syllogism, or the dilemma in the strict sense. It is composed of “a plurality of conditional antecedents all having one common consequent.” It is called the horned syllogism “because it confronts an opponent with two assumptions, on which it tosses him as on horns from one to the other, each being equally fatal to him” (Example, If we are confronted with obstacles in Christian service which we can overcome we ought not to worry about them; if we are confronted with obstacles in Christian service which we cannot overcome we ought not to worry about them; but all obstacles in Christian service can or cannot be overcome; therefore, we ought not to worry about the obstacles in Christian service). Further subdivision of the syllogism is not necessary for the purpose of this discussion.

As a means of analysis the syllogistic form of argument is of great...